What am I getting wrong about sports cars?
Discussion
I started with a Frogeye 1958 Sprite which has a 1098 engine and is mildly tuned, 0 - 70 in 17 seconds at Santa Pod. Still got the car. I then went a bit silly and built another Sprite with a Rover V8 and mildly tuned, 0 - 112 in 13 seconds at Santa Pod, still got the car.
We then bought a new Mk2 MX 5 and really enjoyed the drive and it was a bit more comfortable/convenient/reliable. Still got the car. Liked it so much that after 120,000 miles, I bought a SH much lower mileage MX 5 Mk 2.5 S - VT, Really enjoy that. Still got the car.
But after a few years, I bought a SLK 350 which is not so much of a Sports car rather a Grand Touring Car, it is great to waft along but know that it can get to high speed very quickly...but still really enjoying the top down driving and connection with the real world that a sports car gives.
We then bought a new Mk2 MX 5 and really enjoyed the drive and it was a bit more comfortable/convenient/reliable. Still got the car. Liked it so much that after 120,000 miles, I bought a SH much lower mileage MX 5 Mk 2.5 S - VT, Really enjoy that. Still got the car.
But after a few years, I bought a SLK 350 which is not so much of a Sports car rather a Grand Touring Car, it is great to waft along but know that it can get to high speed very quickly...but still really enjoying the top down driving and connection with the real world that a sports car gives.
KTMsm said:
That's because you don't seem to know what a Sports car is.
Typified by the English sports cars of the '50s and '60s. They weren't the fastest, they didn't have a great sense of occasion, but they were fun to drive
An MX5, MGF, MR2 Mk3 are all excellent examples of a Sports car you seem to be confusing Sports car with Supercar
Typified by the English sports cars of the '50s and '60s. They weren't the fastest, they didn't have a great sense of occasion, but they were fun to drive
An MX5, MGF, MR2 Mk3 are all excellent examples of a Sports car you seem to be confusing Sports car with Supercar
thejaywills said:
Sports cars of the 50s were much more exciting than the typical car of the day, ditto for the 60s. Fast forwards to the 90s and 00s we have a diminishing few left over. To me, personally, the MX5 is fun, does it tick all the boxes for a sports car for me? I'm not so sure. Personally, I've just never gelled with them that much.
Much much less so for a late model one. Which is why I say I don't think they're the quintessential sports car that many journalists mark them out to be (in stock form at least). Nothing wrong with them, I just like my sports cars to be a bit more exciting in a way that I'd imagine half of the MX5 target market don't, which is probably why so many going that route, who share that sentiment end up with a modified example.
I'm not really qualified to say anything on this, but I will anyway...Much much less so for a late model one. Which is why I say I don't think they're the quintessential sports car that many journalists mark them out to be (in stock form at least). Nothing wrong with them, I just like my sports cars to be a bit more exciting in a way that I'd imagine half of the MX5 target market don't, which is probably why so many going that route, who share that sentiment end up with a modified example.
From what I gather, current MX-5 is probably the closest thing to what a sports car was in the 1950s. That may be a capt. Obvious statement, but my argument is a little deeper. I have a feeling that, in the 1950s, no one even thought about "connectedness", "rawness" or engine sounds. The state of technology was such that these things were there in many cars. So people didn't drive sportscars specifically for the connectness, rawness and engine sounds -- they drove them just for the fun of going fast past the hedges with the wind in their hair. I will go out on a limb and say that I think that many (not saying everyone) would've accepted an electric roadster back in the day - instant torque, higher speeds, no oil leaks or engine overheating.
But as technological progress happened, cars evolved, the auto landscape changed, and the perception of what a sportscar is evolved to encompass more things, perhaps things that people took for granted in the olden days and was going away, and also things that were just not available back in the day (mid-engined V12 supercar), or not feasible to have in a sportscar of the day.
So the sportscar is now a "wider" concept than it was in the 1950s. It's not that a sportscar is either a 1950s British roadster OR Ferrari Enzo depending on who you ask. It's both. And you pick what you want to drive based on your preferences.
So current MX-5 is very much a sportscar for people who just want to drive with the wind in their hair. And Supra is a sportscar for people who want to drive fast. Both are sportscars and it's pointless to argue that Supra is not a sportscar, but rather is a supercar because it has more power than the first version of the first supercar did in the 1960s.
turboLP said:
From what I gather, current MX-5 is probably the closest thing to what a sports car was in the 1950s.
I think we need to be careful about what variant we're talking about, and in what spec. And let's not forget the Caterham 7 was originally the 1957 Lotus 7, with even fewer changes since then.NA - the "Mk1 MX5" - possibly true. Optional PAS (possibly market dependent), peppy little 1.6 (to start with), under a tonne, looked like a remodelled Lotus Elan. Possibly not QUITE as engaging as a 50s sports car though - the EFI made the engine sound rather more anodyne than e.g. a Triumph's or Lotus' carbs would have done, and the torque-to-weight is probably lower - or at least higher up the rev range - again due to the 16v engine.
(Conversely, it'd be a lot easier to drive and to live with thanks to 30 years of engineering and that all done in Japan not a shed on the outskirts of some British village)
NB - Mk2 - PAS as standard on almost all cars, a less sporty 1.8, a little more weight and softness creeping in. Still very affordable, engaging wind-in-the-hair motoring. But becoming a rather different prospect to an old Triumph or similar.
NC - nah, not this one. First truly modern MX5 and it shows. Only real similarity to 50s sports cars is the chassis layout.
ND - I'm on the fence here - they reduced the weight back down and tried to bring some engagement back in, but I think it's TOO new, TOO modern to be anywhere near a 50s sports car in driving experience. Possibly a good thing.
turboLP said:
So current MX-5 is very much a sportscar for people who just want to drive with the wind in their hair. And Supra is a sportscar for people who want to drive fast.
Both are sportscars and it's pointless to argue that Supra is not a sportscar, but rather is a supercar because it has more power than the first version of the first supercar did in the 1960s.
The MX5 / Miata is the most raced car in the world - it's a lot better than most give it credit forBoth are sportscars and it's pointless to argue that Supra is not a sportscar, but rather is a supercar because it has more power than the first version of the first supercar did in the 1960s.
Has anyone ever argued a Supra is a supercar
Quags said:
For me, it doesn't get much more spot on than my 1 of 15 Elise S3 220 Sprint.
Perfect balance and feel, enough power to make you giggle, small enough for our roads and able to cope with the crappy quality of them. Lashings of carbon and lightweight parts (until my 6'4" 16 stone weight f
ks it all up), a titanium exhaust that pops and crackles and a supercharger intake whine that is intoxicating.
I've had 2 x Honda S2000, driven many Mx5, 348TB Fez, Pork, Caterham et al but still come back to this.
That is lovely. I'm finding myself really drawn to the Elise currently as well. Being an engine man, I've tended to dismiss them too easily in the past, and I think that I've been wrong to do that in fairness. Perfect balance and feel, enough power to make you giggle, small enough for our roads and able to cope with the crappy quality of them. Lashings of carbon and lightweight parts (until my 6'4" 16 stone weight f
ks it all up), a titanium exhaust that pops and crackles and a supercharger intake whine that is intoxicating.I've had 2 x Honda S2000, driven many Mx5, 348TB Fez, Pork, Caterham et al but still come back to this.
Edited by Quags on Monday 8th July 10:41
Intersting thread - James Hunt and the Austin A35 quote comes to mind. The most involving car I've owned is an MGB GT (insert any similar age car here though). It was slow and handled poorly by any metric, except actual fun. It provided a challenge. If you got it right it rewarded you with a kiss and if you got it wrong, gave you a slap without actually trying to kill you. If you reached decent speeds through the curves (or on the straight for that matter) you felt terrified and elated in equal measures. You had to work. That's what I miss in modern cars. Go fast or corner smoothly: little reward because its easy, get it wrong and a light flashes on the dash and the electrical fairies save you, There's no fight in them. You see where this is going. Modern cars are very good and complete rubbish.
Now what should I do on a stock MX-5 NC? Thinking BBR suspension pack as 1st upgrade
Now what should I do on a stock MX-5 NC? Thinking BBR suspension pack as 1st upgrade
turboLP said:
From what I gather, current MX-5 is probably the closest thing to what a sports car was in the 1950s. That may be a capt. Obvious statement, but my argument is a little deeper. I have a feeling that, in the 1950s, no one even thought about "connectedness", "rawness" or engine sounds. The state of technology was such that these things were there in many cars. So people didn't drive sportscars specifically for the connectness, rawness and engine sounds -- they drove them just for the fun of going fast past the hedges with the wind in their hair. I will go out on a limb and say that I think that many (not saying everyone) would've accepted an electric roadster back in the day - instant torque, higher speeds, no oil leaks or engine overheating.
Very good point. I grew up with cars of the 60s /early 70s and while some -Herald/Vitesse , Minor and (especially) Mini - were a treat to drive, with good steering and feedback many cars were almost indescribably awful . No PAS means feel, yes, but also can mean vicious kickback (like on Dad's Rover 3 Litre) and on cars like sundry big Fords meant a silly number of turns lock to lock. But engine sound was very much a thing and while we are acclimatised go the shoutier BMWs and Audis now, most cars now are very, very quiet . Not in the 60s .when almost every car had an aural signature - but sports cars had a much bigger one.I dare say the bellow of an MGB , the bark of a Cooper S or the belligerent howls of an E-Type or TR5 was a factor in the decision to buy one. But the whole sports car thing was nuanced , and had been since the Mini . Overnight , trad sports cars like MGs and Triumphs were rendered obsolete by upstarts like Cooper S and later in the decade , Escort Twin Cams and Lotus Cortinas. Elans and Europas , TVRs and Marcoses , not to mention the then very rare 911 , were the real sports car deal which went as well as they looked , but the appeal of trad sports cars like MGs and Triumphs was more about image , wind in hair and (to quote an MG ad strapline ) the fact that mothers (or hot girls ) wouldn't like it .
coppice said:
the appeal of trad sports cars like MGs and Triumphs was more about image , wind in hair and (to quote an MG ad strapline ) the fact that mothers (or hot girls ) wouldn't like it .
It looks like at least part of that campaign was about fierce manly driving with the roof up!
KTMsm said:
cml said:
Now what should I do on a stock MX-5 NC? Thinking BBR suspension pack as 1st upgrade
Sell it and buy a Mk1, MkII or MkIV tThe MkIII missed out on the MX5 magic
I never owned a MK1 MX-5, but I did own a MK2.
My current MK3 is a far superior "sports car" to a MK2.......in every conceivable way.
The MK3 MX-5 is not yet truly recognised for just how close it has got to "sports car perfection".
evil.edna said:
KTMsm said:
cml said:
Now what should I do on a stock MX-5 NC? Thinking BBR suspension pack as 1st upgrade
Sell it and buy a Mk1, MkII or MkIV. The MkIII missed out on the MX5 magic I never owned a MK1 MX-5, but I did own a MK2.
My current MK3 is a far superior "sports car" to a MK2.......in every conceivable way.
The MK3 MX-5 is not yet truly recognised for just how close it has got to "sports car perfection".
NA Mk1 1.6 1990 113hp 955kg 118hp/tonne
NA Mk1 1.8 1994 128hp 990kg 129hp/tonne
NB Mk2 1.8vvt 2002 143hp 1065kg 134hp/tonne
NC1 Mk3 soft top 2.0 2006 158hp 1110kg 142hp/tonne
ND1 Mk4 soft top 1.5 2015 129hp 975kg 132hp/tonne
ND2 Mk4 soft top 2.0 2022 181hp 1025kg 176hp/tonne
I got from this that the basic NC without the folding roof was lighter than I remembered. In my head it was a 1250kg car so 25% 'over weight'
The second gen mk4 would fit the criteria for the EVO blueprint one would think.
But what has been mentioned earlier is that the MX5 is very easily adapted to your preferences. It has a very adjustable double wishbone suspension set up and widely available community knowledge. Mazda literally designed the car to be an enthusiasts car: It was in their original design brief that they wanted it to have an owners club and have people work on their own car like they did with Triumphs and MGs.
Edited by sassthathoopie on Tuesday 9th July 09:00
sassthathoopie said:
evil.edna said:
KTMsm said:
cml said:
Now what should I do on a stock MX-5 NC? Thinking BBR suspension pack as 1st upgrade
Sell it and buy a Mk1, MkII or MkIV. The MkIII missed out on the MX5 magic I never owned a MK1 MX-5, but I did own a MK2.
My current MK3 is a far superior "sports car" to a MK2.......in every conceivable way.
The MK3 MX-5 is not yet truly recognised for just how close it has got to "sports car perfection".
NA Mk1 1.6 1990 113hp 955kg 118hp/tonne
NA Mk1 1.8 1994 128hp 990kg 129hp/tonne
NB Mk2 1.8vvt 2002 143hp 1065kg 134hp/tonne
NC1 Mk3 soft top 2.0 2006 158hp 1110kg 142hp/tonne
ND1 Mk4 soft top 1.5 2015 129hp 975kg 132hp/tonne
ND2 Mk4 soft top 2.0 2022 181hp 1025kg 176hp/tonne
I got from this that the basic NC without the folding roof was lighter than I remembered. In my head it was a 1250kg car so 25% 'over weight'
The second gen mk4 would fit the criteria for the EVO blueprint one would think.
One of the reasons I have never tried a Lotus Elise/Exige/Evora.....etc is because I know they will seduce me away from my NC with their chassis and performance.
However, for the price you pay, an NC cannot be touched in terms of value for money.
Lots of MX5 chatter in here, I better weigh in having owned and tracked all 4 generations.
Firstly the MX5 is the very essence of a sports car. It is designed from the ground up for driving enjoyment. It's not built off a shared platform with a hatch back etc. Everything in the car is designed around the driver and their enjoyment of driving, the only compromises are around it being useable everyday for 2 people as their only car and modern legislation.
In terms of each generation:
NA: Original is the best? I'd say so. It has the luxury of being from a time when cars were still relatively simple. Steering feel is the best of all generations, the suspension is brilliant and the openness of the cockpit with the roof down is great. Also pop ups.
NB: Nearly as good as the NA for the same reasons. ABS sneaking in is a downside and also no pop ups.
NC: The most under rated of the MX5s. Multi link rear suspension is a vast improvement over the earlier cars. Chassis stiffness is greatly increased and the newer hood design is a revelation. the 1.8 5 speeds are admittedly poor however the 2.0 6 speed cars with LSD are brilliant. Yes they're heavier, yes they're bigger, but they still have all that MX5 magic and on track IMO the best of all 4 generations.
ND (I currently daily one): Mixed bag. The engines are a peach, the interior is too small but it s big step up in quality. The one major downside is the steering is very poor compared to the earlier cars. Mines an ND2 and I understand they've improved it in the ND3 but I am yet to try one.
As someone said above, there's a reason why on any given weekend there's more MX5s being raced than any other car ever made. It's because they are fun to drive with classic front engine rwd dynamics and no roof.
Sidenote: The RX8 chassis is better than all the MX5s and is so often over looked.
Firstly the MX5 is the very essence of a sports car. It is designed from the ground up for driving enjoyment. It's not built off a shared platform with a hatch back etc. Everything in the car is designed around the driver and their enjoyment of driving, the only compromises are around it being useable everyday for 2 people as their only car and modern legislation.
In terms of each generation:
NA: Original is the best? I'd say so. It has the luxury of being from a time when cars were still relatively simple. Steering feel is the best of all generations, the suspension is brilliant and the openness of the cockpit with the roof down is great. Also pop ups.
NB: Nearly as good as the NA for the same reasons. ABS sneaking in is a downside and also no pop ups.
NC: The most under rated of the MX5s. Multi link rear suspension is a vast improvement over the earlier cars. Chassis stiffness is greatly increased and the newer hood design is a revelation. the 1.8 5 speeds are admittedly poor however the 2.0 6 speed cars with LSD are brilliant. Yes they're heavier, yes they're bigger, but they still have all that MX5 magic and on track IMO the best of all 4 generations.
ND (I currently daily one): Mixed bag. The engines are a peach, the interior is too small but it s big step up in quality. The one major downside is the steering is very poor compared to the earlier cars. Mines an ND2 and I understand they've improved it in the ND3 but I am yet to try one.
As someone said above, there's a reason why on any given weekend there's more MX5s being raced than any other car ever made. It's because they are fun to drive with classic front engine rwd dynamics and no roof.
Sidenote: The RX8 chassis is better than all the MX5s and is so often over looked.
HorneyMX5 said:
Sidenote: The RX8 chassis is better than all the MX5s and is so often over looked.
I've always liked the RX-8 from day one, but I was always slightly put off by the wheezy engine rightly or wrongly. Plus their reliability record scares me a bit too. However, I have been told that if you know how to use/look after them properly, then you erase a lot of the reliability issues though. 
HorneyMX5 said:
I own one. You should only buy one if you really really really want to own an NA rotary engined car. The running costs make no sense otherwise. I adore mine, but the man maths is horrid.
My girlfriend at the time had a six hour extended test drive of the 230bhp RX8 once. It rained all day, and after an hour she handed the car over to me.The chassis was so fun and predictable, and the traction control offered a safety net; so by the end of the test I was confidently provoking little slides. I was still young, and a bit of an idiot, but still grin remembering sliding the car literally over the threshold of the Swindon dealer's forecourt with half an armful of opposite lock
I wouldn't claim to be a driving god, but the RX8 made me feel like one. Wish I could justify owning one.
turboLP said:
So the sportscar is now a "wider" concept than it was in the 1950s. It's not that a sportscar is either a 1950s British roadster OR Ferrari Enzo depending on who you ask. It's both. And you pick what you want to drive based on your preferences.
So current MX-5 is very much a sportscar for people who just want to drive with the wind in their hair. And Supra is a sportscar for people who want to drive fast. Both are sportscars and it's pointless to argue that Supra is not a sportscar, but rather is a supercar because it has more power than the first version of the first supercar did in the 1960s.
I've owned a few 'supercars' and they're pretty much unusable on a daily basis. I've also owned a few sportscars - and they are much more practical. For example, my Murcielago was hopeless for most things - even going to the local pub. I currently have a V8 Morgan - and that's definitely local pub/daily drive territory.So current MX-5 is very much a sportscar for people who just want to drive with the wind in their hair. And Supra is a sportscar for people who want to drive fast. Both are sportscars and it's pointless to argue that Supra is not a sportscar, but rather is a supercar because it has more power than the first version of the first supercar did in the 1960s.
I have friends with exotic tin in their garages - also MX5's funnily enough. They are much loved by those in the know.
Very usable and fun to drive.The Supra is a sports car by the way.... firmly in that territory.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff