Mazda MX-5
The new MX-5 is bigger and faster than before, but is it better? Andrew Noakes finds out.
Mazda MX-5
Revising, restyling and re-engineering is supposed to make a good car better, but all too often the process loses that essential something that made the car a star in the first place. So while it’s good news that the new MX-5 is quicker, roomier and safer, that it is more economical and better on emissions than its predecessor, the question remains – is it as good as the iconic car it replaces?
Much had been made of the new MX-5’s larger size and, while increasing dimensions promise a less cramped cabin than before, they also suggest the onset of the middle-aged spread which affected two Japanese sporting stars of the past, the 240Z and the MR2. Happily that’s not the case: in truth the new car is not that much bigger than before, a negligible 20mm longer and a barely noticeable 40mm wider. More significant are the wider tracks (75mm front, 55mm rear) and the 65mm longer wheelbase.
Bigger not heavier
        |
Painstaking weight paring means the new car is only about 10Kg heavier than before, despite larger-capacity engines and a big increase in standard equipment, plus significant increases in torsional and beam stiffness.
Mazda concedes that previous generations of MX-5 were cramped for anyone over average height but, despite the minimal increase in overall size (and engines which are mounted 135mm further back to improve weight distribution), the cabin of the new car is much roomier. Changes to the seat position have helped, and tall drivers will appreciate the greater seat movement available and the new height-adjustable steering wheel. Mazda claim the new MX-5 comfortably fits drivers up to 1.86m (about 6ft 1in).
The biggest difference comes from the new body, which abandons the ‘cola bottle’ shape of the outgoing car in the search for extra interior width. Mazda’s three design studios in Japan, Germany and California submitted proposals: the Californian design was pretty but too big, and the eventual production car was based on the Japanese exterior and the German interior. It’s proved to be a good blend. The chunky new styling is cute but not as feminine as before, and somehow still exudes ‘MX-5-ness’. The interior is classy and effective.
Equally classy, and equally effective, is the new ‘Z-fold’ soft top, which proves that you don’t need a SLK-style folding panel bristling with heavy electro-hydraulics for your roadster to look cool. A single handle on the header rail releases the top, which can be folded back with one hand from inside the car. It clicks into place when folded, and the front part of the roof forms a flat cover so there’s no need for a fiddly separate tonneau. Top down, the heating system’s ‘open mode’ directs warm air where you need it most, and kept your reporter’s hands and feet warm even in crisp British winter weather.
Engine matters
Up front the old car’s 109bhp 1.6-litre and 144bhp 1.8-litre engines are replaced by two new all-alloy fours from Mazda’s MZR family, both with twin overhead camshafts operating 16 valves, and variable-length intake systems. For Europe only there’s a 124bhp 1.8-litre with a 123lb-ft torque peak, while all markets get a big-bore 2.0-litre with variable intake valve timing, helping to boost its maximum power to 158bhp at 6,700rpm. The 2.0-litre’s 139lb-ft maximum torque arrives at a high 5,000rpm, but Mazda is quick to point out that at least 90 per cent of that is available from 2,500rpm upwards.
And it’s this flexibility, as much as the extra power, which gives the 2.0-litre engine its superiority over the 1.8. Pushed to the red line – and typical of modern Mazdas, both engines love being revved – the bigger motor is inevitably quicker, but the difference is not as marked as the 35bhp difference between the two units might lead you to expect. But the 2.0-litre pulls with authority practically from tick-over, so even if you’re not in the mood for extracting every ounce of performance it’s swift and easy to drive. The 1.8 can’t quite match that, struggling to make progress unless you choose your gear ratio intelligently.
Options, options
The 1.8, though, is cheaper, starting at about £15,600 – not a lot more than the outgoing car and, remarkably, almost exactly the same as Mazda was charging for an MX-5 a decade ago. Most buyers will spend an extra £800 on the option pack, which adds alloys, a leather gear knob and steering wheel and a cloth (instead of vinyl) soft-top. A grand more gets you an optioned-up 2.0-litre, which has DSC, traction control and side airbags as standard. Mazda apparently expects most sales to be the 2.0i Sport, which costs a further £1,500 – taking the total to just under £19,000. Sport buyers get Bilsteins, 17in wheels and a six-speed gearbox, and they should think twice.
Yes, the Bilstein suspension has stability and poise, but then so does the standard set-up. Yes, the wheels are larger on the Sport and wear lower-profile tyres, but the rubber width is the same as the standard 2.0i so the difference in grip is marginal. Yes, a six-speed box is fun but Mazda quotes the same performance figures for the five-speeder and the six, so the extra gear gives you no real advantage. And even though the six-speeder has a taller top gear, it suffers from poorer fuel consumption and higher CO2 emissions.
The five-speed 2.0i, then, is the best of the new MX-5s – but is it as good as the icon it replaces? It still isn’t perfect.
Final verdict
As a driver’s car it would be better if the steering was a touch more talkative, even if that meant losing some of its lightness of touch. It would be better if the brake pedal offered a more stable fulcrum for heel-and-toe downchanges, even if that meant it needed a firmer shove.
But put the new MX-5 in its element – a winding country road, with the top down and the smooth engine singing in the top half of its rev range, and the new MX-5 is as much of a delight as its predecessor. That it also provides more performance, more space and greater safety simply underlines the conclusion: it’s not as good as the car it replaces – in almost every department, it’s better.
Links
Copyright © Andrew Noakes 2005
I've read mixed reports about this car and don't have a clue what to believe.
Some say it looks great. However, others say it looks terrible. Some say its really fun to drive while the rest say its as boring as cardboard.
I'd love it to be amazing, because personally I love the looks. But, Evo says it is actually rubbish, and I find their opinion is extremely often the most accurate. Which is annoying.
>> Edited by elfboy on Friday 30th December 17:48
Not actually seen one in the metal myself, ver III certainly looks a little more purposeful in pics & film,imho.
Great cars inspite of the image, you'll probably need a good long test drive to make your own mind up.
I'm waffling goodnight all
from profile or rear-three-quarter view however, it looks ok. With a set of nicer wheels and lowered suspension to fill out the arches a bit more, it would be quite good. The front is just bad though.
all IMO obviously.. it does look more modern, but that doesn't equal better, not for me anyway.
Looks are a personal thing, you might like it or not, I like it by the way. The interior I think is just fabulous. It is well built, has plenty of cubbyholes all around the car (even behind the seats), and with a tilt-steering wheel, it can accomodate people of all sizes (better than the old one anyway).
The best thing was how well matched the 2.0liter engine was for the size of the car. With 170 hp (Canadian spec), it really is quite quick, perhaps it feels a bit quicker than it actually is, which just makes it more fun. The handling is also delightful, this is the easiast car to drift I have ever come across.
I love this car, and if you love driving, you'd like it too.
I didn't read the Evo review about it, which I hear was negative. All I can say is, anyone who gives this car a thumbs down, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The new MX5 is just fantastic, it is the sportscar of the year if you ask me.
Interior is an improvement and with no MGF rival, what else is there to consider in the cheaper end of the 2 seater sports market!
That is just as well, since Ford have a history of crap engines & Mazda have made some excellent ones, old MX-5 included.
The MX-5's nose has to look like an obese Pikachu, because pedestrians are too stoopid to cross a road safely.
The German interior is good, with the Piano wood & four (why?) cupholders. The rear captures the MK1 car beautifully.
If it is as sweet as the original, I'd recommend it as the fun sports car to own.
The styling... I wasnt really a HUGE fan of the 2nd gen car until I got mine. Ive grown very fond of the looks - very classical lines. The bonnet and the whole frontal area reminds me a lot of a smaller E-type in its basic form while the rear, with that delicate lip on the boot and a rather powerful looking exhaust underneath just plain look classy. I think that if a person actually gives it time, and looks at it for a few minutes... theyd understand that it doesnt look girly and what not at all. I used to agree the styling is girly but, now I just admire the classical shape. Its beautiful.
The new car is more of a throwback to the original with sharpened lines and added flares and looks nice in its own way as well.
Overall... thesis of this essay... The MX5 is a tremedous car
>> Edited by 604 on Friday 23 December 05:49
The styling... I wasnt really a HUGE fan of the 2nd gen car until I got mine. Ive grown very fond of the looks - very classical lines. The bonnet and the whole frontal area reminds me a lot of a smaller E-type in its basic form while the rear, with that delicate lip on the boot and a rather powerful looking exhaust underneath just plain look classy. I think that if a person actually gives it time, and looks at it for a few minutes... theyd understand that it doesnt look girly and what not at all. I used to agree the styling is girly but, now I just admire the classical shape. Its beautiful.
The new car is more of a throwback to the original with sharpened lines and added flares and looks nice in its own way as well.
Overall... thesis of this essay... The MX5 is a tremedous car
alloypearltam said:
Have seen one in the metal and I think in the right colour and spec it looks a very nice car.
I had to come back on here and post regarding the MX5. I have seen the very first new MX-5 on the road. It obviously had only just been collected as it was so clean. It is a bright Tomato red car and looks absolutely stunning amongst the greyness of the Wiltshire landscape.
To clarify, Evo expressed a few concerns at the Hawaii launch but, as they always do, decided to refrain on a final judgement until they drove it on UK roads. They have now in the eCOTY and were disappointed. Their biggest grievance was that Mazda had taken one of the better handling and fun cars you could buy and dumbed it down - a lost opportunity, making the new MX5 a pastiche of the original.
For whta it is worth, I trust their judgement.
Of course, would be a different story on Candian roads; or if you had not driven the earlier MX5s, in which case you would most likely find this version a real shot in the arm.
That said, what else is there to compete with this right now? The MG TF has gone south, Toyota no longer does the MR2 Roadster, the BMW Z4 is too large and on the cheaper cars underpowered/overweight... Girls will love it.
naumanf1 said:
I didn't read the Evo review about it, which I hear was negative. All I can say is, anyone who gives this car a thumbs down, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The new MX5 is just fantastic, it is the sportscar of the year if you ask me.
I came so close to buying one of these recently and had to drive 3 seperate cars just to confirm my conclusions. I'm afraid I have to present an opposing opinion and suggest that anyone who thinks this is the best sportscar of the year clearly doesn't understand what a sportscar 'should' be about.
The fundamental problems with the new MX-5 are as follows:
> Steering - whilst accurate it is lifeless with a rather unpleasant 'digital' feel to it. Clearly it uses electrical power assistance since there's none of that fluid mechanical feel you get in a good hydraulic set-up. It just doesn't provide enough granular feel and gives no information about impending loss of grip at either end. The steering in the MX-5 is an 'input' device and you must depend on the seat-of-your-pants if you want to receive any 'output' messages.
> Chassis - it rides well and feels nimble around town, but rather like the steering there's little character or life emanating from the chassis. It's perched too high, an almost universal complaint from owners if you read the US and UK MX-5 Forums, and Mazda require a further £500 to fit the lowered springs that were used for all the press photos (naughty, naughty Mazda). Turn-in at speed in the MX-5 is initially quite slow and a little vague, but once the chassis is loaded up it becomes quite predicatable, but there's a 'no mans land' in the MX-5's dynamic behaviour that dissuades you from playing with it too much. It's just not that rewarding. Overall it feels like any other mid-priced family hatch and quite frankly I found it difficult to choose one knowing that a Golf GTi or Focus ST would run rings around it for handling. A roadster without the compromises of four seats and load carrying practicalities should handle better than a family hatch and that's clealry not the case with the MX-5.
> Engine - I wasn't expecting too much but from power/weight figures it should apparently be as quick as a Mini Cooper S. It's not. At least it doesn't feel that quick. It has good initial torque when driven around town, but when you accelerate there's a great big gap in the torque curve (after the initial strong showing) and it doesn't pick up again until around 5000 rpm, when it pursues the red-line in a relatively lacklustre and increasingly thrashy manner. Again, it's not bad, it just feels like I would expect normally aspirated 2 litre Astra/Focus/Megane to feel. (i.e. nothing like a sports car).
The key ingredients I was looking for in a sports car, namely steering, chassis response and reasonable performance were missing. In this day and age the MX-5 would need nearer 200bhp to be quick, it would need a less compromised chassis and need to provide more overt appeal to the established petrol-head.
What Mazda have done is to try and synthesise the MX-5 flavour into a mass produced form that will appeal to the maximum cross-section of owners. The petrol-heads amongst us would need to take an MX-5, replace it's suspension with a lower one with less roll and tune the suspension settings to provide more adjustability and response. Close your eyes when driving the MX-5 (which I don't recommend) and I challenge you to be able to tell you're driving anything of a sporty persuasion, it feels just like any other Mazda in the range would feel, and that's not good enough.
I liked the look of the MX-5 and tried to convince myself that I could make it into a car I could enjoy, but at £19,500 before I even start (and an anticipated final cost of nearer £22-23k once I had made the necessary changes) it just didn't seem worth it. I fully agree with EVOs opinions which exactly reflected my own experiences.
>> Edited by DoctorD on Saturday 24th December 18:46
I personally don't like the looks that much, but much as I liked the last gen, I'm glad its less feminine. To me the first one is still the most desirable. But how's this for dedication to weight-saving? Mazda doesn't fit a side indicator (ie: side of car) in markets that don't require them by law. That means identically powered MX-5's stateside will have a better power-to-weight ratio than Australian cars by about 100grams! Top Notch, says I.
My favourite roadster at the moment is the Mercedes SLK350, in Black, but I still like this.
Ali.
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff