Mazda mx5

[grober]

Caught my first glimpse of the 2015 MAZDA MX5 in a local B and Q car park. It helps that the local MAZDA dealer is next door. Have to admit it looks the biz
[YOUTUBE HD]yzYr1lSwsSY[/YOUTUBE HD]

 

[roastbeef]

Did not think that it was out till September , we went to millcars in Watford to be told this, supposed to be a great car though

 

[WDB124066]

Forgive me for being negative but check out the distance between the talking man's forehead and the windscreen rail, how many people's brains are going to splattered all over that...? This is obviously a little women's car - anything else is just plain dangerous IMHO.

Apart from that it looks like a cracker.

 

[JBD]

Did not think that it was out till September , we went to millcars in Watford to be told this, supposed to be a great car though

That's what I've heard. Could be from head office though. I didn't even think production had started fir right hand drive.

I think it's stunning. Can't wait to have a go!

 

[HughSurrey]

Just my opinion, but I think the MX-5 is one of the most under-rated cars I have ever driven, it is a fantastically fun car to drive.

 

[mat8n]

Forgive me for being negative but check out the distance between the talking man's forehead and the windscreen rail, how many people's brains are going to splattered all over that...? This is obviously a little women's car - anything else is just plain dangerous IMHO.

.

There'll be nowhere to get a haircut!

 

[automaniaman]

Its a pity Lotus don't come up with a revised version of the original elan

 

[m500dpp]

Just my opinion, but I think the MX-5 is one of the most under-rated cars I have ever driven, it is a fantastically fun car to drive.

Spot on!

When the sun shines I leave my C Class on the drive and take my 14 plate MX5:

Its our third, we had a Mk1 and Mk2 before. They are a brilliant car, not fast (0-60 9.9 seconds) but thats not the point of them. The handling is as sharp as can be with a superb gearbox and it's possible to use all the performance up to the red line without ending up doing stupid speeds. They carry their speed through corners like few other cars can, ride better than my C Class and dare I say it the build quality is at least the equal of Mercedes.

There are lots of low mileage well cared for examples about, if you havnt owned an MX5 in your lifetime you have missed out!!! One of the worlds truly great cars IMHO.

The Mk4 looks good and I like the emphasis on reducing weight, I will stick to our MK3.75 however as I like the power hood........

 

[SLKNick]

if you havnt owned an MX5 in your lifetime you have missed out!!!

I had a Mk3 2.0RS for 5 years as my only car.

I certainly am not missing the cramped cockpit, tiny boot, wind and road noise, harsh ride, unpredictable handling on the limit (largely due on mine to a combination of LSD and no traction control), pathetic fuel range, dubious build quality, crap bose sound system and useless local dealer.

On the plus side it would do 0-60 in 7.5s, the soft-top could be raised or lowered in less than 5s and dealer issues aside was quite reliable.

Given the choice now between a new MX5 or same money spent on a second-hand SLK, my money would go on the SLK. At less than 2 inches larger all round it is infinitely more comfortable and has more boot space even with the hard top down.

 

[wheels-inmotion]

Stunning cars and i've had the good fortune to work on 1000's of them.... The MK3/ 3.5 had some issues thanks to the EU regulations but due to the build quality they were still exemplary cars.... The MK4 on paper reads like gold plated perfection but it needs proving in the field and that's us.

Oh and those who say they are a hair dressers car haven't driven one methinks.

 

[Bryan Allman]

We had two of them over the years, the last being a Mk 2. We took that to Northern Spain and had three weeks of driving over empty first class roads from one Paradore to the next. Each time we stopped we had people gathering around it asking about it etc. Mind you it did look good, a deep burgundy red with light tan leather. Boot easily big enough for two travel bags and camera kit and great fun for touring.

 

[72 dudes]

I had a Mk3 2.0RS for 5 years as my only car.

I certainly am not missing the cramped cockpit, tiny boot, wind and road noise, harsh ride, unpredictable handling on the limit (largely due on mine to a combination of LSD and no traction control), pathetic fuel range, dubious build quality, crap bose sound system and useless local dealer.

On the plus side it would do 0-60 in 7.5s, the soft-top could be raised or lowered in less than 5s and dealer issues aside was quite reliable.

Given the choice now between a new MX5 or same money spent on a second-hand SLK, my money would go on the SLK. At less than 2 inches larger all round it is infinitely more comfortable and has more boot space even with the hard top down.

I think having one as your only car was the mistake. Like a few other posters I had a 2007 Mk3 1.8i as my fun car, trading it last year for my SLK350.

Nothing has that go cart handling quality coupled with ease of use and a decent ride as the MX5, 38 MPG overall too.

Do I prefer my SLK? Of course. But they're different beasts. We wanted something more comfortable and refined and the SLK does that brilliantly, but it also feels much bigger and heavier than an MX5.

Both great cars but for slightly different reasons.

 

[Dryce]

Nothing has that go cart handling quality coupled with ease of use and a decent ride as the MX5, 38 MPG overall too.

To their great credit Mazda have managed to keep the weight from escalating and reduced it in the new one - it's a lot lot lighter than the SLK or Z4.

 

[Sand-Dancer]

I've never owned an MX5, but I can see the attraction. Mazda reliability, great handling, convertible. I have no doubt they are a hoot.

However, for the silly money you can pick up a Porsche Boxster like mine.....

.....it's a no brainer for me. Granted, they've never been pitched directly against each other by their manufacturers, so comparisons could be a bit unfair, but I'd confidently say they beat the MX5 hands down.

 

[Charles Morgan]

Until something goes wrong.

 

[Sand-Dancer]

Until something goes wrong.

And that's where independants come in handy. I had a major service done (once every 2 year event) on the Boxster a couple of months ago at an independent Porsche specialist, and it cost £279.

 

[m500dpp]

.it's a no brainer for me. Granted, they've never been pitched directly against each other by their manufacturers, so comparisons could be a bit unfair, but I'd confidently say they beat the MX5 hands down.

Not necesarily, put a turbo on the MX5 still way cheaper than the Boxster and you have:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSsJqFYfQrU

Each to their own of course but I am happy with the low running costs of the MX5 and driven properly on most roads it will hold it's own with pretty much anything.

I had a major service done (once every 2 year event)

But a major service is an oil and maybe fluid changes, how about a replacement clutch, or discs and pads or an engine or gearbox problem.............And really comparing a Boxster at £39500 vs £18500 for the MX5 really isnt "apples with apples"!!!!

 

[Dryce]

Granted, they've never been pitched directly against each other by their manufacturers, so comparisons could be a bit unfair

Yup.

but I'd confidently say they beat the MX5 hands down.

I don't think you actually understand what the MX5 is about. There are reasons a Boxster simply can't compete with it and can therefore never beat it.

They exist for very different reasons and with a different heritage and ethos. The MX-5 is meant to be a stripped down simple lightweight convertible with a front engine and rear wheel driver and it has assumed the mantle of similar cars from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The Boxster is an attempt by Porsche to correct the legacy stupidity of the rear engine while not having the engine at the front that also manages to be overweight even though it has no hard folding roof.

 

[Dryce]

And that's where independants come in handy. I had a major service done (once every 2 year event) on the Boxster a couple of months ago at an independent Porsche specialist, and it cost £279.

That's scheduled maintenance ..... not something going wrong.

 

[Sand-Dancer]

Not necesarily, put a turbo on the MX5 still way cheaper than the Boxster and you have:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSsJqFYfQrU

And really comparing a Boxster at £39500 vs £18500 for the MX5 really isnt "apples with apples"!!!!

In all fairness, I did mention that they weren't really pitched in the same category.

Yup.

I don't think you actually understand what the MX5 is about. There are reasons a Boxster simply can't compete with it and can therefore never beat it.

They exist for very different reasons and with a different heritage and ethos. The MX-5 is meant to be a stripped down simple lightweight convertible with a front engine and rear wheel driver and it has assumed the mantle of similar cars from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The Boxster is an attempt by Porsche to correct the legacy stupidity of the rear engine while not having the engine at the front that also manages to be overweight even though it has no hard folding roof.

No worries. You obviously have your opinions. I'm new to this forum, so you won't know too much about me, but I do actually understand the whole MX5 thing. I'm from more of a Japanese car loving and owning background than German, although I did own up that I hadn't actually owned or driven an MX5 before.

I simply raised the Boxster subject because they are stupidly cheap for what they are at the minute, and are available for a lot of people looking for fun, soft top motoring with an MX5 budget.