Motor Trend: 2016 Miata vs 2015 BRZ

[Jond63]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

This reminds me of the Chevy and Ford guys arguing when both muscle coupes are very similar. I'm glad that the Mx5 and twins represent the lightweight sports car end of it as I care not for heavy piles of crap anymore.

It's amazing though for me to realize that the (new to me) '99 NB Miata I just bought is 450lbs lighter than the lightweight FR-S. The 2016 ND Miata is pretty much as light as my '99, and is it noticeable!!

For the record I love them both, but right now I am sorta leaning toward the Miata as being the true 'driver's/enthusiast' car, as its small size and light weight really create an intimate experience with the road -- not to mention its impracticality really makes it more like a toy than a car, if that makes any sense... as a non-enthusiast would never put up with it.

Edit -- the Miata is my new DD as due to $$$ I had to part with the FR-S for now... $$$ and the fact that my true DD right now is the bus, (workplace moved me from a free parking place to a new $17 a day place) and watching the FR-S sit 4-5 days a week broke my heart.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by Jond63

It's amazing though for me to realize that the (new to me) '99 NB Miata I just bought is 450lbs lighter than the lightweight FR-S. The 2016 ND Miata is pretty much as light as my '99, and is it noticeable!!

For the record I love them both, but right now I am sorta leaning toward the Miata as being the true 'driver's/enthusiast' car, as its small size and light weight really create an intimate experience with the road -- not to mention its impracticality really makes it more like a toy than a car, if that makes any sense... as a non-enthusiast would never put up with it.

Yeah? And you're ugly.











J/k

[Sideways&Smiling]

None of this is really new at all. The FR-S/BRZ is the new 240sx. The Miata is the new... Miata (and little brother to the S2000... lighter & less powerful).

They are different cars. Vastly different suspension/engine placement/weight/handling philosophy. The only things that they have in common are that they are relatively affordable & meant to handle well and be "driver's cars"...

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by krayzie

Mazda has to give the press the Club Edition just to have their ND Miata stay relevant in terms of performance tells me it is not a ground breaking game changer.

Toyota and Subaru placed a heavy focus on how they developed the twins platform in great detail right off the bat, which is much more convincing to me on its handling capabilities than Mazda. They even went as far as to equip the car with a low grip tire just to prove their efforts in chassis and suspension R&D is brilliant.

I'm just not impressed until the press reviews a base model Miata against the competition, and I could care less about track times.

car reviews are never given base models. even if they were trying to spin something, the miata isnt ever about being a game changer. its just trying to do what brittish roadsters did but without breaking. saying that toyota equipped the frs with "low grip" tires to prove the efforts in suspension rnd is absurd. i hope you know that.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by fatoni

car reviews are never given base models. even if they were trying to spin something, the miata isnt ever about being a game changer. its just trying to do what brittish roadsters did but without breaking. saying that toyota equipped the frs with "low grip" tires to prove the efforts in suspension rnd is absurd. i hope you know that.

I don't think that's absurd at all actually. You know the Primacy HP is a touring tire right?

Cars are usually designed and developed around two or three tire choices right off the bat. They could have easily went with something like Bridgestone RE series for example that's more fitting for a sports car and yet they didn't. I don't buy that fuel mileage standard requirement BS really.

I remember reading car magazines like Road and Track, Car and Driver, and Motor Trend sometimes they would have base model comparison tests (at least back then they would make an effort to have the cars in similar trims). This is going back to the late 80's and throughout the 90's.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by krayzie

I don't think that's absurd at all actually. You know the Primacy HP is a touring tire right?

Cars are usually designed and developed around two or three tire choices right off the bat. They could have easily went with something like Bridgestone RE series for example that's more fitting for a sports car and yet they didn't. I don't buy that fuel mileage standard requirement BS really.

I remember reading car magazines like Road and Track, Car and Driver, and Motor Trend sometimes they would have base model comparison tests (at least back then they would make an effort to have the cars in similar trims). This is going back to the late 80's and throughout the 90's.

From Car and Driver interview with Tetsuya Tada, chief engineer for the 86 project:

Tada boasts that these cars are largely a reaction to the advanced technology and high-grip tires that have become synonymous with the modern sports car. The Primacy HPs’ easy breakaway characteristics make for a playful demeanor.

[source]

[strat61caster]

@krayzie

Another quote, browser isn't letting me edit:

“We usually come up with a designated tire, a tire that is optimal for the car. We arrive at this decision after long tests. That some guys go and decide their own tire steals a little something from the enjoyment of the engineer – but that’s the concept of this vehicle. It is not made for the enjoyment of the engineer – it is made for the enjoyment of the owner.”

[Sideways&Smiling]

^ that's all well and good, but it's just marketing...

[abraxis]

Originally Posted by iag48st

Randy Pobst's fastest laptime in the BRZ at Streets of Willow was actually a 1:30.32 seconds. Put on same tires as the ND Miata and on a track like SoW, thats probably good for at least 2 seconds.

That being said, I find it weird that in their tire comparison they weren't able to shave any significant time off the lap times in the BRZ. Soo many variables...

It's because they added more weight to each corner on the newer wheels and tires. It was actually a wheel commercial for TireRack more than a tire test by Motor Trend. The car doesn't have enough torque to compensate for the added mass and actually use the extra grip. This was noted by a British mag, perhaps Evo, that noticed the TRD 86 was actually slower than stock. Plus some aftermarket wheels actually flex more losing time. You need to either add more torque or find lighter wheels and tires that have more grip, or both.

As an aside, I have a 2100lb MR2 so I get to sit back and laugh at all this Miata vs. 86 nonsense. Kudos to Mazda for making a better Miata. In the end though, it's still just a Miata. You either like that or you don't. Lots of body roll, not THAT lightweight, cramped interior that rubs against the side of your leg, engine in the wrong place, and ironically a now 53/47 weight distribution just like the 86.

Funny nobody seems to be crying about that yet like they did with the FRS. 50/50 has always been a mythical marketing 'ideal' perpetuated by front engined manufacturers anyway. It's like how they call a Corvette 'mid-engine'. Lol.

If you like the Miata platform, cool. Fun car. Enjoy. Let's not pretend it changes anything. People were using that same argument about the 86 too.

[Hanzo]

http://www.autonews.com/article/2015...utonews-weekly


Toyota CEO :


In the run-up to the deal, he test drove Mazda's cars and said the MX-5 Miata was his hands-down favorite.
"I really wanted to drive that car," the car-crazy Toyoda said. "That's a car I can really understand."

[ajaxthebetter]

He's just saying it's his favorite Mazda, which makes sense.

[Sideways&Smiling]

Originally Posted by abraxis

It's because they added more weight to each corner on the newer wheels and tires. It was actually a wheel commercial for TireRack more than a tire test by Motor Trend. The car doesn't have enough torque to compensate for the added mass and actually use the extra grip. This was noted by a British mag, perhaps Evo, that noticed the TRD 86 was actually slower than stock. Plus some aftermarket wheels actually flex more losing time. You need to either add more torque or find lighter wheels and tires that have more grip, or both.

As an aside, I have a 2100lb MR2 so I get to sit back and laugh at all this Miata vs. 86 nonsense. Kudos to Mazda for making a better Miata. In the end though, it's still just a Miata. You either like that or you don't. Lots of body roll, not THAT lightweight, cramped interior that rubs against the side of your leg, engine in the wrong place, and ironically a now 53/47 weight distribution just like the 86.

Funny nobody seems to be crying about that yet like they did with the FRS. 50/50 has always been a mythical marketing 'ideal' perpetuated by front engined manufacturers anyway. It's like how they call a Corvette 'mid-engine'. Lol.

If you like the Miata platform, cool. Fun car. Enjoy. Let's not pretend it changes anything. People were using that same argument about the 86 too.

It's 50/50...

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/28/2...ibution-video/

But I agree with you, it's not ideal. However, I do think it is MUCH more ideal than having front-biased weight distribution. In reality, a mid-engine layout with a bit of rear bias (like the NSX) would provide maximum traction and be the best option overall.

Something like 40/60 is ideal, but is just not realistic in a front-mid-engined car.

It's also really important to note WHERE the mass is located. 50/50 weight distribution with most of the mass at the front and rear ends is nowhere near as good as 50/50 weight distribution with most of the mass towards the center of the car.

[Demandred7]

Still want to see one in person. I have to respect what Mazda is able to do with this car.

I still require rear seats (regardless of their small size) and I have no desire to own a topless car. Rent or borrow maybe, but, not to own. The FR-S suits me better. And not a fan of body roll in a car.

[Entroper]

Originally Posted by Sideways&Smiling

It's 50/50...

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/28/2...ibution-video/

But I agree with you, it's not ideal. However, I do think it is MUCH more ideal than having front-biased weight distribution. In reality, a mid-engine layout with a bit of rear bias (like the NSX) would provide maximum traction and be the best option overall.

Something like 40/60 is ideal, but is just not realistic in a front-mid-engined car.

It's also really important to note WHERE the mass is located. 50/50 weight distribution with most of the mass at the front and rear ends is nowhere near as good as 50/50 weight distribution with most of the mass towards the center of the car.

Depending on how it's measured, the weight distribution varies significantly. The fuel tank is in the back, and the driver's seat is behind the CoG. So it might be 50/50 with a full tank and a 175-lb driver, and front-biased when empty.

The article from my original post has a direct comparison on page 3: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html

52/48 for the ND, 55/45 for the BRZ. Whatever the "real" figures are, this at least tells you that the BRZ is more front-biased, if you assume MT didn't screw up the measurements.