That's what I was trying to say in my last comment. These cars were not made to set laptimes, they were made for "feelings". Even though the 86 is very slightly faster than the RF, the top down experience, and smaller size seem to make the car more enjoyable to drive during the daily commute.


If you cared about measureable data then the Ecoboost Mustang with PP would probably blow both of these cars out of the water.

The only reason the 86 was built is because Toyota engineers valued precisely the same "imaginary component" that the MX-5 embodies, otherwise we'd end up with a boring overweight 370Z/Genesis competitor with Camry V6 in it.

Mazda just took fewer compromises in attempting that concept, therefore they hit closer to the mark. Those compromises are exactly why Toyobaru has sold hundreds of thousands of 86's.

@funwheeldrive is right, if you cared about the performance numbers and value you should get a 4-cylinder pony car and mod it or spring for one of the higher trim pony cars. The only thing that comes close to that is a used Porsche.

I understand the value of 'feel', but let's not forget that it's the result of measurable engineering differences between the cars. There was no magic pixie dust used when designing the 86, so the differences would still quantifiable and measurable. Having one car beat another on measured criteria, only to lose overall based on a vaguely defined parameter is akin to pronouncing the winner due to a better looking color.

Lol

I find this statement comical. 90% of the threads on this forum that compare the 86/BRZ to any other car all come down to "feeling" and "fun". Both of which are entirely subjective and impossible to quantifiably measure. The whole point of the 86/BRZ was that they're fun cars and that argument comes up every time it's compared to another vehicle.
"Yes the McLaren is cool and and higher performance, but on the street, the 86 would be more fun."

^^This is has actually been stated in this forum. So it seems that when the subjective point of view is in favor the 86, all is well. But when it isn't, cue the crying. If the 86 had won based on the subjective factor, I imagine you'd be silent and totally content with the outcome of the review.

Automotive journalism is largely subjective. The only things that are really objective are price and performance figures. After that, it's all opinion. You can listen to it or take it with a grain of salt. I take most of it with a grain of salt, but I happen to agree largely with what was said in this particular review.

Maybe I'm different from the majority of people who purchase vehicles, but I bought the 86 because it ticked all the boxes regarding pretty cut and dry parameters - some of which are performance based, but equally as many others for things such as fuel economy, cost, ease of maintenance/repair, etc. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy the 'feel' of the car and like it's looks too, but I bought it because it was the best candidate. Personally, I've never particularly cared for Japanese cars and this is my first after 35 years of driving, but the choice was based on numbers, ultimately. My complaint about the Motor Trend article was simply on the arbitrary nature of their results, which contradict all the other measured criteria. I certainly don't take their opinion with much credence or concern.

No, I don't think you do understand how 'feel' is made. It's everything from the gear ratios chosen to the outdated HVAC controls to the shifter throw. You can't really measure 'these brakes feel good, I don't like those brakes' 'this shifter is too notchy, but this one is too vague!' because everyone is different, one could stop 20 ft sooner than the other but if they suck to modulate in traffic you bet your ass it's going to lose the street car comparison. Yes you can measure the amount and speed of body roll, but saying which one is 'better' is 100% subjective here.

I rode in an ND for the first time this weekend, still had the window sticker from the dealer while it waited for license plates, it was at an autocross. On a totally stock car even in the passenger seat you can feel that it just begs to be throttle steered at 10/10ths, it was incredibly forgiving and willing. The Mini Cooper I drove at the event was nearly 6s faster, my 86 puts up slightly quicker times, I would absolutely say the ND was the best chassis I had been in all weekend.

The 86 won many comparisons based on feel, the ND legitimately stepped it up over the NC to take that crown back in the under $50k segment, end of story. I'm honestly really surprised that the BRZ put down better performance numbers, like you there are many reasons why the 86 is right for me, I will likely not own an MX-5 any time in the near future, but it's a damn great car.

Uhh, thank you for repeating what I already said a few posts ago. Feel is not magic - it's the result of measurable differences, NONE of which were listed in the article. All the measured parameters had the 86 ahead, then they just glommed everything else together under the arbitrary 'feel' heading and pronounced a winner based on their feelings. Not an impressive comparison, IMO, and certainly not one I'd use to base a potential purchase on.

what how can you say we're saying the same thing and STILL think that measured parameters are conclusive?!?!?!?

All they showed in this video were lap times. If you look at the mx5 vs BRZ video they did a while back, you'll see that the mx5 is faster from 0-60, faster down the 1/4, faster from 60-0 braking, faster around the figure 8, and pulls a higher lateral accleration g figure, and it also pulled a faster lap time... just to let ya know, since we're talking about "measurable differences".

The article was a comparison of two cars, not a subjective review of one. Comparisons are done based on measured values. The term 'feel' is subjective, though ultimately being the result of SOMETHING measurable that could be used in the comparison. The article failed by presenting the 86 as a winner when comparing measured criteria, but losing ultimately to a nondescript term. If the RF beats the 86 due to feel, then explain what actually caused that difference. Is it stock alignment numbers? Tire choice? Weight? Slalom speed? Steering ratio? It isn't rocket science to quantify the reason something wins, but it IS poor journalism (especially for a car magazine) to not be able to explain it. I'd expect a review like this from The New Yorker, not a magazine trying to sell itself based on automotive experience.

If that's the case then I have no gripe at all. That is, unless the BRZ was mysteriously pronounced the winner of that comparison.

I honestly think that's it's because of the extra weight. 120lbs is a 5% increase. The MX5's best weapon is the lack of weight. Add more weight to it, and it has a big impact on the overall performance. The standard mx5 they did posted a 1:29.9 at the same track, while the previous BRZ posted a 1:31.3.

Granted, the tests were done on different days, but the new 86 did better by 1 second, and the RF did worse by 1 second, to meet in the middle.

Nope. MX5 won.

The performance figures played a part, but in the end, they found the mx5 to be more enjoyable to drive and gave it the win.

After owning both an MX5 and 86 I much prefer the 86. The biggest factor for me was the lack of body roll in the 86. A more planted feeling for sure especially once I changed wheels and tires. Even out of the box I still prefer the 86. As my wife says "Your new car is just more badass than the Mazda was". She likes the revs......