Body roll is not an advantage because of negative camber gain on a double wishbone suspension. That's a backwards way of looking at it. There's a reason you don't see professional race cars tuned with massive body roll, even those on double wishbones, despite how much negative camber they'd gain. There are generally no advantages to body roll. It's just a negative byproduct you live with to achieve the levels of suspension compliance and grip you want.

Also you're pretty biased against the Twins so I'm not sure it's worth addressing your "lame suspension" comment in detail, so I'll just keep this short. Stating that the Miata has a great suspension layout because it's on double wishbones and dismissing the Twins' suspension because it has macpherson struts upfront is far, far too simplistic.

Double-wishbones aren't the determining factor as to whether a car's suspension is great or not, it's much more complicated than that. Case in point: I've had cars with double-wishbones in the front (350z, DC2 Integra) and cars with macpherson struts in the front (Boxster S, FR-S, STI). Want to guess whether the cars with the best suspension setups were on macpherson struts or double wishbones in the front?

Yeah, I was thinking that earlier too when in the Jalopnik article he talked about how the Miata felt like it was flying when doing 50 or so. Don't remember his exact figure.

As someone who has not had a lot of experience hammering down on cars, body roll tends to inspire unease in me.

Both cars are awesome platforms for people to get passionate about driving, not performance, thus why they are such awesome machines.

My initial point was just to highlight the oddities that are new car reviews and some biases. The main line being how a race car driver could say how performance summer tires didn't yield better times than the Primacies.

I think I disagree with nearly everything in this paragraph. Especially about a car, ANY car, cornering flat and considering it a design flaw. Man, the new GT3 RS must be a real POS, huh?:bonk:

I walked away with 2 things from this article:

1. Kudos to Mazda for making an awesome, light weight, RWD car.

2. The following quote made me question the credibility of the reviewers: "The Subaru is very happy on its stock tires because it's so balanced that there's not much drag in the turns. Extra [grip-induced] drag in cornering can slow it down."
This car is worlds faster with better tires... most cars are but this car is especially improved getting off the Prius tires and into some RS3/z2ss/RE71r/Rivals/etc.

Also, the new hot car usually causes reviewers from auto publications to gush. You don't get their true feelings until a year or 2 out when the next hot car comes out and they have to find something to criticize in order to award the new car a prize.

"Recent Miata owner Pobst's lap times align with his preference: 1:29.91 for the MX-5, 1:31.27 for the BRZ"


So Pobst is used to the crazy body roll of the Miata and there's another nugget of info in there.


A ways back, Pobst did a tire comparison with a BRZ, V6 Mustang, and a 3 series BMW. His times from that were:
- Stock tires: 1:33.6
- Level up from that: 1:33.4
- Level up from that: 1:31.1


So he's already nearly 2 seconds quicker with just the 2015 suspension changes (and possibly the Series.Blue aero is helping too). Him saying tires didn't change the lap times doesn't jive with what he did before of shaving 2.5 seconds off with better tires, which if the same held true for the Series.Blue, he'd be FASTER than the new Miata. This is also likely accounting for a hell of a lot of the performance numbers.

Two things flying around this page:

1. Body roll
It's not a flaw, it's not some magic new suspension trick. It's a design choice, just look at any old-timey racecar, Mercedes Gullwing, an F1 car piloted by Fangio or Jim Clark or Stirling Moss, transferring the weight of the car and loading up the suspension was the primary tactic to getting rotation and maintaining compliance on less than ideal surfaces given the technology they had available, still used today in thousands of sprint cars and late models on dirt tracks. Flat and controlled is better with what we know today and modern surfaces, keeping all four wheels in maximum contact with the ground gives the most grip and ergo the highest speed through the corners. Go back to the late 70's and early 80's, Lotus wanted a car so stiff in order to keep all four wheels on the ground and run the most aggressive aero package possible it would tear the driver apart, Colin Chapman was developing a suspended drivers cockpit to make it work before ground effects were outlawed and he left the world.

Mazda has always had body roll in the Miata, it grips, it's proven and the ride quality is comfortable enough to sell to housewives, hairdressers, mid-life crisis-ers and retirees who don't want a racecar, the guys who want that are going to buy adjustable coilovers and lower the car beyond what is mass-marketable anyway. The Miata wins over many people that Toyota missed, there's probably a couple hundred posts here about the ride quality of the 86 stock being too rough for potential buyers and less enthusiastic spouses.

http://www.pistonheads.com/pics/news...onoposto-L.jpg

http://www.bofeathers.com/photos/200...3-5-06_tt3.jpg


2. Pobst's comments on tires and the inevitable 'equal rubber' debate

If there's anyone who understands high vs low grip and experiencing both on the same car currently contributing to the early reviews of the Miata it's a racing driver like Pobst who is paid to destroy tires and bring them home unusable. Some cars are useless when the grip is low and magic when the grip is high, some the opposite, the dynamic difference can be dramatic. A lot of people, myself included, have posted how the car improves with good rubber, 'transformed' is used a lot. To an experienced hand, the addition of grip to a chassis capable of utilizing it does not really change how the car feels acts and behaves, again going back to point one it's a choice. Tires that last 40 minutes on track, 4 days on track, or 40,000 miles, sure the lap times will be separated by seconds between all those tires but on a good chassis like the 86 the driving experience is roughly similar. On a lesser chassis like the Mustang in that tire comparison with the BRZ quoted above Pobst noted that the Mustang was less composed on the Pilot Super Sport although the lap times dropped. Skip to 5 minutes to see his assessment of fitting grippier tires to the Mustang. (Of note the BMW in the video is wearing the same compound Bridgestone S001 as the Miata tested by Motortrend if I'm not mistaken).

To the comments about adding grip reducing speed, here's Edmunds data going to 8.5" wide AD08's, 0.1s slower to 75, 0.1s quicker down the quarter mile, massive improvement laterally. The lateral improvement far outweighs the loss in straightline on most tracks.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/t...rack-test.html

How many people are actually going to compare lap times on stock cars for more than a day or two? Any magazine that does mild upgrades will no doubt do them wrong in >50% of readerships eyes (eww not Hankooks/Dunlops/KW/Konis/Brembos/Stoptech/18").

An exercise in futility imo, neither car is about laptime, if it's truly the deciding factor between the two you're probably better off buying something faster or something you can actually race for same or lesser money. And as always, a driver skill differential can eliminate, reduce, or downright embarrass any advantage 'proven' in a magazine.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSqWD5BSeoY"]Testing Tires with Subaru BRZ, Ford Mustang & BMW 328i! The Downshift Ep. 65 - YouTube[/ame]

I would buy at the new Miata if it was (1) a hardtop coupe or (2) came with a power retractable hardtop. I had a 1994 Miata R that leaked. What a pain in the ass. Those tops are not cheap.

GJ Mazda!!
You guys are forgetting something... Toyota and Mazda is in a long term partnership now.
Game changer if they both fully utilize each other. :)

About tires etc...

A driver like Randy Pobst can drive the most vicious car out there because he is that good.

Example...most of us need nannies and great tires etc etc...

Randy can turn that shit off and drive at 100% and get faster...while the rest of us would just wreck...or not be inspired to confidence and end up not pushing it hard.

Its also like modern sportbikes...when someone wants a 1000cc so they don't "outgrow/outskill a 600". Unless your name is Valentino Rossi or Matt Mladin...you are not over-riding your 600. There are like a couple dozen riders on the planet that can push a 600 to its actual limit.

So back to cars...whatever car YOU LIKE and INSPIRES confidence in you is the right car for YOU.

Randy is explaining that with super sticky tires...a novice driver approaches the limit...and then skids right by it...hopefully just spinning out into the infield on a track rather into a tree on a public road.

The Miata clearly communicates with the less advanced driver nicely and lets them know where they are. The Twins do that as well (with stock tires). BUT if you add super sticky tires...you can become overwhelmed.

Me? I like to pretend I am an advanced driver...
Reality, I finish is top quarter of my class at auto-X and am probably better than 90% of "normal drivers out there". But when compared to real pros...I know the huge gap of talent and experience.

If you think you are a great driver...do a hot lap with a Pro Driver and you will realize how much of a Novice you most likely are.

BTW...novices have just as mush fun driving as Pros.

If you are a Pro (or an Auto-X, Track day Champion) good for you and I suspect you agree that too much confidence in a novice's hands can be dangerous.

Anyway, I am glad the new Miata is out...I may consider getting one if the release a Power Hard Top. Then again, the twins are kinda due for a mid-cycle refresh.

Great time to be into pure driver's cars!

EDIT: Holy crap, you ever start typing and then post it...and then look at it and think "WTF Wall-O-Text"?

Body roll is awful. Let's not pretend otherwise. It just feels bad. Less roll = more predictable = easier & more enjoyable to control... as long as it's not overly stiff where it causes instability over bumps, of course.

The body roll has little to do with the handling performance of the Miata. The front-mid engine placement, 50/50 weight distribution, and double wishbone suspension is why it handles well... The body roll is strictly to accommodate the older drivers known to buy Miatas.

i used to think they were all ghey until my friend let me drive his tracked out NA. very fun car. probably the most fun you can have under $5k

just too bad that i would never buy any convertible because i would always think to myself that the car would be that little bit better with a fixed hardtop

I used to think the same, but the problem with that type of thinking is...

1. There are no affordable fixed roof cars similar to cars like the S2000 and Miata. (When I say similar, I mean the engine placement, weight distribution, extremely good suspension design & geometry, and overall agile driving feel.)

2. Hard tops are available.

Sure, other cars might be a bit more rigid and have better aero stock vs stock with no hard top, but those cars can't provide the same driving experience (even excluding the top down aspect), so they aren't really comparable...

Besides, the S2000 has a very rigid chassis for not having a roof. It's more rigid than other great Japanese sports cars (Silvias, RX7s, etc.), which are arguably already rigid enough, especially when caged (based off of their performance in motorsports)...

I'm not sure how rigid the new Miata is in comparison, but I'm sure it's much improved over prior ones... and, again, aero can be improved with hard tops for those who track their cars and care about it.

I've never liked miatas. I've driven several. They feel flabby. The steering feels numb. Then again, the car I was always comparing them to was an AW11 MR2. It's difficult to overstate how well that car communicates. The twins communicate very well.

People seem to be forgetting that the rear seats in the twins are not there for people. They are there so you can fit wheels/tires IN the car and go to the track/autocross. Once they'd built enough room in the car to do so it was easy enough to make that room seats.

I saw ONE comment about it in this thread. So here's a second.
I don't want a car which requires a trailer if I'm going to drive it to the track. I want to be able to put my wheels/tires, jack, stands, and tools in the car. That's why I traded from my AW11 to my AE86.