FT-86 v.s. MX-5

[spin9k]

Originally Posted by fatoni

...the ms miata did poorly then a couple years later the skystice had a shit ton of power and did poorly so i think mazda kinda knows what they are doing and you see that by the million miatas sold...

The problem here is the the sky/soltice was a POS from the get go assembled from a parts bin and couldn't hold anything save its two occupants, plus it didn't stop well. And hells bells, everyone knew GM would abandon it in a couple years! The only sports car GM sort of cares about is the 'vett.
----------

Not sure, but would these items have anything to do with its slow sales?

"The 2004 NA Miata produced 143 bhp/125 ft-lbs torque, while the MS Miata producing 170 bhp/166 ft-lbs torque, an 18% HP boost but still only giving the MAZDASPEED Miata a top speed of 126 mph."

"...Not only does the engine play dead until you're two-thirds of the way around the tach, but there is also a fair amount of boost lag to contend with. Around town this translates into a less responsive car, with the engine often a half-step behind where you want it to be."

As for the production, perhaps the production history was a blessing in disguise.... "Of the 5,428 second-generation Mazdaspeed MX-5s produced during model years 2004 and 2005, 4,000 were in 2004; 1428 in 2005, due to a fire at the production facility." "Production of the third-generation (non-MS) MX-5, began May 17, 2005."

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Neutral_Eyes

I think turbo was the wrong direction for them to go with the Mazdaspeed Miata, especially with the engine they used. Something like a RWD native K20 would be perfect for the Miata.

I don't mind the 2700 weight in the FR-S/BRZ because it'll likely be much safer than a Miata roadster. That's one of the main selling points I personally see towards the FR-S/BRZ when compared with the Miata.

what was wrong with the motor? it was designed for forced induction. i mean i get that the k20 is awesome but i think thats kinda what they tried in the nc. i dont think mazda has ever been particularly well at designing engines.

i do think the frs will be safer than the miata is but i think the rule of thumb is that you can make a hardtop lighter than a convertible. aside from roll protection i dont see how much safer the car is going to be. and even then a miata with a roll bar is probably cheaper and lighter than the miata

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by fatoni

great car. too bad they dont sell them in america. i assume thats where los angeles is

unsubscribed

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by spin9k

The problem here is the the sky/soltice was a POS from the get go assembled from a parts bin and couldn't hold anything save its two occupants, plus it didn't stop well. And hells bells, everyone knew GM would abandon it in a couple years! The only sports car GM sort of cares about is the 'vett.
----------

Not sure, but would these items have anything to do with its slow sales?

"The 2004 NA Miata produced 143 bhp/125 ft-lbs torque, while the MS Miata producing 170 bhp/166 ft-lbs torque, an 18% HP boost but still only giving the MAZDASPEED Miata a top speed of 126 mph."

"...Not only does the engine play dead until you're two-thirds of the way around the tach, but there is also a fair amount of boost lag to contend with. Around town this translates into a less responsive car, with the engine often a half-step behind where you want it to be."

As for the production, perhaps the production history was a blessing in disguise.... "Of the 5,428 second-generation Mazdaspeed MX-5s produced during model years 2004 and 2005, 4,000 were in 2004; 1428 in 2005, due to a fire at the production facility." "Production of the third-generation (non-MS) MX-5, began May 17, 2005."

i know the skystice sucked but not because of its parts bin nature. the miata was built in a similar fashion. i dont know how much the fire really impeded the building process. they managed to make like 25k miatas that year. i dont know where you are getting your info from but it had more than 170 hp. im not sure if you are surprised that whoever you are quoting is saying a turbo car is less responsive than a naturally aspirated car but that sounds to be par for the course. we can speculate all we want but i really do think mazda knows what people want considering they have had the miata in production for over 20 years.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Marrk

unsubscribed

you are aware i said i dont think there are current cars available and the only current car available from lotus in america is the evora right?

[Dark]

Haha nice looking little car. Hope the current design has hard top though.

[Neutral_Eyes]

They used the older engine for the Mazdaspeed.

The United States 2004-2005 Mazdaspeed MX-5 turbo is based on this engine rather than the newer BP-Z3 and produces 178 hp (133 kW) and 166 ft·lbf (225 N·m) with slightly-reduced compression.

In Australia, a turbocharged version of this engine produced 210 hp (157 kW) and 206 ft·lbf (280 N·m) in the Mazda MX-5 SP.

At least with the NC they decided to go all aluminum. Still shares an engine with FWD cars, which caused cooling issues on NAs and NBs. Maybe that's been worked out, too, I haven't really looked into the NC much.

When I bought my Miata, I told myself that the maneuverability was its best safety device, but after witnessing a couple blindside accidents, one of them a rollover, I started to rethink that credo. In addition to the safety a fixed roof and curtain airbags adds, I just don't want a convertible in Arizona anymore.

[fatoni]

thank god for google. because the internet is pure fact. maybe thats why it is disproving your previous statement saying it has 170 hp.

...damn that post was pulled quick

[spin9k]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i know the skystice sucked but not because of its parts bin nature. the miata was built in a similar fashion. i dont know how much the fire really impeded the building process. they managed to make like 25k miatas that year. i dont know where you are getting your info from but it had more than 170 hp. im not sure if you are surprised that whoever you are quoting is saying a turbo car is less responsive than a naturally aspirated car but that sounds to be par for the course. we can speculate all we want but i really do think mazda knows what people want considering they have had the miata in production for over 20 years.

Ok, it was 178HP but that's not the point. It was a piss poor design (guess you're right - Mazda hasn't been so good at designing engines). The point is that it was an off-on powerplant with little added useful power.. never a good thing in a RRD sports car that cost more than the NA engine... turbos don't have to be that way and shouldn't be that way. Ergo, the poor sales resulted.

[spin9k]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i know the skystice sucked but not because of its parts bin nature. the miata was built in a similar fashion. ... we can speculate all we want but i really do think mazda knows what people want considering they have had the miata in production for over 20 years.

say what? The car was a parts bin car that has been built for the last 20 yrs???

The current gen was a shared platform w/the RX-8, but previously I thought it was its own platform aka made with it's own parts?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Neutral_Eyes

They used the older engine for the Mazdaspeed.



At least with the NC they decided to go all aluminum. Still shares an engine with FWD cars, which caused cooling issues on NAs and NBs. Maybe that's been worked out, too, I haven't really looked into the NC much.

When I bought my Miata, I told myself that the maneuverability was its best safety device, but after witnessing a couple blindside accidents, one of them a rollover, I started to rethink that credo. In addition to the safety a fixed roof and curtain airbags adds, I just don't want a convertible in Arizona anymore.

yeah that older engine was taken from the 323 gtx. i suspect that it was used simply because all the newer motors had things to make it a better natrually aspirated car. it makes sense to use a lower compression and cut costs by not using variable valve timing.

i dont know how much safer the car is going to be but i totally get wanting a safer car.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by spin9k

say what? The car was a parts bin car that has been built for the last 20 yrs???

The current gen was a shared platform w/the RX-8, but previously I thought it was its own platform aka made with it's own parts?

mainly but things like engines should count as car parts. if you get into it there are shared parts from things like old suzukis and such. they did get things right though so that has to count. that new 1m is a parts car too but i would assume its a halfway decent car based on reviews

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by spin9k

Ok, it was 178HP but that's not the point. It was a piss poor design (guess you're right - Mazda hasn't been so good at designing engines). The point is that it was an off-on powerplant with little added useful power.. never a good thing in a RRD sports car that cost more than the NA engine... turbos don't have to be that way and shouldn't be that way. Ergo, the poor sales resulted.

i agree with all of that except with the fact that it was the reason for the poor sales. i dont think mazda would have been sitting on a gold mine for almost a decade and do nothing about it

[spin9k]

^ we may well get the proof of that theory.. or not... as I consider the FR-S to be both the Miata with more power (sans turbo) AND a hardtop to boot. I'm just hoping the FR-S IS a success and Mazda dutifully goes about producing something similar to reap tha 'gold mine' it has been missing.