4th gen ND Mazda MX-5 Miata

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Toyota/Subaru had a re-designed engine from the beginning, Mazda didn't have it. You cannot have it more simple.

You're absolutely right! Actually it's not even a redesign, the FA20 was a ground-up design! No wonder they're not jumping to replace it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

Now I'm not one of the "OMG 86 is underpowered" crowd....

But seriously, Mazda's done in a couple model years, what Toyota/Subaru have steadfastly refused to do in 6?

I almost feel like Mazda was forced to add more power in an attempt to generate more sales. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ND hasnt been a sales success so far right? I know that it's a niche car, but even then it seems like kind of a flop compared to the previous generations.

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Don't forget the ND was a significant DROP in power from the NC, and even at 181HP, the ND still doesn't quite match the power to weight ratio of the twins (0.0738 hp/lb vs 0.0745 hp/lb), and that's assuming it doesn't gain any weight.

I find this math very hard to believe considering the ND is already faster than the 86 in a straight line.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I almost feel like Mazda was forced to add more power in an attempt to generate more sales. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ND hasnt been a sales success so far right? I know that it's a niche car, but even then it seems like kind of a flop compared to the previous generations.



I find this math very hard to believe considering the ND is already faster than the 86 in a straight line.

That's all due to tires from a dig. Rolling start the 86 is faster.

It's not a hard calculation, you can verify it yourself lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

That's all due to tires from a dig. Rolling start the 86 is faster.

It's not a hard calculation, you can verify it yourself lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't forget the shorter gearing.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Toyota/Subaru had a re-designed engine from the beginning, Mazda didn't have it. You cannot have it more simple.

I can't help but wonder if putting the tS development or tooling money towards a new header to get rid of the dip would have been a better use of resources.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

I can't help but wonder if putting the tS development or tooling money towards a new header to get rid of the dip would have been a better use of resources.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

The dip is not an engineering flaw. It's their solution to meet fuel consumption and emissions targets. It's pretty much the only way to make an NA high compression engine pass emissions these days. That or stupid long gearing like the Corvette.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

That's all due to tires from a dig. Rolling start the 86 is faster.

It's not a hard calculation, you can verify it yourself lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're using crank power and not wheel horsepower? I came up with different numbers. I feel like with 25 more hp the ND would have the better power/weight ratio.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

I can't help but wonder if putting the tS development or tooling money towards a new header to get rid of the dip would have been a better use of resources.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

They put already resources and money on a new header. It is the one that comes with the '+17 MT cars, but their purpose wasn't really to fix the torque dip. They wanted mainly to give more power on the higher end range.

For reasons that I cannot install a catless header in Germany, I ordered and installed their new header. I was testing lately acceleration numbers and comparing them with a stock first generation car. Overall, together with other changes and weight reduction the times is like having now a 240hp NA car (*).

So, don't underestimate what they did with the new header. People saying that the new header is giving maximum 2-3hp, they don't know what they are talking about or cannot afford it and they are just jealous.


(*) I even made the assumption that the first cars were actually 190hp cars and not really 200hp cars. Catalog power was a bit overestimated.

[unhappymeal]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I almost feel like Mazda was forced to add more power in an attempt to generate more sales. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ND hasnt been a sales success so far right? I know that it's a niche car, but even then it seems like kind of a flop compared to the previous generations.

Sales aren't as hot as the halycon NA/NB days, but the ND is crushing the NC.

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01...sales-figures/

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

You're using crank power and not wheel horsepower? I came up with different numbers. I feel like with 25 more hp the ND would have the better power/weight ratio.

WHP calcs:
I used the same source for dyno numbers to reduce variables. Curb weights from Google.
MX-5 GT vs BRZ limited
Current Miata HP/weight:
135/2485 = 0.054
Estimated facelift whp
(181/155)*135 = 157.6
Facelift Miata Power/weight
157.6/2485 = 0.0634

BRZ estimated facelift whp
(172/200)*205
Facelift BRZ Power/weight
176.3/2776 = 0.0635

They pretty much become an even match with the 181 HP Miata.

Keep in mind the Miata still has a gearing advantage down low and comes with Max performance Summers.

Dyno sources:

http://dsportmag.com/the-tech/intake...16-mazda-mx-5/

http://dsportmag.com/the-tech/scion-...programed-ecu/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

The dip is not an engineering flaw. It's their solution to meet fuel consumption and emissions targets. It's pretty much the only way to make an NA high compression engine pass emissions these days. That or stupid long gearing like the Corvette.

But you can't talk sense about fuel consumption and emissions targets to a bunch of enthusiasts that take out the cat, make more power, and don't want to deal with stupid things like smog checks and federal emissions laws!

So of course it's an engineering flaw! Why else would that stupid thing be there for no reason!

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

WHP calcs:
I used the same source for dyno numbers to reduce variables. Curb weights from Google.
MX-5 GT vs BRZ limited
Current Miata HP/weight:
135/2485 = 0.054
Estimated facelift whp
(181/155)*135 = 157.6
Facelift Miata Power/weight
157.6/2485 = 0.0634

BRZ estimated facelift whp
(172/200)*205
Facelift BRZ Power/weight
176.3/2776 = 0.0635

They pretty much become an even match with the 181 HP Miata.

Keep in mind the Miata still has a gearing advantage down low and comes with Max performance Summers.

Dyno sources:

http://dsportmag.com/the-tech/intake...16-mazda-mx-5/

http://dsportmag.com/the-tech/scion-...programed-ecu/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But the weight for the ND miata is 2335lbs, not 24XX. And most dynos I see the Miata currently makes 143hp to the wheels. Also, the facelifted BRZ doesn't weigh 2775lbs, but closer to 2830lbs IIRC.

A revised Miata that is 2350lbs and 25 more crank horsepower would have the better ratio right?

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

But the weight for the ND miata is 2335lbs, not 24XX. And most dynos I see the Miata currently makes 143hp to the wheels. Also, the facelifted BRZ doesn't weigh 2775lbs, but closer to 2830lbs IIRC.



A revised Miata that is 2350lbs and 25 more crank horsepower would have the better ratio right?

Right.

I fixed variables for a fair comparison. Both metal roof versions, both top trim pre-facelift weight numbers, since we don't know the weight of the new Miata. And the dyno numbers are both from the same indoor dyno, the best comparison you're going to get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by mav1178

But you can't talk sense about fuel consumption and emissions targets to a bunch of enthusiasts that take out the cat, make more power, and don't want to deal with stupid things like smog checks and federal emissions laws!

So of course it's an engineering flaw! Why else would that stupid thing be there for no reason!

Actually I'd be curious to see the effect of aftermarket headers people run on emissions and fuel consumption.