twins vs miata (AGAIN)

[perryair]

i know that there are dozens of threads about this already but this is more of a rant than a comparo. for some reason, when talking about the twins, all anyone in the auto media wants to talk about is pure numbers, how the twins are underpowered and that means that they aren't worth it, blah blah. but then in the next breath, they all line up one by one to orally service the miata, which has almost 50 less horsepower and even if it is any noticeably faster, only translates that way because of its 'feel'.

so if 'feel' can make the miata such a 'perfect' car, why does the brz/frs get absolutely no pass from the exact same people about the exact same thing?

i've not driven a new generation miata but i've spent a few days putting a couple of hundred miles on a gen c miata and ill tell you that my brz has fun , 'immediacy' and driving experience in spades over that car.

and on a side note, in year 5 sales of the frs and brz are equal to what mazda is reporting on sales on the brand new miata, but yet noone reports that mazda wants to kill off the miata the same way that last year every major automotive news outlet did about 'weak' sales of the twins.

if i didn't know better id think that mazda has a huge 'slush' fund out there for the hearts and 'objective opinions' of our autojournos.

[hypebrz]

I think a big part is that the Miata has been around and earned it's rep. The twins are a relatively new platform that people just expected more from

[brzaapi]

I would think a lot of this has to do with timing. In other words what car is new and hot, and which one is not. When the BRZ first came out the reviews were crazy. The press touted the BRZ as the best new sports car, and talk about how the Miata was still great but the BRZ was better.

Now, the Miata has a new generation out and the BRZ is old and tired from a journalistic stand point. However, you will notice that a lot of writers really do like the Miata. But, they prefer the BRZ when it comes to certain things. Like which one is better for a track toy. Carlos Lago made this same statement. He said the new Miata was better in almost every metric, but he preferred the BRZ on the track.

I have driven both on the track. I prefer the BRZ as a whole, but i could have a lot of fun with an ND Miata. But the Miata is getting better press cause its newer, plus the 124 Spyder just got released and that will keep the Miata in the news.

[nikitopo]

Don't forget that Miata is a roadster. It is a very specific category with a time value. People that buy a roadster, they know what they buy.

I wouldn't say that auto-journalists were not objective with our cars. Our cars belong into another category. It also looks that sometimes we have an identity crisis. Do we want twins to be just a fun and trendy car or do we want to be a sports car? If we want the second are we looking what the competition is doing nowdays?

[mdm]

Originally Posted by perryair

miata, which has almost 50 less horsepower .

It's also ~420 pounds lighter. The weight-to-max torque ratio is better than in the twins: 16.1 vs 18.6 lb / ftlb. Also max torque is available much lower 4600 vs 6400. Weigh-to-max-power ratio is not much worse, 15.4 vs 14 lb/HP.

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Don't forget that Miata is a roadster. It is a very specific category with a time value. People that buy a roadster, they know what they buy.

I wouldn't say that auto-journalists were not objective with our cars. Our cars belong into another category. It also looks that sometimes we have an identity crisis. Do we want twins to be just a fun and trendy car or do we want to be a sports car? If we want the second are we looking what the competition is doing nowdays?

I think Nikitopo has made a good point but I also think it's just that the ND is the new hotness.

People who buy a convertible want something different than those who buy a coupe. You absolutely don't need any power to enjoy a nice cruise on a sunny day with the top down and anyone who has ridden in one understands that. For that alone, the MX-5 is interesting in a way that the twins aren't.

Anyways, back to the new hotness. In journalists testing, the ND beats the twins in every measurable metric due to smart decision making on Mazdas part. With lighter weight, more aggressive gearing, better torque in the area under curve and stickier tires, the ND BARELY squeaks out a performance advantage over stock twins despite a 45hp deficit. Of course, Mazda HAD to make the ND faster or the auto press wouldn't pay any attention to it when it released.

That said, I'm not angry about this at all, this is just the way of technological progress. Mazda's strategy for the ND was clear and has paid off. It would be silly for them to release a car that didn't offer an on-paper performance advantage against it's primary competitor. That said, most tests have the ND only SLIGHTLY ahead of the twins and really within the noise to the point that it would really be down to driver skill. Also consider the ND comes with stickier tires than the twins and we're only a minor tire upgrade away from pulling ahead again.

It's also clear that Toyota/Subaru have been paying attention to Mazdas strategy. It's been confirmed that the 2017s are going to a more aggressive final drive and it's also been heavily hinted (although unconfirmed) that the twins will get a boost in the torque dip area which I expect will be enough to push the performance of our cars past the new ND and the twins will be the new hotness again.

[Doubletap]

The MX-5 is objectively faster. Not just by feel. Faster 0-60 and on a track. Funny this thread came up as I just finished watching this.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHuxFFNv_DM"]2016 Mazda MX-5 vs Scion FR-S Road, Track & 0-60 MPH Review - TFL Leaderboard Hot or Not Ep.10 - YouTube[/ame]

[perryair]

Originally Posted by Doubletap

The MX-5 is objectively faster. Not just by feel. Faster 0-60 and on a track. Funny this thread came up as I just finished watching this.

the miata was .4 seconds faster to the quarter with a lower trap speed, so a set of tires on hookup makes that comparo even, not objectively different.

as for 0-60, if you bought either if these cars for that metric youre gonna be a sad guy.

[Doubletap]

Originally Posted by perryair

the miata was .4 seconds faster to the quarter with a lower trap speed, so a set of tires on hookup makes that comparo even, not objectively different.

as for 0-60, if you bought either if these cars for that metric youre gonna be a sad guy.

When comparing both cars, stock for stock (which is how the journos are reviewing these cars), the MX-5 is objectively faster than the twins. Is that better?

Agreed on your bolded point.

[wbradley]

Miata is such a dainty looking package compared to the twins. Perhaps if I wasn't a bald guy I could appreciate a roadster more.LOL

What we are overlooking here is by far most of us mod our cars. So, with headers and a tune and sticky tires, which car is faster? What about which is easier to live with on a day to day basis?

The only similarity between the Miata and our cars is both of them have varied degrees of impractically.

The demographic for the average customer is vastly different. I picture middle aged guys with driving gloves and a tweed cap driving the Mazda. I DO NOT picture many 20 somethings buying a new Miata though.

If you are talking coolness factor or stylishness I'd go with the Fiat. Actually I'll pass on that too.

When's the new Supra coming?? Toyota, TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE!!

[Yoshoobaroo]

I'd love to see an 86 vs. ND battle with equal tires.
Both on stock tires >both on primacies > both on Michelin PSS

[guybo]

Originally Posted by perryair

the miata was .4 seconds faster to the quarter with a lower trap speed, so a set of tires on hookup makes that comparo even, not objectively different.

as for 0-60, if you bought either if these cars for that metric youre gonna be a sad guy.

This review was done at a mile elevation. This comparo is only really relevant in someplace like Denver. The main advantage of the FRS is that it has a more powerful engine. The main advantage of the MX5 is that it has less weight. Weight doesn't change at that altitude, engine output does and that takes from the FRS advantage. I think at sea level the FRS would be faster, or maybe the tests would be dead even. I'd like to see that comparo- at sea level.

[guybo]

Originally Posted by Doubletap

The MX-5 is objectively faster. Not just by feel. Faster 0-60 and on a track. Funny this thread came up as I just finished watching this.

This review was done at a mile elevation. This comparo is only really relevant in someplace like Denver. The main advantage of the FRS is that it has a more powerful engine. The main advantage of the MX5 is that it has less weight. Weight doesn't change at that altitude, engine output does and that takes from the FRS advantage. I think at sea level the FRS would be faster, or maybe the tests would be dead even. I'd like to see that comparo- at sea level.

[Hoahao]

Originally Posted by guybo

This review was done at a mile elevation. This comparo is only really relevant in someplace like Denver. The main advantage of the FRS is that it has a more powerful engine. The main advantage of the MX5 is that it has less weight. Weight doesn't change at that altitude, engine output does and that takes from the FRS advantage. I think at sea level the FRS would be faster, or maybe the tests would be dead even. I'd like to see that comparo- at sea level.

Wouldn't the MX5 lose some power too?? A sea level test would be interesting I think, especially with equal tires.