4th gen ND Mazda MX-5 Miata

[FRSBRZGT86FAN]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I love this car...but I wish it had a fixed roof or the engine were behind the driver or both. But it's seriously good, if you're into FRs. Short wheelbase, lightweight, I love it. Gonna keep on waiting for a new MR2 or baby Porsche personally.

In the words of Tetsuya Tada "please be patient"

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by themadscientist

They have usually had hardtops available on the Miata so I would expect the ND will eventually have one. The NC had that sweet retractable hardtop, maybe the ND will too.

The power retracting hardtop really only solves the problem of the soft top being 'soft' (wearing out, vandalism, looks) and sacrifices added weight and cost to do so, not to mention most tracks require an aftermarket roll bar for safety and most drivers don't pass the broomstick test with a hardtop NC without one.

Most of the people pining for a hardtop prefer a fixed roof because it means a lighter and/or stiffer chassis and rollover protection, things not solved by the power retracting hardtop.

[babydriver]

This is a very nice looking convertible! I did some power to weight ratio calcs and the FR-S still comes out ahead slightly. The FR-S is at 13.8 lbs per horsepower,whereas the 2016 MX-5 will have 14.2 lbs per hp. These calcs are based on curb weights of 2205 for the Mazda and 2753 for the FR-S, with 155 and 200 bhp, respectively. It should be noted that the R&T article does not give the HP figure of the 1.5 liter engine, but even allowing for the lowest possible curb weight (which will be too low for the non-Japan version) and the higher powered engine (the 2.0 l) the FR-S still wins in the PtW department.

Obviously, the MX-5 comes out well ahead on torque relative to its mass. It will come down to the transmission and differential gearing to see which car will have better acceleration.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Sideways&Smiling

Nothing is really wrong with them, per se. I just don't see the point. Going with 5 lugs not only looks better but gives more options, as it is more common and more popular among enthusiasts.

Four lugs are lighter than five

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by themadscientist

They have usually had hardtops available on the Miata so I would expect the ND will eventually have one. The NC had that sweet retractable hardtop, maybe the ND will too.

Honestly, a manual softtop is preferable to a retractable hardtop IMO. Hardtop convertibles usually look kind of odd and they don't help in terms of structural rigidity while adding cost and lots of weight. Perhaps I'm oversensitive because my MR2 Spyder chassis was kind of floppy.

Originally Posted by babydriver

This is a very nice looking convertible! I did some power to weight ratio calcs and the FR-S still comes out ahead slightly.

lol, it's not going to be the 155hp engine. The NC did not use a standard 2L MZR, and the ND will not use a standard Skyactiv 2L from a Mazda3. Mazda even made a comment about the false speculation about 155hp. It's gonna be faster than an FRS, period.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Rampage

Honda could not get that 240HP 2.0L to pass today's US emission standards though. I am not a big fan of the Subaru FA20 either but 200HP out of 2.0L NA motor is pretty good now. There is a pretty short list of engine manufacturers who can match it and get the engine certified for CA and the rest of the US.

Mazda stated early on that the MX-5 had to at least match the current cars HP so my guess has been 170HP all along. We will find out in the next couple months. A spokesperson at the Mazda display at Daytona told me the car is expected to go on sale sometime in August.

They could make it pass emissions, however, it wasn't an efficient engine and with the gearing needed to delivery a quick car the fuel economy was shit. That's a bigger nail in the F20C/F22C coffin.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

They could make it pass emissions, however, it wasn't an efficient engine and with the gearing needed to delivery a quick car the fuel economy was shit. That's a bigger nail in the F20C/F22C coffin.

The engine itself actually has about average to slightly better than average thermal efficiency in all BMEP ranges compared to other engines from the late 90s and early 2000s. The F20C is one of the few engines for which you can find a full BSFC chart and the numbers aren't bad.

There were several things making the S2000 perhaps a bit too thirsty by today's standards. One of course is that back in the day Japanese sports cars came with super short gearing, so there was not a proper highway gear (but this problem isn't limited to the S2k, basically every other car had very short gearing by today's standards).

Another is that the engine is not super torquey for the mass it had to pull (which is quite a lot for a 4 cylinder 2 seater), so the low gears have to be short as well, this is super bad for your EPA mpg testing, although I imagine manufacturers will start exercising the option to specify early shift points and this could be partially solved.

Finally, there's the horrible aerodynamics of the S2k, but that is also a problem not limited to the S2k.

If they really wanted to they could bring the F20C back but there's no car to put it in, it doesn't make financial sense to restart production and try to recertify it (which will need some modifications) when it's not competitive in any category other than power anymore.

One reason why super high rpm engines have gotten very rare that's not fuel economy related is that they're still trying to figure out how to achieve high flowing intake ports that play nice with direct injection at low speed, that also doesn't cost them a lot of money. Porsche has the "VTEC" style dual cams that lets them achieve this but even with that it's harder to do than it was with port injection. Honda still has VTEC but they'd rather use the extra lobe for a fuel-economy-mode, and 3-stage VTEC is probably cost prohibitive. Toyota has tried D4-S as we know but that is not enough to get you into the 8000+rpm range, and Subaru tried TVGs but that has the same restrictions. If you don't use a fancy valvetrain you end up with the BMW S65, which is not torquey and extremely thirsty.

[Sideways&Smiling]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Honestly, a manual softtop is preferable to a retractable hardtop IMO. Hardtop convertibles usually look kind of odd and they don't help in terms of structural rigidity while adding cost and lots of weight. Perhaps I'm oversensitive because my MR2 Spyder chassis was kind of floppy.



lol, it's not going to be the 155hp engine. The NC did not use a standard 2L MZR, and the ND will not use a standard Skyactiv 2L from a Mazda3. Mazda even made a comment about the false speculation about 155hp. It's gonna be faster than an FRS, period.

It's been confirmed to be 155hp, bud.

[babydriver]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

lol, it's not going to be the 155hp engine. The NC did not use a standard 2L MZR, and the ND will not use a standard Skyactiv 2L from a Mazda3. Mazda even made a comment about the false speculation about 155hp. It's gonna be faster than an FRS, period.

Quoting the earlier cited article from Road & Track:

"The MX-5's thousand-kilo (2205 lb) mass allows it to be slightly quicker than the first-generation car, but we'll have to wait to drive the 2.0-liter, with its 155 horsepower and 148 lb-ft of torque, to see how it stacks up when confronted with an American on-ramp and a highly motivated Yukon XL driver in the other lane." (Jan. 30, 2015).

So you have better information than R&T has? Perhaps you will link to your source?

I really don't give a damn if it is faster or slower than an FR-S. I was merely pointing out that the PTW ratios (based on available specs) favor the FR-S. If and when the information is updated from Mazda those numbers may change. In the end, it will be the gear ratios and differential that determine if the car has better acceleration.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by babydriver

So you have better information than R&T has? Perhaps you will link to your source?

Originally Posted by Sideways&Smiling

It's been confirmed to be 155hp, bud.

If you use your head instead of blindly believing everything...

Originally Posted by ZDan

a page on the Chicago Auto Show’s official website says the 2016 MX-5 will produce 155 horsepower from its 2.0-litre SkyActiv four-cylinder engine. However, according to Autoblog, Mazda “isn’t sure where they got that number.”

I bet they got that number from Mazda, it's the power rating for the current SkyActiv 2.0 in the 3.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/27/2...55-horsepower/

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

If you use your head instead of blindly believing everything...


http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/27/2...55-horsepower/

Look at the date on that article, now look at the date on the article from the Road and Track test. It's 155 horses and 148 ft-lbs, which, they got the torque wrong in the article you linked and it doesn't match the 2.0L in the current Mazdas.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...zda-mx5-miata/

From the autoblog website on the 30th:

When it arrives in the US later this year, the Miata will be offered with a 2.0-liter Skyactiv-G inline-four, producing 155 hp and 148 lb-ft of torque. Believe me, you won't miss those ponies. Yes, I realize that's a decrease of 12 hp, but hear me out: you get 8 more pound-feet, and the car weighs over 200 pounds less.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/30/2...-review-video/

Clickbait doesn't generate views updating a 3 day old article, they put out a new one.

I think it's safe to say it's a derivative of the 2.0L already available but it seems to have been tweaked, likely for better responsiveness, the SkyActiv has been accused of being a bit of a bore.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Look at the date on that article, now look at the date on the article from the Road and Track test. It's 155 horses and 148 ft-lbs, which, they got the torque wrong in the article you linked and it doesn't match the 2.0L in the current Mazdas.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...zda-mx5-miata/

From the autoblog website on the 30th:
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/30/2...-review-video/

Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's correct. We still have not heard Mazda say it's the standard Skyactiv 2, and they would not say "we're not sure where they got that number from" for the Chicago Auto Show if it were correct. This is perfectly in line with the precedent of the MX-5 getting a slightly different engine.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's correct. We still have not heard Mazda say it's the standard Skyactiv 2, and they would not say "we're not sure where they got that number from" for the Chicago Auto Show if it were correct. This is perfectly in line with the precedent of the MX-5 getting a slightly different engine.

So when the publication you cite saying "Mazda hasn't stated" says 3 days later "Mazda has stated" you don't believe them?

Ok then.

[Sideways&Smiling]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

If you use your head instead of blindly believing everything...


http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/27/2...55-horsepower/

I read that when it initially happened, but Mazda officially confirmed the 155hp figure on January 30th.