Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on the beauty of the modern MX-5, especially coming from someone that's 6'2" and not small... It's a tight fit in this MX-5, but the older models just weren't an option. I literally could not fit in the car, so the 2006+ is the only MX-5 for me.. and it's definitely a little race car. I think that trunk weighs all of maybe three pounds? Plus I think the 2006+ models are really classy, especially the GT with the brown roof and that reddish brown leather. My wife's is a silver GT with the brown roof and that leather and it looks really hot.
I do agree with you on the RX-8 though, sorta. It definitely needs to lose the extra two doors and a lot of weight, but AWD generally always improves performance. Only problem is it also adds weight and obviously wouldn't work on a MX-5
My friend is about that height and fits just fine into his gen 1. Its also modified with 2" lowering springs and Sparco seats (track car) and STILL has room for his helmet. Ive always been a fan of the old Miatas, but like I said, the new ones just dont cut it. All the cool elements that made the Miata what it was are lost (ie the door handles, the flip up lights, the cramped interior). The new Miata is just a modern sports car with luxury touches (leather, HID lights, etc). The old Miata was a great rendition of the old British roadsters, but reliable! lol
I don't know, the first one I ever tried to sit in was a 2004 model I believe. Before that I really hadn't visited a Mazda dealership and always saw the Miata as a woman's car..
It wasn't until I bought my first Mazda, 2004 3, that I started liking them a lot. That car was a ton of fun and the perfect example of what an "econo car" should be.. I also liked the dealership, service department, parts department and salesman and that's why I just bout my 6th one from them a few months ago..
I specifically remember that I could not fit in that 2004 model at all though, it wasn't even an option.. are you sure your friend is 6'2"? because even now I have to drive with the roof off because I have to tilt my head down some with the roof up and I have a hard time seeing out the windshield. When the roof is off I spend quite a bit of time looking over the windshield, especially when I'm trying to see the stop light.
As far as more luxury, I just turned 40 and my wife isn't far behind, so that's a little more important to us now. She loves her car and she says it makes her feel more sexy. I agree that it does, especially since she feels that way, so it shows.. She got the GT model with every option except the Nav system and that leather is beautiful and the Xenon HID's are very nice for seeing at night. I was never a fan of hydraulic headlights either. They look pretty cool, but they look silly when they break and they tend to do that.. I don't think any modern car has them anymore and there's probably a reason for it...
I have a 97 protege and it is still doing really well. Only thing which has needed attention (and repeated attention at that) are new brake pads... but with over 175k miles, I guess that's ok. Additionally the catalytic converter innards blew out recently and I've had the AC compressor replaced. Other than that it has run perfectly.
Been happy with it for sure (as well as with the dealers who service Mazdas) and I definitely would consider another Mazda for my family's next automobile. Our Mazda mechanic said we could expect the car to go at least 210k miles, so we're going to hold onto it a bit longer :-)
how long did the brake pads last anyhow? The tires (Eagle RS-A's) on my 2004 3 were the only thing I had to replace before I traded it in. I was pretty surprised the brake pads lasted as long as they did (over 3 years) as my previous two cars (New Beetle and Altima) needed their brake pads replaced after barely two years.
Ive driven MANY Miatas, but never the turbo. The performance numbers it put up were unimpressive. Ill take the Mazdaspeed 3 anyday.
After having bought the 04 MX-5 Speed turbo (which they made in 05 also)I was curious about the 06 new gen.and the 170 HP engine.They said they expanded the leg room to improve but 1 to 2 inches wasn't enough.I'm 6'0 and agreed ,the 04 is cramped, but my wife is 5'0 and the primary driver and fits her fine.When driving the new model I did notice improvement in leg room but tests indicate they should've gone farther and I agree.The other thing I'm disappointed in is that they didn't speed the new version.The 170 HP is nice but the difference between that and the 178 HP turbo is night and day.The power response on the turbo is instant at 3500rpm.You can't really test it from a stop(0-60) that easy-you're shifting too fast from1-2-3 gears.You're almost better off starting in 2nd and feather the clutch some.Driving in 4th or 5th and kicking it in is more fun than 0 to 60 starts.Iv'e surprised more than one car thinking it's just a "Miata".The power in the newer version is more drawn out thru the rpm range but thats the difference from the turbo-that's what I noticed.Also they only made 4000 Speeds in 04 so good car to keep up and mileage down.
I read in a Mazda forum that the next revision of the MX-5 (2010 model) is going to use a detuned version of the MZR engine MAZDA:2.The MZR 2.3L DISI TURBO Engine Delivers High Output on a Par with a 3-3.5L V6 Engine but with Fuel Efficiency 5% Better Than 2010 Requirements | special feature2ISI Turbo (broken link). For anyone that isn't as familiar with Mazda, that's the engine that's currently in the Speed3, Speed6, and CX-7.
Every time I drive my CX-7 I imagine what it would feel like to have that engine in my MX-5 and looks like Mazda's been listening.. That engine + RWD + boatloads of torque + MX-5's super low weight is going to = zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom I can't wait
Every time I drive my CX-7 I imagine what it would feel like to have that engine in my MX-5 and looks like Mazda's been listening.. That engine + RWD + boatloads of torque + MX-5's super low weight is going to = zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom I can't wait
"Boatloads of torque?" Isn't it something like 258 lbs/ft @ 2500 rpm?
-Fleet
'69 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (525 lbs/ft torque- gross)
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Limo (360 lbs/ft torque- net)
'95 Lincoln Town Car (270 lbs/ft torque- net)
"Boatloads of torque?" Isn't it something like 258 lbs/ft @ 2500 rpm?
-Fleet
'69 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (525 lbs/ft torque- gross)
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Limo (360 lbs/ft torque- net)
'95 Lincoln Town Car (270 lbs/ft torque- net)
Yes the Caddies had boatloads of torque, but what difference does it make when they only run 0-60 in 39.7 seconds. Power to weight ratio is the most important aspect to going fast.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gotta try both before .........
ISI Turbo (broken link). For anyone that isn't as familiar with Mazda, that's the engine that's currently in the Speed3, Speed6, and CX-7.
