Buying an MX5 - Price Check

aproctor

aproctor

aproctor

Permabanned
Joined
26 Apr 2008
Posts
4,078
Location
Lincolnshire
Iv'e been looking at MX5s for a while now and am looking to buy at the end of the month.
Now one has really caught my eye and i don't know if its over the odds or not.

1994 RS Ltd
100k Miles
S/S exhaust
OEM 15" BBS Alloys
OEM Carbon/Kevlar Recaro Bucket Seats
Full geometry alignment at WIM

It is also having a full respray as we speak and a new mohair hood.

Its up at £3500, He said he would go to £3400, but my top end is £3k which i think is more than enough. What is the general consensus?

Now this is more aimed at people who know a bit about MX-5's already as opposed to people who would never spend more than £500 on a pre 1995 car.

Also aside from rust which i will obviously check (but shouldn't be an issue due to the respray and him saying categorically it has no rust and will get a good look under the ramp and take pics when it goes in.) Is there anything i should be wary of, how long to shocks (Bilstein) and bushes etc last? Will they be due.

It was imported in 2002 and has had the following done,


Cambelt Change
Cambelt Tensioner
Camshaft Belt Idler Pulley
Camshaft Belt Tensioner Pulley
Cam Cover Gasket
Rear Discs
EBC Kevlar Rear Pads
Camshaft Oil Seal
Cranskshaft Front Oil Seal

I am aware if this was all done 7 years ago it may be redundant.

Anyway i would be grateful for any info or tips you guys could provide.


Also any decent tips on haggling? (aimed at those who buy and sell a bit)

x
 
I understand it most probably is, mint. But I still wouldn't buy due to how inflated the price is. That is decent FI used mk1 money.

Both the Mk1 and Mk2 I have bought in the past were cheaper and came with goodies, but granted had minor exterior blemishes.
 
L0rdMike said:
If he wont take any less than 3.4k and you dont have that, isnt all this pointless? :p
Click to expand...

I do have more than £3.4k I would rather not stretch above £3k unless i'm told that this is the going rate and i might stretch £100 more, on the other hand if someone said its worth a monkey i might back away completely.
 
Last edited:
Dorje said:
That is decent FI used mk1 money.
Click to expand...

Find one on sale that isn't abused and i'll buy.

Seriously put up a link and i'll go for it. :)

I've seen one unmolested FI NA (i.e no stupid bodykit) for under £4k and it was a good few months ago. Another is a BBR in cornwall which is 300 miles away :(
 
Last edited:
That is VERY strong money but the better mk1's are appreciating at the moment. For £2500 you are looking at a near-mint special edition (Gleneagles, dakar, merlot, Harvard etc) or a decent S Special. About a month back a supercharged Merlot went through MX5nutz for £3500 and I can't help feeling that is a better deal.

As an mx5 owner, the mohair hood is ace but is £449 fitted for the best so I put that S Special as over-priced - £2995 at a push really. If you aren't on nutz, have a look - www.mx5nutz.com

Supercharged

Couple of turbos
 
Last edited:
IMO only major positive point is the new Mohair roof. Everything else on the list is either not expensive to do or will need doing again by now.

Also what's the motive for a full respray? Hiding damage? Seems strange to spend so much getting a car resprayed immediately prior to selling.

Probably won't be a problem yet with it not being in the country for very long, but the sills rust from the inside out due to the way the water drains out of them. If they were rusting before a respray will only hide it for a year, maybe two, then it will rust back through.
 
I don't understand putting a turbo or supercharger on a 1.6, why not get the better engined car and have more power to play with from the off.

What's the point in being cheap only to then spend money boosting the power to the same as a 1.8
 
DrDee said:
I don't understand putting a turbo or supercharger on a 1.6, why not get the better engined car and have more power to play with from the off.

What's the point in being cheap only to then spend money boosting the power to the same as a 1.8
Click to expand...

The standard 1.6 is an excellent engine and leads itself to FI, hell the BBR was taken new and turbo'd. The point of the Mazda, as you are no doubt away, is as a precision instrument, not a bludgeoning tool. 150bhp is plenty for most people. THere were 2 280bhp turbo's at Cadwell and they struggled to get away froma 150bhp NA ddriven properly - the NA could delivery it's power nicely, still handled properly. Yhe turbo's were SO powerful that they simply couldn't put it down. For me, 170-200 seems sensible and that is easily achievable on either the 1600 or the 1800. THe 1.6 seems to lend itself best to the turbo whilst the 1.8 is better with the SC (though it turbo's nicely as well). There is only 15bhp between them pre-1994 anyhow.
 
Matthew.M said:
IMO only major positive point is the new Mohair roof. Everything else on the list is either not expensive to do or will need doing again by now.

Also what's the motive for a full respray? Hiding damage? Seems strange to spend so much getting a car resprayed immediately prior to selling.
Click to expand...

It got vandalised, roof cut and keyed.
 
Kitchster_uk said:
The standard 1.6 is an excellent engine and leads itself to FI, hell the BBR was taken new and turbo'd. The point of the Mazda, as you are no doubt away, is as a precision instrument, not a bludgeoning tool. 150bhp is plenty for most people. THere were 2 280bhp turbo's at Cadwell and they struggled to get away froma 150bhp NA ddriven properly - the NA could delivery it's power nicely, still handled properly. Yhe turbo's were SO powerful that they simply couldn't put it down.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the drivers were at fault there then, I cant see 2 cars, equal in handling and breaking but not in power being as fast as each other, if it is the case, maybe that's why so many people turbo their cars and sell them so quickly afterwards.

Kitchster_uk said:
For me, 170-200 seems sensible and that is easily achievable on either the 1600 or the 1800.
Click to expand...

I agree, I have a feeling all I would want is around 180-200bhp. From nokindideas account and others various mx5's with more than this become, as you put it, a bludgeoning tool which which takes away the whole point of the car.

Kitchster_uk said:
THe 1.6 seems to lend itself best to the turbo whilst the 1.8 is better with the SC (though it turbo's nicely as well). There is only 15bhp between them pre-1994 anyhow.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about all that, if I did I would probably have a turbo or SC already :p
 
I disagree with some of the power comments. The handling doesn't go anywhere it just becomes a precision missile at 240bhp instead :cool:

As for the car for sale, yes it seems a tad overpriced. It's only worth what someone will pay for it, and its been up for sale since Jan which says a lot.

Knock a few hundred off the price and buy it, then sell the seats to me, job done :p
 
aproctor said:
Here is the advert.



I think if i went to his door with £2700 cash he might be tempted, but maybe not. I'm not scared to walk away, it just looks so nice :o
Click to expand...


Missed this comment. From the thread on Nutz and how long the car has been for sale it doesn't look like they're in a hurry to get rid of it so I wouldn't count on that working really...
 
As said, that seems quite dear for a '94 mk1, regardless of the fact it is in good nick. Isn't £3.5-3.8k decent 1.8 mk2 money?
 
Kitchster_uk said:
The standard 1.6 is an excellent engine and leads itself to FI, hell the BBR was taken new and turbo'd. The point of the Mazda, as you are no doubt away, is as a precision instrument, not a bludgeoning tool. 150bhp is plenty for most people. THere were 2 280bhp turbo's at Cadwell and they struggled to get away froma 150bhp NA ddriven properly - the NA could delivery it's power nicely, still handled properly. Yhe turbo's were SO powerful that they simply couldn't put it down. For me, 170-200 seems sensible and that is easily achievable on either the 1600 or the 1800. THe 1.6 seems to lend itself best to the turbo whilst the 1.8 is better with the SC (though it turbo's nicely as well). There is only 15bhp between them pre-1994 anyhow.
Click to expand...

Urm why do you say the 1.6 leads to turbo's any better than the 1.8? The 1.8's spool earlier and get more power for the same boost. Plus the 1.6 has a higher compression ratio than the mk1 1.8 so that would again be better suited for a turbo. The problem you see is poor driving not being able to cope with the power, I really don't see the point going over the 250bhp area, though you do see loads in the 300+bhp area.


aproctor,

I'd budget in £200 for sorting the Bilstein suspension with that car too. Plus it is missing the lovely Recaro seats it came with. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom