3k MX-5. Advise me!

So, I was hammered upon discussing DB9s. So, let's just draw a line under that. I won't be spending more than 5k on a car, so that obviously rules them out. Drunk posting is bad. I'm a GD poster, so some silliness was to be expected. But I've got that out of my system.

My friend is suggesting a S2000 but the insurance is madness. Why are they so high? I think the only viable alternative is the MR2 and I wasn't that taken by them - I much prefer how the MX5 looks.
 
Last edited:
On an MX-5? :confused:

You end up with exactly the same boot space as if you didn't have the hard top fitted... The hood does not intrude into the boot no matter what position it is in, there is a metal skin between the parcel shelf carpet and the boot void.
 
hurfdurf said:
Sounds to me like buthurt 1.6 owners trying to justify their poor choice.

I have never heard any one say a 1.6 is more reliable than the 1.8, or vice versa. I have heard 1.6 owners claiming the power doesn't matter because of the weight saving (there is barely any weight saving and the power difference is very noticeable in such an underpowered car) I have heard 1.6 owners say their engines are better for FI (again complete rubbish) and I have heard 1.6 owners say that they prefer their cars because they rev easier, none of these things have held true.

Get a 1.8s or if you can find one, a mk2.5 1.8 with all the gubbins.
Click to expand...

This is rubbish - I have driven both on road and back to back on track.

The early 1.6's are 115bhp, there is NO noticable difference in acceleration between a 115bhp 1.6 and a 1.8 (130bhp) - this is from driving both and dragging them side by side.

The 1.8 is better for trackdays, it has addition under body bracing and larger brakes, all of this combined with the fact that the 1.8 engine is heavier than the 1.6 probably explains why they are equally matched in a straight line.

The whole "1.6 revs better" is true too, the 1.6 accoustically sounds much happer at 7k than the 1.8, the 1.8 power band is also bias lower down the rev range, so you naturally dont rev it as much.
 
I thought the 1.8 is 143BHP for the newer ones, and the 1.6 108BHP of the same age making it a second slower to 60.
 
I have a 1.8 Mk2.5 in blue that looks to be exactly the same spec as the one linked in the OP. Its a fantastic motor. Depressingly I paid a good 2k more than that about 6 months ago but it was from a main dealer and had done half the mileage along with 12 months MOT / Tax / Warranty etc so I suppose its not all bad :P

It's a cracking car and looking back I wouldnt pick any spec but the 1.8 sport. The heated leather seats are lovely if you want to have the top down when its cold out. The 6 speed gear box is a joy and makes me think I'm handling a bolt action rifle with every gear change. I have to admit though, its not a hugely quick car (though it does feel fast when your pressing on due to being so invovled in the drive) so I wouldnt step down to the 1.6 myself as its a fair bit slower.

In the 6 or so months I've had mine the only problems I've had was one of the rear drain holes clogging up, which was easily solved with a long thin screwdriver, and the switch in the drivers side door for the interior light conking out. This was solved simply by removing the switch and reattaching the cable where it had worked loose at the back. Other than that it hasn't given me any problems in the time I've owned it.

To give you a true idea of MPG this is how I'm getting on at the minute http://www.fuelly.com/driver/binnsy/mx5-miata, its worth noting that the bulk of my driving is short trips to work and back. My current tank is going to be more around the 32MPG at a rough guess on a tank that has been split evenly between short trips, and a 120 mile cruise at 60ish. I imagine 35MPG would just about be doable on a long run.
 
Peter Diffey said:
This is rubbish - I have driven both on road and back to back on track.

The early 1.6's are 115bhp, there is NO noticable difference in acceleration between a 115bhp 1.6 and a 1.8 (130bhp) - this is from driving both and dragging them side by side.

The 1.8 is better for trackdays, it has addition under body bracing and larger brakes, all of this combined with the fact that the 1.8 engine is heavier than the 1.6 probably explains why they are equally matched in a straight line.

The whole "1.6 revs better" is true too, the 1.6 accoustically sounds much happer at 7k than the 1.8, the 1.8 power band is also bias lower down the rev range, so you naturally dont rev it as much.
Click to expand...

This isn't a hugely fair comparison though. You have picked the highest power 1.6 and the lowest power 1.8 Most of the 1.8s are 140 or 146 bhp, and lots of the 1.6s are only 110 or even as low as 90. If your going to take the 115bhp 1.6 its really only fair to compare it to the 140bhp 1.8.
 
DRZ said:
On an MX-5? :confused:

You end up with exactly the same boot space as if you didn't have the hard top fitted... The hood does not intrude into the boot no matter what position it is in, there is a metal skin between the parcel shelf carpet and the boot void.
Click to expand...

Oh right, gotcha! Not many hard tops around, but they are really so much nicer looking.


BinnsY said:
I have a 1.8 Mk2.5 in blue that looks to be exactly the same spec as the one linked in the OP. Its a fantastic motor. Depressingly I paid a good 2k more than that about 6 months ago but it was from a main dealer and had done half the mileage along with 12 months MOT / Tax / Warranty etc so I suppose its not all bad :P

It's a cracking car and looking back I wouldnt pick any spec but the 1.8 sport. The heated leather seats are lovely if you want to have the top down when its cold out. The 6 speed gear box is a joy and makes me think I'm handling a bolt action rifle with every gear change. I have to admit though, its not a hugely quick car (though it does feel fast when your pressing on due to being so invovled in the drive) so I wouldnt step down to the 1.6 myself as its a fair bit slower.

In the 6 or so months I've had mine the only problems I've had was one of the rear drain holes clogging up, which was easily solved with a long thin screwdriver, and the switch in the drivers side door for the interior light conking out. This was solved simply by removing the switch and reattaching the cable where it had worked loose at the back. Other than that it hasn't given me any problems in the time I've owned it.

To give you a true idea of MPG this is how I'm getting on at the minute http://www.fuelly.com/driver/binnsy/mx5-miata, its worth noting that the bulk of my driving is short trips to work and back. My current tank is going to be more around the 32MPG at a rough guess on a tank that has been split evenly between short trips, and a 120 mile cruise at 60ish. I imagine 35MPG would just about be doable on a long run.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that, lots to think about. I haven't found one I like the look of more than the one I posted in the OP so it's a shame I haven't got the cash right now. Economy is a concern, but not overly so because it won't get driven that far really. There's an alright looking one near my girlfriends house so might take a top over and check it out over the week. Obviously, I know nothing really about them apart from their reputation so I think it's best to get down to a dealer and have a wee poke about one.
 
Last edited:
Peter Diffey said:
This is rubbish - I have driven both on road and back to back on track.

The early 1.6's are 115bhp, there is NO noticable difference in acceleration between a 115bhp 1.6 and a 1.8 (130bhp) - this is from driving both and dragging them side by side.
Click to expand...

You said this, and then this

Peter Diffey said:
the 1.8 power band is also bias lower down the rev range, so you naturally dont rev it as much.
Click to expand...

In the same post.

Are you a butthurt 1.6 driver?

Peter Diffey said:
The whole "1.6 revs better" is true too, the 1.6 accoustically sounds much happer at 7k than the 1.8, the 1.8 power band is also bias lower down the rev range, so you naturally dont rev it as much.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean? The 1.8 sounds bad acoustically at high revs and also is faster lower down the rev range? What?
 
I have a 1.8 with VVT it just goes and goes. Very free reving and sound happy as larry at 7200RPM, Max power is 146BHP @ 7000RPM I belive?

The only 1.6 I have driven was a MK1 which I was suprised how quick it felt, but I like the V-Tec/VVT driving style and being used to it I prefer the higher reving engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom