Mazda MX5 MK1 1.6 Automatic - opinions/experiences, please?

mattbill · 4 Apr 2013 at 13:29

Cheers for the opinions guys.

Morba said:
You really need to try one to decide for yourself as most fans/owners of mx5s buy them for fun so their default position on the auto will be bad.

It might well be bad, but then if you aren't thinking of the car as a b road warrior you will have a different expectation.

Alternatives would be an MGF / MGTF (I'd choose a TF myself)

A test drive would be ideal really, but unfortunately not having much luck in finding someone local enough.

It's more of a car to be easy in traffic, and occasional fun. Definitely not looking for a b road warrior.

-westy- · 4 Apr 2013 at 14:47

First of all, I still don't get why people are calling the 1.6 or 1.8 MX5 "gutless" when they're not. Granted they're not exactly the first word in performance motoring, but they're not exactly slow either, are they? If we look at straight line performance, then they're not exactly bad. My last MX5 I timed at 8.1 seconds to 60 with a passenger, which is quicker than the vast majority of "run of the mill" stuff these days (1.6 Focus for example), remembering of course that this is a 20 year old car we're talking about.

Clarkey said:
The manual is thirsty and slow enough, auto will be diabolical.

Not sure where you get the "thirsty" from, I get 30mpg from mine :confused:

paradigm said:
An e36 isn't expensive to run (from experience).

Granted I've never driven the 1.6 Auto MX5, but I have driven a 1.6 manual, and a 1.8 manual, as well as having driven a nasty 4-speed automatic in a different car.

I certainly wouldn't want that box attached to either MX5, least of all the already gutless 1.6.

I've driven the 1.6 Auto a fair bit; whilst it takes away the fun of having a manual car, the gearbox itself is far from "nasty", it's a normal torque converter auto, the same sort of gearbox as would be in an E36 unless I'm mistaken?

mattbill said:
Thanks for the opinion on the engine... surely the 116bhp in a mk1 should be quite good fun considering the thing is light/rwd?

Ah, I didn't realise it was a gear lockout (no experience with autoboxes). Cheers for that, paradigm!

Shame I can't find one local to have a test drive of!

As far as I'm aware, all the auto MX5s were imports, and had 105bhp, as opposed to 115bhp for the 1.6 before August 1994, (88bhp thereafter, which I'll admit is woeful), and 128bhp for the 1.8.

I've driven both manuals and automatics - whilst I'd choose the manual every time, if you just want to go from A-B with no fuss, then they're ideal - you can chuck them around a bit as well

With regards to running costs, my MX5 has been faultless in the year that I've owned this one. The only things I've needed to replace are a pair of track rod ends and a couple of upper balljoint dust boots for the MOT, that's it. They're very reliable

mattbill · 4 Apr 2013 at 15:13

^^ Thanks very much for that dude! Just the sort of thing I was looking for... some helpful advice regarding these. Much appreciated!

Didn't know that the automatics were 105bhp though, so that's a bit of a let down. It's going to be mainly used for driving to work and a bit of fun on the odd occasion too. So auto sounds like it might be ideal!

Glad to hear they're good and reliable motors too. Thanks again

-westy- · 4 Apr 2013 at 16:04

mattbill said:
^^ Thanks very much for that dude! Just the sort of thing I was looking for... some helpful advice regarding these. Much appreciated!

Didn't know that the automatics were 105bhp though, so that's a bit of a let down. It's going to be mainly used for driving to work and a bit of fun on the odd occasion too. So auto sounds like it might be ideal!

Glad to hear they're good and reliable motors too. Thanks again

No problem

Don't be put off by the power level, you need to drive one to see what they're like - they're certainly capable enough for daily duties

Clarkey · 4 Apr 2013 at 16:41

8.1 is wishful thinking. I've dragged against shoes 1.8 in my 328 (book of 7.1) and drove cleanly away from it, no comparison at all.

They are thirsty, 30mpg is rubbish when I'm getting the same from a much heavier and more powerful car. My colts were comparable to mx5 and they did 40mpg all day long.

-westy- · 4 Apr 2013 at 20:36

Clarkey said:
8.1 is wishful thinking. I've dragged against shoes 1.8 in my 328 (book of 7.1) and drove cleanly away from it, no comparison at all.

They are thirsty, 30mpg is rubbish when I'm getting the same from a much heavier and more powerful car. My colts were comparable to mx5 and they did 40mpg all day long.

8.1 is measured using the appropriate timing equipment. Of course you'd out-drag an MX5 in your 328, for a start you've got a lot more torque.

With regards to the fuel consumption, you do realise that more power would negate the extra weight? For a small car with quite a poor drag coefficient and short gearing, 30mpg isn't bad - bearing in mind that that's mostly town use and hacking around the back lanes of Dartmoor. I'm sure on a run it can be easily bettered.

rodenal · 4 Apr 2013 at 20:49

My experience of the mx5 is that it barely bursts 30mpg on a run, no idea how you're getting that pottering about.

It also absolutely is slow, with the manual that just doesn't matter but the auto will be terrible for pressing on. I would be absolutely amazed if this wasn't the case. 4 speed autos are archaic and just do not suit a low powered car.

Maybe if you'd never driven anything remotely quick or a manual roadster it'd be acceptable.

This isn't an "I hare the mx5" - I don't (though much prefer the mr2) but this just sounds like a car with all the drawbacks of the normal mx5 and next to none of its redeeming qualities.

-westy- · 4 Apr 2013 at 20:54

rodenal said:
My experience of the mx5 is that it barely bursts 30mpg on a run, no idea how you're getting that pottering about.

It also absolutely is slow, with the manual that just doesn't matter but the auto will be terrible for pressing in. I would be absolutely amazed if this wasn't the case.

Maybe if you'd never driven anything remotely quick or a manual roadster it'd be acceptable

To be honest I was surprised, my last one struggled to get 25mpg, but my current one (which is an import, granted, so may be the difference here...) achieves it quite easily - that's brim to brim, so the proper way of calculating it.

As I said, they're not the fastest thing on the road, but far from the slowest. I've driven plenty of quick stuff before (although admittedly not owned), so I do have an idea of relative speed. I still maintain that for the money, the MX5 gives the best bang for buck with regards to speed, handling and fun.

Obviously if my budget for a car was larger (I'm still a student), and I still wanted a convertible, I'd be after something like an S2000.

Gribs · 4 Apr 2013 at 20:58

Clarkey said:
Slushbox + fun = unpossible.

Nah, you just need a lot more power than a wheezy 1.6 can provide

As for 1.6 auto mx5's I've been in one a friend had as a hack and future parts donor and it wasn't at all quick, then again all stock mx5's aren't exactly fast.

Clarkey · 4 Apr 2013 at 21:10

Gribs said:
Nah, you just need a lot more power than a wheezy 1.6 can provide

Meh, I've got one with plenty of horsepower, that isn't exactly a bag of laughs either. DCT is the only acceptable compromise for me.

Howard · 4 Apr 2013 at 21:58

Clarkey said:
8.1 is wishful thinking. I've dragged against shoes 1.8 in my 328 (book of 7.1) and drove cleanly away from it, no comparison at all.

They are thirsty, 30mpg is rubbish when I'm getting the same from a much heavier and more powerful car. My colts were comparable to mx5 and they did 40mpg all day long.

It isn't wishful thinking, I measured 8.2 (with proper accelerometer) in mine with a fairly average start off the line. They're not "fast" but they aren't totally gutless.

Horse Pop · 4 Apr 2013 at 22:22

A tiny engine with a torque converter auto. Sounds fun. Definitely what you want in a sports car :S

What about a Lexus of some description?

-westy- · 4 Apr 2013 at 22:29

Howard said:
It isn't wishful thinking, I measured 8.2 (with proper accelerometer) in mine with a fairly average start off the line. They're not "fast" but they aren't totally gutless.

That was the same device which measured the time in mine, unless I'm mistaken?

Horse Pop said:
A tiny engine with a torque converter auto. Sounds fun. Definitely what you want in a sports car :S

What about a Lexus of some description?

Lol.

Vigoro · 4 Apr 2013 at 22:30

rodenal said:
My experience of the mx5 is that it barely bursts 30mpg on a run, no idea how you're getting that pottering about.

Sounds like it was broken!

thecremeegg · 5 Apr 2013 at 09:01

Vigoro said:
Sounds like it was broken!

Sounds about right tbh, especially if you stray over 70 and 4000rpm - economy plummets!

OpenToSuggestions · 5 Apr 2013 at 17:09

The manual 5 speed gearbox in the MK1 is nice to use imo and is a key part of what makes the car fun.
I cannot imagine a 20 year old 4 speed auto being anything other than thirsty and slow.
Also if you get the 1.6 make sure it is 1993 or older it will be a weedy 90hp instead of 115hp.

Or tell your girlfriend to take a proper test and drive a normal car (unless for medical reasons of course!).

I would say that my mk1 is good fun, but I do think it is only just fast enough and a crap autobox would really ruin a lot of what the car is all about.