2016 Miata - R&T First Drive

[monkeydelmagico]

Despite the many criticisms leveled against the Miata its designers have never strayed from their vision: an accessible, affordable, super-light and simple driver's car that's fun at any speed.

Well spoken, Cheers with the Beers.

Turbo kit in 3....2....1

 

[pauldun170]

Mazda should start publishing stats the way Rolls Royce use to do it
Power: Adequate

For those who demand to know "How fast it is" they should just give them keys and tell them to go find a nice empty twisty road.
"Go find out for yourself"

 

[jagec]

155hp is really really low on the HP/L curve compared to other cars. That's enough reason to think they could do more with it. That's not even throwing in anything expensive. Not like you need an engineering degree to compare it to other engines.

That just leaves plenty of headroom for mods.

A reliable, NOT high-strung engine that makes adequate power in an insanely light vehicle? Sign me up. I LOVED my old MK1 MR2, and that was heavier AND less powerful.

We live in an era of such high-HP cars, that we forget that "it's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than to drive a fast car slow". Not that it will be a slow car by any means. But less focus on straight-line acceleration means more focus on corners, which is where the fun is at!

 

[foghorn67]

A sports car needs to at least match the acceleration performance of grandma's V6 Camry.

 

[JCH13]

A sports car needs to at least match the acceleration performance of grandma's V6 Camry.

 

[Wuzup101]

You're looking at this all wrong.

Maybe I am. But I've only written about my point of view. Obviously you (and others) don't agree and that's fine. I really like the new miata from an aesthetic point of view. I love that they kept the weight down. And I think that they are 90% there. I also expect that the 155/148 number isn't really the final output number and we'll see something better. Quite frankly I don't think that the US spec car will weigh 2200lbs either. Until they publish official weight specs for the 2.0L US spec car we won't know.

First, yes, a 2.0L NA engine can make plenty more than 155hp. Now consider what else has to change to support the extra power: heavier pistons, heavier rods, a heavier crank, a heavier cooling system, a heavier fuel system to maintain range, heavier exhaust system to support the extra flow, heavier transmission to support the higher torque, heavier drive shafts to get that torque to the wheels, heavier hubs, heavier wheels. Now that the whole driveline, engine, fueling, and cooling systems are heavier guess what else needs to be beefed up? The brakes, the crash structures, the suspension springs/dampers/sway bars, etc. It's called weight compounding (or de-compounding if a vehicle is losing weight) and one cannot make a change to a vehicle without considering it.

While the above has some truth to it, you assume that every component of the unreleased car would have to be strengthened to maintain acceptable durability for the end user. There are obviously considerations that need to be made for any increase in power; however, what I've proposed is a relatively modest bump.

It's unlikely that the rotating assembly would need much of any tweaking to produce 175-185hp. Even if it did, the weight gain would be minimal to the car as a whole. Generally the manufacturer builds quite a bit more leeway into their design. That being said, the skyactiv engines are definitely built for efficiency first.

There is no reason to expect any gain in the weight of the fuel system (both tank and delivery) or exhaust system. A slightly higher output engine isn't going to drastically change the range of the car to the point where a bigger fuel tank is warranted. Larger CC injectors and a bigger fuel pump (highly unlikely that they would even be needed) shouldn't have an appreciable difference in weight.

Cooling system might gain a few lbs (read: 5 or so) if they increased the radiator size (which would also increase the coolant volume) slightly. May or may not be needed based on what the existing car has.

It's also unlikely that the driveline would need any significant increase in weight to handle the extra power. I wouldn't expect that there would be much extra torque (if any) on the low end which would be the biggest reason to warrant it (remember we aren't talking about adding a factory turbo here). This isn't a V8 swap, or even a turbo application, it's a case for a slightly higher output N/A motor. Some tweaks needed... yeah sure... but not tons of added weight here.

Brakes... yup... larger brakes would be warranted. Lets say 1lb per corner. This is a small car regardless of power, and on meeh level street tires it probably doesn't need a ton more than slightly larger rotors.

Can't see any reason the crash structure would need to change given that the weight change is next to nothing.

Suspension tweaks would be warranted for the extra power, but contribute virtually no additional weight. Springs of different weights weigh close enough to the same thing. A slightly thicker sway bars might add a pound each front/rear.

One cannot just ignore money - the higher cost will eliminate a large part of this car's market. It will cost a lot more than a 10% bump to the base price to realize a 20% power increase at the same durability and weight.

I'm not ignoring money, but I don't think that a small (even optional) increase in price is going to kill sales (primary because this is a sports car and not something that typically own for their only car).

They already did this once in 2004. The whole assembly (turbo+intercooler+piping+all the additional tweaks that you mentioned) added up to just under 90lbs of additional weight (when comparing the mazda speed verson of the 2004 MX-5 to the equivalent base car). That's saying a lot, because a turbo and intercooler setup alone is a significant portion of that. The cost? under a grand compared to a similarly equipped MX-5 (numbers from the car and driver review). So that is roughly 25% more power for roughly 3.2% moar monies. It also had a >40% take rate.

If they gave us 185 hp (20% more power with basic suspension and brake mods) for 10% moar monies in 2016, every major US magazine, reviewer, and miata owner would be sucking Mazda off so hard it wouldn't even be funny. Can you imagine if they did it for less? FWIW, no one would give a shit if it was 2250lbs instead of 2200lbs.

One cannot just say 'oh, all it needs is a tune' because that is not true - the added stresses on the vehicles sub-systems will remove the durable care-free nature of the Miata, which many people appreciate. Not to mention to inevitable increase in warranty claims.

See above. Also if designed right from the beginning, all engines could utilize a very similar drive line.

It's fine to not like it, plenty of people do, and it's certainly not perfect. The Miata doesn't have a chip on it's shoulder though, only its critics do. With it's (literal and figurative) track record I can't understand how people can say "it needs X" or "it needs Y." What they are REALLY saying is: "I want X and I want Y, why doesn't Mazda tailor their cars to be exactly what I want!?" It's whiny, annoying, and ignorant. If you don't like it, don't buy one. The Miata will continue to be the longest-standing, most prolific roadster ever made in addition to being the most-raced car made by the most-raced brand.

I do like the miata. I'd like to see it be better. No one "needs" a miata. Owning a miata is a "want." If you "need" a car for transportation, get a yaris or something similar. Even more reliable / economical than the miata and like what... 10 grand less?

I (obviously) really like the Miata. This is for one very important reason: it's one of the few cars in the last few decades to be designed by a vision and not by a committee. It does what it does better than any other car ever made. Despite the many criticisms leveled against the Miata its designers have never strayed from their vision: an accessible, affordable, super-light and simple driver's car that's fun at any speed.

Agreed.

 

[XavierMace]

"Need" and "want" are two VERY different things.

Why are all of you internet paper racers focusing on the one performance metric of the Miata that isn't world-class? All you're proving is that you do not understand the design intent nor the purpose of this car. You don't "get" what the Miata is about.

Go ahead, get a car that's 'faster off the line' if that is what will make you happy. It's a depressingly one-dimensional view of a car's qualities. If you actually care about things like suspension balance, steering feedback, braking performance, brake feel, a deliciously rev-happy engine, an incredible transmission, being able to drop the top on a summer day, and doing all of this without breaking the bank, then the Miata might have something to offer.

You're absolutely right, it's a want not a need. But performance is why we wanted a sports care to begin with. No, straight line performance is not the only metric. I think I was pretty clear about what the many pro's are of the BRZ are which I think we would agree are what the Miata is about too. However:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/overview/1303_2013_ford_focus_st_2013_subaru_brz/result.html

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/honda-civic-si-dominates-subaru-brz-in-track-test/

http://www.autoguide.com/car-compar...013-hyundai-genesis-coupe-20t-rspec-2103.html

It's not just slower in a straight line, it's slower around the track too. I know it also got beaten by a MS3 and V6 Mustang. I know this is a thread about the Miata, but they are cut from the same cloth, save the topless part. Don't get me wrong, the handling is amazing on the BRZ as I'm sure it is on the Miata. I understand this. A common comment about the these cars are that they are designed to be driving at 10/10ths all the time. I don't have the track experience like you have but JLee once commented that my normal driving style isn't much different than an autocross. I know that was said as a half joke, but I do drive very "spirited" all the time. I mentioned my IS300 because, while heavier than the BRZ/Miata to be sure, it's still a very light car by most standards and also only has 200hp. No question the BRZ handles far superior to it. MT still chose the BRZ over the Focus in their test despite the Focus being superior in every measurable metric because of the handling. I get that.

But the fact is, it's still slower around the track than a Civic SI as well as a straight line. Most would consider beating a stock Civic around the track as a pretty low bar to set for a sports car but it's one the BRZ can't beat.

Multiple reviews of after market BRZ's show that even at "just" 280hp (bolt on low PSI Supercharger or Turbo setup), it's a drastically different machine. These are running stock guts, save for the forced induction. You would know far better than me how much a small super charger or turbo setup weighs but from what I can tell the Vortech S/C kit for the BRZ weighs about 60lbs with intercooler, piping, etc.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/subaru-brz-litchfield-first-drive-2013-10-16

286hp. Shaved 2 seconds off the 0-60 time with only 86hp. There's multiple US based companies offering similar setups and all show to be 100% reliable. Every review you can find of a "reasonable" boost on the BRZ say it's far more fun to drive. I think most BRZ owners would have happily paid an extra $3k for that. Would you not on the Miata?

Like I said before, I'm not saying it should be a 400hp monster. Everyone says 300hp is more than enough to make it fun. In fact once you get past 400hp most people start saying it's too much (see reviews of Crawford's BRZ). I'm just saying it should be able to take a Civic around the track. Being a great track car is one of the selling points and if at the end of the day, if it can't do that, it's hard to justify picking the BRZ over a cheaper, more fuel efficient, and more practical Civic or Focus.

 

[brainhulk]

You're absolutely right, it's a want not a need. But performance is why we wanted a sports care to begin with. No, straight line performance is not the only metric. I think I was pretty clear about what the many pro's are of the BRZ are which I think we would agree are what the Miata is about too. However:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/overview/1303_2013_ford_focus_st_2013_subaru_brz/result.html

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/honda-civic-si-dominates-subaru-brz-in-track-test/

http://www.autoguide.com/car-compar...013-hyundai-genesis-coupe-20t-rspec-2103.html

It's not just slower in a straight line, it's slower around the track too. I know it also got beaten by a MS3 and V6 Mustang. I know this is a thread about the Miata, but they are cut from the same cloth, save the topless part. Don't get me wrong, the handling is amazing on the BRZ as I'm sure it is on the Miata. I understand this. A common comment about the these cars are that they are designed to be driving at 10/10ths all the time. I don't have the track experience like you have but JLee once commented that my normal driving style isn't much different than an autocross. I know that was said as a half joke, but I do drive very "spirited" all the time. I mentioned my IS300 because, while heavier than the BRZ/Miata to be sure, it's still a very light car by most standards and also only has 200hp. No question the BRZ handles far superior to it. MT still chose the BRZ over the Focus in their test despite the Focus being superior in every measurable metric because of the handling. I get that.

But the fact is, it's still slower around the track than a Civic SI as well as a straight line. Most would consider beating a stock Civic around the track as a pretty low bar to set for a sports car but it's one the BRZ can't beat.

Multiple reviews of after market BRZ's show that even at "just" 280hp (bolt on low PSI Supercharger or Turbo setup), it's a drastically different machine. These are running stock guts, save for the forced induction. You would know far better than me how much a small super charger or turbo setup weighs but from what I can tell the Vortech S/C kit for the BRZ weighs about 60lbs with intercooler, piping, etc.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/subaru-brz-litchfield-first-drive-2013-10-16

286hp. Shaved 2 seconds off the 0-60 time with only 86hp. There's multiple US based companies offering similar setups and all show to be 100% reliable. Every review you can find of a "reasonable" boost on the BRZ say it's far more fun to drive. I think most BRZ owners would have happily paid an extra $3k for that. Would you not on the Miata?

Like I said before, I'm not saying it should be a 400hp monster. Everyone says 300hp is more than enough to make it fun. In fact once you get past 400hp most people start saying it's too much (see reviews of Crawford's BRZ). I'm just saying it should be able to take a Civic around the track. Being a great track car is one of the selling points and if at the end of the day, if it can't do that, it's hard to justify picking the BRZ over a cheaper, more fuel efficient, and more practical Civic or Focus.

do you think you will be faster than jch13 in a miata around a track in a civic? Prob not.

Don't fret over the laptimes someone else got. meaningless in the larger scope and unlikely you will achieve them if you have no experience

 

[XavierMace]

Oh, I'm absolutely sure he would destroy me on the track regardless of the cars. If I even managed to stay on the track long enough to finish a lap.

But it is not meaningless in the larger scope. With the same driver behind the wheel of both cars, the BRZ has lost every race it's been in. It's a "sports car built for the track" that can't even beat a Civic around the track.

Up until it died, my only complaint about the car is I wished it had more power. The midrange power drop is quite noticable in the car. Again, this is coming from an IS300 which I don't think anybody would consider a fast car.

Let me put it this way to jch13 and the other Miata guys. If everything else on the car was left exactly as is, they just increased the power of the Miata (or BRZ in my case) by 70-90hp (either N/A tune or small turbo, whichever makes more sense for that specific engine) at the cost of 60lbs of engine weight, are you saying you wouldn't do it?

 

[brainhulk]

Oh, I'm absolutely sure he would destroy me on the track regardless of the cars. If I even managed to stay on the track long enough to finish a lap.

But it is not meaningless in the larger scope. With the same driver behind the wheel of both cars, the BRZ has lost every race it's been in. It's a "sports car built for the track" that can't even beat a Civic around the track.

Up until it died, my only complaint about the car is I wished it had more power. The midrange power drop is quite noticable in the car. Again, this is coming from an IS300 which I don't think anybody would consider a fast car.

Let me put it this way to jch13 and the other Miata guys. If everything else on the car was left exactly as is, they just increased the power of the Miata (or BRZ in my case) by 70-90hp (either N/A tune or small turbo, whichever makes more sense for that specific engine) at the cost of 60lbs of engine weight, are you saying you wouldn't do it?

Wait, so you're admitting you don't know how to drive a car around the track but splitting hairs over someone else's lap time? What the hell for? So you can brag to your friends that oooh this car can do blah blah blah lap time with someone else driving? lol dont be that guy

 

[thedarkwolf]

Well I've had a 94 turbo miata and have a 95 non-turbo miata. My turbo put down 160hp at the wheels and yes it was fun but I don't really miss it. Maybe it is just because I'm older but 95% of the time the extra HP didn't matter. What I really like about the miata is the feel, you know the steering the size the shifting how tight everything feels whatever you want to call it. They just really feel like a driver's car compared to everything else I've ever owned. I'm actually swapping the drivetrain out of my wrecked turbo 94 to my 95 and have taken off the turbo stuff and returned it to stock partially because some of the system is wrecked and also because a turbo throws you into a crazy class at autox events that I can't hope to compete in. Now if somebody could wave a magic wand and give me an extra 70hp of coarse I would take it but I'd also take it for my daily driver station wagon, my old minivan, my old mustang, my current lawnmower.....

 

[XavierMace]

Wait, so you're admitting you don't know how to drive a car around the track but splitting hairs over someone else's lap time? What the hell for? So you can brag to your friends that oooh this car can do blah blah blah lap time with someone else driving? lol dont be that guy

No, I'm saying the car is slower than I would like, regardless of how it's being used. jch13 said it's not a straight line car, which is fair, but I pointed out it's slow on the track too.

I don't know why some people get so defensive about the subject. You see it on the BRZ forums and I'm sure you see it on the Miata forums as well. If you're happy with the power output of the car (do you even own either of these cars?), great. But some people would prefer their sports car to have enough power to take pass a Civic. I'm not sure why you guys have a problem with that. At no point have I accused either the Miata or BRZ of being bad cars.

 

[XavierMace]

Now if somebody could wave a magic wand and give me an extra 70hp of coarse I would

And that's the point. Is the Miata (or BRZ in my case) still enjoyable to drive at the power level it was sold at? Absolutely. But another 70hp would have made it even better.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Yeah but like I said I'd take the HP bump any pretty much every car. I haven't owned any super crazy 400+HP machine though. Fastest car I've owned was an 89 5.0l mustang with all the standard mods and I sold that for the miatas and wouldn't trade back. The miatas are much better all around cars.

 

[XavierMace]

Does the fact that you'd like more power on all your cars make the statement that these cars would be better with more power wrong?

I said almost said every single post the handling of BRZ was fantastic. I never regretted trading my IS300 in on it. But saying there's something I wish they would have done different on the car doesn't mean I regret having the car. If you went out right now and bought a brand new Miata, can you truthfully say there is absolutely nothing you would want changed on the car?

 

[jlee]

And that's the point. Is the Miata (or BRZ in my case) still enjoyable to drive at the power level it was sold at? Absolutely. But another 70hp would have made it even better.

You could've knocked ~17% off your 0-60 time by getting a real transmission. :awe:

 

[JCH13]

Maybe I am. But I've only written about my point of view. Obviously you (and others) don't agree and that's fine. I really like the new miata from an aesthetic point of view. I love that they kept the weight down. And I think that they are 90% there. I also expect that the 155/148 number isn't really the final output number and we'll see something better. Quite frankly I don't think that the US spec car will weigh 2200lbs either. Until they publish official weight specs for the 2.0L US spec car we won't know.



While the above has some truth to it, you assume that every component of the unreleased car would have to be strengthened to maintain acceptable durability for the end user. There are obviously considerations that need to be made for any increase in power; however, what I've proposed is a relatively modest bump.

It's unlikely that the rotating assembly would need much of any tweaking to produce 175-185hp. Even if it did, the weight gain would be minimal to the car as a whole. Generally the manufacturer builds quite a bit more leeway into their design. That being said, the skyactiv engines are definitely built for efficiency first.

There is no reason to expect any gain in the weight of the fuel system (both tank and delivery) or exhaust system. A slightly higher output engine isn't going to drastically change the range of the car to the point where a bigger fuel tank is warranted. Larger CC injectors and a bigger fuel pump (highly unlikely that they would even be needed) shouldn't have an appreciable difference in weight.

Cooling system might gain a few lbs (read: 5 or so) if they increased the radiator size (which would also increase the coolant volume) slightly. May or may not be needed based on what the existing car has.

It's also unlikely that the driveline would need any significant increase in weight to handle the extra power. I wouldn't expect that there would be much extra torque (if any) on the low end which would be the biggest reason to warrant it (remember we aren't talking about adding a factory turbo here). This isn't a V8 swap, or even a turbo application, it's a case for a slightly higher output N/A motor. Some tweaks needed... yeah sure... but not tons of added weight here.

Brakes... yup... larger brakes would be warranted. Lets say 1lb per corner. This is a small car regardless of power, and on meeh level street tires it probably doesn't need a ton more than slightly larger rotors.

Can't see any reason the crash structure would need to change given that the weight change is next to nothing.

Suspension tweaks would be warranted for the extra power, but contribute virtually no additional weight. Springs of different weights weigh close enough to the same thing. A slightly thicker sway bars might add a pound each front/rear.



I'm not ignoring money, but I don't think that a small (even optional) increase in price is going to kill sales (primary because this is a sports car and not something that typically own for their only car).

They already did this once in 2004. The whole assembly (turbo+intercooler+piping+all the additional tweaks that you mentioned) added up to just under 90lbs of additional weight (when comparing the mazda speed verson of the 2004 MX-5 to the equivalent base car). That's saying a lot, because a turbo and intercooler setup alone is a significant portion of that. The cost? under a grand compared to a similarly equipped MX-5 (numbers from the car and driver review). So that is roughly 25% more power for roughly 3.2% moar monies. It also had a >40% take rate.

If they gave us 185 hp (20% more power with basic suspension and brake mods) for 10% moar monies in 2016, every major US magazine, reviewer, and miata owner would be sucking Mazda off so hard it wouldn't even be funny. Can you imagine if they did it for less? FWIW, no one would give a shit if it was 2250lbs instead of 2200lbs.



See above. Also if designed right from the beginning, all engines could utilize a very similar drive line.



I do like the miata. I'd like to see it be better. No one "needs" a miata. Owning a miata is a "want." If you "need" a car for transportation, get a yaris or something similar. Even more reliable / economical than the miata and like what... 10 grand less?



Agreed.

You're making a LOT of bold assumptions with no background to judge the effects of those assumptions. I'll give you mine - mechanical engineer with experience designing cars and automotive components, currently my largest project is developing a flexible mass de-compounding model for various vehicles. What you must understand is that adding (or subtracting) a pound from a vehicle turns into 1-5lbs extra that is gained or lost. Those 4lbs per wheel for brakes? Suddenly that's 20lbs throughout the vehicle. 2lbs in the rotating assembly? That's 10lbs in the whole vehicle. Etc. You make it sound as if Mazda could just 'turn up the dial' on engine power when that is simply not that case and is a very ignorant point of view.

The MSM is a good example of adding a bit of power to a Miata from the factory. Also, it's a fair assumption that Mazda lost money, or made very little money, on the MSM. Furthermore, the BP-4W engine used in the MSM was based on the BP family, which is based on the B6T engine, and was basically already 'built' to handle the extra power from a turbocharger (closed deck, iron block, extra cooling channel room, etc). The BP-4W was also a considerably less-sophisticated (and thus cheaper) engine than the BP-Z3 available in the non-MSMs. The BP-Z3 had VVT, VTCS, and a few other enhancements over the BP engine family, representing a significant design evolution, rather than just a tweak. Do you think that the modern Miata engine has that sort of overhead built into it? More to the point, the MSM was known to be slightly less reliable than the typical NB Miata. Not overly so, but noticeably.

My whole point here is that you shouldn't assume that you know better than the people who made the car, and it certainly seems that you *think* you know better. You also make bold assumptions about what would happen if it had more power... the Miata's record of being the longest-running, most-prolific roadster says that Mazda really understands their target market for this car. What makes you think that you know better than them? You can't make the statements you have been without some serious credentials or research to back it up.

 

[JCH13]

You're absolutely right, it's a want not a need. But performance is why we wanted a sports care to begin with. No, straight line performance is not the only metric. I think I was pretty clear about what the many pro's are of the BRZ are which I think we would agree are what the Miata is about too. However:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/overview/1303_2013_ford_focus_st_2013_subaru_brz/result.html

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/honda-civic-si-dominates-subaru-brz-in-track-test/

http://www.autoguide.com/car-compar...013-hyundai-genesis-coupe-20t-rspec-2103.html

It's not just slower in a straight line, it's slower around the track too. I know it also got beaten by a MS3 and V6 Mustang. I know this is a thread about the Miata, but they are cut from the same cloth, save the topless part. Don't get me wrong, the handling is amazing on the BRZ as I'm sure it is on the Miata. I understand this. A common comment about the these cars are that they are designed to be driving at 10/10ths all the time. I don't have the track experience like you have but JLee once commented that my normal driving style isn't much different than an autocross. I know that was said as a half joke, but I do drive very "spirited" all the time. I mentioned my IS300 because, while heavier than the BRZ/Miata to be sure, it's still a very light car by most standards and also only has 200hp. No question the BRZ handles far superior to it. MT still chose the BRZ over the Focus in their test despite the Focus being superior in every measurable metric because of the handling. I get that.

But the fact is, it's still slower around the track than a Civic SI as well as a straight line. Most would consider beating a stock Civic around the track as a pretty low bar to set for a sports car but it's one the BRZ can't beat.

Multiple reviews of after market BRZ's show that even at "just" 280hp (bolt on low PSI Supercharger or Turbo setup), it's a drastically different machine. These are running stock guts, save for the forced induction. You would know far better than me how much a small super charger or turbo setup weighs but from what I can tell the Vortech S/C kit for the BRZ weighs about 60lbs with intercooler, piping, etc.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/subaru-brz-litchfield-first-drive-2013-10-16

286hp. Shaved 2 seconds off the 0-60 time with only 86hp. There's multiple US based companies offering similar setups and all show to be 100% reliable. Every review you can find of a "reasonable" boost on the BRZ say it's far more fun to drive. I think most BRZ owners would have happily paid an extra $3k for that. Would you not on the Miata?

Like I said before, I'm not saying it should be a 400hp monster. Everyone says 300hp is more than enough to make it fun. In fact once you get past 400hp most people start saying it's too much (see reviews of Crawford's BRZ). I'm just saying it should be able to take a Civic around the track. Being a great track car is one of the selling points and if at the end of the day, if it can't do that, it's hard to justify picking the BRZ over a cheaper, more fuel efficient, and more practical Civic or Focus.

This is 100% pure bullshit. You cannot add more parts and systems to a vehicle, without any other changes, and achieve the same reliability. That's not how it works. These turbo systems add multiple new points of failure as well as shortening the life of every component in the engine. There are real metallurgical reasons for this, namely that aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit (look it up on wiki).

About the lap times... gotta go with BrainHulk on that. Don't be that guy. How many people actually take their cars to the track? 1%? Fewer? Does it really matter what the car turns on a track? No, it really doesn't matter for an overwhelming majority of people.

A relatively small, but very vocal group of reviewers think that every car would be more fun with more power. What does the market say? FRS and BRZ sales seem to be doing just fine, and the Miata will continue to march on as it has since 1990. You are free to draw your own conclusions, but I prefer to look at what a majority of people say with their wallets instead of a handful of loudmouths with you-tube channels.

 

[Midwayman]

A relatively small, but very vocal group of reviewers think that every car would be more fun with more power. What does the market say? FRS and BRZ sales seem to be doing just fine, and the Miata will continue to march on as it has since 1990. You are free to draw your own conclusions, but I prefer to look at what a majority of people say with their wallets instead of a handful of loudmouths with you-tube channels.

That's not the right question. Its not if its doing 'fine'. It's if it could be doing better with more power. I know if the BRZ had even been 250ish hp I would have seriously considered it for example. Earlier in the thread some said that the MSM had a 40% take rate. That's huge.

 

[pauldun170]

This is 100% pure bullshit. You cannot add more parts and systems to a vehicle, without any other changes, and achieve the same reliability. That's not how it works. These turbo systems add multiple new points of failure as well as shortening the life of every component in the engine. There are real metallurgical reasons for this, namely that aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit (look it up on wiki).

About the lap times... gotta go with BrainHulk on that. Don't be that guy. How many people actually take their cars to the track? 1%? Fewer? Does it really matter what the car turns on a track? No, it really doesn't matter for an overwhelming majority of people.

A relatively small, but very vocal group of reviewers think that every car would be more fun with more power. What does the market say? FRS and BRZ sales seem to be doing just fine, and the Miata will continue to march on as it has since 1990. You are free to draw your own conclusions, but I prefer to look at what a majority of people say with their wallets instead of a handful of loudmouths with you-tube channels.

Its easy to get caught up in stat wars.
Fortunately, Mazda has kept it simple.

Don't forget, add power, add weight....add cost.

 

[JCH13]

That's not the right question. Its not if its doing 'fine'. It's if it could be doing better with more power. I know if the BRZ had even been 250ish hp I would have seriously considered it for example. Earlier in the thread some said that the MSM had a 40% take rate. That's huge.

BRZ/FRS aside, the Miata is still (and I'll say it again) the longest-running, most-prolific roadster of all time. It's the most successful roadster, ever. A considerable step above 'fine.'

It's nice that you would have 'seriously considered' buying one, but you are not the majority purchaser of cars in the US (I don't think, anyway...) other people are. And they have different priorities than young male car enthusiasts. You can make all of the suppositions that you want, the average age of a Miata buyer is something like 60. Older people, with more disposable income, looking to relive the British roadsters of their youth. I'd love to hear an argument for how more power will sell Miatas to 60+y/os or how the average 20-30 y/o people have the disposable income for a toy car when something like 30% of these people still live at home and a majority are under-employed.

The market is more than just you or me. (This statement applies to everyone in this thread, since I don't know of any Miata-owning 60+y/os who have chimed in.)

The MSM has 178hp, about 36hp more than the normally aspirated version. Around a 30% bump at the expense of some reliability, cost, and fuel economy. It did this with an older-tech engine that was ostensibly 'boost ready' given it's roots. This is also with lower crash and emissions requirements. The MSM cannot be held as an example of what Mazda 'should' do with the ND because it was a very different circumstance. Even then, the MSM managed 'only' 6.7s 0-60. Many here would consider that paltry. FWIW the MSM would cost $32k in today's dollars, and is slower to 60 than the naturally aspirated NC and the projections for the naturally aspirated ND. It also weighed around 2,550lbs.

So, yeah, the ND is likely faster, lighter, more fuel-efficient, and less expensive that Miata's of old, including the MSM.

More philosophically, consider the other implications of a higher-powered car, beyond weight. The extra horse-torques will require the designers to change the suspension to a more under-steer-biased balance to keep people from killing themselves, removing the fun slightly tail-happy-ness of the Miata under neutral throttle. Electronic aids will have to be more intrusive and more dramatic, taking away from the 'telepathic' feeling that many Miata owners love. The larger tires needed to put the extra power down will remove the semi-slippery feeling that makes the Miata so much fun.

It comes down to the somewhat trite and over-used saying: "more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow." It's true in so many ways, unless you're hunting for that 'pressed into the seat' feeling, which the average Miata buyer is NOT looking for.

 

[Midwayman]

BRZ/FRS aside, the Miata is still (and I'll say it again) the longest-running, most-prolific roadster of all time. It's the most successful roadster, ever. A considerable step above 'fine.'

It's nice that you would have 'seriously considered' buying one, but you are not the majority purchaser of cars in the US (I don't think, anyway...) other people are. And they have different priorities than young male car enthusiasts. You can make all of the suppositions that you want, the average age of a Miata buyer is something like 60. Older people, with more disposable income, looking to relive the British roadsters of their youth. I'd love to hear an argument for how more power will sell Miatas to 60+y/os or how the average 20-30 y/o people have the disposable income for a toy car when something like 30% of these people still live at home and a majority are under-employed.

The market is more than just you or me. (This statement applies to everyone in this thread, since I don't know of any Miata-owning 60+y/os who have chimed in.)

The MSM has 178hp, about 36hp more than the normally aspirated version. Around a 30% bump at the expense of some reliability, cost, and fuel economy. It did this with an older-tech engine that was ostensibly 'boost ready' given it's roots. This is also with lower crash and emissions requirements. The MSM cannot be held as an example of what Mazda 'should' do with the ND because it was a very different circumstance. Even then, the MSM managed 'only' 6.7s 0-60. Many here would consider that paltry. FWIW the MSM would cost $32k in today's dollars, and is slower to 60 than the naturally aspirated NC and the projections for the naturally aspirated ND. It also weighed around 2,550lbs.

So, yeah, the ND is likely faster, lighter, more fuel-efficient, and less expensive that Miata's of old, including the MSM.

More philosophically, consider the other implications of a higher-powered car, beyond weight. The extra horse-torques will require the designers to change the suspension to a more under-steer-biased balance to keep people from killing themselves, removing the fun slightly tail-happy-ness of the Miata under neutral throttle. Electronic aids will have to be more intrusive and more dramatic, taking away from the 'telepathic' feeling that many Miata owners love. The larger tires needed to put the extra power down will remove the semi-slippery feeling that makes the Miata so much fun.

It comes down to the somewhat trite and over-used saying: "more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow." It's true in so many ways, unless you're hunting for that 'pressed into the seat' feeling, which the average Miata buyer is NOT looking for.

That's a really long way of ignoring the fact that when more power was offered, a ton of Miata buyers took them up on it. Not maybe buyers. Not people out of the demographic or whatever excuse you want to come up with to discount other people's opinions. Actual buyers. Whatever problems and extra cost you want to attribute to the MSM, a ton of people thought it was worth it

 

[pauldun170]

That's a really long way of ignoring the fact that when more power was offered, a ton of Miata buyers took them up on it. Not maybe buyers. Not people out of the demographic or whatever excuse you want to come up with to discount other people's opinions. Actual buyers. Whatever problems and extra cost you want to attribute to the MSM, a ton of people thought it was worth it

Sales by year
http://www.miata.net/faq/production/MazdaMX-5_AnnualSalesNAmerica_MY1990-2006.pdf


89(90) - 1.6L OBD-1 B6-ZE 116 HP
1994- 1.8L OBD-1 (1840 cc’s) BP-ZE 128 HP
1996 - 1.8L OBD-2 133 HP
1999 -1.8L OBD-2 140 HP (Redesign, old pop up light version replaced by new)
2001 - 1.8L OBD-2 142 HP
2004 - MazdaSpeed 180HP
2006 - 2.0 Liter 170HP (redesign)

Seems to me the number speak more to styling changes then power. That holds true for any car on the market.
Introduce "New version" and see a spike in number then it settles back down.

 

[Wuzup101]

You're making a LOT of bold assumptions with no background to judge the effects of those assumptions. I'll give you mine - mechanical engineer with experience designing cars and automotive components, currently my largest project is developing a flexible mass de-compounding model for various vehicles. What you must understand is that adding (or subtracting) a pound from a vehicle turns into 1-5lbs extra that is gained or lost. Those 4lbs per wheel for brakes? Suddenly that's 20lbs throughout the vehicle. 2lbs in the rotating assembly? That's 10lbs in the whole vehicle. Etc. You make it sound as if Mazda could just 'turn up the dial' on engine power when that is simply not that case and is a very ignorant point of view.

While I don't work in the automotive industry, I have enough of an engineering background to understand vehicle lightweighting / decompounding. That being said, I do not profess to be an expert on the subject. Most of the literature that I've read puts the compounding coefficient for secondary weight savings at around 1 (i.e. for every 1 pound of primary weight reduction an additional 1 pound is saved from secondary weight reduction. I'd love to do some reading if you have anything available (as this is actually a very interesting area). I do have 2 observations about the above comments:

1. You seem to be overplaying the significance of decompounding a bit when talking about small additions of weight. The point of decompounding is that if you reduce a pound of mass from the car you also can reduce the mass of several other systems. If you reduce the weight of the engine (or another subsystem), you also reduce the weight of the structure, transmission, braking system, wheels/tires, etc... (i.e. the other subsystems) If that is the case, and based on my very limited knowledge and reading, your estimates above are not close to empirically collected data regarding what a small increase in engine weight would require. Based on decompounding alone, I could add 10lbs to the mass of the engine and only expect the car to gain an additional 10 pounds (those 10 pounds being the needed increases to the structure, transmission, braking system, wheels/tires, etc...).

2. I would challenge anyone here that believes that a 1 pound reduction in weight is going to get you another 5 pounds in secondary weight savings. That might be true under the best circumstances for a few specific areas of a car with an unlimited budget, and and unlimited time frame re-engineering. That's equivalent to saying that removing the ~60lb passenger seat in my corvette would mean that the car could be engineered to be 60+(5*60) = 360lbs lighter.

The MSM is a good example of adding a bit of power to a Miata from the factory. Also, it's a fair assumption that Mazda lost money, or made very little money, on the MSM. Furthermore, the BP-4W engine used in the MSM was based on the BP family, which is based on the B6T engine, and was basically already 'built' to handle the extra power from a turbocharger (closed deck, iron block, extra cooling channel room, etc). The BP-4W was also a considerably less-sophisticated (and thus cheaper) engine than the BP-Z3 available in the non-MSMs. The BP-Z3 had VVT, VTCS, and a few other enhancements over the BP engine family, representing a significant design evolution, rather than just a tweak. Do you think that the modern Miata engine has that sort of overhead built into it? More to the point, the MSM was known to be slightly less reliable than the typical NB Miata. Not overly so, but noticeably.

It's not a fair assumption that Mazda lost money on the MSM but it is a good assumption that they had smaller margins. They bundled additional (lux) options in with the MSM to help. Rarely do car manufacturers lose money on a vehicle. It's not like no one bought it.

And yes, I do believe there is more headroom in the current skyactive G engine which has pretty much been exclusively designed / tuned for fuel economy. I could be wrong, but we'll see what they end up putting out in 2016, down the road, and what the tuning community gets out of them. 155hp isn't remarkable for the engine tech that is in that engine. I'd obviously expect additional power to come at the expense of reduced fuel economy.

My whole point here is that you shouldn't assume that you know better than the people who made the car, and it certainly seems that you *think* you know better. You also make bold assumptions about what would happen if it had more power... the Miata's record of being the longest-running, most-prolific roadster says that Mazda really understands their target market for this car. What makes you think that you know better than them? You can't make the statements you have been without some serious credentials or research to back it up.

Serious credentials for what? Thinking the car would be more fun with a bit more power. I don't need any credentials for that, it's just an opinion. It's an opinion that's expressed VERY often when talking about the miata (which makes me believe that it may sell better if it had more power).

Also "longest-running" means dick when you hang your hat on what you did 30 years ago. The Miata now has some competition again with the BRZ (and you could argue a slew of other fun to drive cars in there around the 30k price point too). I'm glad they are continuing to make the Miata, and I want to see it last. With sales in the 6000/year range in the US, I don't know how long it will last. The unfortunate thing about marketing your car to 60 year-olds is eventually they are too old to drive / pass on. The new 60 year-olds don't want to drive a new / old British roadster because they didn't have those childhood memories of them. Corvette has this problem too (and are actively trying to bring in a younger demographic).

As added motivation, If people don't buy them now, what will people make cheap race cars out of in 10 years?

 

[JCH13]

That's a really long way of ignoring the fact that when more power was offered, a ton of Miata buyers took them up on it. Not maybe buyers. Not people out of the demographic or whatever excuse you want to come up with to discount other people's opinions. Actual buyers. Whatever problems and extra cost you want to attribute to the MSM, a ton of people thought it was worth it

I'm not discounting anyone's opinions. I'm saying that you need to consider what the market wants vs what you want. Did I ever say I don't want a higher-powered Miata? Of course I would, that's why I have a turbo Miata. What I do understand and appreciate is that I am in the minority on that. It's very easy to forget that the small (and it is quite small) group of enthusiasts in a place like ATG isn't the whole auto market. ATG is full of people with very, very fast cars, and many people here forget that the rest of the country doesn't have the same hunger for horse-ponies.

About 5400 MSMs were ever made. Yes, they were desired, but out of the 1M or so Miatas ever made they were a VERY small fraction. I would argue that the reason some, or many, of these cars sold wasn't the extra power, but the limited-edition appeal as well as the stunning colors offered only on the MSM.

While I don't work in the automotive industry, I have enough of an engineering background to understand vehicle lightweighting / decompounding. That being said, I do not profess to be an expert on the subject. Most of the literature that I've read puts the compounding coefficient for secondary weight savings at around 1 (i.e. for every 1 pound of primary weight reduction an additional 1 pound is saved from secondary weight reduction. I'd love to do some reading if you have anything available (as this is actually a very interesting area). I do have 2 observations about the above comments:

1. You seem to be overplaying the significance of decompounding a bit when talking about small additions of weight. The point of decompounding is that if you reduce a pound of mass from the car you also can reduce the mass of several other systems. If you reduce the weight of the engine (or another subsystem), you also reduce the weight of the structure, transmission, braking system, wheels/tires, etc... (i.e. the other subsystems) If that is the case, and based on my very limited knowledge and reading, your estimates above are not close to empirically collected data regarding what a small increase in engine weight would require. Based on decompounding alone, I could add 10lbs to the mass of the engine and only expect the car to gain an additional 10 pounds (those 10 pounds being the needed increases to the structure, transmission, braking system, wheels/tires, etc...).

2. I would challenge anyone here that believes that a 1 pound reduction in weight is going to get you another 5 pounds in secondary weight savings. That might be true under the best circumstances for a few specific areas of a car with an unlimited budget, and and unlimited time frame re-engineering. That's equivalent to saying that removing the ~60lb passenger seat in my corvette would mean that the car could be engineered to be 60+(5*60) = 360lbs lighter.



It's not a fair assumption that Mazda lost money on the MSM but it is a good assumption that they had smaller margins. They bundled additional (lux) options in with the MSM to help. Rarely do car manufacturers lose money on a vehicle. It's not like no one bought it.

And yes, I do believe there is more headroom in the current skyactive G engine which has pretty much been exclusively designed / tuned for fuel economy. I could be wrong, but we'll see what they end up putting out in 2016, down the road, and what the tuning community gets out of them. 155hp isn't remarkable for the engine tech that is in that engine. I'd obviously expect additional power to come at the expense of reduced fuel economy.



Serious credentials for what? Thinking the car would be more fun with a bit more power. I don't need any credentials for that, it's just an opinion. It's an opinion that's expressed VERY often when talking about the miata (which makes me believe that it may sell better if it had more power).

Also "longest-running" means dick when you hang your hat on what you did 30 years ago. The Miata now has some competition again with the BRZ (and you could argue a slew of other fun to drive cars in there around the 30k price point too). I'm glad they are continuing to make the Miata, and I want to see it last. With sales in the 6000/year range in the US, I don't know how long it will last. The unfortunate thing about marketing your car to 60 year-olds is eventually they are too old to drive / pass on. The new 60 year-olds don't want to drive a new / old British roadster because they didn't have those childhood memories of them. Corvette has this problem too (and are actively trying to bring in a younger demographic).

As added motivation, If people don't buy them now, what will people make cheap race cars out of in 10 years?

You bring up some valid points.

A 100% total de-compounding coefficient is typical of most sprung masses. Note that I referenced rotating and rotating + unsprung masses, which have a larger effect than other masses. I picked these systems as a dramatic example of my point. I also made the implicit assumption that performance was at least maintained, if not improved, as that was the context of the discussion.

To your point (2) mass de-compounding can only be brought to full effect at the start of a design process. As the vehicle progresses through its development cycle the ability to change the mass is reduced. It is generally assumed that one is talking about the very start of the development cycle when talking about mass de-compounding.

Again, I'm not saying anyone isn't entitled to their opinion. I'm sure that some people would find a higher-powered Miata more fun. What I am really frustrated with is people always saying "the Miata needs to have more power" when there is a long history of success without it and without consideration for the numerous side-effects of adding more power. The Miata has so many stellar qualities that are dismissed in the light of acceleration performance that isn't absurd.

I agree that the Miata will need to appeal to the younger generation, which is why it's styling has gotten more aggressive and it's performance numbers have improved. But soon the 60 y/os won't be buying Miatas to relive old British roadsters, they'll be buying them to relive the NA Miatas of their 20-something years. It worked for the Mustang, right? :awe:

Another thing that irks me about all of these 'desired changes' to the Miata is that they just turn the Miata into another car on the market. I want a coupe Miata! That's an FRS. I want more power! That's a 370Z. The way I see it the Miata has a unique combination of attributes that, if changed, would turn it into some other car already in the market, which I don't think would be a great call.

Edit: this is one of the few non-proprietary papers on mass de-compounding: http://msl.mit.edu/theses/Bjelkengren_C-thesis.pdf it is an interesting approach, but has some flaws.