Early Miata review in
#11
Registered User
Originally Posted by RainMeister,Jun 27 2005, 09:42 AM
Is the reason you wouldn't own one because of others' warped perceptions about the Miata's owner base? If so, that is sad. Miatas are among the most common cars at track events that I often frequent, and one would not be describing their drivers as effeminate. I love my S2K, but my track Miata is hard to beat for entertainment value.
#13
Registered User
Originally Posted by RainMeister,Jun 27 2005, 09:33 AM
The new Miata (actually no longer called that) does look very promising. Closer in philosophy to the original, which I prefer and own to the second gen. I almost held out for the new third gen before getting my S2K. The difference in power and quality swayed me towards the S2K. Here's another write-up by a miata.net moderator: Review.
#14
Thanks for the link. It looks like Mazda will have another winner with this new roadster. I'm looking forward to seeing one in person and driving one eventually. I'm also looking forward to the comparisons vs. the Sky/Solstice.
#16
"but the jokes and comments from surrounding folks never stopped"
I'm not sure what type of folks you run with, but in the time I've owned my miata I've never heard any of these sorts of comments.
I'm not sure what type of folks you run with, but in the time I've owned my miata I've never heard any of these sorts of comments.
#17
Registered User
Originally Posted by BrendenCO,Jun 27 2005, 12:41 PM
The name hasn't changed as far as I can tell.
#18
Registered User
Originally Posted by steven975,Jun 27 2005, 06:42 AM
isn't the miata like 3-400 pounds lighter than the solstice/sky with almost identical power?
Yes plus the Miata has a good/great track record. Sounds like MX5 is beating GM to the market.
Well I hope they're both great cars. But if I had to bet on one being great and one being bad I'd bet on the MX5 being great.
#20
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 2,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, really impressed with the weight figure (if it's true)........
the hardest thing to believe about that article is this figure
Fuel economy (EPA city/hwy): 18/25 mpg (est.)
i hope these estimates are way off ????? unless im missing something and there's a rotary under there
the hardest thing to believe about that article is this figure
Fuel economy (EPA city/hwy): 18/25 mpg (est.)
i hope these estimates are way off ????? unless im missing something and there's a rotary under there