soulcrew

is it the photo or is the whole front end and the wings one peice.or the lights and stuff are in the front bumper[nice and cheap if one has a slight bump].

GaryM

The new MX-5 will be using the same 2 litre engine that a lot of self-build Caterham owners are getting excited about. It may come with only 160bhp stock, but looking at a couple of threads on Blatchat, 240+bhp has already been reached.

Here

and the 2.3 litre here.

240bhp in a car that weighs a couple of hundred kilos less than an S2000?

soulcrew

ford engine!!!


mind u tho butt,who will buy an mx5 to mod it??

Putney

they are well underpowered! why not put the rx7 180 bhp or the 230 bhp engines in?

billy_i_vtec

RX8 you mean mate?!

190 or 230 bhp.

call me "mr anal"

alex.stanley

hello, mr anal

euphoria

160bhp from a 2.0 is not underpowered it's pretty much average. People seem to forgot that getting 237bhp and 9000rpm outta the S's 2.0 is an astonishing achievment.

Nick Graves

Actually, the new M-B S-Class also has those wheelarches.

I assume that all the designers were at the same year at Spotty Twat Design School. Me-too is the new individualism, or something.

Ford engine & Sierra Mk I headlights, apparently.

(Actually, I think Mazda designed the lump for Ford. The latter couldn't design an engine if their business depended on it.)

dws2000

I think many of you are missing the point of the MX5. You have to look at it in context and what it's purpose in the market is. Without it, it is unlikely that the roadster revolution would have started - the S2000 may never have been so it does owe something to the MX5. Yes the car is a bit girlie, but if you have ever driven one they are a lot of fun and highly controlable rear wheel drive with a good balance of low power and medium traction for handling fun. It is not designed to compete with the S. I predict it will still remain the number 1 selling roadster in the world and desevedly so.
I look at them fondly as it was my stepping stone into RWD roadsters with many happy motoring memories in it and led me to progress to the S.

MarkB

If all you look at is the headline power then you just don't 'get' the MX-5 and probably never will.

It's about handling, not roadholding, not speed through corners, not lap times, not 'losing Porsches on the twisties'.....Handling. The MX-5 is one of the sweetest handling cars I've ever driven, it's specifically made to be fun to drive, communicative and easy on the limit. Mazda deliberately don't over engineer any part of it, it has modest power, forgiving but controllable suspension and chassis and the most communicative steering I've ever come across in a Japanese car.

Doing the track day last Friday reminded me that the S is only truly great fun on a track, I spent all day going sideways because it's the only place you can get up a decent speed and do the 'sideways thing' with any kind of gusto. You simply can't do it responsibly on the road, there isn't the room and there's too much chance of having a high speed mishap. I miss my ex's MX-5 precisely because it was less capable than the S2000 and therefore more fun on the road, it was fun at legal speeds, the S2000 just copes too well.

As for the styling, the angle doesn't do the car justice, the other pictures I've seen don't look as bad as that one. I do think though that the original design hasn't been bettered.
I actually used to live next door to one of the designers (I met his mum a couple of months ago and she told me he was the lead designer on the MX-5 replacement) - he was always drawing cars with big wheel arches as a kid (mainly Escort Mk I's) which might explain this design a little.