Mx5. 2.0 Vs 1.8

[redmonaco]

I've come to the conclusion that I must buy one of these. Performance wise I'm drawn to the 2.0ltr but do remember having a couple of tf's a few years ago and didn't notice much difference between the 135 and 160bhp models.

Should I go for the 2.0 or not I ask? I'll be spending around 6k so should get a MK3 06 model

[Mj2k]

Personally I always go for more power, you can get better mpg by not using all the power available / stretching the engine. No idea if valid these days, but my 1.9 205 gti back in the day was better than the 1.6 gti I had before it from an mpg perspective.

Not sure of the weight difference between the engines on the MX, but having had mk1 and 2 1.8 engines, the fun is at much lower speeds. Got taken out in a mk1 1.8 last week & felt so much fun, glanced at the speedo to see we were doing 60mph - the same feeling in my Z4M takes beyond legal speeds. Seems that 40-50% of maximum velocity is where it starts to feel 'fun' in a non scientific way.

If the 2.0 gives significant torque increase, it will 'feel' faster & more relaxing to drive briskly. My JCW F56 feels faster than my wife's 3.0 E89, but it's at least a second slower to 60 mph - it's about how it gets delivered & feels. Drive them both & see what you think.

[walkerwek1958]

Never driven either, but I`ll echo the comments about 'fun' at lower speeds. These cars (and similar) are all about the sensation of speed rather than going really fast! Some folks will find this hard to grasp, it's so easy to get drawn into belief that more power has to be better. It isn`t what the car does in absolute terms, it's all about the way that it does it.

My advice is to try both, and be honest with yourself about the type of motoring it'll get used for. Remember, you drive in the real world, with all it's limitations, rather than some mythical world that no longer exists (if it ever did).

If I hadn`t opted to go back down the classic car I would probably have looked for an MX5 instead. Makes a lot of sense IMO.

Paul

[Foxy100]

Avoid the Mk2 unless it's had comprehensive and very expensive rust removal. The chassis rails rust from the inside out.

The Mk3 is heavy and again suffers from rust.

The Mk1 is best - it's lightest and purest. If it were me I'd find someone who imports cars (try Autolink), get a top quality 1.6 from Japan (you'd be amazed how clean they are underneath) and get it to someone like Skuzzle, who are just outside Winchester. Fit Meister R adjustable dampers, buy a second hand Mk2 roof and have a new mohair hood with glass rear screen fitted to it (the Mk1 roof can't properly support the glass rear screen, and the glass one is miles better than the plastic Mk1 screen), uprate the brakes to Mk2 spec (or just fit Wilwood brakes) and then have Skuzzle either turbocharge (200bhp+) or add throttlebodies (175bhp), an ME221 ecu and rolling road it to your preference. The Mk1 imports have LSDs, and are usually in miles better condition than UK cars.

[yumma]

I've come to the conclusion that I must buy one of these. Performance wise I'm drawn to the 2.0ltr but do remember having a couple of tf's a few years ago and didn't notice much difference between the 135 and 160bhp models.

Should I go for the 2.0 or not I ask? I'll be spending around 6k so should get a MK3 06 model

If you want to save a few grand I have a superb Mk 2.5 1.8 VT Sport for sale in Sales Corner. It's a 2001 but very low mileage and great condition. I would be biased but the 1.8 is just as sprightly as the 2.0 as when Mazda introduced the Mk3 many said it had grown and put on weight. so the extra bhp 146 v's 158 makes no difference to performance, but for feel and agility the Mk2.5 will feel a little more lithe and responsive; that said any MX5 is a great drivers car. If interested please feel free to contact me.

Cheers

Yumma

[yumma]

http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...ileage-example

[Padders]

Never driven either, but I`ll echo the comments about 'fun' at lower speeds. These cars (and similar) are all about the sensation of speed rather than going really fast! Some folks will find this hard to grasp, it's so easy to get drawn into belief that more power has to be better. It isn`t what the car does in absolute terms, it's all about the way that it does it.

My advice is to try both, and be honest with yourself about the type of motoring it'll get used for. Remember, you drive in the real world, with all it's limitations, rather than some mythical world that no longer exists (if it ever did).

If I hadn`t opted to go back down the classic car I would probably have looked for an MX5 instead. Makes a lot of sense IMO.

Paul

There is a lot of truth in this. I have owned 3 Mk1 MX5s over a period of 25 years or so. The first only mildly messed about, the last a fire breathing 240hp monster with every conceivable mod and while it was a hoot to drive, all of the original purity was lost. It accelerated faster than my mate's M Coupe breadvan incidentally. All are gone now and I have moved on to something allegedly more grown up (but still fun) and built from the ground up for speed so much less compromised. I was going to do it all over, I would have a bog standard unmodified car as something like that is all about the feeling of reaching the car's limits with benign consequences at those limits. If you want a fast car, buy a fast car but if you want fun then a std MX5 or GT86 or similar is hard to beat. Oh and get the 2.0l, you may as well have some power to play with

[samswatch]

I once had to make a similar decision but opted for the smaller engine. While it was sweeter, in the back of my mind I always wanted the larger 1.8. So my advice get the larger one. I remember the 205 fit as well, fantastic cars.

[paulpsz008]

I've had both so can comment at some length, currently have a 1.8L 2010 Anniversary.

2.0L vs 1.8L
The power difference is relatively small & neither is fast so this doesn't really matter too much, however;
2.0L comes with an LSD, 1.8L doesn't and this does make a big impact. The non LSD car seems to turn in sharper (although this could be related to the bigger sport wheels) but I much prefer the 2.0L LSD car as you can drive it through the apex even when not wanting to drift.
Additionally I seem to get marginally better day to day MPG from the 2.0L I assume the extra torque meaning I cruise more rather than pushing the 1.8.

Mk3 vs Mk3.5
If you can please try & find a 59+ mk3.5 model, there are a number of small changes but the suspension revisions in particular are worthwhile.
For £6k this should be doable, I've recently bought my 2010 1.8L with V.low miles for a lot less, although it does need a few parking dents tidying up.

[paulpsz008]

Never driven either...

Let's get this resolved next time I see you. ;-)

[walkerwek1958]

Let's get this resolved next time I see you. ;-)

Thanks Guy.......but I might like it too much

[Maysie]

My wifes 2006 MX5 2.0 Sport will be coming up for sale in a week or so if you are interested.

I am about to get the roof cleaned and re-proofed along with 4 new tyres prior to sale. We have owned it since 2008 and it has been used as a 3rd car, ie used when the weather was nice, so its has only done around 43k miles from memory (it is not here today otherwise I would check).

PM me if you are interested and I will organise some pics over the weekend.

[mjc1216]

I've come to the conclusion that I must buy one of these. Performance wise I'm drawn to the 2.0ltr but do remember having a couple of tf's a few years ago and didn't notice much difference between the 135 and 160bhp models.

Should I go for the 2.0 or not I ask? I'll be spending around 6k so should get a MK3 06 model

Had the same choice when we bought the wifes 2008 MX5 and went for the 2.0ltr as it felt better and the Mk3 is a little over weight.Some have rust problems but not as bad as made out on the forums.

Biggest choice is soft top or folding hard top.

We went for folding hard top and the price you are looking to pay should find a nice one within budget.

[Gyp]

We've got the 2.0 Sport Tech 3.5 hard top.

If I'm brutally honest, the car is at its most enjoyable when you're pottering about with the roof down, not when you're going properly fast.

I've not driven the 1.8, but I'm sure it would be more than adequate, especially if you've not got the weight of the hard top.

A mate has just had a Triumph Herald restored with its mighty 27bhp engine, and that actually makes quite a bit of sense!