Knurled wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: To get a 1.5, you'll have to move out of the US - then the Mazdaspeed discount may not apply. You will have to settle for the 2.0 that's got the Miata internet weenies all waving their digital pitchforks and torches.Er, no thanks then. The 2.0 isn't a very fun powerplant. Score another one for "Americans are fat and stupid so let's give them fat and stupid engines."
You're a lucky guy, I don't think anyone else has driven the 2.0 MX-5 yet.
Feedyurhed wrote:BoxheadTim wrote: So how much would S-Plan pricing save on a current MX5? Just wondering if it's worth buying a Mazda and Auto-Xing it so I can get a Mazdaspeed membership.For the record, when I bought my 08 Miata I couldn't find one Mazda dealership that would honor the Mazdaspeed Motorsports membership. When I called Mazdaspeed I was told that it's up to the individual dealership if they choose to honor it or not. Geeeez, so what do you think a dealership is going to do? Attempt to make more money or get less money? So even though it's listed as a membership benefit it didn't work for me.I think in general the discount is roughly $1500-$2000. It approximately pays for the tax on the vehicle, in most states anyway. Now that was my experience 7 years ago so it could all be different now.
FWIW, The dealers I visited in San Diego, the SF Bay Area and before that in NY honored the S Plan pricing.
S Plan historically has not been all that great. It's typically invoice pricing which is about a grand or so off. I've had it open to me for years through my employer.
Typically they don't honor it for brand new releases but it's the dealers choice. I know the Austin dealers always are one of the first to honor it.
Well, a grand off is nothing to be sneered at. We're Costco members, too, so I guess when the time comes I'll check out that pricing, too.
That screen still haunts me but everything else is working.
Keith Tanner wrote: To get a 1.5, you'll have to move out of the US - then the Mazdaspeed discount may not apply. You will have to settle for the 2.0 that's got the Miata internet weenies all waving their digital pitchforks and torches.
Can you explain this for those of us who don't delve into miata-d . net or other troll holes? What don't they like about the 2.0 Duratec?
Also I see C&D are still saying there is a Fiat version coming. Thoughts on that? I thought the Fiat/Alfa version was dodo dead.
So do we have any news about a dealer available hard top?
mazdeuce wrote: So do we have any news about a dealer available hard top?
If you mean a coupe then I bet you one million internet points there won't be one. But that's OK as any one who wants a non open Miata is simply wrong
Adrian_Thompson wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: To get a 1.5, you'll have to move out of the US - then the Mazdaspeed discount may not apply. You will have to settle for the 2.0 that's got the Miata internet weenies all waving their digital pitchforks and torches.Can you explain this for those of us who don't delve into miata-d . net or other troll holes? What don't they like about the 2.0 Duratec?
It's the 2.0 Skyactiv, and it's the 155 hp headline figure that has everyone's panties all bunched up. Because that's less than the 178 rated hp of the NC, which means the world has ended. A Miata without a turbo and without a high horsepower number, it's just unheard of. Seriously, the reaction has been comically over the top. You'd swear Mazda was offering to club a baby seal for every Miata sold.
As for the Fiat deal, I'll believe it when I see it. The news outlets have discovered that the Miata faithful will go berserk for any stories about their car - truthful or otherwise - so it's hard to tell the difference between speculation, wishful thinking, official info and outright fabrication.
No news from a source I would trust about a hardtop, power or otherwise. But there has been a bolt-on hardtop available for every Miata model in the past 25 years, and the power hardtop was such a sales success that I would expect it to reappear as well.
I was referring to a bolt on one. As much as I'm wishing for a proper coupe, I'm not holding my breath. A factory hard top is required for SCCA rallycross among other things.
Keith Tanner wrote:Knurled wrote:You're a lucky guy, I don't think anyone else has driven the 2.0 MX-5 yet.Keith Tanner wrote: To get a 1.5, you'll have to move out of the US - then the Mazdaspeed discount may not apply. You will have to settle for the 2.0 that's got the Miata internet weenies all waving their digital pitchforks and torches.Er, no thanks then. The 2.0 isn't a very fun powerplant. Score another one for "Americans are fat and stupid so let's give them fat and stupid engines."
I've driven 2-liter 3s, and the engine can be described as uninspiring.
Imagine if the original Miata came with an F2. Yeah, the horsepower is similar, but the 1.6 was a way more fun engine to drive.
I don't care about the actual output. Heck it can be 90hp for all I care. If the engine is a happy little thing that goads me on to rev and make little blippy noises all the time, I'm good to go. A lazy, midrangey slugmotor is not a happy feeling engine even if the numbers are good on paper. People don't drive numbers, people drive cars.
Well hopefully this 2.0 is more performance tuned and oriented. I mean car companies reuse the same engines all the time, but make small changes that end up making huge differences in how they behave (see Nissan). Hopefully its something like that.
Its ironic. People just love to complain. I mean the biggest gripe people have about the Miata is the fact that it has no power. Now they offer two different engines. The 1.5 makes, what, 130HP? The 2.0 makes 150+? So when people have the opportunity to choose more power, they complain again.
I dunno, I'm reserving judgement until I actually drive one.
Me too.
Almost every Miata engine has been a modified version of an engine found in a different car. Honestly, it would be hard to come up with a less inspiring engine than a stock MZR (Duratec) 2.0, even the high compression version found only in the Miata. I'm hoping the 2.0 Skyactiv has some nice character - although with less power and more torque than the MZR, it's more likely to be tuned to be grunty instead of a screamer.
Miata people say they want more power, but when I talk to them on the phone, they always talk about "low end power" - aka torque.
Keith Tanner wrote: Me too. Almost every Miata engine has been a modified version of an engine found in a different car. Honestly, it would be hard to come up with a less inspiring engine than a stock MZR (Duratec) 2.0, even the high compression version found only in the Miata. I'm hoping the 2.0 Skyactiv has some nice character - although with less power and more torque than the MZR, it's more likely to be tuned to be grunty instead of a screamer. Miata people say they want more power, but when I talk to them on the phone, they always talk about "low end power" - aka torque.
One of the most critical components of any product development is known as "Voice of customer". Figuring out what your customer "Wants" versus "Needs" versus what they "Think they want" or "Think they need", is a tough job. "Few people want to buy a drill and half inch drill-bit. What they NEED is a half inch hole." (Note that this crowd would be the Exception to this rule, and hence the reason why car companies don't pay a lot of attention to us)
One of the dangers is that you can lose the thread as the product matures, think you have the voice of customer dialed in from past experience and end up building monuments to the engineering/styling team.Let's hope Mazda did their homework.
NOHOME wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: Me too. Almost every Miata engine has been a modified version of an engine found in a different car. Honestly, it would be hard to come up with a less inspiring engine than a stock MZR (Duratec) 2.0, even the high compression version found only in the Miata. I'm hoping the 2.0 Skyactiv has some nice character - although with less power and more torque than the MZR, it's more likely to be tuned to be grunty instead of a screamer. Miata people say they want more power, but when I talk to them on the phone, they always talk about "low end power" - aka torque.One of the most critical components of any product development is known as "Voice of customer". Figuring out what your customer "Wants" versus "Needs" versus what they "Think they want" or "Think they need", is a tough job. "Few people want to buy a drill and half inch drill-bit. What they NEED is a half inch hole." (Note that this crowd would be the Exception to this rule, and hence the reason why car companies don't pay a lot of attention to us) One of the dangers is that you can lose the thread as the product matures, think you have the voice of customer dialed in from past experience and end up building monuments to the engineering/styling team.Let's hope Mazda did their homework.
The last piece is you can develop a product that nobody currently thinks they want or need, yet you know they will want and need them in the future. Ala iPod, iPhone.
That one is hardest, but also includes not listening to consumers, even educated ones that "know" what they want. Real audiophiles at the time would've told Jobs to build a CD walkman that holds 150 CDs at a time and has at least 100 seconds of 'skip protection'. Jobs read between the lines and delivered something that met the requirements in a different way.
Hard to tell why a company 'isn't listening to consumers' when it appears not to be.
Knurled wrote: People don't drive horsepower, people drive torque.
FTFY. I understand what you're saying you want, but that probably leaves you in the one of the smallest minorities of their target market. On the street, the vast majority of people drive and want (whether they know it or not) low end torque/power. That is what gives the feeling of immediacy, powerful character, and street performance that sells people on cars...Even the classically sporty ones. For example, a TDI Golf put a bigger grin on my face than any 4 banger I've driven in recent memory. The strongly torque biased Sonic 1.4T was right up there too. Note too that the Ecoboost family of engines in the sporty enthusiast biased Mustang and Focus/Fiesta ST are all heavily torque biased with modest redlines as well, while getting almost unanimous rave reviews across the board from both the press and enthusiast drivers alike directly because of it...Even though they could have gotten quite a bit more advertised power, faster maximum performance, and a revvier character from raising the redline and biasing them more towards the top end.
I'm guessing that the engine itself is going to be virtually unmodified for character (or anything else) from the Mazda 3, since they're advertising it with exactly the same hp as in the 3. Thus the character will probably come mostly from intake/exhaust sound tuning, since that can't come directly from the 3 anyways, and maybe a lighter stock flywheel. Beyond that, the reduction in weight it has to lug around will provide the remaining additional feeling of character...Hopefully that ends up being enough. I have my reservations too, but will withhold judgement until after driving one.
I enjoyed the 2.0 skyactive in the 2014 Mazda 3 I drove. Made nice noises for a 4 banger and wound out to redline willingly. The only thing holding it back is gearing. That will be fixed in the miata and it will feel a lot more peppy and fun.
Knurled wrote: People don't drive horsepower, people drive torque.
Gotta disagree here; it's really not that cut and dry or else we'd all be driving tractors. For example, my parents Nissan Leaf makes over 200 ft-lbs of torque but only about 100 horsepower. Look at that dyno plot - no gasoline engine could match that lump of low-end torque and the super-wide peak power band. Should make for a really enjoyable motor then, right?
Not really. The instant torque does feel 'perky' from rest and while accelerating up to about 40 mph... but I don't often stay below 40 mph. 0-60 takes an easy 10 seconds and acceleration at typical highway speeds is noticeably slow. The powerplant makes for a very practical appliance, but a ten year old Golf with similar power but a bit over half the torque is more enjoyable to drive.
Torque is great, power is awesome, but it is the way both are delivered that really shapes the driving experience.
In reply to nderwater:
I agree with you. I have a TDI. Yes, the low end torque is fun for the occasional situation when I want to row through all 5 gears without touching the go-pedal. But at the end of the day, the engine puts out 90 hp (and that was over 300K miles ago...) and 90 hp feels like what you would expect in a car weighing over 3000 lbs. It's slow as ballz.
hp is still what accelerates your car, not torque. The fact that your car might make more HP at lower RPM might make it feel differently, but lets remember that it's still the HP number doing its job.
example: I can use a 10 foot bar to develop 2000 ft-lbs of torque (at maybe a 1/2 HP? I am a human, not a horse, after all), but me and that 10 foot bar are not getting anything down the 1/4 mile in anything less than about 65 seconds. A 10 ft-lbs, 5 HP minibike would get me down the 1/4 much quicker, even if the minibike has only a 3500 RPM redline, and the engine feel 'torquey'.
I swear this would make much more sense to everyone if we all just stopped showing the torque curve on "dyno" plots. It might matter to an engine builder or something looking for a specific dip caused by something specific, but it terms of moving the car, torque is just confusing the matter.
rcutclif wrote:NOHOME wrote:The last piece is you can develop a product that nobody currently thinks they want or need, yet you know they will want and need them in the future. Ala iPod, iPhone. That one is hardest, but also includes not listening to consumers, even educated ones that "know" what they want. Real audiophiles at the time would've told Jobs to build a CD walkman that holds 150 CDs at a time and has at least 100 seconds of 'skip protection'. Jobs read between the lines and delivered something that met the requirements in a different way. Hard to tell why a company 'isn't listening to consumers' when it appears not to be.Keith Tanner wrote: Me too. Almost every Miata engine has been a modified version of an engine found in a different car. Honestly, it would be hard to come up with a less inspiring engine than a stock MZR (Duratec) 2.0, even the high compression version found only in the Miata. I'm hoping the 2.0 Skyactiv has some nice character - although with less power and more torque than the MZR, it's more likely to be tuned to be grunty instead of a screamer. Miata people say they want more power, but when I talk to them on the phone, they always talk about "low end power" - aka torque.One of the most critical components of any product development is known as "Voice of customer". Figuring out what your customer "Wants" versus "Needs" versus what they "Think they want" or "Think they need", is a tough job. "Few people want to buy a drill and half inch drill-bit. What they NEED is a half inch hole." (Note that this crowd would be the Exception to this rule, and hence the reason why car companies don't pay a lot of attention to us) One of the dangers is that you can lose the thread as the product matures, think you have the voice of customer dialed in from past experience and end up building monuments to the engineering/styling team.Let's hope Mazda did their homework.
What apple did was drill down to what the customer needed; They did not need a new technology or a better disc player, what they needed was music delivered with as little effort as possible. There was absolutely nothing novel about the ipod.
Driven5 wrote:Knurled wrote: People don't drive horsepower, people drive torque.FTFY. I understand what you're saying you want, but that probably leaves you in the one of the smallest minorities of their target market.
I can condense the base want in a short, simple sentence:
I want the car to make me smile and/or giggle.
There. That's it. Everything else is just mechanics.
Slow-revving engines don't make me smile. They make me depressed. I like Toyota's metric for developing the 4AGE: Engine must rev from zero to redine in a second.
In reply to Knurled:
That's what lightweight flywheels are for. Also, horsepower is calculated by multiplying the RPM at a given point by the torque being made at that same point, then dividing by 5252. So you see, torque plays a big factor in how much power an engine makes anyways. However, its the engines with higher RPMs that tend to make more power, rather than the engines with lower RPMs yet more ft/lbs of torque. At least thats how I understand it.
So I guess the trick is to find a happy medium. Something that makes decent torque, while still being able to spin at a high rpm.
Knurled wrote: I want the car to make me smile and/or giggle.
giggle like a hairdresser?
Maybe this is where the styling comes from.
/bad, played-out, probably-wasn't-funny-the-first-time, miata jokes
Desmond wrote: Something that makes decent torque, while still being able to spin at a high rpm.
Or you can just say 'horsepower'. Like you said, torque * RPM/5252 = horsepower, why bog ourselves down in all that math?
Torque and horsepower directly relate to each other at a fixed RPM, so in the context of engines, torque and horsepower are like saying the same word in two different languages. There is no reason to say hello and hola to everyone you meet.
I use horsepower because it is less math. I use hello because for me it is less translation.
I do not say things like "horsepower sells cars but torque wins races" because they are as silly as saying "hello gets you an introduction but hola gets you a date".
You'll need to log in to post.
