Danger to wallet - Miata ND content

In reply to Driven5: Flat torque curves these days are really easy- we've got a bunch of products that are like a utterly flat from 1500-5500rpm.

But what you are describing is not that, nor is the torque curve that smooth- it climbs and falls which, as Knurled points out, makes it seem as the car is interacting more with you.

Here's one other thing that new cars have problems with- almost all ETC systems are torque based- so given a pedal, you will get torque, regardless of rpm. Whereas that's not even close to that for a cable throttle.

Back in 94, I was on the very early ETC programs, and we were working on a few ideas- what was really freaky was a power based demand, that one took a little getting used to. But even back then, we could have the engine deliver very flat torque, so it was very smooth.

Still, what you describe you want isn't a flat or even terribly smooth torque curve. More rising up to a peak, and the peak power is just beyond that, both dropping off sharp after that.

Not sure how Mazda would program in.

IIRC my Volvo's peak torque is given as a range across 3000+rpm. So were VW 1.8ts, which were available in 150, 170, 180, and 220hp versions. The lower the peak HP, the broader the torque peak. Playing with boost and throttle position and everything else to make the engine seamless? Absolutely! The high power model had a bigger turbo/twin intercoolers but I'm pretty sure that the other three were the same except in software. It's not that the engine made a flat torque curve, it's that the peak was shaved flat. Less shaving = more peaky.

Then they made the 1.8t the base engine in the A4, and the upmarket engine was the naturally aspirated V6, which had barely any more power but it was an engaging engine. It definitely came alive in the upper ranges, felt rather like an E30 325i.

I'm pretty sure all other turbo VWAG products were similarly, deliberately flat in torque curve.

Restricted turbomotors are "flat HP curve" engines... power is limited by airflow so peak torque is whenever the turbo can spool up hard enough to hit the airflow limit, used to be around 40psi boost before the current boost limits. Then the torque falls off as the RPM climbs, since HP is staying constant due to the restrictor. So you have 320hp from ~3000 on up. At one point Citroen decided, well if it makes this much power everywhere, we only need four gears in the transmission...

alfadriver wrote: Still, what you describe you want isn't a flat or even terribly smooth torque curve. More rising up to a peak, and the peak power is just beyond that, both dropping off sharp after that.

I suppose if one were to take my comments outside of their intended context, and maybe throw in a few assumptions for good measure, they might be able to find a way to reach that conclusion...But what would be the point in doing so?

In reply to Driven5:

You want a power/torque curve that you can feel, right (not that is actually fast)? You posted that quite a while ago.

How would you propose doing that, then?

Seems very contradictory to say you want smooth torque delivery, but you want to notice it, and it's in the context of feel over speed.

If what I am posting is out of you intention- then explain yourself better, as I surely don't get it.

Then again, in reference to this thread, are you planning on getting a new Miata?

Not to divert from current discussion but I've never realized how much of a bitch fit people were having with the power until I went on bookface and holy hell!!!

I mean power can always be made, ask Keith. But down 10ish hp and the world is melting? People are insane...

In reply to JtspellS:

For most miata.net'ers, if the car was lighter, faster, felt better, and everything an NA 1.6 is over an NB and especially an NC, they would still complain about it on paper.

The Miata is one car that's not about numbers or reading, and especially not bench racing- it's about driving. Some net'ers know that, but most are the typical car people.

Sorta like some threads here..

I'll take down 10hp and down 250 pounds any day of the week over +10hp and +250pounds, especially in a Miata. The 2.5L SkyActiv in my 6 has really loosened up and gotten fun to drive after 16k miles, I imagine the 2.0 will be similar. I test drove a 3 with the 2.0 and 5spd before I bought my 6 and it wasn't bad at all. Imagining that motor in a car 500 pounds lighter and RWD without a roof is pretty dang nice place to spend the day imo.

I'll be honest, the club edition with black mirrors and the aero bits is dead sexy. How wide are the stock wheels?

alfadriver wrote: If what I am posting is out of you intention- then explain yourself better, as I surely don't get it.

In a double blind sports car test, with two otherwise identical cars, would most drivers on the street typically enjoy the experience of the one that feels faster on the street or the one that they don't yet know is actually faster at the track? Would the car with a bit more low-mid range or a bit more mid-high range typically feel faster on the street to most drivers? Does increasing torque, flat torque, or decreasing torque provide a more intense feeling of acceleration? Thus from a street driving experience perspective, would it not make sense for sporty car to still have the engine tuned for a torque curve that is as strong as reasonably possible on the low end, but that also leaves some room for it to rise through the mid range, at the sacrifice of tapering off a little more than might otherwise be possible on the top end? Do any of these statements necessarily imply anything regarding the ultimate degree of smoothness and linearity?

Driven5 wrote: Thus from a street driving experience perspective, would it not make sense for sporty car to still have the engine tuned for a torque curve that is as strong as reasonably possible on the low end, but that also leaves room for it to rise through the mid range, at the sacrifice of tapering off a little more than might otherwise be possible on the top end? Do any of these statements necessarily imply anything regarding the ultimate degree of smoothness and linearity?

Yes, the first sentence does imply very heavily on the degree of smoothness and linearity. Which is why I don't understand what you want.

BTW, for all NA engine, the tuned torque curve is the highest it can be, within operating constraints. Turbos can be tuned to a torque curve which is typically flat.

Technologies make those as high as they can get away with- which is what VCT does. As opposed to the variable runner tech on the older BP engines- so you have a torque curve open and a torque curve closed- and the swap over is just where it's the highest.

Not gonna lie guys, I would much rather have 200hp in the ND, even though an ND will probably be my next car purchase, it will likely only get sticky tires, and will serve DD duty, wi155 th the vette or cheap Lt1 camaro serving tow purposes.

I always want more hp, not to say I dont think a 155hp will be a ton of fun on the street, Id just rather have more.

Also about this hp vs torque, on a drag strip, in a optimized setup, hp wins races. When you start saying, "all other things equal which would win." it could go either way, because you change power band, and dont change gearing, traction etc, all the sudden one setup is more optimized then the other and it wins, but in similar cars, average hp over given rpm range (the one raced in) should win.

Example If you dont have any low end, you gear it to compensate, gear reduction creates torque, at the wheels, then you leave at a high enough rpm and add in the required traction and boom your good to go, who cares about low end in a drag race.

I had a LT1, its about as polar opposite as you can get from a peaky engine in a sporting car, its peak torque in stock form was at like 2500 rpm. It was nice on the street, I could pass in 6th and cruise at pretty much off idle, for putting around, not as much fun when I was screwing around, it was noticeable when the torque started to drop off up top. I put a huge cam in it and it didnt make E36 M3 down low, for a 350ci engine, and it was quite noticeable when it came on cam at around 3500rpm and It was SOOOO much more fun, even with some of the compromises in driveability I wouldnt have had it any other way.

If there werent major tradeoffs in driveability i'd almost always take a more powerful higher revving engine.

Had an LT1 in today that had a huge cam, idled like a popcorn popper, etc. Blows the tires away from any RPM. Crusing in overdrive at 40mph, quarter throttle = tirespin.

Is that fun? I don't know, it's not mine.

Mine was, when it had good tires, it wouldnt blow them off after 3rd until I got in the power band.

I want my miata to blow the tires off all through first gear, if im trying, and have traction half way through 2nd then blow them off again at the top of the rpm range and there will be many funs to be had.

I would do it from every stop light, then giggle, then look around for five oh, then proceed to paranoially drive around ultra conservatively until the next stop.

In reply to alfadriver:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on our respective applied definitions. And yes, my apologies for also using the word "tuned" (for lack of a better off-the-top-of-my-head term) in regards to a manufacturers ability to selectively alter a given engines' operating characteristics to suit an application...Even if more directly achieved through component design and selection.

Sounds like you want a muscle car, not a sports car. Perhaps you should be shopping at Ford for a new or leftover mustang instead of a Miata?

Opti wrote: Mine was, when it had good tires, it wouldnt blow them off after 3rd until I got in the power band. I want my miata to blow the tires off all through first gear, if im trying, and have traction half way through 2nd then blow them off again at the top of the rpm range and there will be many funs to be had. I would do it from every stop light, then giggle, then look around for five oh, then proceed to paranoially drive around ultra conservatively until the next stop.

Wheelspin at the top of second on little tires makes a muscle car?

Honestly I think what's at work here is emotion.

I understand torque and horsepower very well, and a quickie calculation can pretty quickly tell you which curves are the best for acceleration.

I have no idea, and I suspect not many here do either, what shape curve translates into what feel. I also suspect that subjective things such as sound, vibration and height above the ground bring far more to the "how fast does it feel" party than you realize.

I'd love to see what different shape curves would feel like, but such an experiment would be pretty expensive and pretty pointless.

If I was in the market for a new two seater, an ND would be a pretty good fit. I may have to drive it first. I think most of the fears expressed here could easily be solved by a spirited test drive.

Knurled wrote:

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.

My F2 does this. Just sayin'. While making multiple times the power the 4age makes at damn near any rpm.

I guess let me ask this, because i'm curious.

Those of you that hate the 2.0, which motor would you prefer Mazda put in the ND?

1.5 turbo and mazdaspeed gets 2.0 turbo. Truth be told the 2.0 na wont be bad at all. People who complain the miata should have more than 155hp still wouldn't buy it, they would buy a ecoboost mustang for the same price

chiodos wrote: 1.5 turbo and mazdaspeed gets 2.0 turbo. Truth be told the 2.0 na wont be bad at all. People who complain the miata should have more than 155hp still wouldn't buy it, they would buy a ecoboost mustang for the same price

Mazda doesn't have those motors though, do they?

In reply to Swank Force One:

Only considering the USA, when has Mazda had fewer engines going into their products than now? Do they even have a V6 in 2015? Some kind of KL-like thing might be nice... Most inline 4's don't sound that great to me.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Swank Force One: Only considering the USA, when has Mazda had fewer engines going into their products than now? Do they even have a V6 in 2015? Some kind of KL-like thing might be nice... Most inline 4's don't sound that great to me.

I'm not real sure if they've ever had less than they do now, though they've never really been eclectic when it comes to motors. They don't have a V6, just i4s. Some of the best i4s in the business in my opinion, but that's just me. They're really pushing boundaries, which is CRAZY to me considering how small of a company they are compared to the juggernauts that are just resting on their heels.

But that's the point. The Miata uses motors they already have. That's how it hits the price point, and that's how they can stretch a generation as long as they do. It's what makes the Miata an easily attainable sports car.

Putting something "cooler" in it would put the price quite a bit higher. Designing an entirely new motor that they don't have right now would put the price WAY higher.

Toyota and Subaru were able to stock a new engine in a new platform, which i dont think is being use anywhere but the 86 twins and sell it at this price point.

Bigger companies sure but I'm just saying I dont think a cam change and maybe some head/intake work would have increased the price that much, just playing the devils advocate, i dont care that it only has 155 hp.

Opti wrote: Toyota and Subaru were able to stock a new engine in a new platform, which i dont think is being use anywhere but the 86 twins and sell it at this price point. Bigger companies sure but I'm just saying I dont think a cam change and maybe some head/intake work would have increased the price that much, just playing the devils advocate, i dont care that it only has 155 hp.

This was brought up last time, too. The motor is used in other models. Not exactly in same form, for sure, but the family is used in a lot of cars. Muuuuch larger companies.