We've got info on the Miata reveal.

mtn wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to irish44j: I am honestly confused by your point. Why? Because you indicate that the Toyota/Subaru car would be significanly more usable. But it's barely any bigger. Granted it has seats beind the driver- but other than some nominal stuff, what can you realistically put there? Can you really carry all the stuff that is on your requirement list?

Here is the difference for me: there is tension in my relationship because we always take my fiance's car. We always take her car, because she does not fit in my car--her legs are too long. So any time we drive for more than 20 minutes, it is always her car. I'd like leg room in the damn thing. Not for me--I don't need it. But she does. And frankly, it is a valid complaint. Sadly, that is probably going to rule it out for my next vehicle. IF it has leg room, and IF I can fit my hockey bag in the trunk by dropping it in and closing the trunk (as opposed to my NB where I have to rearrange it for 20-60 seconds to get the trunk to close), I might consider it. Otherwise, I'll likely be in a frisbee

I think we need to see these long legs you refer to....

jsquared- how does just making it a coupe make it more usable?

Having asked a question here about making a coupe from a sedan, and yet we still don't do that, I imagine that it's a lot harder than people think to do something seemingly as simple as adding a roof. Honestly, if it were that easy, then the Toyota/Subie cars SHOULD be a convertable, too. So force them to do that.

duce- ok, so you can carry 4 people in the car. Still, the Miata has always been 2. It's the most successful 2 seater of all time. The model works, why would you expect to change it, especially when cars like the BRZ exists. Making it 4 seats is light years more complex than putting a roof on it.

And to both of you seem to think making a hatch back is really easy. Well, it probably is as easy as adding the top (which may not be as easy as we think)- but that would not give you a pass through trunk at all. If you wanted that, the structure would be very different than the base miata, which is, again, complex and expensive, as well as satisfied by other cars that don't sell as well.

mtn- your complaint is valid. And should not be an issue. A friend of mine didn't fit into my NA, but did into an NB and bought one of those.

Well, the fit of you finace is.

The fit of your hockey bag, well... yea. Again, the segment of the market that needs to fit a hockey bag of stuff is probably really small. To the point where just getting it to fit, and not compromise the porportions of the car so that you can drop it in probably isn't worth worrying about. A hatch version of the Miata isn't realistic, as it's a major structure change- being that there's a solid buklhead between the trunk and the passenger area.

There are cars that meet those requirements, and all of them sell in less numbers than the Miata does over the long term. Let them have that sub-segment.

That's how I see it.

alfadriver wrote: jsquared- how does just making it a coupe make it more usable? Having asked a question here about making a coupe from a sedan, and yet we still don't do that, I imagine that it's a lot harder than people think to do something seemingly as simple as adding a roof. Honestly, if it were that easy, then the Toyota/Subie cars SHOULD be a convertable, too. So force them to do that. duce- ok, so you can carry 4 people in the car.

Reading comprehension, much? I should have clarified "liftback" like the Z car or coupe with a greater "shelf" area from a sloping roof, but regardless... you are ignoring the point. IT'S NOT CHANGING THE MIATA, IT'S ADDING A VARIANT. Relative to engineering an entire car, YES, making a coupe version of a convertible is relatively "easy" for a manufacturer rather than making a convertible version of a coupe (where'd you get sedan from?). AGAIN, Porsche did it with the Cayman, which didn't relocate the bulkhead and it still has more storage space than a Boxster, performs better, and didn't damage Boxster sales noticeably but rather increased Porsche's sales overall. The C5 Corvette Z06 was developed from adding a roof to the convertible chassis, and even though it was a relatively simple fiberglass shell it was STILL stiffer than the regular "liftback" targa and convertible variants. The Toyobaru comment is just completely ass-backwards from the conversation because it's make a convertible from a coupe, which as I said is HARDER than making a coupe from a convertible. (And besides the point, rumor mill is claiming a 'vert of the FRS/BRZ is in the works too, so your comment is moot on two fronts.)

And mazdeuce said nothing about four people in the car, he said two tall people, a set of four TIRES (can't do that in a Miata without buying a hitch and trailer) AND their stuff.

I'm not taking digs at the new Miata here. So far it looks as though they did a great job, and who am I to argue with the most successful sports car of the last 25 years?

buuuutttt.......

Part of what frustrates some of us is the seeming rule that small sporty cars need to have small motors. Flying Miata and others have shown that capable chasis are perfectly happy with copious amounts of horsepower. The idea of a coupe Miata is to make it different enough that they'll appeal to different people instead of plundering each others sales. IMO Mazda missed a golden opportunity by stubbornly sticking with the rotary engine in the RX-8. A 300 HP V6, or even a good turbo 4 along with wider tires and a minor tweak or two would have made that a phenomenal car. We sit here shaking our heads wondering when the 300 HP STI version of the toybaru twins will arrive, and do the same with the Miata. I mean it's great and all that they have the world's best 4-cylinder convertible, but why stop there? They've already done so much development work. I really think that there's a market for a Coupe Miata on steroids as well. I'd even name it differently. MX-6 may not have the same cachet, but WTH!

In reply to jsquared:

So if you are going insult me that I have a reading comprehension problem, then I will point that you do, as well. You didn't comprehend what I was posting.

Hey, the Miata isn't for you. That's not so bad- go get a BRZ. Knock yourself out.

I give you permission to hate the Miata.

But I really don't see the idea that Mazda should make a Miata that deviates from the original model.

You know, if Mazda would just make a two seat coupe, maybe put a twin turbo rotary in it... oh wait..

kreb wrote: IMO Mazda missed a golden opportunity by stubbornly sticking with the rotary engine in the RX-8. A 300 HP V6, or even a good turbo 4 along with wider tires and a minor tweak or two would have made that a phenomenal car.

I agree with this. The RX8 is a great car on paper, except for the rotary. Not that I don't like my RX7, but the mileage/performance/potential explosion of that car didn't make it attractive to me. That car with a turbo 4 would have been much more attractive. I still kind of want to find a blown up RX8 and drop a Miata motor in it just to see if it would be as good as I think it might have been.

I think they could have kept the RX-8 chassis going with the V6 they make plunked in it. Wouldn't be an "R"X-anything really but it would likely sell better than the RX-8 did the last few years.

And I'm not downing the new Miata, either, just got dragged into the "coupe-v-roadster" argument. Not trying to sound angry about it, it's just frustrating when people won't listen to your justification for your opinion

jsquared wrote: I think they could have kept the RX-8 chassis going with the V6 they make plunked in it. Wouldn't be an "R"X-anything really but it would likely sell better than the RX-8 did the last few years. And I'm not downing the new Miata, either, just got dragged into the "coupe-v-roadster" argument. Not trying to sound angry about it, it's just frustrating when people won't listen to your justification for your opinion

Heh.... what?

What V6 are we talking about, exactly?

alfadriver wrote: In reply to jsquared: So if you are going insult me that I have a reading comprehension problem, then I will point that you do, as well. You didn't comprehend what I was posting. Hey, the Miata isn't for you. That's not so bad- go get a BRZ. Knock yourself out. I give you permission to hate the Miata. But I really don't see the idea that Mazda should make a Miata that deviates from the original model.

It's not an insult if I point out that you have a reading comprehension issue, when you are arguing about things that are completely unrelated or backwards to the points I was making.

I don't "hate" the Miata. I love the Miata. I like good-handling convertibles. I owned a handling-oriented 2-seat convertible (S2000). I would possibly consider owning this new-generation Miata (as a relatively new model, not as a low-cost used car than I can switch engines or turbocharge) depending on the power-to-weight and the price. You still haven't picked up on my point: I'm not asking Mazda to "change" the Miata, I'm asking them to add a brother to it. I don't want to get a BRZ instead of the Miata, despite it's better power and useable space, precisely for the fact that it is less-balanced because marketing wonks at Toyota got the engineers to make it nose-heavy (seriously, how the hell do you make a front-engined RWD car with an engine two cylinders long and still have it 55% front weight distribution?!)

And once again, since you clearly haven't gotten the picture: adding the Cayman didn't "change" the Boxster, make Porsche lose sales, or damage the Boxster's design or make it less "pure" in concept or any of that crap. You're making your argument based on conjecture and your biased opinion. I'm making my argument based on actual products/results and eight years of sales figures.

kreb wrote: I'm not taking digs at the new Miata here. So far it looks as though they did a great job, and who am I to argue with the most successful sports car of the last 25 years? buuuutttt....... Part of what frustrates some of us is the seeming rule that small sporty cars need to have small motors. Flying Miata and others have shown that capable chasis are perfectly happy with copious amounts of horsepower. The idea of a coupe Miata is to make it different enough that they'll appeal to different people instead of plundering each others sales. IMO Mazda missed a golden opportunity by stubbornly sticking with the rotary engine in the RX-8. A 300 HP V6, or even a good turbo 4 along with wider tires and a minor tweak or two would have made that a phenomenal car. We sit here shaking our heads wondering when the 300 HP STI version of the toybaru twins will arrive, and do the same with the Miata. I mean it's great and all that they have the world's best 4-cylinder convertible, but why stop there? They've already done so much development work. I really think that there's a market for a Coupe Miata on steroids as well. I'd even name it differently. MX-6 may not have the same cachet, but WTH!

I think the question is.... would you buy a $50k Miata?

If it was engineered as a standalone product, it might cost that much. But to change the sheet metal a little, add wider tires and plug in the parts-bin Mazdaspeed motor... Why should that cost more than 10k more? Or borrow Ford's 3.7 V6, since they don't have their own.

Cayman didn't "change" the Boxster, make Porsche lose sales, or damage the Boxster's design or make it less "pure" in concept

Also, in fairness, I don't think that a quad-cam V-6 would have fit under the RX-8's hood. Although a hood bulge along with more muscular fenders wouldn't have been a bad thing. h

Swank Force One wrote: I think the question is.... would you buy a $50k Miata?

yes, but only from Keith with an LS installed. To hell with this V6 blasphemy.

I think MTN's girl friend is using the leg room thing as an excuse. All cars, or at least most, are designed with close to the same leg room. Just tell her to move the seat back. She just likes her car better than yours.

In reply to iceracer:

she likes to sit back far to get attention from truckers and guys in Brodoozers

iceracer wrote: I think MTN's girl friend is using the leg room thing as an excuse. All cars, or at least most, are designed with close to the same leg room. Just tell her to move the seat back. She just likes her car better than yours.

Lol, seat is razor-back straight and all the way back... Her legs don't fit under the dash. And no, pictures will not be provided.

Trust me, I get it. The Miata is meant to be a third car, or else meant to be a DD with a second or third car to back it up. And it does it extremely well. I have lived with it as my only car for 4 years, and unfortunately can't have a second car. The compromises it makes are what makes it so awesome. And while I don't expect them to cater to ME, I would compromise the performance to afford me 1 cubic foot more storage space, and 6 inches more leg room. Hopefully the packaging is creative enough that they made it work; if not, no hard feelings--I just won't be buying it. At least not new.

kreb wrote: If it was engineered as a standalone product, it might cost that much. But to change the sheet metal a little, add wider tires and plug in the parts-bin Mazdaspeed motor... Why should that cost more than 10k more? Or borrow Ford's 3.7 V6, since they don't have their own.

Cayman didn't "change" the Boxster, make Porsche lose sales, or damage the Boxster's design or make it less "pure" in concept

Exactly! And the Z-3 and 4 coupes hardly ravaged the sales of the roadsters. Frankly this seems like a no-brainer to me. The concept has been proven to work by the Germans. It's maximizing the return on the development time that they've already put in. Also, in fairness, I don't think that a quad-cam V-6 would have fit under the RX-8's hood. Although a hood bulge along with more muscular fenders wouldn't have been a bad thing. h

You're asking why doubling the power would cost more than $10k more?

Pretty much everything would need to be changed. Everything. This is why the FM turnkey V8 conversion STARTS north of $30k.

I don't think Ford would have let Mazda "borrow" the 3.7 at that point even if they asked, and i doubt they were going to ask.

Swank Force One wrote:

kreb wrote: If it was engineered as a standalone product, it might cost that much. But to change the sheet metal a little, add wider tires and plug in the parts-bin Mazdaspeed motor... Why should that cost more than 10k more? Or borrow Ford's 3.7 V6, since they don't have their own.

Cayman didn't "change" the Boxster, make Porsche lose sales, or damage the Boxster's design or make it less "pure" in concept

Exactly! And the Z-3 and 4 coupes hardly ravaged the sales of the roadsters. Frankly this seems like a no-brainer to me. The concept has been proven to work by the Germans. It's maximizing the return on the development time that they've already put in. Also, in fairness, I don't think that a quad-cam V-6 would have fit under the RX-8's hood. Although a hood bulge along with more muscular fenders wouldn't have been a bad thing. h

You're asking why doubling the power would cost more than $10k more? Pretty much everything would need to be changed. Everything. This is why the FM turnkey V8 conversion STARTS north of $30k. I don't think Ford would have let Mazda "borrow" the 3.7 at that point even if they asked, and i doubt they were going to ask.

Then why doesn't the Mazdaspeed 3 double the cost of the base 3? The thing about the Miata/LSX conversion is that it has to be engineered for the power potential of that engine - which is FAR more than a turbo 4. Besides, that's a low volume effort by a small company. Apples and oranges.

I think all the reasons people are spouting that make coupe and shooting brake versions appealing are the very things that define a Miata. I'm not sure Mazda wants to sell more Miatas, I think they want to sell enough. They don't want it to answer a lot of needs, they want to be the only answer to a very specific need.

Not enough room to DD? Then DD something else and buy a Miata as play car or HTFU and DD the thing while learning to live with less space. Can't afford that or or absolutely have to have the room? You might not be their target demographic.

They didn't build this car for kids. Or Home depot runs. Or moving. Or large grocery trips. I'd be willing to bet they are proud of the fact that it doesn't work for those. There are plenty of options to fill those roles, but very few that fill the role the Miata does.

Full disclosure, I don't own an otter, I did drive an NA once. I've ridden shotgun in a scary-fast FM modified one and turned wrenches on it. I DD a Mustang because I don't fit in a Miata and I need a little more room. I do pick up giant bags of dogfood, carry roadbikes, and stop by Home Depot on the way home. Because I want those things, the Miata is not my car, but I certainly don't want them to change it. That's the madness that leads to the "MINI" Countryman and its ilk.

kreb wrote:

Swank Force One wrote:

kreb wrote: If it was engineered as a standalone product, it might cost that much. But to change the sheet metal a little, add wider tires and plug in the parts-bin Mazdaspeed motor... Why should that cost more than 10k more? Or borrow Ford's 3.7 V6, since they don't have their own.

Cayman didn't "change" the Boxster, make Porsche lose sales, or damage the Boxster's design or make it less "pure" in concept

Exactly! And the Z-3 and 4 coupes hardly ravaged the sales of the roadsters. Frankly this seems like a no-brainer to me. The concept has been proven to work by the Germans. It's maximizing the return on the development time that they've already put in. Also, in fairness, I don't think that a quad-cam V-6 would have fit under the RX-8's hood. Although a hood bulge along with more muscular fenders wouldn't have been a bad thing. h

You're asking why doubling the power would cost more than $10k more? Pretty much everything would need to be changed. Everything. This is why the FM turnkey V8 conversion STARTS north of $30k. I don't think Ford would have let Mazda "borrow" the 3.7 at that point even if they asked, and i doubt they were going to ask.

Then why doesn't the Mazdaspeed 3 double the cost of the base 3? The thing about the Miata/LSX conversion is that it has to be engineered for the power potential of that engine - which is FAR more than a turbo 4. Besides, that's a low volume effort by a small company. Apples and oranges.

You sound like the marketing team at every company I've worked at: "Well, it's just a small change!" The engineering and quality assurance repercussions of ANY change is monstrous. There is no such thing as "just a small change."

jsquared wrote: And once again, since you clearly haven't gotten the picture: adding the Cayman didn't "change" the Boxster, make Porsche lose sales, or damage the Boxster's design or make it less "pure" in concept or any of that crap. You're making your argument based on conjecture and your biased opinion. I'm making my argument based on actual products/results and eight years of sales figures.

I'm biased? in what way? I don't think I'm stating conjuncture, granted, I don't have the data, but I know how cars are made.

I'm trying to point out that adding a top is probably more complex and expensive than you think it is. Using a high end product as an example is totally bogus, since this product is very much not that. Mazda has to build the Miata in the constraint of being a large volume manufacturer, where as Posrsche does not. The actual structure difference between a Boxter and a Miata is minimal- the are both open cars, unibody, made out of steel. But one cost 3x as much as the other (and it isn't all in the engine). Which makes changes a lot easier to deal with.

There's a difference between Porsche adding assembly processes and Mazda adding assembly processes. Very big difference. Same for BMW.

The Miata isn't affordable due to magic. There's no way that Mazda spends nearly as much as Porsche or BMW does making the body of their cars, otherwise they would either have to jack up the price or lose a ton of money on each one made. Being that over a decade of production happened under the watch of Ford, there's no way the Miata is/was that kind of money loser.

kreb wrote:

Swank Force One wrote:

kreb wrote: If it was engineered as a standalone product, it might cost that much. But to change the sheet metal a little, add wider tires and plug in the parts-bin Mazdaspeed motor... Why should that cost more than 10k more? Or borrow Ford's 3.7 V6, since they don't have their own.

Cayman didn't "change" the Boxster, make Porsche lose sales, or damage the Boxster's design or make it less "pure" in concept

Exactly! And the Z-3 and 4 coupes hardly ravaged the sales of the roadsters. Frankly this seems like a no-brainer to me. The concept has been proven to work by the Germans. It's maximizing the return on the development time that they've already put in. Also, in fairness, I don't think that a quad-cam V-6 would have fit under the RX-8's hood. Although a hood bulge along with more muscular fenders wouldn't have been a bad thing. h

You're asking why doubling the power would cost more than $10k more? Pretty much everything would need to be changed. Everything. This is why the FM turnkey V8 conversion STARTS north of $30k. I don't think Ford would have let Mazda "borrow" the 3.7 at that point even if they asked, and i doubt they were going to ask.

Then why doesn't the Mazdaspeed 3 double the cost of the base 3? The thing about the Miata/LSX conversion is that it has to be engineered for the power potential of that engine - which is FAR more than a turbo 4. Besides, that's a low volume effort by a small company. Apples and oranges.

Let me ask this another way: Do you think Mazda would build a vehicle that would go head to head with the Alfa 4C, and then NOT charge 4C price for it?

As for pricing... if you apply the same sort of thing to the Mazda3 (which may not be relevant, as the Miata is engineered to be light first, strong second, i would imagine, so the power changes are going to affect it more), if the base ND costs $25k, the 300hp version would cost $36k.

And they would have to change many many things... what happens when you double the power of a 1994 Miata? You blow the transmission eventually more than likely. You're on the ragged edge of what the motor can handle, etc etc etc. It's not a scenario that a company would like to warranty.

Excuse me for interrupting the really good rant fest, I’ll just take a moment…

I’m really happy with the exterior…it didn’t get fat, it didn’t do the stupid Mazda fender thing, and it has excellent design continuity throughout….functional, no fuss form with subtle sophistication.

The interior is fine though not remarkable except for the passenger cup holder and pop up screen. I tend to go lower end (keep it simple and light) so the pop up screen won’t be an issue.

I think the NB was the best looking but this is a close second.

alfadriver wrote: I'm biased? in what way? I don't think I'm stating conjuncture, granted, I don't have the data, but I know how cars are made. I'm trying to point out that adding a top is probably more complex and expensive than you think it is. Using a high end product as an example is totally bogus

Your conjecture is that there aren't enough people who'd want something like that, and that somehow making a coupe Miata would mess up the roadster Miata. My statement is that historically that thought process is categorically false. Same with other model variants that the marketers/prognosticators for some companies were sure "would never sell" and "didn't have a market" but turned out to be one of the company's best sellers once they brought it to market (or to the US). Same-as-the-Euro-power BMW M3 brought to the US after the success of the B5 Audi S4, Subaru WRX coming after kicking and screaming from US 2.5RS owners and aftermarket turbo cars, Mitsubishi Evo after Mitsu saw how well the WRX was selling, Porsche's GT 911 variants (compare the US-market RS America to the Euro-spec 964 RS, then compare the 996 GT3 US-spec to Euro-spec). Adding a variant of a popular existing model is far cheaper than making a new car, and very rarely hurts the bottom line.

Why is using high-price cars bogus? Porsche spends only a few thousand more in production costs for the 911 than GM spends on the Corvette, they just market it for $30k more because they CAN. Their profit margins are huge, in the mid-2000s they had more money than most German banks. That doesn't help my budget argument, but it strains credulity to think they spend absurd amounts of money to make the Cayman from the Boxster when they were simultaenously spending boatloads of money on SUV and Panamera development.

Even tossing aside the Boxster/Cayman example, you have the Z3 roadster/coupe, Corvette C5/Z06/FRC, Solstice roadster/coupe, Elise/Exige, historical cars like the MGB/MGB GT, Spitfire/GT6, and I'm sure I'm missing some other examples. If GM can slap a fibreglass roof on the Vette convertible chassis and sell it for a lower MSRP, what makes you think Mazda couldn't sell a Miata coupe within a few thousand of asking price for the roadster? Nissan developed the 370Z as a roadster from the get-go because it was CHEAPER to develop it to be able to be a drop-top and later engineer the coupe shell than to try to engineer a convertible from a coupe design.

I like it, too.. and think the coupe discussions in a thread about a roadster have run their course!