 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mazda / Mazda Miata / May 2005Modified Mazdaspeed 2006 MX-5
I just saw this on a local list. Interesting pictures of the car built up for racing, some showing it partially disassembled. http://www.awrracing.com/pages/06MX5R/ pat > I just saw this on a local list. Interesting pictures of the car built > up for racing, some showing it partially disassembled. > > http://www.awrracing.com/pages/06MX5R/ Excellent. I must say... Besides those garish skirts on the wheel wells, I like the '06. Dana >> I just saw this on a local list. Interesting pictures of the car built >> up for racing, some showing it partially disassembled. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dana It does look fun to drive. I am still undecided on the skirts, not that it matters since I am unlikely to ever buy to own a miata made after 1994 again. Now that the stock MX-5 is closer to 3000 pounds than 2000 pounds in weight, I have less interest in it. pat 3000 lbs. where did that spec come from? > >> I just saw this on a local list. Interesting pictures of the car built > >> up for racing, some showing it partially disassembled. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > pat The OP greatly exaggerated, but it has put on a few hundred pounds over the years. According to mazdausa.com the '06 MX-5 weighs 23 lbs more than the old one. According to edmunds.com the curb weight of the 2005 model is 2447 lbs. According to www.miata.net the 1990 model weighed 2105 lbs while the '93 weighed 2222 manual or 2280 auto. The original engine had 116 HP while the '06 has 170 HP, so the power to weight ratio is better today. -John > 3000 lbs. where did that spec come from? > > It does look fun to drive. I am still undecided on the skirts, not that > > it matters since I am unlikely to ever buy to own a miata made after > > 1994 again. Now that the stock MX-5 is closer to 3000 pounds than 2000 > > pounds in weight, I have less interest in it. > > > > pat > The OP greatly exaggerated, but it has put on a few hundred pounds over the > years. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The original engine had 116 HP while the '06 has 170 HP, so the power to > weight ratio is better today. It's probably a far better car today in all ways, too. Dana >> The OP greatly exaggerated, but it has put on a few hundred pounds >> over the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Dana Definitely not in looks, but that is all opinion. Reliability? We'll see in 2020. One thing that the miata used to offer was a go-kart like ride that was unavailable in any other mass-produced street vehicle. Adding 400 to 500 pounds greatly takes away from this, imo, no matter how much more power you add. Every additional pound is one step further away from the unique car that it was and one step closer to what is now common in the roadster market, again, imo. Pat > >> The OP greatly exaggerated, but it has put on a few hundred pounds > >> over the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Pat I for one won't complain that we actually have a roadster market! And with the GM twins coming out soon there are more choices than ever.  SignatureScott Streeter ss@wpi.edu http://www.wpi.edu/~ss/ > The OP greatly exaggerated, but it has put on a few hundred pounds over the > years. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -John I didn't greatly exaggerate, I stated that the car now weighs closer to 3000 pounds than it does to 2000 pounds. If the 2006 model car now weighs 2600+ pounds, then my statement is true. When it weighed 2105 pounds (or any number under 2500) it was closer to 2000 pounds than it was to 3000 pounds. This is no longer the case. Pat Ah... but with the '05 weighing in at 2447 and the '06 a mere 23 lbs more, my math brings the (est) total to: 2470. -- On my handy-dandy number scale, the '06 is closer to 2000 lbs than 3000... Cheers! >> The OP greatly exaggerated, but it has put on a few hundred pounds over the >> years. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Pat '97 STO, "Chouki" // Change TEJAS to TX to reply via eMail // > > The OP greatly exaggerated, but it has put on a few hundred pounds over the > > years. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Pat The '06 will weigh 2470 lbs, per the numbers above. That's less than 2500 and still closer to 2000 lbs. -John > The '06 will weigh 2470 lbs, per the numbers above. That's less than 2500 > and still closer to 2000 lbs. > > -John Well, we are getting close on numbers here. I saw an article that said it was something just over 2600 pounds, which is easy to believe since my former '96M supposedly weighed 2450 pounds and this is a larger car. I'm not sure that we'll know the actual weight until someone buys one and puts it on a scale. Mazda's claim of 155 hp on their 140 hp miata engine has me skeptical of their numbers. In any case, since introducing the car, the miata has added the weight of an extremely large passenger. My point, if I had one, is that I think that the car gets less fun to drive and more like other cars as it gets heavier. I loved my '96M edition, but it was not as fun for me to drive as a less powerful 1990 or 1991 model. Driving my current 1991 model that has far more power and considerably less weight than a Mazdaspeed is even more fun. Pat > Well, we are getting close on numbers here. I saw an article that said > it was something just over 2600 pounds, which is easy to believe since > my former '96M supposedly weighed 2450 pounds and this is a larger car. > I'm not sure that we'll know the actual weight until someone buys one > and puts it on a scale. Mazda's claim of 155 hp on their 140 hp miata > engine has me skeptical of their numbers. I just don't believe too much can be concluded from a magazine article when it leads to hair-splitting. Driving the car is the proof, isn't it? The more I've looked, the more I believe - new model bugs notwithstanding, this will be the most refined MX-5 ever. If the designers haven't lost their minds (which happens - remember how Ford took the pony car concept and turned it into the 1977 T-Bird?) the 2006 MX-5 will be the best ever. Cheers, Dana > I just don't believe too much can be concluded from a magazine > article when it leads to hair-splitting. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Cheers, > Dana I think that the two of us have far different priorities for the MX-5, and that best is a highly subjective term, especially with cars. As far as the Mustang, I never did have any interest in those things. By the time I could drive (1985, iirc) I could understand the personal benefits of lighter weight, more reliable Japanese cars like the early Datsun Z versus the heavy and unreliable American trash like the Mustang and Camaro that were being produced at that time. Imo, the miata is simply going the way of the Z car, getting heavier and more boring with each model. I don't see that as a refinement any more now than it was back in the late 70's and early 80's when they ruined the Datsun Z. Pat > As far as the Mustang, I never did have any interest in those things. > By the time I could drive (1985, iirc) I could understand the personal > benefits of lighter weight, more reliable Japanese cars like the early > Datsun Z versus the heavy and unreliable American trash like the Mustang > and Camaro that were being produced at that time. I replaced my 1968 Mustang with a 1971 240Z, so I might have a little more direct experience in this area than you, Pat. Both were great cars; different strengths and weaknesses, sure, but each a treasure in its own right. The Mustang weighed 2800 lb., the 240Z weighed 2400 lb.--not a huge spread, considering the Ford's back seat. The Z was quicker-handling to be sure, but also quirky--you don't ever, EVER lift throttle in a corner in a Z unless you enjoy snap spins. The Mustang was a very successful autocross car, a pursuit at which the Z was worthless. The Mustang's weak point was its drum brakes. Both cars had industrial-strength BabeMagnets. I carried a blanket in the Mustang's trunk to spread out on the hood. 'Nuff said. I sold each of them at 80k miles. Both were starting to use oil. The Mustang had been through a clutch and two sets of spider gears (the engine was not stock). The Z ate rear-axle U-joints like candy, and rusted out twice. I'd rate reliability and build quality as a tossup. SignatureLanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA '94C the alignment page: http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html > I replaced my 1968 Mustang with a 1971 240Z, so I might have a little > more direct experience in this area than you, Pat. Both were great cars; [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > engine was not stock). The Z ate rear-axle U-joints like candy, and > rusted out twice. I'd rate reliability and build quality as a tossup. I won't argue about the points on the Mustang since I never owned one, only saw some of the problems that others had. The 1968 Mustang was made a year before I was born (back when they at least looked good), and all of the pre-1970 ones that I saw were junk unless they were really expensive due to a total restoration (the 1968 was 14 years old before I could legally drive). The Z Cars that I had were both easily affordable 280Z's, both with modifications and their heavy bumpers removed. The 280Z was heavier and with more "refinements" than the 240Z, and also not as fun to drive. The 280ZX got even worse, and then they completely killed it with the piggish 1984 300ZX until they decided to turn it into a completely different, far more expensive and truly fast car in 1990 or 1991 with the twin turbo. I simply see the same trend with the MX-5. I had better luck with my two Z cars, they were both already quite old when I got them and I put about 120K hard miles on the two cars total, taking both well past 150K miles and they were still going when I sold them. Rust was a problem, as was some oil burning on the first one, but I only replaced one rear axle U-Joint during those 8+ years. There were some other problems, the cars were far from perfect, but I was stranded only once that I can remember due to a bad fuel pump. I have a feeling that I would not have gotten that kind of reliability (or luck?) out of a 10 to 20 year old Mustang with over 100K miles, but I may be wrong. This feeling is caused by my experience with other Fords that I have owned, which have both been far less reliable vehicles than the Japanese cars that I have owned. I think that Ford must have made the Mustang better in 1968, but by 1985, the new ones that I saw on the road were completely uninteresting crap, but then, so was every other American car that I can think of that was made in 1985. Pat > I think that Ford must have made the Mustang > better in 1968, but by 1985, the new ones that I saw on the road were > completely uninteresting crap, but then, so was every other American car > that I can think of that was made in 1985. No argument there. SignatureLanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA '94C the alignment page: http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html > The Z was quicker-handling to be sure, but also quirky--you don't ever, > EVER lift throttle in a corner in a Z unless you enjoy snap spins. The > Mustang was a very successful autocross car, a pursuit at which the Z > was worthless. That's very interesting you'd say that. As of about 10 years ago, mildly warmed over 240/260/280Z's were dominant autocross cars in their class. I owned a '76 280Z and also a '72 240Z. My NB feels very much like my '72 did. It feels like it's about the same weight, same power approx, just in all, a miata to me feels like a Z car for today. IMHO my 240Z was one great-handling car... and it was mostly stock (sway bars, tires & wheels). It was definitely among the most fun cars I have ever owned. I drove it to about 250K miles before rusted floor pans, some major brake hydraulics problem and the need for a reliable family car forced me to trade it for a station wagon. >> The Z was quicker-handling to be sure, but also quirky--you don't >> ever, EVER lift throttle in a corner in a Z unless you enjoy snap [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > pans, some major brake hydraulics problem and the need for a reliable > family car forced me to trade it for a station wagon. I agree that the 240Z's handled well, as did the 280Z once those gigantic bumpers were removed. This 240Z in the link below isn't exactly stock, but neither is the Flying Miata Track Dog, which finished 3rd behind the 30-something year old 240Z. http://www.flyinmiata.com/projects/OTC/race03.php?day=5 Pat >> I just don't believe too much can be concluded from a magazine >> article when it leads to hair-splitting. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I think that the two of us have far different priorities for the MX-5, > and that best is a highly subjective term, especially with cars. I'm not talking about my priorities, or yours. I'm talking about the priorities of the MX-5 design team; if they haven't lost their minds, they're doing their best to deliver the concept as their market evolves. In other words, the weight of the car has changed slightly in the current model, about 1%, which I'm certain you'd only notice on paper. The peak engine power has been increased about 20%, though we haven't seen a torque curve yet (at least I haven't) so we don't know how the increase has changed the delivery of power. The chassis is claimed to be substantially stiffer. 20% more power, stiffer chassis, and a negligible (1%) increase in weight. On paper, this sounds like the designers have done a remarkable job. [...] > Imo, the miata is simply going the way of the Z car, getting heavier and > more boring with each model. The Z-car designers did lose their minds for a while, in the early 1980s. They came back to their senses; if you took the current 350Z back in time, and placed it on the lot next to a 240Z, no one would remember the 240Z today. Dana > The Z-car designers did lose their minds for a while, in the early 1980s. > They came back to their senses; It didn't take until the early 80's, the Z car was ruined by 1979 with the introduction of the 280ZX. if you took the current 350Z back in time, > and placed it on the lot next to a 240Z, no one would remember the 240Z > today. > > Dana You could say the same thing about the Corvette, the Porsche 911, or just about any other high-performance car, at least as far as performance. Looks are another thing since that is opinion. I think that the 240Z looks beter than the 350Z, but that is just my viewpoint. Pat >> The Z-car designers did lose their minds for a while, in the early >> 1980s. They came back to their senses; [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pat In the looks category the current Vette definately surpasses its predecessors at least as far back as the Stingrays if not further. The 911 otoh, has been "smoothed" too much. I loved the 911 w/ the headlights that sat well above the level of the hood and the whale-fin wings.. think they lasted till somewhere in the early 90s. -Scott > > The Z-car designers did lose their minds for a while, in the early 1980s. > > They came back to their senses; > > It didn't take until the early 80's, the Z car was ruined by 1979 with > the introduction of the 280ZX. I think your fears about the MX-5/Miata are unfounded for numerous reasons. 1. The Z series had to adapt to changing emissions and safety laws in the70s. 2. They were competing against Mustangs and Camaros -- hence that stupid 2+2 body and mushy ride. 3. The Miata gained just 250 lbs from 1993 through 2006. 4. The car market is fractured into little tiny niches today, with Miatas selling 10,000 copies to people who want a light roadster. 5. Most changes for '06 are for performance. It has a stiffer chassis, wheels pushed to the corners, more powerful engine, etc. They added roll bars and side airbags but it still has a manual top. If they made a 4 passenger Miata then you would have room to complain! If anything the minimal changes show they stuck to their vision remarkably well. The roadster market is now packed with competitors so how exactly could they change it without losing current buyers? It can't get bigger or more expensive without losing its distinctiveness and becoming just another S2000, Boxster, Z4, etc. -John [What a thought exercise...contemplate a 4 passenger Miata...!] > I think your fears about the MX-5/Miata are unfounded for numerous reasons. > > 1. The Z series had to adapt to changing emissions and safety laws in > the70s. > 2. They were competing against Mustangs and Camaros -- hence that stupid 2+2 > body and mushy ride. Most cogent: somewhere around 1973, Datsun as a company lost its zoom-zoom. They no longer got it. Mazda's zoom-zoom is still increasing. SignatureLanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA '94C the alignment page: http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html > I think your fears about the MX-5/Miata are unfounded for numerous reasons. No fears, just complaints about the looks and increased size. It doesn't really matter, I don't have to buy the car and I won't. I am sure that Mazda will get along fine without me buying their new roadster. > 1. The Z series had to adapt to changing emissions and safety laws in > the70s. So did the miata, emission requirements are more stringent on a 2005 model than they are on a 1990 model. Even by 1996, safety requirements had added a passenger side airbag and side impact beams in the doors, for the purpose of increasing safety and with a side result being increased weight. > 2. They were competing against Mustangs and Camaros -- hence that stupid 2+2 > body and mushy ride. I never owned a 2+2 body style, (ugh!), and the ride on both Z's was overly harsh if anything, the ride was far from mushy with the aftermarket suspensions. > 3. The Miata gained just 250 lbs from 1993 through 2006. According to your former post, the difference between 1990 and 2006 is 365 pounds. This is a pretty large increase for a car that started out at just over a ton. (2105 pounds) > 4. The car market is fractured into little tiny niches today, with Miatas > selling 10,000 copies to people who want a light roadster. > 5. Most changes for '06 are for performance. It has a stiffer chassis, > wheels pushed to the corners, more powerful engine, etc. They added roll > bars and side airbags but it still has a manual top. If they made a 4 > passenger Miata then you would have room to complain! Oh, I have room to complain. This is a miata discussion group, no? > If anything the minimal changes show they stuck to their vision remarkably > well. The roadster market is now packed with competitors so how exactly > could they change it without losing current buyers? It can't get bigger or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [What a thought exercise...contemplate a 4 passenger Miata...!] I don't think we are going to agree on this issue, and yes, this could be the thread that never dies. :-) Pat > > 3. The Miata gained just 250 lbs from 1993 through 2006. > > According to your former post, the difference between 1990 and 2006 is > 365 pounds. This is a pretty large increase for a car that started out > at just over a ton. (2105 pounds) You previously mentioned not wanting anything past '94, so the 250 lb difference is appropriate. > I don't think we are going to agree on this issue, and yes, this could > be the thread that never dies. :-) That much is clear from your replies to others, so end of discussion. This is nothing for long threads! Try a political newsgroup or one with a couple people feuding... -John >> I think your fears about the MX-5/Miata are unfounded for numerous >> reasons. > > No fears, just complaints about the looks and increased size. It doesn't > really matter, I don't have to buy the car and I won't. I am sure that > Mazda will get along fine without me buying their new roadster. So, Pat, how did you feel about the M2 when introduced? Because, as far as I can tell, the M3 essentially the same size and weight as an M2 with 20% more power and, we're told, a substantially siffer chassis. I don't think you're complaining as much about the changes in the M3 as those already in the M2. Dana > So, Pat, how did you feel about the M2 when introduced? > Because, as far as I can tell, the M3 essentially the same > size and weight as an M2 with 20% more power and, we're told, > a substantially siffer chassis. Which incidentally, was approx. the changes from M1 to M2. in fact, didn't the '99 weigh LESS than the '97, AND have more power? > So, Pat, how did you feel about the M2 when introduced? I wasn't even aware of it, I got interested in miatas in mid-1999 after it had already been released and compared the two vehicles directly. I liked the looks and build quality of the M1 over the M2, so I bought one. > Because, as far as I can tell, the M3 essentially the same > size and weight as an M2 with 20% more power and, we're told, > a substantially siffer chassis. I don't think you're complaining > as much about the changes in the M3 as those already in the M2. > > Dana You are probably correct. Like I said before, we want different things from these cars. This is why you are interested in owning a new one and I replaced my 1996 model with a modified 1991 model when I could have gotten a M2 or another 1996 or 1997 model. Nothing wrong with differences in personal preferences, it would be pretty boring if we all wanted the same thing. BTW, I am sure that the 2006 MX-5 is a blast to drive, every new or well-maintained older miata has been fun for me to drive so far. Pat > You are probably correct. Like I said before, we want different things > from these cars. Apparently, but don't infer too much about my own tastes from what I'm observing about the MX-5's evolution. > This is why you are interested in owning a new one Like... when did I say was interested in owning one? :-) > and > I replaced my 1996 model with a modified 1991 model when I could have > gotten a M2 or another 1996 or 1997 model. Nothing wrong with > differences in personal preferences, it would be pretty boring if we all > wanted the same thing. Certainly. > BTW, I am sure that the 2006 MX-5 is a blast to drive, every new or > well-maintained older miata has been fun for me to drive so far. Well, there we go. Apparently we're not disagreeing that much afterall. :-) Dana > Apparently, but don't infer too much about my own tastes > from what I'm observing about the MX-5's evolution. I'll infer what I want. What'cha gonna do 'bout it? ;-) > Like... when did I say was interested in owning one? :-) That was an assumption, was I wrong? Of course, no intelligent person would make an actual decision to buy without a test drive. > Well, there we go. Apparently we're not disagreeing that much > afterall. > > :-) > > Dana I hope not, iirc, there was a mouth-watering invitation to dinner if and when I ever make it out to California. :-) Pat >> Well, there we go. Apparently we're not disagreeing that much >> afterall. >> >> :-) >> >> Dana > I hope not, iirc, there was a mouth-watering invitation to dinner if and > when I ever make it out to California. :-) Of course the invitation stands! The weather is just finally starting to settle into a warmer spring pattern, I hope. Even if we disagree, as long as we're having fun doing it, you're always welcome. Dana > Of course the invitation stands! The weather is just finally starting > to settle into a warmer spring pattern, I hope. Even if we disagree, > as long as we're having fun doing it, you're always welcome. > > Dana Well, it looks like I might be moving to Washington State this summer, which is at least in the right direction, so I will make it eventually. A great meal, some friendly debate over miatas, and a drive up the Pacific Coast Highway through Northern California and Oregon, that doesn't sound too bad. :-) If anyone has any insights to share on living in the Tacoma, WA area or Washington State in general, please let me know, as I would be living near Fort Lewis. If it is completely non-miata related, private e-mails are welcome. Thanks, Pat pwshelton@austin.rr.com > Well, it looks like I might be moving to Washington State this summer, > which is at least in the right direction, so I will make it eventually. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > near Fort Lewis. If it is completely non-miata related, private e-mails > are welcome. The stereotypes about rain are 1/2 true. It's gray and drizzly a LOT, but it's between heavy fog and a storm. Winter is a series of chilly rainstorms broken by a few cold and damp sunny days. Summer can be spectacular, with little rain, lots of sun and highs in the 70s. The most popular cars are Subarus and hard top Jeeps. A relatively high percentage of the Miatas in the area have hard tops. There's are many nice twisty roads for cruising around Puget Sound and in the mountains. On a summer weekend the back roads can look like a classic car show--everyone brings out baby in good weather. They must spend the rainy days working in the garage, for the cars are nice! I wouldn't recommend taking a convertible around the Olympic Peninsula because the rain is intense facing the ocean (they have rain forests). -John > Well, it looks like I might be moving to Washington State this summer, > which is at least in the right direction, so I will make it eventually. > A great meal, some friendly debate over miatas, and a drive up the > Pacific Coast Highway through Northern California and Oregon, that > doesn't sound too bad. :-) Come on down! I don't currently have a guest room but you're more than welcome to crash on a very comfortable couch. I've never lived in the Seattle area but I've visited there a number of times over the years. My first couple of visits were in the summertime, in June, and it was gloriously beautiful. One of them, in 1988, to race at a 6-hour endurance road-race near Auburn - on two wheels. The locals were taunting us out-of-towners saying "You California boys are lucky it isn't raining - this is the first race day this year it hasn't rained". This was in June. More recently, I've made a number of visits in the winter, and it basically was either raining or threatening to do so most of the time. Not torrential rains, often just incessant drizzle. No wonder it's so beautiful in the summer. As of yet, haven't had the chance to explore the local roads, but I'm told they're excellent. Pat - contact me off-list and I'll connect you with my rally-enthusiast friend from there. I love visiting Seattle and the Eastside in the summer, and, in the winter, it makes me appreciate Northern California :-) I'll report on my experience when I'm up there for a few days, a week from today. Cheers, Dana > Come on down! I don't currently have a guest room but you're more > than welcome to crash on a very comfortable couch. Now the question is, how long can I stay? I wouldn't want to impose on you for more than 6 or 7 weeks. ;-) Seriously, it sounds great, thanks! I will make it to the west coast before too much longer, whether to live there or just to visit. > I've never lived in the Seattle area but I've visited there > a number of times over the years. My first couple of visits [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm told they're excellent. Pat - contact me off-list and I'll > connect you with my rally-enthusiast friend from there. I'll do that when I am sure what I am doing. If I go, the estimated move date is August 15th, but I will know for certain what I am doing by the end of May or so, it sounds like it might be worth moving earlier to enjoy the first part of the summer. > I love visiting Seattle and the Eastside in the summer, and, in the > winter, it makes me appreciate Northern California :-) I'll report > on my experience when I'm up there for a few days, a week from today. > > Cheers, > Dana Looking forward to hearing about it, Thanks again! Pat >> Come on down! I don't currently have a guest room but you're more >> than welcome to crash on a very comfortable couch. > > Now the question is, how long can I stay? I wouldn't want to impose on > you for more than 6 or 7 weeks. ;-) Heh. I'll let my wife and daughters play the bad cops. > Seriously, it sounds great, thanks! I will make it to the west coast > before too much longer, whether to live there or just to visit. We'll leave a light on for ya. [...] >> As of yet, haven't had the chance to explore the local roads, but >> I'm told they're excellent. Pat - contact me off-list and I'll [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > end of May or so, it sounds like it might be worth moving earlier to > enjoy the first part of the summer. Excellent. Don't forget to contact my rally enthusiast friend. Dana >>> Come on down! I don't currently have a guest room but you're more >>> than welcome to crash on a very comfortable couch. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Heh. I'll let my wife and daughters play the bad cops. Now I know that I have to behave myself. I would rather drive my miata through a minefield than suffer the wrath of multiple SWMBO. :-) See you sometime this year, I will give you plenty of advance notice and I am good at not wearing out my welcome, except perhaps, on this newsgroup. pat >> Heh. I'll let my wife and daughters play the bad cops. > > Now I know that I have to behave myself. I would rather drive my miata > through a minefield than suffer the wrath of multiple SWMBO. :-) They're not that bad. Heck, they're not bad. I wear the pants in my house (but you don't need to even think of mentioning that I said that, to them ;-) ) > See you sometime this year, I will give you plenty of advance notice and > I am good at not wearing out my welcome, except perhaps, on this newsgroup. Like I said, man, come on down! Dana > They're not that bad. Heck, they're not bad. I wear the pants in > my house (but you don't need to even think of mentioning that I said > that, to them ;-) ) > Like I said, man, come on down! > > Dana Heh-heh, it shouldn't be too much longer, definitely by July unless something unexpected happens. I am still wrapping up a lot of loose ends here. Thanks! Pat > > Well, we are getting close on numbers here. I saw an article that > > said it was something just over 2600 pounds, which is easy to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Cheers, > Dana Or the Mustang II which was bacically a rebodied Pinto... Woo hoo! SignatureScott Streeter ss@wpi.edu http://www.wpi.edu/~ss/ Is this going to become the next "Thread That Will Not Die"? It's sure beginning to look like it! <G> The Thing I cannot understand is that people are expressing strong opinions about non aesthetic points of the new car, Yet no one has actually driven or sat in a moving version yet. What a waste in typing, If you are interested in the new MX-5 and you have the finances to purchase one, Then wait till test drives are available, take it for a spin, if you like how it drives great, if you don't well then don't buy it. For me personally how a car looks is of very little importance, as i actually spend very little time looking at my cars, On the other hand how it drives is by far the most important aspect of my car buying descion, why, because i actually spend 99% of my time with my car actually driving it. Take into consideration that i have no interest what so ever what other people think about me or my car, then looks to me personally mean absolutly diddly squat, and lets face it that is all that can be judged now. You can quote power to weight ratios, weight, chassis dimensions till your blue in the face, at the end of the day its of little consiquence, all that matters is how we feel when we drive it, there have been many cars over the years that have had good vehicle dynamics, even though they have been hampered with excesive weight. As for comparing it with older MX-5's or even Z cars!! Its a new car, from what i have seen it shares not 1 single component to any previous MX-5's and definatly nothing with the Z cars, whats the point? It's like comparing any other 2 seater cabrio. Will i buy one no, why? i can't afford one, Maybe in 10 years time when the second hand prices drop, thanks to the many need to have the new model more money than sense, paying for the brunt of new car owners costs, depresiation. When it does eventually get down to a resonable price i will take it into consideration, test drive it as well as the others i would have short listed, and then pick my favorite. Cheers Mark. gixer wrote in: > The Thing I cannot understand is that people are expressing strong > opinions about non aesthetic points of the new car, > Yet no one has actually driven or sat in a moving version yet. Of course not, how could you possibly have an "unbiased" opinion if you actually drove the car (or read the book or saw the movie or, etc.)? Welcome to Usenet! <G> > gixer wrote in: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > actually drove the car (or read the book or saw the movie or, etc.)? > Welcome to Usenet! <G> Yeah, I keep wondering how anyone can tell the difference from those 23 extra pounds on paper if they actually drive the car. With the other changes we're read about on paper, it's likely that the car is as much or more fun to drive as ever. We won't know until we're in the driver's seat. Dana > The Thing I cannot understand is that people are expressing strong opinions > about non aesthetic points of the new car, > Yet no one has actually driven or sat in a moving version yet. What's so confusing? It's simple interest in a new product. It helps to decide between buying now, waiting for the new model, etc. The same thing happens before each Mustang, Corvette or anything else is released. > What a waste in typing, Welcome to Usenet. It's a hobby not a job. -John laguna seca, best lap time ? > I just saw this on a local list. Interesting pictures of the car built > up for racing, some showing it partially disassembled. > > http://www.awrracing.com/pages/06MX5R/ > > pat > laguna seca, best lap time ? no idea, there may be an article on it somewhere, but the only link that I saw was for the pictures. pat > I just saw this on a local list. Interesting pictures of the car built > up for racing, some showing it partially disassembled. > > http://www.awrracing.com/pages/06MX5R/ Is that the same hardtop that fits the NA and NB? It looks awfully familiar, though I can't believe it wouldn't have changed for the third generation. Signaturetooloud Remove nothing to reply... >>I just saw this on a local list. Interesting pictures of the car built >>up for racing, some showing it partially disassembled. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is that the same hardtop that fits the NA and NB? It looks awfully familiar, > though I can't believe it wouldn't have changed for the third generation. Where are you seeing the hardtop? I would have figured on a new hardtop design as well, especially considering the new soft top design. pat > Where are you seeing the hardtop? I would have figured on > a new hardtop design as well, especially considering the > new soft top design. Look at http://www.awrracing.com/pages/06MX5R/source/32.html http://www.awrracing.com/pages/06MX5R/source/33.html and http://www.awrracing.com/pages/06MX5R/source/34.html Sure doesn't look like the current Miata top, but I could be mistaken. Yours WDK - Wkiernan@ij.net >>Where are you seeing the hardtop? I would have figured on >>a new hardtop design as well, especially considering the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< > -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- Thanks, I missed those. I guess it won't be long before we find out for certain. I assume that miata.net will add the 2006+ models to the 1990-1997/1999-2005 parts compatibility list before too long. Pat >> Where are you seeing the hardtop? I would have figured on >> a new hardtop design as well, especially considering the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sure doesn't look like the current Miata top, but I could be mistaken. No, not the glass design, but the overall shape seems similar...there's no reason they couldn't have simply changed the look of the top but left the footprint the same. Signaturetooloud Remove nothing to reply... > No, not the glass design, but the overall shape seems similar...there's no > reason they couldn't have simply changed the look of the top but left the > footprint the same. I think it's more likely they had to deal with a new footprint (there's supposed to be 1.5" more seat travel) while trying to maintain the Miata look. After all, the shape of the old hardtop was nearly perfect--why would they change it? SignatureLanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA '94C the alignment page: http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html > I think it's more likely they had to deal with a new footprint (there's > supposed to be 1.5" more seat travel) while trying to maintain the Miata > look. After all, the shape of the old hardtop was nearly perfect--why > would they change it? If Mazda were to leave nearly perfect things alone on the miata, they would still be producing the M1. :-) Pat > If Mazda were to leave nearly perfect things alone on the miata, they > would still be producing the M1. :-) You'll get no argument from me on that, Pat. And all of them would be red, of course. SignatureLanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA '94C the alignment page: http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html >> If Mazda were to leave nearly perfect things alone on the miata, they >> would still be producing the M1. :-) > >You'll get no argument from me on that, Pat. And all of them would be >red, of course. Of course. It has to be *nearly* perfect. Leon SignatureLeon van Dommelen :) Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen) >>If Mazda were to leave nearly perfect things alone on the miata, they >>would still be producing the M1. :-) > > You'll get no argument from me on that, Pat. And all of them would be > red, of course. Red is finally growing on me, it has never been a favorite car color of mine, and I probably would not have bought the car except for all of the aftermarket accessories. I prefer white, black, blue (especially Starlight Mica) or some of the other darker colors, though what I would really like to see is an M1 that has been painted the sky blue color that I see on some of the M2's. Overall, I think that black paint looks the best, for the 15 seconds or so that it remains clean after washing it. Pat red '91 turbo A few new pics http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/miata.jpg http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/miata2.jpg http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/miata3.jpg http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/miata4.jpg http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/miata5.jpg http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/miata6.jpg http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/onecleanengine.jpg >> No, not the glass design, but the overall shape seems similar... >> there's no reason they couldn't have simply changed the look of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > maintain the Miata look. After all, the shape of the old hardtop was > nearly perfect--why would they change it? I'll let you know in six weeks. There will be one at Miatas in Moab, courtesy of Mazda USA. So far over 300 drivers signed up for this redrock tour. Loren |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.