Car Forum / Mazda / Mazda Miata / May 2006
2006 Miata
|
|
Thread rating:  |
chance - 14 May 2006 18:18 GMT I am SERIOUSLY considering purchasing a new 2006 Grand Touring MX-5. Would be interested in hearing feedback about the car, int/ext colors and options. THANK YOU!
Fabiano - 15 May 2006 02:27 GMT > I am SERIOUSLY considering purchasing a new 2006 Grand Touring MX-5. Would > be interested in hearing feedback about the car, int/ext colors and options. > THANK YOU! After looking at the Honda S2000 (which frightened my wife), Mini Cooper, and 350 Z (didn't consider a Z4 because I think that it's too damned ugly), I bought a 2006 MX-5. I didn't consider the Solstice because of no storage space with the top down and when I see one, the first word that pops in my head is "Fiero" (synonymous with "bucket of bolts"). In my opinion, the MX-5 has the best bang for the buck.
Mine is a Sport model with the handling package, galaxy gray with black cloth interior and black top, 6-speed. It does not have the Bose stereo. At first, I wanted blue, but all my other cars are blue. Both shades of red look good. White kind of hides the lines of the car.
If I had to do it differently, I might have bought the run-flat tires with the tire pressure monitor (there's no spare, which is kind of scary except for the roadside service included with the car).
I believe with the GT you get the keyless ignition system and an alarm system, which may discourage theft. You also get leather seats, which I am not convinced is better than cloth for a convertible.
You also get electronic nannies that prevent slides and such, but I don't think it's worth it to have them. The chrome windshield frame doesn't (I think) add anything to the car for me.
I rarely play the radio in my car, so the upgraded audio makes little difference to me, but you might prefer the better sound quality.
There's some metal trim in the GT interior that kind of spruces it up a bit, but that's not really necessary. It is, after all, a sports car/driving tool, not a boulevard cruiser.
Many malign the door cup holders. I use it for my sunglasses and it doesn't bother me.
Except for automatic transmission (which defeats the purpose of the car, in my opinion), the rest of the options are cosmetic and you can add them later through the after market if you want to.
By the way, don't get discouraged if you think the shifter it balky at first. Mine loosened up quite nicely after about 1500 miles and now it is a joy.
Good luck, and I am sure that you will enjoy whatever MX-5 you purchase. It's the most fun car to drive that I've ever owned.
XS11E - 15 May 2006 06:53 GMT > Many malign the door cup holders. I use it for my sunglasses and > it doesn't bother me. Come back when you've got a permanent ulcer in your leg just below the knee where the damned thing cuts it open. I found the new MX-5 to be the only car I've ever driven that was actually painful, I cut short the test drive so I could get out of the thing.
Frank Berger - 15 May 2006 23:30 GMT >> Many malign the door cup holders. I use it for my sunglasses and >> it doesn't bother me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the only car I've ever driven that was actually painful, I cut short > the test drive so I could get out of the thing. Can't the cup holder be removed? Alternatively, you could have your left leg removed at the knee and buy an automatic.
Ken Lyons - 15 May 2006 23:40 GMT > Can't the cup holder be removed? It's molded into the entire door panel. If ever an aftermarket product is needed, this is the one - a clean door panel for the NC. I figure about the same time they start coming off of the recently offered two-year leases, there will be stuff like that available.
 Signature Ken Lyons '97 Brilliant Black/'90 Classic Red - waiting to buy his NC Inside the Beltway [Remove the first two digits to reply]
XS11E - 16 May 2006 01:05 GMT >>> Many malign the door cup holders. I use it for my sunglasses and >>> it doesn't bother me. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Can't the cup holder be removed? No, but the effects are reduced by having a tall bottle that's the same diameter as the holder, that extends the thing high enough to move your leg off of the sharp edge and helps a little.
> Alternatively, you could have your left leg removed at the knee > and buy an automatic. Hey! I can't walk much now, I'd not be able to walk at all if I did that. Of course I could get an artificial leg and let the bottle holder wreck it or.... WOW, GREAT IDEA! I could keep my 1992 which fits me perfectly, won't cost me any money to buy and is cheaper to insure and license.
Eric Baber - 16 May 2006 09:57 GMT I'm intrigued now by all this talk about the cup holders in the door. Are these on all models, even non-US ones? (I haven't had a chance to sit in one yet here in the UK). I can't imagine them taking off anywhere but the US (and even there by the sounds of it most of you don't seem to like them!) Can anyone put a photo on the web somewhere and post the link here? Thanks.
Eric
Fabiano - 16 May 2006 02:22 GMT Not going to happen - the cup holder doesn't interfere with my knee. Try an 82 BMW 320i - the seats were so hard and poorly designed that trips over an hour induced sciatica! And they called it the ultimate driving machine...
Changing the subject a bit, I find the cup holders in the console absolutely useless for drinks. They're better for change and other small odds and ends.
>>Many malign the door cup holders. I use it for my sunglasses and >>it doesn't bother me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the only car I've ever driven that was actually painful, I cut short > the test drive so I could get out of the thing. Tex - 16 May 2006 03:49 GMT >Not going to happen - the cup holder doesn't interfere with my knee. Same here....after a week or two I didn't/don't even notice it.
Craig Wagner - 17 May 2006 02:38 GMT >>Not going to happen - the cup holder doesn't interfere with my knee. > >Same here....after a week or two I didn't/don't even notice it. Me too. I use it to brace myself when cornering, but other than that I'm nowhere near it during normal driving.
XS11E - 17 May 2006 04:13 GMT >>>Not going to happen - the cup holder doesn't interfere with my >>>knee. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Me too. I use it to brace myself when cornering, but other than > that I'm nowhere near it during normal driving. I'm sure it's not bothersome to those who are vertically challenged but for those of us who are of normal stature (6' 4") the leg is resting on it all the time.
Tex - 17 May 2006 05:28 GMT >>>>Not going to happen - the cup holder doesn't interfere with my >>>>knee. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >but for those of us who are of normal stature (6' 4") the leg is >resting on it all the time. I think I made this point in another post. Personally even though I say they don't bother me (they don't) I don't think they are needed or very useful.
At 6' 4'' I imagine the leg would be a problem no matter what.
Craig Wagner - 17 May 2006 15:27 GMT >>> Me too. I use it to brace myself when cornering, but other than >>> that I'm nowhere near it during normal driving. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >At 6' 4'' I imagine the leg would be a problem no matter what. I'm 5' 11". We have a club member who must be at least 6' 4" and it doesn't bother him either.
As for useful, my wife finds the one on her side incredibly handy for her travel mug. Much better than putting in in the center cupholder when I had my '01. On long trips I do like to keep a bottle of water there for myself, again, better than putting it in the center.
Now if the center was more like the one in the S2000, so it could be used for storage of small items like sunglasses or wallet, that would be handy.
Remove This - 17 May 2006 17:01 GMT >>Craig Wagner <craig.wagner.nospam@gmail.com> wrote in
>>but for those of us who are of normal stature (6' 4") Where is 6' 4" defined as "normal"? Seems to me it's classified as "terminal tallness"
Lanny Chambers - 17 May 2006 17:44 GMT > >>but for those of us who are of normal stature (6' 4") > > Where is 6' 4" defined as "normal"? In his dreams. 6' 0" is normal.
 Signature Lanny Chambers '94C, St. Louis http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html
Frank Berger - 17 May 2006 18:05 GMT >> >>but for those of us who are of normal stature (6' 4") >> >> Where is 6' 4" defined as "normal"? > > In his dreams. 6' 0" is normal. According to one web site I just visited, the average height of an American white male is 5'10." From the chart, Black Americans appear to be about the same. American Hispanics seem to be 2-3 inches shorter. Not sure if these are medians or means.
Remove This - 17 May 2006 20:16 GMT Thank You all for the supporting science... After the rains, actually put the top down in New England today!!
 Signature I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
Frank Berger - 17 May 2006 22:56 GMT > Thank You all for the supporting science... > After the rains, actually put the top down in New England today!! Perfect weather where I am, too. Unfortunately I'm in Israel and my miata is in Dallas. I KNEW I should have packed it.
Leon van Dommelen - 18 May 2006 00:22 GMT >>> >>but for those of us who are of normal stature (6' 4") >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >same. American Hispanics seem to be 2-3 inches shorter. Not sure if these >are medians or means. Then again, there is no reason to assume that Americans should be taken as the standard for "normal" people. Think of California, for one. The normal, and ideal height is about 5'7"; just consider all those Chinese.
Leon
 Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bess, the Miata :) Bozo, the Miata :) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas
Frank Berger - 18 May 2006 10:52 GMT >>>> >>but for those of us who are of normal stature (6' 4") >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > normal, > and ideal height is about 5'7"; just consider all those Chinese. Since WWII, the average (median?) Japanese height has increased drastically, approaching that of Americans. Some say this is due to improved diet. Though I once heard someone, very insensitively, assert it was due to the radiation.
Chuck - 18 May 2006 21:31 GMT Since the American population is getting older, the average height will shrink. (Mine did!)
> >> >>but for those of us who are of normal stature (6' 4") > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > same. American Hispanics seem to be 2-3 inches shorter. Not sure if these > are medians or means. XS11E - 18 May 2006 02:04 GMT >>>Craig Wagner <craig.wagner.nospam@gmail.com> wrote in > >>>but for those of us who are of normal stature (6' 4") > > Where is 6' 4" defined as "normal"? 6' 4" has been the norm since I reached that height many years ago.
FYI, heights are defined as:
Midget = 6' 3" or less Normal = 6' 4" Giant = 6' 5" or more
Remove This - 17 May 2006 16:58 GMT "XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> I'm sure it's not bothersome to those who are vertically challenged Right there. It's nice to come out "on top" for once in life !!!
I'm 5' 3", and never let it bother me in life. But I always get a good chuckle when those taller than I find something to complain about! My response is purely in good humor, so don't get offended.
 Signature I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
Leon van Dommelen - 16 May 2006 01:16 GMT >I am SERIOUSLY considering purchasing a new 2006 Grand Touring MX-5. Would >be interested in hearing feedback about the car, int/ext colors and options. I have a white GT. White prevents the pronounced contours from becoming too offensive, in my opinion, but so does red if a white Miata is too fast for you.
I am happy with the car, but I do have a couple of gripes. Number one is the handbrake position. Why do I need to dig my fingers in the knees of a passenger to secure the car? What was Mazda thinking? The second gripe is that compared to the M1/M2 Miatas, there is a definite hint of "SUV" about the new one. The fact that it is bigger and higher, those steering wheel buttons, all those cupholders, and other "convenience" features such as auto-window down, the radio box that is called the key, the door locks (on a convertible??), etcetera, all tend to detract from the image of a true sports car to me.
Then again, maybe my ideas of sports cars are colored by the fact that I am not rich enough to drive the really expensive sports cars. :)
I have the suspension package, and I believe there is lots of griping on miata.net about the springs being to soft and the shocks being too soft. I think this is true but the fact is that I am *much* faster in autocross in my 2006 than in my lowered, *supercharged* 1996 with R-springs in rear, Koni shocks all over, and much stiffer antiroll bars. And in my new Miata I am in C-Stock rather than Street-Mod! :))
While the car does have a lot of lateral motion, the shocks, however soft, seem to take the brunt out of it before it comes to hunt me. The car is quite forgiving of coming in a bit too fast too, unlike my 1996.
I am impressed with the Michelin Pilot Precede(?) tires, though I do not think they will last me very long.
I am also getting ready to admit that the steering wheel is a lot better than the M1 "cookie box" design, buttons or not. It no longer really bothers me, and I do like that it is adjustable.
The trunk is smaller than the one on my 1996, even while it does *not* have a spare tire in it (the car comes with a tire-repair kit instead), and the trunk lid design makes getting anything big in it difficult. However, I believe this was intentional: by reducing the opening, Mazda should have been able to increase stiffness a lot. They did really work on getting a stiffer, very light car: http:://www.dommelen.net/miata/other/102305/index.htm
The Bose sound system is good. I am not going to argue with audiophiles about the detailed balancing of every frequency, but simply note that the sound is much more audible and understandable above wind and engine noise. And I believe it would be considered of very good quality by any reasonable person even sitting in the car at rest with the engine off.
Despite naysayers, I like the interior. It is a lot less spartan/depressing than the standard M1/M2 interiors. The leather seats give me good lateral support, and I have the CG lock when needed. :)
I thought the seats in the base Miatas too hard for long trips, and too unsupportive, and that and the need for cruise control pretty much forced me to the GT package. The suspension package was a no brainer to me, despite the criticism on miata.net.
Somebody else tried the traction control package and found the car to be lethargic until it was turned off. If the computer is constantly braking a wheel or two, you are not going to go very fast. Gee. :) And my idea of a keyless entry system on a convertible is to leave the doors unlocked, not stupid gizmos.
I did get the polished aluminum fuel tank lid, of course. One can never have enough shiny parts on a white Miata. :)
Let me know if you have any specific questions Leon
 Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bess, the Miata :) Bozo, the Miata :) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas
Lanny Chambers - 16 May 2006 03:22 GMT > Why do I need to dig my fingers in the knees > of a passenger to secure the car? Leon is speaking hypothetically here, of course, since no one ever has nor ever will sit in that seat. :-)
Nice review, Leon.
 Signature Lanny Chambers '94C, St. Louis http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html
BRUCE HASKIN - 16 May 2006 03:53 GMT Leon, On the "Hand Brake", they may have been thinging "Right Hand Drive". ?????
Bruce Bing '03 LE
XS11E - 16 May 2006 05:00 GMT > I am happy with the car, but I do have a couple of gripes. Number > one is the handbrake position. Why do I need to dig my fingers in > the knees of a passenger to secure the car? That's a fringe benefit! Mazda didn't intend for you to carry ugly passengers, now go pick up some hot chick and play with her knees! ;-)
Leon van Dommelen - 16 May 2006 13:08 GMT >> I am happy with the car, but I do have a couple of gripes. Number >> one is the handbrake position. Why do I need to dig my fingers in >> the knees of a passenger to secure the car? > >That's a fringe benefit! Mazda didn't intend for you to carry ugly >passengers, now go pick up some hot chick and play with her knees! ;-) In my case, they will probably just call the police on their cell phones. :(
Leon
 Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bess, the Miata :) Bozo, the Miata :) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas
tooloud - 18 May 2006 00:40 GMT >> I am SERIOUSLY considering purchasing a new 2006 Grand Touring MX-5. >> Would be interested in hearing feedback about the car, int/ext [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > from > the image of a true sports car to me. C'mon, Leon, get over it. It's 2006. One of my cars is a '95 Miata M-edition with a crappy radio, a cheesy cupholder adaptor for what appears to be an ashtray, power windows that take forever to operate, and, get this--you actually have to stick a key in the door to unlock it. How quaint.
I don't have the slightest idea how *any* of these things detract from the Miata's sports car characteristics. People that complain about power windows in a Miata tend to be, well...old guys that haven't yet learned to deal with the fact that cars are evolving and aren't like the ones they owned in the '60s. Meanwhile, your '06 Miata in all of its power-windowed goodness will run circles around whatever you were driving 20 years ago.
> Then again, maybe my ideas of sports cars are colored by the fact > that I > am not rich enough to drive the really expensive sports cars. :) You'd probably have a bigger list of complaints if you'd purchased a car that cost twice as much.
> I have the suspension package, and I believe there is lots of griping > on miata.net about the springs being to soft and the shocks being too [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bars. And in > my new Miata I am in C-Stock rather than Street-Mod! :)) Exactly--some people just like to have something to bitch about.
> While the car does have a lot of lateral motion, the shocks, however > soft, seem to take the brunt out of it before it comes to hunt me. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > better than the M1 "cookie box" design, buttons or not. It no longer > really bothers me, and I do like that it is adjustable. <shocked> It's OK, Leon. Let it out.
> The trunk is smaller than the one on my 1996, even while it does > *not* have a spare tire in it (the car comes with a tire-repair kit [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > very good quality by any reasonable person even sitting in the car at > rest with the engine off. If you can hear it with the top down, it's a step up from my '95.
> Despite naysayers, I like the interior. It is a lot less > spartan/depressing than the standard M1/M2 interiors. The leather [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of a keyless entry system on a convertible is to leave the doors > unlocked, not stupid gizmos. Well, some people (like myself) have hardtops. I also have the keyless ignition and doors on another car and wouldn't give it up.
> I did get the polished aluminum fuel tank lid, of course. One can > never have enough shiny parts on a white Miata. :) > > Let me know if you have any specific questions People sure complain a lot about the fancier bits on newer Miatas, but you don't see many people buying stripper models.
<waiting for a factory nav system>
 Signature tooloud Remove nothing to reply
Tex - 18 May 2006 16:28 GMT >People sure complain a lot about the fancier bits on newer Miatas, but you >don't see many people buying stripper models. One reason is they are hard to find.
When I went looking for a Club Spec it was like looking for a needle in a haystack. Oh sure they had plenty of those up a notch with air...
I received an email from a fellow out of the Mazda headquarters in Irvine, Ca. He gave me a list of 6 Club Spec's (without air) located in California. I finally drove the four hours after emailing and talking on the phone to the salesman.
The new and younger salesman (greeter) let it slip during the deal how they were going to be glad to sale this one...cause it didn't even have air! As the deal was as good as wrapped I told him with a chuckle that was why I wanted it and it was most likely the deal maker along with the 5-spd.
Now if it had crank windows, maybe window wings, and no radio I wouldn't have bothered holding out for a fair price for my 2002 base miata trade-in.
tooloud - 20 May 2006 20:19 GMT >> People sure complain a lot about the fancier bits on newer Miatas, >> but you don't see many people buying stripper models. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > When I went looking for a Club Spec it was like looking for a needle > in a haystack. Oh sure they had plenty of those up a notch with air... I'd just go to the nearest dealer and tell him what I want. They can order anything.
> I received an email from a fellow out of the Mazda headquarters in > Irvine, Ca. He gave me a list of 6 Club Spec's (without air) located [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wouldn't have bothered holding out for a fair price for my 2002 base > miata trade-in. Crank windows are a pain because they require awkward leans to operate. Window wings are something I associate with GM pickups from the early '80s, and I think fun cars are even more fun with music. YMMV.
 Signature tooloud Remove nothing to reply
Frank Berger - 20 May 2006 22:03 GMT >>> People sure complain a lot about the fancier bits on newer Miatas, >>> but you don't see many people buying stripper models. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Window wings are something I associate with GM pickups from the early > '80s, and I think fun cars are even more fun with music. YMMV. I don't recall ever wishing I had power windows in my '96 (bought new).
The great thing about window wings (vent windows) was if you smoked. You could hold that cigarette near the open vent window and nearly all the smoke would vent out. You could also flick the ash anywhere near the window and it would get sucked out.
Tex - 21 May 2006 00:11 GMT >The great thing about window wings (vent windows) was if you smoked. You >could hold that cigarette near the open vent window and nearly all the smoke >would vent out. You could also flick the ash anywhere near the window and >it would get sucked out. I do smoke and wings would be nice for that reason. Also without A/C it was nice to direct the air flow.
Frank Berger - 21 May 2006 08:15 GMT >>The great thing about window wings (vent windows) was if you smoked. You >>could hold that cigarette near the open vent window and nearly all the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I do smoke and wings would be nice for that reason. Also without A/C > it was nice to direct the air flow. I suggest you quit smoking. I did, on May 22, 1992 after smoking 2-3 packs a day for 28 years.
Tex - 21 May 2006 13:57 GMT >>>The great thing about window wings (vent windows) was if you smoked. You >>>could hold that cigarette near the open vent window and nearly all the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I suggest you quit smoking. I did, on May 22, 1992 after smoking 2-3 packs >a day for 28 years. Thank-you for the suggestion. Good for you on quitting. I'm down to 1-2 packs a day from 2+ packs for the last 40 years. As the hardtop changed with the 06 I have been thinking if I quit smoking I could pay for one just from one years savings. Two years worth of quitting would also get me MS shocks and springs and hopefully cover the labor to have them installed too.
Frank Berger - 21 May 2006 16:52 GMT >>>>The great thing about window wings (vent windows) was if you smoked. >>>>You [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > also get me MS shocks and springs and hopefully cover the labor to > have them installed too. Use the patch to break the nicotine habit, stay away from bars, and find something to substitute for the endorphin rush, exercise perhaps. I quit because a) my kids worried about my health, b) I was reduced to smoking in the garage or the front porch, and c ) because my employer build a new non-smoking building. I suppose concern for my own health is d).
Good luck.
Brian - 22 May 2006 22:24 GMT > I'm down to > 1-2 packs a day from 2+ packs for the last 40 years. As the hardtop > changed with the 06 I have been thinking if I quit smoking I could pay > for one just from one years savings. Two years worth of quitting would > also get me MS shocks and springs and hopefully cover the labor to > have them installed too. Now that Texas has the $1.00 per pack tax, you could have those upgrades even sooner. :)
tooloud - 21 May 2006 21:19 GMT <snip>
>> Crank windows are a pain because they require awkward leans to >> operate. Window wings are something I associate with GM pickups from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > all the smoke would vent out. You could also flick the ash anywhere > near the window and it would get sucked out. Sure, but I'm probably one of the first generation of car buyers that just kind of expects to find things like power windows in any car I buy. I don't think my generation smokes much, either.
 Signature tooloud Remove nothing to reply
Grant Edwards - 21 May 2006 21:38 GMT >> The great thing about window wings (vent windows) was if you >> smoked. You could hold that cigarette near the open vent >> window and nearly all the smoke would vent out. That's lame. If you don't like breathing smoke put out the cigarette.
>> You could also flick the ash anywhere near the window and it >> would get sucked out. And people on bicycles, motorcycles and in convertibles hate people who do that. Don't get me started on people who just toss their butts out the window.
 Signature Grant Edwards grante Yow! If elected, Zippy at pledges to each and every visi.com American a 55-year-old houseboy...
Tex - 21 May 2006 00:08 GMT >>> People sure complain a lot about the fancier bits on newer Miatas, >>> but you don't see many people buying stripper models. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I'd just go to the nearest dealer and tell him what I want. They can order >anything. I went to the dealer I bought the 2002 from...they said it would take six months and even then it might not be the one without air...so much for that...
>> I received an email from a fellow out of the Mazda headquarters in >> Irvine, Ca. He gave me a list of 6 Club Spec's (without air) located [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Window wings are something I associate with GM pickups from the early '80s, >and I think fun cars are even more fun with music. YMMV. I had a couple 323's without air and no radio.....yes my YMMV does indeed. I think my window wing association dates back to the 50s & 60s.
Leon van Dommelen - 21 May 2006 16:07 GMT >>>> People sure complain a lot about the fancier bits on newer Miatas, >>>> but you don't see many people buying stripper models. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >six months and even then it might not be the one without air...so much >for that... I ordered mine in December. It was build in Japan to order, not taken from stock. The entire thing took 3 months. The statement "it might not be one without air" is ludicrous if you order it. They wanted to sell you a more expensive edition from existing stock and were lying for it.
Leon
>>> I received an email from a fellow out of the Mazda headquarters in >>> Irvine, Ca. He gave me a list of 6 Club Spec's (without air) located [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >indeed. I think my window wing association dates back to the 50s & >60s.  Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bess, the Miata :) Bozo, the Miata :) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas
tooloud - 21 May 2006 21:22 GMT >>>> People sure complain a lot about the fancier bits on newer Miatas, >>>> but you don't see many people buying stripper models. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > six months and even then it might not be the one without air...so much > for that... As Leon says, something's wrong here--if you truly order a car, there should be no concern as to whether the car will come with the options you requested.
>>> I received an email from a fellow out of the Mazda headquarters in >>> Irvine, Ca. He gave me a list of 6 Club Spec's (without air) located [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > indeed. I think my window wing association dates back to the 50s & > 60s. I was born in the '70s. I've never owned a car with window wings. To be more specific, when I see them, I think of my grandfather's brown 1976 Chevy pickup.
 Signature tooloud Remove nothing to reply
Tex - 21 May 2006 23:08 GMT >As Leon says, something's wrong here--if you truly order a car, there should >be no concern as to whether the car will come with the options you >requested. It's like Leon says....they want to sell the existing stock...I'm sure if an order was placed it would come as ordered...but when you are told six months and maybe even then it won't be the one...well if you are like me you walk and buy somewhere else.
Tex - 21 May 2006 23:13 GMT >I was born in the '70s. I've never owned a car with window wings. To be more >specific, when I see them, I think of my grandfather's brown 1976 Chevy >pickup. When I think of A/C I think of the tube that hung outside one of the door windows and was filled with ice...My parents never owned one and I never did either...maybe (besides my sinus problems) it's why I don't want air today in a car if I have the choice.
tooloud - 22 May 2006 00:35 GMT >> I was born in the '70s. I've never owned a car with window wings. To >> be more specific, when I see them, I think of my grandfather's brown [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I never did either...maybe (besides my sinus problems) it's why I > don't want air today in a car if I have the choice. You've got sinus problems and no A/C? I can't believe how much better my nose feels in my home and car with the A/C on versus Mother Nature; I'd be miserable without it...and yes, I've tried.
That's actually the interesting thing--I'm probably one of the few Miata owners that bought the car for its handling and road manners over anything else, including the convertible top. I'd much prefer that the car was a coupe. That's one of the reasons I'm half-assed looking for an RX-8. On that note, I've come full circle--the only reason I don't already have one is that GT models with nav and a 6-speed are a little more difficult to find.
 Signature tooloud Remove nothing to reply
Tex - 22 May 2006 02:23 GMT >You've got sinus problems and no A/C? I can't believe how much better my >nose feels in my home and car with the A/C on versus Mother Nature; I'd be >miserable without it...and yes, I've tried. The way it works for me is I dry up and then have a headache if I'm air conditioned too long. I don't mind being cooler when there is extreme heat.
>That's actually the interesting thing--I'm probably one of the few Miata >owners that bought the car for its handling and road manners over anything >else, including the convertible top. I'd much prefer that the car was a >coupe. That's one of the reasons I'm half-assed looking for an RX-8. On that >note, I've come full circle--the only reason I don't already have one is >that GT models with nav and a 6-speed are a little more difficult to find. I bought my 02 miata new and only had the top down once and bought a hardtop the 3rd or 4th week aftey buying the car. I never had the hartop off once I put it on...even when I traded it in on 06 I didn't know the condition of the soft top...they didn't ask anything and I didn't volunteer anything. They just looked and said, "yeah it has a soft top too".
Besides no A/C I like the cloth seats and 5spd.
Leon van Dommelen - 20 May 2006 00:47 GMT >Exactly--some people just like to have something to bitch about. No??! You surprise me. :)
>People sure complain a lot about the fancier bits on newer Miatas, but you >don't see many people buying stripper models. Actually, if I would have had a choice, I would not have bought 90% of the fancy stuff. The way Mazda has set it up, if you need AC and cruise control, and seats suitable for extended driving, GT here you come. Even if you drop all of them and buy base, you still get lots of junk.
Leon
 Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bess, the Miata :) Bozo, the Miata :) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas
tooloud - 20 May 2006 20:22 GMT >> Exactly--some people just like to have something to bitch about. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > come. Even if you drop all of them and buy base, you still get lots > of junk. Slight correction: you still get lots of things, almost all of which are standard on other cars, too. I mean, how many cars are even available without power windows, locks, mirrors, etc. these days?
The base models just don't sell, and I, for one, am perfectly content with that. All of my other vehicles have lots of options and I'm not one of those guys that associates "fun sports car" with "uncomfortable".
 Signature tooloud Remove nothing to reply
John McGaw - 16 May 2006 15:07 GMT > I am SERIOUSLY considering purchasing a new 2006 Grand Touring MX-5. Would > be interested in hearing feedback about the car, int/ext colors and options. > THANK YOU! I bought an '06 last month, approximately on the 15th anniversary of purchasing my '91 which I drove constantly. Comparisons between the the two cars are probably pointless so I won't even try.
My new MX-5 is a "true red" sport with the suspension package and CD changer. I've since added the splash guards and the cargo net. The latter is amazingly useful since, despite the tiny trunk, anything carried which does not entirely fill it is subject to a violent beating given my driving habits. The CD changer was justified not by the changing but by its ability to play MP3 CDs which are the only decent way I've found to listen to books which serve to preserve my remaining sanity on long trips.
My vehicle is not even decently broken in and some of my instincts are still attuned to the old '91 but I can find no real faults in it. The handling is beautiful with the Michelin tires (likely any bought now won't have them since Mazda has changed suppliers) but I anticipate that virtually any performance tire will yield similar results. Power is great although given my long-term use of a '91 Miata my expectations are probably skewed. The MX-5 can't be knocked as an economy vehicle since on my one long trip so far it managed 34-35mpg cruising at 70-75 on the interstate. Sadly my driving habits and heavy right foot keep the local consumption at ~25mpg.
I did have a problem crop up yesterday morning -- a check engine light. Diagnostics showed a P0300 code which indicates "random misfire". The service techs said that Mazda has put out a new set of software for the computer and they re-flashed mine. But I will definitely be watching that from now on.
Despite the return to making car payments for the first time in 12 years I don't regret the purchase a bit and would surely do it again.
 Signature John McGaw [Knoxville, TN, USA] http://johnmcgaw.com
mowgli - 16 May 2006 16:29 GMT I am with you. I love the car! It is exactly as it is intended...its fun,simple to use, relatively inexpensive, drives great, not a rocket ship but very nice handeling. I also appreciate the more modern conveniences like the cup holders, the Bose radio, the trunk...although sure it could be larger so I am considering an aftermarket rack to carry beach chairs this summer....
Mine is nordic green with tan leather 2006 GT with suspension. Other then the horn, there is nothing I dislike about the car. It is a great pleasure to drive it after being in some of the larger "sport(?)" sedans I am often in.
> > I am SERIOUSLY considering purchasing a new 2006 Grand Touring MX-5. Would > > be interested in hearing feedback about the car, int/ext colors and options. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Despite the return to making car payments for the first time in 12 years > I don't regret the purchase a bit and would surely do it again. Craig Wagner - 17 May 2006 02:44 GMT >I am SERIOUSLY considering purchasing a new 2006 Grand Touring MX-5. Would >be interested in hearing feedback about the car, int/ext colors and options. I have a Winning Blue GT with the premium and suspension packages.
I sold an '01 Miata LS to buy this car.
I like almost everything about it. The increased torque, the looks, the interior, the new folding top (which I can put down or up with one hand in about three seconds).
The only thing I don't (didn't actually) like was the 4x4 look. The brochure photos showed a lower-to-the-ground car. The way they come from the factory, there's a huge gap between the tires and the fender. Looks like someone put a lift kit on it. But I bought the MazdaSpeed springs (about $410 installed, plus another $70 for a performance alignment) and I'm a happy camper.
As for the brake lever, I don't think much about it. My '02 S2000 and '03 Corvette both had the lever on the passenger side, so I guess I'm just used to it.
Remove This - 17 May 2006 16:53 GMT "Craig Wagner" <craig.wagner.nospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
> The only thing I don't (didn't actually) like was the 4x4 look. juxtaposed with....
> and I'm a happy camper. just found it humorous....
 Signature I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
Carbon - 20 May 2006 00:29 GMT > As for the brake lever, I don't think much about it. My '02 S2000 and > '03 Corvette both had the lever on the passenger side, so I guess I'm > just used to it. Interesting that you have an S2000 too. How far apart are it and the Miata in terms of performance?
Fabiano - 20 May 2006 03:47 GMT >>As for the brake lever, I don't think much about it. My '02 S2000 and >>'03 Corvette both had the lever on the passenger side, so I guess I'm >>just used to it. > > Interesting that you have an S2000 too. How far apart are it and the Miata > in terms of performance? I test drove an S2000 before driving the MX-5. Very impressive car. Very sweet shifter (better than the MX-5; best I've ever experienced), high revving engine (8,000 RPM!), and, for me, fairly comfortable. Very plain, though leather, interior with digital dash (I like analog better). Stiffer suspension than the MX-5 but handles better and is about 1.5 seconds faster from 0-60. My wife hated it because she thought it was too masculine and didn't suit her at all. I loved it. It also cost $6,000 more than my MX-5 and got about 5 mpg less. But, I think, it is a great sports car, but more uncompromising than the MX-5. More of a track star, less of a street car.
pws - 20 May 2006 11:49 GMT > I test drove an S2000 before driving the MX-5. Very impressive car. Very > sweet shifter (better than the MX-5; best I've ever experienced), high [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is a great sports car, but more uncompromising than the MX-5. More of a > track star, less of a street car. I have heard the the S2000 has a very nice shifter. It actually redlines at 9,000 rpm, my miata will do 8,000. (the rpm can be set anywhere from as low as you want all the way up to 20,000 rpm with the Tec-3 computer, but 20,000 rpm may be a bit high)
I like how the S2000 looks, my only complaint is the high horsepower versus the low torque, but you aren't going to squeeze much low-end torque out of a 4 cylinder without forced induction.
I'll take a turbo miata over one any day. I don't have to redline the thing to make it go fast because it has a lot of low-end torque, but if I do open it up, it will easily eat a stock S2000 for breakfast and ask for more. :-)
Pat
Craig Wagner - 20 May 2006 15:07 GMT >I have heard the the S2000 has a very nice shifter. It actually redlines >at 9,000 rpm, my miata will do 8,000. S2000 redlines at 9,000 rpm up to '03. In '04 they went to the 2.2l and lowered the redline to 8,000.
pws - 21 May 2006 01:31 GMT > S2000 redlines at 9,000 rpm up to '03. In '04 they went to the 2.2l and lowered > the redline to 8,000. Ahhh, I did not know that. Did the hp or torque numbers change?
Pat
Dave - 21 May 2006 03:32 GMT >> S2000 redlines at 9,000 rpm up to '03. In '04 they went to the 2.2l and > lowered [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Pat Torque went up by about 10, hp stayed the same. Gearing was increased numerically. End result is more oomph off the line and, probably, in most driving. But more shifting on an auto-X track, and about the same 0-60 on a magazine or bonzai run.
pltrgyst - 20 May 2006 15:31 GMT >I'll take a turbo miata over one any day. I don't have to redline the >thing to make it go fast because it has a lot of low-end torque.... You're getting extra low-end torque by means of a turbo? Patent that sucker!
-- Larry
Lanny Chambers - 20 May 2006 16:18 GMT > You're getting extra low-end torque by means of a turbo? Patent that sucker! Dyno charts: http://www.flyinmiata.com/tech/dyno.asp
 Signature Lanny Chambers '94C, St. Louis http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html
pltrgyst - 20 May 2006 17:01 GMT >> You're getting extra low-end torque by means of a turbo? Patent that sucker! > >Dyno charts: >http://www.flyinmiata.com/tech/dyno.asp Look at both sets -- it looks like the low-end torque boost is coming from the addition of the ECU and other add-ons, not the turbo, which shouldn't be doing anything at low revs.
I guess you could set an ECU up to control a turbo as well, and have it spooled up at low engine rpms, but then you'd run very inefficiently, and might as well have a supercharger.
-- Larry
Lanny Chambers - 20 May 2006 19:28 GMT > Look at both sets -- it looks like the low-end torque boost is coming from the > addition of the ECU and other add-ons, not the turbo, which shouldn't be doing > anything at low revs. What's your point? To run more than 5 or 6 psi means installing an aftermarket ECU of some sort, so it's hardly a separate issue. The FM turbos spool up pretty much as fast as you can put your foot down--there's essesntially no turbo lag. This is not some riceboy backyard DIY project; it's a well-developed kit, with excellent drivability. The dyno plots show an increase from 35 to 50 lb-ft at 2000 rpm, which is not a trivial improvement.
> might as wellhave a supercharger. That would be my choice anyway. Check out the sick torque curve on the Uber 3.
 Signature Lanny Chambers '94C, St. Louis http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html
pltrgyst - 21 May 2006 01:25 GMT >> might as wellhave a supercharger. > >That would be my choice anyway. Check out the sick torque curve on the >Uber 3. Me too. On that we agree. I've owned one turbo, and would never even think of owning another, especially if I thought I might take that vehicle to the track or an autocross venue.
-- Larry
pws - 21 May 2006 01:30 GMT > You're getting extra low-end torque by means of a turbo? Patent that sucker! > > -- Larry I can't patent it, it is not my design. If you think that my car does not have more low-end torque now than it did stock, you are welcome to take it for a drive and be proven wrong.
I'll bet $5000.00 against your $50.00 that the low-end torque has increased by a considerable margin. We can even take it to a dyno if you want, but then I will want $500.00 of your money. :-)
Pat
pltrgyst - 21 May 2006 04:59 GMT >I'll bet $5000.00 against your $50.00 that the low-end torque has >increased by a considerable margin. My point is not that your mods have not increased low-end torque; it is that any increase in low-end torque is not from the turbocharger, since a turbocharger, by definition, does not add any boost at low rpms.
-- Larry
Dave - 21 May 2006 16:33 GMT >increase in low-end torque is not from the turbocharger, since a turbocharger, >by definition, does not add any boost at low rpms. Not necessarily. Many turbocharger'd cars show torque peak at suprrisingly low rpm. See, for example, the Volvo S40 T5 with peak torque at as low as 1500 rpm.
One can size a smaller TC that provides boost at lower flows (rpm). Likely will require more wastegating at higher rpm? Or dual/sequential turbos to cover a broader range. Or variable nozzle turbos and/or variable-vane inlets. All can address getting more boost at lower rpm. Also used to reduce lag (a separate, though related issue).
Leon van Dommelen - 21 May 2006 17:02 GMT >>I'll bet $5000.00 against your $50.00 that the low-end torque has >>increased by a considerable margin. > >My point is not that your mods have not increased low-end torque; it is that any >increase in low-end torque is not from the turbocharger, since a turbocharger, >by definition, does not add any boost at low rpms. Can you tell me by whose definition? MacInnes shows boost over the entire rpm range and says that when a supercharger is properly matched in housing size, it will produce boost and an increase in hp over the entire rpm range.
Heywood gives some examples of boost schedules for waste-gate controlled turbochargers and notes that their boost is negligible at 1000 rpm, but 1000 rpm is not an operating rpm. He notes that *full* boost is achieved at about 2000 rpm. I would call 2000 rpm a low rpm, wouldn't you?
So, what do you use as reference? Leon
 Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bess, the Miata :) Bozo, the Miata :) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas
pws - 21 May 2006 18:05 GMT > Can you tell me by whose definition? MacInnes shows boost over the entire > rpm range and says that when a supercharger is properly matched in housing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So, what do you use as reference? > Leon I defintely would call it a low rpm, and the boost gauge is moving by 2,000 rpm. It is either providing boost at a low rpm or I have a faulty boost gauge. There is a wastegate, this was a very professionally done system that had Corky Bell working on it. I guess there is some turbo lag, but it is minimal at best.
Thanks for the latest facts, Leon & Dave.
Pat
Craig Wagner - 20 May 2006 15:06 GMT >> As for the brake lever, I don't think much about it. My '02 S2000 and >> '03 Corvette both had the lever on the passenger side, so I guess I'm >> just used to it. > >Interesting that you have an S2000 too. How far apart are it and the Miata >in terms of performance? Had an S2000 (past tense). Sold it, sold my '01 Miata LS, and totalled my bike (that wasn't planned though) to buy the '06 MX-5 and '03 Corvette.
In terms of straight line performance, off the line they're about the same. Hit 6000 RPM in the S2000 and it feels like a turbo kicked in all the way to the 9000 rpm redline.
Wildcat - 24 May 2006 04:35 GMT > I am SERIOUSLY considering purchasing a new 2006 Grand Touring MX-5. Would > be interested in hearing feedback about the car, int/ext colors and options. > THANK YOU! Two years ago I traded my 1994 in for the 2004 Mazdaspeed Miata, test drove the 2006 couple of weeks ago (6speed with suspension package). Found the car too soft, the speed handles a lot better. Even with the larger engine the 06 pales behind the speed's HP 178@6000 rpm vs 06's 170 @ 6700 rpm and torque 166 lb-ft@4500 rpm vs 06's 140 @ 5000 rpm (that's 18.5% more torque). They say the in the 06 your can raise or lower the roof with one hand while seated. But I think most guys that have had a Miata longer than two years can do that with any of them. As for looks what's with the cheesy plastic strip across the dash?(one season of cleaning pollen and dust off it'll start showing scratches. And personally the front of the hood ending where it does makes it look washing machine lid. On the plus side the 06 can come with cruise control.
Sorry for ranting but I had expected better from the 3yrs of hype.
Kevin Anderson - 24 May 2006 22:28 GMT to each his own, But I would take the 2006 over the 2004 turbo in a second. Why would anyone want a turbo if you can generate nearly the same power without it? and besides I like the look of the new car better.
>> I am SERIOUSLY considering purchasing a new 2006 Grand Touring MX-5. >> Would be interested in hearing feedback about the car, int/ext colors and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Sorry for ranting but I had expected better from the 3yrs of hype. Dave - 25 May 2006 01:45 GMT >to each his own, But I would take the 2006 over the 2004 turbo in a second. >Why would anyone want a turbo if you can generate nearly the same power >without it? and besides I like the look of the new car better. The '04 MS will generate more torque, thus more power over a wide rev range. It'll only be at 6000+ (maybe 6500+) where the '06 makes more power. Plus, as has been written, the '04 has the stiffer, more athletic suspension. And some may prefer the interior of the NB to the NC's (I do). Looks are even more subjective. OTOH, I do prefer the NC's increased chassis stiffness and refinement. And I too am not particularly a turbo fan. To each his own.
Leon van Dommelen - 27 May 2006 13:38 GMT >>to each his own, But I would take the 2006 over the 2004 turbo in a second. >>Why would anyone want a turbo if you can generate nearly the same power [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >rev range. It'll only be at 6000+ (maybe 6500+) where the '06 makes >more power. Not quite. http://flyinmiata.com/tech/dyno_runs/NC_vs_MSM.pdf The 2006 makes more power than the Mazdaspeed below 4000 rpm, and again above 6200.
However, the intermediate range where the Mazda speed has higher power is the most important for acceleration, and I would not want to race one.
Leon
> Plus, as has been written, the '04 has the stiffer, >more athletic suspension. And some may prefer the interior of the >NB to the NC's (I do). Looks are even more subjective. OTOH, I do >prefer the NC's increased chassis stiffness and refinement. And I >too am not particularly a turbo fan. To each his own.  Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bess, the Miata :) Bozo, the Miata :) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas
Dave - 27 May 2006 13:58 GMT >>The '04 MS will generate more torque, thus more power over a wide >>rev range. It'll only be at 6000+ (maybe 6500+) where the '06 makes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The 2006 makes more power than the Mazdaspeed below 4000 rpm, and again >above 6200. Okay, got me. I had seen that curve recently at miata.net but quickly forgot. Guess they use a peaky turbo in this app (see other discussion...). And the NC appears to have a pretty nice flat tq curve.
To all: have a great holiday weekend!
|
|
|