Just ordered a new RF (first Mazda) and while speed was of course not a significant factor in buying, my research did show some oddities which I wondered if anyone could shine a light on.
Assuming that Mazda fit the same engine, with the same timings, gear ratios etc. into all their Mazda MX-5 whether North America, Europe or Australasia; why would there be such a difference in observed 0-60 times? UK and Europe reviews (from respected sources) put 0-60 for a 2.0 in the 7.3 - 7.5 range. US especially and Oz reviews are up to a second quicker with the same spec. (e.g. 6.3 - 6.5).
Manufacturer numbers are “gamed” and completely meaningless. American journalists won’t start the clock until around 0.3s in, I suppose in order to give a more real world number.
I had a club member though who was getting really upset that he couldn’t match the published 0-60 for his Mk1. He thought his car was broken. Putting aside the gash method he was trying to use, I told him to quit trying to break his car, and don’t worry about it. Next I heard, he had stuffed the car into a hedge, the loon.
So I would put such numbers aside, inhale and breath.
As you rightly say, it’s what is important to the individual.
It’s all a load of marketing “Showroom appeal” bovine manure.
0-60? Not surfe how they work it now but it was generally “achieved” by dropping the clutch at the known optimum BHP/torque compromise…not max revs as there is no point in sitting still with a tyre smoking itself to oblivion, or if an LSD is there, doing a twenty foot “No 11”.
As for BHP?. Achieved on rigged production benches with no ancilliaries or friction al losses. Bit of a con in my view.
I’d not be surprised to find out our so called 2002 Sport’s 142/146BHP translates to around 110/120 or less at tyres.
Back in the mid 2000/2004, our ‘hot rodders’ added 20-25% to bhp (for the flywheel) onto dyno ‘at the wheels’ readings which at the time, I thought was the normal rate. Later on, I read an interesting input from a guy elsewhere on the web, who used to run a rolling road, for bikes and cars. He also claimed to be a specialist on gearing, so appeared to know from experience where drive train losses were. (Clutch, gearbox and final drive at the diff - plus natural friction loss from tyres etc.) He said average loss from stated flywheel power (quoted by manufacturers) was 14% at the road. That makes the Mk2.5’s 1840cc engine - (146 PS) - which translates to around 145 bhp in my estimate, only 125 bhp. Lord knows what a Mk1 1800 cc is like? On that basis a 2 Litre at slightly less than 160 bhp is actually edging towards 138 bhp. Disheartening - innit?
Now I see why the rush to BBR! (enough to make me start thinking about a V8 again!) - Just joking of course! (your life may depend on it).
The only ‘thinking’ guy who stuck a Landrover V8 (ex Oldsmomile design) into a Mk 1 body had to design and build a ladder chassis to stop the body reacting to the additional torque, which he feared would twist the existing body beyond it’s design capability. He gave up eventually. A member (from Barnsley IIRC) demonstrated his V8 version at one of our Nationals around 2005, telling everyone interested at the time he could do this for anyone, at a cost of £4,000. (I assume a second hand engine). Not aware anyone signed up for one. Adding more power means thinking seriously about what else that can affect, like suspension, brake sizes, clutch, gearbox etc etc. It isn’t just about gaining power, it’s handling and stopping it better.
Your life may depend on it. - So may someone elses.
The other point to bear in mind is that not every magazine times 0-60 with the rigour of the industry heavyweights like Autocar. Heavy being the operative word for Autocar as their methodology is to test with driver and passenger and half tank of fuel - a hangover from the day that they had to use a bloke with a stopwatch and a fifth wheel.
The issue with that approach is that very light cars are penalised disproportionately with a passenger - an 80 kilo passenger is only 5% of a 1700 kg Bugatti Veyron but far more on an Elise or MX 5 …
I’ve seen 0-60 times in the 5s quoted by US mags - and my ND wouldn’t do that unless I drive it off a cliff …
Clearly we have plenty of persons running forced aspiration with equivalent power to a standard buick v8 and examples of the Rocketeer fitting a Jag v6 and Americans dropping shortblock v8s into their 5s. That to me suggests that it’s possible.
Not that it really matters in answering the question of the OP.
Personally I’d ignore it. After all, many hot hatches will walk all over a 5 for performance. Certainly my dull estate would eat it for breakfast in a straightline.
I think it’s probably more amusing to approach any discussion with a view of the 5 most probably be the slower car, yet still massively more enjoyable at road speeds. If anything, I’m usually more surprised to come across other cars on the road that I think will be slower than my mk2.5.