hi there
I’ll considering a M. And one of the cars I’ve shortlisted is MX2.0 sport , need some help,please
are service parts imterchangable?
whats the difference in performance ie bhp, 0-60 and top speed?
Is there a noticeable difference in to day driving?
ive not really seem the 2.0L highlighted as a must have engine. So assume there is little between them, but unite help will help me narrow down my search if the2.0 really is the holy grail !
Thanks,
dave
The main difference is not the engine, it’s the specification. The 2.0L cars were fitted with a limited slip differential whereas the 1.8L cars are not. The 2.0 Sport will also come with a 6-speed close-ratio gearbox rather than the standard 5-speed and also with uprated Billstein sport shocks for a firmer ride.
Regarding the engine, the difference is 158 bhp versus 126 bhp. They are basically the same engine so yes, most of the service parts are the same.
The difference you will feel in driving would come primarily from buying a 2.0 Sport rather than a different model, due to the different suspension and gearbox, rather than from the engine. Obviously the 1.8 does have less power but if power is not something that is driving you then I doubt you will notice a significant difference.
I just bought a Mk3 and went for the 2.0 Sport for all the reasons listed above.
If you want a smooth cruising top down car which has enough power to occasionally have real fun on the bendy bits then a 1.8 is perfect.
If you want all the above with a bit more power & all the whistles & bells for sporty driving & track days then the 2.0 sport is for you.
They will both put a huge grin on your face
Most people buy an MX-5 for fun driving (apart from the fact that they look so damn good). But what the definition of ‘fun’ is, will actually vary from person to person.
If you are interested in taking part in track days perhaps, or thrashing your car to within an inch of its life around quiet twisty roads, then obviously, the more power you have, and probably also the tighter, and maybe lower suspension you fit, then the more of your type of ‘fun’ you are likely to get. So a 2.0L Sport might be the way to go.
However, if you are an old goat like myself (over 60 that is), and actually many other contributors to this forum, where ultimate power and performance is not the be-all-and-end-all of your MX-5 ownership, then it doesn’t really matter if you get only the 1.8L model.
You will have a lot of fun whichever version you buy.
Hi there – I was in this position a little over a year ago, so drove both a 1.8 and a 2.0 litre a day apart to see what the difference was. If you can find a specialist MX5 dealer nearby, with lots for sale such as Supercar Classics on the Wirrel, then you could drive them back to back to get a really good idea of the performance differences.
I found the 1.8 was nice enough and once up to speed was really good fun. The 2.0 though was a different animal and I found myself grinning more and more as I drove it. Quite a bit quicker out of the blocks but the most noticeable thing was the extra torque. So it had to be a 2.0 for me – also some things either aren’t fitted at all or are not common options with 1.8 variants, these include: 17 inch wheels, LSD, ESC, Bilstein suspension, Bose Audio, 6 speeds, aircon, cruise control, and Heated leather seats.
There’s lots to choose from out there, so good luck with your search,
Colin
First service parts, the spark plugs and the fan belt are different.
You want to use Castrol Multivehicle 75W/90 or Redline MT90 in the 6 speed box as they tend to have sticky gear change issues. The five speed is most of the time happy with any 75W/90 GL4 or GL5 oil in the gearbox.
The six speed box and some 2 litre cars do not have it, is excellent for motorway eating and the engine noise goes down compared to the 5 speed due to the diff ratio and the sixth gear. It also improves the fuel consumption on a long motorway trips. Not on a B road as you tend to be up and down the box.
You will love whatever you buy.
2.0 versions are not just for track or for thrashing to within an inch of their lives.
0-60 times I believe are 9.9 secs for the 1.8 litre (fabric top & Roadster Coupe) & 7.6 secs for the 2.0 litre fabric top, 7.9 seconds for the 2.0 litre Roadster Coupe.
Both cars are nice but the 2.0 litre’s the one for me - would recommend not just for the improved 0-60 time but as other folk have said it’s a more flexible engine due to increased torque, also 2.0 litres in Sportech trim come with the other sports items i.e. 6 speed box, Bilstein dampers etc. All 2.0 litres whether in SE or Sportech trim come with a limited slip diff, according to my brochure from late 2011. Mazda dropped the 2.0 SE in early 2012.
The 1.8’s a bit easier on petrol although my 2.0 litre regularly manages just over 43 MPG on a decent run.
I’ve driven both and the 2.0 edges it for me. The extra torque makes it the more flexible of the two.
which is why I’m looking for a 2.0 roadster coupe myself
The 1.8’s a bit easier on petrol although my 2.0 litre regularly manages just over 43 MPG on a decent run.
[/quote]
Woah ! I must be doing something very very wrong - the best I have ever got from my NC 2.0L Sport is around 34 - 36 mpg - what’s your secret Andy ?
OK OK, I know - you’re gonna say I’m too heavy with the right foot, but hell, it’s a sports car ! However, I’m a sedate 62 year old, but I just cannot figure out how you people get 43 mpg. I have heard that the NDs are extremely frugal though - something to do with the SKYACTIV technology I suppose.
In the end though, as long as I get fuel consumption figures of around the low thirties mark, I’ll not complain too much - it’s only a fun car anyway, and not a daily driver.
Hi Chris, pleased to say that I have some fun & still get the good MPG figures
43 MPG is on the long motorway & fast A-road runs which I do e.g. Sheffield to Salisbury, Sheffield to Falmouth, Sheffield to Whitby. Around town I get around 30 MPG which is still good I think.
Very pleased with the long-distance economy - I do use the engine’s torque i.e. holding onto the highest gear possible (but never labouring the engine); also my cars are always carefully run-in when new - despite that not being strictly necessary with a modern engine I’ve always found that it definitely helps in the long-term, particularly with fuel economy for the rest of the period during which I’ve owned the car.
Incidentally the trip computer on mine’s really accurate - actual consumption (worked out with a calculator after brimming the tank on each fill-up) is always within about 2/10ths of an MPG of that indicated by the car.
oy! I’m over 60. I have 2.0 sport with 180bhp conversion, and a huge smile when it’s singing on
[quote=paggers]
The main difference is not the engine, it’s the specification. The 2.0L cars were fitted with a limited slip differential whereas the 1.8L cars are not. The 2.0 Sport will also come with a 6-speed close-ratio gearbox rather than the standard 5-speed and also with uprated Billstein sport shocks for a firmer ride.
Regarding the engine, the difference is 158 bhp versus 126 bhp. They are basically the same engine so yes, most of the service parts are the same.
The difference you will feel in driving would come primarily from buying a 2.0 Sport rather than a different model, due to the different suspension and gearbox, rather than from the engine. Obviously the 1.8 does have less power but if power is not something that is driving you then I doubt you will notice a significant difference.
I just bought a Mk3 and went for the 2.0 Sport for all the reasons listed above.
[/quoteI
I sold my 1.8L for a 2.0L Sport last year , so I can say now after 6 months, defiantly prefer the 2.0 Sport for all the above reasons
When I was looking to buy an MX5 I set a budget and short-listed maybe twenty or so, test drove about half of them of various Mks and engine sizes, and at first I was not bothered as to which engine, all the cars handled brilliantly and were a joy to drive.
However I was very much put off by the rust I could see on all the NAs and NBs, some NBs rust was so bad I didn’t dare to risk a test drive, and oil in the exhausts on high mileage NCs, and walked away from them. After a few months of looking I decided to double the budget and only look at low mileage NCs. Eventually I bought the best condition car with the lowest mileage, which happened to be a 2litre Niseko, not the newest nor the cheapest.
Since then I’ve become accustomed to the superb torque and flexibility of the engine, and the only negative aspect when overtaking on the motorway is the way it can suddenly zip up to a ton with just an inadvertent twitch on the throttle - I sometimes have visions of my spotless licence suddenly taking wing.
I’ve since driven both versions of the ND; both brilliant, but the 1.5 needed too much stirring of the gears, and the 2 was too uncomfortable (jarred back pain after only fifteen minutes), and so I will be keeping this NC.
Being a 2litre it has 17" wheels, PRHT, 5 spd box, LSD, climate control, heated leather seats drivers with height adjust, adjustable steering wheel, DSC, fogs, detangoed as per original spec, but non-Bose stereo.
As the others have said, look at lots of cars, and test drive a few to get a better feel for how they might suit you.
Aww, thanks to all for your views and input. Really, really useful
I am getting on a bit (55) and don’t do track days , so sounds like I’ll be fine in either, but I do,like a bit of poke.
if I do go for the 2.0l at least the extra insurance cost should be low.
my current short list has two 2.0l and a 1,8l.
The latter has a hard top which is a big plus to me And compensates for the lack of 6spped and2.0l power .
[quote=mark johnson]
Lovely picture Mark - I can see you have artistic tendencies.
Just a comment on the hard top: think carefully about how much you are going to use it and where you are going to store it when not in use. They take up a surprising amount of space when not in use. Also, with a hard top fitted you lose the option to ‘drop the top’ on a sunny winter day.
Until recently buying the Mk3 we ran a number of Mk1s. I always had a hard top but when I worked it out there was only one winter in the past 5 years where we fitted it. The rest of the time it was just constantly getting in the way in my garage. So I have not gone with a hard top for the Mk3 and so far I am not regretting it. The soft top is keeping the weather out nicely - at least since I coated it with water repellent.
I certainly wouldn’t buy a car simply because it has a hard top. Go for the car with the right specification and if you are really set on a hard top buy one later and get it resprayed (I have never had a colour-matching top, and in truth my preference is for matt black).
Ah, we’re back to the hard top / soft top topic again.
It is of course personal choice, but like Paggers has just posted, the detachable hard top comes with its own problems - A) you have to store it somewhere when you’re not using it, and B) if you’re out for a drive, and the sun suddenly comes out, you do not have the option to simply ‘drop the top’.
Perhaps it might be worth considering the electrically retractable hard top (the PRHT as Mazda call it). When it’s up, it’s very snug and cozy, and feels almost like an ordinary saloon car - but in 12 seconds it folds away beautifully. and hey presto, you have topless motoring. Some people do not like the look of the PRHT when its up, but personally, I think it looks great, and I consider that you get the best of both worlds.
As I began this post with though, it’s all down to personal choice.
You’ll have bundles of fun whatever MX-5 you buy.
TEE HEE HEE - I love it when a plan comes together - thank you Richard !