I’m currently looking at a few MX5’s - amongst them one is a 2007 Mk2 with 37k, and another that is 2010 Mk3 with 60k. Assuming both cars are average for their age & mileage in other respects (mechanically/bodywork etc) do owners think its best to go for the younger car regardless, or is low mileage the sought after quality in an MX5?
Regards
Keith
No such thing as a 2007 Mk2; the Mk2 was replaced in 2005 with the Mk3.
Hi, can you clarify a couple of points, a 2007 is more likely to be a MK3 and a 2010 is more likely to be a MK 3.5 ( facelift mk 3).
can You check your info.
Richard
Whoops!
Assume Saz means ‘no such thing as a 2007 MK2’ - agree with him.
Plenty of typos, that’s most likely it.
I would more likely look at the later car, it’s still low mileage for the year. Just make sure it’s a good en, check underneath for grot and around the rear wheel arches for any paint starting to bubble. The rest well check as you would do for any car.
To buy on age or mileage? Neither. Buy on condition. A 30 year old Mk1 Eunos with 100k miles recently imported from Japan may well be a more solid car than a 5 year old Mk3 that’s been used once a week for a shopping trip and parked outside near the coast.
So many things to take into account. Have a look in the for sale section of this forum. Owners club members cars are way more likely to be well looked after.
Fully agree! Condition is everything. Some low mileage cars will have been left outside in the rain also with consequent corrosion due to condensation in the sills etc. with just the occasional short trip -while some higher mileage cars will have been better looked after, always garaged, done mostly motorway & A Road miles & been kept away from salted roads as much as possible.
If both cars are in the same condition and have been looked after well then my deciding factor would be price. The MK3.5 is a slightly better car than the MK3. Engine updates, different interiors parts, better heated seats and a happier face. The decision I would be facing: Is the difference in price worth it for the updates. When I was looking for a car I saw a few mk3s and a few mk3.5s and there was about a £2k difference. I decided that a mk3.5 is not £2k better. Assuming equal condition a MK3 with £2k spent on it will be better than a MK3.5
Apologies for my sloppiness regarding the marque. Its is the 2007 & 2010 models I’m looking at.
Thanks for the advice/suggestions, I’d intended to give them both a good check over, forum info. now having alerted me to potential rust/engine oil issues.
I do slightly above average mileage (about 12/13k a year) so thought a lower mileage would give me a better “balance” during my ownership of the car - I’ve always assumed a petrol engine will be approaching the end of its useful life at about 100/120k, so was avoiding anything with 70k plus on the clock - is the MX5 engine (assuming the newer engine as in the Mk3) still fundamentallly sound at higher mileages? (again, assuming reasonably well looked after)
Mileage? Depends on previous owners’ treatments.
If a proven dealer service history is available (if either of the cars have been dealer serviced) as they keep the history on a database…or should.
Regular changes of modern oils will see them romp past 100k & laugh it off… IF the dipsticks have been kept to top mark.
There is one really exceptional Mk3 in France which was LPG converted which is well over 1 million kilometers…yup 1 million…on it’s original engine and it’s fine.Our 2002 Mk2.5 (which has the more “dated” bullet-proof old school iron block/alloy head) is sitting at 105,ooo miles…and spins sweetly with zero consumption…and when I drop the oil out every 5k or annually, it drains out still honey coloured. If anything, I feel it’s just beginning to give it’s best.
Just depends on how they are treated.
At all times, as said, it’s the condition of body-tub, arches, and sills which csn be the deal breaker/maker but thorough “behind plastic skirts” investigations can be an issue with early Mk3s which, it’s beginning to be reported, are rotting. Couple of years back in Tesco’s car park I saw a really nice seemingly well looked after silver Mk3 which had been the victim of a side swipe which had removed the side skirt…and you could see right through the lower rear wing leading edge.
Many say “what’s the issue?”…as they did with the Mk2’s back in the day but we have to accept they are/were mild steel poorly protected vehicles subjected to UK winters & road salt.(I’ve restored 2 by the way…still love 'em) There is a very good reason why a few experienced long termers/ intended keepers of the new ND are focusing on rot-proofing from new or recently purchased as used. Have a look at the photos online of how badly protected ( nil) they are with a host of rot-traps.
Here is one well known seasoned expert with his new 30th Anny. Orange…as usual! http://mx5driver.com/thread/9437/rustproofing-2
Pretty bad “befores” showing thin unprotected primer & token factory robot (?) applied over-spray.
“Afters” come as a visual relief!
Good solid relatively rot free examples still abound…just be patient and choose with care and you will be all good.
The later NC (2008+) have a stronger crankshaft.
The problem with the rust on NCs is that its only recently rearing its head, and there is uncertainty about the costs involved. NAs and NBs are such that the costs of repair are fairly well known, such that you can factor that into the purchase price. A MX5 specialist recounted so recent experience with a NC. The disadvantage is everything has to be, no commercially available repair patches. The good news is that the pieces needed are easy to fabricate. Though he noted the more he looked on this particular car, the more rust became apparent, it was everywhere, not just in one particular spot.