I’m wondering about the wisdom of lowering your MX if you depend on it for daily use, in view of the not infrequent flood alerts we seem to be receiving recently.
Gales
I haven’t noticed an increase in flooded roads that I use. If you live in an area where you are regularly driving through fords etc, consider rerouting your intake. The deepest I have ever driven a Mk1, which was lowered 40mm, was back in 2002, after I got caught in a flash flood outside of Belfast. Couldn’t turn back as the road behind was being rapidly swallowed up. Got to within a 500 years of my house, and was stopped by an army patrol, who told me in no uncertain terms, waving a rifle in my direction, that I was to go no further. The depth was such that I was creating a pretty decent bow wave, but the level was well below my HKS intake. The car suffered no damage, though I made sure than the chassis was jet washed after. If you’re worried about hydrolocking an engine because you’ve dropped the height by a mere 1 inch, I would suspect you ought not be driving through those areas anyhow even at standard height.
No no, you misunderstand I do not depend on my beloved MX for daily use, She is put safely to bed overwinter except for the occasional trip on a nice dry sunny day. I am lucky to have other vehicles at my disposal).
The posting was meant for owners who depend on their MXs for daily use, and the possible increase in risk during exceptional weather periods which seem to occur more frequently recently. By recently I mean in the last 10 yrs or so. You may have gathered from my comments that I am getting on in years which tend to accumulate caution and perhaps a little wisdom.
Regards
Gales
Gales, the MX-5 was designed to be the hight it is when it it is lowered… Mazda chose to raise it in Europe or the UK for whatever reason, but it wasn’t because it was to cope with floods. It is the “standard” car that is “wrong” not the lowered one. There are thousands and thousands of lowered MX-5 of all types coping with every day life totally without drama. 
Could you please tell me on what evidence you base this assertion? It is commonly stated as fact on MX5 forums but has never been substantiated with any evidence whatsoever. Also, if Mazda chose to raise it in Europe and the UK then why is the car sold at the same height for the US and Japanese Domestic markets?
If you know something factual about this then I would genuinely love to hear it.
What evidence are you after? I don’t expect Mazda will put out a statement.
I base it on the reports from journalists from pre launch to afterward, complaining that the handling had gone to pot and the feel that was there was now a distant memory.
That wheel alignment specialists couldn’t get decent settings on the car , but once lowered everything came into line and that the standard car feels so dull. I can’t believe anywhere an engineering design brief calls for a car to follow the original ethos, low weight, nimble handling and ensure you can get a large clenched fist between the top of the wheel and the wheel arch.
I don’t believe there was any deliberate cynicism involved so that the height was raised to sell lowering kits but that I am sure Mazda marketting know their demographics to insist on a change pre laujch as is quite common on this forum for people to be more concerned about compliant ride and what happens on speed bumps that any true driver involvement. There is event a thread on this forum comparisons the driving experience to that of a Mondeo. I would struggle to believe any engineer in charge of sports car design would accept being as good a s a Mondeo as a worthy goal.
I suggest that it’s not “cut and dried as” you suggest Nick.
Here are some interesting comments/reviews by ordinary drivers , not necessarily drivers who like to corner on their door handles perhaps.
http://www.whatcar.com/car-reviews/mazda/mx-5-open/readers-reviews/25500-1
Note, there are 9 pages if anyone is interested.
Regards
Gales.
Depends what you mean by ordinary drivers!!!
I have had MX5’s for 10 years and never felt the need to comment on what car!
I also have a new car (non MX5)every 2 to 3 years and put 40k plus pa on them and never put anything on what car
The comment about how he exceeded the mpg figure straight away sort of summed up, for me, the person who would post on there!!! not the sort who would use the car any where near it’s potential
Cornering on door handles wouldn’t ‘handle’ very well
However after driving our 2007 2.0 Sport for 20k miles on original springs and not really enjoying how it should have been produced, took the ‘plunge’ and fitted a set of Eibach springs only regret is wish I had done it sooner.
Comments from journalists are just that - comments from people who WRITE for a living, not necessarily expert drivers or design engineers. Feel and handling is a very subjective thing. One mans taught and nimble is another’s harsh and pointy.
Alignment specialists that couldn’t get decent settings on the car? Settings for what? For whom? There is no single “correct” setup, only what the driver wants and works for him/her. Came into line after lowering? Into line for what? The standard car feels dull? Does it? Mine doesn’t. I completely accept that the majority of cars are badly setup “out of the box” and can be made to feel a lot better (in a general sense) simply a fresh alignment to factory spec but that it not evidence that the car should be lower.
The oft touted 4x4 look and huge wheel arch gaps don’t prove anything either. Look at pictures of the first car off the line and other pictures of US and JDM cars. They all have big arch gaps. The claim that the cars were raised is always linked to UK and European models, often along with something about pedestrian impact regs or similar. If that were true then it would be well documented and in the public domain. There would be no need for Mazda to put out a statement because it would already be there. US and JDM cars would not be affected by any EU regs so why would they be raised too? They are, after all, sold at the same height (according to the dimensions in the brochure).
I too do not believe there is any conspiracy to sell aftermarket suspension. I am firmly of the belief that Mazda sell the car to the biggest number of customers and offer aftermarket alternatives for those that want something more focussed. That’s not evidence that it was designed to be lower and raised prior to sale, only conjecture.
The problem is that every time this nonsense is repeated, more people pick up on it and then repeat it again. It has now become some sort of accepted wisdom and yet, if you look behind the curtain, there is nothing there. It would make like a whole lot easier if there were.
ETA: Just re-read that and it sounds a bit shouty. Sorry about that. It’s not meant to.
Happy new year.
I have to drive down a rough path to reach the garage where the MX5 is kept and if it were any lower it would ground - it’s as simple as that for me.
Thank you , Happy New Year to you too.
This is not shouty either, it will come over that way though.
Yes, journalists write for a living, especially the ones in the local paper, and yes many journalists are good with words before any form of interest in what they are writing about. However, writing for a living or not, the comments, “why have Mazda raised the ride height from when I last drove the pre production car just 6 months ago” are not really subjective comments.
The suspension is high because Mazda Marketing know that their customers in the main are grey haired and like nice little runs out. As with all things, focus groups and capturing wider markets, (very important for business) dictate that evolution moves further away from original goals. I spent 30 years in engineering design, the only relevance to that here is that I have way too much first had experience on how “marketing considerations” continually cause “feature drift” as projects evolve. Also as a design engineer, I would bet everything I own including my children and grand children on the following choices. Did the engineers set out to design a good looking (always subjective) vehicle, following the RX-8 theme to include a 5" tyre to wheel arch gap? If the ride height at this level was so critical then it could have easily been styled out at the concept stage. The fact that this gap exists indicates to me that this came about well after the bodywork design was frozen. Given that so much was made of the weight being so similar to the outgoing model, that rather cheap and horrible sun visors were quoted as one of the methods of getting that weight in order to make a nimble and fun handling car, and all the effort that goes into that, do you think the chassis engineers then said, in a Japanese accent, “I know, lets raise it up, make it look like a Toyota pick-up and make it feel all woolly to drive.” How much Saki must have been drunk to make that one seem like a good idea?
I will say again, Mazda Marketing know their market is not young, hot blooded individuals who will be into BMW’s children and not looking like a hairdresser. To attract them they would have to make a much more brutal car, but the original design brief would not have said do all the weight saving and flash expensive suspension thing, just like we do on the RX-8, but then lets jack it up in the air.
I am fortunate that I have driven a very great deal of MX-5’s and RX-8’s for that matter, The RX-8, which is just about the same suspension is much better out of the box, despite the lack of torque and extra weight it involves the driver far more than a standard MK3. For what ever reason Mazda decided to increase the ride height of the MX-5 it did not come early in the design process. I have a MK3, it is now lowered, just on the standard Bilstein dampers and Mazda lowering springs. It is neither crashy or harsh, rides bumps well and has reasonable body control. However, it can be smacked on speed bumps, something I guess you would be pretty upset with if you had just driven out of the dealership. However the main difference is the round thing in front of the driver now actually feels like it might be connected to the front wheels by something more than a piece of rubber and that you have some understanding of what is happening under your bum. Surely something pretty desirable in a car sold as the world’s most popular sports car under the Zoom Zoom banner?
All the evidence for raising the height is circumstantial but compelling nevertheless. Anyone that has driven the “standard” car and a lowered one will testify to the improvement in the lowered one.
Manufacturers like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche etc. will make no compromise. However Mazda’s goal is to produce a “sports car” for the mass market. It makes much more sense to produce a “serious” sports car that can be adapted for the mass market (i.e. can be used on rural roads, potholed roads, urban roads with speed humps etc), but can be easily transformed back into a “serious” sports car for the enthusiast driver, than it does to make a “mass market” car that could never be easily converted into a “serious” sports car.
Mazda have very cleverly produced a car that can be all things to all men, without the need to produce a very wide range of model options.
It would not surprise me at all if the suspension settings were changed between initial press cars and what was sent to the showrooms. Last minute changes to specifications do happen.
It unfortunately seems to be an oft repeated case of a model becoming softer and more bloated the longer it is in production. This has happened to many cars and motorcycles over their life cycle. Examples are the 12/50 Alvis, Minis, both BL and BMW, Jaguar E Type and Velocette KSS and Scott motorcycles.
I think the problem is that as the original designer or design team ages so their vehicles become more middle aged as do the original buyers. The marketing people then take over from the engineers. It is not surprising if a younger buyer of a mid term model finds it rather too soft for their taste.
We bought my Son a Mk1 Eunos, I love it. It has had lowered and stiffer Mazdaspeed suspension from nearly new. It can be a bit harsh on minor roads but the flat cornering is delightful. I think MX5 owners are fortunate in being able to easily alter the suspension to suit their individual needs whatever the factory may of may not have done between testing and production.
I have driven a lowered car. Indeed, I had my car lowered almost as soon as I bought it… and that was my mistake. In lowering the car, I destroyed the ride and compliance. It was harsh, pointy, grounded on every speed hump and on some of our poorer unclassified roads too. What I should have done was apply a fresh Geo to factory settings first. It was only after removing the lowered springs and returning the car to “as it should be” that it actually felt right.
Perhaps it was the choice of springs being so poorly matched to the dampers and [much] lower than I intended that made the experience so much worse than it could otherwise have been and perhaps I would have a different opinion if I were to try a different set of springs. None of this proves anything though, other than that the standard car handles really rather well when set up “correctly”. Additionally, it is also quite sensitive to tyres - both type and pressure - which is something that most people don’t really appreciate. A different brand or a few PSI either way can make the car feel very different.
Perhaps. They have certainly produced a car that can be a daily driver for middle-aged ladies who know nothing more about the car than that it makes them look and feel young again (sorry, horrible stereotypical generalisation there, but you get the point) yet with nothing more than careful setup can appeal to even the most discerning road driver, and those who want to take it further can do so too. But Mazda are not unique in this. There are aftermarket products to make many cars much more focussed but that doesn’t mean that they were designed to be that way and then compromised for the mass market any more than it does for the MX5.
I have never denied that the car can be made to fit pretty much whatever the driver wants from it. In most cases on forums like this that means lower and stiffer as, for some reason, people equate hard and pointy with “good handling”. Maybe for their driving style, in their car, on the roads that they drive, it is.
My MX is a 1997 Mk1 on Autolink sports springs. Lowered to the ‘V’ Special (?) ride height.
In the dry, on a fast B road or roundabout - nothing touches me.
Apart from a Nissan GT a few weeks back.
That touched me quite a bit.
I actually like the MX5 the way it is. I wanted something with feel, but not too much so I could tour in it. I looked at cars with a stiffer suspension, such as the Elise, but decided that I would not use it so much. The MX5 was an ideal compromise between the hard core sports car, and the chop top 4 seat convertibles, without breaking the bank.
I think thats its winning formula, a perfect combination of practicality and a drive that makes me grin like a loon.
That’s my point, it is a compromise, if you decide that is good or bad is down to you, but I guarantee it is not how the chassis engineers, or stylists for that mater, originally conceived the project.
To be honest, you only have to look at the Jota to know that Mazda didn’t release the MK3 for the best drive, but more to appeal to the widest possible target audience. If you google before and after production pictures you can definitely see a height difference, no doubt.
Going back to the very original question; When I lowered my first MK1, it felt like the best thing I could’ve ever done for the car, everything felt like it made sense. Before the car was good. After I lowered it however, the car felt fun and focused. I have no doubt the MK3 would be exactly the same, especially with older cars now approaching 6 or 7 years old with potentially 100,000 on the clock and therefore worn suspension.
Just my 2p.