I found something interesting. I decided to compare the spec of a mk2.5 and mk3 1.8i in Auto Trader and found the following:
The newer one is slower 0-62, slower top end and 20bhp less powerful? Are the newer versions meant to be better? Doesn’t it have a more refined engine?
Any thoughts/feedback?
MK2.5 - 1.6 & 1.8
MK3 - 1.8 & 2.0
So, the mk2.5 1.8 is comparable the mk3 2.0
MK3 has lower emissions, and better fuel economy - all part of the requirements set by governments I suppose…
Indeed. All about pedestrian safety and the planet.
At the end of the day, if a car buyer wants to save the planet, by a Smart, if the government wants to save the planet, stop making ozone-tearing cars.
Why charge the driver more? Is the planet suddenly accepting back-handers?
You should be comparing the 1.8 with the 2.0, or 1.6 with 1.8, so not a fair comparison in my opinion. We all know that every new generation of car has to comply with ever more stringent emmisions and environmental targets so I guess you have to up the engine capacity to compensate.
In the good old days, a 1.6 engine in a car, burning fuel with a bit of lead in it was usually a decent performer, but not now. My old Toyota Corrolla AE86 with a 1.6 engine, had the performance of a current 2.litre mx5…
Doesn’t make any sense does it.
They need to be doing more with less, not doing the same with more
Thanks for your feedback.
But yes, hense asking for thoughts on feedback on my findings. I came here to learn so teach me 
I was unaware that comparing like for like (e.g. 1.8 >> 1.8) was an unfair test. 
Can someone elaborate?
It’s unfair, because in search of better emissions and fuel consumption, a larger engine capacity was used.
During the ‘evolution’, the 1.8 mk2.5 became the 2.0 mk3, and the 1.6 mk2.5 became the 1.8 mk3.
So they’re not really like-for-like.
Does the explain it better?
I see. But I did notice it was cheaper for insurance for the newer ones.
Err? No
Like for like is a 1.8 against a 1.8. I can’t see any other combo as like for like at all.
Ramsay.
Looking at it completely objectively, what you say is common sense but it’s the Golf story all over again insofar the crackerjack Golf Mk1’ 1600’s are regarded as the purest razor-handling fun amongst their followers. Over 30 years the things have just become podgy, understeering saloons…until VW woke up with the 2ltr turbo ( but that’s what it took to make the thing go with any brio) So, here we have the best selling sports cat in history going the same way. Perhaps one day Mazda might put some decent power in it and deliver a chassis that again works properly out of the box without getting it WIM’d and Eibached
I drove two poverty spec Mk3.5 1.8’s last year and neither had the tactile “kid glove” feel or performance of either my Mk.“1.5” 1840cc (131bhp) or the wife’s Mk2.5 Sport…but they were nice enough 2 seater saloons to pose down the shops with. Putting it bluntly, in relation to the Mk1 in particular, they felt flacid, gutless and just plain boring and neither had handlng to touch the Sport which admittedly has been Progrip aligned and Toyo’d. Nice smooth engines though, and super gearchanges…plus excellent economy(yawn!) The 2 Mk3.5 2 ltrs I had a shot in were a different cuppa ( though, in my view not worth flogging a Mk3 to upgrade) and they really do need the extra ooomph…back to the “Golf” syndrome. Vauxhall give their punters 237BHP in the standard VRX for Pete’s sake!In my opinion, if someone was looking to enter Mx5 ownership for “enthusiastic” reasons, it would be a cherished late Mk2.5 Sport I’d advise because I really feel Mazda lost the plot with the Mk3.5, and missed an opportunity. As if they are saying…“well…show us a competitor…and we will rise to the challenge” Trouble is, there isn’t really a price competitor to improve the breed.
We have a 2½ 1.8S and a MK3 2.0 Launch edition. The MK3 is 158 bhp wheras the MK2½ is 128bhp. Both are excellent cars, however the MK3 needed Eibachs, WIM and the traction control turning off to make it a proper 5.
they didn’t introduce a 2.0 to make it faster and more powerful, they did it to pretty much maintain the current performance levels, when taking into account all the other criteria a modern engine has to meet… so compare top spec car with top spec car if you want to make a proper unbiased comparison, or base spec car with base spec car, its then 1.6 against 1.8 and 1.8 against 2.0… as I see it…
I’m not saying that what Mazda are doing is right, or that the evolution is sensible, but quite simply, that’s how it is.
The mk3 is a good car, but when a friend was talking about getting an mx5, I did what I could to convice him to go for a mk2, or 2.5 (with it being their daily drive, and them having a bit of ‘fear’ over an older car (whether justified or not), a mk1 was out the question).
So far, they’ve not bitten the bullet - and to be honest, I doubt they will - but they will almost certainly go for a mk3(/3.5) if they do.
Why do I think that? Because they weren’t best pleased when I took them out in mine, and did such horrendous things as; changing gear at the red line, and blipping the throttle on down-shifts.
They weren’t (/aren’t) really interested in the mx5 for its sporting credentials, but rather for its posing credentials. I suspect.
I have no doubt that the mk3 is a very capable car, but from what I’ve heard it does need to be tweaked (in terms of suspension setup, for example) to unleash its potential, which to me says everything there is to be said about it - it’s effectively de-tuned a bit, to make it a bit more poser-friendly, and a little less sports-car.
If I could have afforded a mk3 when I bought my car, I possibly would have - but they were too expensive to consider (being a student and all that), but having the knowledge I have now (and a bit more dosh), I wouldn’t change my car for a mk3.
From time to time I think a mk1 would be a larf, but I know the novelty of pop-up lights would wear off, and I’d miss the refinements of my mk2.5.
Martin
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I understand your point but I just can’t accept that it is ‘fair’ to compare a 1.8 to a 2 litre when your talking power, performance etc.
ADDITION:
My brother has a Mk3 and as far as I’m concerned, somehow the charachter of the car just isn’t there like I feel in my 2.5. There’s no way I’d swap mine for his - and his is worth another £4k.
On face value, I’d agree - but what you have to keep in mind here is that the emissions (and fuel consumption) of a mk2.5 are pretty horrendous - mk3s aren’t great either, but they are a lot better.
You have a 1.8 tuned in the search of performance, and a 2.0 tuned for both performance, but also for the Polar Bears.
That is what makes them comparable - it’s a larger capacity, but not tuned to the same extent.
To say that the 1.8 mk2.5 evolved in to the 1.8 mk3 (as was the original post, as I interpret it) is incorrect, because it evolved in to the 2.0, in order to maintain the performance, and to meet emission requirements.
I traded in my MK2 that I had for 7 years back in November for a MK3 and don’t get me wrong, there was a little tear as I handed over the keys for my MK2 but having said that, I love the MK3 (and as my husband keeps saying to me if I compare it to my MK2 is “yeah, but it has an electric folding hardtop”). I love it but, I wouldn’t say I was someone who could tell the difference in the handling between the two cars (I am blond at the weekends ) but guess it depends on what you want the car for! Only way is the drive them both and see what your preference is.
I agree regarding the emissions - keeps the tax high for what basically is a small car. 
As for fuel consumption, I disagree. I have checked mine twice now by filling/re-filling and I’m getting 37.8 mpg from my Mk2.5 1.8 sport during mixed town/fast road driving. I think that’s pretty good. I’m only getting about the same from my 1.6 Focus Zetec, albeit that car is a lot heavier.
If that were the case all the time, then surely a modern, VW Golf Mk6 1.6 would be directly comparable to a 70s 1.6 Mk1 GTI. Which it obviously isn’t. The GTI has grown up, and gained a bigger engine to make up for extra kit, safety stuff, emissions regs and so on - that’s exactly what the MX5 has done between Mk2.5 and Mk3/3.5 (albeit on a less extreme scale) so that’s why you can’t compare them purely based on cubic capacity.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d have a Mk2/2.5 over a Mk3/3.5, but it’s unfair on the later car to consider a like-for-like comparison based solely on the engine size.
I agree with your point about not comparing cars based purely on engine size but you have compared a modern Golf 1.6 with a 70s Golf 1.6 and quite rightly concluded that the modern one is going to be superior. But you have compared 1.6 with 1.6!
It is only fair to the MX5 therefore, to compare a 1.8 with a 1.8 and based on your thesis above the Mk3 1.8 should be better than the Mk2.5 1.8. But no, for some reason which I still fail to see, some people are comparing a Mk2.5 1.8 with a Mk3 2 litre. Crazy!
The plain fact is that Mazda have changed the 1.8 engine in the Mk3 and to enable them to lower emission figures from the Mk2.5 they have settled for a less powerful engine and a slightly lower performance.