Interestingly a friend who owns both said exactly the same but in the end I wanted something a bit smoother and a little easier to drive
Mmmmm. How much boot space do you need? My wife and I did a seven day tour of Scotland in our ND and we packed everything we needed including clothes for all weathers, walking boots. numerous pairs of shoes, numerous jackets/fleeces, in two airline hand baggage cases (which the car is designed for) and the space around them . Most of the clothes we took for colder weather weren’t worn . Now you might need more space for a two week jaunt but that would come second to owning the ND. I would rather get a boot rack than swap it for an Audi TT. With all that lot on board the 2.0 litre’s torque definitely helps for a relaxed thrash free drive.
My wife was really quite anti the Audi until she sat in it and then demanded a test drive. I found a 2.0 TFSI with 211 bhp and only 17500 miles, lacks the nimbleness and rawness of the MX5 but is nonetheles is a stunning drive. The electric roof is a work of art!
more space than the ND offers I’m afraid. The TT has a 211bhp engine, 0-62 in 6.2 seconds and enough torque to spin the wheels when I changed gear and floored the throttle.
…really impressed with this. We have just completed a 3 night stay in Lincoln in our Mk2, and I must admit it was a struggle, (and we didn’t take any “weather” gear or walking boots). We did use it a few years ago for a week in Scotland and we ended up with a bag on the “back shelf”, (or on the stored soft top if it was down…I don’t think the Mk4 has this option?). Would love to see how you got it all in!!!
NB Since the previous post I have been “Autotradering”, but not many soft top TT’s about…at least not within a reasonable distance, (or price)…the search continues…decisions decisions…
It can be done. You just need to keep your wife in check. It is amazing how much you can get in if you pack carefully and use every nook and cranny. Two airline hand baggage suitcases, coats, shoes, boots etc stuffed in the wings and in the space between the suitcases which sit in a well and the rear bulkhead. Couple of large carrier bags to put the loose stuff in when transporting between the car and B&B etc. I’ll take a photo next time.
Hi first Rider, and thanks for the reply. Yes I would be interested in a picture! I am aware that the Mk 3 boot is 150 litres, and the Mk4 is 130, but can’t find the actual capacity for our Mk2, (It may be less as it has a space-saver spare wheel?)
…a possible solution for “longer” trips ??? :-
https://boot-rack.co.uk/convertible-boot-rack/mazda-mx5-boot-rack/mx5-mk4-boot-rack/
Does anybody have one and can comment as to practicality?..certainly cheaper than the “official” boot rack…(NB I am referring specifically to the “bag” strapped to the boot).
Yup, that pretty much describes exactly what we took in our mk 3, two cabin bags, a soft bag and a small cool bag. Definitely couldn’t get both the cabin bags in the mk 4, we tried.
If you are referring to the boot bag that straps onto the lid of the boot…well, you’ll never guess who’s got one who doesn’t need it now he’s not got an MX5 any more ?? interested?
(and no before anybody states the obvious we didn’t see this as the solution to our personal issues with the mk4)
My guess is that the luggage space issue is at least partly due to different people’s perception of “essential” and “travelling light”. Two people with similar thoughts to mine would get enough “essentials” for a two week touring holiday into the boot of the ND easily. On the other hand two people like my youngest nephew would have trouble getting their “essentials” into the back of a Mercedes Sprinter van!
Two standard cabin bags here in a Mk4 - for the benefit of other readers, try yours rather than assume they won’t fit because they fit easily either flat or side on, provided they can use the depth of the well. They do vary slightly in size, these are both Samsonite, slightly different models bought at different times to comply with 55x40x20. We got a couple of underseat bags (used as overnight bags on ferry), a couple of pairs of shoes, coats, a bottle of champagne and some other small items in there as well.
…many thanks for the pics…very useful, I suppose not having a spare wheel helps. We only have the one case (similar to your larger one i guess), so having the extra one may well give more room than our Mk2…perhaps I can stop looking for Audi TT’s for now…
Hmmm, those look slightly smaller than our cabin bags. In the Mk 3 we could get 2 side by side, wheels at the back of the boot, handles at the front, no way could we get more than one in the mk4 So we tried with a slightly larger bag ie travel with one larger bag rather than 2 smaller bags. It fit into the mk 3 no problem, it was an incredibly tight fit in a ND soft top and just wouldn’t go into an RF because of some sort of plastic tray in base of the boot. It was quite amusing, we took the cases to the dealer and were marching backwards and forwards with the salesman between cars with cases…quite a sight for people who didn’t know what we were up to.
Many thanks to all for giving all the ex Caterham owners on here a good laugh. Much appreciated.
I had an Audi TT roadster and while it was a lovely car and I do miss it I had to buy a cheap MX5 too. The TT Owners club while a good bunch have very few actual events and even there big events probably only bring 50 cars or so. The problem with the TT is lack of character don’t get me wrong it was a very good car but soulless, I was also warned of reliability issues in later life and depreciation. Mine was brand new and I got a fantastic deal but swapped it for an older Porsche 911 (996). Now a TTRS or possibly TTS might be different.
Colin
I HAVE A MK3 1.8 AND HAVE BEEN TO GERMANY IN IT MANY TIMES THE AUTOBAHNS ARE VERY FAST ROADS AND I HAVE HAD NO TROUBLE IN KEEPING UP WITH THE TRAFFIC IT CAN CRUISE ALL DAY LONG AT 80MPH AND AT TIMES HAVE REACHED 100 MPH I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY SOME PEOPLE SAY THE 1.8 IS GUTLESS!!
I don’t know whether this is worth saying, or a statement of the bleeping obvious, but here goes.
To most of us, especially those accustomed to an everyday petrol or diesel eurobox with a turbocharger, a 1.5 ND is going to feel gutless driven in an everyday manner.
The reason isn’t too hard to find.
My 1.5 ND has 150Nm of torque at 4,800rpm, so the book tells me, 129bhp, a 0-62 time of 8.3s and nominally bhp/tonne of 123 with driver.
My Mitsubishi Outlander has 360Nm of torque from 1700-2750rpm, 147bhp, a 0-62 time of 11.6s, and nominally bhp/tonne of 87.
Flat out, the MX-5 will win a traffic light drag race or a contested overtake.
The MX-5 can comfortably be driven around using 2000-2500rpm. So can the Outlander. But at 2500rpm the ponderous Outlander has all of its 360Nm, and 125bhp, available vs. about 130Nm and less than 50bhp for the MX-5.
So the Outlander driver has 74bhp/tonne under his foot (automatic), the MX-5 driver about 45bhp/tonne. No contest. unless the MX-5 drops at least 2 gears. For a reasonably spritely overtake, it wouldn’t be unusual for me to block change from 6th to 3rd.
In fairness, I think the torque delivery on the 1.5 is not bad at all. It’s flexible and easy to drive at sensible speeds and accelerations, and will do 50mpg driven that way. But if you want to keep up with a far-from-overpowered Outlander using only its mid range power, you’ll need at least 4000rpm, 5000 if you want to get your nose in front, and probably 6000+ if you don’t want it to turn into one of those lorry-style 2-mile overtakes.
Blue curves are the Outlander, green are the MX-5. Comparison from http://www.automobile-catalog.com
Simple answer from someone who has had Mk3 2.0, mk4 1.5 and mk4 2.0 you get more top end acceleration with the 2.0. i.e with the 1.5 overtaking on the motorway you invariably have to change down.
Yes, one of the big disappointments appears to be the lack of an owners club that even comes close to the MC5OC but I guess we’ll get over that
I don’t really find the TT soulless. The 211bhp on tap, with low down torque from the turbo-engine and the rasping exhaust certainly make for a pleasurable drive. It’s even possible to spin the front wheels (if you really try) when changing up a gear.
As for depreciation given I paid 13.5k for a car that cost 29k new I think it’s fair to say the worst of that is past and with only 17500miles on the clock it almost feels like a new car.
We are also enjoying the extra space for both people and luggage. Loved our 8years of MX5 ownership but think by the end we were ready for something a little different
My issue was not so much straight line speed, more one of mid range acceleration.
The day I struggled to overtake a diesel Peugeot 208 who suddenly decided he didn’t want to be overtaken leading to a near head on smash was the day I decided to swap to a 2.0. The difference in overtaking ability was quite stark!