Apart from the second of my five NAs, which was a badly treated dog I made a mistake buying and sold it on quickly when I realised that driving it home, all of mine have been utterly reliable apart from rust. Sadly I’ve never been in a position where I could throw money at a restoration job so I had to sell them. Otherwise…
By way of personal reference, we’ve spent more money keeping our 1994 VW Caravelle on the road in the past 2 years than we did on five MX-5s (years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 & 1997!) over the combined course of 10 years. And about the same on my last (rotting) 1994 NA as on its 2004 VW Polo replacement that I agonised over swapping it for.
If rust could be ruled out of the equation, they’re good little cars.
Just re-read my own post.
I meant 246,000 miles…not 146,000.
Looking at a 1st gen ND this weekend for SWMBO that’s hardly been used.
Dunno though…Mmmm…
Warning noted. I did not know that.
Many thanks.
She’s looking well over book tbh.
14,500 miles only apparently.
And I mean…well over.
I’ll be careful.
It’s a 1500 CC Ian.
I was well impressed with it on the VIP day I have to say that you and I attended.
Jen would be fine with 130 bhp.
Getting shot of her beloved Penny will be a factor but I’ve instilled in her it’s time to let her go.
Nowt wrong with Penny…it’s just…well…it will give issues one day.
Gearbox failures on ND1 in normal day to day use are statistically very low incidence and so far unrecorded in ND2.
Interestingly the V5 gearbox as fitted to the ND2 has recorded failures in the ND1 though not in the ND2. Failures again more typical when used in Auto Cross or other motor sport.
The ND2 brings a DMF and more scaffolding in the PPF which seems to have removed the already low incidence chance of failure.
I don’t doubt that so far the incidence of failure is low, but as the issue is a fundamental design fault rather than an effect of wanton abuse or neglect it would make sense to have the latest revision gearbox if you intend to keep the car for a while.As more failures occur in the future it may affect value at resale. It’s the same reason I would rather buy a Porsche boxster that’s had the ims bearing update/fix.
Hi Rob. From memory nearly all the gearbox problems were on the 2.0l models, as I understood it the gearbox was INTENDED for the 1.5l and the 2.0l was basically an afterthought (mainly for the US market) and it really was a bodge job pairing with the gearbox (I will now get loads of flak from a well informed source). My 2015 ND SE-L Nav is a 1.5l, and while admittedly the mileage is very low it is nearly 5 years old and I’ve never had the smallest niggle with it.
Probably. Saving weight at the cost of reliability does not sound like something a Japanese manufacturer would do though. I wonder how much heavier it is?
The Mk.4 was a completely new car from the ground up. The new engine was different from that in the Mk.3 so no doubt the gearbox was designed for it’s specifications (different ratios?) as was the running gear.
The nd departed from the previous and more usual wisdom of between 3 and 4 to 1 diff ratio and reduced it to allow a smaller crown wheel and more compact diff case. This pushed the compensating changes to the gearbox which would necessitate 5:1 ratio in the gearbox.for 1st gear. Torque and stress effects may have moved from the crown wheel and pinion which are constant mesh and well lubricated/sized to the smaller teeth of the gearbox which are not constant mesh and inherently less rigidly supported. The nd driveline is 22kg lighter than the mk3 as a result.
I’m only repeating what was said at the time, that the whole concept was designed and built around the new 1.5l engine, so when the mainly American market wanted a more powerful 2.0l the original gearbox couldn’t always handle the additional stress and strain. That’s why I said it was a bodge job, and that’s why there have been several “updated” gearbox variants since the original.
