I can only impart what I learned when researching the car. I’ve only had mine since sept last year.
Personally if it was me and insurance wasn’t an issue I’d get the 2.0. I couldn’t see much of a reason for going for the 1.8 over this other than they are a little cheaper.
As far as I’m aware facelifted cars had engine alterations including a forged crankshaft allowing the rev limit to be raised and tuned throttle for extra response.
Interior for nc2 and up has slightly different seats, some have bose sound, slightly altered other interior items and door cards were changed so the cup holders don’t stick out as much and hit you in the knees.
Suspension was tweaked, bilstein were further tuned and lower than standard trim or nc1 cars.
Updated wheels, restyle bumpers and different lights front and rear.
Sport tech is a great spec to get as it has all the kit and from what I saw there’s no reason with some searching you shouldn’t be able to find one well below 100k for the money, but condition is everything so look out for rust and dodgy repairs.
Having owned both engines in the NC1 variant, I would say a 1.8 is not much of a downgrade on the 2.0 power wise if you need to save money.
The major difference is the LSD. Its more comfortable to treat my 6 speed 2.0 as a 5 speed and use 6th as overdrive anyway, so the extra gear doesn’t help much. Fuel economy is also pretty similar between the two.
The wheels are nicer though.
NC2/3s definitely have the benefits of having learnt things from the NC1. (Door cards are better, ride height is better, forged crank, etc).
I went for NC1 out of personal nostalgia. If it was my first 5 I’d have got a Kuro edition I think.
Oh yes would help if the rusty spots were listed so you can check. These are mainly everywhere…
Just joking (ish) but in all seriousness - subframes and braces, brake discs for heavy rust and pitting, suspension struts for leaks and rust, springs for flaked coatings, breaks and rust, rear arches for rust and bubbling paint/underseal and lower rear sills, up behind the rear bumper, under the boot carpet and under the rear lip of the boot where the number plate lights are.
Also check behind the seats, in the boot, driver and passenger footwells for water or damp smells as this will lead to possible electrical gremlins and rot.
As for NC1 v later cars, I’ve driven both but ended up with an NC1 1.8. I’m averaging 38 mpg. I don’t find the door cup holders to be a problem although others seem to. Yes, later models and 2.0 engines bring performance upgrades, but in honesty, normal roads aren’t the place to exploit them.
There is a guide that describes each limited edition. TBH, they are broadly similar apart from colours and badging.
Personally I’d stay away from 100K cars, and look for something with up to 60K (at £100K miles lots of things start to go wrong / simply wear out).
If you are only interested in nice open top summer driving then a 1.8 will be fine, but if you like to use the performance and handling then it needs to be a 2.0.
I spent just over £4K on a 38K miles 2006 NC1 ( 2ltr Sport ) which needed a good service etc, but its been excellent, I’ve had it 3 years now, never missed a beat, in excellent condition underneath and runs lovely.
If I had your budget I would look for a car similar to mine (many for about £3.5K- £5K) then spend another £1000.00 on lowering springs, decent radio, decent exhaust, or you may just find one with those bits already fitted.
But whatever you buy, they are now getting older so give it a good check over and have a good look underneath!.
I ended up with 1.8, because that was what the garage had a few years ago its an 07 NC1 with 70k on it for £3k. I’m very pleased with it, performance is fine it’s good for over 120, handling and economy are fine. I am glad it’s got the leather trim and heated seats with aircon however. I retro fitted the fog lights and intermittent wiper stalk, both cheap and easy upgrades. having thought 6 speed would be good I think 5 is better as needs less gear changing and is fine for the road. can’t comment on the LSD though not found much difference on other cars ive had except driving in snow! mine is a soft top and the drains need a regular clean, again not sure on PRHT. we use it as a daily thanks to ULEZ and it copes fine. Great little car - buy one you won’t be dissapointed
There are plenty of cars with low mileage about so no need to contemplate 100k. Mine was bought last December.’ 06 / PRHT / 46k / £3500 and no significant rust. This is Cornwall where cars are a bit more expensive too.
I’ve just bought a 2007 2.0i on 110k, history is superb and it drives spot on - plenty cars will soak up 150-200k without issue if maintained properly so why should an MX5 be any different? My thinking was I’d rather go for something with an immaculate MOT history (it’s rust free!) and lots of history rather than obsessing about less than (eg) 80k. I checked out a few lower miles cars that were in much worse condition and significantly more expensive…
Fair point, it’s more a reference to a few comments saying 100k+ to be avoided at all costs. Just wondering why. But yeah, given the OP budget is 2-3 times mine then he should be able to get a similarly nice car with less than half the miles
but in all seriousness - subframes and braces, brake discs for heavy rust and pitting, suspension struts for leaks and rust, springs for flaked coatings, breaks and rust, rear arches for rust and bubbling paint/underseal and lower rear sills, up behind the rear bumper, under the boot carpet and under the rear lip of the boot where the number plate lights are.
