ND 1.5 what a dissapointment

General Discussion Forums MX-5 Chat
2

Took a Mk4 SE L-NAV outon Wednesday , god what where Mazda thinking of!.Its no good trying to produce a car that has decend MPG return if youve got to screem the nuts off it to get it going.Defeats the object really,car is ok driven hard but around the doors god its rubbish.

However today they gave me a 2ltr Sport Nav and this instantly felt like my Mk3 other than the suspension not as stiff as i would like it( adjustable dampers on my Mk3  so can adjust the stiffness from bouncy to  crush a vertibrae)So that would have to be changed but i could live with it for now.But what i cant get my head around and reason for the post, is why didnt Mazda stick a turbo on the 1.5? Ive driven the Fiat 1.5 Lusso plus on a couple of occasions and nearly put my name down for a S Design on Wednesday.But i thought id give both the Mazda’s a drive first.Id driven the MX5 1.5 a few weeks back but only a very short drive and didnt like it then.However i thought if im going to spend the pennies I should  have an extensive test drive on my own (well id had enough after 45mins)It needs a turbo Mazda!

3

Yes, I have had my 180bhp 2.0 ND for a week and it is very nippy. I to was less than impressed with the 1.5 performance but many others disagree.

I had a 2.0 NC Sport and I found the 160bhp ND Sport was too stiff compared to the similar Bilstien Equipped NC.

The 1.5 had a nicer ride but rolled more in corners.

The 180BHP ND Sports suspension has a better ride that the earlier ND but still on the edge of too stiff for my liking but probably 5,000 miles or so may well tame that or I will get used to it.

I cannot understand your comment re the NC as it had a better ride than both the 2.0 ND models.

4

Sorry,should of explained and will edit original post.I have Tien Flex Z coilovers with adjustable dampers so can have it as stiff as i like.Currently on setting 12 which is very firm with no body roll at all.

5

Thank glub Mazda didn’t stick a turbo on the 1.5.

Back in August 2017 I had long, unaccompanied, back to back test drives first in the 2.0, then the 1.5. The 2.0 sounded a better buy for a fairly trivial price difference, but I just preferred the 1.5.  And much as I like the appearance of the 124 Spider, the turbo characteristic just makes it the wrong engine for me.  That’s just my opinion.

Funnily enough, the 2015 ND 1.5 is virtually identical in weight, power, torque and performance to the 1995 NA 1.8. The ND slightly edges it, probably due to more rpm and a slightly better drag ratio.  Quite an achievement considering all the extra kit and 50% better fuel economy.  But if I cared about the 0-60 time I wouldn’t have bought an MX-5.

Amazing that we don’t all like the same thingsCool

6

No it doesn’t! That’s why Mazda gives you the option of a 2.0 litre engine if the 1.5 engine is not enough for you. Turbos spoil the throttle response, which is one of the appealing characteristics of the MX5. I bought the 2.0 litre after trying both cars but I can understand why many people like the 1.5.

 

7

  

Pretty much agree with everything John says!  Except about liking the looks of the Fiat!

PS:  Davyo, surely a quick look at the listed performance figures would have shown you that the 1.5l was not the car for you before you tried it with what appears to be preconceived ideas about what it should do.

8

I’ve had both and the 1.5 i found much easier to get the power down on the twistys,  yes you have to drive it harder than the 2.0 but isn’t that the point of the Skyactiv?  Pootle along under 3k revs and you get 50mpg.  Drop a gear and away you go.

I preferred the 2.0 for mway driving though as it had more power in 6th so didn’t have to change down when over taking.

unfortunately I am 5-less at the moment after swapping the 5 out for a more practical 3 but still have the Exocet to play

 

 

 

9

 

[/quote]

No it doesn’t! That’s why Mazda gives you the option of a 2.0 litre engine if the 1.5 engine is not enough for you. Turbos spoil the throttle response, which is one of the appealing characteristics of the MX5. I bought the 2.0 litre after trying both cars but I can understand why many people like the 1.5.

 

[/quote]

Done properly, turbo engines are great.  Apart from the MX5, I drive a 1.4 Audi A3 petrol turbo.  It’s got a flat torque curve (well, plateau really) giving maximum torque between 1500 and 3500 rev/min.  No throttle lag and it pulls like a diesel and revs like a petrol if needed, which is rarely.  I love it.

JS

 

10

[quote=grumpybadger]

I’ve had both and the 1.5 i found much easier to get the power down on the twistys,  yes you have to drive it harder than the 2.0 but isn’t that the point of the Skyactiv?  Pootle along under 3k revs and you get 50mpg.  Drop a gear and away you go.

I preferred the 2.0 for mway driving though as it had more power in 6th so didn’t have to change down when over taking.

unfortunately I am 5-less at the moment after swapping the 5 out for a more practical 3 but still have the Exocet to play

 

 

 

[/quote Pootling along, thsts where my dissapointment lay.I at least expected it to be better than mt secind car a Suzuki 1.2 dueljet.Which is smooth with a nice throttle response without having to put my foot through the floor.Applying the same throttle pressure to the 1.5 mx5 felt like it was latevto repond and took more effort than the dueljat to doodle along.

11

Good grief!

This has to be the most damning indictment of the 1.5 ND yet.

In my opinion, the way to view the 1.5 to the 2litre is to set them against the Mk1’s 1600 to 1840cc of “yesteryear”.

The ND is the Mk1 re-introduced for the 21st century…sans pop ups! 

They all are light, nimble, with very similar power to weight ratios, and in either form a lot of the performance lies in the chassis.

Drumtochty & I drove a few of both pre-launch. 

Personally, I did not feel short changed much in the 1500cc…in fact had a bit of fun extracting it’s latter day 1840cc Mk1 “power” out of it to make what I considered decent twisty progress.

Clearly, the chassis are quicker than the mills in both forms, which has always been the Mx5 prescription.

Anyway, in 15 years of owning a Mk1 1840cc, I’ve never felt short changed. Nor did I with the 1500cc ND.

It’s an essentially subjective matter, with no right or wrong answers but I know some who picked the ND 1500 over the 2litre as they preferred it’s more free spinning nature.

We heard that way back in the day with Mk1’s as well.

It’s the mill the ND was originally intended to get is it not?

Each their own.    

12

In 1989 I wanted a new car, a bit sporty so an MX5 like my mate?  No, I needed four seats so I bought a Pug 205GTI 1.9l, great little car.  Years later, 2015, I wanted a new car, a bit sporty, but this time only two seats needed, so I bought an MX5 1.5l, great little car.  The point being that both cars despite the difference in engine size had the same PS (129/130) and similar performance and the 1989 MX5 had a 1.6l, 115PS and lower performance to match, same as the 1.6l version of the Pug 205GTI.  So the current 1.5l is better in all respects especially mpg which has improved dramatically, over 30%.

13

And the joy of driving them was having to wring the frenetic engine’s neck, not a raft of lazy turbo torque. You either want to drive a car or the car to drive you. (The Proton GTi was equally bonkers!)

 

14

As Scottishfiver says - ‘each to his own’.

There are oodles of 1.5 ND drivers posting on this forum who are more than happy with their steeds.  Personally, apart from not liking the body shape of the ND, I do question the idea of a 1.5 L engine in what is sold as a ‘sports car’.

But then there’s the rub isn’t it ?  Mazda, as I understand it, have always called the MX-5 a ‘roadster’ - the dictionary definition of which is ‘a two-seater open car of sporting appearance’.  They do not call it a ‘sports car’ as such, and indeed a ‘sports car’ does not have to be a ‘roadster’ - these days most sports cars are not roadsters.

However, growing up in the 1960s, we were always taught that cars like MG Midgets, Triumph Spitfires, and MGBs ets were ‘sports cars’, even though they were quite often, hardly any faster than the saloon cars on which they were based.  But when I got my driving licence in 1971, I was told by all insurance companies that I contacted, that a Midget was a ‘sports car’, and they would not insure me (being an inexperienced 17 year old) for driving one - so I had to settle for an Austin A40 Farina instead - which I hotted up as best I could, and would often outrun a friend who had an Austin Healey Sprite !

So, bringing the saga up to date, in the 21st century the misnomer of calling all roadsters sports cars still persists, and probably will until internal combustion-engined motor sports are banned by all the tree-hugging, anti-car, leftie environmentalists ! (That’s gonna start a row I expect !).

So, is the MX-5 a sports car ?  The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind - the answer is blowin’ in the wind ! (thanks Bob).  

As Scottishfiver said - each to his own.  Some people are more than happy with a small engine which must be revved to within an inch of its life get anywhere (I’ve heard it called ‘driveability’), and others prefer a little more grunt to their motors - you pays your money, and takes your choice !

 

15

Just an addition to my post #11.  My 205GTI and my ND are the only cars where I’ve felt part of it and read it’s responses through my body, a real “seat of the pants” experience.  Doesn’t come any better than that!

16

 

Well, according to Mazda, the MX-5 is a sportscar; they have repeatedly used the term in press releases:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It will cause a row if you seek to provoke. This forum has remained mostly free of the partisan political opinion that has infected other motoring forums. Those opinions have not helped those forums. If you wish to discuss political mantras and their impact on motorsports, there are other forums for that. You might cause offence by linking a concern for the environment to a political ethos. Probably best to end that there.

17

Well,I have hugged a few trees myself, and voted other than Tory, but I’ve also had a lifelong addiction to driving and motorsport. I suspect only Clarkson disciples feel the need to show their petrolhead (retch) credentials by dismissing anything they don’t like as some pantywaist liberal conspiracy .

Any road - is the MX5 a sports car? Well, it’s got a drop top , mine has anyway but , there again , so has a Vauxhall Cascada CDTI.

Mine - an ND 2litre- has two seats , of course - so just like a Ferrari Dino or a Lotus Elan. OK , but also like a Renault Wind 1.2 L too.

It does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds - which is nice - and is thus as fast as most Jaguar E-Types were . Or a BMW 320D.

But there’s 160bhp- more than many Caterham Sevens , more than a big Healey 3000 . Yup - but it’s less than my 2 litre diesel 4x4 .

It’s small . Unlike most of the lardy stuff on the road and just like most good sports cars . Stuff like Lotuses of course , but TVRs , Marcoses, Renault Alpines(ancient and modern) and even 911s (at least before they all grew enormous backsides ).


It looks sporty - no question . Low , hints of C3 Corvette and Fiat Dino Spyder ,BMW Z4 , even TVR Tamora .

Super driving position , gear ratios , great brake feel and easy to heel 'n toe? All present and correct - and hooray - no horrid turbo flatulence, no flat line torque curve and no vile  rev hang. Now we’re talking!

Are we? Really ? No. It isn’t a sports car in my book, nowhere near, but it is a very capable open sports tourer .

Why ? Relatively soft springing (compared to the hairy chested cliche of Cobras and Healeys) and roll (good enough for Elans ) isn’t the problem. What stops it from being a pukka sports car is a lack of intimacy in driving it. And that is mainly attributable to the simply dreadful steering . I’ve moaned about this before , hoped (after 10k miles ) I’d get used to it but nope , I haven’t. It is still as crappy as ever . Heavy steering is loathsome but so is steering this light, when it is so totally devoid of meaningful feel and feedback , aided and abetted by a huge wheel with thin , slippy rim.

Have Mazda’s people never driven a Lotus (any will do), a 911 or even(or especially ) a sporty Fiesta or Focus ? Or an MG Midget , Alfasud or even a 2CV ? One assumes not, because if they had they’d know what decent steering feels like.

For a ha’porth of tar the ship was lost- or , in this case, turned into something less than it could,and should, have been .

18

By “throttle responose” I assume you mean the relationship between the rheostat under the right pedal and the computer that controls fuel/burn/timing etc. Have a remap so computer says yes. 

 

19

Well ive decided to go and order the Fiat after lunch.As much as i liked the drive of the 2ltr sport nav,i cant get that horrible view down the bonnet out of my head.The wheel arches just spoil it for me.Think the fiat was a softer drive to the sportnav.But much better around town to the 1.5 mx5. So for me the Fiats the middle of the road so thats what ive decided to go for.Plus its more the shape of my 3, which i loved.

20

Good for you Davyo . However could you please refrain from criticizing the the ND on this forum. There are many members on here who love their cars, whichever version and some of your comments may offend in the way they are put across. If you wish to continue to criticize the ND, please do it on the Fiat 124 forum, if there is one. Cheers.