http://www.motormag.com.au/reviews/1608/mazda-mx-5-1-5-litre-vs-2-0-litre
So the 1.5 is for proper drivers with finesse and control and the 2.0 is for ham fisted oafs? That’s what I took away 
What I like about the 1.5 is that when you drive it with a light but firm touch you can “feel” the car respond like it’s part of you! My days of driving hard at the limit (Boy?) racer style are long gone, I just want to “enjoy” driving.
I read it as a Fiesta ST will see it off. Which might upset those that think the MX-5 in any iteration is the best handling car ever.
Now then Nick you know that using the “F” word is a no-no!
Now then, where did I leave that tin of ham? …
You pay your money and buy what you want if the Fiesta suits you why not mention it and buy it. If the MX5 suits buy that.
I’m extremely happy with my F*#$€@ 1 ltr 3 cylinder Titanium X auto. Only 100 bhp but very peppy and great to drive. Compliments my ND very well indeed.
Barry
IanH,
Oooh!, I don't think that is quite what they say. I am sure the 2.0 can also be driven with finesse. In the end they did say that they preferred the 2.0 as it was more "FUN" ("But we’d spend it. The 2.0-litre’s extra herbs just make it more fun, give it more sizzle and the extra grip lines up better with our tastes"), which is what I thought. That is not to say that the 1.5 isn't and I thought it was a delightful car when I test drove one. Horses for courses. To label 2.0 drivers as "ham fisted oafs" is a little unkind and to claim that the 1.5, not the 2.0, is for proper drivers is a little insulting to people who bought the 2.0. Maybe there is still a bit of "boy racer" left in me at only 60 years old! ![]()
There certainly was in me , between my 60th and my 72nd birthdays I had 2 Civic Type R’s. Then I sort of matured and bought my 1.5 ND.
Having driven both, I’d pick the 1.5… then add the turbo.
Firstly - it’s a very poorly written article - there is not much real information there…
But which is best - the 1.5L or the 2.0L?
I drove them both - that’s the reason I held off from pre-ordering - and for me the 1.5L was much more fun.
But they are both fine cars but so so different.
The 1.5L is a much more subtle car and does require more finesse to drive it ‘right’ - but when you do you really feel connected, and yes, you have to use a few more shifts but that’s the fun part .
That said - I chose my 1.5L as weekend/summer car - if I had to use it year round I might have gone for the 2.0L.
The ND has been on sale for a year now…
…we need a poll to see which engine was most popular.
On the VIP Day that IanH was at, I also drove examples both.
It was a great opportunity to A/B compare the 1.5/2.0 versions.
Far from the 1.5 lacking anything, and this has been said before about Mk1’s, I found the smaller engine the more satisfying as a driving experience, while the 2 litre certainly had more straight like grunt…well relatively speaking since there is no such thing as a fast 5 out the box.
It’s best to look at the 1.5 as a re-introduction of the Mk1 1600, and the 2 litre as the Mk1 1840cc…for the 21st century.
Many considered the 1600 as the sweeter, more free revving experience, and other vaunted the added grunt of the 1840cc…forgetting these cars were heavier and there was no real performance gain.
It’s the old food & wine question…all a matter of taste but for me, the 1.5 seemed somehow, more the “driver’s 5” than the big engined car.
You need to show it who is boss to extract out of it what it was designed to deliver.
At any rate, all the new NDs are pretty epic.
After steering around in them all afternoon, it was a bit of a shocker to get into (our perfectly fettled, 100% on the button) Mk2.5 Sport.
I kid not, it felt agricultural, heavy, soggy, and unresponsive in comparison to the 1.5.
Lets not forget, it’s got the same power as my Mk1 1840cc, with vastly better dynamics to strut it’s stuff.
It took around 10 miles to get “back into” the Sport.
That’s how good the 1.5 is…a Mk1 for the 21st century. Thank God!
That could be an interesting thread. I’d also like to hear what others think.
I was sorely tempted to buy an ND, especially after my first drive in the 1.5 up the hill at Goodwood a year ago, where it handled like a dream and sailed through the rough surfaces. I then tried the basic 2.0 ND from a dealer and very much preferred the greater urge in the way that drove, partly because I am a lazy driver and don’t like playing tunes with the engine, but I was not so keen on the harsh jittery ride and uncomfortable seats (maybe the tyres were over-inflated?).
However in the end I chose to stick with my NC 2.0 because of five main reasons; it has a PRHT, its urge to go is a lot better than the 1.5 ND, its ride is better than the 2.0 ND, its seats are much, much more comfortable than either ND (but sitting in a Recaro the other day was very good), it has better storage.
And now I’ve found a sixth reason, the Mazda Nav is not a patch on our Garmin Nuvi sat nav (life-time maps and traffic updates) we use in the NC. While we’ve been driving our new Mazda3 (same Nav as the ND) I’m getting more and more dis-chuffed with it because it needs a Smart payphone wifi hotspot (we don’t have one) for traffic info, chooses some silly routes (eg early on Saturday morning wanting to take me off a near empty M25, and yet I was already passing the junction it was suggesting) even after I had already attempted (and probably failed) to re-organise priorities, and after three years any further map updates will need to be paid for. The live traffic updates and automatic re-routes with the Garmin are some of its most useful assets, and it almost always makes a good choice.
Nobody is going to force you to pay for the NAV option.
Quite right. I agree competely.
But on the Mazda3 the Nav came as part of the deal, and everything else was exactly just right especially the big discount that came with the pre-reg price. I can live with it or use the Garmin instead (lots of storage for bits in the 3).
SWMBO is very, very happy with the 3, and so am I because now I can have more time in the NC.
Yes, the Mazda3 compliments the MX-5 extremely well - I’ve got a Soul Red 2.0L Sport NAV with the Stone Leather interior and all the bells and whistles - its a great winter car and is far more practical than the MX-5…
…and that’s the reason that I selected the 1.5L mid range model for my fun car…
…and I get to own the two best colours .
I may be wrong but I think the only MX5 available without Nav is the base SE. The SE-l is no longer on the Mazda build your car section. Only SE-l Nav now showing.
You are right - the non NAV SE-L and Sport have been removed in the latest price list (dated 1st July).