one of the reasons if you have had a few do not drive or post on social media 
3 Likes
ND for its modern, worry-free, daily drive. My ND2 was a lovely car and usable in all weathers with its heated seats, adaptive LED headlights and a/c. Great fun and plenty of oomph. Plus great economy if required.
NA for its classic, not quite worry-free, not-so-daily drive. My NA is a lovely car and usable in all weathers but no mod cons so a bit harder to live with in the winter months. But great great great fun and plenty enough oomph. Heavier on the wallet re mpg but its basic rawness is unbeatable.
The NBFL I had was somewhere in between the two in terms of comfort but came third in fun-factorness.
2 Likes
Thank you. 
Why do the stats in the video towards the end show the 0-60 of the 2.0l NC as 6.5 secs? I thought all the 2.0l NCs had 0-60 times of over 7 secs.
US spec cars; difference in how 0-60 is measured, different final gearing on US spec NCs from EUR/ANZ NC model
For those not clear what this means:
- US magazines measure 0-60 mph differently from the UK, leading to variations in claims.
- US MZR is rated at 170hp, versus Euro 160hp. This difference is not just down to how power measurements were made for the respective markets. I believe EUR cars have more intake restrictions.
- US final drive was 4.10, Euro models (which included the UK) was 3.727, leading to more relaxed cruising in European models, at the cost of sportiness. I suppose it was to do with the demographic buying NC MX5s in Europe being different from the US (ie. not into 0-60 contests).
2 Likes
For me it was the NC for a few reasons:
Couldnât afford an ND for a second car / toy. NAs are very old now and most of the cheap ones are rusted out. NB is a deeply ugly car so it was right out.
NC criticisms from launch are widely acknowledged to have been overblown these days, and itâs the best looking bar the ND. Not the facelift mind, it looks like some sort of bottom feeding fish with that frightful bottom bumper/grille!
Itâs also the quickest (barring ND), and comes with a bunch of mod cons (heated leather, a/c) Itâs also less prone to rust. Then theres the interior, which is much nicer than the others, second only to the ND again.
All of this just my opinion, of course, and wouldnât dream of pretending otherwise!
2 Likes
Iâve owned all 4 and in order so feel Iâm allowed some form of warranted opinion on this subject lolâŚ
Basically they were ALL my favourite at time of ownership
I know thatâs not a great help but the reality is, they are all great cars and have there own pros and cons⌠One thing they all do share is the fun factor and BAGS of itâŚ
5 Likes
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
3 Likes
Of course, this is why I said in the same post that this is all my opinion.
For me the NC, wanted something modern but without the driving aids of todays cars. My ZSport ticks all the boxes. Did test drive an ND a while back but found it a little cramped compared to my car. Love just dropping the top and driving with no lane assist, parking aids, auto braking radar etc etc which our daily auto car has.
5 Likes
Yes I agree there is less to go wrong. 
The NC ? Really just a car for the middle age spread.
How dare you say I have middle age spread - I am only 68!
I have had 3 NCs, one with a CM blower which I used for Track work.
Age is only a number.
5 Likes
We run 2, the same ones for 16 years.
If I want a good rag around our local country roads, out comes the Mk1 every time.
Itâs just more visceral, and needs a firm hand at the tiller.
Itâs kinda crude these days but thatâs itâs charm.
Itâs pretty devoid of complex leccys, the dash is a model of minimalist genius.
Shove yer IStop etc etc and Sat Nav? You serious?
However, we are off to Arbroath and beyond tomorrow, so out comes the 2002 Mk2.5. âSportâ
Safer, quicker, more refined, and a proper mile eater with around 3krpm@70mph instead of the Mk1 screaming around with about 3600 RPM.
I donât suppose I need to list all my reasons.
Different cars enough to make a big differenceâŚone being airbags and survival in the event of meeting some twunk. HorsesâŚcourses. In the event of one having to goâŚthe Roadster stays.
Tried a couple of NCs. They were really goodâŚespecially the paddle shift.
Great one night stand, but a bit like a Supermodel, not sufferable long term. Just too refined and an air of bulk about them. Far superior to either of mine in many waysâŚso is a Fiat 500.
ND?
If I got one as a prize yes, but I feel Mazda have dropped too many Bollys with it in terms of engineering robustness ( probably in the interests of weight savings)âŚand TBH Iâd not trust one to be as tick tock reliable as my 142,000 mile 28 years Mk1. Not forgetting Iâve spent over 5k on it over the last 3 yearsâŚcheaper than depreciation & PCP payments. Most under the coachwork is brand new & less than 3 years oldâŚeverything. I do not think NDâs have the same level of long term build integrity to last 30 years but equally I do not think buyers want or need them to either. Different buyer market now. In any caseâŚwhat are the chances of in even 10 years being able to drive as we do now?
Academic reallyâŚ
And yes,I know about rust too.
There is no correct answerâŚjust what hits you hot button.
7 Likes
That colour is stunningâŚ
It really is a tough call.
1 Like
Iâm new to the Forum, I sold my 2.0 NC a few weeks ago and bought an ND plus had some BBR springs fitted. The ND is so much more sorted than my NC, it corners better, feels lighter and has all the mod cons. The ND gets my vote.
1 Like
The replies to this post are such a mixed bag. However you are not the first person thatâs said this to me. It really seems to be down to personal taste.
2 Likes
âŚvery much each to their own.
Mk1 and 2 âgetting onâ a bit now. Seem to remember the mk2.5 is more refined than the mk1, but looks down to your personal choice, (I now prefer the looks of the mk2).
Mk 3 a bit more of a âcruiserâ with more space and practicality particularly with a PHT.
Mk 4, (my personal favourite for looks, particulalry the RF even though we opted for the soft top, but limited space).
âŚall down to your budget and which one you prefer. Which ever you choose you will not be disappointedâŚ
2 Likes
Iâve driven NA and ND and own a tuned NC. I donât fit in an NB.
The NA and NB are very raw and very pure and light. Much more so than the NC and ND. So on driving style alone, the NA and NB are in a different league. However, they tend to suffer from rust, unless treated and they are quite old by now, so they lack the refinement of modern cars. Having said that, they are fine for Urban and countryside driving. Maybe less so for long motorways trip (you can always resort to ear plugs though, so itâs not a no-no).
The NC is the comfiest, most practical and heaviest of the lot. Better for taller drivers. Although it can still be made to feel very âpureâ with underchassis bracing and/or a well-judged suspension setup.
The ND is a very good compromise: still very light, but also with modern gizmos and features, not as comfy inside as the NC, but comfy enough for most, with good looks and definitely the âmx5â feel in the way it handles.
Itâs impossible to know which one you prefer unless you test drive them. And then you will usually come out with a clear favourite.
I personally find the controls in the ND to be too light for my liking and the suspension setup to be slightly too soft. I find the NA to be too slow in standard form and Iâm afraid of the rust. I find the NC to be too heavy compared to the others.
But the NC is the only one big enough for me, so NC it is. And since I wanted pure driving dynamics anyway, my NC is tuned (power, suspension, brake, etc) so that its handles so well that the extra weight doesnât bother me. So really, find what makes YOU happy.
2 Likes
How Mazda launched the ND. They virtually canceled the NC, showed NA/NB owners having a ton(ne) of fun, and is that a rictus grin from the ND owner?
NA keeps up with ND
