|
Would a long bodied 6'4" 192cm guy fit in an MX5? I know the old ones were a problem. I wish they made MX5's with a small V6 in....
|
|
93 million miles headroom with the roof down...
|
93 million miles headroom with the roof down...
Might have to buy goggles and a crash helmet
|
|
|
93 million miles headroom with the roof down...
Only 238,000 miles at night though.
|
93 million miles headroom with the roof down...
Only 238,000 miles at night though.
Less if you live near an airport..
|
|
|
|
|
Would a long bodied 6'4" 192cm guy fit in an MX5? I know the old ones were a problem. I wish they made MX5's with a small V6 in....
As a 6’4” fatty, yes, I fit in an MX5 Mk2. I found the Mk3 had worse headroom, despite the salesman trying to tell me I was wrong. If you get the optional hard top, there’s slightly more room than with the soft top. Length wise it’s fine.
|
|
|
|
+1 for the MX-5. Make sure it's the SportNav version, which gives you goodies like Bilstein dampers and a Limited Slip Diff. You can get the 2.0 in SE-L if you want the straight line performance but a less capable car in the twisties.
Not keen on the sports suspension, and I think the 1.5 is a nicer drive - good thing we aren't all the same:)
I haven't driven the 2019 184bhp 2.0 model - but as I don't want more any power, I don't think it would change my opinion. The LSD is neither here nor there for me, I don't track it and I can drive without spinning wheels.
SInce I bought my Mk4 3 years ago, having tried both the 2.0 with the LSD/Bilsteins and the 1.5, the Mk3 has grown on me too. My son has a 2.0 PRHT, a much better folding hard roof solution than the Mk4 RF IMO (I have a soft top). I'd be equally happy with a nice PRHT.
But I suspect anyone who fancies a 370Z wouldn't want an MX-5 even with 184 hp. And at 6'4" he might well find it a bit tight.
|
Not keen on the sports suspension, and I think the 1.5 is a nicer drive - good thing we aren't all the same:)
I remember when the current MX-5 first came out reading that the basic 1.5 is pretty much exactly what the engineers were aiming for. As far as they were concerned, that was, and is, the best version!.
IMO, big power would spoil the car, it has always been about simplicity and sensory appeal. Plenty of other cars out there for folk who feel they need more cylinders, more power, more prestige and more bragging rights.
|
IMO, big power would spoil the car, it has always been about simplicity and sensory appeal. Plenty of other cars out there for folk who feel they need more cylinders, more power, more prestige and more bragging rights.
https://www.rocketeerltd.com/ V6 Jag motor for MX5s.....
|
|
Yes, plenty of options for getting more power into an MX-5, but that is not neccessarily going to make it better. Putting an engine of nearly twice the size and power is clearly going to make it faster, at least in a straight line, but is it going to make it a better car?, personally i very much doubt it. Also, how much is that conversion going to cost?, certainly doesn't (as far as i can see) tell you on the website, but i'm guessing at least £5k (but probably much more for the full conversion). And while it is feasable to get a decent MX-5 for the other £5k, obviously a £10k example is going to be much nicer.
Were you to spend your £10k on getting an MX-5 and having a V6 fitted, is the end result going to be better than either of these two? (both designed from the outset to use the 6 cyl engines fitted),
www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202008272991078?m...1
www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202008283031759?m...1
|
Also, how much is that conversion going to cost?,
£12995....
|
Also, how much is that conversion going to cost?,
£12995....
Yikes!, and you've presumably to supply your own MX-5 on top of that?.
Not for me.
|
Also, how much is that conversion going to cost?,
£12995....
Yikes!, and you've presumably to supply your own MX-5 on top of that?.
Not for me.
Yep, but if you take a good look at the website it seems they do a pretty well rebuilt front end/firewall/transmission tunnel.
Just following in the footsteps of the man who slung Rover v8's into MGBs..
Edited by _ORB_ on 07/09/2020 at 16:01
|
Just following in the footsteps of the man who slung Rover v8's into MGBs..
Now there's a thing..I don't care about 0-60mph times but somewhere in the back of my mind is the recollection that a standard MGB took about 13s. The 'slower' MX-5 1.5 apparently does it in 8s. For fun I just compared the 1975 MGB GT V8 with the 2017 MX-5 1.5. The MX-5 is slightly livelier (MGB V8, 8.3s) The Mazda only has 131PS v. 139 for the V8, but the Mazda is about about 150Kg lighter (that amazed me, most 70's cars were very lightly built - and the weight of the B wasn't due to the engine which weighed no more than the B series), has a better power/weight ratio, and less drag. Of course you could probably have stuck the V8 in fourth and not changed gear all day but that's another story.
Of course this is a silly comparison given they were made over 40 years apart, but what was a quick car in 1975 is still, considered on its own, a quick car. In those days 10s or less to 60 was pretty sporting. It makes sense of the oft-repeated comment that the MX-5 has replaced the British 'sports' car.
Sorry that's rather off the point.
|
My discovery being a 2004 has one of the last rover v8s ever made by LR themselves before they outsourced to a company I can’t remember the name of but maybe ORB could tell me.
Being only the 4.0 as opposed to the 4.6, it has only 182bhp. No idea what that is in German Pferdestärke but it is enough for overtaking, if a little leisurely but a nice change from a td5 and the torque characteristics are like a pre-common rail diesel. No wonder it was such a revelation back in the day when fitted to tiny cars!
If it ever dies I will swap it for a 4.6 rated to 225bhp or maybe swap the Buick lump altogether for a Chevy 350 like the fitted to certain special edition p38s.
Am incredibly flexible engine used in so many iterations over the years. Interesting to see the MGB compared to the Mazda. I wonder what the Rover v8 could have become with some actual investment. Pity Rover always seemed to be so strapped for cash.
To the OP: Told you to buy the Mustang!
|
Told you to buy the Mustang!
Still looking....
|
Just following in the footsteps of the man who slung Rover v8's into MGBs..
Now there's a thing..I don't care about 0-60mph times but somewhere in the back of my mind is the recollection that a standard MGB took about 13s. The 'slower' MX-5 1.5 apparently does it in 8s. For fun I just compared the 1975 MGB GT V8 with the 2017 MX-5 1.5. The MX-5 is slightly livelier (MGB V8, 8.3s) The Mazda only has 131PS v. 139 for the V8, but the Mazda is about about 150Kg lighter (that amazed me, most 70's cars were very lightly built - and the weight of the B wasn't due to the engine which weighed no more than the B series), has a better power/weight ratio, and less drag. Of course you could probably have stuck the V8 in fourth and not changed gear all day but that's another story.
Of course this is a silly comparison given they were made over 40 years apart, but what was a quick car in 1975 is still, considered on its own, a quick car. In those days 10s or less to 60 was pretty sporting. It makes sense of the oft-repeated comment that the MX-5 has replaced the British 'sports' car.
Sorry that's rather off the point.
The power-weight ratio win for the MGB would be dwarfed by the better traction and far superior handling of the MX-5. And of course, the MX-5 would have far more safety features and an aircon system. Still, those old roadsters must be very likely and fun to drive down country lanes in good weather (not so much when it's not).
One car they should consider is the excellent Honda S2000. I also wonder if the OP would consider just a GT car - a coupe and not a convertible. More on offer then.
|
The power-weight ratio win for the MGB would be dwarfed by the better traction and far superior handling of the MX-5. And of course, the MX-5 would have far more safety features and an aircon system. Still, those old roadsters must be very likely and fun to drive down country lanes in good weather (not so much when it's not).
One car they should consider is the excellent Honda S2000. I also wonder if the OP would consider just a GT car - a coupe and not a convertible. More on offer then.
The MX-5 has marginally the better power to weight ratio anyway - my unclear use of parentheses possibly.
You're quite right about grip, handling, safety etc obviously. Supposedly the MX-5 sacrifices ultimate grip for feel, but it still has a great deal of grip especially compared with 1960's and 70's cars,
My point really is that a 'sports' car is still a sports car even when anybody in an overpowed modern 'executive saloon' or 'premium SUV' can waft past you while on the phone and looking in the mirror to check his hair's perfect.
|
The power-weight ratio win for the MGB would be dwarfed by the better traction and far superior handling of the MX-5. And of course, the MX-5 would have far more safety features and an aircon system. Still, those old roadsters must be very likely and fun to drive down country lanes in good weather (not so much when it's not).
One car they should consider is the excellent Honda S2000. I also wonder if the OP would consider just a GT car - a coupe and not a convertible. More on offer then.
The MX-5 has marginally the better power to weight ratio anyway - my unclear use of parentheses possibly.
You're quite right about grip, handling, safety etc obviously. Supposedly the MX-5 sacrifices ultimate grip for feel, but it still has a great deal of grip especially compared with 1960's and 70's cars,
My point really is that a 'sports' car is still a sports car even when anybody in an overpowed modern 'executive saloon' or 'premium SUV' can waft past you while on the phone and looking in the mirror to check his hair's perfect.
Maybe the OP should consider buying an original design Mini Cooper then, assuming they can fit.. Now that's a LOAD of fun. Wouldn't like to be in one in an accident though.
|
|
|
|
