ND test drive today a personal experience

[speed]

Suspect you will still miss the turbo.

Actually I suspect not....

The 2.0L version has almost the same power/torque numbers as an SE (in factory trim), slightly less weight, the same 6500RPM redline and a similar bias towards low end torque.
Hence why I think I wouldn't be gaining very much, if anything in terms of performance.

Given a likely ~$35K changeover for the trim spec I would be looking at well.......

Yes but power on paper doesn't account for the acceleration of a turbo ;)

[davekmoore]

SE 121kW @ 6,000, 206Nm @ 4,500, 7.8 secs to 100, power to weight ratio 110.7, 9.1L per 100kms.
ND 2.0 118kW @ 6,000, 200Nm@ 4,600, 7.3-7.5 secs to 100 (depends on tester), power to weight 114.2, 6.9L per 100kms.

ND power and torque delivery is linear. SE depends on when turbo is boosting.

[Rolley]

I'm part of the I'd buy one in a heartbeat crowd.

The problem is, that heartbeat will have to take about 10yrs to complete.
Like I'd say 80% of the people on this forum and a good proportion of the "heartbeat" crowd, I bought second (8th) hand as it was the only way I could afford to do it.
While I would love a brand new one and everything that goes along with being the first one to drive it off the dealership, I will have to rely on the kind of buyers who aren't on the forums. The ones who really don't care at all about the history, handbrake or steering feel and just like and want an MX-5 as they're due for an upgrade for their daily drive, as they will be the cars most likely priced where I can meet the market.

So I just hope the foam and cloth of the seat bolsters wears well, The cloth of the soft top does not rub too thin at the crease points and the engine is sympathetic to previous owners that are not as regimented with their servicing as I am.

To the guys/gals on here who have scored an ND, enjoy it and keep the rest of us updated with how they are to live with. There are a lot of guys like me living vicariously through you! Yours will be the top shelf examples, the ones we will be trying to scrape the extra few grand together to buy when the NE comes along.

Luke.

[mekros]

SE 121kW @ 6,000, 206Nm @ 4,500, 7.8 secs to 100, power to weight ratio 110.7, 9.1L per 100kms.
ND 2.0 118kW @ 6,000, 200Nm@ 4,600, 7.3-7.5 secs to 100 (depends on tester), power to weight 114.2, 6.9L per 100kms.

ND power and torque delivery is linear. SE depends on when turbo is boosting.

You are just playing with my mind . For so long I have been interested in getting the SE, the thought of a ND 2.0L means that it can be used as a daily as well, especially the fuel consumption is much lower than my current car.

[Guran]

SE 121kW @ 6,000, 206Nm @ 4,500, 7.8 secs to 100, power to weight ratio 110.7, 9.1L per 100kms.
ND 2.0 118kW @ 6,000, 200Nm@ 4,600, 7.3-7.5 secs to 100 (depends on tester), power to weight 114.2, 6.9L per 100kms.

ND power and torque delivery is linear. SE depends on when turbo is boosting.

Not sure where you've got those times for the ND. Wheels magazine tested 7.3s for the 1.5L and the Americans got 5.8s for 0-60mph from their 2.0L.

viewtopic.php?p=853351#p853351

[speed]

SE 121kW @ 6,000, 206Nm @ 4,500, 7.8 secs to 100, power to weight ratio 110.7, 9.1L per 100kms.
ND 2.0 118kW @ 6,000, 200Nm@ 4,600, 7.3-7.5 secs to 100 (depends on tester), power to weight 114.2, 6.9L per 100kms.

ND power and torque delivery is linear. SE depends on when turbo is boosting.

Any rolling acceleration figures, ND compared to SE?
Uno, dropping back to 3rd and punching it.
Accelerating from a stand still is for drag racing. Rolling acceleration is where its at in a road car.

[Vat]

At work at the moment so don't know if they've done it for the ND, but US car mag Car and Driver do a "street start" test which is 5 - 60 mph. Probably a good test.

[Mr Morlock]

Went down today to take a look at the ND and despite being happy to come back some other time the dealer offered the vehicle on the spot for a drive. Earlier I had asked to look at the boot but they were unable to open it because the battery was flat! For drive purposes they attached a small jump start battery and fired it up. The vehicle was a GT auto. Firstly the car was exactly what I expected it to look like- good i.e. photos of which there are many do it justice.

I found the cabin very poor for space. No door pockets of any kind that I saw no glove box and a tiny centre binnacle. There is, as we know, storage bin between the seats and its a good size but not not nearly as easy to access as a glove box. Bits and bobs are going to be a real nuisance where to store. The bin between seats is going to fill up with gear so I can imagine routine will be to get frustrated tryying to find things. There is virtually no usable space behind the seats and under the soft top- unlike the NB which can easily accommodate 2 travelling bags. I guess the NC is much the same i.e. less usable space than NA NB. The boot is a small albeit not sure how many litres compared to predecessors - both NA and NB are pretty good i.e. practical for touring 2 people and gear. This might not be important to many but a sports car to my way of thinking needs to be at least half practical.

I also found the car harder to get in and out of than my NB. I found myself almost falling into the seat. OK for younger or fitter people but thats a negative thats almost impossible to get around.

I read comments about being smoother and quieter but did not notice that to be especially the case. My daily 4 door driver is both quieter and smoother. Insofar as handbrake I did not notice any problem nor the "lump" that others remarked about.

It was pretty bland driving like any new small modern car. It did not feel as engaging as my NB and certainly did not sound as good either and I am not remotely interested in shelling out a lot of extra money for something that did not impress me that much . I barely looked at the centre monitor- just looked at the speedo and gear indicator when in paddle mode. As expected the paddles works well but I don't know if it would water down the fun longer term but clearly great in traffic, An auto does make the car easier for others to drive like partners who don't like manuals. The instrumentation is what you expect of a new car- no problem but its really far away from the more classic look and feel of NA and NB.

One rather poor omission is that the roadster ( not the car I drove( also does not get DRls but oddly the 2l version does. Drls should be on all levels.

The soft top does work well but I drove with it down which my default position. All the MX5s have good soft tops albeit with glass rear windows.

I cannot see the 1500cc lasting- the number on torque and KW are way better. Whilst the 1500 is perfectly adequate for around town with crazy low speed limits and controlled intersections the bigger engine will make for more ease in the country - no substitute for torque? I don't see this really as any great leap forward- maybe thats asking too much. No folding hardtop is going to hurt this car but you would wonder how it could even be engineered?

Incidentally the dealer was keen to sell the car I drove apparently at a better price. I was not interested in going down that path.

I am very happy at this stage to stay with NB at least from the driving point of view. No one should take the foregoing as anything but my perception- you have to drive and see it for yourself.

[davekmoore]

SE 121kW @ 6,000, 206Nm @ 4,500, 7.8 secs to 100, power to weight ratio 110.7, 9.1L per 100kms.
ND 2.0 118kW @ 6,000, 200Nm@ 4,600, 7.3-7.5 secs to 100 (depends on tester), power to weight 114.2, 6.9L per 100kms.

ND power and torque delivery is linear. SE depends on when turbo is boosting.

Not sure where you've got those times for the ND. Wheels magazine tested 7.3s for the 1.5L and the Americans got 5.8s for 0-60mph from their 2.0L.

viewtopic.php?p=853351#p853351

I was being conservative as I wouldn't want to draw attention to the possibility that a 2.0 ND might be quicker than an SE, especially as I own an SE.

If a 1.5 ND does 7.3 then even that's quicker than redbook has for an SE!

[KevGoat]

I was being conservative as I wouldn't want to draw attention to the possibility that a 2.0 ND might be quicker than an SE, especially as I own an SE.

If a 1.5 ND does 7.3 then even that's quicker than redbook has for an SE!

After driving the 1.5 yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's quicker ...

[davekmoore]

I was being conservative as I wouldn't want to draw attention to the possibility that a 2.0 ND might be quicker than an SE, especially as I own an SE.

If a 1.5 ND does 7.3 then even that's quicker than redbook has for an SE!

After driving the 1.5 yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's quicker ...

....and the best things about the 1.5 ND are not just that it's quick.

[davekmoore]

Stock already in short supply on the 1.5s. Order book for 1.5 will keep filling and delivery dates will keep going backwards. The 2.0s expected at the end of the year will soon all be allocated to people who've placed deposits. The sooner you place your order the sooner you'll get a car.