Initial D World - Discussion Board / Forums
   
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )Resend Validation Email

DJ Panel ( Server Stats )   Song History   Initial D World Chat Room (Discord)   Broadband Stream
RADIO BROADCAST » streaming at 96kbps with 5 unique listeners, playing (WMMT3 OST) Supreme Folly

       

  Automotive Section Rules
• Scenes depicted in Initial D are strictly fiction. Please follow the traffic rules and drive safely.
• When posting a classified thread, please label it with For Sale (FS), For Trade (FT) or Want To Buy (WTB) in the thread title.
• Use the Search function before you start a new topic. Posting a duplicated thread may earn yourself a verbal warning.
• Personal videos of illegal street racing are prohibited. Do NOT brag about your exploits. Posting a video depicting dangerous/reckless driving behavior on your part will result in an actual warning.

» FORUM MODERATOR : FORUM MODERATOR

2 Pages  1 2  ( Go to first unread post )

Views: 4,185  ·  Replies: 25 
> The 4th Gen MX-5/Miata
RalliKai
  Posted: Sep 6 2014, 06:31 AM


IDW Goldmember
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,164
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: Oct 9th 2004
Location: Update Profile





So the 2015 MX-5 was revealed the other day and thought this deserved to be shared here.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mazda/mx-5/65...d-all-the-facts

Some interesting bits from the article.

QUOTE
The latest iteration of the MX-5 bucks the trend of new models gaining ever-increasing proportions. In comparison to the past three generations, this latest MX-5 has the smallest footprint of the lot, measuring in at 105mm shorter, 20mm lower but 10mm wider than the outgoing model. The wheelbase has also been reduced by 15mm as well as front and rear overhangs cut by 90mm.


QUOTE
Underpinning the fourth-generation MX-5 will be a whole host of new SKYACTIV technology, which was revealed earlier in the year at the New York Motor Show. The backbone of the new model is a lightweight SKYACTIV-chassis which contributes considerably to the 100kg weight saving.

Soft-top models are expected to weigh less than 1,050kg. The new running gear has also allowed Mazda to position the engine behind the front axle and closer to the car’s centre than ever before. All of these factors lower the centre and gravity, which should improve handling.


Wouldn't let me post any of the shots so unless I missed something, you'll have to click the links.
Front
http://static.autoexpress.co.uk/sites/auto...g?itok=Xmr4fXfW

Rear
http://static.autoexpress.co.uk/sites/auto...g?itok=KDnWw_z5

Not feeling the tacky fog lamps or the back end but I'm liking that it's 100kg lighter along with being shorter and wider. I do get tired of having to read Skyactiv in every other sentence it seems the article and in most Mazda reviews.
Tessou
Posted: Sep 6 2014, 12:07 PM


More NEGATIVE than a black hole
Group Icon

Group: ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 19,345
Member No.: 12,263
Joined: Sep 12th 2005
Location: Update Profile





I don't like the front end at all. It looks like a depressed turtle.
Proud Contributor of IDW Forums and the Music Section Revival Project
RalliKai
  Posted: Sep 6 2014, 12:39 PM


IDW Goldmember
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,164
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: Oct 9th 2004
Location: Update Profile





Yeah. Mazda has gone with some odd front-end designs the past few years. The grinning 2010-2013 Mazda 3 still comes to mind.
Tessou
Posted: Sep 6 2014, 12:46 PM


More NEGATIVE than a black hole
Group Icon

Group: ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 19,345
Member No.: 12,263
Joined: Sep 12th 2005
Location: Update Profile





I will take the Mazda 02-08 designs over anything else. Their designers weren't smoking crack at the time.

They even managed to make the Protege interesting.
Proud Contributor of IDW Forums and the Music Section Revival Project
sideways
Posted: Sep 6 2014, 01:42 PM


We're the People's Front of Judea!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 13,123
Member No.: 1,355
Joined: Feb 28th 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada





Glad to see someone beat me to it- was meaning to post this and it slipped my mind laugh.gif

First- I actually like how the car looks, a lot. very good sports-car lines'y to me. That said- it doesnt *look* like a miata to me, at all- Other than the iconic red and it being a soft top. With those edges it doesnt look like an "evolution" of the miata so much as it looks like a whole new roadster, they actually remind me more of a next-gen bmw z4 if anything. Im curious to see if they make those weight goals- Theyre expect to be under 2300 pounds in foreign markets from what ive been reading (who knows in america with stricter crash standards, but even if its close)- the engines arent stellar, 130/165 hp for the 1.6/2.0 respectively.. which is basically what weve been getting since the 90s, but with that kind of curb weight theyd feel pretty peppy. I am intrigued. Curious to see what the price is in america.

Shirogane
Posted: Sep 6 2014, 01:48 PM


SCREEEEEEECHING INTENSIFIES
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,595
Member No.: 17,722
Joined: May 10th 2006
Location: Washington





I'm having a hard time trying to like the new generation because (Warning: I am about to enter 1960 mode in 3...) it's becoming a bit... Oh, what's the word...

Advanced?

I know this is a point that's been beaten to death but I kind of like the old generations (First and Second) because they were simple, and they had that British MG roadster essence with them. I drove a second-gen MX-5 and despite my size, I loved it (well, not as much as a third gen MR2 spyder.)

I am just hoping they kept with the original principles. If not, there are a dozen used MX5s for me.
Seri
Posted: Sep 6 2014, 01:53 PM


Quirks and Features of IDW
Group Icon

Group: FORUM MODERATOR
Posts: 1,891
Member No.: 40,610
Joined: Feb 21st 2013
Location: Showroom





I'm not a fan, either.

It's just not cute anymore. The Miata always had that going for it, in my opinion. Which is why the first gen will always be my favorite. (Also pop-up headlights.)
Proud Contributor of Initial D World Forums
BOZZ
Posted: Sep 6 2014, 09:56 PM


IDW Posts A Freaking LOT Member
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 28,412
Member No.: 1,414
Joined: Mar 9th 2004
Location: Update Profile





It doesn't look that bad, mind you I agree with Miura that the first gen is probably the nicest (although I am a bit biased as a friend owns one).
Banken
Posted: Sep 7 2014, 04:18 AM


IDW Goldmember
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,110
Member No.: 22,465
Joined: Dec 17th 2006
Location: Japan





It looks great in real pictures and not photoshopped shots.

Also, who cares? 100 kg less and 30% more fuel economy means a whole lot more!
RalliKai
  Posted: Sep 7 2014, 05:47 AM


IDW Goldmember
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,164
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: Oct 9th 2004
Location: Update Profile





Aside from it being smaller and lighter, it'll be interesting to see if they re-tune the suspension any and away from the softer ride the NC seemed to have.

The power figures are pretty meh and haven't changed much at all since the 90s as Sideways pointed out. Here's hoping for a forced-induction Mazdaspeed version down the road.

This post has been edited by RalliKai on Sep 7 2014, 05:49 AM
Shirogane
Posted: Sep 7 2014, 10:55 AM


SCREEEEEEECHING INTENSIFIES
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,595
Member No.: 17,722
Joined: May 10th 2006
Location: Washington





QUOTE (Banken @ 6 hours, 37 minutes ago)
It looks great in real pictures and not photoshopped shots.

Also, who cares? 100 kg less and 30% more fuel economy means a whole lot more!

It's still a fat pig compared to its old ancestors of yesteryear. NA Miata? 200 lbs less than this ugly thing. I mean, suuuuuure, there's 'safety' stuff that's shoved in the used-to-be simple thing.
Banken
Posted: Sep 7 2014, 07:25 PM


IDW Goldmember
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,110
Member No.: 22,465
Joined: Dec 17th 2006
Location: Japan





QUOTE (Shirogane @ 8 hours, 29 minutes ago)
It's still a fat pig compared to its old ancestors of yesteryear. NA Miata? 200 lbs less than this ugly thing. I mean, suuuuuure, there's 'safety' stuff that's shoved in the used-to-be simple thing.

Bullshit. 2200 pounds for a fully-equipped, safe, modern street car is downright amazing.

The fact that it is vastly stiffer and has more interior room and trunk space than an NA, modern ABS, roll bars, air bags, traction control, and a two-liter engine despite only weighing roughly 100 pounds (not 200) more than the lightest version of the lightest generation of Miata is a huge achievement.

If you think the original is so damn good, you should drive one.
Shirogane
Posted: Sep 7 2014, 08:07 PM


SCREEEEEEECHING INTENSIFIES
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,595
Member No.: 17,722
Joined: May 10th 2006
Location: Washington





QUOTE (Banken @ 42 minutes, 4 seconds ago)
Bullshit. 2200 pounds for a fully-equipped, safe, modern street car is downright amazing.

The fact that it is vastly stiffer and has more interior room and trunk space than an NA, modern ABS, roll bars, air bags, traction control, and a two-liter engine despite only weighing roughly 100 pounds (not 200) more than the lightest version of the lightest generation of Miata is a huge achievement.

If you think the original is so damn good, you should drive one.

I already have. And I drove the second gen - still prefer the first.
sideways
Posted: Sep 7 2014, 08:43 PM


We're the People's Front of Judea!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 13,123
Member No.: 1,355
Joined: Feb 28th 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada





QUOTE (Shirogane @ 9 hours, 48 minutes ago)
It's still a fat pig compared to its old ancestors of yesteryear. NA Miata? 200 lbs less than this ugly thing. I mean, suuuuuure, there's 'safety' stuff that's shoved in the used-to-be simple thing.

Im going to have to agree with banken here on this big time- And disagree with you immensely. Assuming whats been asserted about this new model is true- The difference is only about 100 pounds, not 200, and thats if and ONLY if you compare it to the lightest model from the lightest year- To be specific, the base model from 1990 which weighed around 2100 pounds (vs the new models anticipated weight of 2200 pounds)- Which is achieved by having no power steering, no air conditioning, no radio, manual windows, etc. To assert that this 100 pound difference makes this car a "fat pig" in comparison to its "old ancestors of yesteryear", especially when you consider the VAST improvements this new model has over its (as you appropriately put it) ancestor, is completely and utterly asinine- And down right ignorant. And this is of course ignoring the fact that by 1991, one year after the miatas introduction, your average miata weighed? 2200+ pounds (Once you added ps, ac, a radio, etc. Doesnt take long to hit 100 pounds). Even IF it *was* 200 pounds, itd still be absurd to call it a fat pig in comparison when you consider all the mentioned improvements. The vastly stiffer chassis alone is worth that weight.

Shirogane
Posted: Sep 7 2014, 09:02 PM


SCREEEEEEECHING INTENSIFIES
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,595
Member No.: 17,722
Joined: May 10th 2006
Location: Washington





QUOTE (sideways @ 19 minutes, 7 seconds ago)
Im going to have to agree with banken here on this big time- And disagree with you immensely. Assuming whats been asserted about this new model is true- The difference is only about 100 pounds, not 200, and thats if and ONLY if you compare it to the lightest model from the lightest year- To be specific, the base model from 1990 which weighed around 2100 pounds (vs the new models anticipated weight of 2200 pounds)- Which is achieved by having no power steering, no air conditioning, no radio, manual windows, etc. To assert that this 100 pound difference makes this car a "fat pig" in comparison to its "old ancestors of yesteryear", especially when you consider the VAST improvements this new model has over its (as you appropriately put it) ancestor, is completely and utterly asinine- And down right ignorant. And this is of course ignoring the fact that by 1991, one year after the miatas introduction, your average miata weighed? 2200+ pounds (Once you added ps, ac, a radio, etc. Doesnt take long to hit 100 pounds). Even IF it *was* 200 pounds, itd still be absurd to call it a fat pig in comparison when you consider all the mentioned improvements. The vastly stiffer chassis alone is worth that weight.

It's an opinion, that's all there is to it.
sideways
Posted: Sep 7 2014, 09:09 PM


We're the People's Front of Judea!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 13,123
Member No.: 1,355
Joined: Feb 28th 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada





QUOTE (Shirogane @ 7 minutes, 2 seconds ago)
It's an opinion, that's all there is to it.

I am unaware of having stated anything in my previous post that would question my understanding of this.

Stating something is representative of your opinion, isnt a get out of jail free card. Opinions can be misguided, ignorant, and flat out wrong. It is the "opinion" of some that medicine is a waste of time and faith healing is far more effective. It is the "opinion" of some that vaccines cause autism, and take more lives than they save. Asserting it was their "opinion" afterwards doesnt change the validity of their assertion. The fact is you stated this car was a "fat pig" in comparison to its ancestors. The fact is you nearly doubled the weight difference in the best case scenario- And ignored the fact that the best case scenario, is a rare example from a single year- And that every year since then, the projected weight of this vehicle matches or falls under. The fact is, this car is not a "fat pig", even if "in your opinion", it is. The fact is, that even in the best case scenario, despite that 100 pound difference- This car will still easily out handle its lightest ancestor- and that the "weight" it has will be utterly negated by the vast improvements this model has over its ancestor.

This post has been edited by sideways on Sep 7 2014, 09:26 PM
Banken
Posted: Sep 8 2014, 04:23 AM


IDW Goldmember
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,110
Member No.: 22,465
Joined: Dec 17th 2006
Location: Japan





QUOTE (sideways @ 7 hours, 39 minutes ago)
Im going to have to agree with banken here on this big time- And disagree with you immensely. Assuming whats been asserted about this new model is true- The difference is only about 100 pounds, not 200, and thats if and ONLY if you compare it to the lightest model from the lightest year- To be specific, the base model from 1990 which weighed around 2100 pounds (vs the new models anticipated weight of 2200 pounds)- Which is achieved by having no power steering, no air conditioning, no radio, manual windows, etc. To assert that this 100 pound difference makes this car a "fat pig" in comparison to its "old ancestors of yesteryear", especially when you consider the VAST improvements this new model has over its (as you appropriately put it) ancestor, is completely and utterly asinine- And down right ignorant. And this is of course ignoring the fact that by 1991, one year after the miatas introduction, your average miata weighed? 2200+ pounds (Once you added ps, ac, a radio, etc. Doesnt take long to hit 100 pounds). Even IF it *was* 200 pounds, itd still be absurd to call it a fat pig in comparison when you consider all the mentioned improvements. The vastly stiffer chassis alone is worth that weight.

Not to mention the new model will have somewhere between 50% and 100% more horsepower than the 1990 while also having 30% better gas mileage!

FWIW, just because you drove both the first and second generation (which weigh roughly the same) doesn't much since when a car is that old the condition it in has more weight than...the weight. Unless you drove both when they were brand new, in which case, you're at least 45, so what the hell are you doing on this forum?

Finally, the 1.8 1994+ cars are lightyears ahead of the pre-1994 1.6s because of torque and gearing.

If I ever move back to the US I am so going to buy a Spec Miata...
RedComet
Posted: Sep 11 2014, 12:21 AM


IDW Jr. Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 63
Member No.: 40,622
Joined: Feb 23rd 2013
Location: Northeast





I kind of like the look of the ND. I like even better some of the art people have been doing of what a teased-about coupe might look like (the result is -very- zenki FD). Actually, I think it's pretty amazing that they've been able to make a RWD sportscar with modern amenities that weighs 2200lbs. That's nothing. And for whoever thinks its a big deal that it weighs 100-lbs more than the lightest factory NA, I wouldn't worry. You'll probably get taken care of with a Club edition of some sort mid life-cycle. Weight-watchers might have us all on that this is the Japanese spec weight and I don't think we know yet what it will weigh in North America or Europe. I know my car gained about 130lbs in the US homologation process.

And they did this without resorting to tons of aluminum too. That's kind of crazy. Not going to lie, I'm liking what I'm seeing. What I DON'T like is that Flyin' Miata got some close shots at the reveal showing that it comes with Bridgestone RE050As. Those tires are overpriced and not very good (factory on my car too).
DeeezNuuuts83
Posted: Sep 11 2014, 03:21 AM


IDW Goldmember
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 3,840
Member No.: 25,374
Joined: Jul 18th 2007
Location: Southern California





QUOTE (Shirogane @ Sep 7 2014, 11:55 AM)
It's still a fat pig compared to its old ancestors of yesteryear. NA Miata? 200 lbs less than this ugly thing. I mean, suuuuuure, there's 'safety' stuff that's shoved in the used-to-be simple thing.

What car out there by comparison to its old ancestors of yesteryear isn't a fat pig?
MetalMan777
Posted: Sep 13 2014, 07:15 PM


Snooping as usual
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,780
Member No.: 32,588
Joined: Apr 13th 2009
Location: what are you doing in my swamp?





QUOTE (RedComet @ Sep 11 2014, 03:21 AM)
What I DON'T like is that Flyin' Miata got some close shots at the reveal showing that it comes with Bridgestone RE050As. Those tires are overpriced and not very good (factory on my car too).

That's pretty typical. The manufacturers get them cheap because they buy a 4 bajillion (5 bajillion for cars that have full size spares) at a time. Lots of people buy the exact same tires for their newish cars that they rolled out of the plant with, so the tire manufacturers price OE tires higher than the market would otherwise support for the people who want the same thing as a replacement. Also, plenty of people get nasty punctures in single tires, and need to replace one, so they like that to match the other 3. It's a money grubbing ploy. The only OE tires I think are any good are the ones that come on supercars, like Michelin Super Sports, which are a great tire to begin with.

I never really liked Miatas. Mazda is building some great stuff these days, though, so I'll have to see what the fuss is all about when they hit the showrooms. I'm hoping they're faster than Toyobarus for less money.
RedComet
Posted: Sep 13 2014, 08:59 PM


IDW Jr. Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 63
Member No.: 40,622
Joined: Feb 23rd 2013
Location: Northeast





QUOTE (MetalMan777 @ 1 hour, 44 minutes ago)
That's pretty typical. The manufacturers get them cheap because they buy a 4 bajillion (5 bajillion for cars that have full size spares) at a time. Lots of people buy the exact same tires for their newish cars that they rolled out of the plant with, so the tire manufacturers price OE tires higher than the market would otherwise support for the people who want the same thing as a replacement. Also, plenty of people get nasty punctures in single tires, and need to replace one, so they like that to match the other 3. It's a money grubbing ploy. The only OE tires I think are any good are the ones that come on supercars, like Michelin Super Sports, which are a great tire to begin with.

I never really liked Miatas. Mazda is building some great stuff these days, though, so I'll have to see what the fuss is all about when they hit the showrooms. I'm hoping they're faster than Toyobarus for less money.

Oh, for sure. I had that happen already with mine. $218 for a single tire, but I obviously couldn't replace it with something totally different for the reasons you mentioned. A complete ripoff. They're better than all-seasons, but they're definitely not so great for serious driving.

Seriously, 1000 miles in, I picked up a huge screw on the inside shoulder of my right rear. Fail.
Banken
Posted: Sep 13 2014, 11:40 PM


IDW Goldmember
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,110
Member No.: 22,465
Joined: Dec 17th 2006
Location: Japan





$218 is not a lot of money for a high-performance tire. But yes, Bridgestones and Advans are overpriced.
RedComet
Posted: Sep 14 2014, 02:41 AM


IDW Jr. Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 63
Member No.: 40,622
Joined: Feb 23rd 2013
Location: Northeast





Considering in the same size (205/40/R17) AD08Rs are almost $40/tire cheaper, I think the RE050As are a lot for a mediocre (in its category tire).

Alas, economies of scale, lol.
Spaz
Posted: Sep 14 2014, 07:43 AM


Just a guy towing a car across the country to chase a dream.
Group Icon

Group: FORUM MODERATOR
Posts: 9,272
Member No.: 30,193
Joined: Jul 25th 2008
Location: Plymouth, MN





Are they at least NOT RE050 runflats like the NC had? Because fuck those tires. They slide pretty good, but then they don't at the same time. Really vague and obnoxious to drive on.
Proud Contributor of Initial D World Forums
DeeezNuuuts83
Posted: Sep 14 2014, 05:50 PM


IDW Goldmember
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 3,840
Member No.: 25,374
Joined: Jul 18th 2007
Location: Southern California





It's not outrageous or anything, but when you can get Dunlop ZIIs for $150-180, then it's a little higher than I'd want to pay.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

2 Pages  1 2