Looking at buying a MX5

[GG.]

Didn't Jobbo once have both (albeit a mk1 MX5) at the same time and ended up selling the Boxster because he found he always ended up taking the Mazda as it was more fun?

Yep, something about the Boxster being too capable as an all-rounder and therefore not as well suited as a weekend/second car.

I never quite understand this, however.

I currently have a dog eared Saab which should get used for nursery runs, etc. but because the 911 is such a good all rounder - I use it for everything bar taking bags of rubbish to the tip. Will still also give you the fizz round the evo triangle despite not being a stripped out featherweight such as an exige or a Caterham.

If you want a convertible plus ultra competent mid-engined handling then there really isn't much to compare - at under £10k they are a ridiculous steal.

[Sundayjumper]

Yep, something about the Boxster being too capable as an all-rounder and therefore not as well suited as a weekend/second car.

I never quite understand this, however.

I do. My first M3 I only kept for about nine months because exactly that. I think a car needs to feel a bit compromised to feel special, and the M3 was too rounded.

[ste]

I think 'too competent' is often a polite way of saying dull. I liked my Boxster but it was defiitely 'too competent'.

To clarify that a bit, the noise was fantastic. The chassis was very good too, in fact I was surprised at how mid-engined it felt and how the traction played out and the weight shift could dictate the car's attitude. So far, so good. It was very wooly though and had way too much comfort and lag built in. Like it or not, most Boxter owners want to be isolated from the actual driving of the thing.

An MX5 is a simpler proposition. The engine is much more boring and you don't have that mass behind you that comes into play. However the car will respond more to having its head kicked in. The gearbox is a joy to interact with, the steering is more precise and it's magnitudes more capable of being steered on the throttle, partly because it has less traction, partly the LSD, partly because it just feels happier doing it.

I guess that's where more competent becomes less fun.

[Beany]

An MX5 is a simpler proposition. The engine is much more boring and you don't have that mass behind you that comes into play. However the car will respond more to having its head kicked in. The gearbox is a joy to interact with, the steering is more precise and it's magnitudes more capable of being steered on the throttle, partly because it has less traction, partly the LSD, partly because it just feels happier doing it.

I guess that's where more competent becomes less fun.

Slight aside - do you consider that you have to really rag an MX5 to bits for it to be entertaining?

I drove one back to back with the Puma once, and it felt pretty anodyne. Agree on the steering, gearchange etc but it felt way too planted and far less edgy/pointy than the Puma. Obviously being someone elses car I wasn't tipping into corners off the throttle for the half hour I drove it, etc.

You've had a Puma too, IIRC?

[ste]

No I think an MX5 feels good at 'driving along in traffic' speeds too.

I liked our Puma lots, but it was quite a long time ago that I last drove one.

[Beany]

I probably was just doing it wrong.

[JonMad]

FI kit is about 5k, I'd happily pay for the 200hp kit if I gel with the car.

I'm not adverse to modifying cars, the 308 is the only standard car I've ever had.

I thought about a Boxster, but more road tax, higher purchase price, more fuel costs and higher parts costs should stuff go wrong.

I also thought about S2000s but they seem to have gone up a lot in price since I had last looked!

Slightly confused about not wanting to pay for a more expensive car, but happy to pay the cost to modify a car, that will then incur further costs (e.g. higher insurance - assuming you tell them - more fuel costs and by definition higher parts costs).

[Orange Cola]

Has anyone suggested an MX5 yet?

[JLv3.0]

Yes

[David_Yu]

My missus had a Mk1 MX5 and I have to say I never found it that fun to drive. Mind you I think I ruined it by buying her some 15" TSW Venoms which gave it more grip than grunt...

But it rolled like a barge, the steering was nothing special and it lacked an LSD so even if you could provoke it, all it would do is lean and spin away the inside wheel.

No doubt with some judicious fettling it could have been much more fun, but in standard form I felt it was disappointing and I would rather have had a Mk3 MR2.

[Richard]

heres an idea,

Just buy an MX5, if you end up not liking it, surely this summer weather will help you sell it for what you bought it for

[GG.]

Cue 6 months of rain.

[JonMad]

Cue 6 months of rain.

More sideways action. It's all good.

[Jobbo]

Didn't Jobbo once have both (albeit a mk1 MX5) at the same time and ended up selling the Boxster because he found he always ended up taking the Mazda as it was more fun?

Yep, something about the Boxster being too capable as an all-rounder and therefore not as well suited as a weekend/second car.

I never quite understand this, however.

I currently have a dog eared Saab which should get used for nursery runs, etc. but because the 911 is such a good all rounder - I use it for everything bar taking bags of rubbish to the tip. Will still also give you the fizz round the evo triangle despite not being a stripped out featherweight such as an exige or a Caterham.

If you want a convertible plus ultra competent mid-engined handling then there really isn't much to compare - at under £10k they are a ridiculous steal.

You don’t drive to work, I assume, so every journey is a treat. My Boxster was a 2.7 facelift 986 in the lightest possible spec (no air-con even) and it was fast enough to be more fun than the 3.2s I drove which had a boringly linear power delivery. But it still wasn’t as much fun to chuck around as the E46 330i Touring I had at the same time. Which happened to do all the boring stuff better as well.

[GG.]

Yep, something about the Boxster being too capable as an all-rounder and therefore not as well suited as a weekend/second car.

I never quite understand this, however.

I currently have a dog eared Saab which should get used for nursery runs, etc. but because the 911 is such a good all rounder - I use it for everything bar taking bags of rubbish to the tip. Will still also give you the fizz round the evo triangle despite not being a stripped out featherweight such as an exige or a Caterham.

If you want a convertible plus ultra competent mid-engined handling then there really isn't much to compare - at under £10k they are a ridiculous steal.

You don’t drive to work, I assume, so every journey is a treat. My Boxster was a 2.7 facelift 986 in the lightest possible spec (no air-con even) and it was fast enough to be more fun than the 3.2s I drove which had a boringly linear power delivery. But it still wasn’t as much fun to chuck around as the E46 330i Touring I had at the same time. Which happened to do all the boring stuff better as well.

You're right, I haven't driven (or had the opportunity to drive) a car to get to somewhere every day since I was a sixth former in school.

I guess having a RWD 3 litre straight six as your daily put you in rather an unusual position though and raised the bar for a weekend car/required an even bigger contrast in weight/refinement terms. For a lot of people (though I guess not those driving Golf Rs on leases...) their daily is going to be mundane enough to make that gap large enough and the appeal of an exotic sounding flat 6 tempting.

I wouldn't have said the 330i M-Sport I had was more fun to throw around than a Boxster but I suppose that was an auto and an e90 which is larger and I presume less nimble than the e46. No LSD also killed it through tight corners and cross country.

I enjoyed getting the convertible top down at every opportunity (even in the winter) so much on the Boxster that I think in your position (and obviously purely my personal preference) I'd have probably dailyed the Boxster and swapped the e46 for a cheaper 320i touring (basically a similar combination of beater estate and sports car to what I have now). But then I suppose you're left with the issue of people making comments at work if you're turning up every day in a Porsche. Oh and yes, no air con probably makes that a non-starter for the summer months too

More interesting I guess are your thoughts on Boxster versus MX5. To be honest I haven't driven an MX5 so I can't really pass judgment. Do I remember correctly that yours is also lightly modded?

[Jobbo]

The Boxster doesn’t have an LSD either so it’s not fair to criticise the 330i for lacking that. I don’t have a lot of experience of the E90; I’ve driven a facelift 330d and an E92 335i but not particularly far or hard. I love the way the E46 drives, in any form (320td Compact courtesy car to Alpina B3S); but it was still a bit of an eye-opener when I took my 330i Touring our for a last 20 mile blast after I’d agreed to sell it and realised it was more fun to hurl around than the Boxster I was keeping.

My current MX5 is modded but it’s no faster than standard. First one (1.6 mk1) was standard - an imported Eunos S-special so with LSD etc which were lacking on many UK cars. To be honest I loved the way the standard one drove just as much if not more. It’s nice to be able to rev a car to the red line through every gear without risking your licence; but the joy is the click-click gearchange, the steering feel, the throttle response and the general mechanical interaction. When you have a big auto barge for everyday use they’re a complete contrast.

Quite fancy a mk3 but I like my mk1 enough not to change. It costs bugger all to own and run so I don’t feel guilty about not using it that often.

[GG.]

We'll have to disagree on the LSD. It's the same reason McLarens don't have one, Lotuses don't as standard and neither do any Porsches other than a GT3 - with the weight of a mid-engined car predominantly over the rear you just don't get them to cock a wheel and spin away power in tight corners. The e90 did it even on hard m-sport suspension and my e36 did it comically. The boxster (987 at least) would always just slew sideways rather than spin a wheel.

Guess I need to give a mk1 mx5 a try then and see what the fuss is about. Until then, Chris Harris' summation of "good, not remarkable" is going to leave a pretty big question in my mind as to how much people rate them very highly firmly in the context of them being cheap and basic good fun.

[MikeHunt]

I’ve had a mk2, mk2.5 both 1.8 and a mk3 2.0 (hardroof), any views are biased.

Going from a leased golf r they don’t feel slow as long as you don’t look at the clocks, you can throw it around a corner and it flatters, even a ham fisted driver like me can look like a drifter.

I fully intended to take the mk3 to bring for suspension and engine upgrades, the only reasons I didnt was because the cost was more than a friend spent on an rx8 and also I decided to wait until the mk4 comes down in price and be one of those. A 3 year old car is around £12k so £15k for 200bhp is appealing.

I did see a video of an mr2 that Dan is working on, 240bhp in one of those would be epic!

[GG.]

http://www.eporsch.co.uk/listings/2004- ... 2s-manual/

Slightly higher miles at 95k but a 2004 260hp S from a dealer, just had a major service by them and with 6 months parts and labour warranty for £7.5k which is the same price as your BBR modded S3 MX5.

[JLv3.0]

Mate - this horse died ages back. Enough with the flogging.