The 2016 Miata ND Thread

[SimpleS14]

[LockOn!]

uuuuhhhhh 130hp base 1.5L wtf.

http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...40915_31670286

No longer interested until the 2.0 is out.

In a perfect world this would have the 2.0L 175 hp engine, the GT86 would have a tiny turbo, and the IDX would be a real thing but nooooo, automakers keep shooting themselves in the foot then wonder why sales are low.

130hp is not enough.

[simmode1]

^^^I'm guessing they are following the same approach as the original NA Miata & will probably be offering 2 engine choices: a 130hp 1.5L & hopefully a more powerful one as the premium offering. I feel like 175hp is much too low for a modern, sports tuned 2.0L. But if the premium motor turned out to be a 1.5t pushing 175hp+, I would not be mad at all.

[FRpilot]

Originally Posted by gearhead55

Originally Posted by simmode1

^^^Why are ppl just blindly comparing everything to the BRZ/FRS? I don't see it. At all.



I think that last render was obviously inspired by Spoon's fastback top for the S2000, which was clearly modeled after this:

I'm not blindly comparing it.

I say that because I am comparing both cars as a whole (the FRS/BRZ vs the Miata rendering with the fastback style hatch). They both have similar small car bodies, the nose being sharp and pointy, the way the rear quarter panels are styled, and the flare around the front and rear wheel wells ALONG with that hatchback hardtop.

They look similar to me, at least from the side. Even if someone made a rendering of the ND Miata with a traditional bubbly type roadster hardtop (NA/NB miata, s2000, mr2 spyder, z4, etc) the body shapes are more similar to the FRS/BRZ than any other sportscar out there that I can think of off the top of my head (doesn't look more like a Hyandai Genesis, Nissan 370z, porsche, bmw, etc. than it does a FRS/BRZ).

Originally Posted by LockOn!

uuuuhhhhh 130hp base 1.5L wtf.

http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...40915_31670286

No longer interested until the 2.0 is out.

130hp is not enough.

They did say it was a small 1.5L displacement, so I wasn't expecting 150hp or anything higher.

I don't think the 2.0 will be that much more HP either. Realistically, I would guess somewhere around 160-180hp, but no more than a 200hp.

[drift freaq]

Originally Posted by FRpilot

I'm not blindly comparing it.

I say that because I am comparing both cars as a whole (the FRS/BRZ vs the Miata rendering with the fastback style hatch). They both have similar small car bodies, the nose being sharp and pointy, the way the rear quarter panels are styled, and the flare around the front and rear wheel wells ALONG with that hatchback hardtop.

They look similar to me, at least from the side. Even if someone made a rendering of the ND Miata with a traditional bubbly type roadster hardtop (NA/NB miata, s2000, mr2 spyder, z4, etc) the body shapes are more similar to the FRS/BRZ than any other sportscar out there that I can think of off the top of my head (doesn't look more like a Hyandai Genesis, Nissan 370z, porsche, bmw, etc. p.

3 words one letter for you. Jaguar F Type Roadster.

It looks so much closer to that than a FRS/BRZ that the FRS/BRzzzzzzzzzzz does not even come to mind when looking at the new Miata.

[gearhead55]

Originally Posted by LockOn!

uuuuhhhhh 130hp base 1.5L wtf.

http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...40915_31670286

No longer interested until the 2.0 is out.

In a perfect world this would have the 2.0L 175 hp engine, the GT86 would have a tiny turbo, and the IDX would be a real thing but nooooo, automakers keep shooting themselves in the foot then wonder why sales are low.

130hp is not enough.

remember this may not be for the US market. I wouldn't be surprised if we only get the 2.0l over here considering 'mericuh's relationship to displacement.

http://jalopnik.com/insane-rumor-say...lly-1633924430

maybe i'm just being overly optimistic but i really really hope not.

[Matej]

130hp base and 170hp premium sounds like a 1989 Silvia.

I wonder if it would get like 60mpg and weigh nothing, otherwise I do not understand where the advancements in technology went.

[LockOn!]

As long as a higher output model is available I guess its all good. I understand trying to capture a larger audience with the small displacement econ-o version but starting a release with that just seems counter-intuitive to me, especially considering the linage of this car.

"Hey, here's this sweet model with an awesome chassis! Sorry though, retirees and teenage girls first! Enthusiasts will need to wait for 2016!" - tha fuck.

[simmode1]

Originally Posted by LockOn!

As long as a higher output model is available I guess its all good. I understand trying to capture a larger audience with the small displacement econ-o version but starting a release with that just seems counter-intuitive to me, especially considering the linage of this car.

"Hey, here's this sweet model with an awesome chassis! Sorry though, retirees and teenage girls first! Enthusiasts will need to wait for 2016!" - tha fuck.

You realize that is the precise lineage of this car, right? '89 Miata had a 1.6L with 116hp. Enthusiasts didn't get the more powerful 1.8L till '94...

[LoneStarSilvia]

Originally Posted by simmode1

You realize that is the precise lineage of this car, right? '89 Miata had a 1.6L with 116hp. Enthusiasts didn't get the more powerful 1.8L till '94...

This was my argument in another forum. I'm very happy about the back to basics development, by why are we even discussing 1980's-early 90's power? It should be more than feasible to extract more power and stay very economical.

No one's screaming for over 200hp, but 139hp is just a joke, totally gutless.

I almost feel like the 139hp is also a marketing ploy. Build up all the hype, get the consumers wanting more and waiting, then boom, here's the 1.8L or 2.0L version.

BTW, is Alfa even still making their own version? Seems like all news on it has gone dead.

[gearhead55]

Originally Posted by LoneStarSilvia

This was my argument in another forum. I'm very happy about the back to basics development, by why are we even discussing 1980's-early 90's power? It should be more than feasible to extract more power and stay very economical.

No one's screaming for over 200hp, but 139hp is just a joke, totally gutless.

I almost feel like the 139hp is also a marketing ploy. Build up all the hype, get the consumers wanting more and waiting, then boom, here's the 1.8L or 2.0L version.

BTW, is Alfa even still making their own version? Seems like all news on it has gone dead.

This thought had crossed my mind too. Mazda is doing a great job hyping this thing and slow rolling the information leaks, they could be doing this very thing.

AFAIK Alfa is still producing a model on this chassis, probably a year or two after the miata release

[gearhead55]

http://jalopnik.com/when-the-2016-ma...ort-1641351088

Hate to say I told ya so...

[Dutchmalmiss]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/all-ate...ter-elsewhere/

2.0 confirmed for US. ~155hp/ ~150lb-ft torque

[gearhead55]

Originally Posted by Dutchmalmiss

http://blog.caranddriver.com/all-ate...ter-elsewhere/

2.0 confirmed for US. ~155hp/ ~150lb-ft torque

dude i just posted a link with that information. Also, the motor is confirmed, but the power numbers are not. That's what that motor makes in the Mazda 3, but I expect that it will be tuned differently in this application.

[Dutchmalmiss]

^ My bad haha. Let's just say I'm supplementing your previous post with a 2nd report.

As it stands, I agree they'll massage out a little more power out of the motor. Apparently the torque curve alone is enough to be content with.

[gusisboosted]

I am all for this to be honest.
They claim a lighter weight than the last chassis, it might have a tiny bit less horsepower but an extra 15 foot-pound, this will push it forward.

My 1969 Ghia With a 1914 cc makes no more than 100 hp but has plenty of torque right around the 110 point (peak torque comes on at 100 rpm i think hahaha)..... Will take most cars off the line... once we hit 40.... im usually done.... Point is, a bit of torque goes a LONG way in a small rear wheel drive car.

I have been considering a "modern" car for once in my life...
but in all honesty.... unless I have a ton of cash laying around to buy something amazing, all these lower end "sports" cars just dont do it for me.

Specially when you can build an s52 e30 for less.
OR even go nuts an build a beams swapped 86 for less.
I can go on and on with examples but you get my point.

Newer cars, do not offer anything we can't already get in a much more pure and concentrated form.

[SimpleS14]

[Dutchmalmiss]

Guy in the video said a couple interesting things.
2.0 will have "about 165hp"
"limited slip is standard"

For him to say it'll be the car of 2015 is a bold statement. But I won't argue too much; I love this thing.

[gearhead55]

Originally Posted by Dutchmalmiss

"limited slip is standard"

oh fuck yea.

[K_style]

i don't get the touch screen thing... you shouldn't needing one of those for a car that you can enjoy driving... perhaps thats the "optional" thing to have.

[oldschoolsilvia]

I thought my NC was great, I am ready to get the keys to one of these and see how big of an improvement they have made with the ND!

[simmode1]

Originally Posted by K_style

i don't get the touch screen thing... you shouldn't needing one of those for a car that you can enjoy driving... perhaps thats the "optional" thing to have.

Ditto. One look at the screen & I immediately doubted the 2200lbs claim.

[LoneStarSilvia]

I like touchscreen, my former S2000 had the factory Navi, it's a nice little option that doesn't take up much room or weight.

[MrBrightSide]

With that skyactive 2.0 engine and all of that nav tech pack, I'm gonna say it's gonna be around 2500 lbs

[gearhead55]

Originally Posted by MrBrightSide

With that skyactive 2.0 engine and all of that nav tech pack, I'm gonna say it's gonna be around 2500 lbs

yea because Mazda doesn't know how much their motors weigh and a nav screen weighs 200 lbs, right...

[0100]

Global MX-5 Cup

[gearhead55]

man i keep getting distracted by other options for my next car, but Mazda is doing a great job of slowly releasing information and keeping me interested. that looks great

[gearhead55]

http://jalopnik.com/the-2016-mazda-m...car-1707333736

I think mazda really hit it out of the park with this. I already picked up something else, but if I hadn't I would definitely buy one. I'll probably pick up a used one in a couple years.

[simmode1]

^^^Sweet review... I had forgotten all about this thread. Can't wait to see some of these on the street. Also looking forward to the inevitable MX5 vs FRS battles!

[LoneStarSilvia]

Mmmmm, with the prices of S2000's getting more and more reasonable, I'd like to see a comparo between that and the ND.