2003 Mazda MX-5 test drive (long post)

[fstsven]

My brother has just bought a 2003 Mazda MX-5 1.6 ( NB mk 2.5 for the experts). This particular car has only covered 20K miles and is in top condition. It is completely standard, no modifications. Note that I am not biased in any way; I love the MR2, but I am an all-round sports car nut and have driven a fair few of them, such as Lotus Elise, Opel speedster (VX220 to you), BMW Z3, etc.
Observations on the Mazda:
-styling: It's a nice shape, the classic sportscar if you will: short tail, long nose, low build. A bit more rounded than the MR's sharper lines, but attractive none the less. A tad more "feminine" maybe. It does look slightly underwheeled with 14" wheels and 185/60 tires, but they have advantages, which we'll come to later.
-Interior: Similar entrance height to MR, but quite a bit more cramped: seat has to be all the way back for me (I'm 1m75 and have a few centimeters of seat rail to spare in the MR) Also, headroom is only about half of what I have in the MR, and the cabin feels a lot more "snug". Dashboard on the whole is more attractively shaped than the MR's, but some switches (and the indicator stalks) look and feel cheap and brittle. Roof is only one layer ( triple in the MR), and as a result can feel slichtly damp in wet and cold conditions. Seats are very good: comfortable and supportive. While the MR is eternally slayed for its (lack of) boot space, but the Mazda is actually worse: there is a boot, but it's very shallow and I'm absolutely sure the MR can take more luggage in the combined front boot (with the spare removed) and rear cubby holes.
-Driving: Like with the MR, the lack of weight is immediately apparent. The car turns in sharply at the first hint of turning the wheel and is nicely adjustable on the throttle. Brakes are nicely progressive and adequately powerful, though not as good as the MR's. Pedals perfectly spaced and very easy to heel and toe. The gearshift is pretty stiff and a tad notchy, but the stubby lever has a very direct action and seems directly connected to the cogs in the 'box (around 4000 rpm it vibrates a tad, but nothing unbearable). A plus over the MR, which feels more remote-shifting, especially the 6-speeder). The engine is willing and free-revving, with a decently rorty noise, but lacks overtaking power. Overall cornering grip is definately lower than the MR's, but it lets go more progressively and very easy to catch. A bit too much body roll for my taste, but the trade-off is a significantly smoother ride, which makes the MR seem fidgety. The tyres, of course, also play a role here. On smooth tarmac my MR would run rings around it, but on a really lumpy road, I'd doubt if I could stay in touch. Less interior rattles too...

So, quite a long review, but I hope it helps us to understand the MX-5 better. It is a very decent little sportscar, and while not as "hardcore" as ours, very enjoyable indeed. Its nice to see that decent sportscars are still built at an affordable price, though I hear the Mk 3 isn't nearly as good; but that's another story for another time.
Cheers.

[cclarke99]

I would agree with you about the engine, the rest of the MR2 vs MX5 debate is a matter of individual taste and what you want to use the car for, but the Toyota engine is just better throughout the whole rev range. What you said about overtaking sums it up perfectly, you'd feel a lot more confident overtaking in an MR2