When discussing which car is quicker (and the question is simply which car is quicker) its generally which one is actually quicker to 60/off the line ect than the other, unless of course your talking to an mx5 owner and then they have to bring corners or race tracks into the equation

0-60 guy not corners. also, on the fwd argument, I love FWD I like the security of it, I like rwd to. haven't been fortunate enough to drive 4wd yet. I've found that the 1.8 mx5 engine doesn't rev as urgently as say a valver which for me was a let down, I didn't like the car when I got it and thought I had made a mistake but grew to really enjoy it.

So the 1.8 mx5 is quicker than a G40? Seriously? glad I never took the leap and bought a G40 now

I found the mx5 pretty gutless

Parkers, which gets its figures from manufacturers, has the MX-5 1.8 down as 8.3 seconds to 60mph, which is slower than a G40 (at 8.1 seconds according to Volkswagen) and the facelifted version as 7.7 seconds. An entirely limited way to look at a car's performance. As I said, in-gear acceleration (which is what you'll notice anywhere other than Santa Pod) a standard G40 will outrun an MX-5 in a straight line. The MX-5 claws it back in the corners.

I think how fast a car is point to point is entirely relevant. I also think 0-60 or 0-62mph figures give nothing more than a basic yardstick, and very little indication of the way a car feels to drive. The G40 delivers the power entirely differently to an MX-5, I've not driven the old one but I have tried the new one and it's quicker on paper. Not a fast car though.

If that makes sense.

I like the MX-5, I'm not arguing the G40 is the better car, but basing your judgement of the Polo on the way an MX-5 feels is a little short sighted.

That wasn't meant to sound quite so blunt ^^

So the G40 is quicker than an mx5? As I say I haven't driven a G40 or even been in a standard one, all I know is the 1.8 mx5 I drove was pretty gutless. maybe that is a short sighted way to look at some thing but when you drive something that is gutless and then get told by someone that its actually quicker than something that people keep raving about its kinda surprising.

I know its not all about the 0-60 times, but that was the information he was giving me to back up his claims. Having never been in a G that was even close to standard I could hardly accuse him of chatting shit could I?

Guy, I think you maybe like me, and really not as easily impressed as some people lol

the only reason for use of a polo is that this is a polo forum. I'll put it in more relevant terms, its a similar 0-60 to an MR2 (uk spec) slightly quicker than an MGF 1.8 unless you get a VVC version and quicker to 60 than any z3 below 2 litre.

Perhaps Guy, the mx5 didn't offer you what you like in a car? maybe you like more brutal grunt than it has (I watched the videos of your Jetta, Nuts!) maybe you don't like the hype surrounding them (I didn't but wanted to give it a try, they are good but it doesn't live up to the ultimate sports car hype because the handling although better than anything I've owned will not match a lotus elise, In fact the car I really wanted was a 90's Lotus Elan but couldn't stump up the cash). in this price bracket its difficult to find another 2 seat front engine rear drive car that is cheap to run and will provide the same thrills.

I'm pretty hard to impress.

I think most people who rave about G40s aren't talking about standard ones. Standard G40s aren't slow but they're not bullets. The reason people rave about them is that they're hilariously urgent and easy to tune.

That said, each time I get back into mine it surprises me how quick it is. Plenty of "quicker" on paper cars just don't have the same urgency. That's what I mean when I say it's really limited to look at a car just based on its 0-60 times. You can buy a Mondeo that'll outrun a standard G40, doesn't mean the Mondeo will feel faster. Chances are it'll feel slower.

Pound for pound though if you're starting afresh you'll get from point A to point B quicker in a standard 1.8 MX-5 than you will in a standard G40. On the same stretch of road they'll each give you a very different experience. MX-5s I've driven you have to push hard to get the power out of them, and they don't have the sort of top-end pace as you'd get from a Honda VTEC.

I don't think the G40 is the be-all-and-end-all of performance motoring by any means, but I do find mine hilarious to drive. If I stack it, the replacement won't be another fast Polo.

^ that is a proper response.

the only reason for use of a polo is that this is a polo forum. I'll put it in more relevant terms, its a similar 0-60 to an MR2 (uk spec) slightly quicker than an MGF 1.8 unless you get a VVC version and quicker to 60 than any z3 below 2 litre.

Perhaps Guy, the mx5 didn't offer you what you like in a car? maybe you like more brutal grunt than it has (I watched the videos of your Jetta, Nuts!) maybe you don't like the hype surrounding them (I didn't but wanted to give it a try, they are good but it doesn't live up to the ultimate sports car hype because the handling although better than anything I've owned will not match a lotus elise, In fact the car I really wanted was a 90's Lotus Elan but couldn't stump up the cash). in this price bracket its difficult to find another 2 seat front engine rear drive car that is cheap to run and will provide the same thrills.

This is exactly my point, I like something that gives you a good kick or that can put a smile on your face in every day driving. Thing is as soon as a thread like this pops up everyones giving it the "buy one you won't regret it" line, all I'm saying is don't listen to the hype and try one before you buy it to be sure its what you think it is. On my daily commute there are no testing roads, owning one would be pointless to me because to get any enjoyment out of it I'd have to go looking for it, give me some thing with some kick to it and I can have fun on straight and not so demanding roads as well as the more demanding roads where an mx5 starts getting into its stride.

If I lived on a race track then maybe I would have a different opinion of them, but I don't and 95% of the roads I drive don't need an mx5 to drive them fast

It's not that I dislike the cars, its more people trying to hype the living shit out of them, if it hadn't of been so over hyped I probably wouldn't of been so underwhelmed when I finally got the chance to drive one myself. The post you made earlier with the detailed description of the cars and their handling as standard was quite a refreshing change from the usual "OMFG THEY ARE FUCKING AMAZING BUY ONE NOW!!!11" kind of replies that usually get posted in these threads. What makes me laugh is that when someone posts up saying they drove/owned one and didn't think it was all that, people start bitching at them like they've just pissed on the sacred goat or something

All this "point A to point B" talk is irrelevant because who's to say what sort of roads are between A and B?

If I was in the market for this sort of car I'd get an MG midget, the one I drove had the same kind of mods as the mx5 I drove (lowered on alloys) and was so much more fun, definitely a worse car but I literally didn't stop grinning every time I drove it. The steering wheel was too big, the peddles were almost in the passenger footwell, the brakes were shit even compared to a polo, it was in no way fast but then I honestly don't think you would want to go fast in one. It was just the noise, the smell of unburnt fuel wafting in from the engine bay, and just the pure rawness of it all, probably one of the scariest cars I've ever driven and I never even got it over about 70mph

I'm not saying the op should consider buying an MG, they are shit, just saying that something doesn't have to be good to be to be fun, and just because some thing is good doesn't mean it will be fun

good to see that in some sort of contrived way, we somewhat agree. I was underwhelmed when it was hyped up but now I've had the time and got used to it's little nuances, I really enjoy it and at least once a week I go down a country lane or two (sunday morning) and with the meets I have been going that takes me through the countryside with mates too which is great. I suppose it helps if you live close to the country with decent roads (roads are way better in the country down here than in towns) and can make use of it. there is a small amount of body roll to on standard suspension but nothing drastic but like most cars you can stiffen it up. I have driven a few mx5's now in various states of tune and they can be improved massively.

1998 MX5 (mk2) 1.8iS 140hp Torsen LSD, this is a standard car and has all of the thing I have mentioned, slightly numb steering, slight roll, sticks nicely until you really boot it then it'll break away.

1990 MX5 (mk1) 1.6i 115hp Viscous diff, a lightly modified example, steering had more feel but still not fantastic more of a drivers car because you feel all of the bumps and its a bit more exposed.

1998 Miata (mk2, LHD us import) 1.8 Turbo RR'd at 227 at the fly Torsen LSD, heavily modified, with meister R coilies ,polybushes and additional bracing it feels good to hand you can feel more through the wheel and its a lot quicker in a straight line and is quite a weapon (not in my hands though).

All this "point A to point B" talk is irrelevant because who's to say what sort of roads are between A and B?

Not really, point A to point B refers to how well a car balances power and handling, measured on roads where you'd actually go out to enjoy driving a car. It's theoretical, but entirely relevant. Hence why manufacturers are obsessed with developing performance cars at the Nurburgring at the moment.

Anyway, my point is the same as yours. I'm saying don't dismiss a G40 until you try one, and don't assume it'll feel anything like an MX-5 just because they sound similar on paper. There's a reason people come back to them after trading up to better cars. Hugely enjoyable, unruly as a cheap firework, and with masses of punch right in the middle of the rev range just where you want it.

Incidentally a mate of mine bought an MX-5, based on the hype. He did a drive from North London to Peterborough, up the A1, every day. Hated the car, sold it for an E24 635CSi which suited the drive better. I think he's got a stacklight Merc now. Horses for courses, etc.

I think Guy's trying to get at the fact that one man's "A to B" is different to another's. If I go the back roads to work and they're empty then the Z is lots more fun than either of my Saabs were, and quicker because it goes round the bends better. However, there's often a lot of traffic - so the motorway is the preferred route, and the last Saab did that better thanks to gobs of torque and an easier less involving drive. I guess not dissimilar to your mate with the MX-5 on the A1 found!

An MX-5 would be cack on my country roads route too though, as there's too much traffic to enjoy the drive if you've not got enough power to overtake the half asleep 40mph-everywhere-merchants and find some clear road. A Tata Nano on the same route was fucking hilarious as it felt like you were going to die way before the national speed limit.

I guess it all comes down to the combination of personal taste and vehicle usage as well as the car itself. And probably what other cars you own too!

I'm sure if MX-5s were as ugly as the last MR2 or blew headgaskets like MGFs they wouldn't have quite the following they do. For people who want a fun RWD softtop, reliability and cheapness they're hard to beat - as long as you don't want to go fast in a straight line.

The comments to that video from the MX5 owners are fucking priceless

They are also exactly the sort of thing I was on about earlier

What makes me laugh is that when someone posts up saying they drove/owned one and didn't think it was all that, people start bitching at them like they've just pissed on the sacred goat or something

Gay

those handling guru type people aren't even the worst its the I drive everywhere roof down even if its raining. to which I reply you look like a dickhead and they pipe down after that.

The comments on that video are hilarious, blatantly all from people who haven't watched it. Like the bit where he says most of the people who defend them have modified their cars. Loads of comments saying, yeah standard ones are shit but you can modify them. TRY WATCHING THE VIDEO FIRST.

There's also an interesting assumption that Chris Harris can't appreciate cheap cars because he swans about in Ferraris. Chris Harris is a big fan of the £17,000 Renaultsport Clio 200, and mentions the 205 GTI at the end of this one. My god, again try looking around before commenting.

Edited 3 January, 201313 yr by Alex

I haven't watched the Chris Harris video above for a while - have done on the past.

I remember coming away with the feeling he has never really understood. He compared the handling at one point unfavourably with an elise which is just wrong - I always felt they were track day toys. For me the 5 was always about having a affordable everyday car (all be it with only 2 seats) which served up sports car handling and feel but with enough practicality to live with (just about). Where as the Elise never could do half the stuff i would have needed. e.g. I wouldnt have enjoyed the quick blast down to the shops in an elise as there would have been no point going with so little boot or such a unfortunate roof arrangement to make the roof off element impractical. Costs aside as i know hs original review and the later one changed his standpoint to a degree.

I always enjoyed driving my 5's everyday and they always made me smile. I felt it was more of a drivers car for not having loads of mid range torque, it was more of a challenge to just push the back end on a round about etc.

Its funny actually as so many of the reasons Guy mentions as to what he prefers something else was actually the reason i liked a 5 for those moments.

I guess we look for different things.

I think with todays crowded roads i want a car that i could drive balls out and not always be catching up everyone instantly. Its one of the the reasons I've come to polo's.

I drive a 330d as my daily and on the motorway i have yet to discover its equal, and its an awesome car, but for any other journey id prefer a well set up 5 (not modded, just good rubber and geo etc)

The mx-5 always inspired me to take the long way or even to extra "laps" because it was such a fun car to drive - but maybe its not for everyone.

Seeing that MG midget has raising an interesting point in my mind.

If I'm looking into MX5's will the fact that I'm 6 " 4 tall be a problem?

Are they small inside?

This topic highlights precisely why the old Polo is still on the drive. It may be mouldy inside with nuts/bolts and bits of exhaust under it, full of scrap/junk and generally letting the neighbourhood down, but i flatly refuse to scrap it because it was fun and i want it back on the road so driving can be fun again.

It did show some swift motors up, but speed wasn't the main factor - it was such a giggle just driving in normal traffic.

Commuting was fun, whether i was on a twisty B-road or a motorway, always an event and i'd often drive the long way home.

That's what it's about, for me. It's gotta be the main reason to run a fun car, like the MX5 should be. If it's not hitting the spot, it's failing. That Midget looks a right laugh, i've always wondered if they're as much fun as they look. The MX5 should do it, but i can't see it being enough of a hooligan. I drove an early Eunos 1.6 once but it was dark and wet, i wasn't out to have a play with it. Especially when i couldn't see where i was going because the pop-up headlights were in the way..

The crap i've been driving lately is failing hard. Driving anywhere is a drag these days, it's just not enjoyable in a Golf4 or 206. It's drizzling outside but i don't care, just been hit with the motivation stick, i'm off outside to do some work..

Seeing that MG midget has raising an interesting point in my mind.

If I'm looking into MX5's will the fact that I'm 6 " 4 tall be a problem?

Are they small inside?

Its going to be snug- but they are meant to be ( to do with horse and rider feeling as one thing which was in the design concept) however they were designed in Mazdas California studio, to fit Americans

I have several mates 6'2 - 6'6 who have them and some fit better than others. different body shapes and stuff.

There is more space for a taller driver in a mk1 than a mk2 or a mk2.5. There is also a simple mod you can do to the seat to remove an unnecessary layer of foam that my 6'3 mate raved about for ages after owning his for 5 years. He took out the layer to drop him down an inch or two as well.

If its still a problem another friend fitted Elise seats. You basically sit on the floor on a millimetre of foam!

this is a later link

http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.a...y%20-%20do%20it

I'm another one who isn't an mx-5 lover. Firstly, I don't fit in them. Secondly, the driving position is horrid - possibly because of the first point in my case.

They are also gay.

Edited 3 January, 201313 yr by tobyk

They are also gay.

Surely that's a plus point for you tho Toby?