Mazda MX-5

PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 645 ✭✭✭✭
E10 Mazda Eunos Roadster RS-Limited

-Name change: From "Mazda Eunos Roadster RS-Limited" to "Eunos Roadster RS-Limited"
Reason: Just like Autozam, Eunos (1989-1996) is a marque of Mazda, not the car's name, therefore it should be its manufacturer name.

-0-60 Improvement (No proof)
Reason: The RS-Limited is just another trim of the Mk1 MX-5, carrying the more powerful 1.8 litre engine, it's rather hard to imagine that this car would accelerate to 60mph 2 seconds slower than the D12 MX-5.

D11 Mazda MX-5 RF

-Stat changes:
Top speed: 126 -> 134
0-60 time: 8.2 -> 7.1
Horsepower: 129 -> 158
Torque: 111 -> 147

-Model Year: 2018 -> 2017 (Based on its plate, VN66 ZHR)
Source:

Note: After further investigation, It seems that the image Hutch used is a Skyactiv-G 160 while the stats are from Skyactiv-G 132 model, it would be easier to just change image to the respective trim instead.

D11 Mazda MX-5 (1998)

-Stat changes:
0-60 time: 9.7 -> 9.2 (9.7 is the 0-100kmh time), source: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2002/1667150/mazda_mx-5_1_6.html
Ground Clearance: Low -> Medium (140mm), source: https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/mazda-mx-5-miata-1998.html#aeng_mazda-mx-5-miata-1998-16-16v

-Model Year: 1998 -> 2002 (Based on its plate, FL52 OXT)
Source: 
D12 Mazda MX-5 (1989)

-Name change: From "Mazda MX-5" to "Eunos Roadster S-Special", source: https://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C1064657

-Model Year: 1989 -> 1992 (Based on its plate, K137 EJB)
Source: 

Note: It is also possible to do the easy way and just change the image instead.

D12 Mazda MX-5 (2005)

-Image change: The car in the image is the first facelift, made between 2008-2012.
Proof: (Not the exact car, but still)
 

-Stat changes:
Ground Clearance: Low -> Medium (137mm, I believe the threshold was exactly 137?), source: https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/mazda-mx-5-miata-2005.html#aeng_mazda-mx-5-miata-mk3-2005-20

D14 Mazda MX-5 (2018)

-Model Year: 2018 -> 2015 (based on its plate, VN15 YZK)
Source: 

Comments

  • NinjaDesignzNinjaDesignz Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I hate to be that guy but you keep using automobile catalog for some of these smh
  • TGPDTGPD Posts: 6,060 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bear in mind that some of the license plates could be passed down as testing plates and might not reflect the actual year of production.
    I'm not an expert but just throwing it out there.
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 645 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019
    @NinjaDesignz Mate, FYI, not all data from that site are purely estimations. If some data are just estimates, they will list it as "estimated" instead.

    Besides, Automobile Catalog is one of the most detailed source of car information out there, the amount of trims they have for one specific car, neither the Carfolio nor Autoevolution can compete with that.

    Besides, some of these cars are JDM spec, which their data are really hard to find, while Carfolio have some of them, Autoevo has practically none. Only Automobile Catalog have them, and you still don't want to use it?
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 645 ✭✭✭✭
    @TGPD I did find something similar to what you said when looking up stats yesterday.

    The G5 BBR plates on the MX-5 BBR Turbo, now belongs to a 1997, 1.8 litre Mazda, painted in red. So that would mean that the plates aren't on the same car anymore, as the MX-5 BBR were out of production already by 1997.
  • NinjaDesignzNinjaDesignz Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019
    @NinjaDesignz Mate, FYI, not all data from that site are purely estimations. If some data are just estimates, they will list it as "estimated" instead.

    Besides, Automobile Catalog is one of the most detailed source of car information out there, the amount of trims they have for one specific car, neither the Carfolio nor Autoevolution can compete with that.

    Besides, some of these cars are JDM spec, which their data are really hard to find, while Carfolio have some of them, Autoevo has practically none. Only Automobile Catalog have them, and you still don't want to use it?
    While the car dimensions are most likely true, the site literally states that their performance numbers are estimations "automobile-catalog.com ProfessCars™ estimation (the car with basic curb weight, full fuel tank and 90 kg (200 lbs) load)". Look, I'm not trying to get under your skin. It's just that others have mentioned that that website is not good for 0-60 times too. I also don't mind if you use them to change ground clearances and other car dimensions, just don't use it to change 0-60 times.

    Idk about the other websites and where they get their performance data, I'm just speaking about automobile catalog. 
  • DodecaneDodecane Posts: 154 ✭✭✭
    read that again

  • NinjaDesignzNinjaDesignz Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dodecane said:
    read that again

    Okay I see that. Still makes you wonder where hutch is getting their numbers for  some of these cars
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 645 ✭✭✭✭
    @NinjaDesignz No wonder why ya'll are being so angry about the usage of that site, because you guys haven't seen the "factory claims" sections at all.
  • Hutch_GsearchHutch_Gsearch Posts: 2,553 admin
    "Factory claim"  Is like telling the people at the Drivers license office what your height and weight are.    I know for a fact that the guy in front of me in line that was clearly shorter than me and nearly twice my weight was NOT the  6'1" 200 pounds he "claimed" to the lady at the window...

    A million test on a million vehicles have found the what the factory claims is generally buffed a bit to sell cars.

  • O__VERO__VER Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gsearch said:
    A million test on a million vehicles have found the what the factory claims is generally buffed a bit to sell cars.
    Or in the case of some manufacturers like BMW, they underrate their performance so that nobody ever tests the cars and finds them lacking a few HP.
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 645 ✭✭✭✭
    @Gsearch Factory claims is our only option left when there's no test results from good ol' reliable buddy, C&D.
  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 210 ✭✭✭
    Hello ! Bumping this tread again, as it seems not change where noted.

    Miata NA:
    I have a hard time with the E29 Mazda Eunos Roadster RS-Limited. We all agree that this is a special edition of the NA Miata fitted with the 1.8l engine of 132hp with a 0-60 of 10.1 sec

    Especially when the original MX5 NA RQ35 (with the original 1.6l engine of 114hp) is set to have a time of 8.5 sec. You seems to have a consistency problem. I own a 1.6l Miata, and there is a general agreement that the 1.6l and 1.8l have similar acceleration. As the weight of the 1.8l counterbalance the horsepower.

    Grip seems consistent between the two cars as the 1994 should be fitted with a LSD between some others stuff.

    And when you see the MX5 NB, you can see that the NA from 1989 seems to be a little bit too much..

    Miata ND
    The ND Miata from 2018 is weird. In 2018 a new 2.0l 181hp has been introduced to replace the 2.0l 155hp.

    So either the HP is wrong (from 158 to 181) or the year is wrong (2018 -> to 2016) As we have a ND with the 1.5l 133hp from 2016, i guess the aim was to have the 181hp engine.

    IN both case, the 0-60 seems wrong, as the 155hp has a better tested 0-60 than the 6.9
    https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a25857/testing-the-2016-mazda-miata-less-is-more-quantified/
    (Note this is a 2016 with the 2l 155hp, the 1.5l 133hp being not released in the USA.)

    Here is the test of the 2018 Mazda Miata with the 181hp
    https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/miata/2018/2018-mazda-mx-5-miata-rf-first-test-review/

    Hope it helps !



Sign In or Register to comment.