MX-5 Owners Club

TempestSabre

For me theres a big difference in feel between FWD, RWD, and MR. If you don't think there is, then that tells its own story. Lots of modern cars are over damped, over tyred and with dull power steering. Lots of mods achieve the same effect. Lots of power and grip does not make a good handling car, simply a fast one, even if it stuck like glue in corners.

For me the Del Sol bodyshell doesn't have the rigidity of the Mrk II CRX. Which made all the difference in feel. Even the MrkII isn't all that stiff compared to something like a Mr2 Mrk1. Mind you finding one of any of these that hasn't been meddled with is hard. A modified car can often feel nothing like the original. My own CRX was an Irish one. Not a spec of rust after 10yrs. But like most of them was badly damaged in an unsuccessful theft attempt. All of the MX5, (dunno about the latest) are lovely to drive. Theres better traffic light dragsters if thats what you are into.

cpoh1

TempestSabre wrote:

For me theres a big difference in feel between FWD, RWD, and MR. If you don't think there is, then that tells its own story. Lots of modern cars are over damped, over tyred and with dull power steering. Lots of mods achieve the same effect. Lots of power and grip does not make a good handling car, simply a fast one, even if it stuck like glue in corners.

For me the Del Sol bodyshell doesn't have the rigidity of the Mrk II CRX. Which made all the difference in feel. Even the MrkII isn't all that stiff compared to something like a Mr2 Mrk1. Mind you finding one of any of these that hasn't been meddled with is hard. A modified car can often feel nothing like the original. My own CRX was an Irish one. Not a spec of rust after 10yrs. But like most of them was badly damaged in an unsuccessful theft attempt. All of the MX5, (dunno about the latest) are lovely to drive. Theres better traffic light dragsters if thats what you are into.

I never said there wasn't any difference between a fwd, rwd car, im saying that a fwd car with 170bhp and a decent lsd is much better fun to drive than a slow rwd car (with no lsd). You say lots of grip and power doesnt make a decent handling car but having barely 100bhp in a rwd 2 seater is scraping the barrel imo.

Of course the del sol doesnt have the rigidity of the mk2 crx, the mk2 crx doesnt have a convertable roof! Having owned both cars the only times I noticed the handling differences between the two was pushing the mk2 on a track. With the roof on (and this is the key point here) on a public road the difference was negligable, at the end of the day the crx mk2 and 3 and civic all have the same suspension, brakes and underlying chassis, it comes down to weight and like was mentioned the rigidity of the mk3's roof especially when off.

As for the mx5 v's del sol thing, honestly have owned the mx5 (mk1 1.8L jappo) I was dissappointed. It has a reputation that had won me over but when it came finally to driving the thing in the end I felt a little short changed. As someone said badly its in need of turbo power, then you would have a real performer to do justice to the cars chassis. She was nippy enough and did handle fantastically but coming from the del sol there really was no step up in power and performance (and thats not just in a straight line either). For all the hype it really wasn't the step up I was expecting. For the engine alone in the del sol I have fond memories.

As for the point of modifying id disagree to an extent, I had the final drive from an integra typeR and lightened flywheel in my crx, went like stink! After having the car for 6 months I changed to tein coilover suspension, really transformed the car especially on the good british roads.

TempestSabre

cpoh1 wrote:

I....having barely 100bhp in a rwd 2 seater is scraping the barrel imo.....

Its apparent you're idea of fun and enjoyment comes from high speed and power. Once you had good handling without it, you weren't happy. The original Elise only had 118bhp but didn't need oodles of power because of the light weight. Personally I get as more enjoyment driving a slow car if its nice to drive as I do a fast one that isn't. You'd hate something like a Boxster S. Handles really well, so well that theres no drama at road legal speeds. Well unless you drive it like a FWD with a heavy right foot and then (Like a 911) it will entertain. :eek: Its not a fizzy engine, like VTEC. Whereas in a VTEC its essential to keep it on the boil. To be honest even something thats slow is fun to hussle it along, if you get a rythmn going. Some cars are just lifeless though.

My CRX was a 16v 1.6i, no power steering or all the weight extra stuff. I felt it was sweeter to drive, more feedback in the steering than the ones with all the kit that I drove. Maybe that why I like the MR2 mrk1 so much too.

cpoh1

TempestSabre wrote:

Its apparent you're idea of fun and enjoyment comes from high speed and power. Once you had good handling without it, you weren't happy. The original Elise only had 118bhp but didn't need oodles of power because of the light weight. Personally I get as more enjoyment driving a slow car if its nice to drive as I do a fast one that isn't. You'd hate something like a Boxster S. Handles really well, so well that theres no drama at road legal speeds. Well unless you drive it like a FWD with a heavy right foot and then (Like a 911) it will entertain. :eek: Its not a fizzy engine, like VTEC. Whereas in a VTEC its essential to keep it on the boil. To be honest even something thats slow is fun to hussle it along, if you get a rythmn going. Some cars are just lifeless though.

I genuinely think youre taking me up worng, the original elise weighed about 800kgs combined with its chassis and engine it was a hum dinger of a car, the mk1 1.6L mx5 weighs in at 1050kg's, sure its rwd and has a decent enough chassis but a raspy noisy 100bhp engine just never does the car any justice. I agree that fun is not all about speed, but trying to push this car into corners at well below the speed limit was no fun at all, no lsd, no low down torque. a good handling car is nothing without having the torque to pull it through a corner. Put a 1.6L vtec engine in an nsx and it stops being a great handling car simply because it doesnt have the engine to do the car justice on a tight twisty road or track. It all depends on what your definition of good handler and fun is though, if a 1.6L mx5 makes you happy then fair play

Stevo11

heheh don't even try Franksm... the MX5 is lost on some people

if it looks like a shopping trolly, sorry, Civic, drives like a Civic, etc etc

franksm

What this all boils down to, is that it's the Civic that is the thinking-man's Del Sol.

<discuss>

Ernie Ball

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there only about 20bhp between a 1.8l MX-5 and a Del Sol SiR? They weigh about the same, so how much difference can there be?

Surely if it's that great a difference a few mods on the MX-5 (intake, header, exhaust, chip) could make up most of it....

prospect

I am gonna step in here and vote MX5 aswell.

Lets not forget the best selling roadster in history is the MX5.


P.S.
Hi Frank.
Hi Steve.

cpoh1

franksm wrote:

What this all boils down to, is that it's the Civic that is the thinking-man's Del Sol.

<discuss>

Or how about this one frank, the mx5 is the poor mans s2000

I think ignorance is bliss sometimes, the civic suffers for its reputation as a knacker mobile. When I was in the uk a few years back there was many a civic on track with me that would embarrass the sh*t out of way more expensive and powerful cars. I know a few fellas with tuned civics over here who would make an eejit out of any n/a mx5 on a track, come to think of it I also know a few fellas with del sols who would too.

I hate stereotypes, just like someone mentioned the word "shopping trolley" about the civic (haow sad?), im sure mx5 owners would be equally indignant about its "hairdresser's car" tag, another unfair critiscism.

As much as the mx5 was a good car for me at the time, it wasn't enough of a step up for me, same but mostly less power than the del sol, little or no difference in driving around town or on short commutes and less space than the del sol again. All these made this car a short stop one for me.

TempestSabre

cpoh1 wrote:

I genuinely think youre taking me up worng, the original elise weighed about 800kgs combined with its chassis and engine it was a hum dinger of a car, the mk1 1.6L mx5 weighs in at 1050kg's, sure its rwd and has a decent enough chassis but a raspy noisy 100bhp engine just never does the car any justice. I agree that fun is not all about speed, but trying to push this car into corners at well below the speed limit was no fun at all, no lsd, no low down torque. a good handling car is nothing without having the torque to pull it through a corner. Put a 1.6L vtec engine in an nsx and it stops being a great handling car simply because it doesnt have the engine to do the car justice on a tight twisty road or track. It all depends on what your definition of good handler and fun is though, if a 1.6L mx5 makes you happy then fair play

The Elise was there because of your comment which I quoted.

I don't think more power improves your handling. I suspect you are used to using FWD cars to drag yourself around a corner faster. RWD or MR requires a different technique.

cpoh1

Ernie Ball wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there only about 20bhp between a 1.8l MX-5 and a Del Sol SiR? They weigh about the same, so how much difference can there be?

Surely if it's that great a difference a few mods on the MX-5 (intake, header, exhaust, chip) could make up most of it....

40ps as standard difference on the mk1, I see your point on the modifications, but throw all these on the del sol along with integra typeR cams (300 euro) and youre talking 190bhp+

Stevo11

TempestSabre wrote:

The Elise was there because of your comment which I quoted.

I don't think more power improves your handling. I suspect you are used to using FWD cars to drag yourself around a corner faster. RWD or MR requires a different technique.

heheh just what I was thinking Bit of driver ed might go a long way.

"I know a few fellas with tuned civics over here who would make an eejit out of any n/a mx5 on a track"

God, ya think??? LOL


Jeez cpoh1 you need to chill ... its a sad day when someone can't take a comment like mine in jest! :rolleyes:

Steve (prop. Hair-o-Dyenamix, Mane Attraction, Hi-de-Hilites, Hairlucinations, Curl Up & Dye, Deb ‘n’ Hair, Short Cuts and ShortNCurlies)

JHMEG

Stevo11 wrote:

if it looks like a shopping trolly, sorry, Civic, drives like a Civic, etc etc

I can see this debate is heading the wrong way.

prospect wrote:

Lets not forget the best selling roadster in history is the MX5.

Which is much to do with marketing as anything else. A sort of RWD roadster for the masses.

Ernie Ball wrote:

20bhp between a 1.8l MX-5 and a Del Sol SiR? They weigh about the same, so how much difference can there be?

A bit more than 20bhp, but it's the difference between too little and enough.

Stevo11 wrote:

don't think more power improves your handling. I suspect you are used to using FWD cars to drag yourself around a corner faster. RWD or MR requires a different technique.

When you have the power available you have the choice to use it or not. True, RWD pushes the car, but it doesn't mean to say a car will corner better just because its RWD.

cpoh1 wrote:

but throw all these on the del sol along with integra typeR cams (300 euro) and youre talking 190bhp+

I think we'd better keep this to as the manufacturer intended, otherwise this could go on indefinitely!

cpoh1

JHMEG wrote:

I can see this debate is heading the wrong way.

Well said! Whether it was meant in jest or not doesnt make the tone any less condesending, i suffered from the hairdresser jibes when I had the mx5 years back and suffer from the car modifier image now because i drive an r32 gtr skyline (i hope this clears the whole not understanding anything other than fwd comment).

When it comes to any car and its handling, decent levels of power are always a pre-requisite be it fwd or rwd. While a decent fwd car with lsd looks to push itself out of a corner a rwd car is no different if you ask me, the difference is in the way it reacts under full load to their repective wheels. A rwd car will snap out a fwd with no lsd will understeer. If you are hitting a sequence of corners and dont have the power to push through them then you will lose momentum after the first corner no matter whether its fwd or rwd, hence why small power (on a car with anything but anorexic weight-elise, vx220 etc.) even with rwd is no fun. Rwd is there so that you dont have to drive too much power through the front wheels, when there's feck all power there in the first place whats the point? Think bmw e36 316i for example.

Dont be under the assumption that just because a car is rwd its better than fwd. Like I said with a car with reasonable weight and under 200bhp fwd with a limmo is the way to go.

Stevo11

"Like I said with a car with reasonable weight and under 200bhp fwd with a limmo is the way to go."
You are entitled to your opinion but in my opinion its not. Having had both FWD & RWD I much prefer RWD, especially in a Sports car (actually.. can you buy a sports car with FWD?).
We could debate all day on the merits of each, but its all been done before, see : http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22RWD+vs+FWD%22&meta=


Anyways, back on topic ..

More links :

www.flyinmiata.net (the bomb!)
www.ilmotorsport.de
www.hairsalonsearch.co.uk/index.asp
Plus LOADS more here : http://www.miata.net/marketplace.html

Steve

cpoh1

Stevo11 wrote:

"Like I said with a car with reasonable weight and under 200bhp fwd with a limmo is the way to go."
You are entitled to your opinion but in my opinion its not. Having had both FWD & RWD I much prefer RWD, especially in a Sports car (actually.. can you buy a sports car with FWD?).

Considering I own a car that has rwd (well until the rear wheels lose traction then were in 4wd territory!) i know all about what rwd can do. Over 200bhp id have rwd because this is when you see the best of a decent rwd car, frankly its wasted on a car under 200bhp imo. You might not have fwd on any sports car out there but you definitely have fwd on loads of "performance cars" out there, not all sports cars are performance, far from it in fact. Sports cars are for balding old men anyway. Maybe you think the mx5 is a better car than the integra typeR and focus rs among others? Name a rwd car with the same power to weight ratio that handles and drives better than these cars! These are the perfect example to all the groupies out there who thinks rwd is the be all and end all.

Ernie Ball

cpoh1 wrote:

Considering I own a car that has rwd (well until the rear wheels lose traction then were in 4wd territory!) i know all about what rwd can do. Over 200bhp id have rwd because this is when you see the best of a decent rwd car, frankly its wasted on a car under 200bhp imo.

That is meaningless unless you take the weight of the vehicle into account. You only need 200bhp if you're driving some sort of behemoth.

Sports cars are for balding old men anyway.

I resemble that remark.:D

Weren't you the one saying that labels like "hairdresser's car" are stupid? So why indulge in it here? No vehicle is "for" a particular group of people.

Maybe you think the mx5 is a better car than the integra typeR and focus rs among others? Name a rwd car with the same power to weight ratio that handles and drives better than these cars! These are the perfect example to all the groupies out there who thinks rwd is the be all and end all.

Best of all is, of course, mid/rear-engined RWD.

The answer to your question, though, is: any generation of MR2.

cpoh1

Ernie Ball wrote:

That is meaningless unless you take the weight of the vehicle into account. You only need 200bhp if you're driving some sort of behemoth.


I resemble that remark.:D

Weren't you the one saying that labels like "hairdresser's car" are stupid? So why indulge in it here? No vehicle is "for" a particular group of people.


Best of all is, of course, mid/rear-engined RWD.

The answer to your question, though, is: any generation of MR2.

Apologies for the stereotype

Like I said earlier, any car with any reasonable amount of weight (more than 1100kgs)and under 200bhp and I honestly think the rwd front engined setup is wasted. As for the mr2 comment I know you meant that in jest, there's a reason they intrdouced the revision 3 model of the mk2 mr2 turbo with a completely new suspension setup. Its handling was nothing short of atrocious and dangerous the way it stepped out on bends. couldnt live with either the rs or the typeR in gt format either.

mmenarry

RWD, WWD, MR, 4WD is generally all a matter of personal preferance, in the same manner that power Vs. handling is.

I've a slightly modified MX5, with a whopping 113 BHp (14 years old now). Doesn't matter how much power you throw into a MR or WWD car and I still won't like it. I just don't like the feedback that I get from those setups. I drove a friend's MR2 Turbo, and found the feedback practically non-existant compared to a FE-RWD setup. I've had a spin in an Astra OPC recently, and that was just as bad. It seems to me that in a WWD setup, as soon as you start to have enough power to force the car to do it's stuff, torque steer starts getting in the way, further ruining the feedback from the wheels.

But that's what I prefer. Different strokes for different folks. I do a lot of country driving, and the MX5 is perfect for that. Capable A2B car as well, and it's my only car. I love revving to the redline, and so does the car (practically encourages it )

In fairness to "modern" MX5's the Mk1 is the driver's car of the bunch. Weight actually started out at 890kg (910-950 with PS/AC/etc). There is a saying among a lot of enthusiasts "The Mk2 is the better car, but the Mk1 is the better miata/MX5".

In fairness to the Hondas of this world, the vtec engines are little crackers, and very reliable. I almost bought a Del Sol, but they all looked a bit too small (I know the boot's bigger, but even so!). Even the MR2 feels a little cramped in the cockpit compared to the MX5.

In fairness to the handling of the MX5 though, you'd have to go a long, long, long way to beat it. Autocar ranked it higher in handling terms than a Porsche GT2 for a reason (winning the title "best handling car" - as well as "best handling cheap car"). And that was a 1.8 Mk2, certainly not the best MX5 of the bunch in handling terms.

It depends what you want from a car. The Del Sol & MX5 are too different in their driving characteristics to warrant comparison. Sure they're both small, "sporty" cars. That's about as close as it gets though.

Having said that, if you want the best of both worlds, turbo an MX5, and go fishing (Eh Frank/Steve? ). "Fixing" the handling on a WWD car is a much more expensive route.

M.

ps. WWD is not a typo, and LOOS doesn't happen in WWD. Just my viewpoint

cpoh1

WWD :rolleyes: looks like youre one of these drifting followers who thinks if its not jap its scrap aswell are you :rolleyes:

I drive an r32 gtr skyline genuinely one of the best performance cars of any wheel drive type ever made and even I dont have that narrowminded condesending tone towards fwd cars. I think its fairly sad that you would write off absolute classics like the focus rs, typeR integra etc when all youre driving is a 115bhp mx5???

I dont think youve ever heard of a limited slip differential either? What it does is allow the front wheels of a fwd car to spin independently at different rotational speeds and as a result eliminate torque steer and understeer. Just because a fwd car is driven by the front wheels doesnt make it less fun and slower around bends either. As i said your entitled to your opinion and all that, one bit of advice though, take an integra typeR for a drive on your country road and you wont be long opening your eyes to a real drivers car and dropping the whole "WWD" rubbish, you'd probably sell the mazda after it.

mmenarry

cpoh1 wrote:

WWD :rolleyes: looks like youre one of these drifting followers who thinks if its not jap its scrap aswell are you :rolleyes:

Drift fan my rear end. Dunno where you get that from my post. Learned to drive in a Miafiori, if that helps you any to see where I'm coming from

cpoh1 wrote:

I drive an r32 gtr skyline genuinely one of the best performance cars of any wheel drive type ever made and even I dont have that narrowminded condesending tone towards fwd cars. I think its fairly sad that you would write off absolute classics like the focus rs, typeR integra etc when all youre driving is a 115bhp mx5???

Written off? Never said that, I said I don't like WWD. My personal feelings, from the feedback feel - get over it. Compare an RS200 with the Focus RS, and a Prelude S type with your Teggy - you'lll see where I'm coming from.

113BHP, not 115 btw. Power curve as smooth as a baby's behind. Fast throttle response. Not stock.

cpoh1 wrote:

I dont think youve ever heard of a limited slip differential either? What it does is allow the front wheels of a fwd car to spin independently at different rotational speeds and as a result eliminate torque steer and understeer.

You think not? Want to see the torsen in my rear axle then?

As far as I recall, the OPC's LSD did sod all to "eliminate" torque steer.

cpoh1 wrote:

Just because a fwd car is driven by the front wheels doesnt make it less fun and slower around bends either. As i said your entitled to your opinion and all that, one bit of advice though, take an integra typeR for a drive on your country road and you wont be long opening your eyes to a real drivers car and dropping the whole "WWD" rubbish, you'd probably sell the mazda after it.

You'll need a spade for that load of manure. Click on the link in my post before giving me that rubbish, with all due respect.

M.

JHMEG

Just to clarify, a differential (not the limited slip type) allows the wheels (on the same "axle") to spin at different speeds. An LSD counter-acts the tendency for energy to take the least path of resistance. At it's simplest it's stop one wheel spinning whilst the other one just sits there.

The right LSD can turn understeer ina FWD car into oversteer (giving sort of RWD dynamics to the handling). DC8 ITR is the best example.

Not many average FWD cars suffer from turque steer, because they simply don't have the torque! Torque steer is pretty much eliminated using equal length drive shafts in those that do.

TempestSabre

cpoh1 wrote:

C...i know all about what rwd can do. Over 200bhp id have rwd because this is when you see the best of a decent rwd car, frankly its wasted on a car under 200bhp imo. ...

MR2 Mrk1 122bhp. One of the sweetest handling cars ever. Compare it to the closest FWD car a 130bhp CRX similar performance its a completely different experience. Ditto the Elise, 118bhp and RWD. Nothing there over 200bhp.

I'm enjoying the debate, (sorry for ruining the MX5 love in thread) and I love your enthuasism cpoh1. But your sweeping generalisation are destroying your arguments. Its all power and speed over finesse. You obviously enjoy that, and I'm not slagging that off. Each to their own and all that jazz. I'm just saying that speed and power isn't everything. Well at least its not everything to everyone.

Remember Top Gear when they had the modded Clio V6 against the 1961 Austin Healey Sprite Frogeye, Battle of the Generations piece. Just a laugh, I know but still...

cancan

Used to think Mx5's were girlie cars - till I drove one - very impressive car. Anyone who drives one and is not impressed by one of these, obvoiusly doesn't understand cars.

To compare a del sol to an mx5 is nuts.

I race against mx5's very frequently, and the times these yokes can put are bloody amazing - think 2 secs off a 911 around a 65 sec tight track.


Was lucky enough to get a spin in a turboed one with 240hp and a 911 turbo at the same event, and the mx5 went aound faster than the 911.

The car cost the guy about 4 grand........

RobAMerc

Sorry, I think I may have been the cause of the hijacking of this thread.
But statements like "CRX is thinking mans mx5" need to be addressed.

Also statments like "You need power to make a car a good handling car" make me feel some of the people replying may not have a full grasp of what handling and the enjoyment of same are.

The original minis are considered great handling cars and they have about 6bhp !

Fact is the CRX is a FWD family hatch with the roof cut off. Its got a fizzy engine you got to work hard to get the best of, little or no feel from the steering, body flex and failry soft suspension, and lots of understeer.

The MX5 is a dedicated sports car / roadster with the age old sports car receipe of front engine/RWD. Its got enough torque to let you get the back out the odd time but be a delight to totter about in, proper steering feel, proper 'seat of the pants' feel, great chassis regidity, and good brakes with pleny of feel (although ABS on mine rob it of some). On even some of our rubbish surfaces, the MX5 will flatter you hitting apex after apex tighten into or push wide when required, it talks to you constantly, and unlike the MG's it is emulating is not going to brake down, but like the MG you dont have to be going fast to enoy it.

I think the people who bring up the MX5's lack of power have fallen for hondas ploy to make it fast so people wont notice its not that good.

Even if I am wrong, the MX5 has not been in the top 3 best handling cars since it first appeared in 1989 because its crap. Do honda still make the CRX ?

JHMEG

cancan wrote:

Used to think Mx5's were girlie cars - till I drove one - very impressive car. Anyone who drives one and is not impressed by one of these, obvoiusly doesn't understand cars.

Or could it be that you are easily impressed?

Have been reading back thru this thread trying to make sense of what the pro-MX5 guys are saying. I'm reading stuff like:
"Its not about about how fast you can get around a corner, its about the purity of the experience."
"Lots of power and grip does not make a good handling car"
"Its apparent you're idea of fun and enjoyment comes from high speed and power. Once you had good handling without it, you weren't happy."
"I suspect you are used to using FWD cars to drag yourself around a corner faster. RWD or MR requires a different technique."

All of these statements, as far as I can make out, are entirely subjective, as they are your own opinions.

The only way to prove it would be on a track or some sort of circuit. And if an the MX5 came last over the line, the argument "oh well, it's a better handling car" doesn't mean anything. The first over the line is the better car.

Going on my objective evaluation criteria above (!) I would reckon that in such a contest between a 170PS del sol and a 140PS mx5, that the del sol would be first over the line.

@mmenarry: I watched the video of you I presume ambling up a twisty mountain road, nearly coming to a stop on some bends. I'm not sure what the point is of the video is? Is it the scenery? I reckon that the car of similar vintage that I'm selling in my sig would get to the top quicker, and with a lot more drama (aka entertainment). IMHO that would make it the better car.

JHMEG

RobAMerc wrote:

Do honda still make the CRX ?

Honda don't make the NSX any more either... Does that mean it wasn't a good car?

Ernie Ball

JHMEG wrote:

The only way to prove it would be on a track or some sort of circuit. And if an the MX5 came last over the line, the argument "oh well, it's a better handling car" doesn't mean anything. The first over the line is the better car.

You'll forgive me for getting philosophical, but that's really a very narrow and impoverished view of motors and the motoring experience. It's a little like students who think that learning is about getting grades and the student who gets the highest grade has, perforce, learned the most.

You've confused an effect of performance with performance itself. Here's a better definition of the better car: the best car is the most responsive car, the one that it feels maximally integrated with both driver and road at any speed.

Yes there are cars that will go faster than an MX-5, including (depending on the course) a lot of heavy American behemoths. But that misses the point.

JHMEG

Ernie Ball wrote:

You'll forgive me for getting philosophical, but that's really a very narrow and impoverished view of motors and the motoring experience. It's a little like students who think that learning is about getting grades and the student who gets the highest grade has, perforce, learned the most.

Ah yes, the tried-and-tested analogy. Grades are quantifiable, which makes them objective, which is what makes them useful. Maybe salary would be a better measure? That would also be quantifiable.

Ernie Ball wrote:

You've confused an effect of performance with performance itself. Here's a better definition of the better car: the best car is the most responsive car, the one that it feels maximally integrated with both driver and road at any speed.

Completely subjective, and can't be measured. A consensus in racing is that the car that is the best is the car that wins, all other things being equal.

Ernie Ball wrote:

Yes there are cars that will go faster than an MX-5, including (depending on the course) a lot of heavy American behemoths. But that misses the point.

Maybe cars like the GT40, and maybe the new Corvette. Both respected cars, with allegedly fine handling. I can't comment really as I don't have any experience of such cars.

The MX-5, while it may have its merits, is far from the best car ever made. I think some people have difficulty accepting that, and therefore are insensed that something as "backward" as a FWD small engined Honda might actually be better.

Ernie Ball

JHMEG wrote:

Ah yes, the tried-and-tested analogy. Grades are quantifiable, which makes them objective, which is what makes them useful. Maybe salary would be a better measure? That would also be quantifiable.

To spell out the analogy a little further: it is possible that the student who gets the best grade isn't the one most conversant with the subject matter. Similarly, the fastest car might not be the best driving experience.

Completely subjective, and can't be measured. A consensus in racing is that the car that is the best is the car that wins, all other things being equal.

I don't have to be able to measure it to know there's a world of difference between an MX-5 and a Nissan Primera. I only need to feel it.

The MX-5, while it may have its merits, is far from the best car ever made. I think some people have difficulty accepting that, and therefore are insensed that something as "backward" as a FWD small engined Honda might actually be better.

I don't know that anyone here said it was the best car ever made. But I don't think a FWD Honda gives you anything like the feeling of being one with the road that a car like an MX-5 does. And I say that as a former Civic owner and current MR2 Mk III owner. You'll never feel as "locked in" around corners in an FWD car as you do in a mid-engined RWD one (which excludes the MX-5, I realise), not just because of the differentiation of function between driving wheels and steering wheels but also because such cars tend to have a low polar moment of inertia.

That, by the way, is not at all subjective and can be objectively measured. But the reason you'd care isn't for the measurements, but because it makes the car feel great in corners.