MX-5 Owners Club

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.

TempestSabre

STOP confusing the CR-X with the DEL SOL

...In 1992, Honda replaced the CR-X with a new, Targa-topped, Civic-based model called the Honda Civic Del Sol, otherwise known as simply the Honda Del Sol. The Del Sol was also badged as the CR-X Del Sol in some markets. It is because of this that the Del Sol is generally considered the "3rd Generation CR-X" among enthusiats, although it was arguably a very different car...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X

...enthusiasts of the Del Sol maybe...

cpoh1

RobAMerc wrote:

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 ?

I think I need to address a couple of issues. Power is not a requisite for a good handling car, far from it. People are using the elise, and other ultra light cars to base their arguements on not needing 200bhp for a decent rwd car. Remember the elise weighs ~750kgs, the mk1 1.6L mx5 weighs over a tonne, combined with 113bhp like a poster has and you are dealing with a dead donkey on the road. Sure it handles well but when you genuinely dont have the power to pull it through corners then its wasted. I made an analogy abut the nsx, would this still be a fantastic handling car if it only had 150bhp istead of 270+?

Can anybody name a rwd car with similar power and weight as an integra typeR and handles as well or can go around a track as fast as one? My point still stands (even with the odd exception like the elise vxr etc.) that under 200bhp with a rwd setup and a heavy enough car (~1100+kg) isint always the best way to go. Robamerc do you really think just because a honda is fast its not good around twisties? Ive owned 3 hondas now (del sol, mk2 crx and 96 jdm integra typeR) and all were superb cars and much more than a shell with a "fizzy" engine.

The truth of the matter is that if the del sol will go straighter than a mx5 in a straight line, around a bend and on a track how is it not a better car? Because it drives via the front wheels? Rob you really need to drive a del sol sir with an lsd, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how little it understeers, has bigger and better brakes , tighter suspension (stiffer damping rates than the mx5 as standard despite your claim about it having softer suspension!).

My issue really was with the WWD (Wrong wheel drive) comments, being smug about the way a car is powered and disrespecting legendary fwd cars because theyre not rwd while at the same time having a piss poor 113bhp car takes the biscuit.

TempestSabre

Its your inaccurate and flawed sweeping generalisations that people take issue with. For example... "dont have the power to pull it through corners then its wasted". You don't "pull" rwd cars through corners. Thats a FWD technique.

Your obsessed with FWD, speed and power.

TempestSabre

cpoh1 wrote:

...Can anybody name a rwd car with similar power and weight as an integra typeR and handles as well or can go around a track as fast as one? ...

Dunno about the weight, but the M3 E30 might be broadly similar. Early 911s or 911SC something like that.

JHMEG

@TempestSabre, American-written wikipedia articles are not always correct. The name is a minor point anyway, but that particular model car in this market was not the Del Sol, or CRX Del Sol. It was simply called CRX.

Ironically I've not heard mention of Eunos Roadster in this thread!

Can I ask how many of you MX-5 guys have driven the SiR Del Sol for a half day or longer?

Driven doesn't mean you've been a passenger, or you've seen one.
SiR doesn't mean ESi etc. (SiR & VTI (like their Civic counterparts) get bigger brakes, rear anti-roll bars, heavier steering etc, from the Integra, not from lowlier Civics)

JHMEG

Only professional test I can find. Done by Japan's Best Motoring.

MX-5 *turbo*, Integra-R, Civic-R, Altezza, RX8, MR2 and Impreza Turbo.

Worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4U_Wj84XPU

Ernie Ball

cpoh1 wrote:

Can anybody name a rwd car with similar power and weight as an integra typeR and handles as well or can go around a track as fast as one? My point still stands

No, it doesn't. Why should we grant you the emphasised clause? This is a thread about the MX-5.

(even with the odd exception like the elise vxr etc.) that under 200bhp with a rwd setup and a heavy enough car (~1100+kg) isint always the best way to go.

Agreed. Under 200bhp with a rwd setup (and a mid-engine, for my money) and a light car (less than 1,000kg) is the best way to go. You only need the 200 ponies if you've got a heavy car.

Robamerc do you really think just because a honda is fast its not good around twisties?

Can't answer for Robamerc but, yes, I think this. Here's an article called "8 Great Rides for 2001" that compares the Integra Type R, the MX-5 (or Miata as it's known in the US) and the MR2 Spyder among others. Here's what they say about the MR2:

That the car is a flyweight, tipping the scales at a mere 2,195 lbs, does wonders for every facet of an already impressive performance envelope. Most notable is braking: Not only did the Spyder put down the best numbers during our test session, but the fade-free stoppers offered superb pedal feel and modulation for the duration of our testing. The car felt wonderfully quick in any gear, especially on the street, despite only packing 138 hp under the rear hatch, with the engine tractable at any rpm.

At Buttonwillow Raceway Park, I was able to carry more speed through the slow Zorro turns in the MR2 Spyder, by a good margin, than in any of the other cars. Brake late, turn in, drop the throttle (just a touch), and the car points perfectly and tracks toward the apex with such precision, you'd swear the berm was magnetized. Turn-in this good is usually reserved for cars with aftermarket pillow ball mounts, most likely a function of the light front-end of the MR2. Enter too hot into a turn and the car understeers in a very agreeable and correctable manner; take a turn perfectly and your reward is gaining on most any car in front.

And the MX-5:

Miata keeps drivers honest. Rear-wheel drive and a balanced, lightweight chassis give the driver instant response. No front-drive compact involves the driver so fully as the Miata. It fills the senses and doesn't gloss over mistakes. Turn the steering wheel and it turns in. Right now. Step on the throttle; immediate response. In corners, you can steer this car with the throttle.

They also say nice things about the Integra Type R, to be fair.

The truth of the matter is that if the del sol will go straighter than a mx5 in a straight line, around a bend and on a track how is it not a better car?

It would be the better car. Except I don't believe it does go faster around a bend or on a track.

My issue really was with the WWD (Wrong wheel drive) comments, being smug about the way a car is powered and disrespecting legendary fwd cars because theyre not rwd while at the same time having a piss poor 113bhp car takes the biscuit.

I agree, but not all the cars being discussed here, including most of the MX-5s, have 113bhp.

TempestSabre

The Golf Mrk III was called a GTI and it wasn't. For me the Del Sol is a different car to the Mrk II CRX. You'll find most fan sites differenciate too. For me the Del Sol is just ugly, with the roof down theres some scuttle shake, and the interior is cheap and nasty compared to the Mrk 1 or Mrk II. Yes once you stiffen everything up, lower it, and stuff all the usual Honda performance model (VTI/SiR) stuff on there it goes well and is fast enough. But it for me its not the classic the earlier cars were.

As for the video and turbo'ing cars. When you start modifying a car too much you change its character, often completely. You might aswell be comparing kitcars. You can get a Turbo even a Supercharger kit for the Honda's too, if thats all that floats your boat.

JHMEG

TempestSabre wrote:

But it for me its not the classic the earlier cars were.

Not the point.

TempestSabre wrote:

As for the video and turbo'ing cars. When you start modifying a car too much you change its character, often completely. You might aswell be comparing kitcars. You can get a Turbo even a Supercharger kit for the Honda's too, if thats all that floats your boat.

Again, not the point. The MX5 in the video is the Mazda MX5 turbo from the factory. The results of the race speak volumes.

TempestSabre

The point of what exactly. Whats great about MX5's isn't that are a classic, or that turbo kits isn't what make them a classic? or that Del Sol isn't a classic. Many classic cars aren't fast. Its the overall experience that makes them special.

JHMEG

You may want to edit that post.

@TempestSabre - have you actually driven a Del Sol SiR?

TempestSabre

JHMEG wrote:

You may want to edit that post.

@TempestSabre - have you actually driven a Del Sol SiR?

Edit why?

Yes. Drove a few when I was looking to replace my 16-16i. Drove a 1992 EG6/9 SiR II at that time too. Originally intended getting a CRX Mrk2 SiR, but couldn't find a clean one, and nearly all the ones coming in via places like A&F at the time went straight to the UK. Missed a mint '92 Mrk2 CRX SiR with every option and then gave up. Tried a few Mrk1 MR2's aswell including a SC which were more interesting. A mate had a mint T-Bar at the time. TBH If I was going FWD and VTEC I'd prefer a Teg.

JHMEG

It's not readable.

Just to confirm: you drove actual Del Sol SiRs?

eamon234

Hi All
Was thinking of purchasing for next summer - does anyone in a late 80's early 90's MX5 have their car insured as a classic? I know a couple of guys in UK who do this - am I right in saying the Eunos is a better option? Even for the KPH speedo alone!

TempestSabre

JHMEG wrote:

It's not readable.

Just to confirm: you drove actual Del Sol SiRs?

Yes I "rattled" a couple about.

cpoh1

@JHMEG it really is like beating your head off a brick wall with these guys. The truth is that practically none of these guys has had anything more than a quick spin in the del sol. The fact that I owned one for 12 months and an mx5 for 6 months and can actually make an informed judgement seems to be lost on them. Ive also moved onto much bigger and better things and have no sentimentality towards either car, just an honest appraisal that mx5 owners might find hard to accept.

Again to clear up a few generalisations. I am not obsessed with fwd (or speed for that matter!), not having owned a fwd car in two years how can I be?! It is absolutely true that to corner a rwd car to the fullest of its potential you pull it around a corner just like a fwd one, this requires power and more importantly low down torque which the mx5 simply doesnt have.

Cornering is not all about speed but to really make a car a good handler, it needs to be able to drive through a corner (and not just use the speed it takes into it), the mx5 in 1.6L form does not have the power to really take it through corners. My mothers 1.4L focus is the perfect example. It takes corners great at very slow speeds, its not capable of going any faster, is it a great handler??? For a car to be a truly great handling car it needs to have power, weight and balance on its side, the mx5 is missing the all important power figure. Ill use the nsx example one more time. Do people really think the nsx would be the great handler it is if it had half the power it had under the hood (or boot!).

My problem is with the perception of a car being superior to another simply because its got rwd. One poster was even arrogant enough to call a car with fwd wrong wheel drive, despite having a basement model mx5 with no performance to speak of (I dont know would many proper rwd car owners like being associated with a car like this, im more inclined to think they would be of the opinion that said mx5 driver is jumping on the rwd bandwagon despite not having a true performance rwd car?).

franksm

RWD *is* better !!

There must be a reason why BMW and Mercedes *still* only put RWD in their cars except for the two variants which are aimed fairly and squarely at the soccer-mom/MILF market --> the Mini One and the Merc A-Class.

FWD = mass-market, fail-safe, nullified feedback and handling

RWD-front-engine = old school, requires more control and empathy from the driver, but is more rewarding

RWD-rear-engine = nirvana

Honestly, I'm surprised at a Skyline-owner - as far as I am concerned that are two types of car-nut: RWDers and FWDers.

I have had my fair time with FWD and hated it, really and truely hated driving FWD. All my long-term cars were or are RWD (Omega, Sierra, Triumph Stag, MX5, Mercedes CE). Can't ever see myself going near FWD. That's just my choice. I dislike the way FWD pulls and tramlines.

cpoh1

What im trying to say frank is that I wouldnt let what wheels a car is driven by determine the quality and type of car I drive. I love the skyline, but at the end of the day the wheels its driven by is one of the reasons its such a great car not THE reason.

Id have a focus rs, integra typeR, crx (mk2 &3), peugoet 106 gti over an mx5 (especially the 1.6L model) any day of the week, just because they're a fwd car doesnt make them a lesser car at the end of the day.

JHMEG

@cpoh1, yeah, I agree. If people start limiting themselves, that's their perogative.

You can call yourself a car nut if you like, but the truth is if you limit yourself from the outset, then you're really not a car nut at all. Narrow minded maybe.

Like FWD, there were more bad RWD cars than good ones.

cpoh1 doesn't limit himself to FWD, RWD or AWD. Truly a car nut!

Stevo11

Must dig out "The Kill" list just to stir things up heheh

Had a NA MX5 for the weekend, man it was great getting "back to basics" ... roof down, really nimble round the back roads (light pedals), its like taking off ski boots and putting on Nike Air... more than enough power for what it is intended to be, low slung, great handling and everything in the right place (check out that gearbox!). Bit like the original Elan... no need for monster power there.. don't think it came in FWD either ...

Steve
220hp MX5 Turbo ;-)

TempestSabre

cpoh1 wrote:

... It is absolutely true that to corner a rwd car to the fullest of its potential you pull it around a corner just like a fwd one, this requires power and more importantly low down torque

...Cornering is not all about speed but to really make a car a good handler, it needs to be able to drive through a corner (and not just use the speed it takes into it),....

So if cornering well is not about speed, and carrying as much speed through as possible what IS it about? Braking as hard as possible then accelerating as hard as you can?

The only way to pull a RWD car through a corner is by driving backwards through it. Mind you if you drive it like a FWD thats probably how you'll end up.

A lot of big saloons don't use RWD specifically to improve handing, or steering feel but for other reasons. But thats a different subject. RWD in the case of the MX5 is about the feel. Not drag racing.

JHMEG

TempestSabre wrote:

So if cornering well is not about speed, and carrying as much speed through as possible what IS it about?

It's actually all about an equivocal link between man, machine and tarmac. Speed (and power) have nothing to do with it. Or so you guys keep telling us!

TempestSabre wrote:

The only way to pull a RWD car through a corner is by driving backwards through it. Mind you if you drive it like a FWD thats probably how you'll end up.

We all know what he means. No need to be pedantic.

TempestSabre

JHMEG wrote:

I...We all know what he means. No need to be pedantic.

It means he doesn't get the difference.

mmenarry

Frank, you forgot Porsche, but what would they know, eh?

Dug out that Autocar test. I'll put up the results and say no more on the subject. JHMEG/cpoh1 - If ye feel so strongly about the drivetrain issue, then go start a thread about it.
You are not that likely to find many FWD fans in a thread about MX5's.

JHMEG

After reading that I'm tempted to jump in and say if you're an average driver, lacking in ability, the MX-5 is the car for you.:p

TempestSabre

JHMEG wrote:

After reading that I'm tempted to jump in and say if you're an average driver, lacking in ability, the MX-5 is the car for you.:p

Nice :rolleyes:

franksm

JHMEG wrote:

After reading that I'm tempted to jump in and say if you're an average driver, lacking in ability, the MX-5 is the car for you.:p

Ugh :rolleyes:



May as well close this thread, it's run its course. BTW anyone hear about the new FWD Ferrari ? Only a midget will fit in it

http://www.abcmodelsport.net/c38360/Tamiya-1/10-Expert-Built-On-Road-Radio-Controlled-Cars.html

(FWD apparently !)