Welcome Guest! To enable all features please login.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
MartinPW
#21 Posted : 08 June 2018 20:24:31(UTC)
MartinPW

Rank: Regular poster

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/04/2018(UTC)
Posts: 40
Man
Location: Near Bolton

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)

My 2.0 ND only has 2500 miles so far, average mpg since the most recent reset at the beginning of May shows 43.5. On a 200-mile run I got 48.5 both ways. Car pulls from 25mph uphill in 5th gear.

 

IanH
#22 Posted : 08 June 2018 20:36:30(UTC)
IanH

Rank: Advanced poster

Groups: AC, Administrators, ContentManagement, ForumModerator, OCACA_33, OCMember, Registered
Joined: 24/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 3,359
Location: In the Ether

Thanks: 121 times
Was thanked: 412 time(s) in 321 post(s)

Originally Posted by: Mad Malc Go to Quoted Post

Sorry but I must be missing something, yes max torque is at the same rpm (200rpm is negligible) but 33.333% more in the 2.0l (150 to 200) is massive and has a significant effect on the way the cars can deliver their performance.

I am confused by much that has been pontificated on in this thread, I tried not to post, but I am afraid that I relented, I am not proud and I may regret it in the morning. (Where have I heard that before!)

Why do we continually confuse 'FACTS' with  'OPPINIONS'.

 

Sure the 2.0 delivers more bhp and torque than the 1.5 however the lower redline doesn‘t make it feel as alive as the 1.5 hence many supporting the proposition that the 1.5 is the better drivers car by the seat of the pants measurement no matter what the maths says.

in this case the facts don’t give a clear picture.

Edited by user 08 June 2018 20:37:42(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

John M
#23 Posted : 08 June 2018 20:46:37(UTC)
John M

Rank: Advanced poster

Groups: OCMember, Registered
Joined: 17/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 425
Location: Tring, Herts.

Thanks: 89 times
Was thanked: 91 time(s) in 77 post(s)

Originally Posted by: Mad Malc Go to Quoted Post

Sorry but I must be missing something, yes max torque is at the same rpm (200rpm is negligible) but 33.333% more in the 2.0l (150 to 200) is massive and has a significant effect on the way the cars can deliver their performance.

I digressed wildly, apologies to the OP, but you raise a fair point.

You are right of course, gear for gear the 2.0 is materially quicker at in-gear acceleration, more so in the lower part of the rev range  - here are some computed comparisons from automobile-catalog.com - 1.5 first, 2.0 second;  the third figure is the Fiat 124 Spider.  

What this tells us is that the driver of the 1.5 is likely to be doing more gear changing.  Maximum acceleration using optimal gears is much closer, as indicated by the 0-62mph times.

The 124 Spider, weighing 50Kg more than the MX-5 2.0 and having 20 fewer maximum bhp, is quicker still gear for gear which is intriguing but on reflection not surprising - again, in the real world they would probably be in different gears much of the time.

I haven't looked at the difference in overall gearing.

I didn't mean to disparage the 2.0 - clearly it has different characteristics to the 1.5 which suit some people better.

(seconds)
40-60 mph in 4th 

6.5

4.9 

4.1


50-70 mph in 4th

 6.6

4.9

4.4

 

50-70 mph in 5th 

9.2

6.7

5.6

 

50-70 mph in 6th

14.8

10.3

6.9

 

 

Edited by user 08 June 2018 20:47:34(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

2017 Arctic #320
RichardFX
#24 Posted : 08 June 2018 21:31:05(UTC)
RichardFX

Rank: Advanced poster

Groups: OCMember, Registered
Joined: 17/08/2014(UTC)
Posts: 1,885
Location: West London

Thanks: 250 times
Was thanked: 347 time(s) in 325 post(s)

Originally Posted by: John M Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: Mad Malc Go to Quoted Post

Sorry but I must be missing something, yes max torque is at the same rpm (200rpm is negligible) but 33.333% more in the 2.0l (150 to 200) is massive and has a significant effect on the way the cars can deliver their performance.

I digressed wildly, apologies to the OP, but you raise a fair point.

You are right of course, gear for gear the 2.0 is materially quicker at in-gear acceleration, more so in the lower part of the rev range  - here are some computed comparisons from automobile-catalog.com - 1.5 first, 2.0 second;  the third figure is the Fiat 124 Spider.  

What this tells us is that the driver of the 1.5 is likely to be doing more gear changing.  Maximum acceleration using optimal gears is much closer, as indicated by the 0-62mph times.

The 124 Spider, weighing 50Kg more than the MX-5 2.0 and having 20 fewer maximum bhp, is quicker still gear for gear which is intriguing but on reflection not surprising - again, in the real world they would probably be in different gears much of the time.

I haven't looked at the difference in overall gearing.

I didn't mean to disparage the 2.0 - clearly it has different characteristics to the 1.5 which suit some people better.

(seconds)
40-60 mph in 4th 

6.5

4.9 

4.1


50-70 mph in 4th

 6.6

4.9

4.4

 

50-70 mph in 5th 

9.2

6.7

5.6

 

50-70 mph in 6th

14.8

10.3

6.9

Hmm, those figures reassure me I made the right decision in 2016, after having test driven both the 1.5 ND and 2.0 ND, to stick with my old 5 speed 2litre NC PRHT which seemed to be livelier and more flexible than either ND, as well as being more roomy and much more comfortable.  Of course YMMV.

2008 Niseko NC 2.0
2016 Mazda3 SE-L Nav 2.0
danhaswings
#25 Posted : 08 June 2018 21:53:57(UTC)
danhaswings

Rank: Forum newbie

Groups: OCMember, Registered
Joined: 22/04/2018(UTC)
Posts: 10
Man

I'm not sure why people are debating which is best out of the 2 engine choices, it's just personal opinion. They both have their pros and cons.

I was thinking about supercharging because I felt it'd create a more natural boost of power that fits the characteristics of the MX5. I'm not sure how turbo kits like BBR's feel to drive, but from my experience it's a completely different power delivery which is usually not very linear.

Gerryn
#26 Posted : 08 June 2018 22:27:01(UTC)
Gerryn

Rank: Advanced poster

Groups: OCMember, Registered
Joined: 23/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 3,120
Man
Location: Toton (Notts.)

Thanks: 356 times
Was thanked: 441 time(s) in 387 post(s)
What really strikes me as revealing, is no-one has responded to the OP's original query, but instead chose to comment on anything I wrote. Apparently no-one has a view of whether a supercharger is a good or bad choice - that question has bit the dust, replaced instead by protracted variation of views on which engine is better, while I mentioned that in the first instance in response to the OP's post. Talk about shaking a bees nest!

As I said earlier, I am actively interested in power improvement, but have also noticed in the past that anyone posting on this topic rarely get's a response, which is why I answered it - so it became more prominent on the forum. - (Once that little box lights up, everyone feels compelled to look!) If no-one answers a thread, it soon dies a death, being buried by later (often un-answered) posts. No doubt some-one will pick me up on this comment, as my original reply was not encouraging to the OP, but it was in effect a comment as to why the choice of a smaller engine, if he felt the urge to supercharge it. I am aware of the cost difference, though why so much is open to question.

Last time I commented about that, I was told by posters who bought 2 L ND's and replied, said that they did not pay the listed price, but paid a much lower one instead - also curious. IIRC - one said he thought the dealer was anxious to sell one at any price! - Good for him.

Anyway - thank you to those who posted info about economy running with 1.5L engines, I am surprised, I'll admit. I doubt that my NBFL will produce that kind of mileage , though I have never made a point of checking it, I just fill it up when it get's low. I will not make any further comment - RIP.
Five is Alive 2002 Mk2.5 Sport, with added Mazda body kit, 15 inch Rota Circuit 8 with Toyos, rescued wood rim steering wheel from a crashed Arizona. Air intake mods to come (one day!) Hard Dog Deuce rollbar. and HT (permanent fixture!) - It's still a sportscar.
cliveju
#27 Posted : 08 June 2018 22:27:44(UTC)
cliveju

Rank: Advanced poster

Groups: OCMember, Registered
Joined: 20/09/2013(UTC)
Posts: 311
Location: Binfield

Thanks: 71 times
Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 43 post(s)

Mazda has done extensive development to improve fuel consumption and emissions in the SkyActiv engines while keeping power at a very similar level.

A supercharger would suck power, hence damaging efficiency. The turbo is therefore a a better option for practical use and their use is becoming increasingly common.

2010 Sport Tech 2.0i Soft Top in Aluminium Silver.
Kumho KU39 tyres.
Great car, did me proud for 5 years.
(Former owner from 7/18. Might return one day)
Touche
#28 Posted : 09 June 2018 07:26:41(UTC)
Touche

Rank: Advanced poster

Groups: OCMember, Registered
Joined: 23/03/2015(UTC)
Posts: 115
Man
Location: North Yorkshire

Thanks: 59 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 16 post(s)
In answer to the OP I would stick to proven tried and tested boosted power and go with BBR GTI who do upgrades to both 1.5 and 2.0 engines whether ecu flash, air intake, axhausts and turbocharged mods. My experience of running supercharged cars are they do drink a lot of fuel and the characteristic ‘whine’ is annoying.

Sticking my two penneth in on the ND engine battle I drove and liked both. Originally going from 1.6 NB 2.5 I would have bought the 1.5. However I went Golf R for a couple of years (needed practicality and had two previous GTIs my other passion) therefore bought the two litre model. 300 PS DSG to 160 PS manual and I feel so much more alive and involved in making the car go fast. Plus my 2.0 Sport Nav Roadster with all the trimmings with 8 miles on the clock two week old dealer registered cost me £20995 cheaper than the 1.5 or thereabouts so a no brainer for me. Mine is a daily driver and my main car so the extra torque for A & M roads is better suited to the 2 litre.

Horses for courses both NDs are great and personal preferences likewise I love the MK1, 2 and later NC models and we should embrace the MX5 as a car and enjoy the comradeship and not battle with ‘but mine is best’! My NB felt more spacious inside but the modern ND is the better and safer car. Looking forward to seeing thousands of all models at the Rally. Cheers T
2.0 Sport Nav Eternal Blue.
Gone but not forgotten: 1.6 NB 2.5 & MK2 Golf GTI!
Previous convertibles and fast German metal!
PLS199
#29 Posted : 16 October 2018 09:37:52(UTC)
PLS199

Rank: Forum newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 18/02/2010(UTC)
Posts: 14

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)

Have owned my Recaro for two years and 14000 miles. It does twisty B roads, motorway and town traffic mostly along with the occasional longer trips. The average mpg for 22 months of this ownership is 40.8mpg and I am delighted with all aspects of the car. The roof is only up in rain and down at all other times. It does also include spirited driving and has only ever had Shell VPower.

2004 Mk2.5 Brilliant Black-Brilliant Car
2009 Mk 3.5 Sports Tech brilliant black
2016 Mk4 Recaro in ceramic.
Scottishfiver
#30 Posted : 17 October 2018 10:22:06(UTC)
Scottishfiver

Rank: Advanced poster

Groups: Registered
Joined: 14/05/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,134

Thanks: 329 times
Was thanked: 377 time(s) in 307 post(s)

I hope all you rotters appreciate driving past fuel stations.

Our Mk2.5? Driving Miss Daisy with SWMBO aboard. 34mpg on a good day.

Sans SWMBO cross country, 22/24mpg if I'm lucky.

My Mk1 1840cc slushbox?

SWMBO on board 30mpg-ish

Sans SWMBO cross country twisty "escapades" in "S" mode...I've done a calculated 12/14mpg in hooligan mode...usually in kickdown.

Fact: Mk1 1840cc autos with a JRC suoercharger at around 180BHP tune have proved more economical simply because (even allowing) for pulley power loss it still dumps low rev torque into "ta dah" the torque converter. Been in one..it was epic.

Surprise surprise.

Actually, I don't care one bit. They are sports cars. My choice.

My Opel Monza Courteney 3ltr Turbo got 37mpg for Pete's sakes!

Edited by user 17 October 2018 10:34:13(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Davyo
#31 Posted : 16 November 2018 23:51:09(UTC)
Davyo

Rank: Advanced poster

Groups: OCMember, Registered
Joined: 30/01/2018(UTC)
Posts: 168
Man

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 24 post(s)

Originally Posted by: RichardFX Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: John M Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: Mad Malc Go to Quoted Post

Sorry but I must be missing something, yes max torque is at the same rpm (200rpm is negligible) but 33.333% more in the 2.0l (150 to 200) is massive and has a significant effect on the way the cars can deliver their performance.

I digressed wildly, apologies to the OP, but you raise a fair point.

You are right of course, gear for gear the 2.0 is materially quicker at in-gear acceleration, more so in the lower part of the rev range  - here are some computed comparisons from automobile-catalog.com - 1.5 first, 2.0 second;  the third figure is the Fiat 124 Spider.  

What this tells us is that the driver of the 1.5 is likely to be doing more gear changing.  Maximum acceleration using optimal gears is much closer, as indicated by the 0-62mph times.

The 124 Spider, weighing 50Kg more than the MX-5 2.0 and having 20 fewer maximum bhp, is quicker still gear for gear which is intriguing but on reflection not surprising - again, in the real world they would probably be in different gears much of the time.

I haven't looked at the difference in overall gearing.

I didn't mean to disparage the 2.0 - clearly it has different characteristics to the 1.5 which suit some people better.

(seconds)
40-60 mph in 4th 

6.5

4.9 

4.1


50-70 mph in 4th

 6.6

4.9

4.4

 

50-70 mph in 5th 

9.2

6.7

5.6

 

50-70 mph in 6th

14.8

10.3

6.9

Hmm, those figures reassure me I made the right decision in 2016, after having test driven both the 1.5 ND and 2.0 ND, to stick with my old 5 speed 2litre NC PRHT which seemed to be livelier and more flexible than either ND, as well as being more roomy and much more comfortable.  Of course YMMV.

Yep and its why the Spider has the NC gearbox.Its why i chose the Spider as its so close to my MK3.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 1.9.6.1 | YAF © 2003-2018, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.009 seconds.