Z4 VS MX5
- Thread starter NigelB
- Start date
Interestingly, this review had it pitched against the Pug RCZ..
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/grouptests/251941/mazda_mx5_rc_20_sport_tech.html#
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/grouptests/251941/mazda_mx5_rc_20_sport_tech.html#
Were you looking at the hard or soft top? I've had two in the past although not the current shape. I think the new one will be announced in 2012. Wouldn't swap a 2.0 Z4 for one.
Never thought about one compared to Z4, 350Z, Boxster,RX7 maybe
Before getting my Zed I drove a few MX5s since I was looking simply for 'car that's fun to drive for £x'.
The Mk 2.5 had terrible bounciness at 70mph (well known fault apparently, and no real fixes if you get one - so test drive at speed) and just didn't feel that great if I'm honest.
Mk 3 drove like a supermini with a small cockpit.
Mk 3.5 drove great, really, really, really fun car to drive. I'm not sure why the other versions were so poor, but it was totally consistent. Never drove a hard top model, wish I had since the Mk3 had but one flaw - a lot of wind noise at 70mph. I wanted to hoon about in the mountain passes and that means a day or two of driving along the motorway which meant the MX5 was sadly out for me. It also revs pretty high at motorway speeds too which is also somewhat tiring. But here's my thoughts comparing the two (Mk3.5 MX5, Z4 Mk1) anyway:
Luggage space - Z4 basically has the boot space of a supermini, the MX5 has very little. You can fit golf clubs in the boot and it'll be enough for a weekend break - but a real holiday is somewhat pushing it.
Handling - They actually handle very similar, I would give the nod to the MX5 it's very nimble with amazing road holding ability mixed with a smooth ride. The Z4 obviously has to contend with a 3.0 straight 6 so the tyres etc. are set up for that really. If you're looking at the MX5 you're looking at the 2.0 Z4 and the MX-5's chassis better matches the engine capacity.
Performance - The 1.8 engine is really sweet, it's the little engine that could. The 2.0 feels like a typical Jap engine, with a slightly higher rev limiter. It's good, but nothing to shout home about. The Z4 2.0 is slower than the 2.0 MX5, faster than the 1.8 MX5. The 2.5 and 3.0 straight 6 BMW engines slaughter the MX5 engine - as well they should, but it's a comprehensive pasting.
Comfort - The latest MX5s are surprisingly comfortable and exceedingly well equipped. You would need a lot of extras on a Z4 to match the kit level of a Sport Tech MX5. However, when it comes to actual driving the Z4 is in another league regardless of equipment level. The roof is motorised and very well insulated. The gearbox is easier to shift gear with, the ratios better suited for 'normal' driving, etc. The Z4 easily has it for comfort tbh - just make sure you get heated seats.
If I had the choice all over again, I would still pick the Z4 - albeit a 2.5 rather than 2.0. I did fall in love with the little Mazda, and I still carry a torch for it. As a roadster for having pure unadulterated fun it's still better than the Z4, it's got the British roadster formula down better than the British ever did. It's shear joy to drive. However, the roads are busy and we can't spend every day powering around B roads since you have to get to places (plus the B roads are littered with slow moving 4x4s and Nissan Micras). If you need a car for getting down to business - like a proper road trip, you want the Z4. If you want a car just for hooning about in, get an Ariel Atom or Caterham. I love the MX5, but the proper roadster formula doesn't work on the roads we have now imho.
All that said, if the MX5 hard top solves the wind noise and insulates you a little more from the engine at higher revs, then, well... things just got a whole lot more complicated.
The Mk 2.5 had terrible bounciness at 70mph (well known fault apparently, and no real fixes if you get one - so test drive at speed) and just didn't feel that great if I'm honest.
Mk 3 drove like a supermini with a small cockpit.
Mk 3.5 drove great, really, really, really fun car to drive. I'm not sure why the other versions were so poor, but it was totally consistent. Never drove a hard top model, wish I had since the Mk3 had but one flaw - a lot of wind noise at 70mph. I wanted to hoon about in the mountain passes and that means a day or two of driving along the motorway which meant the MX5 was sadly out for me. It also revs pretty high at motorway speeds too which is also somewhat tiring. But here's my thoughts comparing the two (Mk3.5 MX5, Z4 Mk1) anyway:
Luggage space - Z4 basically has the boot space of a supermini, the MX5 has very little. You can fit golf clubs in the boot and it'll be enough for a weekend break - but a real holiday is somewhat pushing it.
Handling - They actually handle very similar, I would give the nod to the MX5 it's very nimble with amazing road holding ability mixed with a smooth ride. The Z4 obviously has to contend with a 3.0 straight 6 so the tyres etc. are set up for that really. If you're looking at the MX5 you're looking at the 2.0 Z4 and the MX-5's chassis better matches the engine capacity.
Performance - The 1.8 engine is really sweet, it's the little engine that could. The 2.0 feels like a typical Jap engine, with a slightly higher rev limiter. It's good, but nothing to shout home about. The Z4 2.0 is slower than the 2.0 MX5, faster than the 1.8 MX5. The 2.5 and 3.0 straight 6 BMW engines slaughter the MX5 engine - as well they should, but it's a comprehensive pasting.
Comfort - The latest MX5s are surprisingly comfortable and exceedingly well equipped. You would need a lot of extras on a Z4 to match the kit level of a Sport Tech MX5. However, when it comes to actual driving the Z4 is in another league regardless of equipment level. The roof is motorised and very well insulated. The gearbox is easier to shift gear with, the ratios better suited for 'normal' driving, etc. The Z4 easily has it for comfort tbh - just make sure you get heated seats.
If I had the choice all over again, I would still pick the Z4 - albeit a 2.5 rather than 2.0. I did fall in love with the little Mazda, and I still carry a torch for it. As a roadster for having pure unadulterated fun it's still better than the Z4, it's got the British roadster formula down better than the British ever did. It's shear joy to drive. However, the roads are busy and we can't spend every day powering around B roads since you have to get to places (plus the B roads are littered with slow moving 4x4s and Nissan Micras). If you need a car for getting down to business - like a proper road trip, you want the Z4. If you want a car just for hooning about in, get an Ariel Atom or Caterham. I love the MX5, but the proper roadster formula doesn't work on the roads we have now imho.
All that said, if the MX5 hard top solves the wind noise and insulates you a little more from the engine at higher revs, then, well... things just got a whole lot more complicated.
I looked at one before considering a Z4 TBH back in 2007. The hard top one, but was surprised at the wind noise and didn't like the LSD although i guess you would get used to it, but it was apparent at every roundabout even being driven normally.
Then took a 2.2 6 CYL Z4 out and decided that was the one. Also that fact I was able to buy a car with a list price of 10K more for only 1k more.
Then took a 2.2 6 CYL Z4 out and decided that was the one. Also that fact I was able to buy a car with a list price of 10K more for only 1k more.
T-J said:My wife had a mx5 and it was a great car, but in comparison the Zed is in a differentleague
Have to agree
traded our MX5 mk2 which was a lovely basic sports car ....the 3.0si is on a different planet brutal by comparison but with all creature comforts
srhutch said:
2007 would be the Mk3, would deffo agree on odd handling, didn't realise it could have been the LSD too (it's also too high giving body roll).
I've heard about the wind noise on the hard top too. I know I shouldn't focus so much on it, but it's just so intrusive for me. The Z4 you can put the roof up and cruise comfortably to the fun stuff, then put the roof down and have a fantastic time.
NigelB: A lot of people (myself included) keep our cars uncovered outside every day. Just have to be careful to clean & proof the roof regularly which admitidly is a pain since it takes up an entire day. Get a new Z4 with the hard top
Boogle said:srhutch said:
2007 would be the Mk3, would deffo agree on odd handling, didn't realise it could have been the LSD too (it's also too high giving body roll).
I've heard about the wind noise on the hard top too. I know I shouldn't focus so much on it, but it's just so intrusive for me. The Z4 you can put the roof up and cruise comfortably to the fun stuff, then put the roof down and have a fantastic time.
NigelB: A lot of people (myself included) keep our cars uncovered outside every day. Just have to be careful to clean & proof the roof regularly which admitidly is a pain since it takes up an entire day. Get a new Z4 with the hard top
def the LSD as the one I took out was actually a ragtop. I don't notice the LSD in the ///M under normal driving conditions.
the LSD in the ///M is variable, not sure on the MX5
Had a mk 2 MX5 in 2010 and ran it alongside the Zed as my daily runner great fun car but not a serious performance car and the wind noise and spec were pretty stone age compaed to the Zed.
I tested both the 1.8 roadster and a sport tech coupe early last year. Far more refined than the Mk 2 and I was very impressed with the folding roof on the coupe. The engines are bullet proof but not the car's strong point. No character really compared to a straight six or high revving v-tech unit. Performance was a litttle dull but coming from the 'M' I was always going to say that!
interesting that Mazda have apparently set a target weight for the mk 4 of under 1,000 kilos which would be brilliant providing they get the handling right first time.
I tested both the 1.8 roadster and a sport tech coupe early last year. Far more refined than the Mk 2 and I was very impressed with the folding roof on the coupe. The engines are bullet proof but not the car's strong point. No character really compared to a straight six or high revving v-tech unit. Performance was a litttle dull but coming from the 'M' I was always going to say that!
interesting that Mazda have apparently set a target weight for the mk 4 of under 1,000 kilos which would be brilliant providing they get the handling right first time.
We tried both versions of the mazda and decided it felt cheap, which it was, horses for courses I guess.
SWMBO has an MX-5, a 1.8 Mk3 Roadster Coupé. Dynamically the MX-5 is brilliant - steering, gear change, handling and brakes are second to none. The folding roof is brilliant as well as it doesn't encroach on the boot space which is actually more useable/convenient than the Zed's when both have their roof's down. Downsides of the MX-5 - the fuel consumption is rubbish considering the lack of performance (just about gets the right side of 30mpg); the NVH is considerably worse than the Zed, especially the noise element which is much worse top up or down; I don't fit in it - at well over 6' it is just too small to fit in comfortably to drive and the passenger side is even worse; leather upholstery is very hard, cheap leather and plastic trims are lower quality in both material and fit/finish than the Zed and just begining to squeak a bit at four years old. Upsides include the reliability which can't be faulted though - absolutely nothing has gone even remotely wrong during its first four years of life; tyre wear on the OEM Yokohama's has been very good ~28k miles rears, well over 30k miles fronts; and has never required the oil topping up at all between annual services which are very reasonably priced. In summary a great little car to drive but a country mile away from the Zed in terms of quality and comfort.
