turbofan

iTrader: (1)

Indeed Rick, props given. Well said.

Come to think of it, it's the rear he didn't design. When he told me that he designed everything but the back, I remember thinking "Hmm... I kinda think the back is the best part..." I think it's a pretty good-looking vehicle honestly, though I'd never ever buy one.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

No one at Ford in America actually designed the 2011 Explorer. They simply used their parent-company status to gain security clearance to rifle through the trash can in the Range Rover design studios after hours. Unfortunately for him, the real designers took their better works home with them at night.

If he was still in design school he would have been expelled for plagiarism for blatantly copying their designs. Next you will tell me he designed the grilles of the new Ford sedans after cleaning up the Aston Martin design studio after hours.

Dunning Kruger Affect

A pet theory I've seen by a few people over the past week is "IT'S QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THE NC DID NOT MAKE 167HP" which is really begging the question... of what exactly they're trying to say.

The revisionism is strong with the Mnet.

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

I was upset to learn today that the ND will have a "California Emissions" version.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

so the manifold will weigh 400lb and a cat that will burn out every 2 weeks

great

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

No kidding, right? At the risk of sounding like m.net I'm actually quite stupefied by this. I thought we were finally past this crap. Part of me wants to figure out why (lean burn DI NOx?) the other part wants to just flip tables.

codrus

My guess is that it's because, as Emilio says, Mazda is fundamentally a chassis company not an engine company.

CA emissions spec is a band-aid that you throw at a car when you can't make the the numbers come out on the regular engine without spending a ton of money on it. Mazda's a small car company, doing their own engine R&D for a fairly small volume of cars, and this kind of thing is hard.

--Ian

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

It means that I don't have to get the Cali emissions version.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

It's one thing when they're working with a 20 year old engine and too lazy/cheap to re-do anything so they do the "ca spec" but when they've just started with kinda sorta a blank page? uhhhh

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

Move to a state without crazy emissions testing? Purchase ND there. PROFIT!

18psi

iTrader: (76)

Nope.
We will all never stop complaining about CA emissions madness while continue living here because after all this place is awesome and a million times better than the places most of you live

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I suppose that's a reasonable interpretation, from a certain point of view.

When the Corvette was introduced in the early 1950s, it was a relatively inexpensive, underpowered, lightweight fun-mobile. Not really a sports car even by the standards of the day, but something to enjoy cruising about in much like the Thunderbirds of the era. In the late 50s and early 60s, a Corvette would have cost around $26-30k in inflation-adjusted dollars; about the same as a current-gen Miata, and with comparable performance figures.

Over the years, the Corvette has evolved into a larger, heavier, more powerful and more aggressive vehicle. No more a fun Sunday cruiser, it has grown up into a fully-fledged sports car poised to compete against the likes of Porsche and Ferrari. At the same time, the inflation-adjusted base price has more then doubled, now exceeding the average US annual household income by nearly 20%.



I, personally, don't want the Miata to become a Corvette. If I wanted a Corvette, I'd buy a Corvette. This isn't pining for a bygone era, it's merely expressing a preference.


Thus far, Mazda has done a pretty good job of keeping the Miata the Miata. The '16 model is within cat-tossing distance of a '96 in terms of weight and external dimensions, with a vastly better chassis and 50% more power to boot. Those people who complain that the car is too small or underpowered are missing the point, and would be well-served to visit their local Chevrolet dealer.





Serious question:

Any hard data on whether the CA car will carry burdensome mechanical affordances (such as the '99-'00 cars), or is this merely a software update? The latter is not at all an uncommon mechanism for meeting California emissions requirements in the modern era.

NiklasFalk

iTrader: (1)

Huh? 50% more than 133 is 200...
If that's a BP powered OBD-II Miata from 1996 you're referring to.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

A million times better might be a bit of an overstatement. I have no emissions, I get rain regularly, houses are affordable, and I can carry a gun. Those are some pretty important things to me.

turbofan

iTrader: (1)

I have emissions all the time. If you never have emissions you should probably get checked out, doesn't sound healthy.

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

Joe if the Cali spec car is just an engine tuning change, I guess we're going to expect the cali spec car to get marginally worse gas mileage, or have like shitty throttle response. Is there a cali spec 3? I still dont know why mazda doesnt just decide to subcontract out engine design to honda or GM. I'd say ford but dammit the ecoboost is just a tarted up MZR.

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

No idea at this point, but FM has 2x NDs inbound and one of them is a CA Emissions model. I'm sure they will let us know eventually.

Software update is fine, its when we get screwed with things like the precat manifold that things get stupid. It really screws up aftermarket support and creates a 2 tier system, and as a CA buyer we end up with the short end of the stick. And its not just CA. States like NY regularly also get the "CA Emissions" package cars as well. There are other states that do this but I can't think of them at the moment.

Its not just "as delivered" either, we get screwed on replacement parts as well. Check out the cost for a replacement cat for an NB on Magnaflow's website and you'll see what I mean. A "Fed Spec" cat is like $150 while the "CA Spec" cat is over $600. From what I remember the only difference between the two products is the CA number stamped on the ID plate. But because CA requires it, Magnaflow can charge a premium for it.

In addition to all that crap, why would you bandaid the car rather than just build them all to the same spec? Wouldn't having different versions just cost you more money in production and dev? It seems silly to me but then again, I'm not an OEM.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

the CA spec should be turbo

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

yeah NY and MA end up getting cali cars too. Which is mildly annoying but up here we dont have to stay CAFE visually so swapping to the non cali part or whatever aftermarket part is easy.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

00-01 Cherokees were held to Cali emissions. I have one. It's ******* infuriating. Nobody makes exhaust parts for these things unless you want to spend about as much as the truck cost me in the first place. And **** me if you need to replace the manifold that cracks all the time, because there's two ******* pre-cats in it.

The 98 i have on the other hand? Doesn't ******* matter. I could do a headerback exhaust for about $500.