Awesome fuel economy. We have 100hp motors that get ~30mpg at best. Modern 100hp motors are getting 40+mpg.

More of this: http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/sky...kyactiv-g.html

Direct injection and the likes.

 

Jesus, kiss turboing that thing goodbye.. lol

 

Haha, yeah. I wasn't meaning the super-high compression ratio in particular. In fact, that's just not a good link for what I'm referencing.

 

Yeah, I really don't know what to make of this exhaust manifold (speaking of skyactiv):


A lot of us are drawn to our cars because they are relatively simple and easy to modify & fix.

 

The link I posted explains that exhaust header.

 

So thats a catalytic converter I see in the mani? Thats gonna be fun to replace.

It is interesting though.

 

wtf is going on there I don't even.....

Faeflora's new engine?

 

http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/sky...kyactiv-g.html

 

A masters degree in mechanical engineering doesn't explain that exhaust header.

 

"In addition, a pipe length of over 600mm was necessary to elevate actual-use torque, but space was saved by adopting a loop shape."

 

hu·mor noun \ˈhyü-mər, ˈyü-\

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor

 

Yeah, that was lost on me. Consider the quote useful for the 'TL;DR' crowd who clicked the link.

 

looks like 4-2-1 into pre-cat...all in one small space.

 

Well said.

To me, that is the essence of the Miata. It was designed right. What matters wasn't skimped on. And it was kept light, small, simple and reliable.

Other cars need computers because, frankly, a lot of compromises were made to be all things to all people. Miatas (especially early ones) are relatively uncompromised. Mazda had a specific goal in mind for the car, and they grand-slammed it. This is why we laugh at Corvettes and Porsches.

An analogy I make is between a Douglas A-4 and a McDonnel Douglas (now Boeing) F/A-18. I flew the Hornet in the fleet. It was designed to be all things, both a fighter and an attack aircraft. Most of the time training was spent learning how to operate all the weapons and systems. Computers out the wazoo. Power out the wazoo. Fuel consumption out the wazoo. A cool ride for sure, but not the purest of flying experiences.

The A-4, OTOH, was as simple, small, light and fun as you could get. No computers at all. It had mild hydraulic boost on the controls and that was it. The most important instrument was the 20% oil light, located right in the middle of the panel. When that thing came on, you knew you didn't have much longer to spend with your friend. This aircraft was just fluid, it almost read your mind and did whatever you asked. Its roll rate was 720°/s. It did all of this naturally. It was designed to do it. The perfect aerial toy (although it needed more power ).

F/A-18 = Corvette
A-4 = Miata

And that's all I've got to say about that.

 

more goddamn head room.

 

That's when you put the top down bro.

 

might dry out his vaginer.

 

Quit being so... tall..

I'd like a little more interior space, more like the NC...

 

Yeah, I read it.

 

I've only ever been in an NC twice, and it's been a while. (The first was a pre-production unit from Mazda's local test facility, the second was at the release event.) So my memory is slightly hazy, but I clearly remember not liking it at all.

Too big is how it felt. Felt like I was sitting inside a cast-iron bathtub, kind of like the current-gen Mustangs.

Didn't have any gripes about the way it handled, I just didn't get the same feeling of intrinsic lightness and simplicity that original cars conveyed. If the NA/NB interior fits like a glove, than the NC fit more like a catcher's mitt.

The overall sensation is very much as Hornetball described. To me, the NA / NB convey a sense of litheness and simplicity. Even though the later NBs are packed with computer-controlled gadgetry and all sorts of wonderful chassis-stiffening, they still convey the same feeling to the driver that one gets from, say, a Lotus Elan. It whispers "I was designed to be driven."


The NC never gave me that feeling. I wouldn't describe it as numb per-se, but whereas the NA/NB seem agile and nible even when stopped, the NC doesn't. It whispers "I was designed by committee to conform with corporate identity standards and attempt to satisfy the numerous and contradictory requirements of many different focus groups."



At any rate, aren't we straying a tad far from reality? Jason's suggestions, while a tad far-fetched by contemporary aftermarket standards (MR shocks, active swaybar preload, etc) are at least within one standard deviation of "things which could realistically be achieved."

Wishing for a larger interior or a radically different engine design isn't something you're going by modifying an existing NA or NB- it's something you need to buy a different car for altogether.