Rolling road test results.

Post here if you require help or have information that may assist others with their MX-5.

Rolling road test results.

Postby DouglasH » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:22 pm

Simon..would be interested in the results of your bhp test.
DouglasH
User avatar
 
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby Si » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:41 am

Very happy with today's results........

198bhp and 155ft/lb torque

..... and destroyed a Scoobt STi on the way home :)

Tempted Douglas????

Si
.:- 1997 1.8iS Mk1 (BRP MP62 Supercharged) [SOLD]
.:- 2000 1.6i Mk2 Isola [SOLD]
Si
User avatar
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:23 pm
Location: What's it called?

Postby DouglasH » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:50 am

Sounds like a result Si, increase of 66bhp. 8)

Tempted Douglas????

Yes Si, if the right car came up with the Turbo or SC pre fitted I would. Considered a Mk2 import 1.8 RS with Garrett Turbo a couple of months ago, but as usual never did any more about it, spoke to Hardtrack many times about this and said many times I wouldn't go down that line, then again so did he :wink: and he's gone quiet lately so he must be up to something. :roll:
DouglasH
User avatar
 
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby Hardtrack » Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:07 pm

Me quiet? :shock: ....i've just looked at a tvr chimaera,4.5 litre 285bhp 8) and thats the baby one... 320 bhp in the griffith engined one and am seriously thinking of binning my car :? :( ,could have all this for the price of my car and turboing it,bit less actually :roll: .........good result Si,whats that at the wheels then? :) .......so sorry for not being as active :)
95 G-Ltd 1.8
Image
Hardtrack
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:39 pm

Postby Si » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:47 pm

Mmmm..... TVR :) You know my thoughts on them Jim!

The 1.8 typically suffers from about 25bhp drivetrain losses so I've probably got about 170 - 175 bhp at the wheels. Still a good 75bhp off the FM2 kits, but I'll work on that next year ;)

There have been a lot of people recently suggesting that buying a car already fitted with a blower (of sorts) is the most economical way of going about it. The downside is that you don't really know how the car's been driven, or if it was suitable (i.e. good enough compression) for charging in the first instance. It's a bit of a risk, but for the money that these things are changing hands you'll not lose out much (IMHO).

Si
.:- 1997 1.8iS Mk1 (BRP MP62 Supercharged) [SOLD]
.:- 2000 1.6i Mk2 Isola [SOLD]
Si
User avatar
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:23 pm
Location: What's it called?

Postby mgrays » Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:01 pm

TVR Chimmera... well the 4 litre is about seem straight line speed as an FM2 (evening at Knock Hill) .. but falls apart and is "interesting" - the Griff I test drove actually twisting as you put the hammer down coming out of corners due to the torque .. bigger boot but reliability/build quality is a joke. When I had the FM2 dyno'd at AVO behind Glasgow airport.. they had a 240 hp TVR producing about 180hp.. so I think TVR hp numbers are a little imaginative. .. real engines do not red line at 4,500 rpm.. some diesels have higher red lines than the 5 litre Chimmera I so nearly got in Dubai..

I did consider the Chimmera route but in 18 mths I paid for my turbo in the fuel saving.. 20mpg verus 30mpg makes it work and that was 5 years ago when fuel was cheaper and the $/? only 1.36 not 1.80..

Now I still do get distracted by a Tuscan S.. but that has a nice chassis that makes normal speeds too boring!

The '5' .. hard to beat fuel consumption, relability, leavability (i.e. on the streets).. just wish it was 1" tall, 4" longer and the designers had not forgot to finish the packaging after the rear bulkhead .. even the Mk2 boot is a joke of a design.
Malcolm GS
94 JLtd2 FM2
mgrays
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:03 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Postby Hardtrack » Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:16 pm

real engines do not red line at 4,500 rpm

Ok the rover v8 that has been planted in many serious sportscars isn't real,i'll agree to disagree on that one :).The Chimeara i looked at is quoted as 285 bhp,so if a 4 litre chimaera is the same straight line speed as an fm2,obviously the one i looked at would be quicker,but that is not my point of the post,as in being quicker than an fm2,if that was the case,i would purchase an fm2 kit as it isn't for lack of funds that i will not purchase this.I like Tvr's and am considering one or the other option of turboing my Roadster,but not with an fm2 kit as i cant justify that kind of money on my car,my choice :).
The Chimeara is a serious bit of kit,they are rockets,you will know this if you have driven what you said in your above post.As of reliability,this actually p*sses me off as the mx5's swansong for a sportscar of sorts,reliable?big deal,so is a black cab or a Massey Ferguson tractor,hardly a bragging statement for a sportscar.........what about the handling,straight line speed,looks specs?.To me an mx5 is not a proper sportscar until you turbo or supercharge it,how can a family hatch tdi out perform a sportscar,it doesn't in my book. I could screw the life out my car to 7000rpm and my other heavy Mazda would see it off,no problem at under 4000rpm,so i hardly see the rev range a prob with something that you press the loud pedal and it goes 8).Tvr's do not fall to bits,to be honest no car in this day and age does....many are living in the past when cars needed engine rebuilds at 40k.Jap cars are as a rule more reliable than most makes,but i could live with the occasional breakdown and niggles,i have many times in my years of driving and would never be so flippant to think,i better not buy that ,it might break down once in a while or oerrrrrrrrrr i can get ten miles more to the gallon with this car i've bought as a sportscar,obviously people that think like that are out of their depth financially if they want a proper sportscar to give them diesel mileage.........forget the mileage and drive the car as a sportscar....which leads me on to the snobbery i have found in mx5 ownership,17k new? i just don't get that.Very affordable fun motoring within the reach of an average 3 year old hatchback start price for a decent one,affordability was the strong point that attracted me to use as a 2nd car........i don't knock other cars and maybe my decision will turn mine into what i want as i love the car in every other way......but the v8 tvr's noise alone made me gulp 8)
95 G-Ltd 1.8
Image
Hardtrack
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:39 pm

Postby DouglasH » Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:31 pm

even the Mk2 boot is a joke of a design.

Not quite with you on this one Malcolm, the Mx-5 is what it is, the designers improved the boot capacity from 124 to 144 litres (volume) when the Mk-2 evolved, but more importantly this equated to more practical usable space but yet still keeping within the almost 50/50 balance, adding 4" to the length and 1" to height would have made it an Mx-6 and a totally different package.
If you were to ask why people bought the Mx-5 as opposed to other SPORTSCARS (and yes Hardtrack you will have to face up to reality it is a sportscar, it might not be a fast sportscar, it might not be in your little book of sportscars you used as a bible when you were a kid, but the Mx5 meets all the criteria of a SPORTSCAR) one of the most popular answers would be the boot, normally quantified with words like golf clubs, suitcases, weekends and practical. For my own part and for personnel reasons that most already know, the boot was the second most important reason for buying, the number one being...well I'll keep that for another day. :lol:
DouglasH
User avatar
 
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby Si » Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:17 am

Hmm ... from performance to boot sizes in a few posts..... I like it :D :lol:

I've had my Mk1 as my only car for the last 3 years. I've only had to borrow a larger car on one ocassion*! Nuff said :D

When I were a lad, a sportscar was a Fiat XJ19 (what my dad had), a MGBGT (what he used to have) or, slightly later on, a Dodge Viper. Everyone's opinions on the exact definition will unfortunately differ ........ but I'm in the "the MX-5 is a sports car" camp.

Si

* ... and that was to pick up the roll bar that I've still to fit to the 5 :roll:
.:- 1997 1.8iS Mk1 (BRP MP62 Supercharged) [SOLD]
.:- 2000 1.6i Mk2 Isola [SOLD]
Si
User avatar
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:23 pm
Location: What's it called?

Postby mgrays » Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:51 pm

Flames!! :D

The Rover V8 must be strangled or in some way restricted in design.. it does produce oodles of torque but fails to rev in any way ... and this gets worse the larger it gets in capacity. .. I guess I like Italian efficient/complex elegant automotive engineering (they fail in most other engineering arenas) rather than Rolls Royce/USA effective engineering (i.e. pick it up and beat it up to get hp at high rpm verus wide spread shed load of torque with go at any rpm). Different horses for courses but one is effortless fast limo the other slow fun hard work... and I want to keep my license!

TVR - like them but stop looking at the bling for a minute .. and the quality is scary .. glue lines from behind the carpet onto the leather, trim falling off the show room cars.. heck they make Lotus look professional! Go trawl Piston Heads forums to see the mechanical/electrical mayhem. I know you are getting real performance for a cost but also at a cost in quality - all a consumer choice :D The Chimmera/Griffith really does twist under power - that chassis is 1970 in design and it shows .. none the less a great entertainer and I have admiration for the drivers who manage to keep it together while being shown the way home..!

Economy .. yeah it no diesel (either car) .. but 12-20mpg is scary/rich/profligate when 28-34 mpg achieves the same result .. back to elegant/efficent engineering... and best Scottish Presbyterian outlook. I guess TVR does have the benefit from the point that you can get your money back on resale which no turbo/sc will but as said this fails after 2 years as fuel cost more in the long run .. but go cheap and do a DIY Disco potato and you can get FM2 half price.. but it is like they say .. pick any two of fast/cheap/reliable.

Boot space.. what is it with the wasted space with the silencer under a Mk2; only half the space is required .. what is it with the tunnels down the sides of the fuel tank; why not make fuel tank wider and not so deep (I guess it keeps CoGravity in centre a little more but still no need when an internal baffle would do). That fuel tank could also go lower and be plastic so it moulds underneath more. Why the wasted 4" gap in front of fuel tank and behind seats - at least make it storage space. The Mk1 donated these failings and seemed to be fine until they got to the boot and threw that waste of space spare wheel in and gave up... suspect they focused on driving which is why we got that bit right. Now I have done 2 weeks around Europe with that Mk1 boot without spare (under car) with camping gear and nothing in the cabin area but I have an Italian car with twice the boot volume that is 2+2 and about the same size (but no independent rear suspension with RWD which is where the space goes). I guess I am too used to my diesel wagon that was lighter and carried 1/2 ton or heaps of volume. Meantime the Roadster is my only transport for a year.. and I too have survived which was part of the experiment!

Back to the flame hardened bunker..... :evil:
Malcolm GS
94 JLtd2 FM2
mgrays
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:03 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Postby DouglasH » Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:01 pm

I agree entirely about the wasted space, the space up the (drivers) side of the tank could have been fitted with a plastic moulded liner to protect exposed wiring connectors, would then have been more useful, although I do admit to stuffing two pairs of shoes in this area on a recent holiday, :) problem is remembering you put them there, :lol: also handy if you want / have to leave any valuables in the car as this area is covered by the plastic backed carpet. This of course only applies to the drivers side as the opposite corner has the aluminium plate behind the carpet to protect the fuel pipe.
The most undesirable part of the Mk-2 IMHO, is that great lump of a silencer that can be seen by anything behind you, but mostly other 5's when in convoy, yes as you say it could have been tucked up or even split into two silencers as in aftermarket kits and if the rear bumper had been a bit lower or sloped downward, this would allow fitment of a colour coded aluminium panel which would pleasantly mask the ageing not so silver beast.
DouglasH
User avatar
 
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby grouse » Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:26 pm

Interesting thoughts Malcolm.... :!:

Where does something like the Audi TT Roadster fit in your thinking, or is that not a Sportscar in our eyes.. :?:
Grouse

Another fine example of
"low-flying technology!"
grouse
User avatar
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Dundee

Postby mgrays » Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:34 pm

The Skoda Coupe/Roadster? (aka Golf TT) :lol:

Boot space/shape/packaging is appalling in terms of available space .. all effort on the dashboard and not much else after exterior. Now try a Beetle.. sit in the driving seat.. as a 6'1" person I cannot see the edge of the car in any directions... how do you judge where to place this on road/park.. both cars are triumph of sales/form over function! The Skoda Roadster "roll bar" hoops.. take hold of one next time you can and give it the pull wiggle test.. it moves alarmingly front/rear .. it is a style bar on a production vehicle.. go try that with a Boxster.

Driving experiance wise I had a 2002 Golf with the 4wd 2.8l V6 in Dubai .. which had all the electronic safety gismos.. impressive to load it up on a long sweeping motorway cloverleaf and play by over/under applying throttle.. you could really try to crash and it sorted it out but really dead understeering junk .. even with this disabled you could not get a decent roundabout experiance... interesting when the RS32 Golf is basically the same thing tweaked and the press loved it. I have seen a TT driven smartly cross country and it did well but seem to lose it on corners ultimately as might be expected... but impressive enough for a Eurobox.

As to sport cars or not .. not for me to decide what is labelled such by sales folk :? .. but I do expect interesting non coarse engines and coherent but interesting handling in something I live with... and the old Golf turbo fails the engine test (flat top rpm for a "sports car/hot hatch" and the V6 Golf failed the handling test (wash out understeer at med/low speed). .. I only bought the 5 on my way to getting a Lancia Integrale so I could remember how to drive after slow FWD diesel burners .. both are impractical cars if that is a definition :( .. if I had a garage there would be an Integrale for a winter car (with attendant major spanner bashing required to keep it in one piece)

Back to 5's. Tunnel by fuel tank = one side take a tent or winter emergancy clothing, remove that bit of steel (well on Mk1) protecting the fuel pipes... I have an amp in there and it takes a few rags + gloves.
Malcolm GS
94 JLtd2 FM2
mgrays
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:03 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Postby Hardtrack » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:15 am

I know TVR build quality can be shocking.My very good mate is a TVR trained mechanic and told me he once phoned TVR Technical regarding a 350i filling the whole interior with water like a paddling pool and was told to drill a hole in the floor :roll:.I'm sure he would be more than happy to tell any of you this if you brought up the convo as he kindly gave the Scottish owners club a discount on tyres from the place he manages :wink:
95 G-Ltd 1.8
Image
Hardtrack
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:39 pm

Postby stevieg » Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:55 pm

I'll add my tuppenceworth into this one because like Hardtrack I've been considering the same, a friend of mine had a TVR Griffith 4.0, he kept it for 4 months, why.... build quality and reliability. The roof had huge gaps between it and the windows (seen this on many TVRs S, SEAC, Chimera) so it was definately a fair weather car. It broke down 5 times (not the engine though, electrics seemed to be the major issue). I got to drive it 3 times and it was fantastic, but very skittish even at low speed, if it's as a toy for nice sunny days go for it but just dont expect to be using it as an every day car, I'd rather have another TR7 with a V8 conversion for the noise and torque. As it's going to cost me about ?2k to turbo my 5 I'm going to keep it and enjoy it with a bit more power (and it's my only car).
MK2.5 S-VT Supreme (Midnight) Blue Mica
stevieg
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: Aberdeen

Got to

Postby loftladderman » Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:55 pm

Got to toss my two pence worth in here lads :-)
I cane my Greddy totaly !
Anyone of you who know me know this as a fact.
I drove it like I stole it every time I take her out.
Reliable ?? Nah...not always...due to the way I cane the living daylights out her :-)
I have had a few oil leaks this year caused by too much crank case pressure...had her on fire under the bonnet a time or three as well......ask Hardtrack..PMSL

I am now having her (on top of the turbo and NOS) fitted with an e-manage system AND water / methanol injected 'cause I am crazy like that :-)

Is it worth all the time / trouble / money ???
OH YES !

Is she still the most "fun" I have ever had out of bed ??
OH YES !

Will she be more fun than my "V8" in a Roadster shell when I get her constructed ??
Who knows.....but she is still my favourite car :-)

Speed ? More than I need.

Fun ? By the bucket load.

Handling ? As sweet as a nut.

Total cost ? Who gives a damn...what price this much fun :-)
Regards from Mack
Greddy Turbo :-)
Image
www.macksmx5s.com
www.loftladderman.com
loftladderman
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 6:33 am
Location: St Cyrus. Montrose. Scotland

Addition to above

Postby loftladderman » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:10 am

I GOT PASSED BY A SMART CAR CONVERTIBLE !
Pretty girl at the wheel...top off...hair flying in the wind and she must have been doing at least 60mph when she passed me !

OK...so I was parked up letting Dax out for a pee ... but that SMART CAR.... was worth watching :-)

Fitted new Denso-IK01-24 spark plugs at around ?25 each.....did it make any difference ??
OH YEsssssssssssssssssss
I managed to blow the engine up in under 100 miles :-)
But hey....it was 100 TERRIFIC MILES and SMILES :-)
Regards from Mack
Greddy Turbo :-)
Image
www.macksmx5s.com
www.loftladderman.com
loftladderman
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 6:33 am
Location: St Cyrus. Montrose. Scotland

Postby grouse » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:47 pm

Pretty girl at the wheel...top off...


Not good at your age........ :shock: :shock: :shock:

Did you get those scans of STHT?

Gordon.
Grouse

Another fine example of
"low-flying technology!"
grouse
User avatar
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Dundee

THANKS

Postby loftladderman » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:07 pm

Yes Grouse
I did indeed get them thanks :-)
Regards from Mack
Greddy Turbo :-)
Image
www.macksmx5s.com
www.loftladderman.com
loftladderman
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 6:33 am
Location: St Cyrus. Montrose. Scotland

Postby Hardtrack » Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:31 pm

Expensive plugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!.I replaced my Nippon Denso plugs in my other car for 30 quid.they wanted ?15 quid plus! each from the usual suppliers until i found Sparkplug Uk online..............platinum tips eh :roll:
95 G-Ltd 1.8
Image
Hardtrack
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:39 pm

Next

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron