I'm fine with spinning this off into another thread, we're detracting from the important parts:
-The new Miata looks really good.
-It's very light, and that's GREAT.
-The engine has been pushed back, and looks like it is now completely behind the axle line, and this is GREAT.
-It's using Skyactive principles, which means it will still have great economy.
... and if they made a coupe version they'd sell tons of both of them 
The screen is not pop-up or optional, it will have the required by law in 2016 backup camera.
RX Reven' wrote: Excuse me for interrupting the really good rant fest, I’ll just take a moment… I’m really happy with the exterior…it didn’t get fat, it didn’t do the stupid Mazda fender thing, and it has excellent design continuity throughout….functional, no fuss form with subtle sophistication. The interior is fine though not remarkable except for the passenger cup holder and pop up screen. I tend to go lower end (keep it simple and light) so the pop up screen won’t be an issue. I think the NB was the best looking but this is a close second.
dculberson wrote: I like it, too.. and think the coupe discussions in a thread about a roadster have run their course!
True that. As seen as the latest iteration of a classic (Yes, the Miata should be considered "classic" as it's run time has far exceed that of the Elan and other inspirations), Miata seems to have pretty well nailed it.
jsquared wrote: Why is using high-price cars bogus? Porsche spends only a few thousand more in production costs for the 911 than GM spends on the Corvette, they just market it for $30k more because they CAN. Their profit margins are huge, in the mid-2000s they had more money than most German banks. That doesn't help my budget argument, but it strains credulity to think they spend absurd amounts of money to make the Cayman from the Boxster when they were simultaenously spending boatloads of money on SUV and Panamera development.
Because money? Which is my point entirely?
Porsche and Mazda do not make cars the same way. Which is one reason Porsche cost so much and a reason why they can change things with minimal cost. Is that not clear? Seems pretty obvious to me.
It's not as cheap as you think. And the resulting car that would be both a coupe and spider would end up not being as cheap. Which would reduce the prospective audience my more than the increase in coupe potential.
As I see it.
As for massive potential coupe sales market, what is a good example of a 10k/year over 10 years coupe that is $30-35k? Or half that for half the time, but same cost. If you can find an example of the market, that would be very helpful. Solstace didn't do squat- it came and went. We still are not sure what the BRZ cars will end up doing. Other than that, I can't think of a sports car coupe in that price range in the last decade.
Double that price, and half the volume potential, and you are talking.
BTW, I don't have anything against the idea of a coupe/vert/sedan all on one platform. The GTV you see to the left is the same as a Spider and is the same as the Berlina- same engine, suspension, bulkheads, etc. Just length, doors, and top are massively different. Oh, and the relative final cost.
frogy130 wrote: The screen is not pop-up or optional, it will have the required by law in 2016 backup camera.
Back up camera screen can be satisfied by one in the rear view mirror and not having a big screen like that.
But if they have to have to keep the screen, at least make it look like it belongs, and isn't just a docking station.
alfadriver wrote:frogy130 wrote: The screen is not pop-up or optional, it will have the required by law in 2016 backup camera.Back up camera screen can be satisfied by one in the rear view mirror and not having a big screen like that. But if they have to have to keep the screen, at least make it look like it belongs, and isn't just a docking station.
if I ever buy one, that thing is getting ripped off somehow.
As a typical jaded internet non-buyer, I'd still buy it and just figure out something clever instead.
alfadriver wrote: Porsche and Mazda do not make cars the same way. Which is one reason Porsche cost so much and a reason why they can change things with minimal cost. Is that not clear? Seems pretty obvious to me. It's not as cheap as you think. And the resulting car that would be both a coupe and spider would end up not being as cheap. Which would reduce the prospective audience my more than the increase in coupe potential. As for massive potential coupe sales market, what is a good example of a 10k/year over 10 years coupe that is $30-35k? Or half that for half the time, but same cost. If you can find an example of the market, that would be very helpful. Solstace didn't do squat- it came and went. We still are not sure what the BRZ cars will end up doing. Other than that, I can't think of a sports car coupe in that price range in the last decade.
Sell the coupe for $2k-$3k or whatever more than the roadster. Solstice is valid, upper management SNAFU and corporate restructure is what killed it, not the car itself. Lower-end: Nissan made a 'vert out of the 350Z and kept costs down, harder/costlier conversion than vert-to-hardtop like I've mentioned a million times. RX-7 FC vert, S13 240SX vert, Mustang/Camaro, I could go on. Plenty of low-cost cars with both configurations. Making the 'vert is harder, so if you have that already, it's less expensive/easier to make a coupe from it, than make a 'vert from a car designed as a coupe, so says the manufacturers making those pairs of cars.
RWD sporty Coupes under $35k: 350Z/370Z, Genesis Coupe, FRS/BRZ, RX-8, BMW 128i... the RX-8 died because of the rotary but the FRS/BRZ are selling like gangbusters.
The new 3 has a similar screen that doesn't look like it belongs, fold up, and cannot be optioned away.
I think my 2017 purchase decision will be between the FRS and Miata.
I stared at the miata photos for a while and see that they mimic some of the front profile of the NA while stuffing in headlights. Looks a little funny but it is growing on me.
The FRS though has some values that the miata would have to work hard to overcome.
It sounds like IL motorsport should start working on a screen relocation kit now.
I forgot to address the 4-lug thing: my WTF moment was related to the difficulty of finding sufficiently wide wheels in the proper offset back when my 240SX was 4-lug and how many more options there were in 5-lug. Then again, that was about 8 years ago and I haven't shopped 4-lug wheels since then, so maybe my info is out of date 
I don't recall many 16/17 by 8/9 wheels in 4-lug...
Wasn't the 240 4x114 though?
I'm not saying that 4x100 is super awesome in 17xWide or anything, but it's not impossible.
The only good 16" tire out there anymore is a 225/50-16, who knows if that'll be too tall. 16s are dead, which is a little frustrating to me.
EDIT: I could have saved myself a lot of typing if I had just read the last two pages where other people already make most of my points. So, alfa, you don't really need to read this
alfadriver wrote: In reply to irish44j: I am honestly confused by your point. Why? Because you indicate that the Toyota/Subaru car would be significanly more usable. But it's barely any bigger. Granted it has seats beind the driver- but other than some nominal stuff, what can you realistically put there? Can you really carry all the stuff that is on your requirement list?
Again, it's because of the shape of the space. Yes, we can all agree that you can but larger things in a vert with the top down or with no passenger. And that the Miata's trunk can fit a golf bag or two, maybe even with the spare tire in there. But let's use the concrete bags as an example (I make it because I picked up 5 bags in the WRX the other week on the way home from work): In a hatchback, it's not hard to put them "in the back seat..." because the back seat probably folds down, so you just slide them through from the back hatch. Or put a few 6' 2x4s in the back area and between the front seats. The main problem with the Miata is the lack of pass-through from trunk to interior (obviously because the top has to have a place to fold down). So while there is certainly room for the same overall amount of "stuff" as a hatchback, you're limited as to the shape/size of the stuff. Much like older WRX's without the fold-down rear seats were way less useful than the new ones where the seats fold down, for carrying long/bulky items. I can't put a bass guitar in a Miata if my drummer is riding shotgun. I can put a bass guitar in a BRZ if my drummer is riding shotgun, though.
And even so, the nominal Miata is a 2 seat convertable. Why do people think that the car should be a more usable car?
Well gee, why even have a trunk at all? We could all drive around Ariel Atoms since small cars need not have any practicality, right?. To answer the question: because not everyone wants to (or can afford to) have a bunch of different cars for different things. I'd like a small sporty car that has some practicality for my own uses.
It is what it is
ok, I'll quote this for future reference use any time I ever see you post something you don't like about any car. Yeah, it is what it is for sure. And this is the internet, so I can wish that there was a fastback Miata, or that the BRZ was turbo, or that all cars had a stick shift, or that BMW never invented i-drive, or whatever I wish to wish for, lol.
- not some kind utility car, it's a small car for small things carrying small stuff. And every single Miata since 1989 has been like that. For a car that is the highest selling 2 seat roadster of all time, why would ANYONE expect the car to deviate from that model? I really don't understand that expectation.
Just to be clear, I have no actual expectation that Mazda would or will make a coupe Miata. But again, that doesn't mean I can't wish that they did. I find it hard to believe that you've never seen a particular car and said "man, that car would be great and I'd buy one, if only it had......"
For me, what you ask of a car, the Subaru/Toyota car would not be anywhere near my choice, either. If I needed to move 5 50lb bags of concrete, there's no way I would dream of putting them in the back seat. Putting one back there would be beyond painful.
You should probably work on your core strength, then
Then again, I once moved a sleeper sofa 10 miles by strapping it to the bike racks on the roof of my Maxima. So maybe I have strange expectations of what a car should be able to do.
That does bring up another point that a fastback Miata could put a ski rack or cargo box on a roof rack for even more utility
I can see the desire to have a coupe. A nice sport coupe. But it does not take much work to understand that a sporty coupe market isn't very big. And some of that sporty coupe market just wants a sporty car. And by taking the top off the car, you just added the group of people who want a small convertable. That market is big enough to persue. None of that market is going to be capable of running a plant by itself, so the point is to have enough of it to be sustainable and money making.
Yet somehow manufacturers do it all the time. Hell, Nissan took a Murano and made a convertible out of it. Is it profitable? I have no idea. But I bet Mazda would sell far more Miata coupes than Nissan sells Murano Convertibles (or Toyota sold Solaras, or whatever). To take a sedan and make it a vert, a lot of structural reinforcement needs to be done. To take a vert and make it hardtop, from an engineering point of view, seems to me to be a more straightforward task.
Would it be profitable or not? I doubt either of us can realistically say. But when I'm on the web wishing for "my" car that isn't going to be built, I'm not terribly concerned with manufacturer profits.
I would argue that the market is there, as can be seen by the Toyobaru twins. If the Miata is the ultimate car as most on here say it is, then a Miata Coupe would be superior to the Frisbees.
I personally think that the reason the Miata has never been made into a fastback is that it would have destroyed the sales of the RX-7 among the general driving populace (though there would always be the motorsports types who love their rotaries...)
Still, the Miata/MX5 has sold more than any other attempt in that market. Why change it? I think the risk of losing you as a customer is worth getting two others who are happy. IMHO.
I'm not sure why you think of it as an "either-or."
I think you're under the impression that I'm advocating getting rid of the convertible Miata. I'm not advocating "making the Miata a fastback." I'm advocating making "a fastback version." So I don't see how that would affect people who want a convertible Miata, since it would still be available. The same number of vert buyers will buy a Miata convertible regardless. But you add a market (small or large) who doesn't want a vert, and add them to the vert sales. Hell, charge a premium for the fastback version if you want to. I'll pay a few $k more for a Miata with a fastback, personally.
How many BRZ or FRS buyers would have bought a fastback Miata instead if it were available? I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet some of them would.
It's all academic, of course. But if we can't "wish for" things on cars that we personally want, then car discussions would be pretty damn boring.
And just for the record: The coupe/fastback discussion is not me trying to discount how good the new Miata looks or probably performs. I think it's the best Miata yet, based on the limited details available. Were I someone who wanted a vert, it would be at the top of my list for sure.
The discussion of a fastback/coupe version isn't to discount the Miata as-is. It's just discussing having a different version of it that would suit my own tastes (which are the only tastes that matter to me and my checkbook 
)
I don't really get why people act like it's heresy to talk about a non-convertible Miata though. The Miata isn't some kind of sacred vehicle where making another version of it would "ruin the automotive world." Around this site most people seem to love oddball/limited-production versions of other mass-produced cars. One would think that taking a proven chassis and making other versions of it would be right up your respective alleys, whether it be a shooting brake, fastback, 2+2, or whatever. IDK.
Ok, it's Friday and I have to burn up 15 more minutes before my boss (me) will let me go home. On the coupe:
I used to be an avid outdoor sports enthusiast: Snowboarding, surfing, kayaking, mountain biking. What's common to those things? Gear!Throw in golfing, fishing, and about 50 other sports that I don't actively participate in and a hardtop - especially a shooting brake version is exponentially more useful than a convertible. That's the irony of a roadster. They call them sports cars, but the only sports that they facilitate are driving and minimalist ones like running. Drive up highway 1 along the California coast sometime and guess what? Almost no vacationers are driving convertibles. Why not? Crappy utility. Now what vehicle would be perfect for a couple that wants to spend a long weekend wine tasting, touring and say, scuba diving? A Z3 coupe. That's what.
Now let's do demographics: Americans are going to be retiring in droves as boomers throw in the towel on working. Their kids are gone, so why not ditch the big house for small and the SUV for a...Miata coupe. Duh!
I wasn't a "convertible guy" until I got my NA. I have enjoyed going topless a lot more than I expected.
They should offer a removable fastback or shooting brake hard top for the ND. 
While you guys continue to argue about a coupe or fastback Miata variation,
I'm wondering if they will have a sport suspension package for the first or second year of production.
They did give me/us an aggressive style I was predicting.
bgkast wrote: I have enjoyed going topless a lot more than I expected.
glad to hear you're enjoying a certain amount of personal freedom, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the Miata :)
Seriously though, renting an NC and heading to the coast with the wife for the weekend was an absolute blast and a ton more fun than any other car I've ever owned. I'm looking forward to possibly buying my very first new car , the ND, and having more experiences like the ones we had with the NC rental.
I'm not weighing into the ongoing argument about shooting brakes or coupes based on the Miata as its all but ruined this thread since its wave after wave of negativity on top of the negativity surrounding the reveal. Honestly, some of you dorks will argue about the color of the sky and it just gets tiring trying to avoid it and actually enjoy the forums.
That render of the shooting brake ND takes my breath away. That's all I need to say.
Any pricing guesses? I would venture $26k for the base model.
I hope it's offered in some real colors. Not the reds, and grays that the current Miata is offered in. It's bound to be hugely successful and I'm sure a hardtop will be optional. I say ~25k for the base as well + plus some ridiculous initial dealer mark up.
nokincy wrote: I hope it's offered in some real colors.
Ooooh. Now I'm picturing it in mariner blue and I like that picture a lot.
power and price, they inlaws are already wanting one.
I saw the ND prototype from the youtube reveal driving out in daylight at Laguna Seca yesterday and another non running display model today. The car looks much better in person in daylight than it did on video. A couple of quick observations:
I really like it. More than I expected to.
Interesting that you say that, since I think it already looks good in pictures
And since it's the internet, I'll take my Miata coupe as a shooting brake, in brown with a skyactive diesel 
Wait... what's Mazda's email address? LOL
You'll need to log in to post.
