Mazda has revealed an “Accessories Design Concept” of the new Mazda MX-5 at the 2015 Chicago Auto Show. The Ceramic Metallic white showcar wears an aero kit and bigger wheels and brakes.
The aero kit includes a front air dam, side sill extensions, rear bumper skirt and a rear lip spoiler. The gloss-black add ons are similar to those found on the 2016 MX-5 Global Cup Car that debuted at 2014 SEMA.
The sportier exterior is matched by 17-inch forged BBS alloys wrapped in 205/54 tyres. 17s? Yes, the new MX-5 is all about shaving the grammes and going back to basics, which is why the roadster – over 100 kg lighter and close in size to the Mk1 – comes with just 16-inch alloys as standard. Behind the black rims are Brembo brakes with red brake calipers.
There’s also a luggage rack not shown here. Made of carbon fibre and weighing less than 900g, the rack mounts to the trunk and includes an integrated high mount stop lamp.
To go on sale this summer in the USA, the American MX-5 will be powered by a 2.0 litre Skyactiv-G four-cylinder engine. The naturally-aspirated unit will produce 155 hp and 200 Nm of torque, paired to six-speed Skyactiv manual and automatic transmissions.
The rest of the world gets a 1.5 litre high-compression direct-injected SkyActiv-G petrol engine with 129 hp at 7,000 rpm and 150 Nm at 4,800 rpm. It’s based on the unit that powers the Mazda 2 (114 hp at 6,000 and 148 Nm at 4,000 rpm) but with specific tuning. Power goes to the rear wheels via a six-speed stick shift, or an auto for the cop outs.
Mazda MX-5 on location in Spain
Mazda MX-5 at Paris 2014
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
What is the power to weight ratio?
Wondering who is the target group to sell this car…?
Or it is just for the brand.
Is a good car no doubt.
But for the handling, power, comfort and space, better get our 86!
Those who bashing 86, mostly never even sat into one.
86 is boring, torque only 200Nm, people want 500Nm!
compare apple with apple la smarty pants. what do you expect from a 2L NA engine??? if you like turbo engines withe lead-like throttle response, go ahead la. some people happen to like the idea of pin sharp engine response at any rpm in any gear and putting back the fun factor insted of just going faster.
How come the USA only gets the 2.0 goodness whereas the rest of the world have to live with only a 1.5.
Because the RON rating is the US is much lower than in the rest of the world. They have RON87 to RON91 which cannot be used in a high-compression engine.
2.0 litre with 155hp and 200Nm is more or less low tech made for USA.
They have up to RON 94 (gasohol – 10% ethanol) mix lah. Thats even higher than our local RON 97. Thier 91 “premium” is equivalent to our 95.
I think you need to live in North America to understand why thier cars typically have bigger engines.
First of all, their highway on-ramps are very short. And the drivers all drive at or boyond the speed limit, even on the slow lane (even trucks) .If you have an underpowered car, good luck trying to merge in. I had a friend in San Fran that has a Civic Hybrid. Dreads driving it everyday.
2nd, American drivers are used to low reving engines with much of the torque in the lower torque band. Even Honda had to revise the F20 in the S2000 from 2.0L to 2.2L and drop the high rev limit.
Secondly, why would you call a 2.0 with 200NM torque low tech? I would hazard a guess that the low HP numbers could only mean one thing, max torque would be nice and low, and on such a light car, it would be lively and fun. Don’t get hung up on the HP number.
In the US RON94 is higher than RON97 in the rest of the world?
So possibly in the US 150hp is higher than 200hp in the rest of the world? :D
Why would I call a 2.0 with 200NM torque low tech? Because even in the US Ford is offering a 1.5 EcoBoost engine with 240Nm? (Don’t whine that Mazda is not able to build an equivalent turbo engine, it’s neither my not Ford’s problem).
You can’t say this 2.0 engine is lower tech just because it has lower hp. 1.5 ecoboost is a turbo engine as oppose to N/A. Different car manufacturer have different idea and don’t tell me you don’t know Mazda build turbo engines. It’s not about turbo anymore, its about the total package. We all know how thirsty is this ecoboost engine which many early presumption it must be economical.
US uses PON (posted octane rating)as thier fuel numbers.
It is different from our local ratings. Read up before trying to sound smart. Make you look silly.
‘US uses PON (posted octane rating)as thier fuel numbers.
It is different from our local ratings. Read up before trying to sound smart. Make you look silly.’
4G63T DSM on Feb 16, 2015 at 10:05 am
‘They have up to RON 94 (gasohol – 10% ethanol) mix lah.’
10am it’s RON and 7pm it’s PON? :D
Nice ! When it reached here will cost RM250k or so, out of reach for the ordinary yet again … Sad
If ~250K, just get a brand new BMW 220i instead around that price or a recond SLK/Z4 that will give you a better ride, quality, luxury and performance.
What a low tech engine it has.
Hope people understand about the concept of this car,this car is about 50/50 Weight distribution,N/A engine,Lightweight and fun to drive like those hot hatchback and its not a rival to Nissan 370Z Roadster or BMW 2 series roadster.
Oh my, I can’t stop noticing that the MX5 dashboard is awfully similar to that of Mazda 2.
Nowadays it’s common to reduce cost. What is so surprising about that? All the German cars interiors look especially similar: BMW with the same layout, Mercedes with the new stupid “add-on” LCD, Audi.
Not to discredit Mazda or upped Honda so much, both have their own unique design philosophy. But Honda HRV/Vezel, the mini-SUV version of Jazz/Fit came with different dashboard design from the platform it was based on. If Honda can design different interior for different models with the same platform, why can’t Mazda. That’s my point.
Anyways, Honda’s MX5 fighter the Beat/S660 prototype has just undergone testing in Japan. Paul, why don’t you cekidaut.
Honda did it doesn’t mean others have to do it. Each company have their own philosophy. That’s my point
Ok lah, to each his own.
my idea is bring both…1.5 for the cheaper entry level (more ppl can buy, good for ppl who want a weekend car, bermaz increase sales), then bring 2.0 also for those who can afford and would like it as a daily car….after all…malaysia has a lot of highways and thats where most of us drive…
Malaysia lots of highways? dont you mean only klang valley. East malaysia has the most annoying stop and go traffic ever…
don complain…cheaper to tax e63 amg over ur side
hmmm….nothing much to expect from Mazda, internal & external design duplication from mazda model yet no variable, probably because of their kodo language adoption.
what…only 1.5 engine? at least it needs a tune up version of 1.5 engine for more vroom vroom experience like suzuki did for their swift sport? how do they justify the price >rm200K then?
Why can’t we have the automatic 2.0 model in the UK in 2015? Plus where is the folding hard top (a manual roof would be fine)? Keep the price down and it will sell loads, price it high and follow the GT86 into low numbers.
The other point is that 16 inch wheels look better than 17 inch ones and should be an option for all models to have. Also that LCD screen looks just awful and needs to be a fold-down or popup so you don’t have to look at it all the time. It’s so, so ugly.