RFWUK

The main differences between any year MX5 and S2K are - engine engine engine!

They are truly awful in the MX5, not at all befitting the rest of the car, whereas the S2k engine is a sublime piece of automotive engineering.

SCZ4

I wouldn't go as far as saying they're an awful engine, far from it in fact, but they are some what restrained in a factory car, however the Duratec has a great reputation in motorsport now, very tunable, light too!

S2000 engine is awesome, but it's not a patch on say the S54 from a M3 or Z4M, but the Z4M is all about the engine, MX5 about the chassis and the S2000 sit somewhere in between.

bigbramble

I have driven a lot of MX5's and I love them. The only weakness is the engine, it's not really great in any department. I drove a few supercharged ones, they didn't really blow me away either. Great B road car, much easier to control oversteer than the S2k. I thought my 350z handled a bit like a big fat mx5 but the engine sounded MUCH better. I love the S2000 though, I can't really think of anything I would rather have for the money it costs. I have to admit if FD2 Civic type R's ever drop to reasonable money I would have one of those though...

.olli.

Had a 1.6 Eunos, my first ever sports car, and loved it. In fact i wish I had never sold it. I can relate to what the OP is saying, although I never felt the 5 was underpowered. It is just a different experience, difficult to draw a comparison between 2 cars when one has almost double the power of the other!
I do prefer the look of the S vs the 5, although I think my old Eunos looked pretty cool!

Carl2k7

some people do end up in ditches with them

loftust

That's mainly due to idiot owners not understanding that you have to keep the drain holes clear, and periodically clean the rear arches

That said, the mk2.5 (built by ford, and cheaply) is particularly bad...

Expect to see more S2000s going the same way, especially with the lack of basic maintenance that these cars now get as a result of the typical owner...

The S2000 is a grown up version of the MX5 IMHO.


Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Nick Graves

Hilarious avatar, Carl!

The handling is great, the real Mazda engines really not that bad compared to the bag of shite in an MGB or somesuch. Except Ford decontented the Durachocolate, so it's often fragile.

I find the S2000 has a nicer engine and better handling, once you've braced the chassis. It's kinda the next 'level', if you will.

But like the GT86, (more useable but less nice engine and slightly more imprecise handling than the S2000) there's nothing at all wrong with an MX-5 if you like the limits at a slightly less licence-endangering speed.

adz9

Ive had several of both now and fully agree that the MX is MUCH more forgiving than the S2000. One thing that had to be said though is that the S2000 is super sensitive to geo so if thats not spot on it will never be as progressive as you'd like. The yellow one I had was almost like an MX5 I would say. A little understeer bto warn of a slide before letting go.

sharifrb

I've had three MX5's. First one was a MK2 Isola, 2nd a MK2.5 SVT Sport and the 3rd a MK1 Eunos Roadster:



Really loved the mariner blue one, was a lot of fun even though it was only a 1.6.

I found the MX5s were much more forgiving when it came to getting the back end out. They were a lot of fun to drive but definitley needed more power.

I was quite disappointed with the MK2.5 SVT Sport, I had that car for a month, two weeks in the bodyshop getting the rust sorted and then sold it on.

I have found with the S2000, I still haven't found it's limits, as I know these cars need to be treated with respect. I'd rather take it on a track to experience it's true potential. I guess it doesn't help that my cousin wrote his one off so that is always in the back of my mind.

With the S2000 it has caught me out twice with the back end coming out unintentionally (due to wet/greasy roads) but luckily I corrected it.

Rickard1982

80kgs my bottom you at least 100 kg hahaha