MX5 - Which is most fun?

scaredofdebt

I used to own a Mk 2 MX5 which was a lot of fun to drive.

I am thinking about getting another one, I had to sell mine a few years ago.

Has anyone driven the various marks, is the Mk I, Mk II or III the most fun?

I could test drive them all myself but if I can save a bit of time then it would be handy.

Money isn't an issue, I can afford a Mk3 if that's the way to go.

Before the boy racers turn up, I know the MX5 isn't a fast car, I am not going to be racing anyone in it!

marlot

Suggest you try the mx5 owners club. You could go along to one of their meets and see all the cars together, chat with owners etc.

I'm very happy with my mk3.5, especially since I got the suspension properly set up.

hollie.weimeraner

As marlot says get onto the owners club website and chat on there. Personally I owned a silver MK1 Harvard and then moved on to a mint Mk2 2000 (W) Icon.

The Mk1 was more of a "fun" car to drive but the Mk1's are now getting a bit long in the tooth and you'll be lucky to find one without any of the notorious rust problems just in front of the rear wheel arch. (Mk2's also suffered from this but to a leser extent). The Mk2 was my favourite as it was a slightly less "go kart" ride and was definitely more refined.

Also bear in mind if you plump for a Mk2 after around 2000/2001 you will pay £460 per yearcar tax.

I can't comment on the Mk3 as I never drove one but they just seemed a bit too modern for me when I went to look at them. The UK registered models also need lowering but you'll find out more about that on the owners club site.

Whatever you choose though they're fantastic cars with a real feel good factor in the sunshine

JQ.

Hollie, I'm afraid you're wrong in your assertion that Mk1's rust worse than Mk2's - the opposite is in fact the case. Mk2's and Mk2.5's are far more prone to rust than Mk1's as they downgraded the quality of steel in '98. I've seen plenty of 2005 Mk2.5's with rotten sills and arches. However, no matter, what age you're looking at OP, rust is one of the most important things to look at - sills, arches and rear bootlid.

Also tax on Mk2's is £270pa not £470.

OP - test drive them all. Everyone has differing opinions and it's you who will have to live with the car.

As Hollie says the Mk1 is raw and go-kart like, the Mk2 is a bit more refined and the Mk3 is even more refined still. There a few people I know who've moved from Mk1's to Mk3's and love them. If I had the cash I'd probably get a 2.0l Mk3.5 - I currently have a Mk1, having previously owned a Mk2.

Also, try MX5Nutz.com, it's a better resource for technical information than the OC, however, prepared to be flamed if you ask the question which Mk is best as it's been asked so many times before and there's no right answer, the treads just end in arguments between the owners of the respective Mk's as to why their car is best. As stated above you do need to test drive them all as it will be down to personal preference.

Good luck in your hunt, if end up wanting a Mk1 or Mk2 you will have to inspect a number of frogs before you find your prince/princess. There are some amazing cars out there, unfortunately there are even more rust buckets, so you just have to patient.

The Owners Club and MX5Nutz are good places to find a better standard of car as they should have been enthusiast owned, but be careful I've noticed a few ad's on the OC from people who've literally only joined to sell their car - so don't assume they's been cared for just because they're on those forums, although your chances are better.

rev_henry

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Also bear in mind if you plump for a Mk2 after around 2000/2001 you will pay £460 per yearcar tax.

No you won't. No cars were that much until 2006, at which point it was the mk3 which certainly isn't that much.

JQ. wrote: »

Also, try MX5Nutz.com, it's a better resource for technical information than the OC, however, prepared to be flamed if you ask the question which Mk is best as it's been asked so many times before and there's no right answer, the treads just end in arguments between the owners of the respective Mk's as to why their car is best. As stated above you do need to test drive them all as it will be down to personal preference.

:rotfl: Standard forum behaviour. My father has owned all 3, just recently got rid of his mk3. I'll see what he says - I'm sure he'll buy another soon.

motorguy

I'd a mk 2 and it had serious rust problems.

'Found' a 1989 mk 1 at the start of the year for £700 on gumtree. Great little car. Would recommend a mk 1. £1500 will get you a very servicable and easily sold mk1.

hollie.weimeraner

rev_henry wrote: »

No you won't. No cars were that much until 2006, at which point it was the mk3 which certainly isn't that much.


:rotfl: Standard forum behaviour. My father has owned all 3, just recently got rid of his mk3. I'll see what he says - I'm sure he'll buy another soon.

Sorry about that wrong figure. From 1st March 2001 onwards the tax is £270 pa for the 1.8 engine (Still expensive though).

A._Badger

Mrs Badger has owned several and opines that the Mk 1 is the best - closer to the concept. All I know is that having sneered at them from afar, I am now a complete convert. Wonderful cars!

Hoof_Hearted

Had a Mk 2. Still miss it. Great fun (especially on ice). Never had a rust problem -- V reg.

goosander

I used to have a mk 2.5 and currently have a mk1. I think the mk1 has more style & character but the mk2.5 is the better car - faster (1.8 VVT), equally good handling and a much better ride (I dread pot holes in my mk1).

The mk1 is good as a cheap fun car but if I was buying again, I'd probably have a mk3.5 though especially if it was my only car.

rev_henry

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Sorry about that wrong figure. From 1st March 2001 onwards the tax is £270 pa for the 1.8 engine (Still expensive though).

Yes indeed, until the mk3, when I guess they tweaked the carbon dioxides...