1994 Mazda Miata Mx-5 Modified To Perfection Immaculate Condition on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Mazda MX-5 Miata Suspension Deep Dive

Full disclosure: I’m a longtime Miata fan. And by longtime I mean since mid-1989, the year I obtained, through a series of fortunate connections, one of the three original Chicago auto show display cars. But this was no blatant attempt to butter up a journalist – I barely knew how to spell the word. At the time I worked for the Department of Defense and was racing SCCA showroom stock on the side. It was destined to be a racecar. I was assured itÂ’d be quick, but doubts surfaced when I arrived at MazdaÂ’s dealer training center to pick it up. “Oh, itÂ’s that cute Elan-looking thing,” I probably said. But my mind was utterly changed when I eyeballed its double-wishbone suspension and other cleverly engineered features hiding beneath its skin. In subsequent years of racing – and eventually restoring – that car, I spent uncountable hours being impressed by it. I can safely say that the new ND Miata (2016 - present) is the best yet. ItÂ’s lighter than it has been in 20 years, and thatÂ’s some trick considering the relentless march of safety requirements and expected convenience features. This car is actually 1.3 inches shorter from nose to tail than my NA Miata, but itÂ’s also 2.4 inches wider and rolls on a wheelbase that is 1.7 inches longer. But it is the suspension that has always made the Miata great. This look under the skin of a 2020 Mazda MX-5 shows why the ND is the best Miata in that arena, too. The fact that this is an RF model doesnÂ’t much matter one way or the other.   As it was the first time I laid eyes on one, things got off to a promising start as soon as I pulled a wheel off. ItÂ’s clear that this is no mere strut suspension, as we can see a coil-over shock and glimpses of aluminum.   The apparent stars of the show are the A-shaped upper wishbone (green arrow) and the L-shaped lower wishbone (white). Miatas have used this layout from Day One, but aluminum didnÂ’t enter the picture until the NC generation.   For 2020, Bilstein monotube shocks (green) come on the Club and Grand Touring models with a manual transmission. This setup was part of the GT-S option package in 2019. The standard shocks are also monotubes, but theyÂ’re not Bilsteins and theyÂ’re tuned a bit softer. The upper control arm (yellow) is mounted low down such that its ball joint (white) resides within the barrel of the front wheel.

Autoblog editors choose their favorite racecars of all time

If you like cars, there is a good chance that you like racecars. There's something about the science and the art of going faster, of competition, of achievement, that accelerates the hearts of enthusiasts. It doesn't matter the series, the team or the manufacturer – there's something about racing that stirs emotions and lifts spirits. It's that way with many of you, and it's that way with our editors. With that in mind, we offer a list of our favorite racecars of all time. Of course, we'd like to hear some of yours in the comment section below. 1970 Porsche 917 Compared to some of the obscure choices by my colleagues, I feel like the Porsche 917 is almost so obvious a pick as to not be worth mentioning. Still, when coming up with my answer, my mind invariably went back to this classic racer – specifically in its blue-and-orange Gulf livery – while watching Le Mans on DVD and later Blu Ray with my dad. Long, low and curvaceous, few vehicles have ever looked sexier lapping a track than the 917. More than just a pretty face, this beauty had speed, too, thanks to several tunes of flat-12 engines over the course of its racing life. In the early '70s, Porsche was a dominant force throughout sports-car competition, and the 917 (shown above at the 1970 24 Hours of Daytona) was the tip of that spear, including back-to-back victories in the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Largely without dialogue or really much of a traditional plot, Le Mans is like a tone poem of racing goodness. While the 917's importance to motorsports history is undoubtedly fascinating, it's still this cinematic depiction of the Porsche racer that draws me in most, especially with the volume cranked. – Chris Bruce Associate Editor 1964 Mini Cooper S How could everyone not be selecting the 1964 Mini Cooper S piloted by Paddy Hopkirk and Henry Liddon? That car, 33 EJB, took the first of British Motor Corporation's four Monte Carlo Rally wins (it should have been five, but French judges got the British Minis [and Fords] disqualified on a technicality regarding headlights... which its own car, the winning DS, was also in violation of). The tiny red car and its white roof beat out Ford Falcons, Mercedes-Benz 300SEs and scores of Volvos, Volkswagens and Saabs. This, along with the several years of dominance that followed, cemented the idea that not only could the tiny, two-tone Mini be a real performance vehicle, but that family-friendly city cars in general could be fun.

Mazda 3 Sedan and Hatchback Luggage Test | Trunk comparison

A major reason for buying a hatchback is for added cargo space and versatility, right? Seems logical enough. It's certainly a reason I've been fond of them over the years. And since so many SUVs these days are just glorified hatchbacks, it certainly stands to reason the buying public has reached this conclusion as well. To test this hypothesis and potentially bust this myth, Mazda kindly provided three vehicles that are virtually identical apart from their body style: the Mazda 3 sedan and hatchback, as well as the Mazda CX-30 crossover that's really just a raised and rebodied 3.  On paper, in descending order, the CX-30 is tops at 20.2 cubic feet of space behind the back seat, the Hatchback has 20.1 cubic feet and the sedan has 13.2. OK, let's see how the order turns out once luggage is used. Here is the 3 Hatchback on the left and 3 Sedan on the right. Immediately, the sedan doesn't look that much smaller than the Hatchback. Actually, doesn't it look bigger? Below is the CX-30.  Note that this CX-30 did not include its rigid cargo cover, but already, you can start to see the difference between 3 Hatch and CX-30. The crossover has more space above the back seat line than the Hatchback. So, even if the 3 Hatch has more cargo area length, the CX-30 has more height. That's why you have virtually equal cargo capacity numbers despite having different spaces.  To that point, let's bring in the bags. As in every luggage test I do, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). CX-30 for the win (above right) as all the bags fit. The fancy bag and smaller roller are slightly blocking the rearward view, but you can still see out and the bags won't fly forward. Importantly, they also fit when closing the CX-30's hatch. They won't if you attempted the same formation in the 3 Hatchback, which can't fit the fancy bag or one of the midsize rollers. And no, you can't fit the fancy bag in the middle there — the hatch wouldn't close on top of it. A smaller duffel will, however.  So, although the 3 Hatch has a slightly longer space, the difference doesn't matter as much as the CX-30's extra height in this usage case.