BBR Mazda MX-5 2018 review - Turbo kit for 1. 5 Miata driven - Autocar
video description
Date: 2022-04-17
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Grey
Clearly the right answer is the just upgraded 2. 0 engine, which makes this kit obsolete at least when it comes to buying a new MX-5 (unless. 5 liters of capacity really makes for a huge taxation increase - hard to imagine. Let me explain.
. having driven the old 2. 0 extensively (and the 1. 5 briefly as well, the first conclusion is that the 2. 0 is already plenty powerful for whatever you want to do on a public road - and very torquey as well. The 2. 0 therefore really doesn't need a turbo, not in a lightweight car like this, especially as whatever extra torque a turbo brings would be offset by the loss of responsiveness it causes low down. In reality you could already drive the 2. 0 in the 2-4k rev range all day long and never want for power. The only trick the old engine does miss vs the 1. 5 (which is where this turbo kit originally made sense) is the ability to really rev out. You just miss that last 1. 000 rpm of rev range, which results in hitting the rev limiter at what feels like an intuitively unnatural (too early) point. Now, you need to drive the nuts off the car or be on track to be able to notice this, but then when you do (especially on track) it's a real (though all in all still pretty minor) annoyance. So that's where a 1. 5 turbo would make sense: you'd have an engine that wants to rev out further, but now with the torque 'in the middle' to be able to enjoy the car in everyday (up to 'pretty fast') driving. The reduced responsiveness caused by the turbo wouldn't be an argument, because the 1. 5 (without turbo) doesn't really have the torque to feel responsive down low to begin with.
However, now that the facelift has arrived, I can't see how it would make sense to buy a 1. 5 and then invest in an expensive turbo kit, while you could have bought the new 2. 0 for a small additional outlay. Maybe for base-spec 1. 5s there is still a case to be made, or for second-hand ones, but even then. The new 2. 0 simply has no disadvantage over the 1. 5 - it revs out for another 700 rpm (pretty much what was missing) and along the way pumps power up to 184 HP (adding little additional torque but that wasn't necessary anyway. Most important of all though, it stays naturally aspirated, which is really what you want in a car like this.
reply
Clearly the right answer is the just upgraded 2. 0 engine, which makes this kit obsolete at least when it comes to buying a new MX-5 (unless. 5 liters of capacity really makes for a huge taxation increase - hard to imagine. Let me explain.
. having driven the old 2. 0 extensively (and the 1. 5 briefly as well, the first conclusion is that the 2. 0 is already plenty powerful for whatever you want to do on a public road - and very torquey as well. The 2. 0 therefore really doesn't need a turbo, not in a lightweight car like this, especially as whatever extra torque a turbo brings would be offset by the loss of responsiveness it causes low down. In reality you could already drive the 2. 0 in the 2-4k rev range all day long and never want for power. The only trick the old engine does miss vs the 1. 5 (which is where this turbo kit originally made sense) is the ability to really rev out. You just miss that last 1. 000 rpm of rev range, which results in hitting the rev limiter at what feels like an intuitively unnatural (too early) point. Now, you need to drive the nuts off the car or be on track to be able to notice this, but then when you do (especially on track) it's a real (though all in all still pretty minor) annoyance. So that's where a 1. 5 turbo would make sense: you'd have an engine that wants to rev out further, but now with the torque 'in the middle' to be able to enjoy the car in everyday (up to 'pretty fast') driving. The reduced responsiveness caused by the turbo wouldn't be an argument, because the 1. 5 (without turbo) doesn't really have the torque to feel responsive down low to begin with.
However, now that the facelift has arrived, I can't see how it would make sense to buy a 1. 5 and then invest in an expensive turbo kit, while you could have bought the new 2. 0 for a small additional outlay. Maybe for base-spec 1. 5s there is still a case to be made, or for second-hand ones, but even then. The new 2. 0 simply has no disadvantage over the 1. 5 - it revs out for another 700 rpm (pretty much what was missing) and along the way pumps power up to 184 HP (adding little additional torque but that wasn't necessary anyway. Most important of all though, it stays naturally aspirated, which is really what you want in a car like this.
reply
Alex
According to Dave Coleman at Mazda North America, the ND was developed only to have the 1. 5 the 2. 0 was a late addition. That-s why the 2019 2. 0 got updated to rev more like the 1. 5 and have more power. I still wish we got the 1. 5 in North America because it was the intended engine. The transmission has had problems handling the power of the 2. 0 so adding more power is guaranteed to break it.
reply
According to Dave Coleman at Mazda North America, the ND was developed only to have the 1. 5 the 2. 0 was a late addition. That-s why the 2019 2. 0 got updated to rev more like the 1. 5 and have more power. I still wish we got the 1. 5 in North America because it was the intended engine. The transmission has had problems handling the power of the 2. 0 so adding more power is guaranteed to break it.
reply
james
Personally I would go for a n/a tuned 2 liter but I can understand the appeal of turboing that engine. Tuning the 1. 5 in the U. K. seams like a strange choice. The 2019 2. 0 looks like a very nice option.
reply
Personally I would go for a n/a tuned 2 liter but I can understand the appeal of turboing that engine. Tuning the 1. 5 in the U. K. seams like a strange choice. The 2019 2. 0 looks like a very nice option.
reply
Speedwelltuning
Incredibly poor review. No emotion, no fun, no acceleration, no engine noise, sedate pootling around. My Springer Spaniel could-ve done a better review, and given it some acceleration.
reply
Incredibly poor review. No emotion, no fun, no acceleration, no engine noise, sedate pootling around. My Springer Spaniel could-ve done a better review, and given it some acceleration.
reply
Daniel
Power weight to ratio is the most important aspect of any sports car, so this is the one to have. the 1. 5 is the way to go imo having driven both engines so with the turbo it will be perfect
reply
Power weight to ratio is the most important aspect of any sports car, so this is the one to have. the 1. 5 is the way to go imo having driven both engines so with the turbo it will be perfect
reply
Riccardo
Nice car, but review lacking excitement and fun. I-m pretty sure that this car is some serious fun to drive, unfortunately it didn-t come through the video.
reply
Nice car, but review lacking excitement and fun. I-m pretty sure that this car is some serious fun to drive, unfortunately it didn-t come through the video.
reply
kaan
talking talking talking and nothing about the power change, nothing about the lifetime of system, nothing about the internal upgrades. just gibberish.
reply
talking talking talking and nothing about the power change, nothing about the lifetime of system, nothing about the internal upgrades. just gibberish.
reply
MLP-Hot-Rod
An MX5 turbo kit? Wow. Like I've not seen a thousand of these already.
Look up the kit Rocketeer sells. Now that is far more interesting.
reply
An MX5 turbo kit? Wow. Like I've not seen a thousand of these already.
Look up the kit Rocketeer sells. Now that is far more interesting.
reply
Neo
what's the point in turbocharging a 1. 5L with no LSD and be always on the line with police insurance ecc?
Just buy a ND2 184
reply
what's the point in turbocharging a 1. 5L with no LSD and be always on the line with police insurance ecc?
Just buy a ND2 184
reply
umur
Very nice review. No exhaust note, no high rev, how the car perform against 2. 0 liter at track. Actually its just talking.
reply
Very nice review. No exhaust note, no high rev, how the car perform against 2. 0 liter at track. Actually its just talking.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
