The next-gen MX-5 Miata thread

[homeforsummer]

So you'd just buy a model from the next class up. It still doesn't explain why the compact has to become less compact.

 

[///M-Spec]

That number one reason also applies to why manufacturers are "unintelligent."

See, I have to disagree. Car companies exist to make money and for no other reason. Therefore I think the only objective standard by which to judge whether a company's decisions are "intelligent" or "unintelligent" is sales. Or more specifically, profitability.

So even though every compact BMW sedan from the 1600 up to the 335i has gained size and weight, calling the entire 02/3-series line "unintelligent" strikes me as a little absurd, given it's huge popularity (and profitability) over the years.

The only time a car maker is "unintelligent" is when they decide to make a car nobody wants. Sometimes, it is because it is too big and heavy. But I think a lot of the time, it isn't.

All of the reasons for adding weight you mentioned other than this one make sense enough, but apart from the desire to make a new car seem "better" by imbuing it with only "positive" qualities (an "increase" always being better than a "decrease," including the way we measure fuel economy), there's no real reason to make a car larger.

I think there several reasons, actually.

One reason is that the vast majority of consumers do not associate a slight increase in size with any negative consequences. But they do love hearing the car salesman say, "look, there's more room in the back" or "the trunk fits three golf bags now". So long as there's no serious penalty for weight for the average consumer (such as price or fuel economy), it is almost always ignored.

Another reason is because people are getting bigger. That's a fact. People are physically larger today than they were in the past. So may actually want a larger car. (yes, I know you think they should just buy the next larger model up, I will get to that in the next section)

Another reason is as people age, they have a tendency to want larger cars anyway (and homes, as well). This is especially true when people have kids. And also when they become more successful in their careers --which many people do as they get older.

I know this is all true for me. 15 years ago, I was happy as a clam in my E30. Today, I wouldn't buy anything that small that isn't a two seat roadster. My priorities have changed over the years. Hell, when I was 20 years old, I was convinced that I'd be happy living in a tiny studio apartment in NYC paying rent for the rest of my life. I'd slap my younger self if I could.

There are already large cars and small cars. Those who want a smaller car will buy a smaller car. Those who want a larger car will buy a larger car.

This is a two part answer. The first part is much longer.

I didn't study marketing in college, but I've learned a little bit about it over the years.

And one of the things I learned is this: It is easier to sell something to an existing customer than to find a new customer. Ergo, it is easier to get somebody to buy a brand new Honda Civic if they already have one.

"Okay, but why make the Civic bigger?" you might say.

Because a certain percentage of those Civic owners who want a new car probably wants one because they want more room. Maybe they are having children. Maybe they gained 30 lbs. Maybe they're just tired of having their friends look at their back seat and saying "erm, let's take my car instead".

And you might reply, "well if they want a bigger car, there's always the Accord."

And here comes the part where consumer psychology comes into play. I think there is a strong tendency for people to name identify and stick with what they are used to. So when 22 year old Jane Doe wants a new car to replace her beloved Civic, which she's had since high-school and loved, she wants another Civic. In other words, she is looking for an experience that is just like her last (provided it was a positive one), and she has associated the name with that experience.

Yes, it would be logical for her to consider an Accord, especially if she is making more money now and can easily afford the upgrade. But she has no experience with the Accord, even though it's another Honda. She might even have a negative association with the Accord, possibly thinking it's a car for older people --not a hip youngster like herself. Or maybe she doesn't care for the more conservative styling. Or maybe it's just TOO big. (seriously, have you seen a new one, they're monstrous)

Whatever the reason, I think car companies spend an exorbitant amount of time and effort into researching things like this. I think it's clear that instead of trying to shuffle people from the youngster Civic to the mom and dad Accord, then to the geriatric Avalon ---trying to move the customer from product to product as their needs and desires change-- They realized that changing the product to suit the customer over time is the better way to go.

And when you consider just how many Civics Honda has sold over the years, how can you argue with that strategy?

I'll use myself as another example. I went through 3 generations of BMW 3-series, E30, E36 and E46 ---over 15 years. If they had kept the 3er the same size all these years, I probably would have jumped ship 7 years ago --about the time my wife and I decided to have kids. I would have needed something larger than an E30, but the 5-series was too large for me at the time. Luckily, the E36 was just big enough to get me by, and the E46 gave me some very welcome room in the back. So for me, the sizing strategy was a complete success.

I promised a second part to my response. I think I'll wait till later to write it... I've rambled on long enough already


M

 

[harrytuttle]

I've never understood why cars in their own classes have got bigger, beyond simple marketing reasons. People have always been able to simply buy a bigger car from the same manufacturer if they needed it, so there is no engineering reason at all as to why a model should get bigger with each replacement.

Marketing is only half the reason cars get bigger. Sure, it feels nice when return buyers get "more car" the next time around, but they're paying more for it anyway. Inflation, at the very least, takes care of that.

The other half of the reason is ever-increasing safety regulations. Larger bumpers, crumple zones, pedestrian "soft impact" areas, strengthened door frames, airbags, more sound deadening, more...stuff. Yet at the same time the passenger space needs to be the same. That means the increase in mass can only go one direction: outwards. Compare a 1990 325i to one from 2008. Pretty much the same interior space, but huge differences in exterior dimensions, not to mention the increase in weight.

The reason this effect is limited for Porsche is that, well, they just try harder. They make fewer cars, charge more for them, and generally just think things through better. Another example is the Mazda2 (getting slightly back on topic). Smaller and lighter than the previous version, yet still meeting all revised safety standards. They simply tried harder. Any monkey can follow the regulations and market desires to the letter by just slapping things together (*cough*Toyota*cough*) but it takes real talent to do it right.

 

[Kryz11]

I wouldn't. Hey I know, let's make our simple sports car complicated, expensive, thirsty and peaky!

Its not like I said to replace all models, just make it few special limited edition every new generation. Hardcore fans would buy them. As well they would dominate the I4s.

 

[niky]

That's basically the whole auto-industry in one post, actually.

I'm one person who would never consider buying an Accord or Galant-sized vehicle. Too big, too expensive for my needs. I went through a (front-drive) Ford Escort, a few generations of Sentra and then on to the Protege... and I'm actually thinking the new Lancer looks like a sensible vehicle.

Here we have a car that's just as big, in every dimension, as a 1989 Mitsubishi Galant. But I'm considering it because it's still being sold at compact prices, with halfway-decent fuel economy and it's got a nice big back-seat.

And it manages to be big inside, despite meeting safety requirements that make the back seat of most compacts seem as restrained and tight as an older car with a roll-cage by being bigger outside. Strange thing is... it matches that old Galant in size, presence and power while being safer and not any heavier. I think the fact that you can now buy a midsized sedan for compact money should be a reason for people to celebrate... if gasoline didn't cost so damn much.

The Honda Fit is another car that illustrates how the increase is partially marketing driven... it's heavy, yes... at about 2200 pounds... for a supermini... but this car is enormous on the inside, due to good packaging. Superminis of a generation ago couldn't carry nearly half the cargo the Fit can. In fact, it's much bigger than our Ford Escort of 25 years ago... the one that grew up into our current Protege... and it's something I'm still considering as a next car.

RE: Porsche: Doesn't count. Limited run sportscars with incredible price tags can also have an incredible amount of engineering, exotic materials and high tensile strenght steel built into them. Build your Ford Focus or VW Golf as stiff and as strong as a Porsche and it'll be a porker... oh... they are... build them to be as stiff and as strong but as light as previous compacts (say, in the 1100 - 1200 kilogram range) and they'll be as expensive as a Porsche. If you want to do it rather cheaply... you can... but it requires a whole lot of re-engineering and giving up a lot of refinement. Your Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla is about 100 kgs (200 pounds) lighter than a Focus or Golf, but they don't feel even 1/2 as solid. And that shows up in the way they drive, too. The Civic requires a stiff suspension to handle as well as a Focus (the Corolla doesn't even try)... whose ultra-stiff chassis allows for soft suspension tuning without ruining handling.

 

[homeforsummer]

The other half of the reason is ever-increasing safety regulations.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time we have small cars now getting very high safety ratings (like the Mazda 2). Obviously a big car that scores high ratings is almost always going to be safer than a small car that scores high ratings, but if they can make small cars safe too, then there's little reason for small cars to grow bigger, for medium cars to grow bigger etc (beyond the great point that ///M-Spec made above about customers wishing to stick with what they know).

 

[niky]

Actually, that's a big "it depends" on the ratings. For one, pickups have an absolutely dismal crash-protection rating on the EuroNCAP, due to greater cabin deformation than most subcompact cars.

Mass in a crash is less important than the question of how much of that mass is crash structure, and the tensile strength of that crash structure. With bigger vehicles, that heavy AWD, large rear cargo area and big engine don't have anything to do with how well the crash cell around the passenger copes with compression in a head-on collision... though admittedly the extra mass can absorb kinetic energy, they don't always do so, and sometimes that extra mass adds that much more force to an accident.

I guess we won't actually know unless someone crashes two five-star cars of different size categories together to see which comes off worse-for-wear.

 

[TheCracker]

I guess we won't actually know unless someone crashes two five-star cars of different size categories together to see which comes off worse-for-wear.

I guess that some of that comes down to the relative velocity of the vehicles involved. A larger and therefore probably heavier 5-star vehicle traveling at 30mph will probably come off better in a collision with a smaller, lighter 5-star vehicle also traveling at 30mph. But will the same be true if the larger car is traveling at only 15mph and the smaller one at 45mph? - this is probably a more real world scenario.

 

[///M-Spec]

Compare a 1990 325i to one from 2008. Pretty much the same interior space, but huge differences in exterior dimensions, not to mention the increase in weight.

As the former owner of an 1986 325 (same E30 chassis as a '90 325), I can say unequivocally that the E90 is huge on the inside compared to the E30. Every generation of 3-series has gained interior volume compared to the previous. That's a fact.

In fact, the E90 has comparable interior volume to the previous generation 5-series (E39). From cars.com:

E90 (3-series sedan '06+) interior pass. volume: 93.0 cu.ft.
Front legroom: 41.7"
Rear legroom: 34.2"
Front headroom: 38.5"
Rear headroom: 37.5"
Front shoulder room: 55.4"
Rear shoulder room: 55.1"

E39 (5-series '97-'05) interior pass. volume: 91.0 cu.ft.
Front legroom: 41.7"
Rear legroom: 34.2"
Front headroom: 37.4"
Rear headroom: 37.5"
Front shoulder room: 58.0"
Rear shoulder room: 58.5"

In my E30, if I adjusted the driver's seat to a comfortable position, my rear seat occupants would invariably bump their knees into the back of my seat. In fact, they wouldn't even get in the back unless I moved my seat up.

The E36 was a bit better in that regard, but still tight. The E46 was another incremental, but useful improvement. With the E90, I'm positive only tall occupants (6 footers plus) would have a problem --I'm 5'11" and have no trouble 'sitting behind myself'.


M

 

[Wolfe]

@///M-Spec: I understand that manufacturers are out to make a profit, and I understand the reasons why consumers respond to the way manufacturers do it now. You don't even have to get into the psychology of brand/model loyalty to explain that people like it when a newer car is larger.

However, the method you've described is short-sighted because eventually you reach a point where the car can't really be made any larger, and/or is too large to sell well. So what do they do? Bring in a smaller model and start the cycle over again.

Manufacturers are just chasing short-term profits that they'll lose when the model becomes too large, and creating "lulls" in model lineups between when a model becomes too large and when its compact replacement arrives. Again, I believe they would be better off sticking to a certain size. Yes, cars like the modern 3-series and Civic have sold well, but if the Accord and 5-series were the same size and price, I think they would do just as well. Model loyalty is strong, but so is the allure of "higher-class" cars. Also, that same model loyalty would still assist the sales of smaller cars. If you want to buy a Civic solely because it's a Civic, the fact that it's just as large as the one you already have isn't too daunting of a hurdle.

I'm not saying my idea is unequivocally the best, but I think both it and the current method are at least equally justifiable.

 

[Tornado]

However, the method you've described is short-sighted because eventually you reach a point where the car can't really be made any larger, and/or is too large to sell well.

Or (as Honda keeps doing over and over) when one model keeps increasing in size to the point that it crashes into an equivalent model sold by the company that doesn't.

 

[homeforsummer]

Or (as Honda keeps doing over and over) when one model keeps increasing in size to the point that it crashes into an equivalent model sold by the company that doesn't.

Am I to assume that the current Civic 4dr is roughly Accord-sized? The Civic sold over here is still smaller than the Accord, if anything it's one of the smaller cars in the class. The current Golf is probably the biggest lump of a car in the class.

 

[Famine]

VW have a neat trick - all of their cars get bigger until they reach a point when they have to introduce a new small car the same size as the last one...

The Fox is similar in size to the Mk1 Lupo, which is similar in size to the Mk1 Polo, which is similar in size to the Mk1 Golf - and the Mk5 Golf is comparable to the Mk1 Passat...

 

[homeforsummer]

You're right on that one. If anything, the Fox is bigger than the Lupo so their city cars are obviously growing already. I saw a Fox parked next to a Ka yesterday and it towered over it.

 

[harrytuttle]

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time we have small cars now getting very high safety ratings (like the Mazda 2). Obviously a big car that scores high ratings is almost always going to be safer than a small car that scores high ratings, but if they can make small cars safe too, then there's little reason for small cars to grow bigger, for medium cars to grow bigger etc (beyond the great point that ///M-Spec made above about customers wishing to stick with what they know).

The problem with that argument is that the Mazda 2 is the lone exception. All other small cars -- both here in the US and in Europe -- are getting bigger. Ratings go up directly in proportion to size. This, of course, only fuels the misconception that bigger equals safer, which is part of what pushed the SUV boom in the 90's.

There are almost always better ways to improve safety that don't involve adding mass or weight, but most companies just take the lazier, cheaper way out.

VW have a neat trick - all of their cars get bigger until they reach a point when they have to introduce a new small car the same size as the last one...

The Fox is similar in size to the Mk1 Lupo, which is similar in size to the Mk1 Polo, which is similar in size to the Mk1 Golf - and the Mk5 Golf is comparable to the Mk1 Passat...

Don't they all do that?
Focus -> Fiesta re-introduction
Civic -> Fit/Jazz
Corolla -> Echo/Yaris
Sentra -> Versa/Megane
330i -> 130i

... I'd mention more American companies, but apparently they forgot that segment (see: GM Going Bankrupt! and Chrysler Fire Sale).

 

[Famine]

Don't they all do that?
Focus -> Fiesta re-introduction
Civic -> Fit/Jazz
Corolla -> Echo/Yaris
Sentra -> Versa/Megane
330i -> 130i

To a degree - but it took most of those quite some time to match the size of their bigger siblings. The Yaris/Jazz/1-series are all late 90s/early 00s successors to their larger, 70s predecessors (the Fiesta exceeding the Mk1 Escort only with the 2002 Mk6), whereas VW have to introduce a new small car the same size as the Mk1 version of an existing name every decade.

 

[EA11R]

Erm, honey, I shrunk the Miata.

I see. Very well then, carry on.

If Mazda can lose 100kg off a supermini (the 2) then I see no reason why it's unacheivable in a 2-seater sports car that's designed to be light. Hell, I mean the Mazda 2's quoted weight is something like 1030 KG for the 1.3 - Mazda are wanting the MX5 presumably between 50-90kg lighter than this, and the 2 has a roof, airbags everywhere, extra seats, way more glass etc - it should be easy!

But the Miata is topless, so doesn't it have to have girders and tree trunks in the structure? But I digress.

 

[Famine]

If it were a coupe with the roof cut off, yes. Since it's a bespoke roadster, no.

 

[the Interceptor]

But you still have to build a roadster to be stiffer than a coupe, right?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Well...

You may need to put a bit more into it to make it stiff enough but it's generally not as much as a full roof would add if the car was designed as a roadster.

 

[ExigeEvan]

But you still have to build a roadster to be stiffer than a coupe, right?

But when designing it as a roadster you can take a different route in designing a chassis to if you were designing a coupe. So while it may be a little heavier, not as much as a converted coupe to roadster.

Now most companies won't take the financial burden of designing 2 seperate chassis, so will "patch up" the coupe once they chop the top off it. To memory the DB9 roadster's chassis was designed in parallel to that of the coupe.

 

[niky]

The Elise comes to mind as something not necessarily lacking in structural integrity despite the lack of a roof.

Of course, the Miata does feel stiffer with the hardtop on.

 

[CodeRedR51]

According to this, Mazda wants the designers to get the new Miata down to 1,760 pounds! (~ 800kg) Rumors of a 1.4 liter turbo engine mentioned as well...

Now, I'm all for super small and light weight, but I think that target is unattainable. I think if they could get the car down to around 2,200 pounds it will be a success. Also depends on the power output of that 1.4L engine, although if it is factory turbocharged the aftermarket can solve a lacking power problem pretty quickly.

 

[Dan_]

Eight hundred kilos? What about being compliant to current safety tests and keeping the price reasonable? I don't think it's doable but if they do pull it out, it will be a instant hit.

 

[Crispy]

1.4 litre, lighter, TURBOCHARGER! This car is going to fly faster than time itself.

 

[JCE]

If they manage to get the weight down while keeping the current bloated size and safety regs I'd be seriously impressed. Plus the thought of a turbo is a good one, just need to put it on something more than a 1.4L.

Screw all that, just make one that I can comfortably fit in along with some faster acceleration and I'd recend my hatred for it.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'd be happy with something around 2,000 lbs and the use of the 2.0L SkyActiv engine from the Mazda3. It would at least keep things interesting, and would be much less of a radical departure than what they currently are suggesting.

 

[CodeRedR51]

If they manage to get the weight down while keeping the current bloated size and safety regs I'd be seriously impressed.

Pretty sure they are already committed to making it much smaller than the current car. More like the size of the original.

 

[JCE]

Pretty sure they are already committed to making it much smaller than the current car. More like the size of the original.

Then my hatred continues! I cannot even comfortably fit in the new one.

 

[mPWRD]

Then my hatred continues! I cannot even comfortably fit in the new one.

Me neither. And can anyone explain the "cleaner" part?