New Mazda MX-5 target weight 798kg

Article
Gallery

By Brett Davis | June 10th, 2011

The next generation Mazda MX-5 is anticipated to be the lightest model ever, reportedly even undercutting the original 1989 MX-5′s weight (940kg) by more than 100kg.

According to an insider source talking with US publication Inside Line, the engineers heading the next-generation MX-5 development have been given the task of cutting no less than 327kg of weight from the existing model. This means development will be strongly focused towards keep overall weight down to just 798kg.

It seems like a pretty far-fetched task, nonetheless, reports say giving the engineers this target will ensure the next car will be as light as mechanically possible.

Mazda recently announced its new SkyActiv design philosophy which places substantial focus on reducing every model’s overall weight – it has already managed to cut up to 100kg from a range of its passenger models. So it might not be that far-fetched.

The SkyActiv philosophy is not just in search for more performance though, it’s the increased fuel efficiency that comes with it. Less effort required from an engine to push a car’s weight means the engine doesn’t have to be as powerful and doesn’t have to work as hard, in turn, preserving fuel. Like all MX-5s, the new model is expected to offer outstanding levels of driver satisfaction on top of this.

Engine details are a bit hazy at this stage but rumour has it the new model will feature a 1.4-litre turbocharged four-cylinder using direction injection, also implementing SkyActiv technology.

Even if the next MX-5 weighs around the 1000kg mark, surely that would provide ample foundations for an extremely sporty package?

A.S

The current MX-5 weighs 1100kg so if the new sky activ engine setup drops it to 1000kg then it still doesn’t match the original, let alone the 798kg target weight.

The only way i can see them achieving this is to launch a special “lite” edition or something with a stripped out interior and lightweight body panel parts.

I hope they don’t lose sight of the fact that another large appeal of the MX-5 is its affordability.

Phil

They should have a basic entry level version that does without air con, power steering (both of which would trim 50Kgs instantly) and other non essential electric gizmos.

Roadtard

Believe it when I see it – and then I’ll pay homage!
Harry

Awesome. Lotus are going to be out lotused.
Wow

I’ll be amazed if they can strip that much weight out of it. As AS said, surely it would only be achieveable with a stripper hardcore model with no radio/AC, etc.

Aussie bender

Nope – just the adoption of carbon fibre in place of steel panels, aluminium in place of steel suspension parts ect.
ect. It can easily be done if cost isn’t the primary concern.

HJP

If Mazda adapt Lotus’s way, then it may be possible although I doubt it. However MX5 will not be affordable convertible car anymore if Mazda decides to use light components (carbon fibre, magnesium) which are expensive.
Trump

I’m really looking forward to see how this develops. Even if Mazda don’t achieve this target, they will go close, and the technology will flow through to the rest of their range. It raises the bar across the industry.

Exciting times
PoisonEagle

That is great news! I didn’t think this was possible in the modern age. Go Mazda!
j

Maybe the light weight model will be optional- added lightness
http://www.clearimagephotos.com Brayden

Simple Carbon Fiber everywhere dropping 300+kg
Lighter wheels
Lighter panels inside and out
Lighter Windows
list goes on it can be easily done

A.S

Carbon Fibre everywhere might drop 300kgs but it’ll raise the prices to well over 100k… You can get the new BMW 1M for 100k and i know which one i’d pick!

QAZ

definitely not M1

GooSE

As an aside, if cars get progressively lighter over the coming years to improve fuel economy (and performance as a consequence) will they be able to maintain their safety standards. I’m sure a 1750kg falcon hitting an 800kg mx-5 wouldn’t end well for the mx-5

HP

It depends on the crash scenario; sure in a crash between an 800kg mx-5 and a 1750kg falcon, the falcon would be better off.

But what about if they both crashed into a tree or some other solid object; the mx-5 would have a lot less force behind it and as a result would be better off than the much heavier falcon.

Henry F

I’m no expert in this field, but I thought the sudden deceleration into an immovable object is what the biggest problem is.

Aussie bender

Hahaha.
Touche’!
JooberFPVGT

Correct, but the lighter car will have less momentum than a heavier car travelling at the same speed hitting something stationary. The lighter car through its crumpling won’t pass the force to the people inside as much as the heavier car would.

Henry F

Ok, cheers Joober.

Aussie bender

Depends on engineering. Lightweight does not mean weak. It just means lightweight. If it’s built well and from the right materials it might actually prove safer.
Carbon Fiber is 5 times stronger than steel!

Baddass

I read on Autoblog one of their schemes for reducing weight is ditching the glovebox and conventional paper driver’s manual, and replacing them with a shelf and USB stick with the features already on it. I think the second idea has merit, comsidering the number of people with laptops, tablets iPhones etc, maybe an electronic copy is all you need?

Phil

I’m expect the autoblog author has never seen seen or picked up a drivers manual.

They weigh about 500 grams. 100 grams for old basic cars. Ditching them for a digital version will not save weight. Telling drivers to go to the toilet before getting in the car would save more weight.

Baddass

Yeah but for the current MX-5, Mazda engineers reduced the weight of the rear-view mirror by 250 grams. An stupidly small amount, you would think, too small to bother, but when it’s added up with many other weight-saving techniques it can contribute significantly. 500 grams for a driver’s manual is still small, but Mazda would be one of the first to do it, and could use that to their advantage in advertising.

john

at least get rid of 2 exhausts, keep it back to 1
Homer

Had one for 3 years, loved most things about it except the gutless engine. I know all the purists talk BS about the total balance of the car but I haven’t met anyone who owns one who wouldn’t kill for an extra 30KW. Save the weight and drop in the Golf GTi engine. THAT would be a real sports car!

Hung Low

I agree with you, they need more oomph but why bother with the Golf Gti engine when you have the more powerful turbo donk from the Mazda 3 or the Renesis rotary?

Aussie bender

^^^^what he said^^^^
Homer

The lack of torque in the rotary is a bummer, it just doesn’t work as a day to day engine and has to be detuned for an auto. The GTi engine won what? 3 international engine of the year awards and if you really need to, can be tweeked to over 200kw. Splitting hairs really, either way the car is too good to have the engines it has had so far or the proposed 1.4L turbo in the article.

Hung Low

The light weight offsets the lack of torque with the rotary! Whilst it might not be as drivable day to day as a modern turbo 4, it will be a very different and much better drive in the curves and on the track.

A VW engine in a MAzda is ludicrous! The MPS unit offers much more blow out of the box and has not had the recorded engine failures of the Gti engine.

bangel

HHAH more fairy tales , the GTI engine is bullet proof , unlike GM rubbish .
Hung Low

Hey Bungle, google VW Gti engine failures and watch this fairy tale come to life!

Aussie bender

“Hello Holden? This is Ford. Can we please get a supply of V8s to stick in our falcons?”

Stop smoking dude.
Even the 1.4L Turbo will cook in this lil beastie.

Aussie bender

Constructed using carbon fiber composite around a steel safety shell, the BAC Mono weighs in at 540 kg. It is powered by a longitudinally mounted 2.3 liter, four-cylinder Cosworth engine delivering 280 bhp that is coupled to a Hewland F-3 spec 6-speed sequential gearbox.
goodjjp

Just bring rotary inside..Its compact…
And bring future rx series coupe with turbo.
so two model doesnt competite each other
Shak

Seems like very optimistic targets, but if the other SKY models are dropping 100+ kilo, then i guess it may be possible to get it under 800kg. But i cant help but thinking a much simpler task would be to just up the power with a new SKY donk, then the car would still be a lightweight handler, with ample power and good economy and emissions.
Redback

1. Strong
2. Light
3. Cheap

Pick any two.
Devil’s Advocate

One thing the article forgot to mention was that apparently the next MX5 will be smaller than the current one. I have heard they are looking at making it a similar size to the original. If they do that with the “high strenth” steels they have been using lately they should get pretty close if they don’t have things like electric seats etc. Will be interesting to see how it goes…
A

I’m sure it would be fantastic for driving, but I once hit a BMW X3 when I was in a Mini and despite the five star rating the Mini had, it didn’t come off too well. I would hate to think what would happen to you if you hit a Range Rover in a 800 kilogram convertible…

Devil’s Advocate

By the fact that you are still alive means the Mini did quite well, especially against a much larger car. Due to the mini being smaller there would be less area to absorb the impact. To help with this they design it so that it distributes the impact forces more readily around the body. This has an effect of “distorting/creasing” etc the body more in places away from the impact zone, making it “look” pretty bad. Cars are pretty much designed that way now. Everything surrounding the “safety cell” crumples/falls off/creases etc to draw the forces away from the main structure to give the passengers the best chance possible to survive. Who cares what the car looks like after an impact if you get out of it alive with no serious injuries?

However yes, at the end of the day physics is “the law”, so a much larger car will nearly always win when it hits a smaller car. Hitting a solid, stationary object however…..

Car Fanatic

When Jaguar went from the X308 XJ to the all Aluminium bodied X350 model they reduced the overall weight of the car by around 13%.

If the current MX-5 is 1167 kilos, then such a reduction would get it down to 1015 kilos.

If they went aluminium they would still need to find another 217 kilos.

Shak

Remember though, a car wit the Jaguars price tage could mostly absorb he big cost increase associated with all aluminium everything, but an affordable roadster such as the MX-5 has to be just that, affordable.

richard

the fact is that mx5 sales have been on a steady decline for years. I don’t think people actually want a stripped out 2 seater anymore.
I am worried that the designer is talking about targets now. I would have thought the car should be nearly ready for production. T’d current model is nearly 6 years old.

Phil

The MX5 has not been a stripped out car for a long time. It comes with all the normal mod cons you get in a normal car which is why I think they should offer a poverty pack version.

6 years isn’t a long production cycle. The original MX5 went on for over 10 years as have many Merc SL models with both maintaining moderate sales throughout (unlike the Honda NSX which had a simlar long lifespan but they never really sold any).

PeterG

An oldie but a goodie in need of a face lift and a heart by pass.
Wally

Phil, saving 500g is significant. Taking out the owner manual is a good idea. Kerb weight of the vehicle does not include the driver.

All manufacturers are doing mass reduction exercises and every gram is counted – it’s also pushing the boundaries of engineering. I applaud this ambitious target. Other manufacturers should tell us their targets too.

Phil

Well have a glass of water before you go for a drive and you’ll have undone all their hard work!

As it happens you will find the weights for many European cars are done under a ‘eu1′ standard which includes a 68KG driver (yea thats what the average person should weigh without a GUT), 7KG luggage and a 90% full fuel tank. This often means you can trim about 100kgs off the published weight of a European car when comparing against some USA or Jap cars.

500grams by the way, is for a ultra thick manual/s like you might find on a gadget-infested 2011 Merc S class. Your typical corolla or MX5 manual is more like 100grams or less.

I’m not seeing “all manufactuers” doing mass reduction exercises. There are a handful of releases that are a lighter than the previous generation, but on the whole, most cars are still coming out heavier than ever. The latest BMW 5 series for instance, has piled on a massive 200KGS as did the last Corolla.

Voctro

‘Brett Davis’ are you a native Australian? Your Inglish is terrible.
Wally

Phil, not sure where your info is coming from.
Mass reduction is done throughout the design phase. A little bit off many parts adds up to a lot of mass reduction.
Yes cars are coming out heavier all the time, but surely this is not the desire of a vehicle designer. Car companies always want to show a better power to weight ratio on marketing material.