Very nice Mazda
http://i.autoblog.com/2010/08/04/maz...next-gen-mx-5/

 

Wow... 50 mpg in a convertible that's not a hybrid or a diesel.

Guess that answers the questions about what modern technology could provide for economy if it weren't saddled by so much weight. I wonder if they only had to adhere to the emissions and safety regulations of 1989 how much more they could reduce the weight and improve the efficiency.

 

Still heavier than the original but good mileage. As long as the next gen isn't smiling at me

 

what is the cars current weight

 

I never knew these cars were "heavy". I "googled" it and came up with 2410 lbs for the current car. A couple hundred pound diet is impressive on a car so small, especially when you consider all of the newer safety requirements and "required" creature comforts that add weight that the original car didn't have.

It's great it's going to have a 50/50 distribution. I think it looks great and is a really nice evolution. Good job Mazda.

 

It's a focused small sports car with limited power. There is an interesting comment about it from a man who raced a Miata and later upgraded to an S2000.

 

Until we know how that 50 might be achieved, it doesn't mean that much. But it is nice to see Mazda looking at this.

 

Nice to see that they're staying in the segment.

 

I wonder what they mean by "could touch 50mpg".

I can get more than 50mpg in my Camaro (or any other car), at any speed. All I have to do is accelerate to that speed, put in neutral, and coast. If I'm going really slow, I might need to turn off the engine while coasting to hit that figure, but I can still do it.

I'm just saying they're being really vague.

 

Yeah it's like my local caddy dealer that advertises the CTS as 32 mpg or somewhere around there. I looked into it and the EPA says the CTS can achieve 'up to' 32 mpg in an absolute best case scenario.

 

When gas was up to $3.50/gal 'round here all of the local dealers were doing that Corolla's, Civic's, Cobalts, Aveo's, Elantra's, anything Kia (our local kia radio commercials are incredibly annoying and seem to play every 10 minutes!), etc all of a sudden got a lot more fuel efficient

 

I'd suggest ignoring the number, and take it as a qualitative commitment to reduce weight reduce fuel consumption. Most likely, if intended as any sort of test number, it would have been either the more lenient ECE or Japanese test cycle number. Or perhaps US Hwy unmodified.