MMTX

1) brought it right and paid cash 2) insurance is cheap 3) 4500 miles, completely unmodified and untampered with 4) never driven in rain 5) in new cosmetic condition, never autox or raced 3-5k miles are very unusual for a Mazdaspeed Miata. I don't even know if they are any left with under 5k on them, but untampered MSM's with low, Tamper with one and you get to lose $6k or more on the sale. And, yes, I have sold cars previously for more than I had in them. including a couple that I put 30-40k miles on. So it can be true.

Hi Steve, I'm not sure what is really wrong with only putting 400 miles on the car. I have a 04 Mazdaspeed Miata that I bought new that still has less than 4500 miles on it. It spends the rest of its life in a temperature controlled garage, being treated better than many humans. I just drive it when I want to, but never did get it to drive much, not did I expect to. I still love the car, and it costs me little to keep it. It also has never been worth less than I paid for it, even including the expenses over the years (insurance, gas,oil). If you really like your Cat, you should keep it, even if you don't get to drive it as much as you want. It sounds like you'll miss it if you sell it. (All IMHO, of course.)

Hi Loren, Looks nice, ominously like another black one we know of... BTW, fender mold done. Full half round. Waiting on some new type mold release I am moving to, so I should be molding a fender next week.

Is it a Seven?... Or a T-Track roadster?...:willy_nilly: The guy who said Yuck! I agree. :puke:

"new" seller is actual seller. A friend listed it for him before. As to the ID plate, it is the same plate, just a better picture. He updated the engine info to what I told him was in the engine bay. Wonder if the seller will continue to insist on a deposit and promise to buy just to drive the car. I could be more sarcastic, but I'll leave that to your imaginations. :banghead: :rofl:

Yes, and much stronger and more durable IMO, although some of the upgraded T9 transmissions should be very durable, but $$$.

I should also note that the Vulcan is not owned by the same person as owns the Robinhood.

I drove down from DFW to look at the Vulcan a few days ago. Fortunately, I had some other business in the Houston area, or I would be even more annoyed. Still, I did drive down to see the car. Unfortunately, I could not find any info on the Vulcan before the trip. It appears to be a rare bird without a home, or a parent anyway. So I make a 50 mile trip (each way) from the location I was staying at to go go check out the car. And that is after the 300 mile trip from Dallas. And the only way the owner will let anyone drive the car is to give him a deposit to buy the car. You have to agree to buy the car before he will let you drive it! He thinks he has some very rare desirable antique. (It was made in November 1997, according manufacturers plate.) He wouldn't even open the hood, or start it. His excuse was that he wasn't a car dealer. He couldn't understand any reason anyone would have to drive the car. You put a deposit down on the car, then you get to drive it. (Deposit not refundable - Or one expensive car rental) The only thing I really found out down there is that it uses Triumph Herald brakes. It looks like Caterham or Birkin parts are not an interchange, so I don't know where or what parts it uses without a lot of matching. He succeeded in scarring me away from it, but really more from him. At this time, I don't even know if it runs. I was there about 10 minutes, left right after he demanded a deposit. As the Brits would sarcastically put it... BRILLIANT!

I always did like out of sync webers. :banghead:

Anyone come up with anything on the NZ Vulcan, other than it is not the 1st officer on the Starship Enterprise?

I got to drive an S2K with the 2 liter Honda in it today. I have written previously that the 2 liter Honda S2000 is really a problem because of the lack of good torque below 5000 RPM. However, I have also written on this site a theory that I have had that the same anemic torque band experienced in the 2600 pounds of the S2000 could actually be an advantage in a 1200-1300 pound Seven. The need to control lots of potential wheelspin off the line and in low speed maneuvers with an engine that produces abundant low end torque can certainly make actual performance suffer, or at the least be much harder to control, even though it can also be a lot of fun. Well, I finally got to test that theory today. The results were better than I would have thought, especially with my dismal tests of 2 L (not 2.2L,which is much better) S2000 Roadsters. First, unlike the experience of the 2600 lb S2000 Roadster, you don't have to rev it high to drive around, nor do you have to stuff your foot in it to get it to move. In fact, at lower engine speeds it feels like a normal motor. So you can cruise around without any feeling like you are either lugging it at low engine speeds, nor do you feel like it will have any problem accelerating from low engine speeds. If you want lots of wheelspin it will still easily do it when provoked, but it is very easy to modulate the throttle to get all the usable power to the ground in the straight or in a sharp turn. It will still happily disconnect 245mm wide treaded racing tires if you want to, but the way the power develops in this engine, you have lots of ability to modulate the throttle. I did find that it was not necessary to run it past 5000-6000 RPM to have an enjoyable, spirited drive that would still be faster than most production cars. And, yes, they really do light up about 5000, but I did find that you didn't have to run it past 8000, well below the redline, to even feel the sticky rubber slip at 80 MPH. (BTW, I did do this in a safe place, on a deserted country road.) In a Seven, that motor really does come into its own. As a plus, the transmission ratios feel reasonably well spaced, the shifter is extremely smooth with very short throws, and even more important, the transmission is very strong and durable. In this last regard, I would consider the Honda 6 speed more like the Nissan rear drive boxes, which can handle up to 700 hp. Having driven the 2L in an S2K, it may not be my all time favorite, but it is right up there. We just need to take them all out of S2000's, where they are doing less good. (kidding) Oh, and if you really want all that low end torque, they are supposed to take nicely to superchargers. Lots of torque by 2500 RPM, I was told by the owner of the car I drove that a supercharged version is still very controllable. He also has the SC. BTW, this may be a very nice simple settup, as the S2000 engine uses the stock EFI and computer. Simple (for EFI) and reliable. 240 + reliable HP, dead stock, but w/o such a careful need for delicate throttle control. I really like the Birkins and Caterhams I driven with Zetecs in them, and felt the power in an SC Stalker was copious, and mostly manageable, but this does seem to be one way (of many) to get the best of both worlds.

I have written previously about the "need to rev for action", as you say, in regards to the 2 liter Honda S2000 on this site and on Miata.net. However, I have also written on this site a theory that I have had that the same anemic torque band experienced in the 2600 pounds of the S2000 could actually be an advantage in a 1200-1300 pound Seven. The need to control lots of potential wheelspin off the line and in low speed maneuvers with an engine that produces abundant low end torque can certainly make actual performance suffer, or at the least be much harder to control, even though it can also be a lot of fun. Well, I finally got to test that theory today. The results were better than I would have thought, especially with my dismal tests of 2 L (not 2.2L,which is much better) S2000 Roadsters. First, unlike the experience of the 2600 lb S2000 Roadster, you don't have to rev it high to drive around, nor do you have to stuff your foot in it to get it to move. If you want lots of wheelspin it will still easily do it when provoked, but it is very easy to modulate the throttle get all the usable power to the ground in the straight or in sharp turn. It will still happily disconnect 245mm wide treaded racing tires if you want to, but the way the power develops in this engine, you have lots of ability to modulate the throttle. I did find that it was not necessary to run it past 5000-6000 RPM to have an enjoyable, spirited drive that would still be faster than most production cars. And, yes, they really do light up about 5000, but I did find that you didn't have to run it past 8000, well below the redline, to even feel the sticky rubber slip at 80 MPH. (BTW, I did do this in a safe place, on a deserted country road.) In a Seven, that motor really does come into its own. As a plus, the transmission ratios feel reasonably well spaced, the shifter is extremely smooth with very short throws, and even more important, the transmission is very strong and durable. In this last regard, I would consider the Honda 6 speed more like the Nissan rear drive boxes, which can handle up to 700 hp. Having driven the 2L in an S2K, it may not be my all time favorite, but it is right up there. We just need to take them all out of S2000's, where they are doing less good. (kidding) Oh, and if you really want all that low end torque, they are supposed to take nicely to superchargers. Lots of torque by 2500 RPM, I was told by the owner of the car I drove that a supercharged version is still very controllable. He also has the SC. BTW, if you're a non-mechanical person, this may be a very nice settup, as the S2000 engine uses the stock EFI and computer. Simple and reliable.

Glad to hear it Dennis, Scott

What about the Focus SVT Zetec, particularly using the original EFI, harness and ECU, which I have seen used in another built car. It worked really well in that car. An aftermarket piggyback is available to tune it like you would a Haltech. Anyone put one of these in a Seven? If so, I'd love to hear from you. I have a low mile SVT available to me. (Too bad I can't use the 6 speed Getrag transaxle in a Seven. Hey baby, nice box.)

Curious, what's wrong with 7500 RPM and more torque?

Yeah, great engine, but in my case, I really don't want an engine that has to run that high. Also, for a street Seven, I'm fine with 180-200hp. That's enough...

I just wanted the thank you for all the information you gave me on your crossflow, which, of course included more info off the newsgroup than what was posted. Thanks MMTX

To clarify for others what I said about the torque band of the F20C, I suspect it might actually be an advantage to have low torque at the low to mid RPM range in a Seven due to less wheelspin at lower speeds. The hp and torque at high RPM's will certainly be most useful once the car is firmly underway.

I just realized it appears you still have both the SC and the NA, according to your signature. Other than being downright jealous :drool: the NA version would be most interesting to evaluate, largely for all the reasons I have already mentioned.

301 hp at 10.5 PSI in a 1.8L is very impressive. Of course, I am comparing that to my L series L18 in a 510, running a much more primitive system. I was using a single SU with water/alcohol injection to get about 350 hp RWHP at 15 PSI. That was on a dead stock crate L18. I was probably "only" getting 250-260 hp at 10 PSI. Programmable EFI certainly makes a difference. Have you ever timed it. 0-60, 0-100 or 1/4, etc. I meant to ask about the little bitty carbon fiber wings on either side of the nose. Do they help much? I am actually expecting to see more downforce on high powered Sevens.

No, I haven't had that pleasure, and that is despite the fact they used to build them in the area. Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I think it is a fine way of getting reliable power in a Seven. I just was not too fond of that engine in the S2000 itself. In addition to what I said about what is really low speed drivability in the S2000, I was not impressed with the difference in the cost of the cars as new. At the time (2001) a new Miata could be had for only $18,200. Meanwhile, I could have paid over $28K for an MR2, about the same for a Z3, and About $30k for a S2000. And the reality was, if I wanted to, even a easy to install supercharger for only only about $3000 would bring the power level up higher than any of those. The total cost was simply far less. Better bang for the buck. Handling is not a Miata weak suit in that class, though my MazdaSpeed has a far better chassis than any other factory Miata I have ever driven. And if where you are attempting to go is a my car (engine, etc.) is better than another because it produces more power, you can go there. Plenty of others in this discussion will, I'm sure, be interested. I just am not that interested myself. I've driven quite a few Sevens with over 200 hp, and I don't really care about more in a street Seven. For a street Seven, 200 hp will easily outrun any reasonably prepared late model street performance car (leaving out even most of the cars barely able to pass a smog check). It's also easy to manage. I don't expect to be testing that, (been there, done that - many years ago ). Anyway, that was much more fun in a turbocharged 510. It's more fun with a car that looks like a sleeper. But it's nice to know a bike or a ZR1 Vette, 911, etc. couldn't get the better of you, just for grins. On the other hand, I'd hate to have a slow Seven. That would be like having Vette with only a 100hp motor. Just not right. BTW, I would love to see your S2K sometime.

Hi Skip, I was hoping to hear from you. I saw your car a few weeks ago on the British V8 online mag. I was very impressed. That is a very clean and tidy looking build. I also liked the fact that the off the shelf turbo manifolds were a direct fit. How much boost in PSI did it take to hit 301 hp? I noticed you are using an intercooler, but are you running water/alcohol injection? So much for the people who think Miata engines can't produce power.

I agree with all the above on the S2000 drivetrain. However, I'm not crazy about motors that have to be run screeching high to get any real torque and power out of them. (Supercharger would completely change this.) The S2000 in stock trim has to be run much higher revs in an S2000 to get going. I remember driving one back in 2001 in comparison to the Miata, the Z3, and the MR2. It was the only one of the three that demanded normal running beyond 5000 rpm. It was annoying to drive normally on the street. I actually compared the S2000 and a base Miata, shifting both at 6500 RPM. I can't remember the exact figures anymore, but the Miata was actually faster than the S2000 when the S2000 wasn't allowed to wrap to over 8000 RPM. It wasn't a fair test, but it was for either one of them in a drag race as both would rev higher, but I wanted to see what the performance was like shifting at somewhat normal RPM's. Further, shifting both cars at 5000 RPM just left the Honda totally useless, while the Miata didn't loose much acceleration at all. With maximum torque of 153 ft pounds at a lofty 7500 RPM, the F20C had nearly useless torque until you wound one past 5000 RPM. The torque band is very peaky. And with maximum power at 8300 RPM with a redline of 9000 RPM, it is running nearly like a bike engine. The fact that the Honda engines have such high piston speeds as they do just screams shorter life. That coupled with the high mileage I've seen in US pulled motors (100-150k) just means it would be best to do an expensive overhaul at the start. The JDM motors usually have far less mileage, but I have never been fond of the JDM motors. I had less than stellar luck with their transmissions. After all, how would you drive a car if the registration and inspection cost was so high that you were going to junk the car in 4-5 years? You'd probably drive the wheels off of it. Especially if it was a sports car. The fact is the F20C put in a Seven certainly makes this a better combination since the lighter weight requires far less torque to launch. It might even be an advantage over the high levels of low end torque in a V6 or LS type V8. After all, if all the torque does is make the back end loose instead allowing a smooth transition of power, it is not going to be as easy to drive in street conditions, nor as pleasant. Having said that, I found a Stalker was easy to drive in street conditions, but you better be gentle with the throttle below 70-80 mph. I actually liked the later 2.2 liter F22C equipped S2000 a lot better. While it still had a bike like peaky torque band, at least the peak dropped to a still lofty 6500 RPM. Plus, it was a much more realistic 8000 RPM motor stock. If I went that route, I would be inclined toward the F22C. But then again, they look to be much less available, and probably much more expensive. This all may be a mute point though since I doubt that Honda's 6 speed will fit in the tunnel of a Birkin or Caterham. Of course this brings us to the Miata drivetrain. It has the advantage of being able to use the stock ECU and harness, seems to fit in Birkin and Caterham cars w/o issue, and produces reasonable power in NA trim, plus there are several moderately priced blowers available to push them safely past 250 hp. I know that I have met with resistance from some Seven people even bringing up the Miata drivetrains. But while I'm not thrilled with Miata drivetrains, it is still a competent engine and transmission that certainly fits within the scope of the Seven concepts. So, any more defined comments about the Miata drivetrains? And does anyone have one of the Westfield cars with the Miata FM settup? Also, and more important for Birkin and Caterhams, does anyone have direct knowledge of one of the cars that has been fitted with one of the Miata motors, including, of course, I'm sure we all hope to here from the new owner in Canada of the California car recently sold.

I'm curious too. But I'm even more concerned about the transmission problem. After all, Saabs are FWD. Of course finding a good, low mileage Saab might be another problem with this. And low mileage Duratecs are available pretty cheap. The problem is the still using the expensive T9 tranny, bell housing, and of course, the aftermarket EFI. It all adds up.

Thanks for the comment on the Kent turbo. I would be curious what was in the Kent, if you remember? (I.E. stock pistons, crank, etc) I did run across a guy with a crossflow in a Morgan, turbocharged to the tune of about 340 hp. But it sounded like he spent about over $10,000 preparing the Kent to be seemingly reliable. Doesn't sound like a realistic alternative. The Saab 2.0 is an interesting thought, but what would you use for a tranny in a Seven? And wouldn't this be as large, or larger than the Datsun?