mx5cartalk.com

May have been posted before but just saw this tonight, from yesterday:

http://smh.drive.com.au/used-car-review ... 2w3fa.html

it was a good article except that it did not differentiate really between the models. We all know that the NC is a different car. Some will think the NC requires timing belt changes and DM's has a few errors like the roof being steel - but minor stuff it does not alter the conclusion.

This article is nothing more than Lazy Fat Bastard Journalism and I would hazard a guess that if one searched hard enough you might even find the original article from which it was cut and pasted!
Greg.
P.S. There were a number of changes between the NC1 and 2, most of which were because of response from the market.
Edit.[i] Spelling.[/i]

taminga16 wrote:This article is nothing more than Lazy Fat Bastard Journalism and I would hazard a guess that if one searched hard enough you might even find the original article from which it was cut and pasted!
Greg.
P.S. There were a number of changes between the NC1 and 2, most of which were because of response from the market.
Edit.[i] Spelling.[/i]

agree it read like an article written for a the nb update after the na with a bit of a tag on update based mainly around dates most of the info was completely irrelevant to NC. Timing belt? Wobbly crank?

The author states that putting an automatic in an MX5 is (and I quote) "a waste of time". Obviously this idiot didn't have to drive the test car in peak-hour traffic (if he even drove it at all)...
And don't the NCs have a timing chain instead of a timing belt?