Talk:Mazda MX-5 (NC)

Mazda Ibuki Concept Fallacies

I take great issue with the addition of misleading contradictory information on October 2, 2018 regarding the 2003 Mazda Ibuki Concept by Areaseven. That concept most certainly DID NOT influence the NC roadster, so please stop adding that each time I delete it! Having found this a whole 18 and half months after it was submitted to multiple Mazda articles, I am playing damage control and can imagine that so many people looked to Wikipedia of all places and that information as somehow "credible" for last year's 30th anniversary.

The Ibuki concept was merely a preview and an abridgment of past, present, and future of MX-5 in 2003. Just because you saw it first before NC in 2005, doesn't mean that it absolutely existed first! Product development obviously goes on in secret. Why do so many automotive users on Wikipedia ever so blindly rely on this misbegotten narrative to represent every concept car displayed publicly, as inspiration to a following production vehicle? It is just not typical reality, in being too time consuming and expensive for most automotive firms on typical timetables. Quite often it's a stylized preview of an upcoming vehicle, that has already been designed internally.
New models having lead times to accommodate design, testing, and validation of new tooling, are approved well before release. Not last week, last month or even last year.
Also, it is quite absurd how nearly every user on Wikipedia seems to think that a link to a publication or text from a magazine/journalist is ultimately credible as a "verifiable source" no matter what, without the possibility that they are putting out opinionated fallacies or conjecture. Was Mazda directly quoted stating that the NC was influenced by the 2003 Ibuki and then from there, designed off of it? NO, Mazda wasn't quoted! What has been done unwisely, is trusting some UK automotive journalist at Evo, with no modicum of deep knowledge on Mazda product development activities in 2001-05.
I hate playing cleanup with stuff like this over and over, because I did remove it in the past. It is so easy for stuff like this to be messed up, because general media treats cars as appliances or mark of wealth symbols, therefore investigative journalism falls by the wayside in favor of opinions against false information on product development.

Mazda was actually interviewed by a truly reputable Japanese magazine in 2005, regarding the NC and it laid out NC development from 2001 to 2005 with internal photos, including when design of NC wrapped in 2003 months before the Ibuki project came to surface. Designers expressed this in Japanese as to be not based on Ibuki. Simply put, Mazda was NOT inspired by the Ibuki concept when developing their 3rd generation MX-5. Carmaker1 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Question: Why do you have a problem with me entering that info? And there is no record of you previously deleting such info. - Areaseven (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My issue with you is not personally you as an individual, but that of you being very insistent on adding information which is contradictory & false. In it being based on your mistaken assumption that because a concept car was shown first, before a similarly configured production vehicle, it was automatically somehow inspiration of it or formed the basis. That right there is naive and indicative of you also trusting journalists too much when they can easily lie or make up nonsense to print an article. Mazda themselves contradict Evo's report. As an automotive engineer who designs production models for design freeze, I get very tired of what passes for credible sources regarding automotive development fallacies from opinionated writers, who make dumb guesstimates off of loose connections. Evo sees the Ibuki and then decides it influenced the NC, because they think so. That's insipid logic and you are not going to use them as a credible source, simply because they are a magazine. They contradict reality.
Are the concept and the NC related? Definitely, but the NC design was already defined in April 2003 and Mazda began work on completing design freeze by October of 2003. Once the design freeze is complete, NO more major design work. Only small details in plastic. The Ibuki is only a relation of NC, not its inspiration. You need to better understand how automotive development works in terms of timelines, lead times for different processes if you aren't aware already. It will help you discern between credible and contradictory insight. Carmaker1 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

See, that's exactly where I see issues with your behavior. Instead of simply saying the information is false, you flat out attack the user who posted it, and then you fail to provide credible information to prove your statement. If you keep up with this edit-warring, then I have no choice but to report you on WP:ANI. - Areaseven (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"See" nothing, but you being essentially childish and not accepting warranted correction, for introducing false inferences into an article against text already cited. And to think that I even thanked your recent edit, which was clearly a mistake. You don't deserve that thanks, based on picking a fight over being corrected. Did you even crosscheck both sources in the first place? I HAD to identify you, so it would be very transparent the responsibile party for these REVERTS and continued restoration of false content going forward. Grow up and get over it, as nothing said to you in response bore any aspect of "personal attack".
Mazda already highlighted how they developed this vehicle and you wanted to actively contradict them over and over. THEY know THEIR product! That creates unnecessary, repetitive work for everyone else, as editing pages becomes frustrating. It also says more than enough about you, in terms of childish threats being used as a crutch, if not blackmail to get what you want. I am not here for it, as I know exactly what you are doing, by taking a statement and deliberately blowing it out of proportion to achieve an ego soothing interest.
Clearly you've since realized what you stated was ludicrous and figured out you were definitely misled by some ignorant reporter and honoured the Mazda sources for once. Don't be "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", as my taking great issue with poor content for removing what I considered as my contribution, and pointing out the naive perspectives of a collective ill, is obviously NOT attacking you. Only a liar would imply that for retaliation and then use anything they can find against me, in some misguided effort to shut me up.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you done now? - Areaseven (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mazda MX-5 (NA) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

NC3 / Mk3.75

Is there any reason why there is no mention of the NC3 (Mk3.75) facelift? UPDATE - just saw that it's listed as the "2013 Update"; I'll edit the page to include mention of NC3 for those searching for this term.BealBocht (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You need a source for calling this "Mk3.75". Is it a factory code or is it a local convention (eg a US thing or a UK thing) ? If merely a local nickname/convention then it should not be in the section title but can be mentioned in the text by something similar to "also nicknamed the mk3.75 in the US".

Also, what year was this introduced? The US convention of model years implies that it was introduced in mid 2012. For most of the world, 2013 implies a calendar year date of mid 2013. There is nothing in the section to indicate whether 2013 is a model year (as an American would naturally use if not paying attention to the rest of the article) or a calendar year.  Stepho  talk  23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Answering part of my own question, the reference https://newsroom.mazda.com/en/publicity/release/2012/201207/120705a.html says July 2012.  Stepho  talk  23:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)