Great looking car. Imagine if it came with a 13B engine option. ZOOM-ZOOM!!

I'm not sure about this. The MX-5 has always been one step 'ahead' in design of the MR2 in that it always has looked like a classic (with Toyota finally realising how to build a roadster 'right' - make it like an MX-5!) but this looks like it's following design from its peers rather than continuing to going out on its own and essentially stick with the underlying classic design feel. Oddly, it makes the Mk3 look more appealing now (I'm a Mk1/NA fan and would buy another rather than any of the successive versions). Anyway, if it makes you smile as much as a Mk1 (NA) when you drive it then great, but side-by-side tests have revealed the MK3 didn't have the same fun factor, though it's going to be safer I guess (but where's the fun in that?!)

Looks great, but IS IT LIGHTER than the Mk3, like they promised?

Great looking car but I sure hope they put something under the hood to go along with the good looks! In 2001 I bought my wife a new Turbo Beetle and myself a new Miata. After 3 months I got rid of the Mazda because I was tired of my wife blowing my doors off with her Beetle!
Sure the Miata was fun to drive but needed a lot more power to make it REALLY fun to drive!
I really hate it when they show off a new model and then tell you that you will have to wait a year or so before you can actually get your hands on one - in my opinion it is better to wait until you have a product ready to deliver before showing it off. Think about the effect on the Mazda dealers - anyone seeing this one is not going to be buying the current one!

I think that is a really nice design. Personally, I like this MX-5 the most.
I read that Mazda has sold close to a million of the MX-5 vehicles. With the design and affordability, I can see how it sold so well.
I keep hoping Smart will get together with Mazda and produce a new Roadster for Smart based on the MX-5.

I agree, it's looking more like a BMW Z4, which I consider ugly. Too many woops and scoops. Previous versions have an air of fun and sportiness. This one has a pretentious, trying-to-be-serious look that it isn't.
If you want a Japanese two seater, for half the money get yourself a used Acura NSX with the removable top, leather interior, mid-engine handling, and more balls. You won't regret it.

The original MX5 was probably based on Lotus Elan S4 than any Austin Healey or MG.

@Hugh Lokey. You should have sprayed a little after market magic on your MX-5 and it had made all the difference. Still what really matters with a MX-5 is it's handling and by that I do not mean 0-60 times, but how it goes around corners.
@Ed Yee. The original MX-5 was inspired by all of those you mention and more. What Mazda did was really to bring back the type of car those English classics represented only they did with Japanese reliability and a roof that didn't leak. The MX-5's have been found to come in the top 5 and sometimes even better in the reliability statistics.

OK body, nothing great, just refine old body style from 1989.

The MX-5 has been a great success for Mazda, even if they did pinch the design and look from Lotus, but why not ? It was streets ahead of what MG and Healey were offering. But of course, Mazda's marketing dept. had to come up with 'improvements' and these all added cost and weight, so then they needed bigger engines and before we knew it, we ended up in a vicious cycle. I think the 2016 version will be a great little car, but after owning the original, it is hard to get excited.