What’s better for going camping: A tiny car or a large motorcycle?
“For that price you can get a recent Miata,” a friend told me while discussing a newly released and pricey touring motorcycle. He was right, but what’s interesting is that he wasn’t talking strictly monetary value; he was alluding to the fact that an optioned-out touring bike costs just a few thousand dollars shy of a new Mazda MX-5, and he argued that with the convertible you still get the wind-in-your-hair experience, but with the added practicality and cargo capacity of a four wheeler. His comment got me thinking: Is a convertible a better vacation vehicle than a motorcycle, especially if you want to enjoy the drive as much as the destination?
It was time for a comparison, and this comparo would test the carrying capacity of the latest in topless two seaters — the Mazda MX-5 RF and the BMW R1200RT — as well as their highly subjective fun factors. The MX-5 RF starts at $39,100 ($31,900 for the soft top), and the R1200RT at $21,750. The RT is at the lower end of touring bike pricing, but it was selected because, like the MX-5, it is an engaging ride. A decked-out dresser, like the Honda Gold Wing Tour, can creep up to the mid-$30s.
The MX-5 is powered by a 2.0-litre, 155-horsepower in-line four, while the R1200RT makes do with a 125-hp, horizontally opposed twin displacing 1,170 cc. Both vehicles are equipped with six-speed manual gearboxes, but that’s not where the similarities end. They both also have heated seats, limited cargo space, seating for two, push-button starting, they both run on premium fuel, neither has a spare but each is equipped with a flat repair kit, and most surprising to me is that just like when crossing other motorcyclists when riding, drivers of other MX-5s wave at you as they go by.
Despite its limited cargo space, the MX-5’s 127-L trunk capacity trumps the R1200RT’s 66 L, split between two saddlebags. There is a luggage rack behind the bike seat, however, which adds considerable cargo volume when a load is properly secured.
Everything fit with Tetris-like precision into the MX-5’s trunk, and all of the cargo nooks in the interior were filled to capacity. The only extra items loaded into the MX-5 due to its larger cargo capacity were sleeping bag liners, and a larger four-person tent for added camping comfort (a two-person tent was stowed on the bike). Similarly, all items fit into the saddlebags of the R1200RT with the exception of one waterproof bag of clothing and the camping stools, which nestled onto the luggage rack.
For a rider, the MX-5 has lots of appeal. It is nimble and communicative, and its gearbox is such a marvel I think it should be replicated in smaller scale and sold as an alternative to those fidget toys. The hardtop RF doesn’t quite offer the open-air ride of the soft-top model, since its hard targa-style top doesn’t come down entirely, but it does offer better weather protection when lowered.
The R1200RT handles like a sport bike, and if pressed, can keep up on twisty roads. It has the best fairing in the industry, and once the electrically adjustable windshield is set at the ideal height, it is almost as wind-free as the MX-5 is with the top down.
Fuel consumption on both vehicles proved remarkably frugal. The Mazda bettered its claimed 8.9/7.1L city/ highway by averaging 6.4L/100 km, which was good for about 700 km on its 45-L fuel tank. The BMW fared better, averaging 5.1/100 km with a range of 480 km on a 25-L fuel tank.
Ultimately, to settle the argument, there’s no real winner. If you’re a rider like I am, there’s nothing that can replace the feeling of leaning into a curve, or sitting atop a machine, prone and exposed. Although sitting behind the wheel of the MX-5 with the top down is more fun than driving a normal car, and like a motorcycle it returns sensations that emphasize the drive rather than the destination, I still felt envious of motorcyclists I crossed on the road. I cannot say the same happened while riding the R1200RT and saw MX5s drive by — unless it was raining. Driving