fromtib27

iTrader: (2)

I've literally seen dozens of "concepts" for the rx-9/rx7 4th gen, starting to lose faith in the actual realistic possibility of them bringing back the rx7, i'll keep my fingers crossed and as far as the rx-8, i do not feel bad for the rx-8 owners. i actually applaud them for settling with the rx-8 or being able to have the awkward taste of actually favoring the 8 over the 7. i love rotaries as much as anyone here but lets be realistic, the rx-8 is an awesome car overall but it is lacking the rotary personality IMHO, its a car a lot of people would be proud to have but if you take someone on here thats passionate about their 1st, 2nd or 3rd gen then i feel like its going to be a downgrade in what they are looking for and thats performance. They sacrificed performance to try and make it a car everyone can enjoy. I wish i could get into the car, a brand new rotary powered car with a warranty sounds great to me but not if it means having to own the rx-8, no offense of course. Great car, just not an rx-7. I've seen three rich girls in my town driving rx-8's......enough said

diabolical1

iTrader: (3)

you know, i tend to agree. with 30+ years under it's belt, i think our Gen I cars are old enough to deserve homage. if they went retro with a new rotary car, i think it would be good and, as you said, if they could do it at a reasonable price, it would likely sell quite well.

ray green

iTrader: (14)

Agreed. Exotic is what we need. That Japanese Ferrari look.



Brand new, with a Renesis installed. Less than $24,000, and less than 2,400 lbs.

Anybody got some photos of what the new 7 should look like? You know those dudes at Mazda are paying attention.

RotoricanNY

iTrader: (2)

hopefully with a turbo 20B or 26B, after all it would need to produce 400+HP

Viich

iTrader: (1)

The only way a new RX-7 will happen and be a realistic price (miata +$2-5k, say) is to build it on the miata platform and put the Renesis in it. Make it a permanent hard top and put different fenders on it, and it could be styled, and would be the right size and weight, to be a modern day 1st gen.

pjr

iTrader: (8)

Is the RX-9 the car that appears for about 2 seconds in the beginning of the current Mazda national TV ads?

diabolical1

iTrader: (3)

these are some of my thoughts:

to be totally honest, i could forego a hefty factory horsepower spec if it just came with some serious potential. i'm not saying to completely forget about a "big block" option, but initially i would just prefer for them to keep it relatively simple and GET IT RIGHT! we saw it with the Gen III and Rx-8 where they were released and then ... BOOM ... problems (some of them serious) that created an ominous air about the car and while "true" enthusiasts stuck it out, enough buyer's remorse and bad press existed to prevent some potential sales.

1. one of the things that frustrates the bejesus out of me is the complexity of the Rx-8, and i understand that that's the norm for cars of this era. i even understand some of the need for it, but there has to be a way simplify it some. also, keep the gimmicks at a minimum. i think it worked better for the Rx-8 than the Gen II because the Rx-8 is so much fun, but it still has a few gimmicks to it. in my eyes, the Gen I and Gen III cars were truer to their function.

2. i know factory peripheral exhausts are gone for good, but if the new rotaries could be cast with enough material to allow for decent exhaust porting, then i'd consider that more potential. i really haven't kept up with the 16X development, so i don't know if it would be the base engine for a new car or if they'd go back to the 13B. to be honest, i don't care. it would be nice to have them both available because the 13B has already been in production since what 2003? i still think it has one or two more tricks up it's sleeve before it is retired. i'm not sure if chancing a totally new engine all by itself is a good idea. i remember how excited i was when VW released the W8s ... where are they now?

3. again, based on my Rx-8 experiences, they need to pay attention to details. for example, the shitty ignition coils and leaky seals NEED TO STOP! when i bought my first Rx-7 in 1990, it was 8 years old already and i have owned several since - meaning all my latter cars were much older when i bought them. if i said, i'd never seen one with a leaky front main, then i'd be a liar. however, most of them did not leak. to illustrate my point, i rebuilt engines in my early days that i never used to change front and rear main seals ... and they stayed clean. sorry, but to me, there's no reason why my Rx-8 should have been hemorrhaging oil the way it did at barely 50,000 miles - and i wasn't alone. if they designed a new car and carried on with the same Rx-8 nonsense - they are destined to fail!

sorry for my little rant, but i think it stayed somewhat on topic ...

overall, i think if they design something that invokes the spirit of the Gen I - simple, affordable, has potential, and keep it "12A reliable" - it would be enough to lay the groundwork for NEW customers. they will NEED new customers because i don't believe that, in the bigger picture, "we" are enough to satisfy the number crunchers. hell, there are some among us that wouldn't buy a new rotary vehicle if Mazda screws this up. i say keep the horse in front of the cart. once they achieve that, then the big blocks and turbos can come.

Bryan Jacobs

iTrader: (66)

seriously guys there have been rumors of an "rx-7" replacement for nearly a decade now and as far as I'm concerned these are all dreams of enthusiasts like us. The Japanese economy is and will continue to be in the ******* for a while (decades). If you think a smaller car co. like Mazda can afford to make the investment it would take to produce and market an "rx-7" replacement you haven't been paying attention to the car industry. Much larger companies such as Toyota and Honda have stopped their "supercar" production/research and scaled back/canceled their racing budgets.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

you will see neither. we didn't get the 12A turbo in the 80's because mazda thought they would have too many warranty issues with it. we didn't get the 3 rotor in the 90's, because fuel mileage would be single digit.

if anything these two things have gotten worse, plus it needs to pass way more stringent emissions testing. the Rx8 engine already won't pass emissions testing when the standards change in a couple of years.

if you need proof look at some of the new cars, the mazda 2, honda fit, etc etc

ray green

iTrader: (14)

Yep, looks like the only real option if you want a real "RX-9" is buy a first gen in good shape and fix it up.

Which ain't a bad option, really. And it's a whole lot less expensive.

Stevan

iTrader: (17)

yep.

tasty danish

iTrader: (5)

all you need is a turbo, maybe some flares, and a bunch of suspension work and you too can have a new Rx-9!!!

mazdaverx713b

iTrader: (91)

all i need is my FB. i'm more than pleased with it and i don't need modern technology to make me smile. i love the simplicity and the reliability of my FB. screw the RX-9.

BStallion

iTrader: (3)

That would be nice..

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

+1, i drove the tr3 all week and couldn't wipe the smile off my face.

ray green

iTrader: (14)

yep, give me an FB any day. Unless you got an SA for cheap.

j9, you got videos of the TR3?

That might give those Mazda designers thinking about the new RX-9 a couple ideas.

Stevan

iTrader: (17)

Yeah, it should be an Rx-7 series 7 (4th gen) not an Rx-9.

A modern version of a 1st gen would be alright. Like the big 3, with the Mustang, Camaro, Challenger.
Keep it small and light, unlike 2nd & 3rd gens, with more room for fatter tires.
It's going to be tough to make something better looking than the series 6.
It sucks when you look at proto types at car shows and think that looks great, then they go into production in a much "weaker" version. What goes on in their minds? It doesn't take any more $/effort to stamp out the fender or whatever part in a different shape.

NCZ13

Most concepts dont take into account safety features (crumple zones, bumper design, etc) It just showcases design language of the direction the company is headed

Also, concepts get toned down for mass appeal. After all, youre in the car business, and the goal is to sell the most cars, attract the most buyers. Quite frankly, majority oc car owners are not car people, and will get turned off by "over-styling".

PercentSevenC

I am a car person, and I also get turned off by over-styling. That's one of the reasons I like the FB (and the FD for that matter).

tasty danish

iTrader: (5)

NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOO

That is the most hack, lame ploy I've ever seen and it's nothing short of appalling that EVERY American car manufacturer went down the same lazy route. I want to like American cars, I really do, but it's stuff like that, that makes them a joke.

When ford did it, it was like... ok everyone liked the old mustang... I guess that's kinda neat, the SN95's and foxes sucked anyway. Why not. THEN IT BEGAN. Bloated, overstyled rape of previously timeless designs. Don't you dare subject my 1st gen to this.

pjr

iTrader: (8)

I partially agree with you Danish.

The Challenger: agree. A lazy retro-fit of a fastback on to the 300 platform. Too heavy and soft to be a real performer.

Camaro: total refresh on the stance of the 67 Camaro, my favorite of all the F body cars. The styling cues are totally modern, including a chopped roofline and aggressive stance. A bit over-the-top but still fresh.

Mustang: 1994 Mustang = 1965 Mustang on the Fox (Fairmnt) platform. But damn it worked. Affordable, looks good, and performs well. If people like it, and they'll buy it, then damn, build it! And they keep tweaking the formula, and if you build it, they will come (to buy).

The domestics are making a lot of nice vehicles right now, Ford and GM more than Chrysler,

I'd like a 1st gen that has cues and DNA of the FB: light and tossable, with maybe picking up the styling of the rear valence, or the hatch plus rear fenders. However, this one would have more ample rotary power! Think slightly bigger MX-5 Miata plaform with 16x engine and some retro cues.

I'm game!

tasty danish

iTrader: (5)

That's just it, the retro looking domestics ARE good looking cars, because they were based on great looking, revolutionary cars. Anybody can rehash a classic and make it look good.

Are you telling me if Mazda made a retro FB, and simultaneously toyota made a retro supra, and nissan made a retro Z, that you're wouldn't find that whole situation a bit pitiful?

True, the domestics are making some great cars, they've turned around LOTS since the 90's, and I honestly believe GM's LSx series may be some of the finest petrol engines to grace the planet, ever. But I find all american enthusiast cars to be bloated and piggish (save for the corvette, which really has only one problem: They're too common for me to find "exciting" but that's not a fault with the car, if anything a testament to how good it is).

^I admit that's a subjective take, but it's an attitude that a significant portion of car guys share, and those guys drive european or japanese. Many of those guys (like me) would like an american car if they could make one that wasn't fat and backward thinking (maybe that's a touch harsh, but the principle of retro cars just pisses me off).

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

I must interject that the new Camaros are just gawd-awful butt-ugly from behind. Whoever did the ***-end of that car should be dragged outside and beat with a rock.

Front and sides aren't too bad outside of being 9 inches taller than they should be from rocker to window base, and having wheel wells so oversized you could stash dead moose in 'em... but the rear view as seen from a proper sportscar seating height behind it makes me want to smash into every one I see, to improve the look of it.

The new Chargers and such are just fugly. I owned a 73 Satellite 4-door, and it had more grace than these bulbous reboots.

pjr

iTrader: (8)

Nissan already makes a retro Z.

Agree 100% with you -- especially on the Vette. They make more in a single year than the total 20 year run of Vipers.


[QUOTE=tasty danish;10624863]
^I admit that's a subjective take, but it's an attitude that a significant portion of car guys share, and those guys drive european or japanese. Many of those guys (like me) would like an american car if they could make one that wasn't fat and backward thinking (maybe that's a touch harsh, but the principle of retro cars just pisses me off).

Focus RS should make you happy. And an Alfa-based Chrysler would too. Took pics of one buzzing around one weekend this winter. It was parked at Home depot. It's on my iPhone somewhere.

Agree... per my comment about the Camaro being a bit over-the-top. To me, the styling just tries too hard to scream and grab at you. By the way, those taillights will be seen next on the 2013 Malibu. No joke.

Stevan

iTrader: (17)

Wow, did someone say Susquehanna hat company!
Danish, would you rather see the Furari ? F'n ugly.
As i mentioned before, if a car manufacturer could stick with the prototype, a concept car of a series 1 or 2 could be cool. Not the LAME *** crap "the average car buyer wants". After 1970, what the hell happened? A whole lotta lame. Oh, we just ran out of aesthetic creativeness(or the average car buyer didn't want "over styling"?) IDK, but it sure was pretty weak. Except for the RX-3