Icemark

I owned a 87 Sport that I bought new at the dealer for almost 10 years.

Quote:

Oh....could you post the rest of that Car & Driver article Icemark? Thanks.

I think its rather intresting that, that model that Mazda had built and brought over here was basicly a Sport with a Turbo. No power windows, no power mirrors, no sun roof, not even the eq for the radio. And it came with the Sport's aero stuff, which the final version of the T2 didn't get until 88.

To me that's how they should have sold the T2... A GT version like in that article and a GXL version with all the power gee gaws junk. Drop the NA Sport and its later sibling the GTU and sell the GT Turbo instead.

But thats just my thinking.

Liquid Anarchy

iTrader: (2)

... I like my GTU just fine, thanks Mark.

LI FC Greg

I'd agree in a perfect world, but Mazda is in business to sell cars not just to satisfy a few enthusiasts. What percentage of FC RX-7s sold were Turbos? 5% 10% 15% ????

Most people want to look fast, but not go very fast. Plus, more the turbo model costs more, cost more to insure and costs Mazda more warranty claims.

I'd say we were lucky to get the Turbo II at all. Look at what happened with the FD. Turbo only and it was a critical success but a commercial disaster and a disaster from Mazda's dealers standpoint.

Thats why the RX-8 will br non-turbo only.

Also, you need to realize that the Sport, GTU and GTUS models were made with weekend warrior SCCA competion in mind. Traditionally, non-turbo cars are classed more favorably than turbo cars. Some racing series ban turbos all together or make them run with huge V8 cars. I think in SCCA competition, the FC non turbo had a better record in C stock than the Turbo II in A stock.

But for my purposes, I would like what you like. A turbo II with no sunroof, no power locks, no power windows, no rear wiper, no alarm and no silly speed sensitive power steering (RPM sensitive, yes)and an aero package.

Icemark

Don't get me wrong... I like the 88 GTU... My dad has one in his garage that he only drives a couple times a month... Like R&T says, the 88 GTU should have been the 10th AE...it is a much more pure sports car without all the power crap.

T24U

I love the articles! Any of the 89-92 Turbo II??

rx_7_driver

Icemark

I am working on it...the series 5 cars were not as spectacular (well alone had considerably lower market appeal) and there are less articles because of that.

Icemark

How about this one from car and driver for a car never built but should have:

PJ-4.2L

AWESOME... I guess I have T2 seats, then-- but mine are (were) red. Unfortunately, I find these seats REALLY uncomfortable unless they are inclined just right. They need to get re-upholstered.

Any guesses how much people would pay for these?

PJ

choritsu-shi

Cool Icemark! I remember reading either from R&T or C&D comparing the TII to the NSX when it was first introduced back in 1991.
So what are your thoughts or findings on what "Turbo II" originated from?

Icemark

I agee with the above statements that the Turbo II name came from the second version of the Turbo charged rotary in a RX-7. Its a bit vauge for the States, but makes sense in a Mazda sort of way.

kristopher_d

These articles should have been required reading for RX8 engineers. 4-door sports car, bah. 2 doors, 2 seats, no frills, lots of fun. Since I haven't driven an 8, I can't say too much, but everything I've seen says it could use a diet. Look at the 350Z. Now that is a resurection of a proud sports car line. No frills, no gimmicks, just car. I hope Mazda comes around to give us a pure car again. There's always too much trying to sell every car to every buyer. Targeted design and marketing are far too rare these days. While flipping channels, I saw a feminine hygene add during a football game. Granted, some chicks watch the sport, but it could have been a cost effective marketing tactic.

NZConvertible

I guarantee you that Mazda are well aware of the abilities of its earlier cars. They'll also well aware of how well they sold. Or didn't. While your wish for a "pure" sports car is understandable, you need to get a dose of the same reality Mazda has. Look at the FD: two doors, two seats, no frills, lots of fun, no sales! You haven't seen any official weight figures yet, so you're only guessing. And you can't do that by looking! What is it you've seen that "looks" heavy? How is the 350Z better than the RX-8? It certainly loses in the looks department. At a porky 3170lb, you'd hardly call it a lightweight, although it does have a nice grunty engine. What gimmicks and frills does the RX-8 have that the 350Z doesn't? I bet the RX-8 gets electric everything just like the 350Z has. That's called economic reality. You need to look at the bigger, longer-term picture. Mazda could make another FD, and it'll probably sell just as bad (because that's simply the state of the world's economy), Mazda will lose a truckload of money, Ford will cancel the funding for the rotary programme (they'll have no other choice) and we'll never see a production road-going rotary again. Ever! Or, Mazda could market (and hopefully sell) the RX-8 to a much broader group of buyers, sell many more units that it would with a "pure" sports car, make lots of money, and get approval to add a new "RX-7" to it's line-up. Which option do you prefer?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the RX-7 is much closer to the ideal than the RX-8, but that doesn't make the RX-8 a bad car, far from it. But the future of rotary-powered Mazdas rest entirely on selling as many RX-8's as possible, not pandering a to a few hardcore enthusiasts like us!

Icemark

Well said NZ...

Besides no one here has driven a RX-8 yet. Despite the intresting door setup, I would not be the least bit surprised if the RX-8 has very simular performance to the FD, without the atmosphereic price and mediocre quality.

itzweapon

=-The twinscroll turbo.
What year did the twinscroll turbo's come in the US market cars?
I know they didn't come in the earlier t2'z..
87-88/early 89?
Late 89-91?

Icemark

If you read the first article I posted, you'll see that it was with the first TII, back in 86.

BlackFC_NYC

awsome articles

VetteKiller

good info

5 stars

choritsu-shi

Excuse me if I'm misunderstanding this, but just to clarify... Even though there were changes between the series4 and the series5 RX7 Turbos, they retained the "Twin Scroll" design.
Basically it was the only turbocharger available in the series4/5 FC RX-7 Turbo models from 1986 thru 1992. This also applies to all the Luce 13B Turbo models from 1986 thru 1991 and I'm pretty sure that it was offered in the Cosmo 13B Turbo models from 1990 thru 1995. These Cosmo 13B Turbos were under-rated in Japan at 230hp while the series5 RX7's were J-rated at 180hp.

Just to add to the "Turbo II" theory... I thought in Japan they were labled as a GT or GT-X and the stock intercoolers did not have "TURBO II" painted on it like ours did here in the states. I dunno, anyone???

NZConvertible

That's right. The S5 turbo has a twin-scroll turbine housing like the S4's, but it doesn't have the flap that closes off the larger scroll at low rpm. This was deleted (I think) because the faster spooling caused by the electronic boost control made it redundant. True, although only the S4-spec engine was used. No, these engines were a version of the FD RX-7's twin-turbo 13B. They had a different state of tune optimised for torque, which resulted in slightly less power than the FD but the same peak torque acheived at lower revs. In non-US markets the S4 was officially rated at 133kW (178hp) and the S5 146kW (196hp), both less than the US cars. This is odd given they had less power-robbing emission controls. So someone's telling porkies... That's true, check my avatar. It's a photo of my intercooler. I've always thought it odd that the FC was called the Turbo II in the market that didn't get the first RX-7 Turbo, but not in the market that did! Weird, but very Mazda...

Cheers!

finally a good thread for once...
5 stars for sure.

damn i wish my 89 TII was brand spanking new from the dealer still... sigh... i was only 7 years old at the time... and i never noticed them on the road... at that age the only car i knew were lamborgini

choritsu-shi

Ooops... yes NZConvertible, you're right... thank you for correcting me.

I am lead to believe that all the past turbocharged rotary engines were actually first developed for the Luce/Cosmo models not the RX7's. Since the Cosmo offered the "sequential twin turbos" back in 1990, then that would suggest the later FD RX7 to using versions from the Cosmo instead, which kinda supports this theory...

Sensei

kristopher_d

[quote]Look at the FD: two doors, two seats, no frills, lots of fun, no sales! /[quote]
You left out the biggest factor though. The FD was built into a super car, and marketed as a sports car, so the price was higher than the established market was willing to bear, and since the name was the same, it couldn't capture a new market.

Two extra seats, overly plush interior, marketing geared toward the mid 40's crowd all say that this car is more luxuary than muscle.

This one I can't answere. I understand that the RX-8 is not simply a continuation of the RX-7 line, like the 350 is of the Z line.


This is the one completely flawed idea in your post, and it stems from the same mistake nearly every car maker on the planet makes on a daily basis. By specializing the individual products, while diversifying the product line, any business can boost sales. However, every time, and I do mean every time, a product is expanded on to make it more generic, sales fall. Look at the Corvette. When it was firt released, it was purchased and driven by men in their late 30's to mid 40's, in general. The target audience has not changed one iota. It still sells to the late 30-mid 40 year old crowd. As a contrast, lets look athe Mustang (still one of my favorite cars). When it was first released, it was marketed too and purchased by mid-20 to early 30 year olds, often with brand new families. As these buyer got older, ford attempted to age the car to continue selling to the same people, rather than the same market. The results have been disasterous. The car has been dumed down and softened up to keep in touch with buyers, rather than its market.

I understand the need to sell cars to many people, but most people, on an individual level, buy and use only one car, so why build 30 cars to meet every market segment, when you could build 30 cars for the 30 market segments and spend less on marketing and frills?

NZConvertible

Yeah, I guess that's true. The 12AT was introduced with the HB Cosmo in 1982. It was the first turbocharged rotary and the first rotary with EFI. It then became available in the 1984 Series 3 RX-7. The twin-turbo 13B was first available in the 1991 JC Cosmo, about a year before the FD RX-7 was released.

NZConvertible

You make a valid point, and I'm sure sometimes it does work this way, but not often. The very example I used conclusively proves a highly specialised car won't sell as many units. The FD RX-7!
These sorts of cars require a strong economy to be successful. The better off people are, the more money they'll have to spend on a second (less practical) car to play with on the weekend. But if you can only afford one car, you have to consider the practicalites of using it every day. For most people, a car like the RX-8 would suit that role much better than a new "FD" would. The simple fact is Mazda can't afford to build both types of cars yet, so it has chosen the type of car that'll appeal to a broader group of people, and so should sell more units.
Besides, I'd hardly call the RX-8 too "generic". It's still a sports car (yes, even with four doors), and it's got an engine that's not exactly common...