The RX-7 confirmed to be in the pipeline for 2017---RX-Vision Unveil!!
11-25-12, 01:33 PM
#78
i dobut it would ever happen but it would be nice to see 2 rotary cars released, a "RX7 relaunch" that would be something higher end to compete with the GTR and 911's and maybe a toned down version to compete with the FRS/BRZ/GT86 a "RX9"
I also really hope Mazda uses the relaunch in 2017 to give the brand a facelift the current cars are boring and very meh.
I also really hope Mazda uses the relaunch in 2017 to give the brand a facelift the current cars are boring and very meh.
11-25-12, 02:09 PM
#79
I know we ALL love the FD and are hoping Mazda makes a successor to the greatest platform of the RX7.
BUT......
Maybe Mazda is thinking of the 1st gen RX7. It was a great sports car that competed with many sports cars of the day from Nissan/Toyota/Chevy etc....... It sold well and the Rotary motors they used were not prone to as many breakdowns as the 13B-REW.... This would make more sense in why they state that it can compete with the Scion/BRZ twins....It also explains why they want a lightweight coupe with NA power.....
I personally would not mind a 1st gen remake as I have owned 5 in the past and they ALL served me well...
Food for thought.....
BUT......
Maybe Mazda is thinking of the 1st gen RX7. It was a great sports car that competed with many sports cars of the day from Nissan/Toyota/Chevy etc....... It sold well and the Rotary motors they used were not prone to as many breakdowns as the 13B-REW.... This would make more sense in why they state that it can compete with the Scion/BRZ twins....It also explains why they want a lightweight coupe with NA power.....
I personally would not mind a 1st gen remake as I have owned 5 in the past and they ALL served me well...
Food for thought.....
11-25-12, 03:29 PM
#82
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NoPis10
This would make more sense in why they state that it can compete with the Scion/BRZ twins...
11-25-12, 09:14 PM
#83
He did mention more focus on light weight materials. In the automotive world, this means money! Hell, the FD was really trimmed in the scheme of things. Aluminum control arms, holes in the sway bar mounts, etc. If Mazda steps to more aluminum, and the dreaded carbon fiber components, I can easily forsee a $40-50k pricetag; not to mention the added inflation over the next 5 years. Regardless of the price, I will still admire them from afar, be glad that Mazda created a new rotary, and wave as I overtake. 
11-26-12, 12:38 PM
#84
Rotary Enthusiast
True, but the 2+2 seat FR-S/BRZ doesn't weigh that much (about 2,600 – 2,800 lbs. dry), using conventional materials.
Last edited by HiWire; 11-26-12 at 12:49 PM.
11-26-12, 04:57 PM
#85
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by XLR8
He did mention more focus on light weight materials. In the automotive world, this means money! Hell, the FD was really trimmed in the scheme of things. Aluminum control arms, holes in the sway bar mounts, etc. If Mazda steps to more aluminum, and the dreaded carbon fiber components, I can easily forsee a $40-50k pricetag; not to mention the added inflation over the next 5 years. Regardless of the price, I will still admire them from afar, be glad that Mazda created a new rotary, and wave as I overtake.
"Yamamoto said that aluminium body panels will be used extensively, although more exotic materials like carbon fibre won't be due to their greater cost and more energy-intensive manufacturing processes."
11-26-12, 11:35 PM
#86
^ That's right! It had been a few weeks since I read the article. With the increased safety regulations average car weight has increased. The utilization of light materials, and technology is the key. I have high hopes for the new development.
11-27-12, 01:54 PM
#87
Anyone ever think about if a group of engineers just tried to reproduce (ie replicate) a FD today. I'm talking about an EXACT dimension/appearance replica just utilizing different materials and technologies to arrive at the same result. I think by the advancement of materials and electronics alone, a FD could easily weigh is around the 2500 lb mark...
11-27-12, 03:16 PM
#88
Anyone ever think about if a group of engineers just tried to reproduce (ie replicate) a FD today. I'm talking about an EXACT dimension/appearance replica just utilizing different materials and technologies to arrive at the same result. I think by the advancement of materials and electronics alone, a FD could easily weigh is around the 2500 lb mark...
Aluminum hood, suspension arms, all the plastic used thru out the interior, foam door panels, holes every where to reduce weight. seats that are as light as some aftermarket ones, light weight wheels etc...etc......
In all honesty, if you have ever swapped any of your stock parts for aftermarket ones you will see that the weight difference is very little to none...
Just my .002
01-03-13, 10:37 PM
#93
I'm worried Mazda will screw up the rx7 if they try to redo it. The rx8 is nice car but I see so much room for improvement.
I read something about it being a hybrid ? Who would buy a rotary hybrid lol
When I get in my rx7 I get the sense that simpler is better.
Small aerodynamic good looks, amazing out of the box handling. The rx7 shouldn't be sold as a highTech car but a simple back to basics car that u can live with. Like the caterham 7 but with power windows and a/c
I wish I could spend just 1 day talking with Mazda engineers
I read something about it being a hybrid ? Who would buy a rotary hybrid lol
When I get in my rx7 I get the sense that simpler is better.
Small aerodynamic good looks, amazing out of the box handling. The rx7 shouldn't be sold as a highTech car but a simple back to basics car that u can live with. Like the caterham 7 but with power windows and a/c
I wish I could spend just 1 day talking with Mazda engineers
Last edited by ghost1000; 01-03-13 at 10:47 PM.
01-03-13, 10:45 PM
#94
My compliant with all efi rx7s is the amount of highTech garbage Mazda added to the simple rotary and it caused so many problems. Curvy intakes vacuum lines everywhere. So much cludder Mazda filled the engine bay with so many points of failure. When u want a powerful reliable rx7 u have to take intake off block off a bunch of stuff and put it back together all because Mazda failed to put simple parts on a good simple engine. Fewer moving parts the better.
Last edited by ghost1000; 01-03-13 at 10:54 PM.
01-03-13, 10:49 PM
#95
Full Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power windows are useless and just add weight. With only 2 windows, unless your arms are extremely short the cockpit is small enough to simply reach over and roll the windows up manually.
01-03-13, 11:52 PM
#96
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Huntington beach
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
funny how contradictory the two articles were..
It definitely wont be hybrid unless technology radically changes in the next 5 yrs..current batteries weigh/cost too much.
It definitely wont be hybrid unless technology radically changes in the next 5 yrs..current batteries weigh/cost too much.
01-04-13, 10:16 PM
#97
No chance of hybrid technology and thank goodness. Mazda has opted to develop their Skyactive engines because they don't believe hybrid technology is necessary for an efficient vehicle. I'm sure we can count on direct injection for the rotary and probably N/A coupled with small size, and light weight.
Gotta love the 4-door vintage RX-9. I had no idea that car ever existed. I sure would be fun to have that one in the garage. The particular vehicle looked pretty nice considering it's age from the 80s.
Gotta love the 4-door vintage RX-9. I had no idea that car ever existed. I sure would be fun to have that one in the garage. The particular vehicle looked pretty nice considering it's age from the 80s.
01-05-13, 12:37 PM
#98
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having owned a FC TII for 6 years, a RX-8 for 4 years and my current FD for a little over 3 years and DD all of them, I'd like to add my 2 cents. Of course I've also raced all of them from drag to autoslalom to road racing, though I am by no means a professional.
IMO the BRZ/FRS is nothing more than a cheaper idea of what the RX-8 had already accomplished and should by no means be compared to a turbo RX-7. I did purchase my RX-8 new but it was also roughly $14,000 CAN off list price and there is no way the MSRP could be justified with its performance figures. I believe it would have done much better in sales had the MSRP been what I paid for it. However, in the end, the lack of power is why I got rid of it. It was only fun to drive when in the top 2-3000rpm. On the tight tracks of autoslalom I was able to easily beat the 350z’s because of the superior handling and predictability at the edge, but on the street this was as different story. One thing to consider when bashing the RX-8 is that it was sold in North America for a longer period than our beloved FDs. This says something about our market.
Owning the FD at the same time as the RX-8 really opened my eyes to the differences. The RX-8 is light years ahead in refinement and streetability. Though not as capable of a vehicle on the track, it is much better suited to the street with the exception of power.
The FD is fun to drive all of the time, but the suspension is harsh and the interior lacking by comparison. The FC I found to be much closer to RX-8 in terms of street drivability but with the added power. Also, both the FC and FD were comparable in terms of performance, 1/4 mile included, with its American counterparts. However my RX-8 was toyed with by my friends 2010 Camaro SS - a very similarly priced car here.
So what does this all mean....I think Mazda could have a market for 2 vehicles, a new RX-7 and a successor to the RX-8.
The RX-8 successor should be an easy one. Simply add another 100HP and increase reliability and fuel economy. My RX-8 required a new engine after just 38,000kms and because it revs roughly 1000 RPM more than the RX-7s on the highway, had worse fuel mileage – though not by much. This way it could compete with the others in its price range. A NA 3 rotor would have given the power and I would have taken that any day over increased fuel economy – though the new 16x may be able to do this. All of the cars in this class/price range run 13s in the 1/4 mile with a trap speed of 105+ mph. Mazda does not need a 1/4 mile monster but these figures translate to a faster car on the street and, at a minimum, it needs to keep pace with them. A funny thing to note is that it has more interior space than the Camaro SS and very similar to the Infinity G35. Much less than my sisters Challenger though.
If the RX-8 does have a successor then building a purist RX-7 can be done. The price could be a bit more than the RX-8 and can easily be made to compete with the Corvettes/Porches/etc. of the world. You'd be looking at roughly 450HP and all the modern technology Mazda could muster. This leads me to believe they would require a turbo charged 3 rotor.
The problem with all of what I just said is that it appears Mazda is more concentrated on keeping the 2 rotor configuration alive. Even if they can pull off 300HP with the 16x, I truly don't believe you have a new RX-7 but an RX-8 successor. The numbers just aren't there to compete at the level they once did when the FD came out. Perhaps they should set their sights on destroying the competition of the lesser vehicles such as the BRZ, FRS, Hyundai Genesis, etc. and call it an RX-9. Call me a pessimist but I don’t see them making a car I’d be willing to purchase when I already have an FD that can be tuned to match or beat what it once did.
IMO the BRZ/FRS is nothing more than a cheaper idea of what the RX-8 had already accomplished and should by no means be compared to a turbo RX-7. I did purchase my RX-8 new but it was also roughly $14,000 CAN off list price and there is no way the MSRP could be justified with its performance figures. I believe it would have done much better in sales had the MSRP been what I paid for it. However, in the end, the lack of power is why I got rid of it. It was only fun to drive when in the top 2-3000rpm. On the tight tracks of autoslalom I was able to easily beat the 350z’s because of the superior handling and predictability at the edge, but on the street this was as different story. One thing to consider when bashing the RX-8 is that it was sold in North America for a longer period than our beloved FDs. This says something about our market.
Owning the FD at the same time as the RX-8 really opened my eyes to the differences. The RX-8 is light years ahead in refinement and streetability. Though not as capable of a vehicle on the track, it is much better suited to the street with the exception of power.
The FD is fun to drive all of the time, but the suspension is harsh and the interior lacking by comparison. The FC I found to be much closer to RX-8 in terms of street drivability but with the added power. Also, both the FC and FD were comparable in terms of performance, 1/4 mile included, with its American counterparts. However my RX-8 was toyed with by my friends 2010 Camaro SS - a very similarly priced car here.
So what does this all mean....I think Mazda could have a market for 2 vehicles, a new RX-7 and a successor to the RX-8.
The RX-8 successor should be an easy one. Simply add another 100HP and increase reliability and fuel economy. My RX-8 required a new engine after just 38,000kms and because it revs roughly 1000 RPM more than the RX-7s on the highway, had worse fuel mileage – though not by much. This way it could compete with the others in its price range. A NA 3 rotor would have given the power and I would have taken that any day over increased fuel economy – though the new 16x may be able to do this. All of the cars in this class/price range run 13s in the 1/4 mile with a trap speed of 105+ mph. Mazda does not need a 1/4 mile monster but these figures translate to a faster car on the street and, at a minimum, it needs to keep pace with them. A funny thing to note is that it has more interior space than the Camaro SS and very similar to the Infinity G35. Much less than my sisters Challenger though.
If the RX-8 does have a successor then building a purist RX-7 can be done. The price could be a bit more than the RX-8 and can easily be made to compete with the Corvettes/Porches/etc. of the world. You'd be looking at roughly 450HP and all the modern technology Mazda could muster. This leads me to believe they would require a turbo charged 3 rotor.
The problem with all of what I just said is that it appears Mazda is more concentrated on keeping the 2 rotor configuration alive. Even if they can pull off 300HP with the 16x, I truly don't believe you have a new RX-7 but an RX-8 successor. The numbers just aren't there to compete at the level they once did when the FD came out. Perhaps they should set their sights on destroying the competition of the lesser vehicles such as the BRZ, FRS, Hyundai Genesis, etc. and call it an RX-9. Call me a pessimist but I don’t see them making a car I’d be willing to purchase when I already have an FD that can be tuned to match or beat what it once did.
01-05-13, 10:16 PM
#99
My compliant with all efi rx7s is the amount of highTech garbage Mazda added to the simple rotary and it caused so many problems. Curvy intakes vacuum lines everywhere. So much cludder Mazda filled the engine bay with so many points of failure. When u want a powerful reliable rx7 u have to take intake off block off a bunch of stuff and put it back together all because Mazda failed to put simple parts on a good simple engine. Fewer moving parts the better.
Meeting emissions standards is difficult.
01-06-13, 03:59 AM
#100
My compliant with all efi rx7s is the amount of highTech garbage Mazda added to the simple rotary and it caused so many problems. Curvy intakes vacuum lines everywhere. So much cludder Mazda filled the engine bay with so many points of failure. When u want a powerful reliable rx7 u have to take intake off block off a bunch of stuff and put it back together all because Mazda failed to put simple parts on a good simple engine. Fewer moving parts the better.