ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I'd also say though, that making a rotory powered BRZ type car (or at least making everyone wait 5 years for it) doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't I just buy a BRZ? Why would I take a risk with some exotic rotory powerplant on a low end, non-exotic or unremarkable car anymore?

IMO, Mazda needs to build something worth the leap of faith.

RXSpeed16

iTrader: (41)

Agreed. Keep it NA, 3+ rotors, make it something unique and priced a bit higher. I'd suspect 75k+ because it's easy to build a car that is 'just strong enough' to perform a task. OEM's have to build it for the people that don't check the oil and the people that throw slicks on it and take it to the dragstrip. Consider the GTR's launch control. It was not built with enough of a safety factor for a commercial product. Overbuilding things costs money. Lots of money. Then you crash it and test it and re-design it, which costs more money. I see it 911 money, but not matching 911 performance.

If they go ahead with a halo car, a 2-rotor utilizing the same engine technology could be employed to build a smaller more FB-type vehicle based on an evolution of the Miata platform. That's kind of backwards from how business plans go, but incidentally similar to Tesla's strategy.

But then the big question is which one gets the RX7 name? The latter seems to be what was alluded to in the original article that spawned this thread, but the former would be much more along the lines of the evolution of the RX7 nameplate.

It really comes down to what is this new engine going to be capable of. Which nobody here really knows.

IMO, an NA 3-rotor FD is exactly what I want in a car. Just not really in the cards any time soon.

edit: Damn you guys are fast! Can't let these things sit for so long before posting.

ZDan

My major point is, even I'm a billionaire, I still want a legitimately lightweight sports car.

There are a TON of "nice" superexpensive "sports" (luxosport if you ask me) cars already on the market.

I could actually afford a $65k car (but of course it's not a wise investment). But what I want in a sports car is LESS. Something a lot more like a 240Z than a GT-R/Corvette/modern-Porsche.

Regarding the RX-8 "failure", it outsold the bejeezus out of the FD in the U.S. market, and stayed around for 10 years instead of 3.

I *still* wonder how well the FD would have done if they'd sold an N.A. version...

As a big fan of light weight, I would HATE to see them try to further evolve the RX-7 into a high-$$$ super-ultra-mega-car. That path ensures weight gain.

Wider-track MX-5 basis with superswoopy coupe body and decently powerful 2-rotor would be way way WAY preferable for me, even if I were a billionaire.

Talking of compromise: *every* design is a compromise.
"nicer", "something special", "lots of rotors", all of these imply MORE WEIGHT. That's a HUGE compromise as far as I'm concerned.

For me, 240-250hp base (300+ turbo) in a 2500 lb. FR cab-rearward 50/50 or better 2-seat sports car would have a "niceness" and "specialness" all its own.

There's already any number of overpriced/overwrought/ubercars on the market. There's a far greater opportunity available DOWNmarket, for a more PURE sports car. That's what I'd like to see.

ThUnDeRbErK

RX-7 production numbers - exports + domestic = everything

1st Gen

Series-1 = 78 - 80
78 = 72,692
79 = 71,617
80 = 56,317

Series-2 = 81-83
81 = 55,321
82 = 59,686
83 = 57,864

Series-3 = 84-85
84 = 63,959
85 = 63,105

Total = 500,561

2nd Gen

Series-4 = 86-88
86 = 72,760
87 = 52,204
88 = 34,592

Series-5 = 89-91
89 = 37,642
90 = 29,411
91 = 16,623
92 = 00,500 (commemorative convertibles)

Total = 243,732

3rd Gen

Series-6 = 92-95
92 = 26,899
93 = 06,801
94 = 05,962
95 = 05,202

Series-7 = 96-98
96 = 04,762
97 = 03,556
98 = 01,423

Series-8 = 99-02
99 = 04,151
00 = 02,611
01 = 02,589
02 = 03,903

Total = 067,859

Mazda Rx-8

03-07 Series-I production = 166,900

08-12 Series-II production= 026,194

Total = 193.094


Alfa Romeo and Mazda is producing roadster in 2015 we are going to see the next RX after 2015.

Finally everbody arguing with each other think 2002 Rx-7 producing stopped Rx-7 territory stopped I do not understand why they return Rx-7 ? They had stopped Rx-7 Legend because they haven't got any engine emission passing and more powerful than rew. Rotary is still alive but they have an emission issues this really hard them.

Rx-8 is logically today's sports car why ? See brz gt86 fr-s what 10 years ago Mazda did. Cheap and enough for the market if Rx-8 has 100-200 kg lightweight it is fun to drive many other cars.

Well a 2 door platform or if you called Rx-7 a market rivals ready and rubs the palms and waiting Rx-7 so any engine 16x really competite with GT-R LFA or new(not official but waiting) NSX or SUPRA ? No

I think Mazda's Rx-7 mantality was over 2002

Today's Territory starts 2003 with RENESIS and the Predecessor is RENESIS and i think they call it Rx-8 or Rx-9 if the platform will be roadster. But like Rx-7 series i think Rx-8 will have be a serie.

If it will be a Rx-7 it needs more power to dance with nsx,supra,gtr,lfa..

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I said it a few pages ago, but Mazda need to build something UNIQUE in the marketplace so that people will take a chance on a rotary engine because they want the whole package, and build something where the rotary shortcomings (gas mileage, torque) aren't such liabilities. To me, that takes the "semi practical" direction out. If that's what you want, piston motors rock. Go get one. They make that car already.

So what are you left with? Something that's an exciting, unique weekend toy or track car. Somewhere between an Elise (ridiculously small, impractical, fussy) and a Corvette (bigger, bloated, garish). Weight is crucial. 2500 lbs tops. STYLISHLY spartan (not just cheap/stripped. Elise makes great use of exposed/un-covered surfaces), but of livable size. World class handling. 300-350 hp. Great looking. Don't try to out-Corvette a Corvette. Don't try to out-Elise an Elise. Don't try to out-BRZ a BRZ. Build what nobody is building, and that plays to the rotary's and Mazda's strengths.

ThUnDeRbErK

That's why Mazda waits 2015 to produce next Mx-5 ND platform to develop a new sports car.

Now Mazda has a ability like 99's s2000's hit market Mazda will do like that 1200 kg's enough for kg hp ratio 16x is enough a roadster car for tuning wise and pure sports car mantality.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

BRILLIANT!!!!!! at 350 at 300 not so much LOL

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

The perfect car for Dan. A miata with a 16x

Thanks for the #s chart

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

The new Nismo 370Z is $43k, and is 350 hp and 3300 lbs. The Cayman R is almost $60k, 330 hp, 2900 lbs.

A 2500 lb., 350 hp Mazdaspeed RX7 for $45 would sell. And it would kick both of their asses, and there would be nothing like it. But that's NOW. Who knows in 2017. Again, Mazda could have built that car this year. They suck.

ZDan

Right, but all else equal, adding a rotor adds 100 lb. to the engine alone, and right where you don't want it, way up front. Might require lengthening the wheelbase to keep weight distribution even, which would add more weight. Realistically, a more upmarket 3-rotor new RX-7 is more likely to be north of 3000 lb., which I'd hate to see.

PRECISELY why I think they shouldn't aim upmarket. Upmarket adds cost (duh) and weight, neither of which I want. Understand that others do want this, but IMO, it would be a mistake to try to go head-to-head with all of the established cars up there. Meanwhile, the lower end is starved...

I like the FR-S/BRZ, they are today's version of the S13 240SX. Which is great!
But what I'd really like would be a 2-seater that size/weight, with much better weight distribution (easily achieved by moving the engine/firewall/driver aft by 20" or so) with some more power, for reasonable $$$.

My '94 base weighed 2780 lb. with 1/8 tank when stock. LS2 (and roll bar, and bigger wheels/tires/brakes, etc) brought it up to ~2830 lb., still well under 2900

I'd like to see them aim for lower than that, though...

That's cool. Maybe *that* car should be the "RX-9", though!
I would just hate to miss the opportunity for having a genuine bare-bones no-nonsense lightweight and reasonably quick sports car on the market.

ZDan

Sounds good to me

ZDan

That would be brilliant. I always wondered why they never did even a limited run of ***-kicking rotary Miatas...

I do want coupe/hatch instead of roadster, though, and different styling. More rakish, less bar-of-soap, and not looking as if on stilts, please

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

You may have to sell some stocks though

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

Rotary mpg is poor beacause of gearing. I don't think that is as big of issue. It should be more efficient with a turbo. This would allow the engine to have a tall 6th gear and not require down shifting to climb hills or pass.

Gearing is what makes the ls1 so good. T56 has to very tall OverDrive gears.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

Absolutely, a mans miata.

Hopefully the execs at Mazda are following this thread and taking notes because we are coming up with some brilliant ideas here

ThUnDeRbErK

On the table now there is not any RX project you know ? All of them only for blog's magazines documents and reports.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

A third rotor doesn't ad weight if it allows you to subtract a turbo. I would look for a 350 hp N/A 2-rotor. Also, if rotary mpg sucks because of "gearing" it's because the gearibg is necessary because of torque. Of course you can gear an LS differently.

Also. Miatas are already 2400 to 2500 lbs anymore and carry only 165 hp. And they're 30k! Mazda would need to sharpen its pencil to build the 2500 lb 350 car I'm talking about.

ZDan

For realzies? I was under the impression that 20b basically weighed the same as the 13b w/ turbo. But maybe that's a lightweight aftermarket turbo setup. I know the stock 13bTT turbo setup is pretty complex and massive.

Cool. P/S, A/C installed and functioning? Any other weight-reducing measures on the car? What's the weight distribution? Genuine curiosity here. I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that the 3-rotor added a fair amount of weight up front.

Ugh, the Porsche "we survive because rich folk are of increasingly little brain" model...

Sounds goot, the more lightweight rwd sports/sporty cars the better

If 3-rotor adds no more weight than turbo, that OK for fast model, but I worry about fuel economy...

ZDan

Base is $24k, Grand Touring with leather seats is $27k. I gots zero interest in the folding hardtop models.

Yup. But a 2500 lb. coupe with 240+ hp na 2-rotor is IMO eminently doable. 350hp turbo or 3-rotor would put on some weight, but 2700 lb. shouldn't be a problem. *IF* minimizing weight is made a critical design priority from the outset.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

It was eminently doable (and would have been cool) 10 years ago. Now? Meh.

Turbos or superchargers don't weigh 200 lbs. I'm not convinced that 350 hp requires that weight. The FD was 2750 lbs, 20 years ago, the Z06 is 3100 and it's enormous by comparison, the Cayman 2900, and the Exige was about 2000.

mikeric

iTrader: (20)

The future is not in the past. Every generation of car that comes out has to have new technology in it is is just simple evolution.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Light weight and high power, and reliable (and pass emissions) aren't going to happen with current (or past) technologies, and be affordable.

"Back to basics" means a FAST two door, two-seater sportscar, not yesteryear's technology or performance standards.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

That's not true. I said mazda should use current technologies. How many cars do u know currently running direct injection gasoline?

MisterX

I hate the idea of playing in the poor man's (<$30K) segment for a flagship sportscar. Because of cost constraints we'd be looking at an update of the current 1.3L, as there'd be no way Mazda would offer the 16X engine (with 280+ hp) in a car that comes in for less than the extinct RX-8. Nevermind the fact that to be a successor to the 7 performance-wise the car should follow the same path its predecessor did vs the more-powerful-but-also-heavier-competition (Vette, 300ZX, even the NSX).

Next 7: 3 rotor turbo, lightweight chassis utilizing as much carbon fiber and/or aluminum as possible for its $65K price. True, sales in the U.S. would be, at most, 150 units/month in that price range, but by building such a car it would be a great way to showcase the engineering prowess of the small, but very dedicated team from the "little" company from Hiroshima.

By doing so, they'd then be able to dabble back in the <$35K with a RX-3/RX-4 or whatever they wish to call it.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

Yes and no. I've noticed most car makers hype up new tech without ever using existing tech to it full potential. Even direct injection has a characteristic that I see huge potential in but the new Mazda 3 only gets 40mpg. I average 43 in moms 2011 Hyundai accent and its old tech. I've econo driven it to 53mpg. It costs less and is more reliable. Mazda engineers know what it can really do but it's like they have set limits.

The Chevy volt, I've calculated it to potentially achieve over 100 mpg after the batts are discharged. Chevy can make a car to do this but they don't.

Hybrids are junk and make no sense at all and don't work. They just make u drive really slow.
Point is I see no reason they can't hit these goals with current tech. Rotary doesn't need all the high tech BS. It might benefit from it but its not necessary.