I'm totally fine with a 4-4.5 second 0-60..

 

Correct for the corvette and 8c portion, but as far as being aimed at super-sports cars, the Mazda general manager of their design division was quoted:
“While designing a car with super-sports attributes, we also aimed to accomplish a form that gave an agile, lightweight impression. To design a car that gives the unyielding impression of a super-sports car, you need to create a cool and calm exterior that simultaneously gives an unmistakable sense of power."

However it turns out, I can't wait to get my hands on it.

 

The "super-sports car...quote from the designer was about....the design, not the performance target. Hence the "*impression* of a super-sports car" part. Which, I might add, is not any different from the FD. It had design elements from cars which were much more expensive and exotic than it was.

It was another Mazda senior rep who said that the performance target is the Cayman.

 

Well I was hoping Mazda had a another prototype here on American soil for Sema. No nadda!!!

 

Yea, but did you get to see Mad Mike drift in the 4 rotor today?

 

Seriously???? I took pics of the car but it was inside central hall.

 

Yea, I saw something on IG showing that he was scheduled to do a drift demo on Tues. They may have changed things, but I thought that was the plan.

 

I'm not surprised that it won't be at SEMA, but does anyone know if it'll be at the North American Auto Show (Detroit) in January?

P

 

A concept without an engine at SEMA would be lame.

 

This recent article backs up what I was theorizing about the Skyactiv-R 16X possibly using supercritical injection for a sparkplug-less Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition engine earlier in this thread.

Mazda SkyActiv-R rotary could use compression ignition- Car News | CarsGuide

 

As lame as some FWD Acura TSX fake wanna-be race car winning an award there

**Paging Team Phil**

 

The newest rumors/leaks are that the new RX will have 450hp with a turbocharger that uses capacitors/electric asist for initial spool and a rear dual clutch transaxle (we saw 2 pedals on RX-Vision).

Additionally, the CF parts I speculated on earlier were mentioned.

New Mazda RX secrets revealed - motoring.com.au

Sounds like someone's wishlist for sure...

 

That has WAY too much over hang for a rotary.

1400 kilos? Seriously?

 

That has WAY too much over hang for a rotary.

1400 kilos? Seriously?

I don't get why people say these things.
Also, I think you mean too long of a hood as overhang is the area in front of or behind the wheel/tire.

Its a 2 seat RX-8 that is 3" shorter.

You want them to put the passenger cabin in the middle of the car just so it has a shorter hood?

The weight is to be under 3,000lbs (1400kg). That is lighter than S2 RX-8

Yes, I would prefer a 300hp NA rotary sub 2,000lb MX-5 based model, but this 450hp/sub 3,000lb model is just what others wanted.

 

350 HP at 2800 pounds would be a good place to start, seeing as how a lightly tuned FD is capable of this. But I suppose 3000 isn't too bad for a hybrid.

Yes, sure. The front half the car is too long compared to the cockpit and rear.
You could have just fit a straight six under that hood and called it a day.

 

just put the new 2 rotor in the new miata, and a call it a day.

 

^^

Mazda has been screwing this up since the 1989 introduction of the MX-5, so I guess we need to assume its now a tradition with them.

 

Yes, sure. The front half the car is too long compared to the cockpit and rear.
You could have just fit a straight six under that hood and called it a day.

Well, sounds like you are talking about two different things.

You would prefer more trunk and less hood visually.

You would prefer a straight 6 and a higher polar moment of inertia over a 2 rotor and lower polar moment of inertia.
--------

One thing I can tell you about a seating position rearward of the center of the vehicle is the driver will be much more aware of the amount of rear slip angle he/she is carrying!

I remember my first ride in the back of my RX-8 while a friend was driving, I thought he was going to smack me into everything on the side of the road.

It is actually a little disconcerting.

Also, the rear weight bias of the cab rear-ward and now transaxle talk has me a bit worried as that is something I hated about my FC and it only had 48/52 rear weight bias. I'm not a fan of the understeer when its not oversteering of rear weight bias.

But visually, I think its dynamite. Rotary dynamite.

 

Because some people are old enough to remember when a light weight car was ~2000lbs, not ~3100lbs. I can hear crash safety being mentioned already while completely ignoring the huge class bias in those tests. Not to mention all the other gadgets that add a **** ton of weight that people ignore these days too.

Regardless, if it isn't lightweight or have a proper manual I'm not buying it. Regardless of what "everyone else" wants [i.e. what everyone else with accept and not bitch too much about].

 

Because some people are old enough to remember when a light weight car was ~2000lbs, not ~3100lbs.

Well, I agree with you.

I think the RX-Vision is an awesome car and its not something I particularly want either.

If Mazda just would have put a 300hp rotary in the new MX-5 with a top I would desperately want it.

A 450hp 3,000lb RX-Vision is still a bad *** car that others here wanted and I think it *looks* amazing.

If it is anything like a 450hp RX-8 it will also be an amazing performance car.

 

The rear of the car looks fine, but overall it looks more like a Supra than an RX-7. It looks like you could have easily fit twice as much engine (even a four-rotor) in there with room to spare.


No, I just think the front half doesn't need to be that long. It looks like a Supra. And if it's going to look like a Supra, having a lightweight straight-six would give you much more performance potential for a fairly minor sacrifice, so long as you mount it low enough. Not to mention better gas mileage.


That's great if you're a fan of Caterhams but I prefer to be near the COG.

This just proves my point. If you're going to stick the transmission in the rear, there's absolutely no reason for the engine bay to be that long with a two-rotor. You could have put a four-rotor in there.

 

^^I don't think Mazda has an in-line six in its inventory and I suspect it would be cost prohibitive to develop a one-off for a sports car. The front end looks fine, the rear end looks fine, lets get to the dyno testing of the 16x.

 

This just proves my point. If you're going to stick the transmission in the rear, there's absolutely no reason for the engine bay to be that long with a two-rotor. You could have put a four-rotor in there.

Now that I think about it a little more, if Mazda is doing a "transaxle" design with the RX-Vision layout-

It is probably just eliminating the efficiency losses of u-joints by attaching the traditional rwd longitudinal transmission directly to the differential just like the "transaxle" in the Corvette.

This sticks with Mazda's Skyavtiv theme of eliminating small losses in efficiency (like 1:1 6th gear for instance) and it is the final form of what Mazda's Power Plant Frame has effectively been doing for 26 years.

-edit-
Also, Mazda isn't dumb and moving the transmission rearward instead of the middle of the car would only increase the polar moment of inertia.

 

A lot of rotors heads here want a new RX7. Based on the above article Blue posted, I don't see Mazda naming this an Rx7. This car will have the layout of an entirely new vehicle. So if it's named an Rx9 and heavier? I'm cool with that! I still see no reason Mazda couldn't build both vehicles at some point depending on the success and relaibilty of this new cars release. Besides, this is the platform you need to compete with the supercars and to put that big power down (provided they leave room for a 24x)

Edit: I don't know about you guys, but its rear transaxle application leaves room for all wheel drive setup. I can only dream of the possibilities of putting that much power down in a lightweight vehicle with 50/50 weight distribution.

 

Rx7 means maybe too much, Rx8 means something, but it has an aftertaste. Cosmo is my choice, it sounds like something, and it has a pedigree.

Rx9 is just a number and some letters, means nothing