The RX-7 confirmed to be in the pipeline for 2017---RX-Vision Unveil!!
#2927
is tempted
iTrader: (10)
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.
“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.
#2928
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (7)
Decent quick read that says the vision is aimed at the super-sports car market ie corvette and alpha 8c.
A bit more like what some of us have been hoping for!
MZ Racing - MAZDA Motorsport - Ikuo Maeda Discusses RX-VISION?s Design
A bit more like what some of us have been hoping for!
MZ Racing - MAZDA Motorsport - Ikuo Maeda Discusses RX-VISION?s Design
It was another Mazda senior rep who said that the performance target is the Cayman.
Last edited by YELLOWGSLSE; 11-03-15 at 09:51 AM.
#2935
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
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
Mazda SkyActiv-R rotary could use compression ignition- Car News | CarsGuide
#2937
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
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...
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...
#2939
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
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.
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.
#2940
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
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.
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.
#2943
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
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.
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.
#2944
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
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].
#2945
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
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.
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.
#2946
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
[I]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 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!
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.
#2948
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
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.
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.
#2949
Rotor Head Extreme
iTrader: (8)
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.
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.
Last edited by t-von; 11-16-15 at 12:19 PM.
#2950
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,604 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
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.
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.
Rx9 is just a number and some letters, means nothing