ZDan

Light weight is great for fuel economy! Sports cars (all cars) would be a lot lighter weight today if CAFE had continued to go up every year instead of holding pat at 1987 levels for two decades.

4C is going to be ~$60k, I'm hearing.

adamrs80

iTrader: (7)

And cars would be a lot more expensive if cafe continued to go up every year. Notice the cost of a diesel work truck lately? As cafe goes up, so does the price. Car companies don't need the government to tell them to make more fuel efficient vehicles. The price of fuel does that for them. Did the government have to tell Gm to stop selling the H2 back when gas was over $4 per gallon. Nope. Cafe is a joke. No thank you government for getting into the car business. I wonder if the people setting these standards are car guys or prius/bicycle guys? You lost me at cafe.

ZDan

I *love* the idea of fun-to-drive utilitarian cars. I also love "pure" sports cars. It would have been brilliant (IMO) if they'd made a smaller, lighter-weight, 2-seat sports car version of the RX-8. That doesn't diminish what that car is/was. Which is, essentially, a slightly bigger/heavier 4-door 2+2 version of an RX-7 or S2000.

A lot of the stuff you mention doesn't add much weight, and some of it doesn't add *any*. More power doesn't require a stiffer chassis beyond one already designed to be stiff for other reasons (i.e., handling). Chassis strength and stiffness are going to be a much stronger function of overall vehicle weight than of power. The chassis for a great 360hp/2600 lb. sports car won't need to be any stiffer than that for a great 250hp/2500 lb. sports car.
Suspension, given the same overall weight? No weight gain there.
Transmission, differential? Not much there. For one thing, no manufacturer is going to go all Colin Chapman and design a transmission or diff specifically for a lower-powered car to save a few ounces/pounds. For another, there's just not that much in there to save. For another, they usually overbuild them in case they want to add power later.

Couple of ferinstances:
My '71 240Z started out totally stock. The stock weight is known to be 2300-2350 lb. I yanked the motor and had an L28 bored/stroked to 3.1 liters built. Pulled the stock 4-speed and installed an '80s era 5-speed (first from a 280zx, then from a truck for better ratios). Stock R180 diff out, 300ZX turbo R200 LSD in. Roll bar added. 3-row 260z radiator. Zero weight savings measures other than a smaller battery mounted behind the passenger seat (offset somewhat by #2 cables running forward). Weighed in at 2315 lb. with less than 1/8-tank and no spare or jack/tools.

My '94 RX-7 started out totally stock, 2780 lb with 1/8 tank (base model). 500+ hp LS2 V8, trans built to take it, diff built to take it, motormounts, transmount, diffmount, driveshaft, halfshafts, radiator, brakes, etc. all designed to handle more than double the original car's power in any conditions. Bigger/wider wheels and tires, of course. Chassis laden with dynomat, full interior, p/s, all a/c except compressor (-12-15 lb.), stereo w/ sub, car weighed in at 2879 lb. with 1/2-tank. Adjusting for missing a/c compressor and difference in fuel levels, weight difference is 65-70 lb.

Anyway, the additional structural and driveline and other weight to support 360hp vs. 240hp isn't as much as you might think.

My model was for a 240-250hp/2500 lb. base car at $30k, 300-360hp/2600 lb. version at $40k. More with options... IMO, this is doable, *if* the urge to make it another luxosupercar is resisted!

That would be fantastic! Here's hoping something like that happens (very unlikely). I do think that a lower-powered lower-priced version with smaller wheels/tires/brakes, etc) would sell well enough and help justify the car's existence, without detracting at all from it.

Must say I seriously doubt that you would find driving a Porsche 550 Spyder "like taking a nap"! The opposite would be more true. 550 Spyder at 80mph is going to be WAY more exciting than Corvette or GT3 at 120!

On the street, anyway. That's another great benefit of lighter-weight. Mass removes *feel*. Light weight is great for real sports car driving feel even at 2-3/10ths driving on the street. Of course light weight is great for performance. What most people miss is that light weight is also great for keeping costs/price down. Win/win/win. Here's hoping Mazda can do this...

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

Dan,
Holy **** you are right because come to think of it I have an FD that makes 350 rwhp and weighs 2600lbs. So I actually added about 150 hp along with a very substantial welded in rollbar, big brakes, big tires, big this and big that etc.... and what do you know the car weighs less than when I started, man I'm a frikken idiot why didn't I think of that.

Sorry for the sarcasm but I'm starting to feel like I'm playing chess with a pigeon

On a more serious note we both own the car we wish Mazda would build so do either of us really give a **** what mazda does probably not at least from where I'm standing. An improvement from my view point will be a cup car in 5 years not a new RX7.

PS I've been instructing students in all sorts of cars (many in OLD LOUD lightweight modded p cars) for 10 years and there's no stock Porsche made that feels as good as the current GT3 RS.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Vintage sports cars ARE loads of fun, but let's not pretend they'd work as modern sports cars for a variety of reasons. Even the FD doesn't really pass modern chassis rigidity standards for instance. And Cobras and 550's are death traps compared to modern vehicles. The reliability and longevity would be questionable by modern standards as well.

You can easily see what the range of doable is:

There's the Exige, at 2000 lbs, with a 240 hp supercharged Toyota inline-4. 8.3 lbs/hp. At $70k, you're paying for the Lotus Name to some extent, but also the modern materials and construction techniques that make that car possible. That's where the money went. It sure isn't comfortable. The passenger has to move his knee for the driver to shift.

At the other end, Chevy makes a 3175 lb. Z06 for $75k, relatively light for its overall size, uses modern construction techniques and materials, but less so than the Lotus, and it's plush enough and gadgeted-out for middle aged American butts. 6.2 lbs/HP

So where's the statistical in between? 2600 lbs, and 352 hp. 7.25 lbs/HP. No, it won't be as nimble as an Elise, but it won't be as ridiculously unlivable or expensive to construct either, and it'll be quicker. And it won't be as powerful/fast as a Z06 in a straight line, nor as plushy or comfy for fat asses and golf clubs, but it will also give it a serious run for the money on track and handle better. Ask me how I know :-).

Since 350 hp will be a stretch with an emissions-compliant rotary, that's wherefrom my 2500 lbs. target came from. Still 500 lbs worth of space, luxury, or cheaper construction techniques/materials than an Exige, minus the Lotus mark-up, $45k.

But the most important thing: It's not trying to be EITHER of those other cars... it's doing something that Mazda and the Rotary do uniquely well at a pricepoint where people will be more willing to accept the things they DON'T do well.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

If Gordon is right and Mazda is reading this stuff hopefully they are taking notes on Pete's well thought out post because they are seriously worth noting

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Dear Mazda: Luv ya babe, but the Nardi wheel isn't doing it for me.

Stix37867

iTrader: (1)

It's too bad we know virtually nothing on the new 16x project and its capabilities. All we can decipher from it is that direct inject will benefit the rotary in many ways, the new shape can/will change up the power characteristics of the motor and possibly make it more efficient. Without knowing anything more, it's really hard to know what can be done with it to meet current and future regulations.

Let’s say the new design makes it more emissions friendly. To please everyone here, a two option model could easily be done similar to how the FD was done.

The first could be the R1 option which would have a NA 3 rotor with more toys in it for the heavy sports car enthusiast (like how the FD R1 was made). I would definitely like to see it being under 2750lbs factory weight and priced around the Boss 302 Laguna Seca numbers, so $50-55k. We have to remember that anything under 2800lbs from the factory is light already. For the hardcore enthusiast, weight reduction is not hard to accomplish with a factory car. With a basic diet, you could see 2600lbs that everyone wants.

For the second option, I could see either a Base model or "Skyactive" model. Depending on how efficient the new 16x is, a very small, low boost turbo could make it a fuel efficient model with less aggressive sport options to give a more comfortable ride and seriously minimize weight. 2650lbs would be a great target with a price point of $40-45k.

One of the reasons I would like to see both a NA 3 rotor and a 2 rotor turbo model is so Mazda can let the private sector do some R&D for them. This would allow Frankenstein motors to be built, whether it be NA 2 rotors or turbo 3 rotors. Having a 4 motor option on the market could really promote the motor for various uses and earn Mazda the extra cash they need.


I also keep hearing Miata thrown into the conversation and I don't understand why. It is a great car especially for club racing which is what I race in Spec Miata. Being 25 years old, I hate admitting that I race one since it's virtually a chick car or a retired old guy car. There is no way most guys could fit in it let alone drive it often. It also is only good for the limited horsepower it has. Start putting down some serious power and it overloads the stance. A more powerful Rx? will need a bit more width and length to give is some stability with the extra power it will be putting down.

If you want a Lotus style Rx then go buy a Miata and turn it into what you want. It is cheap enough and doesn't have any of the electronic gizmos or extra weight already. The Miata was built to fill the gap in the market for a CHEAP, lightweight car with Lotus like handling. Why would Mazda build a car that competes with itself?

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

Agreed with Fritz. Pete's is the best post so far IMO!

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

And

RXSpeed16

iTrader: (41)

The Miata keeps coming up because that's what everyone is quoting as a price and weight target. Which, I think, are both unreasonable for the return of the RX7. Coincidentally, about the weight of a Mini John Cooper Works GP (The most relevant modern, minimalist car with performance aspirations I could think of) in case someone was thinking that the extra pork was due to the convertible chassis.

Nothing in that weight class is going to have the structural rigidity, sound deadening, crash protection, or interior materials that a modern new car buyer is going to demand. Sure you can rip out everything you don't want, but then it's just an overpriced stripper. Aren't they all......

The issue with the modified cars isn't that they don't do the job, it's that they 'just' do the job. Aftermarket suppliers built to be 'just strong enough' or there is little profit to the supplier. They don't provide a warranty. They don't have a nationwide network to fix your car. They don't have to make sure it's going to work when a rich 16 year-old tries to show off for his friends.

Imagine a suspension component cracks and causes a car to crash. The manufacturer gets sued for a million dollars + legal fees. Even if it's a 1 in 10,000 defect for any critical component, you are dealing with 100 critical components on a car (engine, suspension, driveline, subframes, brakes, etc). That's a 1 in 100 chance the car will have a problem. Imagine building cars and every 100th car had a million dollars shoved in the trunk?

Obviously not a good idea, so you are going to overbuild components in order to cover their ***. The consumer sees it as 'waste', to the manufacturer, it's calculated risk avoidance. I guess I'm trying to stress that there are so many factors that go into the design and cost of a mass-market car. Far beyond comparing the cost of steel vs aluminum.

MIKE_RX7

Cars like the last Generation Twin turbo Supra and Spirit R Fd3s wont see the market again not now and not in the future. Maby they desighn something similar, maby something different, and probably called it RX9 or RX10 and so on. But RX7 after RX8 i dont think so. Also consider the economic crisis in all over the world. To produce one car with similar specs as the last generation fd3s, to past the today emissions standards today and to be more reliable in our days, it probably cost the same as Porsche, Sl AMG, and so on. So who is gona buy one except me ofcourse and the people of the forum here? They wont produce such an expensive car for a little amount of chosen people!
Last gen FD3S with such specs, more reliable, more efficiency, passing emisions standards in our days with low cost that is something of science fiction.

mikeric

iTrader: (20)

Being a Big BMW fan and repeated owner of M3, I skipped the E9X model and am waiting for the next generation to come out before I consider buying. If the new 7 is competitive, I will consider that as an M3 alternative.

Meanwhile, I ordered a nex X5 diesel as I needed a tow vehicle for my RX-7. Great DD and the bells and wistles are nice in an SUV but they need to keep them out of their sports cars.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

What the hell is mediocre about the BRZ
After market parts are already on the selling and the car easily upgraded. Body kits to change its looks, turbo kits that are 50state legal. what ever u want its there. And affordable.

The FD was over priced most of you bought yours used and the FD only handles slightly better than an FC. I like the FC looks better and it feels smaller. This is a big deal on narrow roads. The difference between an FD and an fc is normally the driver

one of my favorite rx7s is the first gen

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

A great comparible car is the lotus exige and I don't dream of owning one because its already so expensive. At that price I would rather buy something else. At the end of the day I would just buy another used rx7 because of its modern day performance. It's all about fun and affordablity. New Rx7 has to be good, with capabilitys of being the best. It's a tuner car. It always was.

As for the rx8. Has anyone made it faster while being street legal? Is that what u with the new rx7 ?

ZDan

Just an observation: CAFE regs not increasing allowed any improvements in engine efficiency to be squandered on making cars bigger/heavier.

Regs on cars didn't kill the car industry. Deregulating the banking industry did (along with crippling the entire world economy, and it ain't over yet...).

C6 ZR1 doesn't even weigh 100 lb. more than a Z06 equipped with all weight-reducing carbon fiber options and ceramic brakes, and makes 133 more horsepower. No doubt in my mind that if they can make a 250hp/2500 lb. base RX-7, they can make a 360hp version at 2600 lb., including a higher level of trim for that model.

Which *it seems to me* is what most of us want.

You drove a real 550?! Well that is pretty damn cool...

Still say that 80mph on the street in a 550 is going to be more exciting than 120+ in a ZR1 or GT3!

I don't think anyone's suggesting that. Just pointing out that if 2500-2600 lb. is the goal, making an upscale super-ultra-megacar is more likely to miss that weight target. When I say "keep it simple", Lotus 7 isn't exactly what I mean...

ZDan

My POINT: a mass produced engine, transmission, and differential making and capable of taking big horsepower don't necessarily add much weight versus a ~240hp drivetrain.

??? Same back at you! Read my post again and you will (hopefully) get the point. Adding 50% more power doesn't add anything like that %age weight to the structure/driveline/etc of a car.

I give a **** because for me, my track cars are my street cars. I want street cars that are trackable and reasonably attainable on the market.
If/when I want a race car that's actually pretty fast, I'll go Formula Continental or Formula SCCA.

Ditto, but never had anything other than more run-of-the-mill Porsches for students. Usually I get Zs, S2000s, had a few Loti , but also a LOT of WRX, Mustangs, etc. Most of our club is very middle-class, not much exotica.

I have no doubt that a stock GT3 RS makes a great track car right out of the box. But I wish Porsche would get back to making at least some smaller/lighter-weight fun sports cars. IMO, Boxster/Cayman should have been a LOT closer to Elise/Exige, rather than being kind of a 911 junior. And of course, to me, the 911 should be about where the Boxster/Cayman are, size/weightwise!

ZDan

Fully agree that multiple models at different price points is practically a necessity for any new RX-7 to be viable.

Don't have any problem with the RX-7 having a *slightly* longer wheelbase for stability and better weight distribution and wider track width for greater ultimate cornering. But it only makes sense to use Miata componentry where possible to save money on development. If weight is to be similar, no reason not to use Miata suspension (with revised spring/damping rates of course).

I can't imagine racing a Miata and hating to admit it! You're either trying to impress the wrong people and/or worrrying WAY too much about your "image"...

Miatas are cool cars and always have been.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

So basically after you up the power considerably and change the looks then the car is cool.. lol dude that is mediocre, this isn't 1993 its 2013


Well looks are subjective so we won't go into that. But I disagree about the FC looking better

The handling maybe marginal to you but what about acceleration? Care to guess which one is the FC and which is the FD?


1990 Turbo II FC vs 1993 R1

Acceleration:


0-20 mph (s):
1.6
1.4


0-30 mph (s):
2.2
2


0-40 mph (s):
3.4
3


0-50 mph (s):
4.6
4


0-60 mph (s):
6.1
5.1


0-70 mph (s):
8.1
6.8


0-80 mph (s):
10.2
8.4


0-90 mph (s):
12.8
10.2


0-100 mph (s):
16.5
13


0-110 mph (s):
20.7
16


0-120 mph (s):
26.3
19.4


0-130 mph (s):
35.5
25.2


0-140 mph (s):
52.2
33.6


0-150 mph (s):
97.3
45.2


0-160 mph (s):



0- 1/4 mile (s):
14.6
13.7



speed at 1/4 mile:
153 km/h / 95 mph
165 km/h / 103 mph



quarter mile time difference to the car from the first column (s):
0
0.9



drag race distance at 1/4 mile to the car from the first column ahead(+) or behind(-):
0
42 m / 46 yds



0- 1km (s):
26.7
24.8



Acceleration in gears:


60-100 km/h (IV th or top gear)(s):
6.5
6


80-120 km/h (V th or top gear)(s):
10.6
9.7


80-120 km/h (VI gear)(s):



40-60 mph (IV th or top gear)(s):
5.2
4.8



50-70 mph (V th or top gear)(s):
8.5
7.8


50-70 mph (VI th gear)(s):


Overtaking factors:


60-100 km/h (s):
3.3
2.6

80-120 km/h (s):
4.4
3.5


100-180 km/h (s):
15.2
11.2


40-70 mph (s):
4.7
3.7


50-90 mph (s):
8.2
6.1



So you add better handling with better acceleration what do you get? A better car and not marginally better either... So what did the Turbo II pull in lateral G's anyway?

MisterX

The RX-8 as we know it was no doubt dictated by Ford, who no longer has a controlling stake in MMC; that can only be a good thing for those who want a return to Mazda's previous way of design when it comes to the rotary division.

MisterX

Following that logic would run counterintuitive to improving crash standards. Unless the feds mandated carbon tubs for all cars starting in the late 90s -- cost-wise we know there ain't no way in hell that was ever happening, nor ever will happen.

It's as if they're legislating the sports car out of production.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

No kidding... FC better looking and nearly as good handling as FD? PUH-LEAZE. You people just forfeighted your vote on the next one.

adamrs80

iTrader: (7)

This thread has been a successful tool in increasing the post count of a few newbies.

I think I am being realistic in the following. Mazda will build another rotary powered sport car. Structurally it will be much better than the FD if no other reason because the RX-8 was more rigid and this car will of course improve on most everything the RX-8 did. It will probably have an unrealistic back seat but it will be there. No extra doors. I personally think they will not have forced induction at least in the beginning. Direct injection and hopefully some of the skyactive anti-knock technology will be usable as well. 8500k redline. We will end up with a car that handles better than nearly every vehicle, if not everything else in the market, magazines will rave and it will leave alot of us disappointed with the looks, and the car will not be as fast around a track as the FD. Hopefully the looks will be good because the performance can and would certainly be improved upon either by Mazda or the rest of the rotary community. Hopefully the engine will give us something to work with so we are not forced to swap in a 13b-rew to be satisfied. I would be perfectly happy with a new rotary car that matched the FD performance wise but improved on safety, exterior paint and interior plastic quality. I don't expect this new vehicle to compete in the current horsepower/acceleration race. Price would have to start under 40k for Mazda to have a chance with it. Autocross racers would love it though.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

I'm tired of picking up the chess pieces, you win the weight chess match

We should stop bitching we live in the best time EVER for the automobile the weight and power #s are absolutely astonishing and the cars are super fun to drive compared to those old tiny lightweight 911s, 240Zs, FDs etc... with 200 to 300hp.

If I wanted a small light weight toy I'd own a lotus. Dan I suggest you consider one and then once you drive it and realize it's a bore with no top end, is slow as *** everywhere etc.... you'll decide you need some length, width, tire, power etc.... which comes at a cost both to your wallet and to your scale and it's called a GT3, GTR, Z06 etc..... Do I want a slightly smaller more simplistic lightweight GT3 or Z06 yep and that's what I wish Mazda would build.

PLEASE mazda don't roll over/compromise stand up and be proud of the next RX7 the same way you were 20 plus years ago when you built the 3rd gen. Build a sports car that has the susp, wheels, brakes, chassis (length width stiffness), engine (3 rotor) that's up to the task of taking on the best sports car of today be a leader like you once were. Rah-rah

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

I finally get it: 991 GTE? Anyone else seen this? - Teamspeed.com

Mazda CAN'T compete

Just stick with the miata it's what you do well