The RX-7 confirmed to be in the pipeline for 2017---RX-Vision Unveil!!
04-13-16, 05:23 AM
#3126
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I was saying.
There is enough room to mount it entirely behind the front crossmember without putting it in past the firewall.
Which implies the distance between the wheels and the firewall will be considerably shorter on the production proportions.
As opposed to putting the turbo to the side or front, and/or mounting it horizontally, and having a lower and longer hood instead of a higher and shorter one.
That overlay looks way off though?
The RX-7 is 168.5" long. The RX-Vision is 172.8" long. Your overlay makes it look over 18" longer.
Link me to the original source that has the outlines? I'll overlay them with proper dimensions for you.
There is enough room to mount it entirely behind the front crossmember without putting it in past the firewall.
Which implies the distance between the wheels and the firewall will be considerably shorter on the production proportions.
As opposed to putting the turbo to the side or front, and/or mounting it horizontally, and having a lower and longer hood instead of a higher and shorter one.
That overlay looks way off though?
The RX-7 is 168.5" long. The RX-Vision is 172.8" long. Your overlay makes it look over 18" longer.
Link me to the original source that has the outlines? I'll overlay them with proper dimensions for you.
Last edited by zaque; 04-13-16 at 06:54 AM.
04-13-16, 12:53 PM
#3131
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go.
I do hope they make a 2+2. And not just the bad seats the later FDs had, but not full size either, but enough for small adults to fit in as long as the front seats aren't all the way back. Basically between the FD and RX-8 with 2 doors.
I do hope they make a 2+2. And not just the bad seats the later FDs had, but not full size either, but enough for small adults to fit in as long as the front seats aren't all the way back. Basically between the FD and RX-8 with 2 doors.
04-13-16, 12:55 PM
#3132
zaque
That's what I was saying.
There is enough room to mount it entirely behind the front crossmember without putting it in past the firewall.
Which implies the distance between the wheels and the firewall will be considerably shorter on the production proportions.
That is true if you think of engine placement as simply fitting the engine in the chassis where it is easiest.
If you are engineering for lowest polar moment of inertia you will still place the heaviest components closest to the center of wheelbase as possible regardless of wheelbase length.
If Mazda is producing this turbo 450hp rotary car it will probably be on the longer 106.4" RX-8 wheelbase of the RX-Vision as opposed to the short 95.5" wheelbase of the FD RX-7.
Longer wheelbase makes for a more stable high power car.
Decreasing the polar moment of inertia at the same time makes the longer wheelbase car just as nimble as the shorter wheelbase car with the higher polar moment of inertia (RX-8 vs FD RX-7 for example).
One thing that worries me is the rear mounted trans-axle rumor instead of center mounted transmission. I don't like the feel of rear weight bias cars.
Though rear weight bias will raise the polar moment of inertia it will help with corner exit rear traction; I just have to trust Mazda has a plan to make the vehicle dynamics great.
Before I got coilovers on my RX-8 (with higher rear spring rate bias) I have raced my RX-8 while making passengers sit in the back seat to get more off throttle rotation and it was pretty sweet. I will trust Mazda.
04-13-16, 01:24 PM
#3133
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it's a longer wheelbase. The image I just put up shows a much longer wheelbase...
It's 106.3 on the concept, apparently, despite the overlapping I did making it appear longer. I used the length dimensions though, so the lines in the video must be slightly out of proportion.
I doubt it won't be 50/50 balanced or close to it. Presumably they'll try to get more weight toward the center of the car. The rear wheel especially is much further back than the FD compared to the cars length so they need to shift more weight backwards.
The patent doesn't seem to imply either a transaxle, or just some oddly shaped narrow transmission. Mounting the engine further back, with the rear wheel comparatively much further back, means a transaxle makes a lot of sense to keep it around 50/50.
Anyway, I doubt it's 450hp unless they make it super expensive. I'd guess 300-325. I wouldn't be shocked if it's close to 400, I guess.
They said the $55,000-$85,000 Cayman is their target, not the $151,000 911 turbo. I'd presume $38k-52k is the target MSRP for it.
It's 106.3 on the concept, apparently, despite the overlapping I did making it appear longer. I used the length dimensions though, so the lines in the video must be slightly out of proportion.
I doubt it won't be 50/50 balanced or close to it. Presumably they'll try to get more weight toward the center of the car. The rear wheel especially is much further back than the FD compared to the cars length so they need to shift more weight backwards.
The patent doesn't seem to imply either a transaxle, or just some oddly shaped narrow transmission. Mounting the engine further back, with the rear wheel comparatively much further back, means a transaxle makes a lot of sense to keep it around 50/50.
Anyway, I doubt it's 450hp unless they make it super expensive. I'd guess 300-325. I wouldn't be shocked if it's close to 400, I guess.
They said the $55,000-$85,000 Cayman is their target, not the $151,000 911 turbo. I'd presume $38k-52k is the target MSRP for it.
Last edited by zaque; 04-13-16 at 01:33 PM.
04-13-16, 02:36 PM
#3134
Yes, the Cayman performance target is interesting.
I think it was a way for Mazda to target the Corvette like in 1993 with the FD RX-7, but without having to say "but not the fast Corvette (Base, not Z06)."
1993 FD RX-7 R1 with 2,700lbs and 255hp had slightly better power to weight than the 1993 Corvette which had 3,300lbs and 300hp.
Remember LS V8 didn't come out until 1997 when the RX-7 was gone already in the US.
Today the base Corvette is still 3,300lbs (good job GM!) and has 455hp.
I bet the new rotary sports car is slightly better than the base Corvette again.
If they go with the rumored 2,600lbs they will need at least 360hp. And torque for a change.
The stroked out 16X with a turbo should be able to pull off the torque production just fine.
I think it was a way for Mazda to target the Corvette like in 1993 with the FD RX-7, but without having to say "but not the fast Corvette (Base, not Z06)."
1993 FD RX-7 R1 with 2,700lbs and 255hp had slightly better power to weight than the 1993 Corvette which had 3,300lbs and 300hp.
Remember LS V8 didn't come out until 1997 when the RX-7 was gone already in the US.
Today the base Corvette is still 3,300lbs (good job GM!) and has 455hp.
I bet the new rotary sports car is slightly better than the base Corvette again.
If they go with the rumored 2,600lbs they will need at least 360hp. And torque for a change.
The stroked out 16X with a turbo should be able to pull off the torque production just fine.
04-13-16, 02:59 PM
#3135
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The '93 RX-7 0-60 WAS faster than the top of the line Corvette ZR-1...
But the next model year Corvette ZR-1 got an upgrade.
I doubt they're looking too hard at the Corvette and its 275 hp/ton.
They might try to exceed the Cayman GTS which is $75k, and make something as close or better than the Cayman GT4, but at closer to Cayman base price of $55k(which will probably be closer to $60k in 2018/2019 when this car comes out)
Say it's 325hp and 2700lb, then that's 240 hp/ton. Can expect a 0-60 of about 4.0 seconds with those numbers. (The Cayman GT4 only gets a 4.2 second 0-60 because it has stupid gearing that gets you to 85mph in second gear)
360 HP would still put it short of the Corvette, at 266 hp/ton. But 0-60 in 4.0 seconds is fiiinnnneee.
The Cayman, as long as it's not the base model, is the right target. And it wouldn't be terribly difficult to make a faster, cheaper car as it's intentionally gimped to not make the 911 look bad.
The Corvette is a difficult target. 275 hp/ton is a lot.
It could have 4 seats and be cheaper than the Corvette Stringray, plus better handling, to be a good buy.
I just want a hybrid-electric turbo that increases low RPM torque and fuel economy, light weight, seats in the back that small adults can fit in, and a 0-60 of around 4 seconds.
But I want it to cost closer to $40k than $60k.
I don't really care if it's slower 0-60 than a Corvette Stingray or isn't better than the Cayman GT4 in every single way. People that want even lighter weight and more performance can turn up the boost and rip out the back seats.
But the next model year Corvette ZR-1 got an upgrade.
I doubt they're looking too hard at the Corvette and its 275 hp/ton.
They might try to exceed the Cayman GTS which is $75k, and make something as close or better than the Cayman GT4, but at closer to Cayman base price of $55k(which will probably be closer to $60k in 2018/2019 when this car comes out)
Say it's 325hp and 2700lb, then that's 240 hp/ton. Can expect a 0-60 of about 4.0 seconds with those numbers. (The Cayman GT4 only gets a 4.2 second 0-60 because it has stupid gearing that gets you to 85mph in second gear)
360 HP would still put it short of the Corvette, at 266 hp/ton. But 0-60 in 4.0 seconds is fiiinnnneee.
The Cayman, as long as it's not the base model, is the right target. And it wouldn't be terribly difficult to make a faster, cheaper car as it's intentionally gimped to not make the 911 look bad.
The Corvette is a difficult target. 275 hp/ton is a lot.
It could have 4 seats and be cheaper than the Corvette Stringray, plus better handling, to be a good buy.
I just want a hybrid-electric turbo that increases low RPM torque and fuel economy, light weight, seats in the back that small adults can fit in, and a 0-60 of around 4 seconds.
But I want it to cost closer to $40k than $60k.
I don't really care if it's slower 0-60 than a Corvette Stingray or isn't better than the Cayman GT4 in every single way. People that want even lighter weight and more performance can turn up the boost and rip out the back seats.
Last edited by zaque; 04-13-16 at 03:05 PM.
07-18-16, 08:42 PM
#3136
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/07/18/g...afe-standard//
Post edited to provide a working hyperlink.
For the past few weeks I have been reading that the Alliance of Automotive Manufactures were lobbying to reduce 2025's CAFE MPG standard of 54.5MPG.
I recall earlier in this thread there was discussion of potential platform expectancy of 10years on the market to make Mazda's financial investment have a "positive" ROI. Counter arguments were stated to be the new platform would have to be viable past the 2025 CAFE MPG Mandate. Valid concerns were the SkyActiv-R engines would decrease Mazda's MPG average to below the 54.5MPG threshold.
According to the article hyperlinked, 54.5MPG is as an estimate of where automotive fuel efficiency will by in 2025 and not a mandate. The new "estimate" is between 50 to 52.6 MPG.
The EPA will review 2022 to 2025 regulations by April 1, 2018. Lower MPG estimates and regulations from the EPA would make it easier for Mazda to bring a new rotary to market.
Post edited to provide a working hyperlink.
For the past few weeks I have been reading that the Alliance of Automotive Manufactures were lobbying to reduce 2025's CAFE MPG standard of 54.5MPG.
I recall earlier in this thread there was discussion of potential platform expectancy of 10years on the market to make Mazda's financial investment have a "positive" ROI. Counter arguments were stated to be the new platform would have to be viable past the 2025 CAFE MPG Mandate. Valid concerns were the SkyActiv-R engines would decrease Mazda's MPG average to below the 54.5MPG threshold.
According to the article hyperlinked, 54.5MPG is as an estimate of where automotive fuel efficiency will by in 2025 and not a mandate. The new "estimate" is between 50 to 52.6 MPG.
The EPA will review 2022 to 2025 regulations by April 1, 2018. Lower MPG estimates and regulations from the EPA would make it easier for Mazda to bring a new rotary to market.
Last edited by CMC; 07-18-16 at 08:45 PM.
07-19-16, 09:25 AM
#3137
Rotary Enthusiast
This makes sense. There's no point setting an arbitrary number that the manufacturers aren't going to meet. Reducing emissions and focusing research on alternative fuel technology is more important than pushing for blue-sky mileage from gasoline engines.
Also, they can't force North Americans to adopt diesel engines against market preferences – we're more likely to get small-displacement gasoline engines or hybrid cars and trucks.
Also, they can't force North Americans to adopt diesel engines against market preferences – we're more likely to get small-displacement gasoline engines or hybrid cars and trucks.
Last edited by HiWire; 07-19-16 at 09:31 AM.
07-22-16, 05:20 PM
#3139
With the advent of all-electric and hybrid sports cars now, I have a feeling that a gas only unit is not going to cut it any longer. Even the small, all-electric by BMW is phenomenally quick. Tesla Model S's with the P85 package are knocking down 60 in under 2.8 seconds. Going forward, Mercedes and BMW probably have some rockets in the offing (think hybrid M5s/M3s). A rotary-only unit is probably just going to be roadkill going forward for affordable electrics unless Mazda includes some form of electric drive train. Mazda's twiddling may well have put them beyond the curve. Moreover, there wouldn't be anything magical about a rotary as an extender/support role.
Last edited by getgone; 07-23-16 at 01:40 PM.
07-22-16, 07:53 PM
#3140
This is just some of my random thinking but couldn't an electric (pancake) motor be integrated in to the 13b. I'm thinkinh similar to a third housing but instead of a housing it would be an electric motor. The rotors and electric motor would be attached to the same eccentric shaft and transmission. The electric motor could run in town and provide tons of torque while the 13b would run under hard driving and also, possibly, recharge the batteries. The hybrid e-shaft would power a normal transmisison.
Or a three rotor design. Two large rotors that provide the power and a very small third rotor that would run during cruising to conserve fuel while the two larger rotors are shut down.
Both options could greatly increase fuel efficiency while not changing the original 13b design too much.
Like I said. Just some random thinking.
Or a three rotor design. Two large rotors that provide the power and a very small third rotor that would run during cruising to conserve fuel while the two larger rotors are shut down.
Both options could greatly increase fuel efficiency while not changing the original 13b design too much.
Like I said. Just some random thinking.
07-23-16, 02:03 AM
#3141
Well, the flywheel like a 1st gen Insight is the natural place for a pancake motor/starter/alternator. If you want a light flywheel you can do the rotor unwound and the stator wound around the bell housing.
But then you need batteries to make it work. Lithiums are light but added cost, space and maintenance.
The turbo can recover energy for the batteries when cruising and use the same motor/alternator to help spool, but more cost and maintenance.
----
If Mazda keeps it simple without hybrid it can keep the cost lower and keep the weight and complexity down.
What good is a motor with 3 moving parts when it depends on a million peripherals to keep it running right (the 3rd gen RX-7 problem).
But then you need batteries to make it work. Lithiums are light but added cost, space and maintenance.
The turbo can recover energy for the batteries when cruising and use the same motor/alternator to help spool, but more cost and maintenance.
----
If Mazda keeps it simple without hybrid it can keep the cost lower and keep the weight and complexity down.
What good is a motor with 3 moving parts when it depends on a million peripherals to keep it running right (the 3rd gen RX-7 problem).
07-24-16, 10:03 AM
#3142
Senior Member
Someone fill me in, how is this average MPG across a manufacturers range calculated?
The MPG of one example of each model totalled, then averaged
or
The MPG of the total number sold, averaged
??
If the former then I can see the need to go hybrid, if the latter then they have more leeway such as limited numbers of the high consumption cars and offset of low MPG by continuing to drive up the MPG of the rest of the fleet.
On the weight aspect, I'm not sure I can see it being much below 1500kg. A GT86 is 1300kg on skinny rims and an N/A flat four.
The MPG of one example of each model totalled, then averaged
or
The MPG of the total number sold, averaged
??
If the former then I can see the need to go hybrid, if the latter then they have more leeway such as limited numbers of the high consumption cars and offset of low MPG by continuing to drive up the MPG of the rest of the fleet.
On the weight aspect, I'm not sure I can see it being much below 1500kg. A GT86 is 1300kg on skinny rims and an N/A flat four.
Last edited by Marf; 07-24-16 at 10:06 AM.
07-24-16, 05:28 PM
#3143
On the weight aspect, I'm not sure I can see it being much below 1500kg. A GT86 is 1300kg on skinny rims and an N/A flat four.
That is true, but it is also true a Mazda ND MX-5 is 1000kg with skinny rims and an N/A inline 4 AND convertible.
Someone fill me in, how is this average MPG across a manufacturers range calculated?
I don't know precisely, but I have read that the way MPG is calculated is different for the 2016 standards on.
A vehicle will be allowed more emissions the greater the area as calculated from wheelbase and track is.
No surprise the RX-Vision has all the wheelbase of the RX-8 and has much wider track... (6" wider body) all for a 2 seater as opposed to a 4 seater.
That is true, but it is also true a Mazda ND MX-5 is 1000kg with skinny rims and an N/A inline 4 AND convertible.
Someone fill me in, how is this average MPG across a manufacturers range calculated?
I don't know precisely, but I have read that the way MPG is calculated is different for the 2016 standards on.
A vehicle will be allowed more emissions the greater the area as calculated from wheelbase and track is.
No surprise the RX-Vision has all the wheelbase of the RX-8 and has much wider track... (6" wider body) all for a 2 seater as opposed to a 4 seater.
07-25-16, 12:20 PM
#3145
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: new york
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and your batteries will be dead after 30 minutes.
that said hybrids work, a rather extreme example but it's fast on a track, porsche 918.
re: pancake motor (other post), i would assume it's better to put the motors near the wheels , so you can easily do regen without wear & tear on the whole drivetrain. plus then you can do a bit of torque vectoring and such. could be tiny for "in town", maybe 5KW x 2. or you could do both , i.e. have your pancake on the motor, use it some plus it replaces the starter, and probably is the same weight as the starter.
i don't really see the problem, if dodge can sell an SRT hellcat then surely mazda can do an rx7. there is a guzzler tax on the hellcat, but that's ok. http://www.hellcat.org/attachments/image-jpg.1248/
07-25-16, 01:06 PM
#3146
Yeah, we have a Tesla that races with us.
Amazing for autocross.
Beats the V8 M3 and Cadillac CTS-V that are in its class. You can see that low center of gravity and the electronics working to distribute/limit power. and the torque/acceleration is amazing. Makes the supercharged LS LSA look lethargic.
Does just as well on the kart track "enduro" 4-5 minute sprints.
Does not do the hillclimb well (1,200+ ft elevation gain in 2 miles in 100F heat). Its still fast, but the electronics start to limit the power from the heat.
Same as any engine management on a standard car is doing, but the Tesla owner isn't having it. It isn't racing for him unless its 100% power 100% of the time.
If in your racing you use more than a tank of gas in a day without any breaks, the Tesla isn't there yet. It will need quick charges between sessions.
Amazing for autocross.
Beats the V8 M3 and Cadillac CTS-V that are in its class. You can see that low center of gravity and the electronics working to distribute/limit power. and the torque/acceleration is amazing. Makes the supercharged LS LSA look lethargic.
Does just as well on the kart track "enduro" 4-5 minute sprints.
Does not do the hillclimb well (1,200+ ft elevation gain in 2 miles in 100F heat). Its still fast, but the electronics start to limit the power from the heat.
Same as any engine management on a standard car is doing, but the Tesla owner isn't having it. It isn't racing for him unless its 100% power 100% of the time.
If in your racing you use more than a tank of gas in a day without any breaks, the Tesla isn't there yet. It will need quick charges between sessions.
07-26-16, 01:10 PM
#3148
I'm thinking in terms of an electric power assist ala the McClaren P1 or LaFerrari (F150)--something that would give the Vision the immediate torque of the electric motor off the line and an eco mode for short trips. I realize this is probably an expensive proposition, but without an electric assist, I just don't know what kind of 'sports car' the Vision will be by the time it arrives. If it's easily out run by the next iteration i3, it won't have much presence and then the rotary will be shelved.
Last edited by getgone; 07-26-16 at 02:45 PM.
07-29-16, 06:46 AM
#3150
Senior Member
I'm thinking in terms of an electric power assist ala the McClaren P1 or LaFerrari (F150)--something that would give the Vision the immediate torque of the electric motor off the line and an eco mode for short trips. I realize this is probably an expensive proposition, but without an electric assist, I just don't know what kind of 'sports car' the Vision will be by the time it arrives. If it's easily out run by the next iteration i3, it won't have much presence and then the rotary will be shelved.