fmzambon

A 3 rotor would be the best possible outcome (short of the 4-rotor-forbidden-dream). And it would also offer one more way to produce a lower priced version of the car by deleting one of the rotors.

However, none of the recent rotary-related patents by Mazda seem to imply a 3-rotor configuration. Perhaps the engine will be the same, old, two rotor. Or perhaps it's just that the number of rotors of the engine is not relevant for those patents? Or maybe, since those patents were filed in november 2014, the decision of the number of rotors had not been made back then.
After all, those drawings only show an intake-mounted injector, while it's pretty much known that the new engine will feature DI.

As we say here in Italy, "chi vivrà vedrà" (literally: "who lives will see", or less litarally "time will tell")

fmzambon

Oh, and I refuse to call the new car "Rx-9" when Kiyoshi Fujiwara (Mazda’s head of R&D) explicitly said last year at the Tokyo Motor show:

Source

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

3 rotor NA is going to be only 50% more torque than 2 rotor NA (as in - still not enough) and much worse gas mileage.

The turbo 2 rotor has the potential to have more torque than NA 4 rotor (even in factory trim) and much better gas mileage than 3 rotor NA.

-----------
Only downside to turbocharging the rotary is the fragile design of the rotary to detonation damage which Mazda should be able to solve.

If we look at Mazda's efforts on engine management in the RX-8 (complex) I would say the next RX-? ECU may be set-up to monitor and trim combustion chamber pressure directly to avoid knock entirely instead of trying to trim the engine control once knock is acoustically detected as in previous engines.

If they don't have any new tricks to avoid a knock situation I would agree a turbo charged rotary is a poor idea.

I think Mazda is aware of the rotaries reputation and is working hard to make this latest and second (super rare FWD 13A was 1st) total production redesign of the rotary engine solid.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

fmzambon

Oh, and I refuse to call the new car "Rx-9" when Kiyoshi Fujiwara (Mazda’s head of R&D) explicitly said last year at the Tokyo Motor show:

So why did Mazda re-trademark the RX-7 name and trademark RX-9 name if it is such a ridiculous idea as he seems to indicate?

RX-9 will protect the 3rd gen RX-7 legacy and show it is a huge redesign/ evolutionary step in rotary production cars.

To answer his question.
If RX-7 is a 2+2 (except US market w/ 3rd gen) and RX-8 is a 4 seater, what is RX-9?

Something new.

Pure 2 seat performance car as shown in RX-Vision design.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

00SPEC

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadokenny View Post
I could be wrong but I believe its double wishbone front and macphersons rear.
even worse


....right?

No, double wishbone in front is the way to go.

The peak weight transfer is from braking and turn in, so you want the absolute best camber control up front to maximize front traction and decrease tire wear on braking (by not having to run high static negative camber).

In the rear you would like camber control for best off corner acceleration, but the MR design already aids greatly in this and the body roll is less than on braking/turn in, so moderate static negative camber will cover for the body roll while not affecting straight line traction too adversely.

Double wishbone would be great in the back, but Chapman strut isn't going to kill the party.

fmzambon

They trademarked the Rx-9 name because:
1) It gives Mazda more marketing options, should the decision come at a later time that the Rx-7 name is not appropriate for whatever reason. Having a plan B is always good;
2) it cost pennies from a corporate point of view to trademark a name, especially when compared to the development cost of the product that may use that name;
3) Mazda may want to prevent anyone else (Lexus? Some patent troll?) from using that name and generate confusion;
4) they already used that name in the past for a rotary version of the 929, so perhaps it was already a trademark they owned in the past;

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

I didn't know the 929 based rotary Luce was also called the RX-9 in some markets!

Well.

Will it be called RX-9? Well, all previous RX-7s have been two or 2+2 seaters and the RX-8 was a four-seater, so what would that make RX-9? A six-seater?

Was the RX-9 a 6 seater?

Or was Kiyoshi Fujiwara san just trying to avoid answering a direct question in the quote above...

---------

RX-Vision is what I would like to call the new rotary because that is the version I like the most so far, but I don't see a problem referring to it as the next RX-7 or RX-8 successor or RX-9 or anything else.

fmzambon

A pic while we are at it. A Google search for "mazda rx-9 + 929" brings up many more



There's also the possibility of Fujiwara not wanting to answer the question.
But if his intention was just NOT to answer the question, why offer such a clear answer? If you read the quote, just after that part you mentioned, Fujiwara went on to say that "This concept is a two-seater so you can imagine which number fits best". This seems pretty non-ambiguous to me. Almost as if he wanted to answer but could not do so explicitly.

He could have just said "we have not decided on a name yet", but he gave that answer above. This would be plain misdirection rather than not answering.
Very un-japanese if you ask me.

I have no problem with whatever name Mazda chooses. It's just that given what has been said by a person that certainly knows what's going inside Mazda, I think that it's very unlikely to be named other than Rx-7. That's it.
Even more so if one considers that other legendary names are coming back: GT-R, NSX, Supra (most likely).

t-von

iTrader: (8)

You may be jumping the gun to say "it's not enough". Remember we're dealing with a long stroke version of the engine so the torque "could" be quite nice in NA form. Personally, I would absolutely love Mazda to eventually come out with an NA and Turbo versions of both engines and later down the line, build a TRUE 4 rotor mid engine supercar. But that's a pipe dream.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

I am counting on the "stroked" 16X having more torque. that was the reason for the complete redesign in geometry of the engine.

Even if they double 13B torque an NA 2 rotor would be 300ft/lbs and an NA 3 rotor 450ft/lbs.

Whereas a turbo 2 rotor would be ~600ft/lbs at 1bar boost or ~800ft/lbs on 1.5bar and get much better gas mileage.

Because of the fact that Mazda has added a turbo to the design as shown in the patents I am thinking the torque increase from 13B to 16X wasn't nearly double

Or

Because of the poor low rpm sealing of the rotary engine design Mazda could have used a small turbo to prop up the poor off idle/low rpm torque that existed even after "stroking" the engine for more torque.

-----------
I had 420ft/lbs in my 2,500lb FC with my turbo 2 rotor and I would have welcomed more torque.

"Not enough torque" is subjective I guess... until you start chasing down the Corvette and GTRs. Then it become objective

t-von

iTrader: (8)

But sometimes, too much torque just makes certain vehicles more difficult to handle at the limit. Having to modulate the throttle to keep the back end from kicking out too much. A 2,900lb car doesn't need a ton of torgue (400lbs +)to be fun IMO, then again you may have spoiled yourself with your own car.

getgone

iTrader: (2)

Let's just hope they build another decent RX-7 with 2 rotors.

Marf

That's all in the calibration.

Eco, sports, sports +, race or whatever modes they decide to use.

MisterX

Something about a $75K to $80K rotary sports car made of conventional steel sporting only 2 rotors doesn't make sense -- it completely deviates from their corporate mission. Other than personally wishing for a 20b or 24x turbo'd powerplant, my guess is they've got something else up their sleeve. If the 4c has a carbon tub and sells for $60K-ish, why can't the company from Hiroshima one-up them they've probably asked themselves. One way of one-upping the euros would be to have 50% more power at that price point -- uncharted territory for Mazda. Then again, do they want to compete with a car whose volume is probably 1% of the real competition in that price range, the Vette? 500 to 1000 units a year (if they're lucky) in the largest market, the U.S., would likely be deemed a failure. Third gen debuted with 255 hp to the Vette's 245, and undercut the Vette's price. Now the 460hp Vette bases mid 50s and Mazda'll introduce less power and a price 40% higher? So the only feature where Mazda outdoes the Chevy is that it weighs 400 or so pounds less? It just doesn't make sense.

mastawyrm

Also the gearing.

I don't think I need to explain the difference between high torque/low rev vs low torque/high rev to a bunch of wankel enthusiasts lol. But yeah, my m-coupe mid corner at 6500rpm is way more of a handful than my higher torque v8 camaro at 4k

Rotary13B1

iTrader: (8)

ohh$hit! You still remember your PW on here???!!!
You sold something to Gary that's round, so jelly!!

SS19 is Oct 1st. See you there?!

fmzambon

Personally I think that if Mazda can build a rotary sports car (or supercar) with more than 2 rotors, then this is the right time (and possibly the last chance) to do so.

I mean, next year we have the 50th anniversary of the 1967 Cosmo, the first rotary powered car by Mazda, as well as the 60th anniversary of the Wankel engine itself.
Then, in 2020 we have the Tokyo olympic games (a great opportunity for Mazda to amplify the effects of whatever car they introduce or announcement they make) and, most importantly, Mazda's 100th anniversary.

Such a series of circumstances will not happen again for many decades at least. And so, if all of these circumstances are not enough to justify a 3 or maybe even 4 rotor car, then I fear that nothing ever will. At least not before internal combustion engines start to be really supplanted by electric motors in automotive use.
The JC cosmo may remain Mazda's only car with more than 2 rotors.

So, Mazda, if you want to do it, do it NOW!

HiWire

4 rotor turbo. That's in the recipe for a rotary supercar.

getgone

iTrader: (2)

And you're going to be in a position to spend $125,000.00 plus on said supercar? Mazda does not even have a luxury car line to tie into to get the wealthier buyer even to look at the car. Mazda's most expensive car in the lineup is the CX-9 and all dressed out it is priced around $45,000.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

an F150 pickup is $55k, and an F450 pickup is $84k, and they sell as many as they can build

agreed but Ford sells you a Focus with a 350hp/2.3 liter engine... if they can do it with a warranty, and anyone should be able to.

neit_jnf

iTrader: (17)

I really hope whatever comes out in 2020 it's dead reliable and depreciates like a tank so I can buy a used one in 2025

fmzambon

I hope so! I'm working on it

It's the same situation as for Nissan when they brought out the GT-R. Or for Acura/Honda for the NSX. Or most likely for Toyota with the new Supra. No more and no less.
Actually, it was even worse for the GT-R as back then a mainstream brand selling such an expensive car was uncharted territory.

The only difference is that Mazda is a smaller manufacturer than Nissan, Honda or Toyota, so they may be less able to sustain a heavy financial loss if such a project backfires. That's why Mazda must be sure to reach whatever goal they set.

getgone

iTrader: (2)

You cannot be the manufacturer of mid-range family cars and suddenly come out of left field with a high-end super car. That is not going to work. Companies like Porsche, Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Audi, BMW, Chevrolet have been legendary in the race world for the greater part of the last century. Though Mazda can certainly be given kudos for the dent it made in the racing world as a small Japanese company, it really only was a dent. Despite LeMans and a brief stint into the prototype class in IMSA in the early '90s, Mazda has been running in the second tier of motorsports. Mazda is certainly capable of building a very respectable sports car, but it needs to build solid, road-going, sports cars consistently and reliably for a stretch of years before it can expect to have anyone feel ready to plunk down serious $$ for the next generation. Look at Porsche and Ferrari and Audi and Mercedes--reputations built on decades of major victories at motorsports highest levels. Most buyers of high-end sports cars buy them for the prestige and the heritage behind that brand. Porsche has been consistently putting out the 911 (don't quote me on this) since the early 1960s, Ferrari its sports cars since Enzo started his company (1937ish), Audi since the age of Auto Union (1930s), and Mercedes .... (look up the definition of 'automobile' here). Nissan and Honda are perfect examples of what happens when you go off the grid. Those companies lose serious $$ on the GTR and the NSX. The difference is that they are vastly larger companies with multiple lines that can absorb the losses that come with an iconic flagship car. They make that sacrifice for the reputational bump it gives them across the industry. Mazda cannot afford that. And, despite as much pumping as we would like to do, Mazda has not earned the reputation for that. Most of the Fast and Furious bunch forget that the 3rd Gen came out with a host of serious problems including engine fires. The RX-8 came out with another serious bunch of problems. Now we're going to vault from that sketchy, road-going, history into the glory of the sports car world--the GT3, AMG GT S, R8, Corvette Z06?

I think the Caymen is a realistic target. Maybe after we earn back a notch or two of our reputation at that level of performance for a few years, then we can dream about the rest.

fmzambon

I understand what you say. And I agree with nearly all of it.
However, the point is, as you state

It's absolutely true that both Nissan and Honda are larger than Mazda, so they can absorb the losses generated by such cars. But the exact purpose of the GT-R and the NSX is to build a reputation, as you mention. So saying that:

is the same thing as saying that Mazda needs to build such a car.
I'm not saying that Mazda will do that, I'm just saying that it would be useful for them.

Finding the funds and the will to do it is another matter.

Actually, Nissan was spending about 400 billion Yen per year in R&D when they released the GT-R. That's about $3.85 billion. How much did it cost them to develop the GT-R? I have no idea. Here it is said that a brand new model sharing absolutely nothing with preexisting cars may cost about $6 billion. I don't know if such a figure is applicable to a special car like the GT-R, but if it does it means that Nissan basically poured two years worth of R&D budget in it. And despite this they decided that it was a good idea.

How much money and effort has already been spent at Mazda developing the skyactiv-R in the last few years? Again, we have no idea. Perhaps most of the cost for the new car has already been paid, spread over many years.

Wishful thinking, I know

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Hmmmm good point. Mazda did 1st show the 16x engine way back in 2007. Also Mazda likes to keep things basic (which keeps things cheap). The classic sports car mold will never go out of style because it relies on a simple light weight/balanced package. GT-R and NSX are so R&D intensive due to all the computerization of the drivetrain and AWD. If they keep out all the electric motors and AWD, then it's possible Mazda could afford to build something exotic. I mean hell, if Porsche can build a mid engine Cayman and sell at a starting price of 50k, surely Mazda could do something similar with a 450hp NA 3 rotor for 65k and up. Just because a car is mid engine, doesn't mean it has to be god awful expensive. Hell I would love a Mazda version of the NSX of the early 90's that could destroy the GT-4 for less $$$$$.