Customisbetter

Haha well I don't believe I ever said the Furai would be 50k but whatever.

I don't understand why you told me purchase a BRZ...

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Because they already make the car you're talking about. It's a BRZ.

Another data point. The 370Z costs what the FD did in 1993 (37k), and kills it performance wise. 350 hp, 3200 lbs, 4.6-60, 13.1 1/4, 1.00G. No rotary. No forced induction.

The world has moved on. Somewhere between that and a $70k, 350hp, 2600 lb Exige is the new RX7.

Customisbetter

Well I guess we will find out in a couple years.

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

Good points, and well taken. However, in my book, the MOST important thing to note is that the FD was competitive with "most" everything coming out of the factory until the 2005-2006 timeframe. How many cars can make a claim of still being relevant "performancewise" 12-15 years after their introduction? It only too Nissan 20 years to catch up! Mazda's a small company in comparison. I only hope they have the "courage" to produce another winner. We'll see if Lightning can truly strike twice

Montego

iTrader: (1)

I’m sorry to say but your comparisons lack fundamental principles.

First of all how are you comparing the first Gen1 Rx-7 to this? Both cars won’t even have the same engine.

Second of all the ZR1 is $112,000 and 638 HP… Not 400 Hp and not small displacement. Actually the ZR1 shouldn’t even come in to this conversation as it is a completely different beast.

The correct term is NRE not R&D tax. And it stands for Non-Recurring Engineering costs which do not apply because this would be a production vehicle.

Why so difficult? Seriously get down to it technically don’t just call out other manufacturers as comparison because all I have to do is this: BRZ. Besides Mazda already did that with the FD.

Again: BRZ


Ok so tell me this: what is the overhead price of Porsche? What is it for Mazda? What is the profit margin for either company?

But lets go back to the BRZ which retails at $25K and at 200HP. It seems to me that Mazda could build something with 200 HP more and 200 lbs heavier for an additional $25K. Screw that lets do your Porsche as a price point at $65K. So that leaves mazda an extra $45,000 to play with. That is unless you truly believe that porsche could only add 125Hp (325hp) for $45K.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Economy wise I said nothing about A/F ratio so what am I wrong about? You kept implying how un-practical a 3 rotor is then you reference it's fuel economy as the reason. Also the 10's the Rx8 runs wide open throttle isn't anywhere near the ratios it runs while cruising in light loads.

My stock fd with about 75k back in 2004 got 26mpg when I drove from west Texas to Sevenstock (1200 miles) while I was cruising at 75MPH the whole way with A/C. The rpms where at 3k. The fd is light and very aerodynamic. My convertible Fc weighs the same as the Rx8, yet it also gets 25-26 on the highway. So ask yourself how come the Rx8 can't touch the cruising fuel economys of the older generation rotarys? The answer is the gearing. The Rx8 is geared to rev higher in all gears because of the heavier chassis and lack of torque. At 70Mph I believe your over 4,000 rpms in the Rx8 vs only 2,800 rpms in the fd/fc. That makes a hugh difference in economy. You would be surprised how little changes in cruising rpm effects fuel economy. Hell my 2000 Bmw M5 will easily loose about 3mpg when crusing at 80 vs 70mph. On the tach the rpm difference is only 300 rpms.

Anyway if you gear the drivetrain accordingly, a 3rotor will get better fuel economy than what you've previously experienced.

Customisbetter

Dude at this point everything is speculation. Lets just leave it up to the guys sitting in the fancy meeting rooms in Japan.

Customisbetter

By Gen 1 I meant a brand new completely ground up designed car. Not an SA/FB.

Also I pulled the FD weight from Wikipedia, and the ZR1 thing was a hypothetical money losing situation. My point was that Mazda will not lose money on a car for any reason, and i guess that point was lost somewhere in there.

If you guys want mazda to build a BRZ, good for you. I don't. I want them to build whatever the hell they want to drive. Really doesn't matter to me as I'm poor and will likely never buy a brand new car.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

Actually what I want is NOT a competition to the BRZ, that is why I stated 400hp and 2800 lbs. What I want is something that can compete with contemporary sportcars. Just like in 1992 when the FD came out it was competitive with other sportscars of the time (i.e. 300ZX, M3, supra, corvette).

t-von

iTrader: (8)

^ Gordon thx for confirming my explanation on the gearing/mileage potential. It's amazing the difference when the 3 rotor is built and tuned as a TRUE Na beast. 9.7 compression rotors, proper header design also help. Even though I'm NA, I'm trying to source a busted t56 so I can check fitment with my engines moved back state. Will very interesting to see what kind of economy I get when I drive over to next years Modified Event. Cruising down the interstate at 75 with my rpms below 2,500 would be a perfect way measure the difference.

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

What? You coming to Phoenix in March of 2014???

t-von

iTrader: (8)

I wasn't planning on that one Tim but who knows? The Fd testing event that Gordon put together may have a 2nd year from what I've heard in the other thread. However, I will see you later this year during the caravan to Sevenstock. You guys will get to see my creation 1st. I wanna show Mazda what my version of a NA 3 rotor Rx7 is truely capable of if they decide to build one. From day one my goal has always been to show Mazda that potential. I've always felt that Mazda can't do all the R&D themselves so this is my way of helping to contribute to rotary R&D.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

First today I purchased a 2004 rx8 grand touring. The gearing feels all wrong so ill soon be purchasing 3:909 gearing. Other than that I love the car.

I did notice its a bit larger than my FC and my FC is larger than My old FB which I will buy again. I just hope mazda relieses small displacement engines work best in small displacement cars and a balanced car means more than a 50/50 weight distrobution.

Don't hold back don't settle. Tell mazda exactly want!
They have engineers who can make it happen and marketers who need a resean to let it happen.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

The Cool thing about a BRZ is its within most people's budget. It's fun stock and can be upgraded to a 400whp 11sec monster while being 50state legal and maintaining daily driver use. You can buy it now and save up to make it fast later. Everything I've read about this car is very impressive and its timing was perfect.

I think the srt-4 would be in my driveway if it was built rear wheel drive.

MisterX

I hate to quash the 3 rotor talk, but the reason the ports were moved on the Renesis is because the NOx emissions were (supposedly) getting too high on the 13B.

Three rotors, inline, ports on the middle one would be located back on the side, and back up go the emissions -- which, thanks to the authoritarian leftists, are much stricter than they were when OBDI was in effect.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

I hate to quash the 3 rotor talk, but the reason the ports were moved on the Renesis is because the NOx emissions were (supposedly) getting too high on the 13B

Yes, NOx emissions form at high temperatures so there is no way Mazda can lean the rotaries out for fuel mileage and meet emissions. Mazda is perfectly capable of stratified charge and direct injection for super lean burn with the rotaries, but they haven't been able to meet emissions this way.

Mazda's rotary emissions strategy has always been run it really rich and use a catalytic converter or three and an air pump to oxidize the remaining hydrocarbons cleanly.

Mazda is in a tough spot making a new rotary vehicle as the 16x won't be a powerhouse and their current smallest sports car (Miata) is already to heavy to be really fast with what the 16X can offer.

They can go really light with an expensive Lotus like chassis to make the new rotary fast

or

they can make it an electric hybrid with just enough battery for improved acceleration and some slick marketing so buyers feel like they are getting a fun sports car guilt free because they are simultaneously saving the planet

or

they can shock us all and do both by offering their 16X rotary in both a super light mid engine car (Alpha chassis-turnabout is fairplay) for lots of $ and their own hybrid rotary chassis for moderate $.

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

Can't wait. Current "plan" is second weekend in Oct from what I'm hearing

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I guess the point I'm making is, if Mazda wants to build a BRZ competitor, to me that's a hardtop Miata with a higher-string piston inline 4, maybe with a supercharger, maybe some more aggressive styling. Mazda could build that car NOW, and it would actually pretty cool, and the handling would kick the **** out of the BRZ, and the inline 4 wouldn't scare anyone or drive development costs up.

If you're going to bother with a Rotary and an "RX7", I agree with the above, that it has to compete with the cars it used to compete with. 370Z's and Corvettes, and be a "poor man's Porsche". There's been a bit of a divergence there, so that's someplace between a $38k 370Z, and a $55k Corvette, up to what, $75 for a Z06?. Mazda could build a serious car within that range.

That doesn't mean beat them at their own game though. Do something unique that plays to your strengths and against your weaknesses.

That's why I keep going back to super light weight, more Lotus Exige like... because Mazda can DO that, it's on brand, as the FD more resembled a Japanese Lotus than it did a Japanese Porsche. If lotus can build a 2600 lb car for $70k, Mazda can do it for $55k or $60k

That limits the liability of low torque, but doesn't completely discount horsepower. I think you've still got to be looking at something with a "3" , and maybe a "35" in front of it.

I know that sets the bar high, but guess what? The bar is high. Take a look at what's out there. You want to sell rotaries with all of their liabilities, it better kick ***, not be a slug. Great handling is fun, but there's a power/weight benchmark that isn't going to go away, or go down.

I personally drive a Miata (my dad had one), and I find it really disappointing. It's just slow as dirt, and I have a hard time really enjoying the handling that IS there when the thing wouldn't pull the skin off a grape.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

"pull the skin off of a grape" and true

Not many cars handle better than a spec miata but it's completely boring to drive and unless you're really into race craft the racing isn't much either.

It's the violence of a super car that's fun so if you want to ride the kiddie roller coaster go BRZ, miata, etc..... but the next rx7 shouldn't be a kiddie ride.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

My goal is to keep repeating myself every page or two on this thread until Mazda either listens to me, or hires me as their celebrity Creative Director. :-)

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

It's a damn shame mazda doesn't have the same zeal for their own flag ship car as the members on this forum and I'm afraid we are just screaming into outer space but with the tenacity in which we are expressing our fervent build thoughts and designs an alien may come down here and build the damn car

t-von

iTrader: (8)

I don't know why everyone keeps thinking an extra rotor means bad emissions. It's about the efficiency of the complete burn and not undersizing a cat to clean the entire combustion process. This has nothing to do with the total number of cylinders. Inline 4 cylinders have a cat to clean emissions. A v6 & v8 has two of them for each bank because a single cat wont be as efficient.

The Rx8 changed the exhaust port location to eliminate overlap and help burn the hydrocarbons that would exiting the old pp exhaust without fully burning. The location and design allows for those unburned hydrocarbons to go around and through the combustion process a 2nd time. A 3 rotor built with a similar style thick plate will allow for the exact same port configuration in all 3 chambers. So the 3 rotor with multiple cats in a Renesis design is very capable of passing emissions. Besides not one person here has ANY idea about this special Cat that Mazda has developed. This breakthrouh cat design is the #1 reason the rotary is even making a comeback. So to claim a 3 rotor isn't possible or not practical is IMO a little pointless at this early stage without seeing what this new cat is capable of.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

^^^

It's probably true that a lot of people are basing the gas mileage, complexity, weight, cooling, packaging, cost assessments based on a current PP exhaust, iron side plate, turbo 3-rotor, and what it takes to install it in an FD chassis that wasn't made for it.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

^ I wouldn't doubt that for a second. That's why it's always good to keep an open mind when you have "what if" discussions like this.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

i like both of your cars guys, but the simple facts are these.

1. Mazda has shown a 16X two rotor.

2. in 1988 Mazda put a 3 rotor NON TURBO in the FC chassis, and was serious enough to let road and track drive it, but then the FD is 2 rotor, and when you try to put a 3 rotor in it, the steering rack is in the way.

3. the Rx8 doesn't meet the Euro emissions standards, Mazda RX-8 falls under the axe of emissions legislation - Cars and Motorbikes - Mirror.co.uk Mazda kills off RX-8 sports coupe | Autocar

if the 2 rotor emits too much co2, what hope does a 3 rotor have?

4. both of you guys are getting excellent mileage, but how about emissions? you both have done enough work to realize its more complex than tossing a cat in it...

5. when i had my 20B FC, it was when Enron was taken seriously, and there was no such thing as a camera phone... its been a long time! if i did it again, it would be NA for sure. i've also owned a CYM FD, every year and model of Rx7 previous to that, and three Rx8's. i currently do not own a reciprocating piston engine car. the current toy is a 12A p port, which is huge fun. i