Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

That is the bottom line, period.

arutha

iTrader: (2)

Wholeheartedly agree.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

i should have mentioned i was talking about the Rx8, THOSE showed up flooded so often that Mazda had to put an extra set of spark plugs in the glovebox, and then when the weather changed, we'd get a couple in on tow trucks, flooded.

with the FD i agree, the best thing you can do is to keep the hood closed.

MisterX

By doing so it relegates the 7 to a $25K car (roughly equal to the Miata's base price) even if the car ends up being 35 or 40K. Guys like Fritz, who are getting blown off the track by Z06s/ZR1s/Vipers, etc. will most likely not get a 3 rotor - w or w/o turbos - to be able to compete.

Sharing a chassis with the MX-5 may have been the prudent thing to do when the RX-8 was priced at $26 ish for the base model, but for those of us that want an uplevel 7 - an evolution of the FD - plans to run off the Miata's underpinnings does not bode well, unless you want a POS BRZ challenger. I, for one, don't.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

^^^^

Are we sure the Miata platform is so inferior? The RX8 chassis/suspension is widely considered better than the FD's (and world class), and it was based on the old Miata.

They can start with the basic platform, and then change things like A-arms, etc., as needed for a larger, wider, more powerful vehicle.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Your not looking at the big picture. That calculator means nothing when the newer cars from the fd's previous competiton era aren't currently being sold for that much. Did the 300 HP turbo 300zx go from being a 36k in 93 to a 56k 330 hp NA 370z in 2013? Not even close! Yet your inflation calulator says it should cost that much in todays dollars but it doesn't. 370z is better performing and cheaper today than it was 20yrs ago. So you still believe in that calulator?

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Preach no brother!

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Exactly! If it's one thing I know for certain is that Mazda knows how to build a sports car chassis. They also know were to place their engines (down low and far behind the front tires and not up on top of steering racks). Rx7's have always been built around handling 1st power 2nd. American sports cars (up until recently) were built the other way around (power 1st handling 2nd). Now because of this, I just hope for once that Mazda says " we need to look at this power thing a bit more because our competition is finally getting smarter".

MisterX

I'll take the FD's chassis over the Miata's for purposes of performance. For all-around daily duties no doubt that the 8 handles bumps & rough roads better (I've owned one since beginning of '06, btw). Is the 8 more than twice as rigid as the 11 year older 7? Yes. That doesn't mean that it couldn't have been even stiffer had they (no doubt dictated to by Ford) not used the Miata's platform. Only Mazda's engineers know; we can only speculate.

If the drivetrain can handle serious power without blowing itself to pieces (unlike the 8), and if they can produce another proper 7, then by all means do it for $45 or 50K vs $80K or 90. The higher priced version would be less compromised, more a bespoke machine, one not based on a shitbox younger sibling, however. And the less compromised, the more purposeful and focused it can be.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Porsche, Corvette and a number of others follow the inflation curve. The RX-7 ended at about 42-44 all up in the 1995 time frame.

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

That has nothing to do with the worth of the dollar. The FD adjust for inflation would cost between $55-$65,000 in 2013 dollars.


You aren't seeing the big picture. Those cars were at the pinnacle of the performance heap back in the day. They were considered "supercars". The base Corvette in 1993 cost the same as the FD and also made only 300 hp. Todays base Corvette makes 430 hp and then there is the Z06 and ZR1. The 93 Rx-7 was almost competitive with the ZR1 of the day. The Base Corvette is now $55-60,000.

By comparing the cheaper Z you make Peter's point. The Z is no longer a real performer as it once was and if Mazda does the same thing you will get the same results.

Yes, my calculator was spot on as was my analysis. Speed and performance isn't cheap.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

^^^

Yes... the Z hasn't really gone up in price in actual dollars as inflation would predict—but it's actually gone DOWN, RELATIVELY speaking, in performance. A 300Z TT was a car that competed Corvettes and Porsches. Not anymore. Mazda can certainly do a 370Z competitor, but again, I don't know why you'd bother with a rotary for THAT. They already have a 3.7L V6 making 280 hp or so in the CX9. Throw a little hotter tuning on that, done and done.

Herblenny

iTrader: (13)

Just some FYI info..

2002 RX7 Spirt R A and B spec - 4,000,000 yen
2002 RX7 Spirt R C spec - 3,400,000 yen

2002 GT-R R34 - 5,000,000 yen
2002 GT-R R34 V Spec II - 5,700,000 yen
2002 GT-R R34 V Spec II N1 - 6,100,000 yen

Todays Exchange rate, Spirt R A and B was about $40K and inflation puts it in +50K ish..
Skyline - R34 at 2008 conversion was about $55K, with inflation at that point should be close to $upper 60sK which R35 was sold close to that price when first came out. My guess is that "IF" Mazda comes out with something similar to FD back in the days in the same lineup as Skyline, price will be in 50-60's range. And it should at least be in close par with R35. If its close to Zs or Gs, No way I would be interested..

Additional pricing..

last 300Z 1998 - Turbo model - 4,000,000 to 4,800,000 yen (inflation calculated $56-68K)
Last Supra 2002 - Turbo model RZ - 3,700,000 to 4,500,000 yen ($47-57K)

Those above cars might be more what we compared back when..

If you compare the last Z pricing to current Z pricing, back than the Z's were much more expensive. Maybe due to twin turbo set up and more material was put into the car, etc.. I'm sure production cost of FI vs NA Z's do cost more. Either case, you guys can ponder pricing with some facts in play.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Nissan didn't really need to take the Z up market to where it's former competitors are. They have the GTR for that.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

Yep I'm getting blown away by corvettes, vipers, STIs, EVOs etc.... but I'm also still competing against and beating them which is impressive for a 20 year old car with nothing more than bolt ons.

Mazda can and should compete if they don't they are going backwards which is cool but doesn't say much for the companies racing heritage or what their future holds.

As many here have said bringing back a light weight low powered FC type Rx7 is likely what mazda has up its sleeve and is certainly what the company has hinted at but that probably won't be successful unless other companies are following them in that direction. The current pace and direction for sports car is super competitive so I see this as a bad move by mazda but it's not surprising they haven't made a right move in a LONG time.

I just hope they actually build something with a worthy engine and trans that I can use in my tired old FD

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

YEP

And the Rx7 should be mazda's fast car they have the miata to compete against the low powered light weight crowd.

Can you picture chevy discontinuing the corvette and then bring it back 20 years later to compete against miatas etc.... just not cool at all.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

But your still missing the big picture of the stated facts so far. I'm not doubting the cost vs performance inflation. My replies are directed to the base price and not all the special factory upgraded versions that you brought up. As of right now, I'm not expecting Mazda to build anything that will compete with a z06 (or similar vehicle). Why... because Mazda has only come forward with the 16x that's "capable" of up too 300hp in NA form. So "up to 300hp" as Mazda put, you can't expect Mazda to try to sell such a car in that inflated 55k range as no one would buy it. That would be stupid. Now a 450hp Na 3 rotor would easily cost that much because of the performance it would bring with the car being much lighter weight vs the competition. I will go on record by stating that Mazda will not offer a 300hp Na 16x version of the next Rx7 for anywhere close to 50k. Nope nada aint gonna happen.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

We read the article and we know what mazda said... Now no one here is saying that they want a 300 HP mazda at $55K, what we are saying is that we are willing to pay for the PERFORMANCE of a flagship car that can compete with contemporary sportcars. The resason I used the inflation calculator was to make a point that a $50K+ Rx-7 with good performance numbers is not out of the question and people would actually be willing to buy it.

Going back to what mazda said about the new 7 being 300HP and similar in weight to the BRZ, really? What the new seven is what going to compete with a ford focus now? I'm for sure not putting down any cash for that embarrassment. Hear that Mazda? No way... So get your act together or expect a flop.

300HP ford focus:
2013 Shelby Focus ST, the maddest puppy in town: Motoramic Drives | Motoramic - Yahoo! Autos

t-von

iTrader: (8)

My bad on the inflation part confusion. As soon as I saw the original base price of 35k used as a reference (original base was actually in the 32k range) to what it would cost in todays dollars, (55k) I was like there is no way Mazda would do that based on what they have initially told us. I totally agree with you on the hypothetical part. Hell why do you think I keep pushing for a NA 3rotor Mazdaspeed option? If Mazda built that car and it weighed what I think it could weigh, it would be the performance bargain of the century (even at 50k).

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

300-350 hp is a lot more interesting if it's 2600 lbs, not 2800. A 350hp rotary all by itself isn't worth, nor should it cost, $60-$70k for Mazda to make. That plus some exotic materials/design that get's it down to 2600 might... but it would be worth it. As discussed a zillion times, I think 450hp is a lot more unreasonable than 2600 lbs.

It still might not be as fast in a straight line as what some others are offering, but it would have a significant enough advantage in other areas that might make it uniquely attractive.

Herblenny

iTrader: (13)

I agree. Keeping the weight down and make it it competitive elsewhere other than straight line is only place I think Mazda can come out ahead. I also highly doubt they would come out with 3 rotor as its one more rotor producing emission which they are already having issues with 2. If 16X does well and solves emission issue, I might hope to see 24X but no way Mazda is bold enough to come out with a 3 rotor from start.

180sx-x

Limited Run.

Hear me out. Think Lexus and LFA. What if Mazda invested in a limited run of a 3 rotor "supercar" to showcase the capabilities of the 16X? Say, build 240 (2.4l??) of a ~550HP car, priced around the $250K mark. If it sells well like the LFA did, then they can use that, and build a 'production' car that utilizes the technology of the higher end car. Seeing as how the Miata, for this piece, is priced around $30K. The new RX-x would be priced starting at $37K for a base, NA 2 rotor(~240HP), a 'sport' (R variant) single turbo 2-rotor (~310HP) coming a year later, and after a MAZDASPEED variant featuring a 'de-tuned' version of the limited run 3-rotor making around 350HP. Put this in a car that weighs about 2800lbs (realisticaly, with all those fancy safety standards) with a length and wheelbase right around a 370Z (but shorter height). Limit production to about 2,500 per year.

What do you think? This seems to be a feasible goal, counting on the 'supercar' to meet these standards and bank off of it's success. I know, MAZDA being them, may never go this 'supercar' route, but tryinig to bring back the wankel to it's glory days, I see no other route. A car lie this would make front cover of all the motor mags, Jay Leno, ect. ect. and give exposure that MAZDA is still the only manufacter supporting such a great engine.

There is no other way. Every other route will bring back an RX-8. At least, that is MY opinion.

Jose

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

Mazda needs to seriously consider some of the technology being developed by Porsche on the 918. AWD or even 2 WD electric torque technology could assist significantly with minimizing the rotary engine's power deficit while adding to better overall fuel economy.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Unless I'm missing something, I'm not seeing the significance of three rotors vs. two with regard to emissions—that's a function of displacement and efficiency, correct? doesn't matter if it's two liters from 2 rotors, or from 6, more or less?

adamrs80

iTrader: (7)

If Mazda goes the modern SA/FB route to compete with non-supercars than a 2 rotor will have more than enough power. The chances of them producing anything above 350hp are small in my opinion and whatever they build will most probably be NA so I'd expect south of 300hp. In that case the 16x should be able to deliver. I hope Mazda steers clear of electric motors, hybrid systems, capacitors, and anything else that will most likely not stand the test of time. Not necessarily in terms of reliability but I can't see it helping with long term ownership years down the road. Batteries will probably always have some hang ups. Much of this technology is probably going to look silly as it all changes so fast. How about those early GPS navigation systems? Maybe I'm just an old soul.