Exactly! More displacement only means more of the same volume of emissions not dirtier. With more volume, you only need to add more cats to compensate. That's why in my previous example I explained why 4cyls only have 1 cat per bank of cylinders vs 2 cats for a v6 or v8. Even the Bmw inline 6 has 2 cats (1 for each 3 sets of cylinders). This is exactly the reason even a 4 rotor is capable of being emission compliant. With a Renesis side exhaust and 1 cat to clean only 2 rotors, the emissions levels from each bank of 2 rotors will read exactly the same as a 2 rotor Renesis. Double the volume does not mean double the Nox or Hc's.

 

Yeah we would be insane to pay 50K for something below 300HP. But I agree with you on what they said and sounds to me that it sounds like a new 7 is going to be a 370Z competitor.



Man if they actually grew some cajones and did that, the new 7 would truly be a successor to the FD.

 

It was stated that 3 rotors don't get that bad gas mileage if you lean them out.

The emissions talk came up because though Mazda found various ways to make the rotary run just fine lean they have not found a way to lean the rotary out and make emissions/ make emissions equipment last 10 years.

I remember the meeting with the Mazda execs at the 7 stock right after the RX-8 was introduced. All the new RX-8 owners were complaining about the abysmal gas mileage and the prospective RX-8 owners were asking for a 3 rotor engine option.

Execs were like

 

I like the idea of a limited-run RX-7 supercar successor like the LFA. The engineers need room to try things out and a low-power FT86/Genesis/Mustang competitor isn't enough to justify itself as a flagship/"halo" project. The RX-8 already proved that handling without power won't fly in today's sports car market.

Perhaps Mazda could start with an entrant in prototype endurance racing to wring out the engine and work from there.

 

Very true!! I will never forget the 1st time I drove an 8. The refinement, handling, and responsiveness was something magical. Then I floored it and went "Ohh!!!!" Up to that point, the 8 was everything that I wished my fd was. It just didn't have the power to complement the handling and feel. The biggest downfall for the 8 were fuel economy, all the engine replacements, and flooding issues. I'm really happy they improved on those problems with the series 2.

Now in this day in age it makes no sense to introduce a sports car with ONLY 1 engine option. Mazda Rx7 sales were always at it's peak when they gave their customers a choice. Both the 1st gen and 2nd gen had 2 engine options. Both those generations sold extremely well. The 8 sold well because of what it was. Now if Mazda had offered a turbo version or even a 3 rotors (with none of the above problems) that car really would have taken off to a whole other level. Even with the miata in place, there is still plenty of room for mazda to build a multi engined Rx7 to fill the 35k and 45k price ranges in their line-up. The Rx7 has always outperformed it's competition for less $$$$$.

 

If they were to build a limited, high hp edition it shouldn't be priced in the stratosphere (anywhere over $200K), unless they want a total of 3 sold ........ all to dudes in the middle east with 10 million dollar bills burning holes in their pockets. The rest of the world would merely sneer at the elephant-sized ***** of the econobox-company-who-also-builds-those-rotaries-that-eat-oil-and-grenade-prematurely.

IOW, first build something proper aimed at beating the GT-R before attempting a LFA fail like Toyota. There's no reason why we can't have a 2.4x turbo with 500+ hp for around $80K. It doesn't have to look like the Furai, nor have a carbon tub and weigh 2500 lbs.

 

This is also very true. Don't forget, not everyone here in the U.S. is a rotor fanatic like us. We are speaking about a niche group of mazda enthusiast. That is also calculated by the upper executive of mazda.

 

Again, a 300 hp 16x is not strong enough in the $45,000+ market and its a technical yawn among today's more interesting sports car engines.

That is a really good point. If the 16X turns out to be just like the 13BMSP plus a little displacement, efficiency from optimized geometry, and torque from stroke it isn't going to light the world on fire.

If Mazda makes it with aluminum side housings it starts to get interesting.

If Mazda offers a high power model with 2 piece eccentric shaft and ceramic apex seals that red lines significantly over 10,000rpm with a dual clutch transmission the world will remember what the rotary was all about way back in the early '70s.

When has the world been able to purchase a mass production Japanese car with 12,000rpm or 13,000rpm showing on the tachometer?

And it would not impact their gas mileage figures.

 

It may not impact fuel consumption but it will most certainly impact production cost. Do you realize how much more expensive that hi reving drivetrain would be? You can't run carbon seals as they wouldn't last. Ceramics all the way. The engine would need drysump oil lubrication to hold pressure. You would also need a specially enginered intake that's not only able make torque down low for daily driving but also has the ability to move the torque curve higher to make any real power up there. Lastly a transmission that wouldn't self destruct on the 1st shift from 12k. Ask Logan how much more exspensive his project got when he started shooting for the RPM stars.

 

Interestingly came across the Road and Track Article about the 2014 Cayman/S.
Cliffnotes: 275/325hp, $53k/$65K, 3100lbs
2014 Porsche Cayman / Cayman S First Drive – Review – Car and Driver

Funny how close it is to G's assessment of a niche in the sports car market.
Personally, this is where I would like to see the new RX7 competing, maybe a slightly lower price, but who wouldn't? A standard trim, 300hp 16x NA model and an upgraded, 3-rotor NA version. I see their biggest challenge being to design a new chassis, new engine and tool up for lots of aluminum usage while keeping costs down enough to price it competitively. They don't have the parts bin to pull from like Porsche, but I do like the direction of the new 6.

I think some of us here are a little jaded to the 3-rotor because we are the fanatics and want a 4-rotor. Most performance car buyers only know of the 2-rotor engines and would be very excited about a 50% improvement in displacement. And that's who they are going to have to sell cars to in order to make a profit and continue with the rotary. Not the 8 of us in this section that are ready to buy a new car in 2017.

I don't see the first version of the car setting the world on fire. I think it will take a revision or two to really get it right. Similar to the evolution of a fb with a 12a vs the GSL-SE, base model FC to a GTUs, or the FD going from the 95 usdm model to the 99+ improvements. Not that I don't want Mazda to make a killer RX7, it just doesn't seem to be their MO.

 

Do you realize how much more expensive that hi reving drivetrain would be? You can't run carbon seals as they wouldn't last. Ceramics all the way. The engine would need drysump oil lubrication to hold pressure. You would also need a specially enginered intake that's not only able make torque down low for daily driving but also has the ability to move the torque curve higher to make any real power up there. Lastly a transmission that wouldn't self destruct on the 1st shift from 12k. Ask Logan how much more exspensive his project got when he started shooting for the RPM stars.

Yes, it would be a more expensive optional model like the TII was to the 2nd gen RX-7 (whole new stronger drivetrain and more powerful engine in same chassis for a premium price).

If you engineer the transmission from the start for the rpm it isn't as much of a cost issue- for example sport bikes don't cost much. Evo MR transmission option or SMG has shown it is viable to offer a more expensive transmission as an option and charge quite a bit for it.

Ceramics apex seals for sure, and I am not sure how they would hold up to the Carbon encrustation as we saw on RX-8s 13BMSP.

Dry sump should not be necessary, but would be good. The engine just needs a good pressure stage pump, not the suction stage. Though some form of de-aeration would he healthy. Dry sump is so cheap and easy for the rotary (factory race set up puts it all in front cover) it would be a good idea.

If it was a $10,000 option on an already brilliant chassis I could see it actually selling enough to justify its expense and it would serve as a Halo car boosting sales of the lesser models that look similar and people associate with the extreme performance.

$30k to $40k base model (depending on options)
$45K stripped down halo car to strengthen the image.

Consumer would think of it as $5k over the next top model, but in reality it would be closer to $10k over a similarly equipt base model.

 

^ Imo everything you said is perfect for the Furai ( but at a much higher cost). Oh and I still think dry sump is needed cause I expect the next Rx7 to corner and handle like a wet dream.

 

imo, this is actually almost more important than a 3 rotor, or how much the car weighs. the new car should start hot and cold, get the engine to last longer than the alternator belt, and get better mileage than a semi truck...

if they can't do that, they should just give us a piston engine, and call it a rotary...

i live in an unreal place for cars, i've seen 13/39 Ferrari GTO's parked in a line, i've seen the 787B run at laguna seca every year for like a decade (THAT car is durable! they should just give us that motor), i've seen 5000 911's in one parking lot, i broke a model S tesla before they went on sale, etc

but i've only seen 1 LFA. it was at the Lexus booth at the SJ car show.

i've NEVER seen one on the street, or at the track.


Alfa is paying for the chassis and the 16X was "introduced" in 2007....

 

I dont understand why everyone is so against the miata chassis. We all know the rx8 was loosely based from it and for the most part agree that it had excellent handling. I loved mine and only wish i had gutted it to pull some weight at the time. But if you have to think that even though they would use a similar chassis that it would also not be a convertible so therefore more rigid. Also that they obviously would make it distinguishable from the miata other than just the hard top and that it would be a rotary under the hood.


Mazda now official car of SCCA - Autoweek


There is a reason that the miata is the official car of the SCCA. Its because even as the newer heavier more fuel efficient plush models come out, its still the most affordable and capable chassis to take racing. Stripped or not. These are the qualitys we need to lean toward. Not just say well american muscle cars make XXX power so we would need XXX minimum just to stay competitive. Straight line cars are just that and that alone, make it well balanced light and with a little pep. I would love a 3 or 4 rotor option, i just dont want it to throw the entire car off balance, or cost an arm and a leg and only have a limited number made so parts are IMPOSSIBLE to find if(when) you do break it.

 

My 2 cents? I hope theres a convertible model.. I used to think coupe all the way but after owning my 88 vert, I fell in love with them.

 

I would say it depends on how well it does from launch. If they fly off the lots then they may consider a convertible. But then again they may not. Japan ate FD's for lunch for nearly a decade in sales. But they never released a convertible. It all depends on the market and response in sales. I saw a chopped up fd conv. for sale on ebay once. i don't think mazda could even have made it look like it should to have a drop top so it may also depend on the styling. you never know.

 

100% agreed. I been driving a 86 coupe for years, just put a 91 vert on the road and now i dont want to even touch my coupe anymore. Verts are just more of a pleasure to cruise around in, even while the top is up.

 

the new car should start hot and cold, get the engine to last longer than the alternator belt, and get better mileage than a semi truck...

if they can't do that, they should just give us a piston engine, and call it a rotary...

Mazda just needs to make it a hybrid. Once it has an electric motor/battery that can move the car it will have a "starter" that can start a low compression "flooded" or carbon locked seal rotary.

I don't relish the idea of an engine that shuts down at stops or the extra weight from batteries, but the added torque does sound appealing as well as the peace of mind of a car that will start.

 

You mean like this?
How Audi Hybrids Could Keep the Wankel Rotary Alive - Feature - Car and Driver

Except rotary is used to make electricity... LOL!

 

Mazda should just drop a 350 hp 16x into the new upcoming Miata chassis, make it a coupe with a more aggressive style and suspension/brakes setup, meet the rumored target weight of 800 kg / 1,764 lbs and call it a day.

5 lbs per hp monster

 

You mean like this?

Not at all, though that was a cool concept car.

I meant just like the 1st gen Honda Insight system.

Pancake motor takes the place of starter, alternator and flywheel mass and then 50lbs of batteries to get the car moving from a stop and add 100ft/lb torque for passing and stop light fun.

Maybe Mazda will have an sport mode button to disable the stop the engine at rest so it can launch with authority.

This would also clean up the rotary engine bay, centralize mass, improve gas mileage, improve power and can even smooth the engine running as it was programmed to do on the Insight 3cyl so it is less annoying when we bridge port it.

 

Hello,

my name is Andrea and I've been reading this thread for months, but only now I registered to this forum and reached the post count to be able to actually write something.

Personally, I think and hope that the 4th gen remains under the 50K € price limit, as that is more or less what I expect to have available by 2017. Besides, I don't think that lots of people here in Italy (or in EU in general) would even consider a Mazda priced beyond that point. They would just think "for that price I can get a Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes...".
In my opinion, anything Mazda decides to release must be priced well below a similar spec german car, or it won't sell.

As far as the chassis is concerned, I think it's certain that they'll modify the Miata chassis. That would mean that there will be three cars using that same platform (Miata, Rx-7 and 2015 Alfa Romeo Spider). That means that such a chassis will get a very large amount of R&D money spent on it, helping to improve it as much as possible.
They may even include magnetorheological dampers, as it seems to me that they are becoming more and more mainstream in the car industry. That would further help handling.

Finally the engine: as much as I'd like a 3+ rotor engine, I really think they'll stay with the classic 2 rotor, probably in NA form. Since they are building the new engine from scratch, if they need more displacement, they can simply make a larger 2 rotor.
Engineers at Mazda have many new features they can play with: Al side plates, Direct Injection, whole new geometry for the first time since the late '60s (hopefully with much better flowing exhaust ports). And they could also use a third spark plug per rotor, ceramic seals and, who knows, maybe even Al rotors (as far as I know, they already tried it in the past and shown it to work).
Add to that their new cat technology (whatever that means: maybe a deNOx cat to be able to run super lean and still be emission legal?) and I'm quite confident that they'll manage to pull it off.

In the end I'm confident they can do it, and do it well. And hopefully they can show us something as soon an this year's Tokyo Motor Show, maybe something like the Rx-Evolve in 1999.

Best regards,

Andrea.

 

Due to the size/shape of the combustion chambers, wouldn't a rotary engine run more smoothly/efficiently with more rotors (as opposed to larger rotors)?

If you had 2 3L engines, I would expect that 3 rotors with 1L per rotor would get more thorough and efficient combustion and be capable of revving higher and more smoothly, as compared to a 2 rotor 1.5L per rotor engine

 

gmonsen, I'm not sure about this, but I think I read that the Madza-Alfa Romeo deal does not involve major chassis modifications. It would be a case of Alfa using more or less the same chassis with different engines, body and interior. But then again, I'm not sure about it.
What I know is that Alfa Romeo is coming out with the carbon fiber chassis 4C with a 240hp engine (if I'm not mistaken). That car is going to be priced around 60k €. For sure the Miata-based spider would be cheaper than that, my guess is only slightly above the price of the Miata itself (due to the Alfa Romeo brand having a higher perceived value, at least here in Italy, and due to the different engines).

But again, it's all speculation for now.

Oh, and a thought that crossed my mind: a two rotor at 12000rpm should sound similar to a three rotor at 8000rpm, right? With Al rotors, ceramic seals, dry sump, a multi-disk clutch and a proper gearbox, that kind of speed should be achievable.

Andrea.

 

agreed. It's all about the power to weight.

If they could get the weight under 2200lbs and the power 350+ it would be a driving experience unmatched by all other cars. The rx series would be fun again and people would probably pay the extra money for something that unique.

Small cars are more fun on the back roads. Narrow car allow u to use more of the road.