I don't think they can come close to that curb weight though.

 

I'm not sure Alfa will price it that high. They would risk internal competition with the 60k € 4C, which is a much higher performance car and has a much higher technology content. I guess Alfa will try to keep the Miata-based spider in the low to mid 30s. After all, the platform cost is shared with Mazda, and for the engine they'll most likely pick one from their existing lineup, so there is only a limited development cost to recoup.
That leaves quite a bit of room above that price level for the Rx-7. For example, here a Nissan 370Z starts at 42000€ (bear in mind that japanese manufacturers have a habit of only importing nearly full optional versions of their high performance cars here). My guess is that an Rx-7 could be priced more or less in this slot, if it actually has about 300hp. After all, the rumored specs of the 4th gen would roughly match those of a 370Z (similar power level and layout), so IMHO it makes sense that the price should be similar.

Andrea.

 

Adding power pulses to a revolution will always make it smoother. Why do you think it will be more thorough and efficient? Traditionally undersquare engines are more efficient. More expansion time. If I read right, the point of the 16x is to provide greater torque without throwing everything to the wind. I think it was the page before someone went into the lean burn v emissions battle mazda had with the rx8.

 

It would be a very small aerodynamic car but I also am quite sure they won't go that light or that small.

 

Why do you think it will be more thorough and efficient? Traditionally undersquare engines are more efficient. More expansion time. If I read right, the point of the 16x is to provide greater torque without throwing everything to the wind. I think it was the page before someone went into the lean burn v emissions battle mazda had with the rx8.

I have read the 16X with the narrower combustion chamber is more effiecient.

For the K factor (stroke) our most recent 13B had the optimum combustion chamber width was the 10A that was first engineered.

The 12A and 13B were the easy way to add displacement/power at the expense of efficiency to a degree.

A cat that allows the rotary to run lean and meet emissions goals would be a godsend, lets hope that is what Mazda has developed.

 

Lets hope running lean has nothing to do with it.

 

I would expect that it would be beneficial for the flame front to travel a relatively shorter distance (to envelop the entire volume of the chamber), especially given the shape of the combustion chamber of rotaries
I would also expect that it would facilitate an increase in RPM while taking a hit on the torque

 

in concept i agree, the electric motor making max torque at zero RPM and the rotary making max torque @6500rpm seem to make a great combo.

however i am driving a 2013 Lexus Rxsomething something hybrid today, and it drives like crap. the drive train is surprisingly clunky, under 20mph the gas pedal does nothing, and throttle response is nonlinear at best. there is a stupid economy gauge where the tach would go, that has a needle that just flails all over, its really distracting

i'm really surprised they let it out the door like that, if the Mazda system is like the lexus system, it has no place on a drivers car.

 

I remember reading an article about Mazda steering clear of hybrid technology because they think the combustion engine has plenty of room for improvement. This article was about the skyactive engines. Mazda is right as far as I'm concerned. The rotary might be a little bit of a different story but it is certainly an engine that is "underdeveloped" compared to the amount of R&D that goes into piston engines to achieve their modern levels of power and efficiency. At this point the hybrid technology adds alot of weight. I think that alone will keep it from making it's way into a small light sports car. The cost is certainly a factor as well. I hope I'm right and the sport car is pure combustion. If they could achieve 30 mpg highway I think that would be enough to keep the masses happy. After all it's a performance vehicle. The annual savings on a 30 mpg vs. 25 mpg avg. is only $350. That is at 15,000 miles, $3.50/gallon.

 

The shape isn't optimal I don't think, as the flame puts pressure on both sides of the rotor face. Easy way to think about it though it wrt pistons. the less sideways a flame has to travel, the more effort it can exert into pushing downwards.
It would. But that's what they tried with the rx8. Look how many people liked that.

 

The main issue with the RX-8 was the car, not the engines high rev power. It sold well though.

 

I see far more of them than I do mx-5's for certain. I'm surprised Mazda don't market the mx-5 better, always been seen as a female's car, not the brilliant little battler it is. It needs refreshing and a 2L engine - it could be one of their best sellers after the mazda 3.

 

Please elaborate?

 

No need to really waste money on marketing something that's gonna sell. It is after all the world #1 selling sports car. Another reason is that the Miata's have some of the highest resale values and repeat buyers in the world today. This new Miata us gonna be insane!

 

I'm am Jack's utter surprise. Other than the fact it's had quite a long production run, just not that many of them over here.

 

lots of em around san fransicso! i see more older ones than newer ones i think though

 

the new alfa/miata target weight is <1800 lbs, IMO perfect to use as a coupe version with the 16x

 

Yes, please elaborate. Granted the RX-8 is "technically" a four door with fours seats, the chassis dynamics is far superior of any "sports car" of its class (and still is).

 

i'm really surprised they let it out the door like that, if the Mazda system is like the lexus system, it has no place on a drivers car.

But we are talking about Mazda, not Toyota. Mazda works very very hard to make its cars feel and drive like an extension of the driver. My boring as hell on paper base model 2008 Mazda3 makes my '93 FD feel like a truck.

I think they could do a Rotary/flywheel motor hybrid exactly the right way. In sport mode at least their battery gauge would be like KERS.

You would find yourself easing on the gas out of the sweeping turns keeping smooth tidy lines waiting for the gauge to fill from the braking zones at entry and then nail it onto the straight sections unleashing a surge of torque when you see the it blinking full charge at you.

Oh great, I am actually having hybrid car fantasies now...

 

speaking of hybrid, I'm surprised it's taken so long for a diesel/petrol-electric hybrid to be developed and produced for cars. Given it's success in locomotives I expected it to be popular well before now.

 

I've been dreaming of our electric future as well, it will be a very different environment of modifications but I think we will have some very interesting cars in the future.

Just because it started as a boring eco solution doesn't mean it won't be the future. Think about how turbos are sometimes used on boring ecoboxes.

 

My guess is packaging played a large role there.

 

I heard it was around 1000kg or 2200lbs. I hope I'm wrong, though

Andrea.

 

On paper a hybrid rotary sounds like a perfect combination but the price that would come with it? Less perfect.

 

Mazda targeting 1,760-pound target for next Miata - 400 pounds lighter than first-gen

I saw it here and many other places online, it's a 2011 article and it says that it's a difficult target to achieve but that most probably will be closer to 1-gen Miata's 2200 lbs. So we're both right

But hey, what matters is that Mazda has low-weight in it's top priorities and if they get close to this target and come out with a 2000 lbs Miata, they could very well use this modern chassis, drop a rotary in it and call it RX-something.

As we all know, the lighter the car the easier it is to achieve better fuel economy and the less HP it needs to be competitive