ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Also, Nevermind a Corvette as a target. They're making a $75k Camaro Z28 now.

stevensimon

iTrader: (11)

there are 3 lfas i see here regularly.

my buddy in ca owns one actually.

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

3 in Salt Lake? Seriously?

Tem120

iTrader: (5)

hmm Salt lake city , seems like a good place to send rich old mobsters in the witness protection program ..

Bwarrrrrp

I'm pretty sure mazda would consider right now a high for them. Mazda 3 is still killing the world, though I suspect ford will take some of the hatch/hot hatch margin from them this year.

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

feel free to ponder just what a new RX7 might be like but know that the RX3 is the key to another RX7... just like it was in the 70s.

the sticking point is that the RX3 would have to be a real car, that is be rear wheel drive and as such would require lots of bread to do an entirely new unibody. sure it could then use lots of MX5 components but the rear drive sedan body would be costly.

that said, if Mazda were to offer a zoomy rear drive sub-2500 pound 16X coupe they wouldn't be able to make enough and the tuner market would explode... bringing in a whole new generation of...

us

this move would also allow Mazda to then justify doing a lower volume RX7.

it's my story and i am sticking to it.

come on Mazda, now that you are rid of Ford's influence it is time to get fully back to your roots.

Howard

HiWire

I agree. Elegant simplicity, light weight, and a reasonable price are important for Mazda to get its rotary groove back. Also, the car has to be reliable. There are still too many horror stories about the FD and early RX-8s in circulation – a friend basically told me that my FD's engine would self-destruct before 100K.

Mazda should release the new RX-3 (RX-6?) first to bring in new rotary fans and then introduce the RX-7 (RX-9?) supercar as a halo car. When Mazda is in the money again, the Cosmo will return.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

It's funny about the RX7 maintenance needs and "reliability" and/or engine life issue.

It's really only an "issue" on a low end car. The level of maintenance (i.e.: care with regard to fluid and consumable changes like oil, plugs, etc.) tuning, etc., would be fairly commonplace on higher-end performance vehicles. Highly strung european and even American performance cars require as much or more. I always point to the "30k service" on a Ferrari which is basically a rebuild that requires removal of the engine. This stuff is accepted at higher levels.

Mazda should be more aggressive about the required service intervals to include all of the stuff we know the car needs. Plugs, fuel filters, oil, water, etc. 15 or 30k service should include checking the tuning if applicable. The 60k service probably ought to be a "seal freshening" in the motor. "Motor rebuild" is more psychological barrier. An entire R&R and rebuild on these cars is like $4500. That's nothing compared to some cars. Need a new motor in your Z06 or GT3 or GTR? It'll be like 3 times that. You think a GTR requires the same maintenance as an Altima?! It's a false standard.

That's all predicated though, on the fact that you're selling a high-end car.

The fact that RX8's were unreliable and were replacing motors a lot (if that's true) is just pathetic. PATHETIC. It's N/A for christ's sake. N/A rotary's are pretty bulletproof even in racing situations. Somebody screwed up, OR the dealer service groups weren't properly trained and just replaced motors instead of fixing the problem (like they did so frequently with the FD).

I love the idea of some lower-end N/A rotary cars like the RX3 or RX5, but agree, they have to be relatively reliable. But again, a lot of that "reliability" and practicality (gas mileage, torque, etc.) stuff goes out the window when you take the car up scale.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

i agree. when i got bored of my FD, i was looking at 308 Ferrari's, which is on the bucket list and at the time were about the same money.

the turn off with the Ferarri was the 30k service, which is a timing belt, and this requires removing the engine for $6000….

peoples perceptions of reliability have changed though, the Rx8 is kind of the perfect example of this, its "unreliable", yet ive bought 3 broken ones and haven't needed to rebuild an engine yet. i had several 12A 1st gens, which are "bulletproof" and i had to rebuild ALL of those engines...

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

that article is dumb, he hit a pothole big enough to blow the tire, but was able to drive home anyways, and this is bad?

if he wants the alternative, he could buy the michelins from my old mercedes, which popped catastrophically when i DIDN'T hit a pothole, and then i couldn't drive home….

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

You aren't seriously comparing maintenance of a Ferrari to that of a Mazda? lol!

I understand that a 308 is in the price range today that normal people can buy them, but everyone should know that just because you can afford to buy a used "once expensive" car, doesn't mean you can afford to maintain said car. Maintenance prices rarely go down like the vehicle value...

HiWire

You can't make the engine completely idiot-proof, but Mazda, at least, should try harder to minimize catastrophic problems on their end.

They have to be even more up front about oil consumption, etc. Journalists are still spreading poorly-founded scare stories about rotaries, decades after the basic problems were solved.

If Mazda can get the naturally aspirated 16X to 9,000 rpm and get 25% more torque, they should shout it from the mountaintops. Useable torque is more important than the axle-snapping torque you get from big-displacement or heavily-boosted engines. The 2011 RX-8 R3 has a curb weight of about 3,065 lbs. If they can make a new car with about 300-400 lbs less weight, the increased torque will really count.

I guess we should be thankful that nobody seems to complain about anything other than the engine. Mazda must be doing a lot of things right, so let's give them some credit where it's due

fmzambon

As far as I know, there were quite a few problems with the Renesis: first of all, they tried to lower the oil consumption too much. This, coupled with the modified oil injectors location, starved the center portion of the apex seal for oil, leading to excessive wear. That leads to lower compression in the end.
Then there were problems with the side seals, caused by improper clearances and worsened by the side exhaust ports as far as I know (notice that both of these were ultimately caused by the relocation of the exhaust ports).

Then there was the weak starter issue, that caused undue flooding issues; an insufficient oil retention problem that caused the engines to run oil-less just after starting for a few moments; weak ignition system and probably more.

It seems like the engine was, to put it simply, not tested enough before release. More extensive testing should have revealed quite a bit of these problems. Perhaps they thought something like "it's an NA engine, it will be reliable anyway". I hope that the next time they learn from their mistakes.

Event if making the engine itself idiot-proof is impossible, Mazda could use the ECU to prevent dumb user behavior: variable rev limiter to prevent overrevving a cold engine, oil change interval reminder (with progressively reduced power the more the oil change interval in stretched), oil level sensor with related warning and so on.

Perhaps even real water/oil press/temp gauges, with dynamic scales to show what's good and what's not in each usage condition (when the oil is cold acceptable pressures are shifted up, as it warms up the acceptable pressure range lowers, but as revs increase, it shifts up again and so on).

Andrea.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

i think you'd be insane not to compare maintenance costs of any new car vs the old one. i don't see how it being a ferrari makes one bit of difference.

it just happens that the 308 and the FD used to be close to the same money to buy, the deal killer was the high cost of maintenance on the ferrari.

TonySeagle

iTrader: (8)

You may have missed the point of the article.

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

Used/old FD's and new Kia's are around the same price, but one cost a lot more to maintain than the other. I'm sorry, but comparing any Mazda's maintenance to Ferrari is just not sane. I don't care how you paint it.

It's no different than if you look at some of the cars today which are in the $80k range. After a few years, the depreciation on them drops them down to say $40k. However, depreciation doesn't affect maintenance/labor costs. If anything, in some cases it goes up as labor will increase over time (mechanics want more money) and rarity of parts depending on the car) can make the prices increase as well.

I'm usually with you on most things, but not on this...

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I think the point was missed re: Ferrari Maintenance costs. I'm not "comparing an RX7 to a Ferrari", necessarily, though why not? It's faster. High performance costs money.

I was simply illustrating that a great deal of what FD owners get all butt-hurt about with regard to upkeep and replacement costs are pretty much par for the course in high performance cars. You don't hear about it so much with higher end cars, because the owners don't bellyache about it.

Don't kid yourselves into thinking that Corvettes and GT3s and Lotuses, and Viper's, etc., are stone cold reliable... especially when you track them or otherwise push them. And when stuff goes, it'll make a $4500 motor R&R look like chump change.

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

The problem like I said, the price point. Buying a FD today is cheap. The "kids" who are buying them have just enough to afford the car, not enough to afford the maintenance which is where the complaints stem... Those buying Ferrari's or other high end cars do their research and understand it's more than just getting the car home.

The other thing is that Mazda cut a lot of corners on the FD. I'm sure they were trying to cut costs to make sure it wasn't going to be priced to high, but that didn't help with the maintenance cries of the car either (speaking mainly about a lot of plastic under the hood and the overly complex turbo control system). Mazda could definitely learn from these issues but the complaints of maintenance around the car are not complete fallacies.

Any car can/will fail under extreme usage. However, a FI rotary does it more often and has a smaller margin for error. Who goes to the dealership today to buy a new car knowing the engine won't last 100k without a rebuild? No one. We celebrate people on this forum who make it to 60-80k before another rebuild. That's not what normal/sane people want.

If Mazda wants to bring another rotary to the market, and a performance car with a rotary, they are going to have to up their game and put in some engineering to make a sound rotary engine. The reputation of the rotary reliability, right or wrong, is negative with the majority of car buyers. The V8 and 2JZ swaps don't help that perception either.

If you are expecting Mazda to make a new rotary powered Corvette killer, it ain't going to happen. Their best hope is going a similar direction as Lotus and going lighter weight rather than power. But, they need to figure out some better gas mileage or it will be all for naught.

G's 3rd Gen

iTrader: (11)

Sorry if I haven't kept up with this thread. But I have not read recently of the fact that the rotary burns dirty. Mazda had a problem with the rx8 redesigning the rotary to burn clean enough for global emission standards thereby decreasing the power output of the engine itself. It's going to take a lot of rotor housings to make enough power that could compete with any modern v8 sports car. I don't know if it can be done cleanly. Anyone making power north of 400 to the ground with these cars knows you're not meeting requirements of today's émission standards.

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

Agreed. I suspect they will come up with a lower cost approach similar to the Porsche 918 to help solve that problem. Low-cost electric assist combined with Rotary Power on a much simpler scale. We'll see...

HiWire

Nobody should expect a Stingray killer from Mazda. That's what the aftermarket is for

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

Weight seems to have a greater effect on mpgs than gearing. I did install 4.1 set in my rx8 and now get 21mpg normal driving and 19.5 with a/c in summer. I was tracking this with a cell phone app, so it's not just Eco driving.

If the rx8 was lighter I bet it would get closer to 24mpg and be much faster than it is. The renisis makes great power for a non turbo but its the equivalent to putting a 1.3l in a corvette because they are about the same size and weight.

As for reliability I hear the apex seals are shorter for some reason and the coils fail constantly which really F+#>s up the motor. I've upgraded to the ls2 coils.

Rx8 needs a turbo and a diet.

ZDan

IMO, new RX-3 wouldn't work. A new small/lightweight rwd car with a piston engine (modern Datsun 510) would be a great idea, though.

To gauge public acceptance of the rotary prior to investing in a new platform, I would make it an option on the MX-5/Miata (already suggested in this thread), call it the RX-5 (obvi).

And/or, develop a new small/lightweight coupe sports car for a rotary *and* a piston powerplant (RX-7 and MX-7) and let the market decide.

I have an LS2 in my FD, but I do love rotaries. But I want Mazda to make a new '7-like sports car either way, with or without the rotary. But preferably with both.

It would be supercool for them to do something novel/interesting like a very short and compact 2.5 V4 that could be shoved way back and down low to allow for a short wheelbase and very low hoodline. Basically something that could be packaged somewhat like a rotary. 250hp na, 400hp turboed, 2800 lb. or less.

HiWire

Re: the piston-engined MX-7 – Mazda doesn't have a V8 engine, so their piston engine would either have to be a brand new design, a V6 NA/FI, or sourced from another manufacturer. That's a lot to ask from a manufacturer that seems to be struggling financially. I'm pretty sure they are ideologically against hybrid designs because they have said so publicly (they may be researching them anyway).

A few numbers (Captain Obvious to the rescue!):

Porsche 968 3.0L I4 – 236 hp / 225 lb-ft
968 Turbo RS – 350 bhp

GM Ecotec III 2.0L turbo – 272 hp / 260 lb-ft
Ford 2.0L EcoBoost – 252 hp / 270 lb-ft
Ford 2.3L EcoBoost – 276 hp / 300 lb-ft
BMW 3.0L I6 N55HP – 320 hp / 330 lb-ft

Mazda's 2014 SkyActiv-G engines (13.0:1 compression in North America):
2.0L – 155 hp / 150 lb-ft – 34.6 / 49.0 mpg (manual transmission)
2.5L – 184 hp / 185 lb-ft – 32.7 / 46.1 mpg (automatic transmission only)

The Honda Civic Si's 2.4L K24Z7 makes 201 bhp / 170 lb-ft but it has much worse mileage at 23.5 / 36.8 mpg.

Based on these numbers, it looks like Mazda is following through on their promises. 184 hp may not thrill anyone here, but those mileage numbers are proof of incremental progress.

To summarize (TL;DR): turbo, turbo, plz and moar lightweight rotariez with stick shift

HiWire

Honda 2.2L AP2 CR (F22C1) I4 – 239 hp / 163 lb-ft (S2000)
Nissan 2.5 L QR25DE I4 – 200 hp / 180 lb-ft (Sentra SE-R)
Nissan 3.7L VQ37VHR V6 – 350 hp / 276 lb-ft (Nismo)
Toyota 2.5L 2AR-FE I4 – 180 hp / 173 lb-ft (Camry)
Toyota 3.5L 2GR-FE V6 – 280 hp / 260 lb-ft (Camry)

Mazda Renesis 1.3L – 232 hp / 159 lb-ft

Out of the current crop of "performance" lightweight engines, the boosted inline-4 designs seem to be making the most useable power, not including BMW's boosted I6. There is no replacement for displacement and the internal combustion engine is in its last stage of its evolution.