It won't be a v8. V8's are not mazda. I doubt they'd do a six either, but it's more plausible than a v8. My bet is it would be a boosted 4. Maybe 2, 2.5L.

 

Or use the rotary to power the mazdaspeed versions of the 3 and 6. You want all out performance? Here's your rotary. Don't want to mess with rotaries? go with the 2.5 boinger.

Incidentally, if Mazda wanted a V8 engine, they could just pair up a couple of skyactiv engine heads on a custom crankcase. You could reuse all of the combustion chamber and intake/exhaust solutions already developed for the inline 4 engines, and get a 3, 4 or 5 liter V8 (depending on what engine is used as a starting point, the 1.5, the 2 or the 2.5 liter) for very cheap.

Andrea.

 

If Mazda were to offer the same vehicle from the factory with a rotary or non-rotary option, that would be the death sentence to the rotary. That would demonstrate to the public that Mazda doesn't even believe in the platform enough to dedicate a model towards it.

 

I have been cridicized fr saying this before but I believe Mazda new about the faults in the rotary. I believe they made it this way on purpous destroying its reputation, in a attempt to make money on maintenance and repairs.

Most sports cars are driven hard and expected to be high maintenance. My argument is the rotary is the opposite of that. Aside from more frequent plug changes it doesn't have timing belts or a valve train that needs 100k mainetnce. If the apex seals and the coils were designed properly the rx8 would of been a very reliable car that needed less maintenance than the average daily driver. . A low mainetnce highly output engine is what Mazda should of been pushing for in the first place. It's lack of moving part means lack of points of failure which should equal unbeatable reliability.

The guy who taught me to tune has an 10sec rx3 a 74 corolla and a 8sec GLC. He's showed me how strong these engines are and what there're capable of if you know what ur doing, yet Mazda engineers struggle with 250hp driven back and forth to work. It doesn't make sense.

The only problem I have seen from my rx8 is the coils failed and if the engine is running rough and building carbon it's probably going to fail too.

 

Maybe you missed the news, but the rotary is ALREADY DEAD, has been for a couple of years.

A new model with both rotary and piston engines would *bring the rotary back to life*. They could let the piston-engine version subsidize the rotary version to some extent. If it can't survive even with that support, too bad, but is it really WORSE for you to have a new rotary car that also has a piston-engine option than NO new rotary whatsoever?

 

I also believe the rx8 lacked much needed air cooling. There is plenty of room In the engine bay and Mazda covered it up with plastic and random parts. They should of been more strategic in the placement of the abs a/c and electronics. A bit more planning and the rx8 would be very easy to work on and have excellent air circulation around the engine.

It's a small 1.3l and yet a ls2 v8 fully dressed fits in with a similar amount of space. No wounded people like that swap.

 

It defeats the purpose of what the "RX" line stood for, yes... If Mazda put equal amounts of engineering for both (similar to what the German car manufacturers are doing for their diesel/non-diesel cars), then that could be a good thing. However, using it solely to justify "another rotary vehicle" makes it a gimmick no different than selling a rotary powered Mazda.

 

I'm not really talking about the used FD market—that's a given. Even when the car was new though, it was a big leap from the 2G, and a lot of people bought it thinking they could treat it like a 2G, or am Eclipse. It wasn't marketed well, and a lot of people didn't know what they were buying—essentially a 1990 IMSA GTU car for the street.


Agreed, a LOT of cut corners—and really, the car should have cost a couple thousand more and come with a real radiator and IC, AST, dual oil coolers on all models, and more fail safes built in to the ECU.


I think that's true of a turbo rotary. But there was no excuse for the RX8. However, modern control systems are pretty remarkable. Even my Mom's base Mini monitors driving habits and calculates when all maintenance is needed, and indicates it. There's no reason Mazda can't monitor some of the things like fuel dilution, oil consumption, coil strength, knock, etc. more efficiently.

Agreed, and just as above—maybe Mazda needs to build in rotary specific things into the regular maintenance schedule. The 15k service includes a decarboning. And as I alluded to above, maybe the 60k service is a "seal freshening". "Motor rebuild" in a rotary doesn't really mean the same thing both in practical terms or in dollar terms compared to a piston engine. It's really a semantics/perception thing. A @#$%ing valve job on some V12 car might cost as much, and be as much work. It's just different.

AGAIN, I think that all of that sort of thing (and gas mileage) is FAR more tollerable on a higher-end specialty car than something marketed as a "practical" half-breed like the RX8.

 

Agreed. However, I have a hard time egging a car manufacturer to create a car that I won't be able to afford.

 

i've been pretty impressed with the Rx8 ecu, it doesn't tell you when to service the car, but half the coils can be dead and it runs fine.

i do think that the new car needs to have some sort of ignition feedback thing, so the ecu KNOWS the coil fired (the Miata, FC and JC cosmo had such things), as the Rx8 will happily run on 2 coils, which ruins the cat, and sometimes the engine….


i also think this is a great idea, they should just have a 8/100 maintenance plan, or something. look at BMW the regular warranty covers everything, and it just removes all of the problems.

Mazda warrantied the Rx8 engine for 8 years or 100k miles, and the downside to this is that the Rx8 owners just expect Mazda to pick up the tab for everything, when at some point its THEIR car.

obviously there is a happy medium in there somewhere...

 

actually to switch gears here is my idea of a "new" car. i'm not quite sure how to pitch it, but you FD guys seem to like long lists

mechanically the new car (we're calling it the P777), goes back to a ~95" wheelbase, like the FD/FC/1st gen/classic Ferrari's/Bugatti type 35. to me this is the classic sports car size.

two seats, although there is an engineering hurdle to overcome. coupe.

for the engine, Mazda has shown us the 16X, which is fine, but. the Ferarri 250 GTO is 280hp, in a 2300lb car, so for a rotary car to even match that, it needs ~360hp (you have to figure its going to be 3000lbs).

i am thinking of a multi rotor engine, but probably with some revised geometry, maybe a 70mm width rotor three rotor, or Mazda just introduced a 330cc rotary in the Mazda 2, in a 4 rotor that would be neat because of course the other issue with the 2 rotor is

SOUND. a stock FD and Rx8 sound like vacuum cleaners, a three or 4 rotor engine would suddenly change the engine from vacuum cleaner humdrum to something that is unique.

couple that to a flat NA torque curve and its a recipe for something that is just pleasurable.

for the suspension/chassis/drive train, i am thinking to revise the Rx8 stuff, as it really is a world class chassis, so i would rather spend the development budget on getting the thing to start, and or stuff you can touch/see.

thoughts?

 

Good ideas. Maybe Mazda should consider giving customers a base 2-rotor with a 3-rotor upgrade option. I'm not sure if they would go for a 4-rotor in a lightweight, inexpensive sports car.

 

Not at 3,000 lbs. 2,600 or forget it.

 

3000 sounds about right for a modern car with a 3 rotor engine.

lighter than that and you have to sacrifice those modern comforts and mazda has never been fond of building any sports cars without them.

it's too bad the 3 rotors only ever came in a luxury sedan, i feel more people would have gotten into the cars if they offered them in more variety. i doubt mazda will ever put even a smaller 4 rotor engine into a car. picture the RX8 with a naturally aspirated 3 rotor, it would have been something people wanted and kept instead of what we have now which is them passing hands like candy after the engine warranty expired.

the RX8 we got was basically the nail in the coffin. it had limited power potential where a 3 rotor with a 275-300whp n/a figure to back it would have kept people content longer, stressing the engine less for more reliability. the standard 6 port MSP only really puts out about 185whp in the real world, compared to the turbo II introduced in 1987 which put out roughly 165whp 17 years earlier. the REW put out 220whp just before the renesis, so the power levels took a step down and not up. this of course was limited by european emissions standards but in the US a 3 rotor could have met the standards and still be successful.

 

A lousy 130 lbs less than a Z06 and 100 more than the average 4-door RX8? The Toyota 86 is supposed to be 2,624–2,862.


3,000 is not going to cut it.

 

the RX8 is actually a rather light car for what it is, mazda did do a good job with it in that department.

comparing an older car to a new car also isn't going to cut it when you consider most cars have several hundred pounds of electronics that older cars did not and even more for safety concerns like ABS and airbags. these are current standards, unlike 50 years ago when seatbelts were considered optional. these days people would probably moan and complain if there isn't a USB port for their ipod.

if we want to really get into depth why not compare it to a caterham? drop a 500# engine into a go kart frame and make a 300+whp 1400lb road car with 0 luxuries. there are companies that do just that already though. yes they are true driver's cars, but sometimes you might just want a heater when it's sub 0F outside.. a car like that would have a hard time on a dealership showroom floor.

 

Then again, a modern Corvette is pretty much the same weight as it was in 1968, while still being at the same relative price and performance.

Also, the FR-S/BRZ is precisely a modern version of the S13 Nissan 240SX of 25 years ago, weighs barely if any more than that car did.

Modern cars don't *HAVE* to be as big and heavy as most of them are. But more and more people seem to want big/heavy cars, even 5000+ lb. SUVs, and more and more modern "enthusiasts" don't care at all about the actual FEEL of driving a small/lightweight car, but rather only seem to care about performance figures in a magazine.

Anyway, still hold out some tiny amount of hope that Mazda might develop a 2600-2800 lb. fixed-roof sports car in the RX-7 vein. It is totally technically feasible. But I'm not holding my breath...

 

LOL, they only stopped making RX8's like two years ago, I'm pretty sure it had seat belts and electronics. And a heater. It was pretty light for what it is—a 4-door, 4-seater. If a two seater RX7 can't UNDER cut it by a couple hundred pounds, then WTF.

 

replacing metal with plastic is all good and fine for weight savings but more costly when you start poking holes in your interior with your pinky.

a 1968 vette is more likely to last a decade than a new Z06 will. it's all about what sacrifices we make for enjoyment.

 

??? I don't think the '68 Corvette had a metal interior! And no Corvette ever had a metal body.

I seriously doubt a '68 Corvette would hold up as well over a decade as a new Z06. It would be good to have a pristine example of each to find out, though

 

The new Corvettes are pretty impressive.

I'm not really a Corvette guy, but you've GOT to hand it to Chevy. It makes me proud to be an American, even if I'm unlikely to buy it. They had a body-less chassis at the Baltimore GP last year, it's really amazing. I've heard that the 2015's will have essentially a TrakMate built in, with video and full performance monitoring for the track. Know-your-audience WIN.

The Corvette had really become a shadow of it's former self, and 80's versions were sort of sad, but they've steadily improved them from the C4 through the C7. All this from a company that overall hasn't had the best reputation, and has had financial troubles, and is an "economy" brand, that's now happily selling $100k cars that enjoy a deserved world class reputation.

Mazda could learn a thing or two about having a vision, sticking to your brand, steadily working through challenges rather than fits and starts, not convincing yourself of what you "can't" do, or what will "never" sell, capitalizing on racing investment and success (see: C5 and C6R), etc., etc., etc.

 

hear hear!

 

my 89 vert was 3000lbs with a full tank of gas, my 2004 Rx8 base was also 3000lbs.

if you think about that, and realize that the 8 is TWENTY FIVE INCHES longer, they saved a lot of weight in the 8, and it still has ac/ps power windows and all that stuff.

if you look at a modern car vs an old car, the place where the new cars have gained weight is the body. due to crash standards the new car is BIG, and the trunk is higher, there is more structure too. basically we're building tanks vs something else.

my favorite is the new challenger, because its so obvious, but there is like a foot more car between the floor and the bottom of the window, and it looks all short and weird.

a well engineered car like a volvo, or a Mazda, can actually pass the crash tests without too much of this, but **** cars like hyundai/toyota are built like tanks...

 

As pete keeps repeating mazda sees the rotary glass as half full and I don't think we'll see another rotary so all this conjecture is pointless because until mazda stops talking about the rotary like it's a PIA and actually has some real enthusiasm about building another RX7 it's not going to happen and from what I can tell even if they have one in the pipeline it will likely be a compromise and won't be a car many of us will want.

The competition is committed to building good sports cars because they understand that it's what excites people about there products (absolutely the best form of advertising any car company can do) and from what I can tell Mazda is committed to making short term profits which is never a good business plan.

 

You guys need to get more optimistic.

Mazda just released a new rotary engine design for their generator set and Mazda2 EV range extender.

Since its in a car we know it meets current/future emissions standards.

It has side exhaust ports and peripheral intake ports which not only make more power, but will move the sideseals and remedy the reliability problems the RX-8 had with excessive exposure to exhaust gasses.

Here is what happens when you cut a peripheral intake on a 13BMSP with little development. It has the "right" kind of overlap (unlike old p-port exhaust/sideport intake motors) for good power even with emissions equipment.



Now add in direct injection and more torque from a "stroked" 16x with this port layout.

A dual clutch 6 or 7 speed transmission (cheap enough they are in Dodge Dart now) or option of CVT auto (strong enough now they are in heavy Subaru Legacys) will keep the engine in the proper rev range.

What about a chassis? The spy photos of the 2015 Miata show it is a development mule running the current body and they have clearly extended the wheelbase by adding nearly a foot to the hood between the door and the front wheel arch. It looks like a drop top RX-8 the wheelbase is so long.

Awesome, share this new longer lighter Miata chassis (claimed 2,200lb weight) with the RX-7.

With a fixed roof for even lighter weight and the p-port skyactive 16X under the hood for lighter weight/ better chassis dynamics and 300hp and Mazda would have an incredible machine.

300hp and 2,000lbs with the handling of FD, RX-8 or NC Miata would be near supercar territory for a reasonable price.

That is my dream RX-7