The RX-7 confirmed to be in the pipeline for 2017---RX-Vision Unveil!!
#876
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.
#877
Full Member
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.
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.
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.
#879
TaK
iTrader: (1)
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.
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.
#880
Senior Member
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?
#881
TaK
iTrader: (1)
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'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.
#882
Mr. Links
iTrader: (1)
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.
#883
Lives on the Forum
iTrader: (9)
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by ptrhahn; 01-06-14 at 11:02 AM.
#885
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,900
Received 2,643 Likes
on
1,872 Posts
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.
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….
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.
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.
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...
#886
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,900
Received 2,643 Likes
on
1,872 Posts
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?
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?
#887
Rotary Enthusiast
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.
#889
Sharp Claws
iTrader: (30)
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.
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.
Last edited by RotaryEvolution; 01-07-14 at 03:10 PM.
#891
Sharp Claws
iTrader: (30)
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.
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.
Last edited by RotaryEvolution; 01-07-14 at 04:25 PM.
#892
Senior Member
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.
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...
#894
Sharp Claws
iTrader: (30)
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...
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...
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.
#895
Senior Member
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.
#896
Lives on the Forum
iTrader: (9)
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.
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.
#897
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
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.
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.
#898
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,900
Received 2,643 Likes
on
1,872 Posts
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...
#899
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
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.
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.
#900
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
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
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