ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

^^^^

My pessimism isn't with the POSSIBILITY, I'm the one in here saying it's possible to actually do something special, it's MAZDA and it's LEADERSHIP that I'm pessimistic about. If they've got all this great stuff, where the **** is the car? And what's with all the fits and starts of announcing things, then killing them, then announcing something else. That's not "building anticipation", that's jerking people off.

I would, also, be a little careful with claims from Mazda though. Remember back in 2002 when the Renysis was going to be making 280 hp? Then the the RX8 showed up with 240, which actually turned out to be like 220.

djseven

iTrader: (56)

I would find it hard to believe a manufacture would give up even more low end or damn near whole rpm range HP/TQ to make more power after 6k rpms. I could be wrong and I know the attached image shows more peak power but that isnt exactly the route Mazda chose to go in the past with the rotary. Who cares, it aint happening and if it is anything less than $60k it wont compete at any serious level. Sure the BRZs and FRSs are cheap and light but they are slow and a huge step back from the performance level of the FD.

350+HP/300ftlb, 2800lb car with good looks and superior handling isnt happening for $30k or likely at all from Mazda. I just saw a yahoo article yesterday bolstering Mazda's new advances with their SkyActive Technology.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Well, agreed that everybody has got to get over this $30k number. Miatas almost cost that. $45-$55 is probably a reasonable step.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

I would find it hard to believe a manufacture would give up even more low end or damn near whole rpm range HP/TQ to make more power after 6k rpms. I could be wrong and I know the attached image shows more peak power but that isnt exactly the route Mazda chose to go in the past with the rotary.

You are exactly right that there was a loss of low end power.

Remember, this was just hacking a big peripheral intake port into a 13BMSP and filling in the side ports.

If Mazda opened up the side intake ports as well for stage induction they would be able to recover the low end of the 13BMSP (not that that is great to start with). If Mazda made a staged p-port induction they could surpass the 13BMSP low end power as peripheral intake ports have superior VE at all rpms under full load.

By "stroking" it to a 16X and using the direct injection they would gain low end power over the 13BMSP.

With a very close ratio fast shifting transmission or varying ratio transmission Mazda could put significantly more torque to the wheels than the RX-8 did.

Last, if the car weighed 1,000lbs less than the RX-8 they wouldn't need to do all this to start with. You can only put so much torque to the ground in a light car, but the dividends really pay off.

I always say, "you can't F*@k with physics."

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

it's MAZDA and it's LEADERSHIP that I'm pessimistic about. If they've got all this great stuff, where the **** is the car? And what's with all the fits and starts of announcing things, then killing them, then announcing something else. That's not "building anticipation", that's jerking people off.

So you feel jerked around that your own pessimism on the rotaries feasibility made you assume they were axing the rotary.

The Mazda CEO announced they would not develop a rotary that would not sell huge numbers. You were sad and assumed the rotary is dead.

Now Mazda shows their plan to sell the new rotary in huge numbers soon after. You feel like they are jerking you off.

I am sure Mazda wanted to build a little drama regarding the rotary so people would pay attention, but I don't see how they were jerking you off.

If they've got all this great stuff, where the **** is the car?

Where was the the FD RX-7 in 1989 two years before production began? Trolling around tracks looking like an FC, having its turbo system tested/released on the Cosmo (a parallel to the new engine layout released for Mazda2 & generator?) and having its final shape simplified and revised in the Mazda design studios.

If they plan to share the new Miata chassis as I propose (like RX-8 and current Miata) then they are testing that right now to under your nose.

HiWire

Toyota is showing off its upcoming Lexus RC F coupe:

WR Magazine

It does seem a bit like a new-school Supra with a price tag in the $100,000 area.

That leaves Mazda a lot of room to play with a purist sports car priced well below the Japanese giants' trinity of halo cars (Honda, Toyota, Nissan - NSX, RC F, GT-R), but with performance to match. Likewise with the Americans (GM, Ford, Chrysler - Corvette, Mustang, SRT Viper).

And yes, I would love it if the next rotary sports car weighs in at 2,400 lbs, like my Saturn SC2 daily driver. Call it the FF internally (Fast & Furious or Fast & Furai).

HiWire

The Germans are also expensive – the BMW M4, Audi R8, AMG C 63 are all heavy and technology-laden. The AMG still has an automatic. Only Porsche holds the purist standard, which keeps some of their models at a low volume (I wouldn't pass up a 911 Carrera S or Cayman S if someone gave it to me).

Also, the 2015 Mustang looks pretty sweet so GM and Dodge better step up their game with the next Camaro/Challenger (suggestion – go on a serious diet – more muscle, less fat).

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

Winding Road also showed this rendering of the 2015 Miata. Not sure if this is old news or not, but they say in the article that Mazda is aiming for 2200 lbs and bumping up the HP to 200. I like the design direction of this if it is in any way accurate.

Winding Road | Rumor: 2016 Mazda Miata Gets Rendered

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I think your reading comprehension needs work. I plainly said had pessimism over Mazdas fortitude to deliver a new RX7, not about the mechanical feasability of the rotary. A 330cc rotary GENERATOR in an electric vehicle is not exactly a rotary engined vehicle. Generator motors have a lot different requirements.

?

The kind of rotary car we're looking for, and rotary cars in general, are never going to sell "huge numbers". It's a niche vehicle.

Uh, yeah, no. A rotary generator is not what anyone was talking about, and I don't see that as a rotary powered vehicle.

Let's agree that you know nothing about marketing and brand management. This just looks flaky and non-committal.


Yes it was, all in perfectly transparent and consistent anticipation of releasing a 3rd generation RX7.

I think you made a lot of conceptual leaps in order to get to the car "you're talking about". But, it actually AGREES with everything I've been saying. You CAN build an ultralight sports car to today's standards—witness this 2,200 lb Miata (if that's to be believed). I think realistically, a larger more powerful RX7 based on this platform would likely be heavier not lighter, but it makes it seem like 2400-2600 is doable, and that's SIGNIFICANT relative to everything else at 3000+. All that needs is 350hp, and you've got a worthy 4th Gen RX7, and a car that slots into a position nobody else is occupying.

I fail to see why Mazda would supposedly be developing this under my or anyone else's noses. There's no logic to the fits and starts.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

I think your reading comprehension needs work. I plainly said had pessimism over Mazdas fortitude to deliver a new RX7, not about the mechanical feasability of the rotary.

I understand this, but I am trying to illustrate how the development of the Skyactive rotary they can sell in huge numbers as a generator enables them to produce a new RX vehicle.

This development Skyactive rotary will very easily transfer over to the RX sports car platform and be applied to the 16X they had been working on previously and seemingly put on hold.

There is no reason for the new RX-7 to weigh more than the new Miata. It doesn't need to be bigger as they stretched the Miata wheelbase, it doesn't need to be convertible so there is weight savings there, it would have a rotary engine so there is weight savings there, and it can be priced higher than the Miata so there is weight savings there from the use of more expensive lightweight materials.

I am illustrating the possibilities of this dream RX-7 that seems fairly feasible with all these pieces lining up. I am trying to point out why you have cause for optimism.

I also really like Mazda's new design language as shown in the new Mazda6 and Mazda3, much better than the ugliness that the RX-8 perpetuated across the Mazda lineup. More reason for optimism.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

Here is the spy shot of what is assumed to be the 2015 Miata test mule (new Miata chassis, current Miata body modded to fit.)

Note the longer wheelbase, why make the RX-7 bigger?

What would be funny is if this was actually the test mule for the convertible version of the RX-7 being tested.

Like back in '90 when the S2 prototype FD RX-7 was in its final tests heavily camouflaged (but no longer FC bodied
) on the Nurburgring and the press spotted it and reported they had finally caught the new MX-6 on film...

If the new Miata is going to be a 2015 model released in 2014 I would think they might be a little further along than this test mule..

HiWire

Here's what I would say to the RX-7 team:

1. Rotary engine: needs useable power and torque. To be competitive, either offer a 24X (3 rotor) option or a turbo/supercharger system with an "RZ" performance upgrade package (suspension, brakes, sport seats, etc.).

2. Light weight: make it about 2,400 lbs if possible. That's 200 lbs lighter than a Scion FR-S. This is a huge deal because it is a major selling point and even more important than engine power – none of the other manufacturers are making lightweight cars. Do whatever it takes – use cutting-edge materials and construction techniques, put the battery in the trunk, offer runflat tires instead of using a spare and have cruise control, air conditioning, audio system delete options for the hardcore buyer.

3. 2 seats: the RX-7 is a no-compromise sports car. Don't compromise.

4. Steering: keep it mechanical. Other manufacturers are still trying to sort out their electrical steering systems.

5. Transmission: make it a 6-speed manual or a dual-clutch automatic. Gear it for acceleration, including the final drive – 6 gears mean you can choose to drive for performance or for fuel economy. Do not include a speed limiter.

6. Design: make it beautiful like the FD. It doesn't cost any more and looks are the primary reason people choose their car.

7. Profit: expect to sell a low volume because it is a halo car, but prepare to manufacture for high demand if the inexpensive base model becomes popular.

Mazda got a lot of things right in the late-model RX-8. It has a decent build quality, reasonable fit and finish in the interior, and all of the performance equipment (e.g., steering, brakes, shifter, suspension) worked very well except the engine. Likewise with the MX-5 – you don't "fix" what is already working well unless you can offer a tangible improvement. The values of jinba ittai – "rider and horse as one" – must live on in the next generation of Mazda sports cars.

People are willing to pay for something if they think it is valuable (subjective). For example, this year's Porsche 911 50th Anniversary Edition is $28,800 more than the 911 Carrera S. Obviously, some people have enough money to buy a new Nissan GT-R at $100,000 for the same kind of reasons.

ZDan

Ha! Not really...



They *used* to build lightweight minimalist sports cars. Now they build oversized/overwrought/overpriced/overweight luxury cars. That are pretty fast...

ZDan

That "Miata" pic is very interesting. Very low, and they increased the wheelbase by extending the nose rather than shoving the rear wheels aft. Encouraging. But also a little puzzling. The Miata's short wheelbase is one thing that helped to keep its weight down. I don't really see how they will lengthen the wheelbase *and* knock off about 300 lb. We shall see...

This platform should have better weight distribution, could handle more power
And make a fantastic basis for a new RX-7 Or MX-7. Or RX-5.

Looking forward to see what it evolves into!

$lacker

iTrader: (9)

Why would they do it, if not to increase space in the engine bay for.....

ZDan

An inline 6? Wouldn't need to be longer for a rotary, which is shorter than the Miata's inline-4!

It *might* be to move the engine way back to both improve weight distribution and keep the front end of the car low in the face of the stupid Euro pedestrian impact standards which threaten to turn all cars into high/bluff-front-ended monstrosities :P

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

Yes!

Great example of a company headed in the wrong direction or not sticking with what got them to their current status with their sports cars.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I sure hope this IS a new RX7 underneath. Even the styling for the new Miata looks more masculine. A hardtop version with more muscular flares would be quite a car, piston or rotary. However, I don't get the cloak and dagger. Camoflauging the new styling is one thing (ala 1990), hemming and hawing over what you're going to do and what you're committed to is another.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Well, wider is OK in my book. At least it's not really any taller. Modern cars are ridiculously tall, even "sedans" seem like SUVs to me when I drive the RX7.

Tem120

iTrader: (5)

in order to move the engine backwards for better weight distribution .
in order to give the car a more stable platform longer wheel base means less snap oversteer more controllable and easier to drive car.

You may be saying What are you talking about miata already has perfect 50/50 weight distribution ....

ahh yes . but 50/50 isnt really ideal... Think about this rear mid engined cars what makes them so great motor in the back gives them a bit more rearward weight distribution which helps when putting the power down out of a corner . more grip on corner exit means you can get on the power earlier meaning you get a faster time ,

I believe I read ideal weight distribution is actually 60r/40 f so moving everything a bit backwards makes for a better racecar

At the cost of some of the miata's nimble nature . but I never found the FD as NOT being nimble..... But that's just me .

HiWire

Still, I like the potential of the Porsche 911 Carrera S (especially if they improve the steering and handling) and GT3. You could buy a 991 Porsche in a few years, strip out the crap, and possibly turn it into a fun track car – of course, I say that about almost every car. I wonder if hydraulic steering and smaller size is going to make the 997 more popular in the used car market

Ideally, they'd put the 911 engines in the Cayman (GT3 engine – 468bhp/324 lb ft or the turbo – 552bhp/553lb ft, still with RWD) but we all know that Porsche makes more money the other way around. Maybe they'll do that when 911 sales finally fall off a cliff.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

the new 911 is immense! even the new boxster is gigantic.

you know why?

big cars do better in crash tests.

raising the trunk line does better in a crash test.

heavier cars do better in a crash test.

you can counter this with good design, if you look at Mazda's and Volvos they are not as big and bloated as the hyundai, or Toyotas, but good design costs money, and needs competent engineering.

this is also why every car needs a reverse camera, because you can't see out of it.

i've had a few late 60's/early 70's mercedes, and their safety innovation was to LOWER the belt line, and eliminate blind spots, so the driver can see.

ZDan

But the latest 911 weighs at least 800 lb. more, and as much as 1200 lb. more than one from the 60s/early-70s. In contrast, a new Corvette weighs exactly what it did back then. ONE of these manufacturers has moved DRASTICALLY far away from it's previous ideals!

Unfortunately, Porsche changed the 911 from being small and lightweight to being, essentially, a rear-engined German Corvette (with all the good and bad that implies). I love the Corvette (old and new), but to me the Porsche should be MUCH smaller and lighter-weight.

ZDan

Pure sports cars shouldn't be designed to be tanks. If Lotus and now Alfa can make a ~2000-2200 lb. sports car, so can Porsche. But they'd rather build tanks

I guess Porsche lacks design and engineering talent!

No, but they do lack any desire to produce legitimately small, lightweight sports cars.

A good argument against TANKS as being the only way to SAFETY. If cars are so big and heavy we can't see out of them, that's unsafe!

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

Here's mine next to an FRS and Gen 2. Now, granted mine is lower than stock ride height, but the FRS is considered to be small. When I see a Lotus on the road I'm always amazed at how tiny they are... Just saying that in 40 years, Porsche seems to have GROWN the least. If you compare a 67-69 Camero to today's offering from Chevrolet, they look extemely bloated. Instead of horsepower wars, I'd like to see manufacturers touting the lightness of their designs. It's truly the only way Mazda can still compete. Build a featherweight world class chassis with a 300+ HP rotary and you'd have an instant winner. Tout the lightness of your design and prior racing heritage in your ad campaign.