ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Disagree. Why SHOULDN'T it be world-class handling?

Flagship models should express what you're capable of. Maybe in 1979, selling an average sporty car was something Mazda aspired to. Now that's for Hyundai. NEWS: it's not 1979, and times have changed—what worked then and made sense then doesn't necessarily apply now.

You know what I notice most about the Toyota 86/BRZ? It's not called a Supra. You don't go backwards like that. If you want to introduce a cheap "tossable" underpowered entry level car, you call it something else.

Mazda is already making the car you're talking about. It's called a Miata.

fbse7en

People like to forget/ignore the Rx-8 (I understand ), it has/had greater handling than Mx-5. It'd be a cake-walk for Mazda to build the 7 we want. THEY'VE ALREADY DONE IT.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Not just gaming! It's online reviews of movies, games, and all kinds of electronics tech.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

It gets ignored a lot because a lot of rotary purist haven't actually driven one. Other than power, I was blown away by its handling and responsiveness. Then I kept looking back and seeing those rear seats and said to myself "Only Mazda could have pulled this off". I have never driven anything with 4 real seats that handled like that (and am 6' 220 and could comfortably fit in the back). For its size, the 8 needed at least 300hp to be perfect IMHO. If it had, and maintained reliability, it would have been a huge success.

MisterX

The MX-5 already plays in that (little guns) segment; no point in a successor to the "mighty" FD to throw in the white towel, as if to say "Ok, we give up. Unlike in the 90s, we can't beat up the Vette and our fellow Jap rivals, so now we'll go up against the crapboxes." It's like in IMSA where they raced GTO & GTU (and dominated); well, now it's time to step up and race the 962s, the Nissans, Gurney's Eagles. That's the kind of thinking they should be employing, rather than giving up. Twenty two years after the FD - the autoX king for a decade - goes on sale, and in 3 more years they put up a competitor to a Nissan 240 and Toyobaru? What a weak proposition.
They smartly moved away from that "basics" theme for the 3rd gen.

As evidence:
RX-8 was cheaper than the 3rd gen, both in real dollars, and by far when adjusting for inflation. Was it 1) more fun to drive and 2) a better performer? Any enthusiast would unequivocally answer "no" to both Qs.

MisterX

I want a super RX-7, too; just not derived from a cheaper/2 rotor/steel frame/$30K base price younger brother's chassis.
Other than the weight being 350 pounds or so heavier than your target, and the base price being a good bit cheaper they built that eleven years ago. Did you buy it?

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

Not sure if I agree with this, especially point No. 2. Stock for stock the RX-8 had significantly better handling than a bone stock FD, and I consider myself a pretty rabid enthusiast. It just lacked some "grunt" coming out of the corners, but was stiffer and had superior braking so you could carry speed later into your braking zones. It's the most powerful stock NA rotary motor that Mazda has produced.

Mazda really dropped the ball by only selling Mazdaspeed versions of the RX-8 in Japan. They tried to sell their overpriced "speed" parts through dealer networks, but IMO, they would have been MUCH more succe$$ful selling the complete Mazdaspeed vehicle at the point of sale, giving people the opportunity to finance those overpriced goodies, thus building more enthusiasm for the car and their brand.

MisterX

If you deem the 8 the better performer is it because it's simply a tad more neutral in handling? Because the 8 certainly cannot take a corner with more speed, nor can it change direction as well as the 7. Both cars sit side by side in my garage, and the 8's rigidity advantage is night and day, but apart from that I see no driveability advantage that would make one choose it if you were to go for a spirited afternoon drive on dry pavement through an array of straights and curves. (i.e. it is not more fun to drive than the 7.)

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

Take a bone stock FD and a bone stock RX8 with equal tires, pads and a good aignment and the 8 will flat out get crushed at your local autocross. Now do the same thing on a big track and it will likely be even worse.

Who are you kidding

I've seen this argument a few times and I don't care about all the BS chassis stuff etc... the clock doesn't lie. Now if you enjoy driving an rx8 more than a 7/fd that's a personal thing but for me that's not a close race either.

fmzambon

Making two versions of the same car with very different price points is not unheard of. The first one that comes to mind is the Mustang: $22500 for the base V6, $31200 for the base V8 and $55100 for the Shelby GT500.
Or the Camaro: $23555 for the base V6 and $55055 for the ZL1.
Another example is BMW: the 128i goes for $31500, while the 135is is $43550.
Even the new Mazda 3 starts at $16945 with the 2.0 and reaches $24595 with the 2.5.
And I'm sure there are many other examples.

It seems like having a high end model whose price is 50% higher than that of the base model is quite normal in the industry. Even a top of the line model that costs twice as much as the base model is not impossible to find.

So, if Mazda really wanted to, they could produce a 2 and a 3 rotor priced appropriately IMHO.

Andrea.

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

I certainly respect your opinion Fritz, so unlike others on this board, I'm backing down and retracting my earlier statement. My post was based on MY experience, which tells me one thing... my FD has lots of untapped potential that I need to explore

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

Appreciate the respect and yes the FD has lots of untapped potential we all need to explore. It's a shame it wasn't explored more by mazda it likely would have been as a big player in the race world as it was in the autocross world.

The chassis was so far ahead of everything else at that time, seriously stupid quick autocross car, even today I think it's still classed with corvettes which tells you the respect the SCCA has for the car but it's not an easy car to win in now

HiWire

RE Amemiya and others have explored the limits of the FD.

It would be nice to have the chassis and steering advances from the RX-8 in the next RX-7 (the FF?). All of the rigidity and smoothness, combined with the inherent light weight and responsiveness of the 2-seat configuration.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

There's no denying, the RX8 is a stiffer chassis. As far as the other changes to suspension geometry and such, I don't know. The RX8 is a damned fine handling car from my ride along(s) with a fellow instructor and the speed/times I know he turns even with relatively low power, but what feels neutral and forgiving for a street car on street tires isn't necessarily the same as what provides the greatest potential.

Agree with Fritz on the tires and brakes though. the OE stuff is ridiculously small. Even the Spirit R stuff would level the playing field a bit.

ZDan

They "stepped up" in 1992 with one of the most gorgeous sports prototypes ever (see pic earlier in this thread). Unfortunately it didn't go so well

That didn't go so well, either Do you think Mazda wants to repeat the FD experience?

It certainly sold a lot better. It's just too bad they didn't make a smaller/lighter, less awkward-looking 2-door/2-seater RX-7 version.

Why not? The weight-savings going to aluminum isn't as great as it's often made out to be. NSX vs. FD, anyone?
And what do you care whether there's an NA 2-rotor base model or not? How does that affect a higher-hp 3-rotor or turbo?

I think one of the MAJOR factors in the FD's lack of sales success was the absence of a lower-cost NA 2-rotor version.

Well, for one thing 350 lb. is no small amount, and for another the RX-8 only made ~185rwhp, so something like 215hp, nowhere near 250hp.
Still, I came THIS CLOSE >||< to buying one, but got an S2000 instead, primarily because of fuel economy (75-mile and then 105-mile round-trip commuting). I actually wanted a fixed roof and some +2 utility, but the S2000 was a better combination of performance and fuel economy, markedly better on both fronts!

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

i was going to throw in some lap time, but its been so long since i've seen an FD at the track, i don't have any for them. the last time the FD people came out to the track, they skipped laptimes, and just compared how much they overheated....

the Rx8 is no slouch, it runs quicker times than you'd think, and doesn't require much from the driver either. key point I can take a showroom Rx8 and run with ITS cars. i'm SLOW

HiWire

I think Mazda solved some of the FD's basic problems by the time the Series 8 (1999-2002) was released. Unfortunately, they withdrew from foreign markets far too soon for non-Japanese customers to benefit from additional testing and tuning. Partly due to the high Yen:USD ratio, partly due to the depression of the early 90s, and partly due to FUD spread by auto journalists, the FD's sales numbers in North America were abysmal after its release in 1993.

As written earlier in the thread, the FD earned an infamous reputation because of manufacturing and design problems at the outset. Nobody likes replacing engines, peeling paint and interiors, or fixing the rat's nest of wiring, vacuum lines and solenoids (all vulnerable to heat soak, boost leaks, etc.) without adequate documentation and training. Mazda's conception of the interior as "cockpit" may have won fans from hardcore drivers, but many reviewers preferred the 300ZX and Supra as superior all-round sports cars (more interior room, softer ride, more luxury, more reliability).

I am proud to drive an FD but I will also freely admit that it is not a car for everyone, even with all its "problems" fixed.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

i think you're nuts, the sales were extremely low because the price was intentionally higher and the cars production level was lower.

the FD jumped in price from under $30k to over $40k in a single year.

as for the problems, again nuts. most FDs didn't develop any major problems until after they were out of warranty, unlike the RX8 which probably would have had major issues if they didn't extend the engine core warranty due to the large amounts of premature failures. how many FDs did you see with peeling paint, even today(a faded red doesn't count as peeling, it counts as oxidization which is also partly curable and due to age/wear and tear)? the late 80's and early 90's were that era and by '93 it was already taken care of. engine failures? common rat's nest issues in the first years? BS.

the infamous paint peeling issue was generally noticed on most major car manufacturers which use white paint in particular from '89-93, and to my knowledge there were no white FDs the first year. this had an impact on ALL car manufacturers because the primer used with that white was one that most of the largest manufacturers were using at the time, not specific to ford/mazda.

all you're really doing is explaining some current problems with the FD, which had 0 impact on them 20 years ago...

ZDan

I don't think Mazda intended such low sales. Of course when demand plummeted they adjusted production accordingly. The yen:dollar certainly was a factor in the price hike, not their fault. There were problems with the cars, which was their fault. Anyway, I think they should have also made an NA version for less $$$. They certainly would have sold more cars, perhaps enough to have kept the 7 alive.

fmzambon

+1

That's why a 2 and 3 rotor lineup could make a lot of sense for the next Rx-7 IMHO.

Andrea.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

I think the idea of a cheaper lower spec version being sold in high numbers and the high spec halo car is a great idea. Like the 2nd gen RX-7.

I wouldn't mind if Mazda stretched this notion a bit and had the new Miata as the base model and used a very similar rotary powered variant as the new RX.

As long as they offered a fixed roof version, I hate convertibles and they carry extra weight and or flexy chassis.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

this is just completely incorrect. if you run the warranty history on the average 1993 FD, its usually a full page long, if not two.

there were three recalls on the FD, one of which caused more problems than it solved. most FD's made it through warranty on the original engine, but it is very common to see a set of turbos (or two), one or two cats.

there is always a set of spark plugs, usually a battery. occasionally a transmission, and or rear suspension (the pillow ***** sometimes made noise from new), the 93's got a lot of interior parts that peeled/broke. plenty of oil leaks, coolant leaks... there were even a few that caught on fire

etc etc

with the paint, its not the color, its the process. the touring packages were painted with Mazda's "high reflex" paint system, and its these that did the worst. the rest of them just chip really easily. although you will have a hard time finding an FD with original paint

t-von

iTrader: (8)

^ Yep there was a quick article back in 95 stating all the improvements to the 95 fd vs the 93. The editor even quoted all the different improvements.

I went something like this:

"1st the exterior paint and interior finish were quickly improved mid way through the 93 model year, then the car got a softer suspension vs the 94 still. If the 95 Rx7 had been released today, it would be the talk of the town. Unfortuantly no one is talking about the Rx7 anymore as the exchange rates have driven its price etc ect"

All that's from my memory but you get the idea..

Even my 94 had an extensive warranty history. One of the repairs was the vacuum line replacement. I got lucky that the tech knew what they were going because I had zero transition problems during my ownership.

Project88Turbo

iTrader: (22)

^I've got the full service history for my car since day 1. (I'm the 4th owner)

Some highlights (from memory):

<500 miles - Water pump replaced: LEAKING/OVERHEAT?

<3000 miles - Engine/Turbos replaced: Above event cooked engine... (engine $1600/turbos $2700)

<20000 miles - Rear calipers replaced: Parking brake INOP.

<50000 miles - Clutch replaced: Notes in work order about catalyst being melted.

Factory muffler was replaced twice @ ~$350.

Engine and turbos rebuilt again at ~60,000.

Engine replaced w/Mazda reman in 2002 and another set of used twins.

I replaced the transmission and turbos when I got it.

It is nearly a full 2" binder of service history. There were lots of just regular services (oil change/rotations) but a lot of other repairs.

Car has ~98,000 as of present.

I'd say it earned the reputation they are famous for.

ON THE OTHER HAND, my buddies car was nearly flawless until ~78K when a coolant seal went. He has always babied it, and it has all the reliability mods.

Vince

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

the dealership is required to keep the service records for some period of time, and you can spot the FD ones, as they are the ones that are the thickest.

the 95 FD's by contrast are much much better, since there are so few, i have a binder of all the warranty histories, and the average one is right inline with any other Mazda.