t-von

iTrader: (8)

Yep the car got better with age as it should have. Unfortunatley the bad rep comes from the 93's since that's the highest selling year. Improved 94's and 95's were so much better vehicles but sold in very small sales number. My 94 was still the most reliable car I ever owned (even over my 91 S5 vert and 00 M5).

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

my friend had one of those M5's and the build quality was the worst i have ever seen, stuff fell off of it, the AC compressor sounded like it was dragging on the ground, etc etc

BMW spent 16k fixing it under warranty

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Heck, it wasn't just the "high reflex" paint on the tourers. On my red R1, the mirrors and spoiler needed polishing like every two days or they'd be flat pink. This was back in 1997 on a car w/ 37k miles. That's inexcusable.

MisterX

Thanks, that was my point. I saw the car in person that year at the track as it mounted an unsuccessful effort against the big guns.
Twenty plus years later, do you think they may have learned from some build quality issues maybe? Still, those things can never take away from the performance prowess it proved versus its competition.
Sure, that's what I would've preferred along with most enthusiasts; but back then the ********* at Ford were dictating what can and can't be built. Thankfully, that collaboration is history. Sadly though, because of emission and fuel mileage standards around the world it may be too late to get a legitimate 7 again, at least from what we're hearing from Mazda themselves.
Wanna wager how much lighter the NSX would be if they removed the C30 and put in a 13B in its place? Two hundred plus pounds, at least. And, on top of that, they'd gain both torsional and bending rigidity. Conversely, if the FD had been constructed like the NSX, it too, would be less than its curb weight. How much lighter, I don't know.
For a 2 rotor and very expensive/high hp 3 rotor to be produced from the same platform, like I said before, would cheapen the car. Now, if the base car was $30K, and the 20b (or 24x) was 10K more, fine.

My point was more that if a 2017 24x RX-7 was a carbon tub (like the coming $50K Alfa has), aluminum intensive (rather than steel), that the production costs wouldn't allow for a "cheap" $32K 2 rotor to be produced off of it. Hence, why a super 7 could not feasibly share the same platform with the 280hp N/A 16x.
I did the opposite of you - bought the 8. Though I've two regrets: gas mileage, and resale. :-( Of course, the latter only matters if one were to sell.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

To get any where near a good ITS time in an RX8 you'd have to drive the wheels of it, don't sell yourself short you must be one hell of a good driver

Personally I've never been on track with a fast rx8 including decently driven all out race cars.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

Personally I've never been on track with a fast rx8 including decently driven all out race cars.

Crazy, it seemed like I couldn't turn on the TV most of the last decade without seeing RX-8s racing and often winning racing series.

Maybe the big flames made their presence more memorable to me.

Tem120

iTrader: (5)

Those had an extra dorito to help make those flames big.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

Yes, the Grand AM tube frame 3 rotor race cars were highly memorable!

I was talking also about the RX-8 race cars in the unibody classes.

wstrohm

Although I am a fan of the FD, this statement may be true. We bought our new '94 in September of '94 from a dealer. From the beginning we had idling problems caused by the EGR system (or so we were told) eventually corrected by the installation of the "new gasket," which essentially eliminated that path altogether.

Later (1996) at the first required emissions test, the car failed as a "gross polluter." We found a good Mazda mechanic who located two vacuum hoses that were incorrectly interchanged, and a shorted vacuum solenoid control wire. From that time on for the next 5 or 6 biennial smog tests, we were required by the CARB to go to a "test only" station, where the car generally passed. However the car did fail smog testing some years later and required a new factory cat converter to pass. Since then, there have been no emissions testing problems.

MissionRx7

I know I'm joining the thread a little late but also hope that Mazda is able to have better quality control with the new car. I owned a 74 Rx4 college and I own a 93 R1 now. When I purchased the FD it only had 32,000 miles but the attention this car needed interior and exterior was ridiculous. Don't get me wrong I still love the car the handling is incredible. Now I do have a suggestion for the new car I think Mazda should offer a piston engine version of the car as well as the rotary. Maybe a small block V8 or V10 no larger than 4 liters. It's just a thought as I see the rotary engine in it's last days.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

You can hope but, just know that if the name has RX in it, it will only have a rotary engine. Also unless Mazda builds a full size truck, you won't be seeing a v8 or v10 anytime soon.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Those hose mis routing would have been from the dealer during the fuel hose recall requiring pulling the UIM

ZDan

I seriously doubt that! The stock FD powerplant with all its associated hardware is not particularly lightweight. You can replace it with a 6+ liter GM V8 and the car only gains about 50 lb. like vs. like (i.e., with p/s, AC, full interior, etc.). The GM V8s are remarkably light for their displacement, but I would bet that the NSX's 3.0 V6 was lighter.

The aluminum-frame/body NSX was ~100-200 lb. heavier than the steel-unibody (Al hood, though!) RX-7, and if there is any difference in weight at all between the all-in rotary twin turbo and the 3.0 V6, it's certainly a LOT less than 100 lb. even, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the FD's powerplant is the heavier one.

Aluminum is definitely the go-to material for aircraft and spacecraft, but for cars and motorcycles, it doesn't always save a significant amount of weight. This was particularly true for the NSX, which was sort of the experimental test case for an aluminum-frame production car.

Sounds perfect!

Projected 4C weight for the U.S. is as high as 2500 lb., according to Alfa.

engineers admitted the U.S. cars could weigh more than 2500 lb.
Read more: 2014 Alfa Romeo 4C - First Drive Review - Road & Track

To me, a 350hp "super 7" built on a cheap $32k ~2600-lb. 280hp NA 16x base model shouldn't have to be any heavier than ~2750 lb.

I'm an aerospace structural engineer, so believe me the idea of saving as much weight as possible through aluminum and carbon fiber has a lot of appeal, but in the end, for cars, the weight savings doesn't amount to as much as you might think relative to intelligently designed conventional steel unibody construction.

IMO, better to wait for automotive carbon fiber construction methods to be developed to get the cost out, *then* apply the technology once it's reasonably affordable.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I'm not sure the 20 year old NSX is really the comparison point. New C7 Corvette is an aluminum Chassis, and the Z06 in particular uses a lot of carbon fiber.

ZDan

And the new C7 weighs 3440 lb. (Z51 version anyway). Z06 *might* come in at ~3300, I'd be very (pleasantly!) surprised if it manages to be in the ~3200 lb. range.
I know a lot of weight has been added in places other than the chassis, and that supposedly the C7 frame is 100 lb. lighter than the C6. But that's part of the reason that moving to lighter-weight materials for primary structure doesn't necessarily buy you a whole lot in production road cars. The structural weight is pretty small to begin with, there's a LOT of non-structural mass going along for the ride.

Anyway, the Miata and BRZ/FR-S demonstrate that you can have a pretty lightweight rwd car with fairly conventional/inexpensive materials and manufacturing. A modern, RX-7 with ~250ish hp could surely land between those cars weight-wise without resorting to more exotic/expensive construction for *very* reasonable $$$, and a 350ish hp turbo or 3-rotor could conceivably come in right at FR-S/BRZ weight, . That's what I'd like to see in a new RX-7.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

part of the rumor from a couple of years ago was that Mazda was experimenting with carbon fiber. since Mazda is pretty conservative, i would expect any CF from them to be on a simple panel first.

HiWire

Maybe Mazda can multi-tier the next RX-7 the same way the Corvette was done. Lightweight steel or aluminum unibody for the base models, carbon tub for the super model (like the Porsche Carrera GT). It looks like carbon fiber production is getting slightly less expensive as time goes on. For comparison, the Ferrari 458 uses an aluminum monocoque while its rival, the McLaren MP4-12C has a carbon fiber chassis.

For example, Mazda could offer the super model to privateer racing teams for Super GT, Le Mans, FIA, and the new United SportsCar Championship and later sell it as an upmarket homologation production model when costs go down and the teams have started winning, kind of like the Viper ACR, Porsche GT3 RS, or Ferrari 458 Speciale.

All the RX-7s and the RX-8 have proven that Mazda can manufacture a competitive car, so it's not like we're asking for a miracle.

fmzambon

I'm more interested in lightweight materials for the body rather than the chassis.
How much weight would a full plastic body save? The BMW i3 is already trying something in that direction...

Andrea.

HiWire

You can already buy carbon fiber body parts for your car – hood, doors, and even the hatch. This will save you a few pounds, more, if you replace window glass with Lexan and completely strip out the interior, delete A/C, etc. However, the most weight savings will come from a lighter chassis and powertrain.

HiWire

The horsepower wars are still going strong. Look at the 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06: 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06: A 625 Horsepower Track Car Middle Finger

Even with all this power, aero, $$$, etc. – the Z06 will probably weigh more than the base Stingray. The SRT Viper competes with displacement and a bit of finesse:
Chrysler takes the purist approach which should make some people happy (it's kind of like a dinosaur with a skateboard – a skateboard with a rocket engine), but you can see diminishing returns here. The V10 is still a big, heavy engine, and so is GM's V8 with supercharger hardware.

The GT-R and BMW M3 are literally heavyweights. The upcoming BMW M4 will still be heavy. All of these cars are considered "fast" and they are certainly expensive but few of them would make an RX-7 owner really happy. You can jump to a driver's car like a Porsche Cayman (like the previous owner of my FD) or a Lotus, but it will cost you a lot of money and you'll still be hungry for power.

Somewhere in this automotive matrix is a space for the next RX-7. I've seen Ferrari 430 Scuderias on local road racing tracks along with McLaren MP4-12Cs, GT-Rs, Corvettes, and thewird's 20B FD chasing them all down. There is still a market for a lighweight sports car that is more expensive than a FR-S/BRZ but sharper than a 370Z.

Looking back at the introduction of the FD and the RX-8: price matters... it matters a lot.

I think most of us would say that we love driving and cars, but auto manufacturers are mainly concerned with new car buyers. I've been naming a lot of pricey sports cars in my comparisons, because I am comparing technologies and performance, not analyzing the new car market. To be realistic, the mid $20K price of the base Mustang, Camaro, FR-S, etc. can be considered attainable by somebody who has graduated from school and has been working in their first job for a few years. Most MX-5 owners are older because it is not a practical main car, nor is it considered a "sexy" car by most younger buyers.

If the next RX-7 is priced too high, the only people who will buy it will be rich kids or middle-aged+ driving enthusiasts, and not many of them. A large majority of the local RX-8 owners got their early-model cars because the resale price is so low on the used-car market. Making the RX-7 lightweight, beautiful, reliable, and affordable will go a long way toward establishing a strong and lasting presence in the market. It doesn't have to be the fastest car, but the combination of light weight, smooth rotary power, world-beating handling, and a slick manual transmission will provide maximum driving enjoyment.

P.S. I wonder how many cars Mazda would sell if they simply re-released the 2002 RX-7 with a single turbo to international markets and it was still legal (safety and emissions) in these markets.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

Not suggesting this for Mazda but does anyone remover the vector ?

If I'm correct the frame was aircraft coraggated aluminum. I always thought that cool.

HiWire

fmzambon mentioned the BMW i3's carbon fiber body – BMW made an investment in carbon fiber manufacturing for the long term: BMW i3 pioneers use of carbon fiber in mass-produced cars

Hopefully, Mazda and the other manufacturers will also do this (or buy from BMW) in the future.

Aluminum is a good material, but it lacks the strength (e.g. some alloys are brittle and prone to cracking) and workability of steel. Structural areas have to be reinforced with extra material, so aluminum parts aren't always as light as you might think. The Ferrari 458 Speciale has an aluminum body and weighs about 2,850 lbs (dry).

The $448,000 Vector W8's aluminum body was cutting-edge technology for its time. I just found out that the SRT Viper uses a steel-magnesium frame... technology keeps moving on.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

the FD's thin sheetmetal and aluminum hood, make saving weight by replacing parts pretty hard. an FD fender is really light...

it is amazing to me how much performance the manufacturers can engineer into such big giant cars, the cayenne comes to mind. its pretty incredible that they can get a small submarine to perform that well.

fmzambon

I was thinking more about the body, not the chassis. The reasoning is that, as you mentioned, the chassis must be able to carry significant loads, so whatever material is used there it must also be quite strong.
The body, on the other hand, sees much less mechanical stress, so it should be easier to adopt lightweight materials there IMHO.
While carbon fiber is a great material for the chassis, I'm not so sure that it is the best solution for body panels: its main point is the exceptional strength to weight ratio, but, as I said, strength is not the most important factor for body panels. That's why I'm more interested in plastics for the body.

If chemists can reduce the coefficient of linear expansion of plastics while also making the plastic conductive (needed for the painting process), then we may see some significant weight savings in full-plastic-body cars.
At much lower costs than a full carbon fiber body.

Andrea.

ZDan

They wish! They claim just over 3000 lb. for the regular 458, but on actual scales it's more like 3400 lb. Speciale is probably over 3200.

It's a steel frame with a magnesium cowl structure. Nothing new. Worth noting that the Viper with its steel frame and 8.4 liter V10 is about the same weight as the C7 with its aluminum frame and 6.2 liter V8.