The RX-7 confirmed to be in the pipeline for 2017---RX-Vision Unveil!!
01-25-14, 11:05 AM
#1301
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
Apparently, GM sold a turbo upgrade kit for $650 (really, Wikipedia?) that brought the Gen II Ecotec up to 290 hp / 340 lb·ft. Their Gen III Ecotecs are probably capable of more power. GM seemed to have no business sense, but you have to admire their engineering.
My friend has a Hyundai Genesis Coupe with the turbo four (sadly, the year before the power jumped but happily, before the front design became ugly). It's a nice car, but you'd have to modify it to really enjoy its potential. Still a bit heavy for a sports car.
Mazda could even do a 4-door, 4-seater like the RX-8 again... as long as they don't make it the only performance car, and with more power, of course.
My friend has a Hyundai Genesis Coupe with the turbo four (sadly, the year before the power jumped but happily, before the front design became ugly). It's a nice car, but you'd have to modify it to really enjoy its potential. Still a bit heavy for a sports car.
Mazda could even do a 4-door, 4-seater like the RX-8 again... as long as they don't make it the only performance car, and with more power, of course.
The miata wouldn't be floundering if mazda improved it..............
Yep the Genesis is a heavy weight but the power to weight is still about 10 to 1 versus the miata at 16 to 1 and when your 20 thousand dollar dodge caravan out runs your sports car that's just not cool.
The BRZ is a neat little car, the looks are nice but not ground breaking so there is certainly room right now for a company to make a light weight powerful sports car that could potentially unseat all the current cars and I think Mazda could do it if they build the car they are capable of and take a damn CHANCE!
So why Mazda doesn't have a light weight sports coupe on it's show room floor right now with an improved rotary in it is beyond me. Maybe they should hire racing beat to build the engine LOL
If the car gets 5mpg less than it's competitor but kicks it's *** nobody will care because it's a sports car not a family car and this is especially true if the engine is a lightweight high revving cool sounding. awesome linear powered rotary.
If I'm shopping for a viper or a corvette I won't buy the corvette because it gets better gas mileage.
01-25-14, 11:09 AM
#1302
What's clear is, whatever the conditions were in 1993, it's a different market now. MAYBE people weren't willing to pay Corvette money for a Japanese super car then (which I don't buy, nor do I buy that the FD was simply "too expensive"), but the GTR PROVES that they will now.
01-25-14, 11:11 AM
#1303
Rotary Enthusiast
It all depends on Mazda's real goals for the next RX-7. If it is a halo supercar like the Nissan GT-R, the sales numbers don't matter much. The GT-R might be a net money-loser for Nissan, but it can be considered a marketing expense.
Mazda proved that it could design and sell a supercar on a budget with the FD. True, they cut some corners and made engineering and manufacturing mistakes, but their biggest mistakes were sales and marketing missteps (e.g., poor marketing and high pricing). I agree that they should have sold a non-turbo engine option (maybe even a 20B), but hindsight is 20/20.
I think most people here would agree that Mazda is fully capable of engineering an insanely good sports car – the question is, do they want to?
Mazda proved that it could design and sell a supercar on a budget with the FD. True, they cut some corners and made engineering and manufacturing mistakes, but their biggest mistakes were sales and marketing missteps (e.g., poor marketing and high pricing). I agree that they should have sold a non-turbo engine option (maybe even a 20B), but hindsight is 20/20.
I think most people here would agree that Mazda is fully capable of engineering an insanely good sports car – the question is, do they want to?
Last edited by HiWire; 01-25-14 at 11:13 AM.
01-25-14, 11:35 AM
#1304
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,819
Received 2,590 Likes
on
1,839 Posts
as far as racing heritage goes, Porsche has won the most at lemans, 16 times, Ferrari 9 times, Ford 4 times, Mazda once, BMW once, mclaren once. chevrolet, zero, toyota, zero....
01-25-14, 11:38 AM
#1305
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
It all depends on Mazda's real goals for the next RX-7. If it is a halo supercar like the Nissan GT-R, the sales numbers don't matter much. The GT-R might be a net money-loser for Nissan, but it can be considered a marketing expense.
Mazda proved that it could design and sell a supercar on a budget with the FD. True, they cut some corners and made engineering and manufacturing mistakes, but their biggest mistakes were sales and marketing missteps (e.g., poor marketing and high pricing). I agree that they should have sold a non-turbo engine option (maybe even a 20B), but hindsight is 20/20.
I think most people here would agree that Mazda is fully capable of engineering an insanely good sports car – the question is, do they want to?
Mazda proved that it could design and sell a supercar on a budget with the FD. True, they cut some corners and made engineering and manufacturing mistakes, but their biggest mistakes were sales and marketing missteps (e.g., poor marketing and high pricing). I agree that they should have sold a non-turbo engine option (maybe even a 20B), but hindsight is 20/20.
I think most people here would agree that Mazda is fully capable of engineering an insanely good sports car – the question is, do they want to?
01-25-14, 11:52 AM
#1306
Rotary Enthusiast
I'll be over here, building my 2002 Spirit R replica, then 
P.S. Race Fans: Wikipedia says the Nissan GT-R in FIA GT1 form weighs 2,800 lbs and runs a 590 hp / 479 lb·ft 5.6L NA V8 (VK56DE).
The 2013 522 hp Japanese Super GT version is a claimed 2,425 lbs: http://www.nissan-motorsports.com/EN...car/index.html
2014 DTM GT-R: http://www.gtrlife.com/forums/topic/...-gtr-unveiled/
The Nissan and Honda engineers seem to be having fun with their racing mission and budget. Your move, Mazda.
P.S. Race Fans: Wikipedia says the Nissan GT-R in FIA GT1 form weighs 2,800 lbs and runs a 590 hp / 479 lb·ft 5.6L NA V8 (VK56DE).
The 2013 522 hp Japanese Super GT version is a claimed 2,425 lbs: http://www.nissan-motorsports.com/EN...car/index.html
2014 DTM GT-R: http://www.gtrlife.com/forums/topic/...-gtr-unveiled/
The Nissan and Honda engineers seem to be having fun with their racing mission and budget. Your move, Mazda.
Last edited by HiWire; 01-25-14 at 12:21 PM.
01-25-14, 12:02 PM
#1307
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
They built the car, it was great, but ultimately had too many problems and cost too much (exacerbated by yen/dollar). Even if it hadn't had reliability issues, the US market simply wasn't willing to pay Corvette money for a Japanese supercar. The 300ZX and Supra managed to do a bit better, but primarily by having cheaper NA versions.
The mistake (other than bringing a product to market that wasn't fully developed) was not to have a lower-priced NA version.
??? To me, the Miata is 1000x more a "sports car" than the Genesis Coupe, which is an OK and reasonably speedy sporty luxury car for the $$$, I guess. SURELY the MX-5 is WAY more of a "driver's car". And though I'm not a kid any more, I would certainly rather drive a new Miata than a bricktastic V6 Mustang!
I used to buy into the "halo car" myth, not any more. I don't think Chevrolet sells any more of their more basic cars because the Corvette exists.
The way to gain respect is to build good, reliable, enjoyable cars that people can afford to buy/own/drive.
The numbers of fanbois who'll buy an Altima over a Civic or Mazda3 because Nissan makes the GTR when there is no Honda or Mazda "supercar" are very very few!
I think it would be a very risky and somewhat pointless move on Mazda's part to repeat the FD model of building a somewhat smaller and lighter-weight Corvette at Corvette $$$.
There is a WIDE OPEN niche for a reasonably-priced fixed-roof minimalist performance-oriented sports car (NOT supercar!) in the market. The 370Z is not that car, it is a cynical exercise by Nissan to cash in on the "Z" name by selling an overweight 2-seat version of the G37.
Keep it small, keep it simple, keep it light, give it decent power. ~2600 lb. with 250hp NA 2-rotor, ~2750 lb. with 350hp turbo'd or 3-rotor.
Try to make it a Corvette, and price and weight will escalate RAPIDLY.
WE can make it into a Corvette killer at the track. Just let Mazda get the basic car out there.
The mistake (other than bringing a product to market that wasn't fully developed) was not to have a lower-priced NA version.
??? To me, the Miata is 1000x more a "sports car" than the Genesis Coupe, which is an OK and reasonably speedy sporty luxury car for the $$$, I guess. SURELY the MX-5 is WAY more of a "driver's car". And though I'm not a kid any more, I would certainly rather drive a new Miata than a bricktastic V6 Mustang!
I used to buy into the "halo car" myth, not any more. I don't think Chevrolet sells any more of their more basic cars because the Corvette exists.
The way to gain respect is to build good, reliable, enjoyable cars that people can afford to buy/own/drive.
The numbers of fanbois who'll buy an Altima over a Civic or Mazda3 because Nissan makes the GTR when there is no Honda or Mazda "supercar" are very very few!
I think it would be a very risky and somewhat pointless move on Mazda's part to repeat the FD model of building a somewhat smaller and lighter-weight Corvette at Corvette $$$.
There is a WIDE OPEN niche for a reasonably-priced fixed-roof minimalist performance-oriented sports car (NOT supercar!) in the market. The 370Z is not that car, it is a cynical exercise by Nissan to cash in on the "Z" name by selling an overweight 2-seat version of the G37.
Keep it small, keep it simple, keep it light, give it decent power. ~2600 lb. with 250hp NA 2-rotor, ~2750 lb. with 350hp turbo'd or 3-rotor.
Try to make it a Corvette, and price and weight will escalate RAPIDLY.
WE can make it into a Corvette killer at the track. Just let Mazda get the basic car out there.
How do you think Porsche sells that overpriced, ugly *** sedan
People have a crazy loyalty to both ford and chevy. I have a certain amount of respect and loyalty to mazda. If the 8 had been a better car I would own one.
The Nissan GTR does command peoples attention and it does cause people to flock to dealers or read about other Nissan cars etc.... It's not the GTRs fault that the ultima can't compete with some other sedan but if it does there is a good chance they will sell more because of the GTR. Now you're a nissan guy and you will pay closer attention to them than other companies, see how this works
01-25-14, 12:09 PM
#1308
^^^^
I don't think that's true at all. There are plenty of trucks and SUV's on the market that sell VERY well that don't get that kind of mileage. My 4Runner does about 17/22 city/highway. They sell for about $35k new.
People accept it, because they appreciate it's utility for other things. You just need to build something that makes people forget about gas mileage.
I don't think that's true at all. There are plenty of trucks and SUV's on the market that sell VERY well that don't get that kind of mileage. My 4Runner does about 17/22 city/highway. They sell for about $35k new.
People accept it, because they appreciate it's utility for other things. You just need to build something that makes people forget about gas mileage.
That's exactly my point! A person buying a regular BMW 5 series may care about its fuel economy as it may be a daily driver. At the same time, another buyer who is looking at the M5 model has their specific reasons why they want to purchase that model. I guarantee you that none of those reasons have to do with fuel economy as that car barely gets 20hwy mpg. Buyers always over look the economy of the high performance models of any vehicle because they could care less.
01-25-14, 12:13 PM
#1309
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
OH and the 370z is a hell of a lot more car at 30k than the miata is at 24k and will straight up whip the miata's *** on a road course or at an autocross.
And so is the mustang.
When we were kids the mustang was heavier with less power so the miata was the correct choice. Now the mustang is no joke and the miata is the joke.
Test drive a base V8 mustang it's about 30k then go test drive a miata and you won't even think twice about which car you want. I instructed a dude recently in a bone stock Boss and DAMN it's a hell of car for the money.
And so is the mustang.
When we were kids the mustang was heavier with less power so the miata was the correct choice. Now the mustang is no joke and the miata is the joke.
Test drive a base V8 mustang it's about 30k then go test drive a miata and you won't even think twice about which car you want. I instructed a dude recently in a bone stock Boss and DAMN it's a hell of car for the money.
01-25-14, 12:28 PM
#1310
Senior Member
Or did you mean that the customer for a simple, lightweight sports car with decent power isn't going to be interested in a rotary?
Either way, I disagree!
When we think "Chase Corvette", or aspire to a higher level, it doesn't mean beat them at their own game. So while price may go up, weight doesn't have to.
I see a lot of upturned noses at the BRZ approach, but by God it's the way to go. It was the approach of the 240Z. It was the approach of the original RX-7. It's a great way to develop massively FUN sports cars without all of the excess baggage associated with "supercars".
Keep it simple, keep it small, design/engineer for minimum weight without resorting to costly materials or manufacturing and they can make another *successful* sports car for the masses.
Even if I HAD $50-65k to spend on a sports car, I still prefer the keep-it-simple approach.
Maybe that price BUYS lightweight (Exige style), and some more horsepower, so that you end up with something that turns a lap time, but not because it has 600 hp. The continuing assumption that the only option you have is to build a Mazda Corvette is just short sighted.
The "giant killer" is a time honored sports car formula. It's actually how Porsche got started, building super nimble little cars that gave big V12 Ferrari's a hard time.
There's no need to make the car $50k+ to be an awesome basis for a giant-killer.
01-25-14, 12:31 PM
#1311
Rotary Enthusiast
01-25-14, 12:32 PM
#1312
They built the car, it was great, but ultimately had too many problems and cost too much (exacerbated by yen/dollar). Even if it hadn't had reliability issues, the US market simply wasn't willing to pay Corvette money for a Japanese supercar. The 300ZX and Supra managed to do a bit better, but primarily by having cheaper NA versions.
The mistake (other than bringing a product to market that wasn't fully developed) was not to have a lower-priced NA version.
The mistake (other than bringing a product to market that wasn't fully developed) was not to have a lower-priced NA version.
Right. As much as I lusted over the fd in high school, I knew that there was no way I was going to pay 40k+ for those yen inflated Rx7s (even if I could have afforded it). The fd was my dream car so if I couldn't justify the price, why would someone else?
This is exactly the reason I keep pushing for multiple engine options. I see no reason we couldn't have 2 versions of both a 16x and 24x.
Na16x 300hp. 35k
Turbo 16x 380hp. 40k
Mazdaspeed 24x 450hp 50k
Mazdaspeed Champion Edition 24x 530hp 60k+
Pick your poison!
Now of course the 3 rotor versions could come later down the line during the refresh but the car needs two engine options day one if Mazda is serious about getting back in the game.
01-25-14, 12:42 PM
#1313
Here is my opinions of why it wouldnt be successful with a rotary car. At that price point, the car needs to do alot more than just perform. People that buy a BRZ type car want it for an everyday car, that may occasionally take it to the track or have some fun with on the street. But its needs to be a do-all. When the original Rx7, or 240Z was produced the fuel mileage deficiency of a rotary wasnt so evident because there wasnt that many better options. Emissions rules aren't what they are now so they werent choked to death and loaded down the equipment making them potentially more unreliable. As we all know, in race trim an N/A rotary can be super reliable. But when restricted for road use and trying to accommodate for the masses it hasn't done so well. Maybe Mazda will prove me wrong and the 16x or whatever it is theyre working on will be different, but until now this hasnt been the case. In a car like that at the ~250-280HP range IMO the 2.3T makes much more sense. Now if it were a 3 rotor "halo" car with a higher price point, and much higher performance the car would be a weekend/track car, be bought by enthusiasts willing to look past fuel mileage and have a higher tolerance for strict maintenance/ overhaul schedules.
I see a lot of upturned noses at the BRZ approach, but by God it's the way to go. It was the approach of the 240Z. It was the approach of the original RX-7. It's a great way to develop massively FUN sports cars without all of the excess baggage associated with "supercars".
Keep it simple, keep it small, design/engineer for minimum weight without resorting to costly materials or manufacturing and they can make another *successful* sports car for the masses.
.
Keep it simple, keep it small, design/engineer for minimum weight without resorting to costly materials or manufacturing and they can make another *successful* sports car for the masses.
.
01-25-14, 12:49 PM
#1314
Rotary Enthusiast
I wonder what percentage of new FR-S/BR-Z owners have serious intentions to modify the car (even if it's just the springs/shocks). My guess is about a quarter of them. Possibly higher for used cars.
01-25-14, 01:05 PM
#1315
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
What do you mean? That mean nobody mods simple lightweight sports cars with decent power? That doesn't sound right...
Or did you mean that the customer for a simple, lightweight sports car with decent power isn't going to be interested in a rotary?
Either way, I disagree!
It really sounds like you just want it to be EXPENSIVE. Why?
I see a lot of upturned noses at the BRZ approach, but by God it's the way to go. It was the approach of the 240Z. It was the approach of the original RX-7. It's a great way to develop massively FUN sports cars without all of the excess baggage associated with "supercars".
Keep it simple, keep it small, design/engineer for minimum weight without resorting to costly materials or manufacturing and they can make another *successful* sports car for the masses.
Even if I HAD $50-65k to spend on a sports car, I still prefer the keep-it-simple approach.
I'm all for reduced weight, but if you're SMART, you can make reasonably lightweight mass-produced cars without resorting to expensive materials and construction.
Believe me, I'm all about giant-killing sports cars! My 240Z was such a car. In its and my prime, Z06 Corvettes, Vipers, 911 Turbos, even a T1 Corvette (passed it and walked away at '03 Zconvention at NHMS) and 911 GT2 Club Sport (dittto at '05 Zconvention at Watkins Glen) were on the menu. Yum...
There's no need to make the car $50k+ to be an awesome basis for a giant-killer.
Or did you mean that the customer for a simple, lightweight sports car with decent power isn't going to be interested in a rotary?
Either way, I disagree!
It really sounds like you just want it to be EXPENSIVE. Why?
I see a lot of upturned noses at the BRZ approach, but by God it's the way to go. It was the approach of the 240Z. It was the approach of the original RX-7. It's a great way to develop massively FUN sports cars without all of the excess baggage associated with "supercars".
Keep it simple, keep it small, design/engineer for minimum weight without resorting to costly materials or manufacturing and they can make another *successful* sports car for the masses.
Even if I HAD $50-65k to spend on a sports car, I still prefer the keep-it-simple approach.
I'm all for reduced weight, but if you're SMART, you can make reasonably lightweight mass-produced cars without resorting to expensive materials and construction.
Believe me, I'm all about giant-killing sports cars! My 240Z was such a car. In its and my prime, Z06 Corvettes, Vipers, 911 Turbos, even a T1 Corvette (passed it and walked away at '03 Zconvention at NHMS) and 911 GT2 Club Sport (dittto at '05 Zconvention at Watkins Glen) were on the menu. Yum...
There's no need to make the car $50k+ to be an awesome basis for a giant-killer.
Your current car is the giant killer
01-25-14, 02:02 PM
#1318
I agree wtih Fritz. The future rx-7 needs to be in the same ball park , performance wise, as a base vette, base 911, etc. One car in particular which I think serves as a great comparison is the new Jag F-type. Obviously since it is a Jag, its pricey at 65K starting, however the intention of the car is similar to what I believe the Rx-7 should be. Fast, simple FR, proper dimensions, sex appeal and most importantly has personality.
Make a rx-7 similar to that, with 350+ hp @ less than 2900 lbs and we have a winner imo.
EDIT: I also think a twin tipped CENTER exhaust like the V8 F-type s would be money
Make a rx-7 similar to that, with 350+ hp @ less than 2900 lbs and we have a winner imo.
EDIT: I also think a twin tipped CENTER exhaust like the V8 F-type s would be money
01-25-14, 02:08 PM
#1319
It really sounds like you just want it to be EXPENSIVE. Why?
I see a lot of upturned noses at the BRZ approach, but by God it's the way to go. It was the approach of the 240Z. It was the approach of the original RX-7. It's a great way to develop massively FUN sports cars without all of the excess baggage associated with "supercars".
Keep it simple, keep it small, design/engineer for minimum weight without resorting to costly materials or manufacturing and they can make another *successful* sports car for the masses.
Even if I HAD $50-65k to spend on a sports car, I still prefer the keep-it-simple approach.
I'm all for reduced weight, but if you're SMART, you can make reasonably lightweight mass-produced cars without resorting to expensive materials and construction.
Believe me, I'm all about giant-killing sports cars! My 240Z was such a car. In its and my prime, Z06 Corvettes, Vipers, 911 Turbos, even a T1 Corvette (passed it and walked away at '03 Zconvention at NHMS) and 911 GT2 Club Sport (dittto at '05 Zconvention at Watkins Glen) were on the menu. Yum...
There's no need to make the car $50k+ to be an awesome basis for a giant-killer.
I see a lot of upturned noses at the BRZ approach, but by God it's the way to go. It was the approach of the 240Z. It was the approach of the original RX-7. It's a great way to develop massively FUN sports cars without all of the excess baggage associated with "supercars".
Keep it simple, keep it small, design/engineer for minimum weight without resorting to costly materials or manufacturing and they can make another *successful* sports car for the masses.
Even if I HAD $50-65k to spend on a sports car, I still prefer the keep-it-simple approach.
I'm all for reduced weight, but if you're SMART, you can make reasonably lightweight mass-produced cars without resorting to expensive materials and construction.
Believe me, I'm all about giant-killing sports cars! My 240Z was such a car. In its and my prime, Z06 Corvettes, Vipers, 911 Turbos, even a T1 Corvette (passed it and walked away at '03 Zconvention at NHMS) and 911 GT2 Club Sport (dittto at '05 Zconvention at Watkins Glen) were on the menu. Yum...
There's no need to make the car $50k+ to be an awesome basis for a giant-killer.
Well, I bought an FD, not an FB right? I know how the RX7 started out, but most models "grow up", and piston engined vehicles caught up. I'm not sure it's replicable. If you want simple fun, get a BRZ.
I don't want it to be expensive, I want it to be FAST. I just don't think, based on the discussions about rotary emissions, fuel economy, and reliability, that you're going to be able to build one that makes 450-500hp, so I'm thinking that any car that going to be FAST by my definition is going to need to be LIGHT. Not sorta light that you can achieve with simple/small for cheap, but LIGHT. Especially with modern crash standards, chassis rigidity standards, etc., I just don't think "simple" gets you there.
Mazda just found that out—they couldn't get the simple Miata down to their target weight at the price point. You're going to need aluminum and carbon fiber, AND a smart elegantly simple design.
I can't see going and plunking down any money for a car, be it $35 or $50k, that I'm going to dust off in my 20 year old FD. Which means I don't see getting out of bed for much more than about 7-7.5 lbs. per horsepower stock, and world-class handling that'll own autocrosses for the next ten years.
01-25-14, 03:58 PM
#1320
exactly. after WW2, Porsche basically had to start from scratch, and it wasn't until much later that they were really taken seriously, for example they didn't win at lemans until 1970, and it wasn't for lack of trying.
as far as racing heritage goes, Porsche has won the most at lemans, 16 times, Ferrari 9 times, Ford 4 times, Mazda once, BMW once, mclaren once. chevrolet, zero, toyota, zero....
as far as racing heritage goes, Porsche has won the most at lemans, 16 times, Ferrari 9 times, Ford 4 times, Mazda once, BMW once, mclaren once. chevrolet, zero, toyota, zero....
01-25-14, 04:05 PM
#1321
I'm with Pete if the next RX7 doesn't at least compete (in other words in the same mag article with) the corvette then there's not a reason to bother and YES we want a simple car too but it must be FAST (so it's going to cost 50k plus) or again why bother. The miata should already be the BRZ killer, lets hope what mazda doesn't eff that one up and the new miata is able to out perform the BRZ sti etc.....
Your current car is the giant killer
Your current car is the giant killer
01-25-14, 06:29 PM
#1322
I agree wtih Fritz. The future rx-7 needs to be in the same ball park , performance wise, as a base vette, base 911, etc. One car in particular which I think serves as a great comparison is the new Jag F-type. Obviously since it is a Jag, its pricey at 65K starting, however the intention of the car is similar to what I believe the Rx-7 should be. Fast, simple FR, proper dimensions, sex appeal and most importantly has personality.
Make a rx-7 similar to that, with 350+ hp @ less than 2900 lbs and we have a winner imo.
EDIT: I also think a twin tipped CENTER exhaust like the V8 F-type s would be money
Make a rx-7 similar to that, with 350+ hp @ less than 2900 lbs and we have a winner imo.
EDIT: I also think a twin tipped CENTER exhaust like the V8 F-type s would be money
Some math:
C7 3400lbs 460hp=7.4lbs per hp
Rx7 2750lbs 370hp=7.4lbs per hp
This should be perfectly reliable with the 16x since that twin turbo fd I brought up a while back put down around 320whp and ran for over 100,000 miles with a 13b.
01-25-14, 08:36 PM
#1324
Senior Member
I don't want it to be expensive, I want it to be FAST. I just don't think, based on the discussions about rotary emissions, fuel economy, and reliability, that you're going to be able to build one that makes 450-500hp, so I'm thinking that any car that going to be FAST by my definition is going to need to be LIGHT. Not sorta light that you can achieve with simple/small for cheap, but LIGHT. Especially with modern crash standards, chassis rigidity standards, etc., I just don't think "simple" gets you there.
Mazda just found that out—they couldn't get the simple Miata down to their target weight at the price point. You're going to need aluminum and carbon fiber, AND a smart elegantly simple design.
As a structural engineer responsible for chassis development of a few road vehicles, in my experience the weight savings from aluminum or even carbon fiber isn't necessarily as great as you might think.
Meanwhile, it has been demonstrated that a 2750 lb. 200hp 4cyl. 2+2 rwd car is totally doable for reasonable $$$. Based on that, *surely* a conventional-construction 2600 lb. 2-seat 250hp 2-rotor NA is eminently feasible. With optional ~2750 lb. 350ish hp turbo or 3-rotor.
Those who want a 3- or 4-rotor turbo monster or a carbon fiber tubbed exoticar, is that *really* an RX-7, or something else?
NObody's building anything like the car I'm talking about, and it's totally doable for $35k or less, and it would perfectly fit a gaping void in the market for a high(ish) performance REAL sports car.
If you have money and you want an exotic carbon fiber car, the 4C is (I think?) on it's way. Or you could get an equally lightweight (lighter even) Exige and tweak hp out of that.
If you have money and you want big power, Corvettes, GTRs, 911s, etc. already exist, get one!
01-25-14, 08:51 PM
#1325
I personally dont care, or necessarily even want it to be made of uber-materials or have a CF tub. I care about weight savings, but at the same time I dont want an elise. Think of a C6Z for example. The car weighs in a ~3150 or so, depending on options. When you think of the size of the car, and the massive wheels/tires/brakes it has, and the fact they have power heated seats, nav, etc... I think thats damn impressive. Sure they have some specialty components like the magnesium subframe and an aluminum frame structure.. but for the most part is a regular real car. Put those brakes and wheels on a stock FD and you really arent far off in weight. If Mazda could make something with smaller dimensions, weighing in around the same ballpark as an FD with ~375HP... thats what I would want to buy over a 2400lb 250HP car. With all the years it has remained stagnant the miata should be that car. The Rx7 needs to be the giant slayer, or at least be able to compete.
NObody's building anything like the car I'm talking about, and it's totally doable for $35k or less, and it would perfectly fit a gaping void in the market for a high(ish) performance REAL sports car.
If you have money and you want an exotic carbon fiber car, the 4C is (I think?) on it's way. Or you could get an equally lightweight (lighter even) Exige and tweak hp out of that.
If you have money and you want big power, Corvettes, GTRs, 911s, etc. already exist, get one!
NObody's building anything like the car I'm talking about, and it's totally doable for $35k or less, and it would perfectly fit a gaping void in the market for a high(ish) performance REAL sports car.
If you have money and you want an exotic carbon fiber car, the 4C is (I think?) on it's way. Or you could get an equally lightweight (lighter even) Exige and tweak hp out of that.
If you have money and you want big power, Corvettes, GTRs, 911s, etc. already exist, get one!