Why would it "need" a joint venture to do one?
Sure it shared the cost/risk but it doesn't nessesitate a finacial need to do something phiscally sound.

Porsche and VW did it with the Cayenne and Touareg.
There is the topical Toyota and Subaru with the FR-S/BRZ as well as our own Mazda with Alfa on a Miata/4C I think its called?

There could be a few good reasons in each instance I can think of....

 

lmao, your 8 and my 8 are the same! my normal drive is like 3 miles round trip in the city, and it doesn't like it. it runs much better after a ~15 minute freeway run.

i also put 10k on mine last year, i did a carbon cleaning (i felt better, car ran the same).

at some point this year it needs to come apart and get new seals, mine's a reman already, so A) they fucked it up, and B) its only got like 50k on it.

every 12A car i've ever had, i put about 10k on, and rebuilt the engine, we used to think that was good and or fun

 

A great idea . . . . . for a 1991 flagship. These days, with your average sedans making that power and more, I say "what's the point?". And when the BRZ gets a turbo, and easily exceeds that 250 number (even though it may ultimately weigh 250 or so pounds more than the '17 RX-7 you propose), you've basically proven nothing as a company other than to say you compete against the bottom rung of Toyota's sports car ladder -- LFA being at the top, and new Supra way beyond the 250hp zone. That's not what the FD did (i.e. set its sites on 240SXs and other "average" cars), and that's not a route the only Japanese company to have ever won LeMans should take for their flagship.

Here's the way I see it - when I drive my 8 and watch the fuel gauge drop like a pebble tossed into a lake, I think "great little sporty car for the money and rewarding to drive, except for the gas it guzzles for the huge lack of torque it fails to deliver." Knowing that V6 Accords & Camrys etc and 4 banger Optima turbos can easily run away from it in a straight line, coupled with the typical 18 to 21 miles on a gallon it returns (which falls far short of those cars) leads me to look at it another way : a rotary powered (proper) sports car not only should deliver in the curves, but also on the straights, to, you know, compete against the best in the world. And if the mileage already sucks, that means few people will choose to make it their daily driver (even in southern climates year-round), especially ones with a substantial commute; so that leaves it as a 2nd or even 3rd car (as almost all FDs were, I suspect). And when it's not the car you take to work or on errands, do you care what the mileage is? Hence, why not build a 3 rotor with substantially more power, while weighing less (far less in some cases) than the high-end competition. It is, afterall, easier to balance 3000 cars a year netting 15 mpg vs 20,000 netting 19 against CAFE.

 

anything before 1986 i consider easy and relatively fun, anything after that point it goes downhill in the fun factor more with each newer year of the car.

and i did a compression test of my DD TII and of course i was correct, 73-86psi after normalization to 250RPMs. the lowest chamber read only 64.26psi @ 223RPMs(needs a larger battery), time to toss in the new engine.

 

New Cafe standards are strict and determined by wheelbase. That means the smaller the car the higher its mandated MPG.
It's possible car companies will fall short but where they do they will pass along the penalty to the buyer.
Also the gas guzzler cost will be determined by size of car and disparity between its mandate and its actual mpg.

It's no surprise performance cars keep getting bigger. It buys the car more leverage against CAFE.

So what we have in our nice discussion here of a small lightweight RX-7 with a proposed N/A 3 rotor or 4 rotor that would be getting probably half of the mandated efficiency based on its size as determined by CAFE.

Sounds like a world record gas guzzler penalty. Then there are regulations about noise, emissions etc. Might be a challenge to quiet down those cars.

Mazda would be building a car completely against the grain.
Look how standards are already affecting current offerings of small wheelbased cars in the US because of quirky policy handed down from our friends that know best in Washington.

How The Government Killed Fuel Efficient Cars And Trucks

 

Thx for that insight. It all makes sense now.

Oh yea a production 4 rotor and Rx7 equal nonsense to me. To me 4 rotor=rear mid engine chassis (Rx something exotic).

 

To you and all who keep saying "what's the point?"

If you don't get the point of a small, light, FUN sports car, you should have moved on to Corvettes by now.

A new production RX-7 *doesn't have to be a Viper/Z06/GTR slayer*. Especially not a BASE version.

Hell, I drive a 500+hp FD, and for my DD street car, the S2000 has sufficient hp even out of VTEC. That's like 150hp!

If you have to drive like a douche on the street, to the extent that you "need" 300hp, 400hp and up, other types of car beckon...

Well, rumors of a BRZ/FR-S turbo have so far proved to be totally unfounded...
But anyway, it's not (or shouldn't be) about "proving" something. Are all you guys compensating for something?! Build a cool, fun sports car for reasonable $$$ and people will buy it.

Why on earth would you drive an RX-8 if having a car that will run with the big dogs is so important to you?!

8 would be perfect for me for a DD except for the fuel mileage...

If that kind of thing bothers you, you are definitely in the wrong car.
But maybe you're *really* just in the wrong state of mind...

Which is why I keep repeating that there should also be a 350+hp turbo or 3-rotor version. And if sales justify it, why not a 400+hp 3-rotor turbo?

I'm all for a turbo or 3-rotor version.
But there should also be a more minimalist lower-priced NA 2-rotor.
For CAFE, perhaps there should also be a mild-hybrid with ~50hp high-torque "assist" motor to tremendously boost in-town fuel economy...

But realistically, if they can't improve fuel economy a fair amount over the RX-8, they probably won't bother with a new RX-anything...

Not everybody is compensating for something. Not everybody has to be able to point to performance numbers in a magazine to justify their love/enjoyment of a car. Not everybody has something to "prove" on the street that requires more than 250hp or even 200hp.

I'm all for a higher-performance version, but really don't get the hostility towards a much more reasonable *real-world* sports car. On the street, 250hp is fricking PLENTY for a base version. Unless the car is a total pig...

 

Very true and very depressing. Essentially, until we fix this (and we're up against some VERY powerful forces with EXTREME amounts of $$$$), we ain't fixing the "BIGGER, HEAVIER, MORE POWAH" trend in cars

 

lmao, i thought i was the only one, where i live its either 12mph city traffic, or the mountain road in the car commercial (literally), and for around town, i only "need" about 70hp in a 2800lbs car, on the mountain the Rx8 (230/3000lbs) is more than enough, at the race track we use a race car.

however, if i lived in some city where its just a big flat grid, like tucson, or maybe even Detroit, with woodward ave, then 500hp is actually useful, you just go out into the desert and put the right foot down...

that really is its big flaw. needs to get fixed for the new car.

 

The hostility is comming from those rotary enthusiast that dont want a depowered Rx7 regardless of weight. Let's not forget that we last had a 255hp version sold in the US. Japan kept the superior series 8 models that had 280+hp. 4th gen Rx7 should have been introduced with 300+ hp back in 2003. Right now we SHOULD be readying the 5th gen at even higher hp figures. Yet, some of you would rather Mazda back track and introduce a base Rx7 with less power than what we last got here in the states? The car you keep describing at 250hp and 2,600lbs would be a very nice car however, at this point in time, there is no way it should be classified as an Rx7. That's the Rx-01. I would have zero problems if Mazda decided to slot that vehicle in between the Miata and Rx7.

 

the original article i read, which of course i can't find, mentioned that the BMW boss had turned down a bunch of new car ideas because they were too expensive to develop for the number of units they were going to sell. so they were looking to toyota to share some of that cost.

Porsche owns VW, its not really a joint venture, its more like loaning your brother your car... the Porsche 914 and 924 were other joint Porsche/VW/Audi joint ventures.

the toyota/subaru thing is because toyota wanted a sporty car but didn't know what that is, so they needed help. they have made a few sporty cars, but its mostly by accident.

the Mazda/alfa one is the most clear cut, Alfa hired Mazda to design a new chassis.

not saying joint ventures are bad, joint ventures have been part of the automobile for a really long time, Daimler and Benz, auto union, etc are joint ventures.

 

We dont agree on much but you hit this one square on the head. If it doesnt outperform an FD with full exhaust on 12lbs I don't want any part of it.

 

I feel you bro!

 

16X, 300 hp N/A and get 20-25 mpg weighing 2600ish pounds!.... This is what I want! Fun to drive I'm sure. Plenty of power and plenty of mpg. This is what mazda says the new will have. I'm just worried about what it's going to look like. I have faith that is going to be powered right! It needs to look more like the 7 but still a modern touch like the 8. Some of the rendering look kind of like an Audi R8... if that is the case, I'll have one in my garage!

I'm guessing price tag right around what an Evo/STI. 35-45K depending on Mods.

 

I really hope thay can dramatically improve on the fuel consumption front. Sure, it's a sports car, but one can only tolerate so much before it becomes ridiculous.

Who knows, maybe they could turn one of the rotary inherent disadvantages (the long and narrow combustion chamber) into an advantage and develop a form of localized combustion that only delivers fuel to the front of the chamber.
They were working on something like this in the early 90s, with air fuel ratios in the 1:1000 range in the trailing end of the chamber, even though they were employing a subchamber system at the time (paper 930677, "A Study of a Direct-Injection Stratified-Charge Rotary Engine for Motor Vehicle Application").

Andrea.

 

The new BMW 235i will be over 3,500 lbs: WR Magazine

An M2 wouldn't be much lighter. Surely, Mazda can do better than that.

I'm hoping for engine power at about 300+ hp. There are many passenger sedans that are getting the same performance from their 6-cylinder and turbo-4 piston engines.

 

Not true, the MX-6, 626 and Millenia all had Mazda engines, the I4 and V6 are solid and reliable engine, same go for their MTX tranny, the ATX on the other hand is a **** box.

 

So, no one thinks a 300 HP NA 2 rotor with electric torque assist to aid in GRUNT and gas mileage improvements is a viable approach? You could even incorporate a small single rotor range extender to keep the battery pack smaller for the torque assist. That way Mazda could say they are offering a 3 rotor Only drawback would be that one of the rotors is separated from the other two in the main engine .

Granted, all this complexity adds weight, so probably nothing more than wishful thinking on my part. Just trying to think of ways to significantly kick up gas mileage.

 

I doubt they'd do such a thing. Mazda knows that, in order to have a fighting chance, they need to keep the next Rx-7 LIGHT. And electric stuff adds weight. And it dissatisfies customers that don't like "artificial" electric powerplants.
At most they might offer something like the i-eloop system, with a supercapacitor coupled with a slightly oversized alternator, but no batteries or electric motors.

Most likely they'll have a 2 rotor (making the new Rx-7 a 3 rotor only car is out of the question IMHO, too small of a target market), and very likely it'll be NA. In addition they MIGHT have a more powerful option, either a turbo 2 or an NA 3 rotor.

Andrea.

 

So I guess the Mazda mechanic that told me such lied?

 

Or had the wrong information, his self.

Mazda F engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mazda K engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Thanks for the links. They led me to the Elk Test:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test

 

Thx for the clarification.

 

He probably came from Ford lol.

I've own my current MX-6 for 12 years and had an I4 for awhile when the V6 one used to be my project car. Both car never gave me any problem with the exception of the distributor die easy from heat, it is a Mitsubishi disty after all so it is normal that they don't last

 

The first model year for the SUV was almost a decade before Porsche tried to buy a controlling interest in VW and had the tables turned on it because of the banking crisis. In turn VW ended up with the unintended upper hand.
That was about 2009 and became finalized in 2012.
The first model year of that platform was 2002 and was in development years prior to that.

Regardless it's sometimes beneficial to share cost of a clean sheet development. It's not really about if you are cash strapped or not.

BMW is leading from the front and in a position to keep it regarding the luxury German car market.
Staying first is always a challenge but from what I see, that company is making good choices and not resting on its accomplishments.

Toyota is the poster child for that.

You want to talk about a company that seems to have an identity crisis? Look at Toyota.
Other then it's U.S. Branch called Lexus; what is great about Toyota?

Their bread and butter car, the Camry has plunged in reviews. They don't seem to care about taking on the big 3 anymore with their full size truck offering.
They had a small truck following that would probably rival any automobile enthusiast group period...

They make the Prius... Driven mostly only by car hating hippies who only use a car because they have to or some disillusioned fool thinking they are "making a difference".

Scion... Need I say more?
Well I will... They keep rebranding thinking they can reinvent themselves.
They used to do everything well and then I guess they got too big? Spread the brand too thin? All these offshoots?

It's like GM. They had to cut entire brands because too much mediocrity and cross contamination.
Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Geo, Saturn all gone.

The car business is brutal guys. Between Uncle Sam reinventing your wheel for you, you have to compete in the market place which is always going to be a cost/Volume bean counting situation and you better hope you don't have some catastrophe of a recall because the NTSB says under some scenario a car could loose the ability to brake, steer, etc etc or mandates on Emissions equipment coverage for 10/100k.

So many factors and things to potentially screw you.

It's why car executives should be concerned about a risky product. Especially reviving one with such a checkered past. It's a stacked deck against them even in the best scenarios.
No wonder they want to share the cost/risk so often.