t-von

iTrader: (8)

We I'm the opposite. I don't want the car everyone else is driving. I'd buy a used Viper over all the above.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

OK, viper, corvette, mustang..............but we won't buy a 3500 pound supra that cost 75k plus or at least I won't.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

I wouldn't either!

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

If Toyota could get that thing down to the weight of a Z06, I'd think about it.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

I SAID GOOD DAY!!!











J/k




Yeah and knowing Toyota I bet the new supra would actually compete with the likes of the GTR/corvette/ect. Unlike Mazda, Toyota actually has the ***** to make something the people want....


+1 lol

ZDan

t-von

iTrader: (8)

It's not all Mazda's fault. I'm sure if the rotary was much easier to work with when it came to emissions and power, we would have what we want. Plus Toyota has **** loads of money Mazda doesn't. That's the reality, plain and simple.

ZDan

You seem enamored of 3666 lb. Boss 302 (not even a sports car).

S2000 was just under $35k it's last year. Where'd you get $44K? Even the overpriced CR model was "only" 37k without A/C and radio, $38k with.

A great argument for Mazda to make the next RX-7 rotary Mustang. More people want that kind of thing I guess...


Ah, Motor Trend, the cheerleadingest of the industry-cheerleading US car mags... Did I really hear them call the 3640 lb. Boss LS Ford's "lightweight track fighter"?! Then they said the ZL1 "might be a lightweight by Camaro standards?" V8 Camaros were ~3400 lb. pretty much forever. The 4th-gen ('93-'-02) Z28 was 3450 lb, the ZL1 is heavier by about 600 lb.

MT has had their nose up the backside of car manufacturers for, like, ever, so it's not surprising to hear their video sound like an advertisement. I don't have any problem believing Randy Pobst's relative impressions of the cars, but do take into account that he works for a publication that is a lot more interested in selling cars for their advertisers than in being even remotely journalistic! He didn't seem all that thrilled with the Boss, btw...

If I had to have a Mustang or a Camaro, I'd build my own '64-'66 GT350 replica or '70-'72 Camaro into a fun street/track car.

There isn't really a $75k "sports car" I'm interested in anyway, so it's just as well that I can't afford that!
IMO, it may be a good time to be a musclecar enthusiast, but genuine sports cars are few and far between in the U.S. market.

No but power *does* add weight (which clearly I'm not a fan of), and it also costs money (which I have little of).

That's not the reason. I don't overpower the tires on my FD on the street either. It has a tall 1st gear and the low-end is softened by the cam, and I never get anywhere near the powerband on the street because irresponsible and go-directly-to-jail!
An extra 100-150hp in the S2000 wouldnt' bother me at all on the street. It would just be mostly irrelevant to me there.

A modded s2000 will handle as well as a modded FD. To get another 100hp will require a supercharger or turbo, though...

When I said no fenders I wasn't thinking Atom. F2000/FC or F-SCCA
I wouldn't think a "moderately modded and lightened Boss" would come close to an Atom at the track anyway, though.

No, it's a lot bulkier, harder to see out of, and 400-500 lb. heavier.

Not me. IRS is an improvement, but I'm not even slightly interested. I do not like driving big heavy cars. I had a '95 Z28 (bought after my '91 RX-7 blew apex seals), and it was way too big and heavy. The Mustang is even bigger and 200 lb. heavier.
Anyway, no Mustang (or Camaro) has ever been what I consider a "sports car". The older ones were pony cars/sporty coupes, the newer ones are ginormous musclecars, essentially sportily styled high-power full-size 2-door sedans.

GT3 inconsistent with "frugal"!

I have a street/track car. If I wanted a serious track car I wouldn't start with a new production car in any case. So I'm interested in a new RX-7 primarily as a street car that might turn into a track car in the future.

So what do you see in the Boss? It's 3650 lb. *and* f/r distribution sucks *and* live axle. And it's a big ugly box! I really think you're overestimating its potential...

If you'd be happy with 3000 lb. and 400hp, you seem to LOVE the 3650 lb Boss, don't mind $$$ approaching triple-digits, why in the hell aren't you already in a 3200-3300 lb. 505hp C6 Z06?!

2600 lb. is totally doable at 250hp for $30-35k without any unnecessary b.s. *THAT'S* what the market is missing. Fun, legitimately minimalist and lightweight sports cars. Supercars for people ready to part with $50-75-100k exist!

arghx

iTrader: (3)

Yes, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the rotary has serious technical hurdles to overcome. Those technical hurdles could be limiting the power output possibilities.

As for the weight thing, as has already been pointed out, customers (not car forum people) want more and more creature comforts and safety regs keep getting tighter. Might as well get over it. The FC was considered a pig when it came out, but perspectives change when the average weight of vehicles keeps increasing.

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

here's light weight on a long track at work. my 2000 pound GT3 RX3 at work against a bunch of GT1 and GT2 cars weighing lots more. the June Sprints pace lap at Road America all the tube frame cars you see in the picture including another 30 not seen qualified behind my 259 fwhp (carb restricted 12A) 10,000 rpm tube frame RX3.

having generally been ontrack w GT1, GT2 and GT3 in most of my races i am very familiar with weight and how it effects road course performance.

Road America is four miles to the lap and it has 3 lengthy straights. top speed/hp is a more important factor than at Blackhawk Farms, Mid Ohio, IRP etc. take another look at the picture. every car in the picture i outqualified.

a really great example is IRP.. (Indianapolis Raceway Park). the road course centers around the drag strip. the rest of the track is really really busy w lots of twists and turns and is a driver's track.

we GT3 cars would do just about anything to keep the GT1,2 cars behind us going in to one which is after the straight as if you had a GT1 or 2 car in front of you and a GT3 car was in front of him you were DOA. by the time a couple of miles of twists finshed the GT3 car would be a small dot in the front windshield as the big fat slow braking, slow turning GT1 car would have me gnashing my teeth at half throttle.

simply put, many GT1 and GT2 cars are pigs all because of weight.

weight is truly evil.

i am not saying that GT3 cars are faster than a properly setup GT1 car, it is just that most were not engineered to TransAm specs. most relied on a big motor.

braking on almost all 3000 pound GT1 cars was horrific. and of course presented opportunity for me.

i am super excited that Mazda, now ex the Ford influence, will come out w something that redefines the space. Mazda at it's best is the Japanese version of Colin Chapman/Lotus of old.

now that i think about it maybe it is appropriate that David Vegher, driving a Lotus Elan that came up to my knees, was the only car in front of me at Road Atlanta in 84 in GT3 at the Runoffs.
on the last lap i noticed he could drive almost anywhere on the track and i had one line left.. his car was 100 pounds lighter and maybe had a lower CG.

i expect Mazda to re-define the driving experience w the new car just as they did w the FD. HP? i can take care of that.

howard

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

Anyone with any sense would be It's the best numbers producing sports car or track car to ever come directly from an auto company for sub 50k (base sticker is about 40 but generally sell for 50 after you add the things you want) and it would likely outrun Howard's old lightweight tube frame RX3 (things have changed a lot sense the 70s) after dropping weight and really prepping it. I've ridden in one with lowering/stiffer springs and sway bars and it was a very nice ride around VIR. Yep it pushes some from the factory what car doesn't. The S2K is an embarrassing handling car from the factory (it pushes and then snap oversteers) and needs lots of setup, way beyond the boss and no way will it ever handle as well as an FD.

See link below: 8 to 1 power, big brakes (I know randy complained that the car needed better brakes but it just needs some track pads and ZR1 likely had much better pads). Nice cooling mods etc...etc... The grand am race car based off of this car is becoming pretty popular in the NASA race world and there's a reason for that and it's because it's a fun reliable track car.

2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302 First Test - Motor Trend Page 5


44 is what I remember them selling for at the dealer, maybe it was 34 at any rate I tried it and it's not enough car for me, on the street or on the track.

He was when he lapped LS at 1.41 back in 2011 or 12 and later someone did 1.39.

Laguna Seca lap records - FastestLaps.com

Again it's an impressive car and it would make your old trans am seem like a heavy VW bug.

I'm not interested in building a track car other than susp setup and reducing weight and adding safety. Anything beyond that and the factory didn't do their job. At this point I just want a car I can get in and drive with the hope that the factory has built the right car for me.

My current GT3 cost 52k and I've spent another 10k (tires, ins and mods) on BS for it but in 5 years it will probably still be worth 50k and possibly much more. If I really wanted to get some extra bang out of it I could sell some of the 20k plus in mods that are on it and sell it stock.

My 997 RS was a break even deal but I had to go through the headache of removing and selling parts etc......

I want a new car that's ready for the track that's fun to drive and needs very little in the way of mods and setup. The cayman isn't enough car (the weight would be fine if it had another 100 HP), the GT3 is too expensive to run and maintain (also it's a bit heavy), the Z06 is a bit of a bore because of the weight and numb driving vibe but I think with a good setup it's likely a pretty fun car and may be the direction I'm headed if nothing else comes along.

See above links etc.... you are vastly under appreciating it but buyers are not and that's why a 35k 10 to one powered sports car isn't going to be a big seller. As mentioned the vast majority do care about power and they will walk away with a mustang or camaro (you know the sports coupes that sell 50k plus cars a year).


AGAIN I'm looking at what's on the market with my eyes open and it beats the pants of anything mazda is making or will make if they produce the next rx7 at 2600 pounds and 250 HP.

There's a market for this car no doubt but as I keep saying it's a small market proven by the S2k. So lets build a sports car just like the S2k that will likely get less gas mileage, be less reliable and probably be less attractive, ZOOM ZOOM MAZDA!!!!!!!

To be a player in todays market you have to begin by beating the mustang and camaro and finish by competing with the z06 and if it's a light weight minimalist sports car with power I predict it will be very popular because it will fit a niche that desperately needs filling because NOBODY else is building THAT CAR. I want THAT CAR and I'd love for it to be the next RX7 at 2800 pounds and 375 HP or better BUT it would appear that IF mazda builds another RX7 I won't be interested and the next competitive sports car appears to be the supra or another expensive heavy weight that I could care less about. I'm intrigued by the new supra but after hearing those weight #s it's likely just another big a gauke car.

At any rate I just hope Mazda keeps building rotary cars and if it's the 10 to 1 car at least you and Howard will be happy

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

"Howard's old lightweight tube frame RX3 (things have changed a lot since the 70s)"

the only thing howard's car had that was from the 70s was likely the windshield...

items Howard's car did have were...

cockpit adj ride height (a few twists and you have re-balanced the car for the 65 pounds of fuel burned and suddenly the track isn't "greasy" anymore...)

1.5 degrees negative cambered rear solid axle

cockpit adj roll bars

wide 5 magnesium hubs/wheels

quick change rear end

totally adj Saenz 5 speed dog trans

dry sump engine 2.5 inches off the asphalt

minimum engine rpm during race 7000

tire pressure bleeders and special tire sauce for the first lap

all this back in the prehistoric era.

that said, prior to going rotary i owned in 1966 a 1965 Shelby GT 350, the only good one. i also owned the first (69) Boss 302 in Wisconsin. i was a Ford guy and still have some of the blue in my veins as well as some Ford relationships. i have a great deal of respect for the new iteration Boss 302.

i know what many of you are saying about wishing for a more meaty RX7 and would prefer it but i am saying i personally would buy whatever they come out w as i have a great deal of confidence it will be a crazy good car to drive. do not underestimate Mazda.

howard

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

I figured that comment would stir you up

Anywho I'm guessing a boss with fat hoos, some weight reduction, cage etc..... is a mid 30s or lower car at laguna seca. Enough said

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Sorry all, but I just don't think a reverse horsepower fetish is going to sell RX7's.

As the BRZ sales have shown, the ability to modify it for more power isn't really compelling enough to most people—and I think that would be especially so when you're talking about adding over 100hp to a N/A car. That's just ridiculous. The car you're talking about is a Miata, or maybe a Miata with a Jackson racing supercharger. Go buy one. You can have it right now.

The S2000's sales numbers sucked too. It's very best year in the U.S. was no better than the FD's. Honda just seems to have a higher threshold for making cars that don't sell. See: NSX which sold fewer TOTAL than the FD did in it's first year.

I think maybe Mazda's (or your) expectations are what is out of whack. The GTR, the S2000, the NSX, the Supra, all sold or are sellng less than the FD did (unless you factor, in some cases, that they manufacturer stuck it out longer). And in many cases, those cars were more expensive, so I don't think the FD's price was REALLY the issue. If anything, the problem was it was too CHEAP. Even the ENTIRE C6 Corvette (not just the Z06) sales are only in the low teens the last few years.

How about they make a 350hp RX7, and you guys can figure out how to de-tune it to 250 for "street driving".

ZDan

I don't like driving big/heavy cars. That is my personal taste. You don't mind. OK, fine!
But I find it bizarre that you should think I don't have any sense for not wanting to drive a 3650 lb. live-axle 55/45 behemoth on the street or at the track!

Yeah, the musclecarhead masses who have zero appreciation for subtlety love it. It's fine for them. McDonald's is fine for the masses as well, that doesn't mean it's good food!

If your appreciation for performance cars (edited, I accidentally called it a "sports car", which it emphatically isn't!) starts and ends with magazine specs, it's an OK car. But ignoring straight-line performance a 1LE Camaro arguably produces better numbers at the track, 4.5 seconds(!!!) quicker around VIR, for less $$$. Not that I'm any fan of the 5th-gen Camaro...

Personally, I'd rather have a smaller/lighter-weight car with IRS and with 50/50 or better (more rearward) balance even if it isn't a "numbers-producing" car out of the box.

AP1 S2000...

Totally disagree with your handling characterization. The AP1 S2000 ('00-'03) does have wonky rear toe-change with bump, but it doesn't just "snap oversteer". It has initial oversteer on turn-in (requiring subtle inputs at the wheel, you can't just crank in on the steering) followed by neutral handling through apex and exit. The ONLY time it "snap oversteers" is if you make the fatal mistake of LIFTING while cornering. You unload the rears which gives the normal dose of oversteer, but at the same time the outside rear toes relatively OUT, giving an additional massive dose of oversteer. I'm not a fan of these toe-change shenanigans, but any snap oversteer is purely DRIVER ERROR.
They fixed that with the '04+ AP2 models, btw.

Totally disagree with the idea that an S2000 won't ever handle as well as the FD. IMO, it's a more responsive and tighter-handling car stock vs. stock. Stock wheel rates are about 25% stiffer vs. the FD. AP1 13.8:1 and AP2 14.9: steering vs. 16.6 in the FD is WAY more to my liking as well.

I've tracked my bone-stock AP1 a bunch of times and won 3 class time trials championships with it. The stock setup isn't ideal but minimizing static rear toe (opposite of what some "experts" prescribe) reduces the nonlinear aspects of its handling a LOT, while doubling or even tripling tire life.


Sticker was $35, and you could get them for less than that. I really don't know why it didn't work out for you, but then we obviously have very different tastes in cars, that happen to overlap with the FD!

Don't care how fast it is, not interested. I'd rather be slower in a lighter-weight better-balanced more-communicative car that I can DANCE with
Personal preference...

Understand. I don't have the garage space to do a build either at the moment

I am jelly... Do you drive it on the street a lot?

If I'm you, I'd already have one I think...

I would honestly like the Boxster/Cayman a lot more if they'd aimed for it to be halfway between the 911 and the Elise/Exige, rather than making it 95% the weight of the 911. What's the fricking point?! Feel the same way about the BMW 1- and now 2-series. WTF is the point of a supposedly smaller/lighter car that's really about the same weight as the grossly overweight 3?!

Not everybody, not even half of the trackhounds that I track with, give a rat's **** about keeping up with Camaros/Mustangs on the street or even at the track. That said, our home track is very tight, very favorable to Miatae, not unusual for the fastest/bestest-driven Miatae to beat the fastest/bestest-driven Z06 contingent (they both are beating the crap out of me on my street-tired no-rear-downforce megapowered FD, I know I suck....).

Personal taste/preference. I'd rather have that 2600 lb. 250hp car than the 3200-3300 lb. 505hp Z06. Even though I'd be vastly slower.

Gaping hole in the market where the S2k was Mazda should fill it. IMO of course

I'd definitely rather have 2800 lb. and 375hp than 3000 lb. and 400hp or 3250 lb. with even 500hp. And I'd rather have a 2600 lb. and 350hp car than 2800/375.

Still rather have 2600/250 than any modern Mustang/Camaro though, no matter how much faster those cars are.

Unfortunately you are correct that most people judge strictly by numbers in a magazine rather than the subjective driving experience. That sucks for me...



We all know it's not likely to happen either way, though

Fingers remaining crossed for a new legitimate sports car from Mazda! Or any other manufacturer for that matter...

ZDan

Gross mischaracterization of the S2000's sales vs. FD. FD sold 13879 over 3 years in the U.S., 4626/yr average over a VERY short period of time when demand should have remained high. S2000 averaged more than twice that at 9708 per year over its first 3 years in the U.S., and averaged 6686/yr over its 10-year lifespan. Despite zero real performance improvement. A ROARING sales success vs. the FD.

Never said I wanted 250hp more than I wanted 350. Obviously I'll take 350 if I can get it. I just don't want the RX-7 to move even more so in the Corvette direction.

Brent Dalton

iTrader: (31)

Spot on Pete! Most of you guys are killing me! Don't forget the FD was on par with the price point of the Corvette. The RX8 was waaaaay below even what the FD cost... 10 years later. Factor in inflation, you are in GTR territory today. That's what I want. A car that is in the category with the GTR/C7, not on par with a 4 cylinder econo car. They can keep that ****!

djseven

iTrader: (56)

Great styling and dominant performance for a fair price? The only downside to the vette is that it is too successful. Just too many on the road.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I'm beginning to think you like to argue with everything just to argue with it, but if you actually read my post I said that no single year was really any greater than the FD, it was just in market longer. here are the numbers:

1999 3,400
2000 6,797
2001 9,682
2002 9,684
2003 7,888
2004 7,320
2005 7,780
2006 6,271
2007 4,302
2008 2,538
2009 795
2010* 85
2011* 5

Those first two years would have sent Mazda packing, and not one year with greater sales than the FD's best. It was just in market longer, with more updates. BTW, those last two years were just Honda getting rid of 2009 inventory—because it was such a great seller. And they did bump the displacement in an attempt to give the poor thing some torque.

ZDan

Whoa there! You're going by calendar year, which makes it LOOK like there was a dismal sales year followed by a somewhat better but still lousy one, but that's not what happened at all! There was no model year 1999 S2000. The first model year for the S2000 was '00, and it went on sale in late 1999. They sold ~9148 year-2000 models. Apparently they sold 3400 of them in calendar year 1999 if your info is correct. It's not surprising they didn't sell a whole lot in only a few months! Here are the numbers I have for sales by model year (up to 2008) next to your calendar year numbers (taken from Wikipedia, I see!):

1999 3,400 ----- (no 1999 model year!)
2000 6,797 9,148
2001 9,682 9,942
2002 9,684 10,036
2003 7,888 7,842
2004 7,320 7,474
2005 7,780 8,919
2006 6,271 5,659
2007 4,302 4,894
2008 2,538 2,591
2009 795 (I don't have data for MY '09, presumably this would be 885...)
2010* 85
2011* 5

There's a specific reason why 2008 and 2009 sales were dismal!

It's not a car for stoplight drags, that's for sure. The '04+ models not only have 10% more displacement, the first four gears are geared lower as well. Personally I prefer the overall closer ratios of the AP1, even if 1-4 are taller. AP1 also has a lighter flywheel and much higher redline (9000 vs. 8000). 2.2 in the AP2 makes ~5% more peak power (205rwhp typical AP2 vs. 195rwhp typical AP1), but is no quicker to 60 or in the 1/4 due to having so little rpm headroom over its power peak and only 2000rpm in VTEC vs. 3000rpm in the AP1.

MisterX

Yep, it certainly won't work. We can say almost with certainty that the Supra will share the platform with the RCF, and will either get its 450+ NA 5.0 or stay true to tradition and have a inline-6. With turbos the 6 will no doubt be at least in the low 400s hp-wise. We do know that the RCF is already over 2 tons, so even with a high estimate of 475hp the power/weight will be in the mid 8s. If the Supra somehow comes in with lighter materials and undercuts the RCF and ends up around 3800 lbs and power at 450 the ratio is still in the mid 8s.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Dude, whatever.

For practical purposes, it makes no difference—they're just spaced sifferently. They didn't sell many—and the very best years, no matter how you time them, aren't really any better than the best year for the FD... Honda just hung it around longer, and it was comparatively a much cheaper car. It's basically a glorified Miata.

ZDan

It was a roughly 9,000-10,000 per year car for the first several years, including the first year. Splitting up the first model year and saying that they "only" sold 3000 or so in 1999 and 6000 or so in 2000 is NOT REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL of how they were actually selling! Utter B.S.! Shenanigans!


Clearly and obviously, S2000 sold way better than the FD in the U.S. The FD had decent sales ONE YEAR, then sank like a rock. S2000 had strong sales its first year, then sold MORE for the next two years before settling down.

How many '93 FD's were sold in the U.S. in 1992? Not anywhere near 9,000 I bet!
You can't compare FD 1993 MODEL YEAR sale volume vs. MY2000 S2000's sold over the last few months of 1999.

Specs and performance numbers pretty well match the FD.

ZDan

1st model year: FD RX7 = 9976, S2000 = 9148
2nd model year: FD RX7 = 3403, S2000 = 9942
3rd model year: FD RX7 = 500, S2000 = 10,036
4th-10th: FD RX7 = 0, S2000 ~40,000

Which of these cars sold better in the U.S. REALLY?

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Dude.

Go re-read my original post. The car never really sold any better in any given year that one costing significantly more in it's best year (FD), and it's bad years were just as bad. It was just around longer. And it never came close to the Miata's best year, which is more it's natural competitor.