t-von

iTrader: (8)

^ Sevenstock wasn't around when the fd was released. Could you imagine seeing the next seven at a future Sevenstock?


Edit: 2017 models show up a year early so we could be seeing an auto show prototype late next year with a production model in the summer of 2016.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Yes, you can see the see some of the early '60s NSU patents and reference numbers to old Japanese patents of Mazda. As patents do expire in 17 years ( a long time for computer and drugs industry but short for manufacturing industry) goal is to add continuums or patent other features so as to drag life out.

MisterX

Speaking of patents, it was my belief that they can be renewed, if the patent was to gain the original filer a competitive advantage. See the Valentine radar for example - the "arrows" were one of many features patented (maybe 20+ years ago?), yet no competitor has them at the present; my guess is because the patent has been renewed.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Not renewed

slowredrx7

Edit: 2017 models show up a year early so we could be seeing an auto show prototype late next year with a production model in the summer of 2016.[/QUOTE]


Or better still a sneak peak or early prototype at this years L.A AUTO SHOW

fmzambon

The timeline of an Rx-7 car will heavily depend on the R&D timeline of such a car. You can't just release a car before it's completely engineered and tested, right?

A few weeks ago, Martin Benders (managing director of Mazda australia) released this interview. Here's a quote:

That, if true, should mean that full commitment to the Rx-7 project won't likely begin until early 2016. That would leave very little time to engineer and properly test an Rx-7 that has to be released in 2017.

Unless they are already much further along with the development process than we think.

That doesn't mean that we won't see anything until when (and if) the Rx-7 hits the road: by autumn 2015, Mazda should have quite a clear idea whether they will or will not build a new 7. If the decision turns out to be positive, why not tease the public by showing a Sky-R prototype (just the engine) at the 2015 Tokyo Motor Show? That could convince a few buyers that a Rx-7 is finally coming, making them wait for it rather than buy some other sports car.

That's probably what they wanted to do back in 2007 when the 16X was shown (along with the Taiki concept), but the financial crisis put an abrupt end to that idea.

Andrea.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

why not? its 2014, we'll fix it later...

i think they have had the whole thing on "simmer" for a really long time, for instance they had the 16X in 2007, and then they were doing the research for a pair of SAE papers in 2013, and since they farmed out the work for those, it implies that the rotary engine people are all busy working on something else.

we had some details about the car the engine is going in a couple of years ago, too so they have something.

if they are leaving a year before the car hits showrooms, it might imply that they are far enough along to be waiting on ordering the tooling...

HiWire

Things sure have changed since the 70s when they put a rotary in everything. Maybe they should take deposits when the car is announced.

bajaman

lol...such dreamers! I guess I don't get it...what part of Mazda management's refusal to even think or consider another "RX-7" is lost on everyone? The R&D alone would strip the company of what meager profits it is now (finally!) seeing. And for what? The only thing we'll EVER see might possibly...POSSIBLY...be a limited production run of say...maybe 500 cars, priced into the stratosphere ($100,000 - $250,000+). Even then, Mazda would lose tens of thousands of dollars on each unit. The likelihood of this is on par with me winning the Lottery!

Rxmfn7

iTrader: (4)

I personally couldnt care less if mazda produces another rotary car, but I would like them to build another sports car like the FD. As long as it follows the same principles , and has an engine that feels special I will be a potential buyer. As much of a rotary fan I am I do admit its shortcomings and unless a drastic re-engineering has been done I dont forsee it being a viable candidate for an engine at this time. All piston engines arent equal. My S2000 f20c felt like something special, and Id be perfectly happy with something similar (albeit more powerful) to power the next mazda halo sportscar. Just build something already..

RotaryBobby

iTrader: (4)

Personally instead of making a new 7 id rather have Mazda continue supply NEW STOCK of every part for my current 7. LOL

fmzambon

After the less than stellar reliability of the 3rd gen and Rx-8, Mazda can't afford to release another unreliable rotary. Any new rotary engined car must be AT LEAST as reliable as comparable piston engines. That's why cutting back on the testing would be a VERY bad idea IMHO.

Simulation is one thing, real world is another, no matter how advanced the simulator is. While it's certainly possible to do a lot of development without building anything, at a certain point a manufacturer must start building prototypes, and that's where it gets expensive. Mazda could easily keep an engineering team working with simulations to be ready when the green light comes, but that doesn't mean that the car can be ready mere months after the green light comes.

And while the outsourced research works is a good sign, we don't know how much effort is going into the rotary program inside Mazda. Is it a couple of people working on it in their spare time? Or is it dozens of people working on it full time? That can drastically change the meaning of such outsourced research.

I agree on the point that probably Mazda couldn't bring back the Rx-7 earlier for several reasons (economic crisis, maybe Ford ownership and so on).
I'd love to see a 3 (or 4) rotor car being offered, but before that can happen, one has to find a business case for such a car. The more complex and expensive a car becomes, the less money a manufacturer can expect to get back from the whole project of that car. It can even get negative, as in the case of the Veyron and the LFA. Obviously there is the halo effect here as well to consider, but it should not be overestimated.
A large car manufacturer can afford to run one such project at a deliberate loss for advertisement reasons, but a smaller manufacturer (like Mazda) must be much more careful. Mazda is roughly one fourth to one third the size of Nissan. Yet a GTR-class project costs about the same for both companies.

I'd say that a sensible approach may be a staged launch: start by releasing a successor to the 1st and 2nd gen Rx-7, an affordable, light, nimble and fun car powered by an NA 2 rotor rotary (pretty much the logical step up from a Miata), then, if the first model does well, release an uprated model (or more than one). A smaller per-rotor power could allow a finer power steps: at, say, 125hp per rotor in NA form, one could have a 250hp 2 rotor, 375hp 3 rotor and 500hp 4 rotor. All with minimal additional R&D costs. That could be an interesting, and I think doable, solution.

You mean the same announcement that was made the day before showing off a brand new rotary engine for Mazda's extended range electric car project?
Yeah, that's a really good way to kill off every hope for a future rotary sports car...

Mazda's CEO said "no plans for now". Do we have a definition of what he meant with "for now"? Months? Years?

Long post, sorry

Andrea.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

i agree, however i think we're wrong. we think stuff breaking on a car is bad, but look at the FD, or any BMW, people like to have something to complain about.

our perception is that having a car work perfectly all the time is better, but Toyota is close to that and nobody cares.

they have had running engines the whole time, the SAE paper was done on a real engine, etc


Nissan is funny, Nissan was taken over by Renault in 1999, because of financial problems, and then Renault put the diapers on in 2013, because Nissan was about to go under again.

careful is right, but Nissan went bankrupt and has had the GTR

fmzambon

The difference between Mazda rotary sports cars and BMW sports cars is the general idea that people have about their reliability: at least here in Italy, BMW is among the german manufacturers unanimously regarded as totally reliable (no matter what the truth is). The rotary, on the other hand, is regarded as fairly unreliable, when people know what it is (no matter what the truth is).
It's these beliefs that can make of break a deal when someone is undecided about what sports car to buy, so it's these that Mazda must try to change. How? As I said, bulletproof engine design and ultra-long powertrain warranty from the get-go.

Nobody cares about Toyota because nearly all of their cars are boring. Their cars are great at what they do, but what they do is boring, with the only exceptions being the GT86 (we don't have Scion here, so the toyobaru is sold as the Subaru BRZ and as the Toyota GT86) and the LFA (which is out of reach for 99% of people).

Let's see what happens if/when they bring back the Supra though.

True, but, for example, I doubt they have already done some proper long term reliability testing for the latest rotary design(s). Unless we are already well past the design freeze point. And you can't do these without building many prototypes and running them. That is quite different than building a few one off prototypes to see how well a particular design performs.

Hmmm, went bankrupt in 1999 due to the 300zx and in 2013 due to the GTR?

Andrea.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

exactly. and i agree, i've already seen a BMW x1 or whatever the electric one is dead by the side of the road, its par for the course. they had a bad batch of fuel pumps about 5 years ago, and you couldn't go anywhere without seeing a couple dead BMW's by the side of the road...

that is an excellent distinction!

well it is easy for them to keep secrets, but the new Miata has (almost?) made it into production without so much as a whisper about it.

with about a year to go, they actually need to be close to the design freeze point. ordering the tooling and getting all the stuff ready to build the car takes quite a long time, as its complex

Herblenny

iTrader: (13)

Can't believe this thread is still going..

I've been saying this for several years and others have said this on this thread before.. Mazda isn't coming out with new 'rotary' powered RX-7 anytime soon.. Or Never.. Maybe 'rotary' generator maybe?

Lets look at the history so far.. RX-8 with gazillion emission restriction was pulled due to Euro 5 standard. Instead of meeting Euro 5 which Mazda knew of it for several years, they ended up pulling.. Why?? cost, R&D, low volume sales, who knows.. But Mazda pulled it. New "RX" would now have to meet even more strict Euro 6.

Go look at the past 10 years of what Mazda pushed regarding "RE".. They were pushing Hydrogen powered Rotary.. Why?? It solved Euro 5&6! Why don't we have seen it recently (past 2 years)?? Because Hydrogen as fuel idea have died down and its not possible for general purpose use like what others have thought..

Turbo?? The idea of what I know about rotary, FI, Emission, all doesn't go together. I tried to pass TN emission 6 years ago by leaning it out and I still couldn't pass it (sub 2000rpm).

3+ rotor RE engine?? I have to LMAO on that idea as we are now talking about 50% more emission volume per revolution, more fuel consumption, heat, etc. If Mazda can't meet Euro 5 with NA 2 rotor, its going to be even harder for them to come out with 3+ rotor car to meet Euro 6. Also look at the CAFE program of 37.8 MPG by 2016 (another reason from Mazda might of pulled the 8). That's corporate average. If 3 rotor got 20MPG (I didn't event get 20MPG with the 8), say Mazda 3 getting average MPG of 40, Mazda would have to make 10 different model cars making avg 40 MPG to offset 1 x 20MPG car.

Now, lets look at Mazda and what they been pushing... Clean Diesel and Skyactive (pretty much more efficiency). They have stopped most of rotary engine related Motorsport sponsorship (at least big ones that used to win races). Mazda have went from 'in plans' to 'no plans' regarding rotaries when interviewed executives recently.

Bottom line, look at our "RE" engines. I'm no expert but just what I've known for the past 15+ years tells me it's not efficient, its dirty, it runs hot, its not reliable, and all the new policies require things that "RE" engine can't do the polices wants it to do. If I had stocks in Mazda (tons of it), I wouldn't want them wasting time and money trying to do something nearly impossible when general public has this notion of "RE" being all the things I mentioned.

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

besides all of the other "challenges" to a 21st century rotary one of the bigger problems i see is at the dealership... as in SERVICE.

by now hardly any personnel exist that know much about servicing the motor and training a whole nuther group would be crazy $$. unless the company was going to make a larger commitment to the motor than just the low volume "halo" RX7.

that said, the more i am around the motor the more i am so impressed w what it can do when turbo'd. the motor breathes like it is so much bigger than it is.

i really don't care what mazda decides as long as i have my FD. of course i do hope they bring it, and if they do, it will overwhelm rather than underwhelm.

howard

fmzambon

I'm not sure I see the connection between what I wrote and your answer.
In any case I'm absolutely sure that Mazda, given a reasonable amount of time and money, could technically build a car with pretty much any rotary configuration one can think of, be it NA, turbo, 2, 3, 4 rotors and so on. And I mean a good car.
But this is not what I was talking about. I was refering to whether it makes economical sense for Mazda as a company to build one (or more) such a car.

The Renesis was just the last improvement of the basic 13B, which was basically a stretched 12A, which in turn was a stretched 10A, which (I think) was based on a NSU design. When the basic design of an engine gets this old, there's not much a manufacturer can do to further improve it, short of starting over from scratch. With the Renesis and the incoming Euro 5 limits coming, Mazda could either:

1. further choke the engine by adding more exhaust control stuff;
2. develop en entirely new engine to meet the new regulations;
3. drop the car altogether.

Guess which option they chose?

The funny thing is that Mazda wasn't alone: Alfa Romeo was in an almost identical situation with their V6 "Busso" engine, originally introduced in the late '70s. By 2005 the engine (being improved upon several times, and having its displacement increased in steps from 2.5 to 3.2 liters) could no longer comply with the newer emission regulations, and in addition it also had a high fuel consumption (hey, this sounds familiar ). The result was that its manufacture was ended on december 31st 2005.

It's not the rotary's fault, it's that the basic 10A/12A/13B design is too old.

They had on hand an engine that could easily run on hydrogen, why not setup a few to do so and enjoy the press coverage? I don't think there was ever any serious consideration of putting the hydrogen powered Rx-8 in full scale production. It was just a marketing stunt.

See point above regarding old design.
In addition, isn't CAFE weighted by the number of cars of each model sold? In this case it would be 10 non-rotary mazda cars for each 3-rotor. I can see that as perfectly possible.

Again, the quote was "no plans for now". Do we know what Mazda's CEO meant with "for now"? Is it months? years? what?

Again, same "old design" explanation for this.

There's always the way Nissan chose to sell the GTR here in Italy: have only a few (4 or 5 for the whole country, I think) dealers authorized to sell and service the car. Then you only have to train a much smaller group of people. And these will work on such "special cars" much more often, gaining experience.

Andrea.

Steel

If they were to do a pure super sports car again, I'd rather them do something that gives a nod to the FD, and then stuff a firebreathing Skyactiv V6 (or maybe a smaller displacement V8) under the hood.

As much as i love the doritos on a stick, all the research and development in the world isn't going to change physics. And physics dictates that this design as an engine is volumetrically inefficient. Sure with direct injection and being able to adjust port timing and some other clever tricks it'll get a little better, but it simply won't compete with a piston engine. And the piston engines are getting better every year. 185hp and 38mpg from a 2.5 liter 4 banger? I can see them pushing 350hp out of a 4 liter 6 pot. Easy. And still get what.. 30mpg highway.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Think about what your asking! If that's what you want, then you may as well just tell Mazda to throw in the rotary towel. Don't get me wrong! I'm sure Mazda could do a v6 or v8 sports car better than its competition however, in doing so would be a slap to their own face as that would be telling the whole world that they failed with the rotary.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Ford did bring its own trouble to the table, but Ford was brought in under advice of the banks, so as to keep Mazda solvent. Without Ford we would have lost Mazda on the operating table; and yes they did leave a sponge in the patient and caused Mazda to get an infection, but it has come through now.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

hydrogen is not dead, Honda and Toyota both have hydrogen hybrid cars coming to market shortly, and i think it was Honda's, is tied into the house, so its a complete living arrangement.

Mazda's problem, as usual, is that they adopted the technology way before everyone else, so they have come and gone.

barring some kind of disaster, or the oil industry killing it, hydrogen is possible fairly soon as a viable fuel.

emissions, and emission controls don't work like that. you can only lean it out to a point, and then it starts to misfire, and with misfire emissions go up. additionally the cat often works better with a slightly rich mixture. this is one thing about living in CA my whole life, i know how to get a car to pass smog...

fmzambon

Oh, I see now. Then yes, I completely agree on the first part. Developing a 3 or 4 rotor NA engine shouldn't be significantly more expensive for Mazda than developing just an NA 2 rotor.

The problem I was referring to, however, comes afterward. A higher powered car cannot sell in the same numbers as a lower powered car, all else being equal. By low and high powered cars I'm thinking something like 250hp and 450hp respectively. Even if they costed the same, their running costs would not be equal, and so the lower powered car would still sell more.
Manufacturers react by simply charging more for the more powerful models, but this reduces the number of high powered cars sold even more. This usually means that a manufacturer can get back more money from a cheaper, lower powered car than it can get from a higher powered model. And here's why I was mentioning that Mazda should think carefully before releasing a rotary sports car that is beyond the 300hp mark (or thereabout). Unless they also have another one below that mark.

That's why I was mentioning that step by step approach: start by releasing an affordable NA 2 rotor sports car, and then release higher powered models once che basic ones more or less covered their development costs.

Andrea.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

we'll see what the new miata is like in a few days, so that is one piece of the puzzle. i guess i expect that to be 150-200hp, which would leave room for a 250-300hp upper model.

arghx

iTrader: (3)

I agree with Gordon that at least for marketing reasons, you have to be competitive with horsepower in the segment, unless you want to remain a niche product which is a difficult business case. You can only sell so many Miata or Elise competitors. It's no coincidence that Gordon mentioned 450 horsepower; that's the entry level Corvette now, and Mustangs are getting there.

Even if it doesn't help the performance that much, people who will actually buy the cars brand new (not people who just chatter about cars on the internet) want power and torque. Whether you agree with it or not, a lot of it is a status thing. Someone who is going to buy a sports/performance car and make payments on it doesn't want to feel like his neighbor's kid's V6 Mustang outmatches it.