djseven

iTrader: (56)

You may be the first person ever to feel as if the FD is of good build quality.

djseven

iTrader: (56)

I'm in my early 30s, a huge FD/rotary fanatic and have the disposable income to afford a car in the $50-70k range.

If it is anything other than an already boosted 2 or 3 rotor, 350hp and less than 2800lbs I won't consider it and definitely not purchase it.

I can't see an NA 3 rotor even with more displacement making anywhere close to 400hp and still being emissions compliant. If it does happen it will be very high compression leaving only expensive aftermarket rotors(which will takes years to develop) as viable replacement options before boosting. No one is getting excited about a $50k Mazda that is near tapped from the factory. Lotus has that market and crazy design to demand the price.

The FD was epic with huge untapped potential. No thanks on anything less and not boosted. Go put a NA 3 rotor in a miata, no one wants it with the other options on the market.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

This is part of the problem.

How is Mazda going to sell us a $35K-80K car when our ideal of beauty and performance is an FD of which a nice example can be had for ~$20,000.

They can go gonzo and make a supercar that far eclipses the FDs performance and can be bought with financing despite its high price.

Or they can out "pure sports" the FD with super light chassis and good power for supercar performance at a lower price.

Or they can aim for another market than us (very few) FD owners.

Yeah, they will probably do the last option...

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

what are you talking about, all the newer Mazda's are so easy to work on its funny. the Rx8 is a great example of this, most of the stuff you need to do to to the car can be done in less than 20 minutes.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

The FD is a timeless beauty indeed—in my mind it's a step right beneath a classic 911, which you can show up in at the nicest of car gatherings, and it's still awesome. Heck, that's why Singer refurbs them.

That's not to say though, that I wouldn't be tempted by something new or that it couldn't be just as nice if different looking. Modern cars are a lot more aggressive and angry looking, that's for sure.

Agreed though, I'm not buying something slower than my car is now—or will be with the single turbo upgrade.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

agreed, looks are important, and the FD was a great looking car.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

I don't know about you but if a seriously bad *** FF comes out, my fd still isnt going anywhere. They will be brothers in the same garage.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Performance wise, I dont think the new car will disappoint. The next Supra will also be out and I'm sure, Mazda has their sights on it.

mp5

iTrader: (3)

Most of us "lifer FD owners" have pretty decent disposable incomes now and only a high hp motor or something not found on the competition will do to get my money.

I KNOW MAZDA IS READING THIS...SO ..WE HAVE THE DESIRE AND THE ABILITY TO BUY..MAKE A HIGH POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO WITH A FOCUSED ATTITUDE AND YOU WILL SELL EVERY ONE YOU BUILD !

Now I,m not shouting its a given its going to handle and look great,give the people what they want.

ZDan

I could afford a $65,000 car, but I want a sports car that is small, lightweight, and SIMPLE. The more expensive it is, the less likely it is to be any of those. And there are plenty of performance cars in that price range already anyway.

Build a small, lightweight, simple and FUN rwd sports car that looks great and has decent power, and I'll buy it.

I'd rather any new RX-7 hearken back more to 240Z and original RX-7 ideals rather than trying to out-Corvette the Corvette.

ZDan

But of course a higher-performance 365hp turbo or 3-rotor version of such a minimalist car would easily have Corvette power/weight, and should be doable for $40k.

If they aim higher, for a $50k-$65k car, it will be bigger/heavier/"nicer" and less of an immediate and visceral sports car. It would be more in line with what I want if they aim a lot lower.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

I think Mazda can do the 2017 Miata based RX-7 for under $60,000. They had better.

The carbon fiber and aluminum ~2,400lb US spec (2,000lb base in Europe) Alfa 4C is $55-$69K.

If Mazda does a bigger RX-8 based RX-9 for 2010 for their 100yr anniversary I could see that model being priced as you say.

ZDan

I want to love the Alfa, but it's a TERRIBLE benchmark for a next-gen RX-7. It doesn't particularly "go like stink" for $65,000. And despite being tiny and having a carbon fiber structure, it's not any lighter than it could have been using steel and aluminum. The US Alfa 4C at 2470 lb. weighs about the same as the current Miata, and more than the 2016 Miata.

Performance/$$$ of the next RX-7 will have to be much MUCH better than the 4C. And at the same time it will also have to offer more utility than 4 cubic feet of cargo space...

Fortunately, this is *totally possible* even limited to conventional materials and construction techniques to keep the price reasonable.

Alfa is being brought back to the US market as a semi-exotic brand, banking on its history from way WAY back when it was the "Ferrari" of car brands before Ferrari became a manufacturer. Mazda does not have that kind of cachet.

IMO, the 4C is an *experiment* to get FIAT/Ferrari/Alfa some experience with constructing major carbon fiber composite structures for cars, which will pay off for Ferrari in the future. But the current state of their development is that their carbon fiber tub hasn't really given them any weight advantage (in fact the 4C is 400 lb. heavier than the similar size Elise/Exige were), but you can be sure it has driven the cost of the car way UP.

Targeting Alfa's frankly very POOR performance/$$$ model will not work for Mazda.
The FD showed that Mazda could undercut the aluminum-frame semi-exotic NSX's weight using conventional construction, costing a lot less than that car while offering similar performance. They should do that again. No reason to resort to expensive materials or construction techniques, which will affect the MSRP way WAY more than curb weight.

FWIW, I'm an aerospace structures engineer and have designed/deveoped and built carbon fiber structures for aircraft, spacecraft, and (currently) bleeding-edge optical instruments. I know what the advantages are to using carbon fiber composites. The 4C is paying the price for carbon fiber, but IMO at 2471 lb. (US version) it is not reaping the benefit. This might be due in part to the nature of our crash test standards, but whatever the reason, the car is NOT particularly lightweight given its size. I have no doubt that Mazda could build their own 4C at the same weight or even lighter with MX-5 materials and construction techniques, for way less $$$

Abso-fricking-lutely on the weight and power. There is no reason at all they can't build a stiff conventional-construction fixed-roof unibody car to weigh in at less than 2800 lb with a near-400hp turbo 2-rotor or n/a 3-rotor.
I don't know about "nibbling at smaller Ferraris", though. Isn't the smallest Ferrari a 3400-lb supercar? About to get 660hp turbo V8? I wouldn't worry about chasing that...

I doubt it. And there's no good reason it should have to cost that much. Again, 4C is a *terrible* benchmark for the RX-7. But let's see how well it sells at that price, even with the benefit of being a somewhat-attainable "Italian exotic".

You guys KILL me with your disdain for the very idea of a "cheap" $40k-$50k car! It's like you WANT the car to be expensive just for the sake of being expensive.

There's no technical reason they couldn't achieve sub-2800 lb. and at least 350 up to 400ish hp with conventional construction and a turbo 2-rotor or n/a 3-rotor for $40k, nevermind $50k or $60-$75k.

The base model I'm talking about would match FD performance. Turbo or 3-rotor would greatly exceed it.

I'm 47 and that sounds awesome to me... There's nothing inherently wrong with a chassis being "cheaply" or inexpensively made, if you meet all of your design goals for stiffness, weight, strength, etc. That's GOOD, that gives you more to spend on engine, transmission, etc. Let the NSX and Alfa 4C spend money on new-tech (for the auto industry) materials and construction (saving them NO weight at all!), stick with state-of-the-art MX-5/BRZ chassis tech and save tens of millions in development and tens of thousands of dollars at MSRP.

Regarding "stripped like a BRZ", that's *exactly* what I think a REAL sports car should be. Simple, basic, lightweight. Not like all these luxo "sports" cars on the market now.

OK, Mazda, make a "luxury" GL version with all that stuff and extra sound-deadening, too, why not! Feel free to charge $75k for it. I'll take the $30k-$40k "stripped" version

Seriously though, price is strongly correlated with weight, with a few outliers that are in tinier niches than I think Mazda would want a new RX-7 to be in.

For me, even if I had infinite money and price were no object, I'd still like to see the new RX-7 aim way lower in the market, like $30k-$40k. I think that approach will produce a smaller, simpler, lighter-weight, purer sports car.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

Dan please stop asking for what you already have The slow S2k. For christ sake it's not going to be any better than that car even if they build something similar and will most likely not be as attractive, reliable etc.....

Can we all agree to move forward not backward. The 93 FD absolutely smokes the S2k in every way.

Nobody can build a light weight 350 HP car for 40k. Not even mazda because that car needs big everything including the engine unless it's turbo charged then add 100 pounds for that bs. Now add 100 pounds for big brakes and big tires. Now add 100 pounds for big trans, diff, ds, braces, subframes etc..etc...

t-von

iTrader: (8)

You know Mazda did build that exact car you keep wanting. It's the Rx-01.

http://www.carfolio.com/specificatio.../car/?car=9372

Personally it would be awesome if Mazda revisited that concept for production as their entry level rotary performance car in that upper $20k - $30k Rx8 price range. Notice the weight of that concept. They could do two power options as well. 250Hp base and 300hp for the sport model. You put the 300hp in that thing and sell it in that price range, Mazda probably couldn't build them fast enough. Plus the all aluminum 16x would be lighter than the Renesis they used for the concept. This is the car that should beat the **** out of the Camaros, Mustangs, 350z's ect. Or bring back the Rx8 and give it the ***** it should have had in the 1st place. The Rx7 should be priced higher (as it's the company's flagship) and compete with Corvettes, Porsches, and GTR/Skylines as the fd previously did 20yrs ago for less money. For that to happen, the Rx7 would have to base at $50k to have the pricing advantage over the Vette (which is super hot right now). $65k could be the entry price on the 3 rotor and that could compete with the Z06, 911, GTR for far cheaper. To me that's doable.

ZDan

My S2k has 188k miles on it, and I want a fixed-roof coupe!

Don't know why you'd automatically assume any new RX-7 would not be as attractive... S2000 is gorgeous, yes, but with a very compact and low-mounted engine a new RX-7 could keep a low hoodline and front fenders with the silly pedestrian impact standards (I think...).

Except for the one way that matters most to manufacturers...

Anyway, 350-400hp in a sub-2800 lb. car would destroy both the s2k and FD, which are not all that far apart in performance!

Mostly disagree. Just because nobody's doing it doesn't mean it can't be done. A diff that handles 350hp doesn't weigh *that* much more than one that handles 200hp. Most structural mass is for meeting stiffness requirements, handling road loads, and meeting crash standards. The additional structural mass to handle the relatively piddling additional torque loads from a 350hp drivetrain vs. a 200hp drivetrain is minimal to nonexistent.

Keep the car SMALL and with a low hoodline and stick with 17" wheels, 225/255 tires. Very little weight penalty there vs. Miata or BRZ size wheels/tires.

I think 100 lb. is realistic weight difference between a ~265hp 2650-lb. base model and a 365hp 2750-lb. performance model, if they're smart about it and don't go nuts with 19" wheels, 315 steamroller tires, luxury appointments, etc.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

Gotcha now you want a 400 HP 2800 pound car like me. COOL!

Trust me, that car won't cost 40k and it won't be running around on 255 rear tires

HiWire

I'm cautiously optimistic. The new MX-5 works for me... they can easily add power later. Ford's oversight is over and the RX-8 is in the rearview mirror.

Also, the SRT Viper is on my list. If you're talking about pure sports cars, it's right there for $15,000 less than last year... I think they will re-design the engine soon.

The FD tested well against the NSX. This time, they should put the Porsche Cayman GT4 (385 hp) and the mythical Lotus Evora GTE (440? hp) in their sights:

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

This is basically the car we want only I don't want to pay 95k (out the door) for it LOL

65 or 70 works though

Cayman GT4 - All Cayman Models - All Porsche Models - Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

i think there is an equation for this? engineering is a set of principals, and when you are taught to use the right set of equations to look at a thing, it can become quite simple, and then its easy to be "certain". when you built a pyramid out of limestone, and want it to be x tall, it needs to be y wide.

journalists on the other hand don't know much about science book, or the french they took.

this is true! the damn miata will ruin everything. what is the new miata priced at? a fully loaded NC starts at $30k... (a base NC is $23k)

Donovan

Hasn't Mazda already confirmed that no RX-anything is in development? Last I heard, their NA president said nothing is coming because it's not financially viable.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

I think there's this rumor from some publication out of germany. It's all we have at this time to hang our hat on LOL

fmzambon

Three is also the "hot hatch" factor to consider: the speed 3 is very likely to come out in the next couple of years and it will likely have around 300hp to be in the same league as the Civic type R, the Golf R and the Focus RS.
Can Mazda afford to have its Rx-7 or Rx-9 flagship car with less power than a hot hatch of their own?
I know it already happened with the Rx-8 and the speed 3, but that only happened a few years after the 8 was introduced.

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

The GT4 is 85k before options, taxes, tags etc.... As I said it would likely cost me 95k out the door and that's a big chunk but I really am sorta, kinda, maybe thinking about it

mp5

iTrader: (3)

Was thinking about the GT4 too...for 85K....carbon brakes extra?