<tangent rant>

(Drukengimp, I agree with everything you said but it got me started on the 16x)

This is where I'm a pessimist that Mazda will introduce another car that has the same performance impact that the FD had in today's market. The emissions requirements are tougher, the HP of the competing cars has grown tremendously, and fuel economy is still a factor. I'll believe that the 16x can do any of those things significantly better when I see it in real-world usage.

I'm not saying the FD is where it all ends, but unless development can seriously pull even with a Vette on all of these factors, there will be a business decision at Mazda. The average RX-7 buyer in 1993 had little idea of camber gain and HP/CI, they simply liked driving the car (or looking at it, or being seen in it, or whatever) and the fuel economy, sticker price, and (im)practicality weren't enough of an issue to stop them. Nowadays there are fewer such buyers and they are much more sensitive to the costs and practicalities than in 1993.

Combine those business risks with the fact that CAFE type rules penalize any car maker for making a performance car, and the potential of another RX-7 is likely to be overlooked for a long time to come.

So among these production cars you have to modify it yourself to get the performance and weight that you want and deal with emissions and fuel economy in your own way. The FD will always be appealing here because it has a low chassis weight and great suspension design. The RX-8 is pretty good but larger and heavier.

McLaren is entirely different. Their efforts to produce such a car are aimed at a class of buyers who will happily pay a gas guzzler tax plus any other tax penalties incurred by McLaren and don't care if they end up getting 8mpg. McLaren buyers have plenty of money to spend on their cars and they will spend it as required to have a machine with state-of-the-art technology and curb appeal. Mazda would have to build something GTR-like to tap into this market in any way, and I'd argue that it would remain unobtainable to current RX-7 owners.

Or it could be that it's a cold rainy Monday and I'm just not in a very sunny mood. I'd love Mazda to show me wrong.

</end tangent rant>

David

 

^^^

There's some truth there, even in 1993, Mazda hadn't figured out how to really market the car on it's virtues, and that's why not many sold, and why it's still misunderstood today, by many owners here. I'd love to see a "Mazda GTR" too, but I don't think Mazda is smart enough to make it viable.

That said, the point of the thread isn't to "compare" an RX7 with a McLaren from a practical standpoint, obviously they are different cars for different audiences, but perhaps that's the point. No, it doesn't measure up technologically, nor should it be expected to, but some of the comparisons in the engineering, thinking, and performance envelope give insight into what the FD is all about, and so many people (even here) still seem not to get.

 

Exactly; you're still missing the point. He's not making the argument that "the 2011 engine will have a low power output BECAUSE of the "emissions compliant" thing." I doubt any of us fail to see that. He is comparing them because they demonstrate just how much more hp/ci we're making, and how that affects us. It's to help us understand that our tunes are much more aggressive than auto manufacturers (even supercars) due to the reasons you (and I) mentioned in our previous posts. Aka emissions and reliability while making power.

The point is that we shouldn't be surprised that our "350hp conservative tuned rotary" has such a stigma of being a weak engine that blows up. The reason is that so many of us are pushing that much power or more (proportionally very high hp/ci); without adding some kind of AI. The manufacturers are conservative. We're not. The rotary deserves to be further pushed and developed, especially given such a fantastic chassis design; just not without forethought.

I'm hopeful that they will be able to develop the 16x with modern technology and make a reliable, high output powerplant. Whether it goes into a new rx7 or makes more power than the competing v8 doesn't really matter to me since I'm more excited about the technology. Mazda has more resources than any of our aftermarket developers, but the rotary still has had tremendously less development than its rival piston engine.

I definitely agree with you about emissions and fuel economy, look how much they had to limit themselves with the rx8. Before any rx8 owners jump down my throat; I like the car, but Mazda basically had to find a way to develop their new rotary into something that is as marketable as possible to get the green light. I'm not saying it's a bad car, but it's a bit far off from the rx7 (more trendy than purpose built) for basically all the concerns you put forward. I believe they could have done more, but it's difficult for a company (especially one that makes mostly family cars) to justify giving their engineers free reign without worrying about marketability. My take is that even the development of the FD was hindered in this way; I'll bet they designed the car to be lightweight and powerful and fun while meeting most of their power, reliability and handling goals; then sort of tacked on emissions. Hence the billion pound cat and precat basically choking the entire design.

I think you're both absolutely correct, and that makes Howard's posts all that much more valuable. The FD might be one of the last of its kind. The it deserves to be judged from the right perspective to be truly enjoyed. Driving it around like a glass cannon isn't what the car was intended to be. I'll bet many of our owners feel this way, but are just so attracted to the handling/looks of the car that they cling onto the rotary. Like it's a disadvantage. And it shouldn't be, we just need to figure out what it takes to make the engine strong and reliable in order to make it the best car it can be and worthy of the engineers who said to the marketing and practicality division and made a gem of a car. Everyone treats supercars that way, why don't we?





tl;dr The rotary isn't delicate; its just putting out a lot more than your average piston engine at lower power levels and should be treated as such. And Mazda needs to kick their marketing people out and go bankrupt while making us our dream car Would be a helluva swan song don't you think?

 

I think Mazda needs to be thinking in terms of an "18X" or "20X", or 3+ rotor version if they plan to remain competitive. I just can't see .3 of a liter making it suddenly a viable N/A competitor.

It could be that emissions are what kill the rotary unless we can start using a cleaner-burning alternative fuel or something.

 

Sweet, where does the line start?
Can i take a spin in the M3 afterwards?

 

Yeah, I wasn't trying to make too firm of a comparison of the cars. What has gelled in my mind is that I believe a serious performance car can only reach the market with either compromises on lightness and size (Corvette Z-06) or on a supercar budget. Or something in the middle (GTR). The days of affordable AND racecar engineering have not been the same since 1995.

David

 

Regarding the 16x and a future rotary sports car. I think the development of the 16x or some other rotary engine would have to find it's way into a somewhat simple lightweight sports car like the Miata or a modern FB RX-7. I don't think it will be near the performance level of the FD relative to when it entered the market. Power and acceleration have been taken to a level that in my opinion is unnecessary for a sports car experience, although I'm sure it's fun. I remember reading the 300hp club article in Motor Trend or R&T back in 94 or 95. What is it now, I guess it's the 600hp club now. I understand Mazda didn't need to be in the 300hp club back then to build a better sports car than all those in the "club". Even with a hypothetical lightweight future RX-7 I just don't see Mazda trying to compete with some of these modern acceleration numbers. I also don't think they have to. Build a 2800-3000lb car with a N/A rotary that makes enough power to be in the 4.5 to 6 sec. 0-60 and Mazda will sell a ton of them.

 

roflol @ corvette's with viagra dispensers.

thanks Howard for recognizing the good design points of the FD

mazda doesnt make fast cars, they never did. but some of them are fun to drive. i like the way the FD looks.

 

This thread was about as confusing as secret ports but an interesting read none the less.

 

None of it is confusing. Comprehension skills are lacking from a few who missed Howard's points of how well the FD was designed 20yrs ago, and why we should be using AI above 350 hp for what this little motor is doing. From there it has gone to the normal thread about those who love the FD and its designs versus those who are looking for the next thing and the FD is just a stepping stone to them. Mixed in the middle is the debate about how new sports cars leave you w/ no feel compared to the cars of the mid 90's w/o traction nannies and such. Which I agree that some of the best sports cars came from the 90's for this exact reason.

There is nothing secret to porting. You have to bust out a die grinder, study, and learn in real world situations opposed to the internet. However mistakes can be expensive and there lies the risk.

There is your recap.

 

"mazda doesnt make fast cars, they never did."

i will say that viewed from one perspective i do understand your statement. no 440 cu inch 500 ft pound monsters in the Mazda lineup. ever.

OTOH, i have to not let this statement stand unchallenged.

w the qualification (and i grant you this is no small qualification) that we are talking modified mazdas your statement is 180 degreees wrong.

at the same time that mazda burst on the scene w its rotary motor IMSA brought out two genuinely "Pro" series... the BF Goodrich street radial series and it's companion based loosely on FIA GT rules. these turned into Major deals. big crowds, tracks from florida to california almost all the manufacturers, pro budgets.

Mazda flat kicked everybody's *** in all 3 of them. the street radial series featured 50+ car fields... Roger Mandeville, Jim Downing, Amos Johnson, Joe Varde. bumper to bumper drafting at Daytona.

in GTU and GTO the RX7 notched over 100 victories primarily over Porsche. Mazda won the 24 hour Daytonan race over Porsche many times.

in SCCA's gem of a class, GT3, Mazda has a number of Runoff wins including way back in 2010.

all of the above are normally aspirated so we aren't talking gonzo hp but we are talking about winning road races w 20-50 cars behind you...

my own experience, which includes 27 GT3 Nat wins and a second at the Runoffs also includes 3 or 4 Ferrari Club of North America at Brainerd. perhaps more towards your point.... at the time i was running the stock turbos (race gas) and Toyo Proxys! i beat every car at Brainerd w my street FD which i drove to Brainerd...(6 hours each way).

my car wasn't (at that time) too far from stock.

maybe you don't equate "fast" w road racing. i do think if you could have taken a lap w me in my closer to stock FD back a few years ago and stared into the apex of turn one at 160+ and noticed from the apex out that my right foot was on the floor you might possibly rethink "fast" and mazda.

howard

 

love it!

 

I'll make it short to be sure that you will understand what I want to say (I need to work my english a bit more! ):

The 2011 engines are all "stock tune". You can get more power from them, without having cooling issues (emissions compliant = higher temps).
That's all

The difference between those engines and ours is still there, but not the same. Maybe for some it will be significant, maybe not.

You can take two rotaries, same parts, same tuner, one tuned to be emissions compliant AND to get the best mileage. The second one to get the best power output.
The differences between the two cars should be significant.

If not, I definetly missed the point and I apologize
If yes, then you see what I mean : maybe you can gain xxx hp from all those 2011 engines, raising the hp/ci without getting any knock or cooling problem. Maybe one could reach the hp/ci rating from a 350 whp FD ... ?



Howard, I'm sure you'll enjoy the Nurburgring or a more "standard" track like SPA Francorchamps. Some very high speed turns, pedal to metal ... that's something to live once in a lifetime ! If one day you can do the trip ...

 

I don't believe that super cars generally have great mileage, and I'm sure their emissions historically haven't been particularly good

You can look at every exotic out there, and I don't think you'll find a Prius in the bunch

 

I think it's a language barrier thing . No one's arguing that those cars won't make more power than we do if we put them under the same circumstances (no emissions/economy/marketability concerns); or comparing the power output in any way other than to say that we need to be more cautious than they are since we have higher hp/ci (at 350+ rwhp).

THIS is the point of the thread . Since those cars start at a lower hp/ci, they can grow more without cooling issues. Hence why 350 rwhp in our cars is much more proportionally than 350 rwhp in theirs. However that's not to say we can't compete; the key points being that our cars fly even at lower power levels (comparatively), and that with careful modification we can push high power numbers as well.

I think we're in violent agreement I do believe there can be a common ground with emissions and power though, even in the rotary. It just takes development that Mazda seems to be reluctant to finance.


Good point

 

Hmm, next time I'll read a bit more then

(Anyway, it's always very interesting to discuss about those things. Here in France people doesn't share the knowledge. )

Thanks !

 

Don't worry man people don't share much state side either.

 

Seriously? Have you even used this site? There is more info on here than you could imagine. Wow.

 

some people on here are still pretty secretive about the things they do unfortunately, it gets rather annoying.

 

Of course I use this site I have utilized the information well

 

Post One from this thread....

"but what's the deal w the weight? 2800 is actually a skinny number. don't believe me? just look around and you will be surprised. so how come our FD is so light?

did you know that during the design process Mazda formed two teams and charged each with taking weight out? that was their only job for a year. they were forbidden to talk to the other team. if you really look at the car you will see the fruits of their efforts... sometimes humorous... like the swiss cheese front swaybar mount."

Road and Track April 2011

page 51


"One of the clearest indicators of McLaren's relentless pursuit of weight savings was it's "weight down" competition held during the 12C's development. Accoridng to Chief Engineer Neil Patterson, teams from the McLaren automotive and racing groups competed to see who could best reduce the car's weight within reasonable financial constraints..."


according to this article the MP4's dry weight is 2945.




howard

 

DOPE. If there was a retweet button i'd press it LOL

 

regarding weight, Mazda is almost always good in that respect:

with manual transmissions,
2011 Mazda2 2300 lbs
2011 MX5 2500 lbs
2011 RX-8 3065 lbs

and both the MX-5 and RX-8 have been regarded by many as the most balanced and connected driving experiences albeit undepowered...

I'm sure if Mazda built a new Rotary 2-seater based off a shortened RX-8 platform it would be well under 3000 lbs.

 

Hard to believe this hasn't happened already.

 

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/07...g-his-mclaren/

Jay Leno did a a blog review of his MP4 and I found one passage particularly relative to this discussion.

"Ten years from now it will still be a good-looking car. The McLaren F1 is 20 years old. Even now, people ask me if it’s the new this or the new that. And I always say no, it’s a McLaren F1, and it was built in 1994. People are always surprised. But when a car looks right, it looks right and it always looks right."

I thought that rang true for the FD as well. Rise Zombie Thread!