Twofer

Well it still beats my gas mileage.

adrock3217

Ok, so, why is the 2nd gen RX-7 called "FC3S" when the VIN clearly states FC33? Or 35, in the name of the convertible?

The names "FC3S" and "FD3S" are the chassis code. On the RX-8, this is "SE3P".


The VIN is not an indication of continued model, in any way.


The RX-8 is a completely new car. Just like the RX-3 was a completely new car to the RX-2, and the RX-4 was a completely new car from the RX-3. And so on.

Why is this concept so hard to grasp? You people see "RX-" and automatically assume it's the new RX-7..

American's..

GT34

It's what replaced the rx7. Therefore you can't expect people not to expect its sucessor to be just as great if not better than the car its replacing.

I believe mazda did a good job at catering to the market they were looking at. A market that's older and needs the extra 2 seats. People on rx8 forums like that, but the car is still lacking in power no matter how you look at it. I will always hope that the 8 will wind up with the 3 rotor one day and that will put the 8 up with the 7 where it belongs. But I also hope that mazda keeps the 13b in order to still offer a lower priced 8 for everyone else.

Oh yeah, and the car is FE, the next in line after the 7, period.

adrock3217

Dude, what can you not understand?

The fact that the VIN says FE means absolutely nothing. There was no standard US-VIN before the FB came out, and so there is no way to prove this correct. The fact that the chassis code says it is NOT the successor to the RX-7, and the fact that the name itself has changed, is beyond enough proof to show that the RX-8 is NOT a "new" RX-7.

You FAIL!!

Sgt.Stinkfist

iTrader: (6)

I was mearly stating an observation based on VINs, I was not saying that the 8 is the 7's successor. Im was implying that, if there is a 4th generation rx-7, and assuming mazda still uses their VINs as detailed in the picture below, that it(the VIN) wouldnt be able to follow the same route as the last 3 generation, ie. JM1FB,JM1FC, JM1FD (which happen to coincide w/ their chassis code, not necceraily being the chassis code)because JM1FE is already designated as the rx-8

sounds alot like one of my earlier posts... and once again never said it was the new 7
lastly
i dont know where you are from, but appearantly they don't teach "you people" read very well

InsomniacFC

iTrader: (4)

Put a 3-rotor 20B in it. Be it N/A or turbo and call it a day.

Actually, 20B Renesis and call it a day.

RX-BOOST

iTrader: (1)

you mean like this
(see pic)


Actually a couple of years ago I read a write-up on the web by some guy.
He was telling how a 3 1/2 rotary engine could get up to 28mpg or more on the highway.
It was set-up so that the 1/2 sized rotor was on the front and had its
own shaft running though the main one allowing all the other 3 rotors to stop and
just the smaller rotor working to keep the car going.

I thought I save the animation he had of it but I can't find it.
It was a very neat idea I wish I could remember who wrote it or were I found it.

Anyone else seen it and know what I'm talking about?
It is going to bug me now


[Edit] come to thing of it his main one might have been a 2 1/2 rotary
and the 3 1/2 was just his expanded idea.

BlueflameFE

The first rotary car I drove was when I was 12(1979) and it was a RX-2 sedan. I nearly spun the tires of the rear end. I loved that car.
I have an RX-8 now, an RX-7, and I'm restoring a deuce coupe. We're all not dummies just because we may have never rebuilt one.

ericgrau

iTrader: (1)

Actually both the FC and the RX-8 are intentionally comparable to low end Porsches. The FD, OTOH was tested against the Acura NSX.

"More Horsepower": Mazda is a sporty company because of its suspension developments. Not so much because of power. Mazda makes crazy nice suspensions to make their cars handle well without a stiff ride. Every Mazda except the rebranded Fords has just about the best suspension in its class. The Miata's handling, believe it or not, is comparable to a Boxster or Elise.

I think what the RX-8 really needs is more R&D and testing. Unlike past cars, Mazda didn't risk too much money developing the RX-8, outside of making it seem unusual. The MSP engine was originally kind of an environmental side project. From there all the improvements were already standard fare in the rotary world (precision balancing, performance exhaust, large ports, etc.). That's why power has improved but isn't spectacular. The suspension was somewhat new, but Mazda has used different 5-links on other car(s) too. Plus Mazda immediately gave the Miata the same suspension the 2006, which makes it seem like "We put a lot of work in this b/c if all else fails it'll still be on the Miata". Basically I think Mazda took pre-existing tech and milked it for all it's worth in the RX-8. I think that's kinda sad; it's as if Mazda is simply copying itself.

IMO the RX-8 could have been the final death throes of the rotary, with Mazda just hanging in there to see how much more they can get from it before it falls behind. But even though the RX-8 re-uses pre-existing ideas, it is still a great car, and it has sold pretty well too (for a Mazda). I think that will encourage future development. Maybe next time around they'll be willing to be more innovative. And hopefully they'll put more effort into making it reliable too (or at least correct old mistakes). It got good ratings the first year but then with all the stupid stuff like a misprogrammed OMP it dropped pretty low.

Oh, and a bigger engine too. 1.3L is great for a 2 seater but in a 4 seater I'm sure you could fit more and still attain a 50:50 distribution. BMW does, anyway. Even the s2000's engine is a little heavier, I think. And if they don't have to strain the engine so much to milk power out of it maybe fuel economy will go up instead of down.

Btw, the RX-8 is scheduled for a refresh in 2010. Probably not an entirely new model; more like the s5 vs. the s4. But who knows. A 2 seater concept was vetoed.