Actually, after my last post I got to thinking: is a sports car really more expensive to develop and put in production than a regular commuter car?

There are big differences in where the R&D budget is spent, obviously, but there's also a key point to consider: with a commuter car, if a manufacturer can shave off, say, $500 from the final sale price, that could mean thousands of additional cars sold per year. So, while developing a regular, cheap, commuter car, great effort and money must be spent in order to trim as much cost as possible from every component of the car. And that cost minimisation effort can be very expensive, as it quickly gets to the point of dinimishing returns.

With a sports car having a price that's even a few thausands more than the absolute theoretical minimum shouldn't make a great difference. I mean, how many would but a car that costs $60000, but not buy the same car if it costs $62000? Or perhaps even $65000?

This means that a lot of effort can be spared in the "cost reduction" area, to be then redirected to other R&D areas.
That's why I'm not so sure that a high performance car needs to be that much more expensive to develop than a commuter car, if at all.

Note that all of the above assumes that both cars are "clean sheet" designs. If there's any significant parts carryover, then the development cost can plummet.

A low volume car can also be cheaper to put in production. Since the volumes are low, a manufacturer can choose not to setup a very expensive, heavily robotized assembly line. Manual assembly can be used more extensively, reducing the upfront setup costs at the expense of a higher per-unit price. Expensive processes to setup, such as parts forging and casting can be reduced through the use of CNC machined parts. Again, higher per-unit costs, but cheaper to setup.

Edit: I finally found some data, even though its reliability is questionable. Here it is said that the development cost for the Bugatti Veyron was about $1.62 billion. Much less than the $6 billion figure that I mentioned earlier. Mazda makes more than that in operating income every year and spends over $1 billion in R&D every year...

 

When did the development of the 16X / Skyactiv-R start? Was it shortly after the Rx-8 was introduced? That would mean that the new rotary has beed in development for more than 10 years.
Granted, it has beed a "backburner" project going on very slowly, but such a long development still costs money. So yes, at least as far as the engine is concerned, Mazda may have already spent quite a bit of money.

 

^^Mazda already tried that with the 3rd Gen. Admittedly, it came with bad timing (introduced at the height of the SUV craze and a time when there were too many choices in the sports car category), but the car was too pricey for the average rotor head and really didn't have a following until F & F featured it. By then, Mazda was done producing it. I loved the effort because it resulted in the car we all love, but on a business level it was a big body-blow to Mazda. Do I want another iconic car? Sure. Do I expect Mazda to repeat that history? Nope.

 

Again, I agree.
This time, however, would not be a "first" for Mazda. The FD does have a following now, so Mazda can count on al least some sales from former FD owners.
The FD was Mazda's first high performance sports car (meaning significantly higher performance than anything it had built up that point).
This time it would no longer be an absolute "first" for Mazda. It would be a continuation of the FD's DNA.
After all, in today's $, the FD would cost around $60k if I'm not mistaken. Going from 60k to 80k is a 33% increase in 25 years and across different cars; the GT-R increased by over 45% between 2009 and today, and that's for the same car...

By the way, the C8 Corvette is finally rumored to be a mid-engined car, priced ad around $120k, to be announced in 2018 and to go on sale in 2019. If this is true, then one can scientifically say that:
1) pigs can fly
2) even at $80k the next Rx would be a bargain when compared to the 'vette. Just saying...
3) given point #1, maybe hoping for more than 2 rotors is not such a desperate proposition

 

Here's an interesting bit of data regarding last year's US car sales of what might be cross shopped against the new rotary sports car.

370Z 7,391
Alfa 4C 663
Boxster 3,102
Camaro 77,572
Cayman 3,561
Corvette 33,329
GT-R 1,105
Mustang 122, 231
Viper 676

For reference, the best selling car was the Camry 429,355.

So, there is a market for sports cars, but of course as the price trends upwards, the sales do taper off.

If they build it and aim towards the median price of these, they potentially could sell a few thousand a year. The 370Z is reasonably priced and they don't move many.

Maybe, is a "if you build it they will come situation, " but we will not know unless they do.

Vince

 

Originally Posted by fmzambon
By the way, the C8 Corvette is finally rumored to be a mid-engined car, priced ad around $120k, to be announced in 2018 and to go on sale in 2019.

I'm not as worried about the Vette as I am the electric cars and the electric assist cars. Maybe that's where Corvette is going too in 2019. The electric assist gives torque-fill off the line that cannot be matched by a gasoline engine no matter what torque/horsepower you put through the screws. That's why it may be that the number of rotors won't be as important as devising electric assist.

 

Electric cars!

So the Tesla and top 'vette/Vipers/Mustangs/Camaros are $100,000 cars that are $1,000,000 car fast in terms of acceleration.

What happens when someone builds a $1,000,000 electric car?

Well, they did.
The Croatian Rimac Concept One destroys the Tesla (and a LaFerrari for good measure) in 1/4mile acceleration. 9 second 1/4mile electric cars...

 

The Z will move if Nissan starts offering two engine choices going forward. They should definitely stick the new VR 400hp turbo engine from the Infiniti G50 and G60 in that thing. As long as they don't have any direct completion from Mazda or Toyota, they'll probably leave the car as is until the Rx9 and Supra comes out. This is why you need completion so manufacturers get off their asses to make them build exciting things to stay competitive.

 

Are those numbers posted a few posts up US numbers? Every day I see at least 2 current Gen Corvettes driving around. I also see quite a few GTR's driving around up here, there are also alot of 370Z's around. Maybe its because this was an oil town where the average household income is over $100,000. Its not like they can be driven all year, but I do see the odd GTR and 370Z driving around in the dead of winter in snow.

But given those sales numbers, they seem low compared to what I see around here.

The most common vehicles on the road out here are full sized trucks and mid sized SUV's, and these 3/4 ton diesel trucks are easily an $80,000 vehicle.

Given this, if they can keep the production numbers down, and the price high enough, they might have a good poster car, not something that will directly make profit, but something that keeps turning heads, and be a real life mobile advertisement for Mazda, and also with a poster car, it will be free advertising. I guess sort of like the Lamborghini Countach was for us who grew up in the 80's and early 90's. Everybody knew what a Lamborghini was because of that car, and all of the posters of it, which I bet royalties had to be paid to Lamborghini to print. In the mean time, they are busy selling tractors in Europe, I bet their tractor sales increased because of that car.

But around here, a GTR, new Corvette, and 370Z blend in with the SUV's, because they are common enough, and nobody pays attention to them.

Edit, just looked on Kijiji, the local online classifieds, and in all of Alberta, there are 34 current gen used GTR's for sale, 35 370Z's, even the 2014-2017 Corvette has 47 used ads.

 

I only mentioned the 'vette because one of the often mentioned points is that the FD was more or less as fast as the then-current C4 Corvette at a lower price. Several people said "at 80k the nex Rx would be more expensive than the corvette and most likely not as fast". If the new 'vette sells for 120k, then this point is no longer valid.

This said, electric cars have huge potential. The problem is just how to feed those wonderful electric motors...

 

This said, electric cars have huge potential. The problem is just how to feed those wonderful electric motors...

Even if you just burn the same gasoline in a powerplant- the transmission, storage and use of that energy in an electric car is far more efficient than burning that gas in an internal combustion engine car.

I think the really horrible part of electric cars (phones, etc) is the mining for the minerals.

 

I took the liberty of adding some data to this table. Namely the MSRP range, the power range and the $ per hp considering the lowest price and the lowest power figure. Then I sorted according to this last figure:

(damn, this forum doesn't support tabulations... I added some | chars as separators and then made some columns gray)

Name | Sales # | MSRP range | hp range | $ per hp
Mustang | 122,231 | 24645 - 61795 | 300 - 526 | 82.15
370Z | 7,391 | 30000 - 48100 | 332 - 350 | 90.36
Camaro | 77,572 | 25700 - 26300 | 275 - 455 | 93.45
Corvette | 33,329 | 55450 - 79400 | 460 - 650 | 120.54
Viper | 676 | 95895 | 645 | 148.67
Cayman | 3,561 | 53900 - 66300 | 300 - 350 | 179.66
Boxster | 3,102 | 56000 - 68400| 300 - 350 | 186.66
GT-R | 1,105 | 110000 | 565 | 194.69
Alfa 4C | 663 | 55900 - 65900 | 237 | 235.86

If you spot anything wrong let me know. I'll update the table.

The sales number more or less follow the same (inverse) ordering.
The obvious outliers here are the 370Z and the Viper, two cars that have been out for some time, especially the 370Z.
Actually, I wonder whether the fact that the Viper is only available with a manual transmission is a partial explanation to the very low numbers.

In any case it seems like the $ per hp is the main factor controlling sales number for sports cars. At least in the US market. Mazda has never been good in the $ per hp department, so don't expect strong sales.

This said, even the GT-R manages to gather a revenue of 121550000 in the US alone every year. And I think I read somewhere that Nissan says that the GT-R produces a profit for them. If Nissan can make it all work, why can't Mazda?

 

 

 

Ha I posted that image in the news lounge with no takers. Im sure people will have something to say about it here.

 

Could we about to see a rotary renaissance?

Lower value rotary sports car for the masses and a hybrid supercar rotary halo car?

Next year Mazda are releasing an MX5 coupe, I bet the rotary for the masses will be heavily based on that, then the RX-Vision will be the Porsche/Ferrari/McLaren competitor.

Fingers crossed they can avoid the hideous styling of the new MX5 though. Fiat have turned it into a much nicer looking car with their Fiat and Abarth 124 models.

 

McLarent 570S? If that's indeed a performance benchmark for the next rotary car, then Mazda won't come that close to the numbers of the McLaren unless they up the power quite a bit.
Even if Mazda manages to stay under the 1300kg mark (2866 lbs), in order to achieve the same power to weight ratio as the McLaren it will be necessary for the engine to develop more than 500hp.

If that's indeed where the Rx is going, it may be in the same price range as the GT-R Nismo or the NSX.

And, if I may add, it better have more than 2 rotors to justify that price. Heck, if it's that expensive it may even turn out to be a 4 rotor

That may be an explanation for the very long hood of the Rx-vision: a reference to the fact that the engine under the hood will be "longer than usual".

 

There's absolutely positively no way a four-rotor will pass emissions and fuel efficiency standards.

 

First off- is that really an RX-8?

Mazda was sneaky when developing the 2nd gen RX-7 and had 1st gen RX-7 bodies on 2nd gen RX-7 chassis for final development road/track testing while the 1st gen RX-7 was still in production.

Mazda was sneaky when developing the 3rd gen RX-7 and had 2nd gen RX-7 bodies on 3rd gen RX-7 chassis for final development road/track testing while the 2nd gen RX-7 was still in production.

Mazda is not so sneaky testing an out of production RX-8 (or RX-vision with RX-8 body?).

Not so sneaky sneaky Mazda or done on purpose to show rotary development?

Mazda could have used a Mazda6 or Mazda3 body if trying to be sneaky.

-------

As for the Mclaren.

Mazda has in the past had the initial sales rival car and the "one-up" rival car.

For the FD the "one-up" that was tested along side the RX-7 was the NSX (whose performance the FD easily surpassed in the domestic tuning scene).

The Mclaren and other super cars could be that "one-up" rival for the next RX.

Aftermarket tuned versions of a 450hp turbo 16X could easily eclipse the power to weight ratio of some stock super cars (but then there is always the new hyper car segment).

 

Hmm, those photos seem to show that the body is more or less intact. Unless the new car happens to have nearly the same wheelbase and other critical sizes as the Rx-8, some visible "surgery" would be visible.

Perhaps some new components are under test on an otherwise stock Rx-8? Suspension components? Or maybe engine components?

My guess is that they needed a car with the proper layout (RWD with longitudinal front engine) for the tests. Maybe the Miata is too small and so they resorted to an Rx-8?
If this is the case they have no suitable car available in their current lineup, so they were forced to go the "unsneaky" way.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, Toyota was caught testing an old mk4 Supra at the Ring some months ago. Possibly even more "unsneaky" than Mazda...

 

edit- I posted incorrect info.

 

I would guess they're testing some sort of advanced suspension tech as proof of concept on an RX-8, rather than testing specific parts that will be going on the new car, or testing a new car disguised as an RX-8 (it would look "off" somehow if it was).

Magnetorheological dampers, maybe?

 

interesting points...

 

probably in 2004.

the 13B-MSP was in prototype form in 1994, the long wait was because Ford took over 1/1/1996. the Ford guy is also responsible for the Rx8 being such a mixed bag, the Mazda guys had a 2400lbs/220hp 2 seater, and a show car with the Rx8 style doors.

the Ford guy put the two together, and you ended up with something that nobody was that jazzed about and it was 600lbs heavier than it was really supposed to be.

Ford might be cool now, but they were in sad shape in the 1990's (and, if we're honest its like 100 years of insanity before that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordlândia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Overpass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel#...obert_McNamara if you read that last one, Mr McNamara was perfectly happy to spend 250m in 1958 moneys, on the edsel, and another 50 on the lincoln, 2.5b today... not chump change. and yes it is THAT McNamara)

so we're lucky the Rx8 turned out as well as it did, it could have been a rebadged contour...

 

there are ways...

ultra lean combustion, rotor-on-demand, magic and horcruxes