Found this article in my local News Ltd state daily..
'The Advertiser', CarsGuide.com.au

RX-7 comeback along with the RX-8....possibly.?

nice article, to bad it doesnt hold much weight.

looking at the picture,
so we getting the fd? or fc?

Just more speculation from reporters.

Everyone always says the 7 is coming back because it sells.

well if it looks like that, count me out

Actually I liked the Nagare.. I couldn't stop looking at it when I was at the NY Auto Show. I wouldn't mind if they used it as the basis for the next-gen (or 3rd gen) RX-8. Here's some pics I took.

nagare = success version of Kabura

Well, I'm sure Mazda will come out with something... Ive heard about this rumor since 2003 and I'm starting to see the light at the end.

With the new 16X debut at Tokyo Auto Show, I'm almost certain something will come out.. But do I think its going to be par with the New Skyline?? I have to say, its going to be tough unless they put turbo on that 16X, which is similar design as the renesis, meaning its not going to happen.. I guess Mazda never listened to us enthusiast and decided not to go with 3 rotor engine.. which will definitely increase torque and HP..

With the new 16X debut at Tokyo Auto Show, I'm almost certain something will come out.. But do I think its going to be par with the New Skyline?? I have to say, its going to be tough unless they put turbo on that 16X, which is similar design as the renesis, meaning its not going to happen.. I guess Mazda never listened to us enthusiast and decided not to go with 3 rotor engine.. which will definitely increase torque and HP..

Why would Mazda want to compete with the GT-R? That's pretty much utter suicide right there in terms of market placement. Mark my words, the GT-R will be a long term sales failure in the US. It might be popular in the beginning, but once the first wave runs out sales will quickly dry up and it won't have the sustainability that Porsche enjoys with the 911 or how Chevy does with the Corvette. The day Ghosn decided he was going to badge it as a Nissan in the US was the day he sentenced it to death.

Why would Mazda want to compete with the GT-R? That's pretty much utter suicide right there in terms of market placement. Mark my words, the GT-R will be a long term sales failure in the US. It might be popular in the beginning, but once the first wave runs out sales will quickly dry up and it won't have the sustainability that Porsche enjoys with the 911 or how Chevy does with the Corvette. The day Ghosn decided he was going to badge it as a Nissan in the US was the day he sentenced it to death.

I agree, but it doesn't mean the death. It's gonna be like the last gen Rx-7. Not gonna kill the brand but its gonna b a failure. Still will sell in decent quantities. Anyways, Happy 1000 posts LionZoo!

Mazda should put the Rx-7 next gen (if so) in a higher price range, but not GTR level or NSX level. Should be more around the Z4 cost, mid $40k would still be able to sell decently at a Mazda dealer yet boost performance wise. Look at the Challenger, the v8 option pushes 40k and I hope for the best for that car. A good pedigree import car would be able to sell at that price.

Why would Mazda want to compete with the GT-R? That's pretty much utter suicide right there in terms of market placement. Mark my words, the GT-R will be a long term sales failure in the US. It might be popular in the beginning, but once the first wave runs out sales will quickly dry up and it won't have the sustainability that Porsche enjoys with the 911 or how Chevy does with the Corvette. The day Ghosn decided he was going to badge it as a Nissan in the US was the day he sentenced it to death.

Short term is probably more appropriate. I have a fairly good source at Nissan North America...he predicted to me "2 years" of North American sales "if we're lucky".

He said he can't figure out who will purchase the car. Because the demographic that wants it the most ~30 and under, doesn't have the money. And the demographic that can 45+, doesn't care about it.

Mazda should put the Rx-7 next gen (if so) in a higher price range, but not GTR level or NSX level. Should be more around the Z4 cost, mid $40k would still be able to sell decently at a Mazda dealer yet boost performance wise. Look at the Challenger, the v8 option pushes 40k and I hope for the best for that car. A good pedigree import car would be able to sell at that price.

Haha, I don't think they're stupid enough to go for another car thats over 40k.

Short term is probably more appropriate. I have a fairly good source at Nissan North America...he predicted to me "2 years" of North American sales "if we're lucky".

He said he can't figure out who will purchase the car. Because the demographic that wants it the most ~30 and under, doesn't have the money. And the demographic that can 45+, doesn't care about it.

That sounds about right. What I meant by long term sales failure is sales will dive faster than a Stuka after the first year of the car coming out. It seems like your friend agrees with my assessment.

Mazda should put the Rx-7 next gen (if so) in a higher price range, but not GTR level or NSX level. Should be more around the Z4 cost, mid $40k would still be able to sell decently at a Mazda dealer yet boost performance wise. Look at the Challenger, the v8 option pushes 40k and I hope for the best for that car. A good pedigree import car would be able to sell at that price.

Personally, my feeling is Mazda doesn't have the brand cache to compete in any segment that is above mid-30s. At around that kind of money, things become a lot more brand conscious. The first two generations of RX-7s, when they were affordable fun cars, were the most successful. As much as the FD was great, sales were pretty dismal.

Haha, I don't think they're stupid enough to go for another car thats over 40k.

40k now is alot less than 40k years ago. Adjusted for inflation, i remember reading that the rx7 was round 50-60k in today's money. 40k today is comparable to a boxster, not that extrodinarily expensive and extremely affordable compared to the other import legends (GTR and NSX when they are released).

This is the best time for retro cars, toyota will be joining soon with a new supra, or at least should. The rx7 should make a comeback.

Along with muscle cars (mustang, camaro, and challenger)

Personally, my feeling is Mazda doesn't have the brand cache to compete in any segment that is above mid-30s. At around that kind of money, things become a lot more brand conscious. The first two generations of RX-7s, when they were affordable fun cars, were the most successful. As much as the FD was great, sales were pretty dismal.

I don't agree to an extent because they do need a halo car. Whats a company without pride? mid 40s is not that expensive and certainly not that much considering decked out SUVs reach that level with highlanders/RX 300/Veracuz/cx-9. Mid 40s would also be around what point 20-30 year olds can luckily afford after college or just because they are rich.

40k now is alot less than 40k years ago. Adjusted for inflation, i remember reading that the rx7 was round 50-60k in today's money. 40k today is comparable to a boxster, not that extrodinarily expensive and extremely affordable compared to the other import legends (GTR and NSX when they are released).

This is the best time for retro cars, toyota will be joining soon with a new supra, or at least should. The rx7 should make a comeback.

Along with muscle cars (mustang, camaro, and challenger)

Of course it is. Chances of Mazda building a sports car that starts at 40K+ and selling it successfully is slim to none. There is no demand for that from Mazda.

sorry off the topic but i like your avitar SayNoToPistons :Eyecrazy:

I like your awesome pics of the RX8. How bout some high res ones? :)

It's Keyra Augustina btw. Known as "The Ass".

It's Keyra Augustina btw. Known as "The Ass".

pretty much the epitome of a perfect ass

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.aspx?AR=229430#

SEX:
Mazda has long been the only manufacturer to persist with the rotary; it’s celebrating four decades of manufacture this year. Mazda’s next generation Renesis engine, codenamed 16X, was announced at the October Tokyo show and will go into the RX-8 next year and the new RX-7 after that.

Autoblog commented on the Autocar story here...

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/06/rendered-speculation-mazdas-taiki-inspired-rx-7-revival/

A couple of choice comments from the blog--
-Autocar has had its digital image wizards whip up what they think the car might look like. We hope not, as it looks like what might happen if a Corvette stopped short in front of a Testarossa. In other words, it looks like 1988.

-Reshaped combustion chambers are said to improve thermal efficiency, burn more completely, produce more low end torque, and return better fuel economy (woo-hoo!). We're surprised they didn't switch it's fuel to Unicorn sneezes, as the rest of the improvements seem like a fairy tale outcome for the wimpy, thirsty Wankel we know and love.

The story just states fiction as fact, no sources, no heresay. Thay know jack chit, it's just a bunch of ideas we've all seen many times before. They wish ..that's all.

besides ... it'll look more like my avatar ... I have that on good authority. So there!

More BS... That article came from SPEED btw...

They even stated they made the drawing, so they made up a story to back it up.
________
Medicalmarijuanadispensary.net (http://www.dispensaries.org/)

A completely new version of the rear-drive, two-plus-two Mazda coupe This means it will be a RX9. RX7's are 2 seat sports cars. The fans won't accept it.

This means it will be a RX9. RX7's are 2 seat sports cars. The fans won't accept it.

actually every coupe model of the RX-7 was a 2+2 everywhere in the world except North America (with the exception of a few Infini and Efini racer models like the Infini IV).

Only convertibles were all 2 seaters.

why is my friends 93' RX7 2 seater? it's not from north america...
it is an auto tho...

why is my friends 93' RX7 2 seater? it's not from north america...
it is an auto tho...

and where was the car built to be sold???

next year 16X into rx8?

wow I dont believe this shit

We need a new General Topic: Rotary Tabloid

I saw this on a blog i keep up with, and thought you guys might enjoy it. Keep in mind it's just speculation, so nothing definite. Enjoy!

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/06/rendered-speculation-mazdas-taiki-inspired-rx-7-revival/

moved all new "new rx-7" threads to the general auto and also merged.

the 16 x will not be in a car next year. they have only built a few units to date. should i take the time to sign up to autocar.uk to tell them?

the 16 x will not be in a car next year. they have only built a few units to date. should i take the time to sign up to autocar.uk to tell them?

You always have that 'all-knowing' way of declaring what will be without reservation (thanks Dad!). I've always wondered, do you have little mice (like Santa) running through the halls of Mazda Japan relaying otherwise secret info?

Or more directly, what engine specifically WILL be in the next rotary car from the trochoid black hole, otherwise know as Mazda developemt?

PS. feel free to pm me so you don't have to shoot me after I gain this info :lol: plus I promise I won't tell!!:)

oh yes and no, they don't really want to know.

i should be more specific. the 16x will not be in the rx-8 next year. it will be in the handful of hydrogen/gasoline/hybrid electric mazda5s they put into use. but it will not be in a full fledged production vehicle until 2010 at least (actual year not model year)

they arent ready to proceed with full production of the 16x yet as it isnt in its final form yet. for one , as we have already been told, they have not yet decided the optimal production position of the direct injection.

Charlie,
I have not been following this at all but am concerned on the future of ANY Rotary Production if this becomes US Law...

CAFE...
The US Senate on Friday slammed the brakes on a wide-ranging energy bill that would hike vehicle fuel economy standards 40 percent to 35 mpg during the 2011 to 2020 model years.

The fuel economy provision, potentially the biggest change in the corporate average fuel economy program in 30 years, is not in dispute.

But for other reasons the Senate failed this morning to muster enough “yes” votes to move forward with the broader bill, which was approved 235-181 by the House of Representatives on Thursday.

The Senate vote was 53-42, seven “yes” votes short of the 60 needed under Senate rules to move forward.

Senate Republicans, like President Bush, objected mainly to tax provisions and a requirement that utilities use more renewable fuels.

Senate leaders were expected to work behind the scenes over the weekend to revise the package and try to move it again next week. Any changes also would have to go back to the House.

In the House on Thursday, Democratic leaders hailed the bill as a big first step toward independence from foreign sources of oil.

Automakers, in a historic about-face, support the higher CAFE standards.

Despite industry support for the bill, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas warned that higher CAFE standards, even if technologically feasible, will add several thousand dollars to the price of every vehicle. He is the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

So I gather if an auto maker can not achieve these fuel economy figures then they are penalized with higher sales taxes/duties...YES?

This does not look good for Mazda's Rotary

Don't worry, Mazda may likey introduce the US to...

"an impressive little performer that is expected to return 44 mpg with a 1.3-liter engine" .. that is, the new Mazda 2, and the sales volume could swamp any rotary sales by orders of magnitude. Then there's the Mazda 3, which is already doing that. I can't see as to why they should have a problem balancing the mix to allow a few oddball rotary sales to car nuts.

right .

ash cafe is - corporate AVERAGE fuel economy- as long as the company's lineup as a whole meets this average its all good

right .

ash cafe is - corporate AVERAGE fuel economy- as long as the company's lineup as a whole meets this average its all good

I see, thanks Charlie, I knew you would have all the low down...

So, it is the Average of a particular brand/make..the CAFE really had me concerned.

No wonder guys like Lutz are worried at GM, this new legislation/requirement would force GM/Ford/Chrysler to market smaller more fuel efficient motor cars.

BTW, Just in passing the first full ship load of Pontiac G8's have just left my home state (South Australia) here bound for the US.
The rumor here is that the Ute version of the VE Commodore/G8 will be a goer for the US market next year.

I don't know why Mazda is so tight lipped about eveything. Everyone says leaking info about future rotary cars will hurt sales of the RX-8. I disagree. Sales suck already and probably won't get much worse. The thing is, the rotary is almost strictly a niche car that has not caught on to the general public, so you have a small niche group of buyers. So everyone that wants a rotary powered car pretty much already has an 8. And you have people like myself, who usually buy a new car every 4 years or so. I have an '04 and '04 was probably the biggest year of sales because rotorheads wanted this new rotary vehicle that marked the return of the wankel. Now it is 4 years later and what am I going to do? Am I gonna buy another 8 that is pretty much exactly the same thing I bought 4 years ago...NO! I would have expected improvements by now but there have been none. I think Mazda owes it to the rotorheads to let us know what is planned or going on. In the grand scheme of things I don't think it would matter if they told us. We care about the rotary, but the general public could care less. They'd rather have their american muscle cars.

Sadly, I think the new RX-7 will not live up to its predecessor. Safety regulations and demand for more equipment will cause it to weigh much more than the FD, and emissions equipment will limit power as well. It's also likely that the ECU will be as inaccessible, if not more so, than the RX-8's. I'm sure it'll be a great car, but if you're expecting a giant killer, you may want to look elsewhere.

That said, it'll surely lower the prices of FDs...

i don't know, 2500 lbs seems light weight enough to me.

looking at the picture,
so we getting the fd? or fc?

It would be an FF if you follow the trend...

FB33/SA22C
FC3S
FD3S
FE3P (FE3P is the 5spd version of the 8)
FF3?

i don't know, 2500 lbs seems light weight enough to me.

Yes it does, but until Mazda themselves weigh in (no pun intended) on the matter, it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Sadly, I think the new RX-7 will not live up to its predecessor...

...That said, it'll surely lower the prices of FDs...

Thank god that if they do plan a new RX-7 (which frankly I have not heard of it progressing at all, and only the new 8 and MX-5 is in development) that they won't try to be like the failure that the FD was.

I just don't get why people think the FD was so great when they couldn't sell any. If it was truly great they would have sold more than the first year FE did.

As said before... the absolute last thing that Mazda needs to do is to create another lame ass over priced, under sold, sports car that lacks the true spirit of the RX-7.

True spirit of a RX-7? The true spirit that a RX-7 is a light weight, nimble, balanced, practical, and affordable sports car... not some teenagers (or near teens) wet dream of a rotary powered super car.

But this is all academic, as only dreamers trying to sell paper or Internet advertising are the only ones saying that there is going to be another RX-7

The true spirit that a RX-7 is a light weight, nimble, balanced, practical, and affordable sports car... not some teenagers (or near teens) wet dream of a rotary powered super car.

Oh I get it! You mean like this?

http://videos.rotarytuner.com/category/4+Rotor/0/24b016eb-e54d-41b8-ae9c-6129e1746d52.htm

Thank god that if they do plan a new RX-7 (which frankly I have not heard of it progressing at all, and only the new 8 and MX-5 is in development) that they won't try to be like the failure that the FD was.

I just don't get why people think the FD was so great when they couldn't sell any. If it was truly great they would have sold more than the first year FE did.

As said before... the absolute last thing that Mazda needs to do is to create another lame ass over priced, under sold, sports car that lacks the true spirit of the RX-7.

True spirit of a RX-7? The true spirit that a RX-7 is a light weight, nimble, balanced, practical, and affordable sports car... not some teenagers (or near teens) wet dream of a rotary powered super car.

But this is all academic, as only dreamers trying to sell paper or Internet advertising are the only ones saying that there is going to be another RX-7

If you want to measure success by sales, then let's just declare the Toyota Camry the winner. If any Mazda car was as truly great as the Camry they'd have sold more.

And I don't see how the FD lacks any of the lightness, agility, balance, and practicality that the FB did. So don't give me any of the "lack of spirit" BS. My point was that for all the virtues the FD had, they were virtues that came with significant flaws that will not be allowed in today's market so I look forwarding to owning an FD. Now sod off.

As said before... the absolute last thing that Mazda needs to do is to create another lame ass over priced, under sold, sports car that lacks the true spirit of the RX-7.

True spirit of a RX-7? The true spirit that a RX-7 is a light weight, nimble, balanced, practical, and affordable sports car... not some teenagers (or near teens) wet dream of a rotary powered super car.
I, for one, am glad they eschewed the same principles they had for the 1st gen when they designed the FD. Lame? I think a ride in any generation of the car preceding the 3rd describes your label to a T.

Want a lightweight, average-looking, cheap 2 door/2 seater to compete against same-priced Eclipses and all the other garbage out there in that class? Fine, make that car a Kabura. The RX-7 lineage should continue on from what the 3rd gen was - a world-beating, timeless-looking, true sports-car-experience machine that belied its price. Yeah, people gripe that stickers in the mid to high 30s made it not so affordable; but along with that, at least you didn't pass 5 of the same car on your 10 mile ride to work. What the car offered, minor reliability issues excepted, should be continued in the 4th gen. A 450+ hp/2800 pound true sports car vs. most 3500 to 3800 lb GT porkers out there is something Mazda can count on me buying. Even at 50 big ones.

I don't think the higher MSRP will be a problem as much as it was back in the early 90s. The consumers put so much money into cars nowadays that its completely different from back then. Also Japanese brands gained popularity rapidly in the last decade, of course you would still find small towns with only GM cars. Nissan will definitely be able to sell every one of their GTR at above MSRP.

Mazda still needs a little more time to get more brand recognition, but their bread and butter lineup is doing a great job. Mazda3, 6, CX-7 and CX-9. While there are those of us that will always appreciate the MX-5 and RX-8. It should be a good timing to release the rumored RX-7 in about 2011 or 2012.

I would shell out 30k+ for a next gen RX-7, much the same way people are now willing to pay a lot for the GTR. Also consider sales in other markets as well, the NA does not represent the whole world, as much as we self centered north americans would like to think. I would still be happy for Mazda if they release a next gen "world-beating, timeless-looking, true sports-car-experience" RX-7 that won't ship to NA.
________
Asiansexslave (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/asiansexslave/)

But how much can you afford? Yes the batches of GTR's are gonna sell above MSRP but how many batches until they are stuck on the lot? 2 years of car sales? Same problem with an extremely expensive 4th gen Rx-7. I'll express this again. 40k is the perfect cost for a new Rx-7. Granted, it is not cheap but it does allow for good performance. 40k is around the price of a fully loaded Cx-7 and 2/3 the price of the 3rd gen rx7 adjusted for inflation.

Yes it does, but until Mazda themselves weigh in (no pun intended) on the matter, it's all just smoke and mirrors.


but they already have :)

http://autos.yahoo.com/mazda_mx_5_miata_grand_touring_power_retractable_h ardtop-specs/?p=ext

weight for the 2008 MX-8 with the retractable hardtop and manual tranny is 2573

the next rx-7 will be built on the same basic chasis but with the new weight savings they have found and with a lighter engine and without the motors etc for a retractable hardtop. that prht, while admirably light, weighs about 60lbs total.

2500 lbs my freind:)

Mark my words, the GT-R will have a shelf life of about a year. It was pure idiocy badging that car as a Nissan.

Mark my words, the GT-R will have a shelf life of about a year. It was pure idiocy badging that car as a Nissan.

I hope you are right, that means they will depreciate nicely and I can get one after 3 years. I don' think that will be the case but I can hope.

If you want to measure success by sales, then let's just declare the Toyota Camry the winner. If any Mazda car was as truly great as the Camry they'd have sold more.

A failure is a car that was projected to sell 100,000 for it whole lifespan and only sold 1/4 of that.

Mazda admits that the car was a fuck up... they even started designing its replacement within 6 months of initial sales. (RX-01 and the P007 [which became the Evolve and then the FE]).

They read the market wrong and built something that they couldn't sell.

It is not some high art... it is selling a product.

Too make it simpler for you. If GM only made it's trucks in Pink... how many would sell? Probably sales would drop to less than 25%. Why? Because people wouldn't want the pink truck.

Same thing happened with the FD. People didn't want a super car... they bought the Miata instead... a light weight, affordable, sports car.

But the FD fanbois don't get that (well lets face it half of them, never even drove one or were near old enough to buy one new)... they think of the FD as the pinnacle, when it was really the very near death for the rotary powered sports car.

All because it was not what the first two gen RX-7's were.

A 450+ hp/2800 pound true sports car vs. most 3500 to 3800 lb GT porkers out there is something Mazda can count on me buying. Even at 50 big ones.

actually the FD in today's dollars would be around $60K... not too many people would buy it now anymore than then...

Lets face it.. would you spend $60K on a 280hp Mazda???

something that would be soundly trounced by the 3500 lbs 2008 M3 that has 400+ HP and not even a LSD for $10K less than that. The people spending $60K on a car are not looking at a Mazda... they are looking at a Porsche, or a BMW, or a Lexus, or a Benz.

^im not sure you are right. my dad had an fc, and loved the way it drove etc. He also envies the fds... Not saying that my statements makes every old fc owner like the fd, but it shows that a 53 old fart still likes the fd...

^im not sure you are right. my dad had an fc, and loved the way it drove etc. He also envies the fds... Not saying that my statements makes every old fc owner like the fd, but it shows that a 53 old fart still likes the fd...

I still have a FC myself... a 88 10th Anniversary Edition and have owned 6 FC's.

But only 2 FD's...

and a SA and a FB and I still own a FE.

But then I think the FD looks rather dated now too... Especially the back end.

Most people that like the FD, have never owned or driven a FD. The FE is night and day a better car.

who cares about the look really being dated? everything will get dated, its just a matter of how quickly. frankfly, imo, i dont care about how dated it will look or looks. i care about if i like the style, not whether the style is new or not. the performance was always there though^

Mazda admits that the car was a fuck up... they even started designing its replacement within 6 months of initial sales. (RX-01 and the P007 [which became the Evolve and then the FE]).



Yeah, it was such a terrible mistake they decided to keep selling it for nine years. Buncha masochists, they are.

You argument still falls short because you haven't said how exactly the FD failed to be like the first 7's. The only factor I can see is price.

Yeah, it was such a terrible mistake they decided to keep selling it for nine years. Buncha masochists, they are. selling almost 1000 a year for 10 years is not much of a win, when the car was supposed to sell a minimum of 100,000 for it's projected life span.

Now if they had designed it to be a low volume sports car from the start...well that would have been on thing... but they didn't.

And if you know anything about the history at Mazda you would know that Leach would never have allowed Mazda to stop making the rotary power car... they kept selling the FD in small number in the home market, just so they could say they still were making a rotary powered car.

You argument still falls short because you haven't said how exactly the FD failed to be like the first 7's. The only factor I can see is price.

Yep, price and poor dealer support is what killed the car in North America (although I personally think that interior size also had an effect since the car didn't really fit anyone over 6' in a idea drivers position either).. see IMO it was really just a number of things... but all of them related to mis-judging the market, and design problems with the car. Then toss in poor initial reliability and dealers that couldn't service the car... (Mazda fixed that one for the FE as well, they just swap motors- I guess they learned that from Porsche after having near 50% of the first year Boxsters that had to have their engines replaced, but people still love the car).

Now if they had instead come out with a base non turbo FD version that was nearer to the $20K mark, instead of the near the $40K mark that the late 95 FDs were getting near; they probably would have kept selling the car for another 5 years here in the States. Of course it probably would have been a lot more reliable as well.

But then already the typical 1st and 2nd gen RX-7 buyer was already put off enough by the FD, and bought the 112hp Miata or some other product by another manufacture instead. See, it appears you don't get that. Sports car... not super car is what the market wanted. The first two gen RX-7s were sports cars... the FD was a super car.

The FD was too pricey for the typical RX-7 owner, and too unreliable and too small for the typical premium coupe/sports car owner.

Hench Market Failure!

Mazda figured they could place the entry level RX-7 buyer into the MX-3... but those buyers didn't want FWD. So it tanked

Mazda figured it would place the mid level RX-7 buyer into the Miata (which they did and Mazda sold 500,000 Miatas in the first 8 years).

And they figured the premium RX-7 buyer would buy the FD... but they priced the FD out of the range of the premium RX-7 buyer, so they only sold a token amount. Not even getting near the FC turbo sales figures in 10 years of production.

There is a reason that the RX-8 sells for less than $30K on average and it is not some $65K super car that all the FD fanbois claim that they want. It is because Mazda wanted to sell a car that they could make a profit on. They knew that a $65K FD replacement wouldn't sell.

It is simple commerce... not high art. It's a car.

The FD was the pinnacle of rotary sports cars. It was just highly overpriced. That's was it's problem and why it didn't sell. With the exception of the Miata, the 90's were the death of the Japanese sports car market in the US for over a decade. It's only starting to rebound now. The price of them just didn't work. Especially considering what power you could get from an American car for the same money.

The styling was very nice for it's day. Sure it's getting dated but only because we've been looking at it for 15 years. A more modern approach to it would have sharper lines rather than the rounded look it had.

Too many shortcuts were made with that car. The cooling system and twin turbo system are two of the biggest issues. If Mazda wants to be successful with a pure sports car that is worthy of the RX-7 name, it can't be priced too high. I personally think it should stay under $30K but $35K at the absolute max for the top model. To hit this pricepoint, they definitely wouldn't use turbos but that's fine as the new engine appears to be plenty capable. The RX-7's were all pretty light so that trend would have to continue. I don't see why they couldn't hit this goal with a 16X and a chassis based on the MX-5 platform. A 2700 lb car with 275 hp would be pretty fun. It doesn't need to have more power than the competition. They have always been less powerful.

Keep price reasonable and concentrate on reliability. That's what will make it work. A mid engined 3 rotor supercar priced at $80K+ would be a waste of time and money. It would be cool but it's not going to happen. Mazda knows this. They don't build supercars. They build fun practical cars. A fantasy rotary car will only happen if someone builds one as a private kit.

The main flaw with keeping RX-7 pricing constant generation after generation is that you lose those enthusiasts whose salaries actually rise and who aspire to have a car with "more acceleration, more performance". Yeah, there'll always be a new flow of fresh rotary enthusiasts; but what do you do with those people who want more - send them to Nissan for a GT-R? Tell them to buy the new NSX, because we at Mazda only make sportscars in the crapbox price range? :icon_no2: They can have a rotary car in that class, and its name can be Kabura.

Every car company out there moves their models upmarket - the examples are endless: Civic is now the size the Accords used to be only a couple gens prior; BMW 3 series used to be the tiniest of their line, now the 1 fills that slot; Lexus LS400s were a mid to high $30K car, now they're $65K to $100K(?)+. Back in the FD's production time Ferrari's 355 and 512 TR were $120K to $200K, now their successors are easily 50% more than that. Whoever said there has to be a freeze on pricing?

Having a 3 rotor exotic-car-competitor RX-7 basically comes down to 2 things: make it look the part (like Honda did with the NSX), and marketing. Incidentally, the $60,000 NSX in 1991 is a tick over $90,000 in today's money. Yet, they were able to move over 3000 units in the U.S. its first year before the market crashed for all cars of that type. You can't tell me that if Mazda basically brought out a 7 that was hotter looking, almost twice as powerful as its predecessor there wouldn't be a line of at least 15,000 disgruntled S2000 owners (that are tired of seeing their cars sit at the 240 hp barrier for a decade) who make real money and want real performance without having to shell out $110K for a 911 GT3. A line of at least as many former FD owners and interested newfound rotary enthusiasts with cash burning holes in their pockets that would love to see a $50K-ish car that can compete on so many levels with the exotics from Italy priced at $200,000 to $300,000. There are buyers, Mazda. You just need to set your sights higher than embarrassing POS Eclipses and Hyundais, for that act essentially proves nothing.

Every car company out there moves their models upmarket - the examples are endless: Civic is now the size the Accords used to be only a couple gens prior; BMW 3 series used to be the tiniest of their line, now the 1 fills that slot; Lexus LS400s were a mid to high $30K car, now they're $65K to $100K(?)+. Back in the FD's production time Ferrari's 355 and 512 TR were $120K to $200K, now their successors are easily 50% more than that. Whoever said there has to be a freeze on pricing?

Having a 3 rotor exotic-car-competitor RX-7 basically comes down to 2 things: make it look the part (like Honda did with the NSX), and marketing. Incidentally, the $60,000 NSX in 1991 is a tick over $90,000 in today's money. Yet, they were able to move over 3000 units in the U.S. its first year before the market crashed for all cars of that type. You can't tell me that if Mazda basically brought out a 7 that was hotter looking, almost twice as powerful as its predecessor there wouldn't be a line of at least 15,000 disgruntled S2000 owners (that are tired of seeing their cars sit at the 240 hp barrier for a decade) who make real money and want real performance without having to shell out $110K for a 911 GT3. A line of at least as many former FD owners and interested newfound rotary enthusiasts with cash burning holes in their pockets that would love to see a $50K-ish car that can compete on so many levels with the exotics from Italy priced at $200,000 to $300,000. There are buyers, Mazda. You just need to set your sights higher than embarrassing POS Eclipses and Hyundais, for that act essentially proves nothing.

A couple flaws in your argument. First of all, while car size has grown, I think you'll find that adjusting for inflation the price of a Civic has stayed relatively the same throughout the years. Nobody is suggesting that Mazda sell a $30,000 rotary sports car for all of eternity, but having the next rotary car start at a shade under $30,000 makes it about the same price as that of the base RX-8 back in 2004.

While you might think there's a market for a Mazda supercar, you're applying incredibly flawed logic in your assumption. How many S2000 owners want a convertible? How many won't buy anything about Hondas? Your reasoning is like the "If I sell a pair of shoes to everyone in China" reasoning that some people have. Well, what if they don't want your shoes for whatever reason?

Mazda in the marketplace doesn't even have the brand strength of Honda and there's a reason Honda, Toyota, and Lexus created separate brands for their cars that start at higher price points. While you might assume a certain amount of people will pay for a Mazda or Nissan with supercar performance at a more bargain price, keep in mind even most sports car customers aren't real sports car people. The actual sports car buyer that buys for the driving experience is relatively small; mostly it's about the image. I know a bunch of people that have the ability to pay cash for the GT-R and not even blink at the dent that makes in their bank accounts. They can pay cash for a Ferrari as well, but they generally drive cars around the $50,000 mark. However, they express absolutely no interest at the GT-R. The way it's phrased, it's because it's a Nissan, not an Infiniti. At that price people want the status of the badge, but they also want to feel special. Going to a Nissan dealership, being subjected to Nissan service, and waiting with other people who own Nissans is not on their list of things to do. The EXPERIENCE of owning a Nissan and that of owning an Infiniti is very different. At that price point, you better have a premium brand and Mazda isn't one. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the day the GT-R was announced as a Nissan, it was doomed to sales failure.

Finally, as much as we like the rotary engine, it tends to be a negative for most car shoppers. That doesn't help when you're in premium car prices.

^^ While I understand and agree with most of your points, here in Australia (and we have one of the largest brand/marque bases of any country in the world) Mazda is viewed very much in the middle to higher bracket for customer satisfaction, quality and image.

Sure it is not in the Mercedes, Audi, BMW or even Lexus group however it does have an extremely good reputation and image for a Japanese brand.

A Mercedes or BMW in Germany is their every day "dare I say cheap" car like a Holden or Pontiac or a Ford.

Price has a lot (if not everything) to do with image (snob value) for people with a high disposable income.

Lets face it a Lexus or Infiniti is just a glorified Toyota or Nissan with more creature comforts and features with a higher price tag sold in up market showrooms and service departments.

Mazda in the US appeals to a far younger generation, where in Australia it has been the 30-40-50 plus age group. Now though younger buyers consider a new Mazda because of their Zoom ZOOM sporty look and Fun To Drive perception and reality.

Mazda/Eunos tried the up market approach around similar times as Lexus/Toyota and Nissan/Infiniti. Both Eunos and Infinifi failed.
Not so much because of their model range but more to do with their marketing.
Toyota's Lexus was and is the sole Japanese "luxury" survivor here in Australia.

The FD was the pinnacle of rotary sports cars. It was just highly overpriced. That's was it's problem and why it didn't sell. With the exception of the Miata, the 90's were the death of the Japanese sports car market in the US for over a decade. It's only starting to rebound now. The price of them just didn't work. Especially considering what power you could get from an American car for the same money.

The styling was very nice for it's day. Sure it's getting dated but only because we've been looking at it for 15 years. A more modern approach to it would have sharper lines rather than the rounded look it had.

Too many shortcuts were made with that car. The cooling system and twin turbo system are two of the biggest issues. If Mazda wants to be successful with a pure sports car that is worthy of the RX-7 name, it can't be priced too high. I personally think it should stay under $30K but $35K at the absolute max for the top model. To hit this pricepoint, they definitely wouldn't use turbos but that's fine as the new engine appears to be plenty capable. The RX-7's were all pretty light so that trend would have to continue. I don't see why they couldn't hit this goal with a 16X and a chassis based on the MX-5 platform. A 2700 lb car with 275 hp would be pretty fun. It doesn't need to have more power than the competition. They have always been less powerful.

Keep price reasonable and concentrate on reliability. That's what will make it work. A mid engined 3 rotor supercar priced at $80K+ would be a waste of time and money. It would be cool but it's not going to happen. Mazda knows this. They don't build supercars. They build fun practical cars. A fantasy rotary car will only happen if someone builds one as a private kit.

I respect that opinion, but i again think that the cap is 45k. I mean currently a fully loaded CX-9 costs around that price. A new gen (FF? bad name...) can push the envelop in that aspect. But I without a doubt agree it must must be under the 60k adjusted the FD was.

O, and honestly, at this time and age, the car really needs to push 300 hp. Honestly, its not just that other cars are above that but just need to see that evolution of horsepower from a 1.6.

Not only Australia, I think their domestic market Japan as well. Which is the most important market to a Japanese brand.

Also for Nissan, the brand image is much better in Japan, and its important to stick to the GTR's roots so thats why its branded as a Nissan. Didn't they considering it badging it as an Infiniti? That'd upset the JDM crowd, and they're more important than the rest of the world.

I gotta assume the dealership experience is MUCH better in Japan than in North America. They treat you real nice in small stores in Japan, hack even the Japanese language is very polite (Is there no swearing words in Japanese?). Besides, owning cars is a luxury in Asian countries, not an necessity, since they have real public transit systems.

ASH8, its true that only Toyota could pull it off with the Lexus brand. They are viewed as more luxurious in Asia than a Mazda. Especially in Japan with the Crown brand.

If Mazda does make a 450hp 3-rotor midengine, it could possibly sell a few in Asia and Europe, but I really doubt they'll do well in North America due to poor dealership experience and the brand strength.
________
Silver vaporizer (http://www.vaporizers.net/)

The main flaw with keeping RX-7 pricing constant generation after generation is that you lose those enthusiasts whose salaries actually rise and who aspire to have a car with "more acceleration, more performance". Yeah, there'll always be a new flow of fresh rotary enthusiasts; but what do you do with those people who want more - send them to Nissan for a GT-R? Tell them to buy the new NSX, because we at Mazda only make sportscars in the crapbox price range? :icon_no2: They can have a rotary car in that class, and its name can be Kabura.

Every car company out there moves their models upmarket - the examples are endless: Civic is now the size the Accords used to be only a couple gens prior; BMW 3 series used to be the tiniest of their line, now the 1 fills that slot; Lexus LS400s were a mid to high $30K car, now they're $65K to $100K(?)+. Back in the FD's production time Ferrari's 355 and 512 TR were $120K to $200K, now their successors are easily 50% more than that. Whoever said there has to be a freeze on pricing?

Having a 3 rotor exotic-car-competitor RX-7 basically comes down to 2 things: make it look the part (like Honda did with the NSX), and marketing. Incidentally, the $60,000 NSX in 1991 is a tick over $90,000 in today's money. Yet, they were able to move over 3000 units in the U.S. its first year before the market crashed for all cars of that type. You can't tell me that if Mazda basically brought out a 7 that was hotter looking, almost twice as powerful as its predecessor there wouldn't be a line of at least 15,000 disgruntled S2000 owners (that are tired of seeing their cars sit at the 240 hp barrier for a decade) who make real money and want real performance without having to shell out $110K for a 911 GT3. A line of at least as many former FD owners and interested newfound rotary enthusiasts with cash burning holes in their pockets that would love to see a $50K-ish car that can compete on so many levels with the exotics from Italy priced at $200,000 to $300,000. There are buyers, Mazda. You just need to set your sights higher than embarrassing POS Eclipses and Hyundais, for that act essentially proves nothing.

This is something thats happening to me right now, I love rotary cars and mazda but they are not selling what im looking for, I was hopping for a R-tune rx-8 with turbo or 3 rotors but it wont happeng, every day I have to pass by a porche dealer and Im really tempted to go to the dark side, my brother has the same problem

Lets say mazda makes a 3 rotor rear engine GTR fitther, use the rx-8 chassis, better brakes better tires, re tune suspension, make 10,000 like the eunos cosmo, cant they do that?

Im sure they would sell 3,000 just in japan

is mazda going to sit back while nissan an the others get all the atention?

This says it all about the 3rd gen.

Here's my two cents (For what little it's worth). They should give us an RX7 and RX8. The RX7 should come in two power levels, 300 and a 400 hp MPS version, NA and FI respectively. That's one of the mistakes with the FD IMHO, some would have loved to pay $25k for an NA version. If we can get the NA version for$29k and the MS version for $36k to $40k they could cause real trouble for the Z car and Corvette.

The RX8 should then be focused on dethroning the BMW3 series and causing trouble for the Lexus IS and Infiniti G35.

Paul.

Mazda just does not have the resources to go that far. It is the fourth largest Japanese automaker, nowhere near Toyota, Nissan/Renault, and Honda in revenue and sales. Ford can't help them that much and I am sure Ford wouldn't be that pleased with not one but two sports cars from Mazda vs the Mustang.

That would make an interesting lineup.

But I think the 8's chassis is too small to turn it into a luxury sports car/sedan.
________
Head Shop (http://headshop.net/)

why? its already got more rear room than the 3 series

why? its already got more rear room than the 3 series


Amen!!

It's not that far of a stretch for the 8 to compete in that market. As long as it's not being targeted there, it will be viewed as a somewhat lame sports car wanna be for kids. With an RX7 back in the equation you can position the 8 where it should be, as a classier more up-scale competitor. That, in turn, helps raise the entire brand image and even the image of the rotary.

Paul.

Renesis 8,
Why do you think Mazda Motor Corp Japan want to take over MNAO, because they have obviously done a crap job of marketing their brand and "managing" the retail dealer network.

Mazda US should be selling at least 800,000 units year not 295K when you look at sales figures of the rest of the world.

You do the Math..
Australia population 21 Mil.... over 70K in Mazda Sales in 2007 and still growing..
USA pop 320Mil... 295K..it is bloody pathetic. ;)

The main flaw with keeping RX-7 pricing constant generation after generation is that you lose those enthusiasts whose salaries actually rise and who aspire to have a car with "more acceleration, more performance". Yeah, there'll always be a new flow of fresh rotary enthusiasts; but what do you do with those people who want more - send them to Nissan for a GT-R? Tell them to buy the new NSX, because we at Mazda only make sportscars in the crapbox price range? :icon_no2: They can have a rotary car in that class, and its name can be Kabura.

Every car company out there moves their models upmarket - the examples are endless: Civic is now the size the Accords used to be only a couple gens prior; BMW 3 series used to be the tiniest of their line, now the 1 fills that slot; Lexus LS400s were a mid to high $30K car, now they're $65K to $100K(?)+. Back in the FD's production time Ferrari's 355 and 512 TR were $120K to $200K, now their successors are easily 50% more than that. Whoever said there has to be a freeze on pricing?

You are wrong... if you compare prices today to the prices of 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.. cars like the Civic, or BMW's 3 series cost the same.

For example EX-level Civic mid-to late 80s was around 12,000 to $14,000 depending on options.

What cost $12000 in 1986 would cost $21672.69 in 2006.

Heck the RX-8 cost near the same as the S4 GXL FC did when you adjust for inflation, but the RX-8 would have ABS, airbags, and power everything standard.

Funny that... Mazda sells as many FE's as they did FCs...

But want to see when you bring out another FD... sales will tank just like they did in 1993.

Some cars even get cheaper... the current MX-5 is cheaper than the original version when you look at adjusting for inflation. For example: What cost $18000 in 1989 would cost $29581.44 in 2006. (of course there were dealers selling the Miata for as high as $25,000 in 89- but prices normalized within a year, so I just went with the average sold price for a 89).

So you are wrong about car's moving up-market when you adjust for inflation.

Renesis 8,
Why do you think Mazda Motor Corp Japan want to take over MNAO, because they have obviously done a crap job of marketing their brand and "managing" the retail dealer network.

Mazda US should be selling at least 800,000 units year not 295K when you look at sales figures of the rest of the world.

You do the Math..
Australia population 21 Mil.... over 70K in Mazda Sales in 2007 and still growing..
USA pop 320Mil... 295K..it is bloody pathetic. ;)

Australian market so much different from USA market. Australians get more sporty cars while USA gets camrys and ever growing accord and SUVs.

You are wrong... if you compare prices today to the prices of 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.. cars like the Civic, or BMW's 3 series cost the same.
Those cars don't offer anything groundbreaking vs their previous gens like the FD did vs. the FC. Civics and 3 series are shitboxes for the masses. Yeah, even the overpriced BMW - justified in uninformed buyers' minds by the stupid badge and snob appeal.

For example EX-level Civic mid-to late 80s was around 12,000 to $14,000 depending on options.

What cost $12000 in 1986 would cost $21672.69 in 2006.
The "EX" in Honda's line usually had everything included as options, so I'm not sure how they ranged from the base of $12K to almost 20% higher with "options".

Btw, have you noticed that since 2001 the Civic uses cheaper MacPherson struts as opposed to unequal length A-arms? The inflation adjusted cost may be lower in some models, but one has to ask himself where they cut corners.
Heck the RX-8 cost near the same as the S4 GXL FC did when you adjust for inflation, but the RX-8 would have ABS, airbags, and power everything standard.
The yen was much stronger in the mid 80s than it is now. Plus, maybe carmakers are willing to settle for lower gross profits. Maybe they figured out more innovative production techniques. I remember seeing a report from a Japansese magazine that around the late 90s Honda figured out how to trim their aluminum manufacturing costs on the NSX (and Insight?) by over 75%!
But want to see when you bring out another FD... sales will tank just like they did in 1993.
They don't have to tank. Remember, there can still be a rotary in the bottom dollar category. The RX-7 would be in addition to an RX-8 and/or Kabura priced half as much - a true flagship rivaling the best out there rather than running with the $30K-ish pack, and its sales would be "gravy"; plus the added benefit of having a tech tour-de-force in your showroom would make lots of people buy the half-as-costly other rotary offerings.
Some cars even get cheaper... the current MX-5 is cheaper than the original version when you look at adjusting for inflation. For example: What cost $18000 in 1989 would cost $29581.44 in 2006. (of course there were dealers selling the Miata for as high as $25,000 in 89- but prices normalized within a year, so I just went with the average sold price for a 89).
I believe the base Miatas stickered at $13,800 in their inaugural year. Still, you're right and the MX-5s today are probably cheaper adjusted even using the sub $14K #.

Australian market so much different from USA market. Australians get more sporty cars while USA gets camrys and ever growing accord and SUVs.

There are reasons.

Since cars are pretty much a necessity in north america, most people just want a car to commute, and drive around their families, hence the camry and accord do so well.

I don't know about Australia, but for Europe and especially Asian cities, cars are a luxury, you don't need one.
________
VAPORIZERS INFO (http://johan-luis.tumblr.com/)

Those cars don't offer anything groundbreaking vs their previous gens like the FD did vs. the FC. Civics and 3 series are shitboxes for the masses. Yeah, even the overpriced BMW - justified in uninformed buyers' minds by the stupid badge and snob appeal. actually I have a 07 3 series coupe as well, and while it is not a sports coupe in the same level as the RX-8, it is much more competint than 99% of the other coupes out there, and frankly one of the few rear wheel drive coupes still available.

They don't have to tank. Remember, there can still be a rotary in the bottom dollar category. The RX-7 would be in addition to an RX-8 and/or Kabura priced half as much - a true flagship rivaling the best out there rather than running with the $30K-ish pack, and its sales would be "gravy"; plus the added benefit of having a tech tour-de-force in your showroom would make lots of people buy the half-as-costly other rotary offerings.

But see they couldn't build it for the $30K price point, unless people are willing to just buy a two door RX-8 or a hard top rotary powered MX-5.

But there is a reason that few car manufactures build sporty RWD coupes anymore... and it is because they don't sell as well as 4 doors. The sheep in the states, buy Camrys or even the BMW 3 series sedan (which sells 75% more than the coupe) for the rear seats.

Don't get me wrong. If Mazda was to build the equivalent of a Z4 powered by the rotary, I would be in line (after the first year's production was sold)... but it wouldn't make good sales.

I'd have to agree with Icemark here. I'd love a high performance top of the line rotary sports car, but such a proposition is going to be money losing for Mazda and I'd rather any rotary car make money so as to ensure the engine's future survival.

The "EX" in Honda's line usually had everything included as options, so I'm not sure how they ranged from the base of $12K to almost 20% higher with "options".

Icemark's comparison was EX to EX. A DX Civic, which is still better equipped than most '80s Civics, is $15,000 today.

Btw, have you noticed that since 2001 the Civic uses cheaper MacPherson struts as opposed to unequal length A-arms? The inflation adjusted cost may be lower in some models, but one has to ask himself where they cut corners.

As opposed to what? Where they cut corners in the FD? As much as I love the FD, and I do adore it, it's my favorite car of all time after all, I'd much rather the manufacturer save a few dollars in basic suspension setup than save a few dollars that result in half baked cooling systems. And a strut type suspension isn't automatically inferior, it all depends on the application. For a car like the Civic, which despite what ricers like to think is honest basic transportation, a strut makes a ton of sense. It's a compact suspension system that will result in more interior and trunk room. That's a win for a car that probably won't be driven past 50% of its grip envelope.

The yen was much stronger in the mid 80s than it is now.

The yen was much weaker in the mid 80s. In 1985 the exchange rate was about 230 yen to a dollar. Only after the Plaza Accord was signed in 1985 did the yen rise. In 1988, it was about 130 yen to a dollar. These days, the rate is about 120 yen to a dollar.

They don't have to tank. Remember, there can still be a rotary in the bottom dollar category. The RX-7 would be in addition to an RX-8 and/or Kabura priced half as much - a true flagship rivaling the best out there rather than running with the $30K-ish pack, and its sales would be "gravy"; plus the added benefit of having a tech tour-de-force in your showroom would make lots of people buy the half-as-costly other rotary offerings.

You can't have a car model whose sales are "gravy." The tooling and engineering expense involved in developing the car would mean that it would need to sell, or else you just have a resource and money blackhole in your lineup. That's a huge no no in today's business environment. The effectiveness of a halo car is hotly debated and nothing conclusive has been proven. Mazda already has a higher percentage of sports car in their lineup than any non-specialty automaker. Considering sports cars generally are not the breadwinners of an automaker's lineup, if I were a Mazda executive, expanding my sports car lineup would be the last thing on my mind.

Mazda already has a higher percentage of sports car in their lineup than any non-specialty automaker. Considering sports cars generally are not the breadwinners of an automaker's lineup, if I were a Mazda executive, expanding my sports car lineup would be the last thing on my mind.

The mass market sedans and compacts (3 + 6) will make them the most money. Also, that is why they are expanding into SUVs. I think no company would want to kill their halo, but no way there are gonna be two. Sorry guys, it is either a 7 or an 8. Personally i want that 7.

Australian market so much different from USA market. Australians get more sporty cars while USA gets camrys and ever growing accord and SUVs.

Not sure about that,,
We have the large cars too and V8's, V6's and the standard Family cars like
the 4 Door Holden Commodore (Pontiac G8), Ford Falcon, Most of the US Chrysler range. We have Camry's, Accords, Liberty's, Mondeos. All the German brands.
In SUV's, Ford Territory Australian Made large V6 Turbo), Holden's Captiva, Toyota's Laundcruiser and Kluger and RAV4, Nissan's Pajero, Murano. Subaru's US Tribeca.
Honda's MDX and CRV, Mazda's Tribute, CX-7 and 9, and then you have the MPV's and the Utes.

My point really is that the rest of the world has had huge increases in sales of Mazda's where the US has had mediocre, even Europe are now close to the US in total numbers. 4-5 years ago they were doing 150K in Mazda units.

There are reasons.

Since cars are pretty much a necessity in north america, most people just want a car to commute, and drive around their families, hence the camry and accord do so well.

I don't know about Australia, but for Europe and especially Asian cities, cars are a luxury, you don't need one.

It is the same here, keep in mind Australia is about the same size in land mass as the US, we also have to commute large distances and our public transport system is a joke in many states, so YES our cars are a necessity too.

Most households here have 2 cars or more, the husband the wife have one each and then the teenage kids 16YO and above, and then the adult kids still living at home with mum (sorry mom) and dad.

We have kids in their 30's and 40's still single and living still at home.!!:crazy:

So I guess we are very similar to you guys in the US???

But see they couldn't build it for the $30K price point, unless people are willing to just buy a two door RX-8 or a hard top rotary powered MX-5.
I wouldn't want a $30,000 RX-7, and wouldn't expect a GT-R beater for less than half as much. The figure I mentioned in an earlier post was around $50K.

I wouldn't want a $30,000 RX-7, and wouldn't expect a GT-R beater for less than half as much. The figure I mentioned in an earlier post was around $50K.

But nobody (well I shouldn't say nobody... I should say very very few) are gonna pay $50K for a rotary powered Mazda in todays market.

$50K M3, yes.
$50K IS-F yes
$50K GT-R maybe (but it will probably be stillborn anyway- just for being so butt ugly and heavy- well alone being $25K overpriced)

$50K Mazda... no way.

Well it's like the Supra, 1996 the supra was 45k+ and now they are releasing it again and it will be around 60k from what I heard so far.

I think if they decide to make the RX-? (7) they are defantanly going to make it more then what it was in 1995, 32k. I'm thinking that it will be around 35k base to 45k with options. I can even see it in the 50's. But it's not going to be anywhere near the 8's price range. New engineering, now components, blah, blah blah, that suff doesn't come cheap.

This thread is like deja-vu... lol

The yen was much weaker in the mid 80s. In 1985 the exchange rate was about 230 yen to a dollar. Only after the Plaza Accord was signed in 1985 did the yen rise. In 1988, it was about 130 yen to a dollar. These days, the rate is about 120 yen to a dollar.
You're right, and I actually phrased my response wrong. I meant to say that the exchange rate literally let the Japansese car companies double their profits when converting the total revenue in the U.S. back to their home soil. Afterall, the profits to end up in Japan.
You can't have a car model whose sales are "gravy." The tooling and engineering expense involved in developing the car would mean that it would need to sell, or else you just have a resource and money blackhole in your lineup. That's a huge no no in today's business environment.
The Viper's been that very model that you claim just can not feasibly exist - very low-volume, coupled with a price that's totally unexpected given its hp levels.

Well it's like the Supra, 1996 the supra was 45k+ and now they are releasing it again and it will be around 60k from what I heard so far.
They already know the ballpark price without confirming what the powetrain will be? Hmmmm, sounds like a b.s. source.
I think if they decide to make the RX-? (7) they are defantanly going to make it more then what it was in 1995, 32k. I'm thinking that it will be around 35k base to 45k with options. I can even see it in the 50's. But it's not going to be anywhere near the 8's price range. New engineering, now components, blah, blah blah, that suff doesn't come cheap.
Sadly, if the car will share MX-5 components I don't see a "supercar" 7 as the end result. They're probably wanting to go after the saturated $30K to $35K sports coupe market; it's as if they've thrown in the towel regarding competing at high levels and said "let's just try to outdo the Z car from that other company". We can probably thank Ford for that desision.

I think in Toyota.com, they said V6 3.5L with their hybrid, a SYNERGY car with 400 Hp and still 30 MPG. It's very cool what they are doing, the brakes when activated, collects positive ions to recharge their batteries or something to that effect.

Whatever the price/power/blah blah, we'll all be guessing til it comes out.

Let's all guess what the weight will be. If the last gen turbo was 3500 pounds, and you add the battery pack to this one does that mean Toyota's in a race with the GT-R to see who can hit the two-ton mark with only the driver behind the wheel?

Hybrid power and sportcars should definitely be mutually exclusive.

Lol...

Mark my words, the GT-R will have a shelf life of about a year. It was pure idiocy badging that car as a Nissan.

I'm pretty sure this is what most rational people are saying. The only people really excited about the GTR are people who hang around car forums 16 hours a day. Everyone loves to talk about this car and magazine race it with every other car they can't afford, but that's it. The interior of that car is one of the worst I have seen in years and years.