No wonder people stopped buying rx8s
06-28-2015, 06:16 AM
#51
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cliffkemp, Besides the top class at Le Mans, most racing sanctioning bodies have not "banned" the rotary per say. What they do often require for production-based race cars is that the manufacturer still be selling the car or similar within the past three years. So for example the competitive and often winning three-rotor tube-frame RX8s in Tudor had no future with their cars once Mazda ended RX8 sales, so they went to the skyactive diesel to base their new race car, since the diesel is sold in some world markets. People don't realize that Mazda rotaries have won in lower classes at Le Mans since 1991's top class win.
True on the winning. Most other companies complained about the actual 'size' of the motor and still debated to this day. It was upgraded to a 2.6 in Europe. Even in Le Mans, it was more than a 2.6 liter.
I just hope that Mazda evolves the rotary. Many do not know that, if the rx8 were still being produced, the rotary powered car would be the 5th or 6th longest production car. Only the 911, corvette, camaro, and mustang and, seems like there is another although, camaro was stopped for a short time. Many thought the rx7 only went to 96 but, was not imported after that point. They made them til 2002.... I have had that argument as well.
I think Nascar is afraid. I think that other racing bodies do not know how to take the rx7 as, racing is getting too specialized, as far as class ratings go. Like the GTU class (2L or less, last I checked) people do not know how to rate the rotary and will argue it should be a 2.6 or 3.9 until they get their way.
I wish mazda would do a 4 rotor and have rotor cut-off when cruising but, I can see an issue with oil as, combustion or not, still have to lube the seals. Also, wish they would come out with something with the 12a but a 3 rotor version as well. Only the 13b based 4 rotor got much attention. There is so much that can be tried but, the oil issue, one day, will kill it completely and, I do not want that to happen in my lifetime, I hope.
06-28-2015, 06:23 AM
#52
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of my warranty claims on mine were small things... oil leak, clicking in rear suspension, clutch pedal, shift **** kept breaking. I only had one blow up due to mazdas oiling issues (mine was a 2005 model but 2004 build).
the second motor was replaced because front seal was leaking and the tech stripped the main bolt and motor had to be replaced.
third engine I blew up.... turbocharged life 30k miles ALL turbo... I connected my external wastegate incorrectly and over boosted. EASILY could have gone double had I not detonated (Based on my tear down and visual inspection). everything looks darn good internally.
the second motor was replaced because front seal was leaking and the tech stripped the main bolt and motor had to be replaced.
third engine I blew up.... turbocharged life 30k miles ALL turbo... I connected my external wastegate incorrectly and over boosted. EASILY could have gone double had I not detonated (Based on my tear down and visual inspection). everything looks darn good internally.
06-28-2015, 06:37 AM
#53
Mazda managers ran mazda. Ford managers ran Ford. Shares had nothing to do with it but, in your defense, since ford and mazda shared platforms on other cars, I am sure there was some influence but, from a share standpoint, not even relevant.
That was my point.
Just as Pontiac was shut down by GM, only Mazda can change anything at Mazda. Shareholder and an owner are 2 very different things.
That has been my point cause, all I have heard is, Ford owns Mazda and that is not true. That has NEVER been true. Influence is another story and, I am sure that goes on with Ford and Mazda, just like Chevrolet and Dodge in the mid 90s as, they shared transmissions on cavalier and neon and others, back then. I believe Ford and Mazda do the same thing in some of their cars for transmission and engines, as far as, suppliers go.
That was my point.
Just as Pontiac was shut down by GM, only Mazda can change anything at Mazda. Shareholder and an owner are 2 very different things.
That has been my point cause, all I have heard is, Ford owns Mazda and that is not true. That has NEVER been true. Influence is another story and, I am sure that goes on with Ford and Mazda, just like Chevrolet and Dodge in the mid 90s as, they shared transmissions on cavalier and neon and others, back then. I believe Ford and Mazda do the same thing in some of their cars for transmission and engines, as far as, suppliers go.
Again, from Wikipedia -- this is pasted from my first post in this thread:
"In June 1996, Henry Wallace was appointed President, and he set about restructuring Mazda and setting it on a new strategic direction. He laid out a new direction for the brand including the design of the present Mazda marque; he laid out a new product plan to achieve synergies with Ford, and he launched Mazda's digital innovation program to speed up the development of new products. At the same time, he started taking control of overseas distributors, rationalized dealerships and manufacturing facilities, and driving much needed efficiencies and cost reductions in Mazda's operations. Much of his early work put Mazda back into profitability and laid the foundations for future success. Wallace was succeeded by James Miller in November 1997, followed in December 1999 by Ford executive Mark Fields, who has been credited with expanding Mazda's new product lineup and leading the turnaround during the early 2000s."
Henry Wallace: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...ersonId=176537
James Miller: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...ersonId=176587
Mark Fields: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...ersonId=176639
All Ford people, heavily focused on synergy with Ford.
06-28-2015, 11:17 AM
#54
if you think the Rx8 is bad, don't buy an Audi, or a BMW.
the BMW's are funny, every time someone suggests a "fix" on the internet, and gets criticized because its hackey, or bad, or something, BMW has done it from the factory. for example, we are always told that narrow band o2 sensors are useless to tune with, as the output is pretty binary. BMW put the narrowband o2 signal through an amplifier, to get a 0-5v signal, and then ran that in closed loop. they also not only put a radiator cap on plastic, but go that extra step and use recycled plastic, so this means the entire cooling system basically needs to be replaced every 60k or so. i could go on (and on, and on)
the Audi is just a torture device disguised as a car.
the BMW's are funny, every time someone suggests a "fix" on the internet, and gets criticized because its hackey, or bad, or something, BMW has done it from the factory. for example, we are always told that narrow band o2 sensors are useless to tune with, as the output is pretty binary. BMW put the narrowband o2 signal through an amplifier, to get a 0-5v signal, and then ran that in closed loop. they also not only put a radiator cap on plastic, but go that extra step and use recycled plastic, so this means the entire cooling system basically needs to be replaced every 60k or so. i could go on (and on, and on)
the Audi is just a torture device disguised as a car.
Last edited by j9fd3s; 06-28-2015 at 11:33 AM.
06-28-2015, 11:26 AM
#55
she does look good for 12! i'm too lazy to find the pics, but mine is too, i basically haven't had to do anything at all to it in over a year, except oil changes.
i didn't weigh my current 04 GT, but i did weigh an 04 base, full tank of gas was 2950lbs, and just for reference, my 1987 Rx7 GXL was 2880. so they did a good job of making the Rx8 light, its almost 2 feet longer than the Rx7....
06-28-2015, 12:31 PM
#56
They won't let ANY engine other than a V8 with certain specs compete.
I dunno. I have no desire for more than 2 rotors, honestly.
The following is just my stream of consciousness. Not trying to tell you you're wrong; just weighing in.
If we're honest, there are only two clear advantages to a Wankel engine over a piston engine: Size and weight. Every other advantage (high RPM, simplicity, volumetric efficiency) is offset by a disadvantage (low torque, finicky wear characteristics and oil demands, thermal inefficiency). Heck, even the size and weight aren't slam-dunks because of the beefier cooling hardware needed, all of which ends up overhanging the front axle.
So, there's exactly one reason to buy a car with a rotary engine these days: because you're willing to sacrifice just about everything at the altar of better handling. More rotors means more power -- but that isn't the point of a rotary IMO. It also worsens all the bad aspects (heat, inefficiency, etc.) while sacrificing the things that ARE the point of a rotary (size and weight).
I can see it in a tuner car for SURE. It sounds awesome and is very unusual. I can also see it in a race car. I just don't see it in a production street car.
I wish mazda would do a 4 rotor and have rotor cut-off when cruising but, I can see an issue with oil as, combustion or not, still have to lube the seals. Also, wish they would come out with something with the 12a but a 3 rotor version as well. Only the 13b based 4 rotor got much attention. There is so much that can be tried but, the oil issue, one day, will kill it completely and, I do not want that to happen in my lifetime, I hope.
The following is just my stream of consciousness. Not trying to tell you you're wrong; just weighing in.
If we're honest, there are only two clear advantages to a Wankel engine over a piston engine: Size and weight. Every other advantage (high RPM, simplicity, volumetric efficiency) is offset by a disadvantage (low torque, finicky wear characteristics and oil demands, thermal inefficiency). Heck, even the size and weight aren't slam-dunks because of the beefier cooling hardware needed, all of which ends up overhanging the front axle.
So, there's exactly one reason to buy a car with a rotary engine these days: because you're willing to sacrifice just about everything at the altar of better handling. More rotors means more power -- but that isn't the point of a rotary IMO. It also worsens all the bad aspects (heat, inefficiency, etc.) while sacrificing the things that ARE the point of a rotary (size and weight).
I can see it in a tuner car for SURE. It sounds awesome and is very unusual. I can also see it in a race car. I just don't see it in a production street car.
06-28-2015, 05:04 PM
#57
06-28-2015, 09:33 PM
#59
Much Crazy. Such Wow!
Ford owned well over 30% of Mazda's shares, and being that Mazda is a public company, Ford owned over 30% of Mazda. Plain and simple. Mazda specifically asked Ford to take them under their wing and nurture them back to health. Why do you think there were so many clones on Mazda's side? They only just recently stopped with the clones, the last being the Mazda Demio/2. Ford's CEO publicly spoke about it. Do you even read, bro?
And if you don't like rude comments then don't put out a shitty attitude on an enthusiast site geared towards the car you're bitching about, plain and simple.
And if you don't like rude comments then don't put out a shitty attitude on an enthusiast site geared towards the car you're bitching about, plain and simple.
06-29-2015, 01:16 AM
#60
I think it's easy to look for faults with the design and then say 'clearly this is why the car didn't sell', but That ignores how the market shifted since the car was released. Frankly if I was Mazda I would have called it a day in 2008-9 instead of waiting another 3 years. It's a niche model for a niche that took some hits with fuel prices, economic downturns and new competition from lower segments.
The 2000s were already not a great time to be a sports car, which is probably why Mazda needed a car that could cover multiple segments. Look at the S2000 which stayed 'focused' as you say. It's gone. Look at what succeeded: Minis, new GTIs, Boxters, BMW 1-Series. Agile, multipurpose cars. And more recently FRS's.
All of those match the RX8 in most categories and have a little something extra: brand, creature comforts, price. The RX8 on paper made sense, it was designed to be agile and multipurpose, but it was neither marketed as widely nor priced to compete. By 2008 or so, I don't see that the value proposition was competitive. So in that sense, sure, maybe it would've been better for the RX8 to stay in 911-fighting category, but I don't know that Mazda could justify producing such a car then or now, so its a bit like "do you want this RX8 or no RX8 at all?". You don't exactly make money on niche cars.
And then, 2008 financial crisis, uncertainty, blah blah. I would've refocused on bread and butter cars at that point and live to fight the rotary fight another day instead of dragging things out.
And all this before we get to the engine. Trust me, it's not the rad cap that turns away new buyers. But dealers that can't explain the product certainly does. We're still dealing with the lack of dealer education.
That's how I see it anyway. The car could not and should not have been anything else.
The 2000s were already not a great time to be a sports car, which is probably why Mazda needed a car that could cover multiple segments. Look at the S2000 which stayed 'focused' as you say. It's gone. Look at what succeeded: Minis, new GTIs, Boxters, BMW 1-Series. Agile, multipurpose cars. And more recently FRS's.
All of those match the RX8 in most categories and have a little something extra: brand, creature comforts, price. The RX8 on paper made sense, it was designed to be agile and multipurpose, but it was neither marketed as widely nor priced to compete. By 2008 or so, I don't see that the value proposition was competitive. So in that sense, sure, maybe it would've been better for the RX8 to stay in 911-fighting category, but I don't know that Mazda could justify producing such a car then or now, so its a bit like "do you want this RX8 or no RX8 at all?". You don't exactly make money on niche cars.
And then, 2008 financial crisis, uncertainty, blah blah. I would've refocused on bread and butter cars at that point and live to fight the rotary fight another day instead of dragging things out.
And all this before we get to the engine. Trust me, it's not the rad cap that turns away new buyers. But dealers that can't explain the product certainly does. We're still dealing with the lack of dealer education.
That's how I see it anyway. The car could not and should not have been anything else.
06-29-2015, 06:13 AM
#61
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right -- Ford never owned Mazda. But their managers did RUN Mazda.
Again, from Wikipedia -- this is pasted from my first post in this thread:
"In June 1996, Henry Wallace was appointed President, and he set about restructuring Mazda and setting it on a new strategic direction. He laid out a new direction for the brand including the design of the present Mazda marque; he laid out a new product plan to achieve synergies with Ford, and he launched Mazda's digital innovation program to speed up the development of new products. At the same time, he started taking control of overseas distributors, rationalized dealerships and manufacturing facilities, and driving much needed efficiencies and cost reductions in Mazda's operations. Much of his early work put Mazda back into profitability and laid the foundations for future success. Wallace was succeeded by James Miller in November 1997, followed in December 1999 by Ford executive Mark Fields, who has been credited with expanding Mazda's new product lineup and leading the turnaround during the early 2000s."
Henry Wallace: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...ersonId=176537
James Miller: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...ersonId=176587
Mark Fields: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...ersonId=176639
All Ford people, heavily focused on synergy with Ford.
Again, from Wikipedia -- this is pasted from my first post in this thread:
"In June 1996, Henry Wallace was appointed President, and he set about restructuring Mazda and setting it on a new strategic direction. He laid out a new direction for the brand including the design of the present Mazda marque; he laid out a new product plan to achieve synergies with Ford, and he launched Mazda's digital innovation program to speed up the development of new products. At the same time, he started taking control of overseas distributors, rationalized dealerships and manufacturing facilities, and driving much needed efficiencies and cost reductions in Mazda's operations. Much of his early work put Mazda back into profitability and laid the foundations for future success. Wallace was succeeded by James Miller in November 1997, followed in December 1999 by Ford executive Mark Fields, who has been credited with expanding Mazda's new product lineup and leading the turnaround during the early 2000s."
Henry Wallace: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...ersonId=176537
James Miller: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...ersonId=176587
Mark Fields: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...ersonId=176639
All Ford people, heavily focused on synergy with Ford.
06-29-2015, 06:28 AM
#63
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford owned well over 30% of Mazda's shares, and being that Mazda is a public company, Ford owned over 30% of Mazda. Plain and simple. Mazda specifically asked Ford to take them under their wing and nurture them back to health. Why do you think there were so many clones on Mazda's side? They only just recently stopped with the clones, the last being the Mazda Demio/2. Ford's CEO publicly spoke about it. Do you even read, bro?
And if you don't like rude comments then don't put out a shitty attitude on an enthusiast site geared towards the car you're bitching about, plain and simple.
And if you don't like rude comments then don't put out a shitty attitude on an enthusiast site geared towards the car you're bitching about, plain and simple.
Secondly, you really do not understand what stock is and how it works. When Ford owned 33% of Mazda stock, Ford could not do anything but vote its 33%! What do you not understand about that? Ford could have owned 50.1%, which is all that is needed to have majority vote to change something presented on the proxies, by the current board of directors. Ford can either vote yes, no or, not vote at all.
Stock is nothing more than a company selling you a 'share' of its business at a price to raise capital to pay for business expenses. It is a loan. It is, also, a gamble that, if the company does well, they will be in a position to buy the stock back at a higher price, if things go well (putting that vaguely). If they do, that is your loan back with interest, if any depending on the value of the dollar at the time of company buy-back or another person or entity buying the shares you are selling. If the company does not do well, then you will get less per share back and, in extreme cases, none depending on what kind of stock you have, in the case of going out of business. In that case, preferred shares are usually paid back first after sale of capital and common stock is paid last if, anything is left.
Maybe this information will managed to sink in so, you do not spit out junk about business. If you do not believe me, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF, as you should have done a couple of posts ago.
06-29-2015, 06:39 AM
#64
A lot of executives moved from one company to another and brought about what they wanted to change the company, good or bad. Still has nothing to do with stock ownership. Who they decided to bring to the table for what ever reason was a voting issue, yes but, think about it. Why would Ford let someone go and turn around and vote them to Mazda's BOD??? See where I am going with that??
06-29-2015, 06:49 AM
#65
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's easy to look for faults with the design and then say 'clearly this is why the car didn't sell', but That ignores how the market shifted since the car was released. Frankly if I was Mazda I would have called it a day in 2008-9 instead of waiting another 3 years. It's a niche model for a niche that took some hits with fuel prices, economic downturns and new competition from lower segments.
The 2000s were already not a great time to be a sports car, which is probably why Mazda needed a car that could cover multiple segments. Look at the S2000 which stayed 'focused' as you say. It's gone. Look at what succeeded: Minis, new GTIs, Boxters, BMW 1-Series. Agile, multipurpose cars. And more recently FRS's.
All of those match the RX8 in most categories and have a little something extra: brand, creature comforts, price. The RX8 on paper made sense, it was designed to be agile and multipurpose, but it was neither marketed as widely nor priced to compete. By 2008 or so, I don't see that the value proposition was competitive. So in that sense, sure, maybe it would've been better for the RX8 to stay in 911-fighting category, but I don't know that Mazda could justify producing such a car then or now, so its a bit like "do you want this RX8 or no RX8 at all?". You don't exactly make money on niche cars.
And then, 2008 financial crisis, uncertainty, blah blah. I would've refocused on bread and butter cars at that point and live to fight the rotary fight another day instead of dragging things out.
And all this before we get to the engine. Trust me, it's not the rad cap that turns away new buyers. But dealers that can't explain the product certainly does. We're still dealing with the lack of dealer education.
That's how I see it anyway. The car could not and should not have been anything else.
The 2000s were already not a great time to be a sports car, which is probably why Mazda needed a car that could cover multiple segments. Look at the S2000 which stayed 'focused' as you say. It's gone. Look at what succeeded: Minis, new GTIs, Boxters, BMW 1-Series. Agile, multipurpose cars. And more recently FRS's.
All of those match the RX8 in most categories and have a little something extra: brand, creature comforts, price. The RX8 on paper made sense, it was designed to be agile and multipurpose, but it was neither marketed as widely nor priced to compete. By 2008 or so, I don't see that the value proposition was competitive. So in that sense, sure, maybe it would've been better for the RX8 to stay in 911-fighting category, but I don't know that Mazda could justify producing such a car then or now, so its a bit like "do you want this RX8 or no RX8 at all?". You don't exactly make money on niche cars.
And then, 2008 financial crisis, uncertainty, blah blah. I would've refocused on bread and butter cars at that point and live to fight the rotary fight another day instead of dragging things out.
And all this before we get to the engine. Trust me, it's not the rad cap that turns away new buyers. But dealers that can't explain the product certainly does. We're still dealing with the lack of dealer education.
That's how I see it anyway. The car could not and should not have been anything else.
You do make money on them but, not nearly as much. This is why the viper, corvette and, gt 500 live on. The FD was too non-user-friendly and had to be pulled. The 8, props to Mazda for making it better than the 7 for the times. The issue was, all the little things that went bump in the engine bay. The coolant sensor, cracking radiator tops, oil metering pump and so many S1 engine failures. When you get off to a bad start like that, people take notice.
There are many issues with the electrical system and, cpu is not interchangeable with other same-trims. Clutch pedal breaks, visors breaking and no recall, cracking dash ( I know that is debatable due to where you keep the car), fish bowl and, I am sure I have miss others. Whether under warranty or not, if you are one of the 'lucky' ones that have all these issues with the car over the first few years of ownership, you are going to tell others and, they may not buy one. This is my point.
Dealers charging 325 dollars for plug changes. Dealer charging outrageous amounts for routine maintenance in general. That, alone, deterred buyers that were not familiar with the motor even though, it is not that hard to do with just a little know-how.
Do all of you see where I am going with all this? The 8 was (I hate saying in past tense but, it is what it is) a great car that could have survived as it was an excellent, all around car. It was the little problems that added up.
Someone mentioned the S2000. It was a purpose built car from the start and, would never survive. All convertibles, high strung engines with no auto option and, expensive to ensure for the target group of people.
If only mazda would put the rotary in say..... a 2500 lb or less car with decent gearing. I still believe that mazda could make it an option for the miata but, they just changed the platform so.... no an option now.
06-29-2015, 06:51 AM
#66
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you fire or let one executive go just to place him/her in a rival company that you own stock in???
The person could not turn Ford around but, we will try to get him/her on with Mazda and let them take a whack there and pay him/her with the stock money we supply.
Now, do you see?
The person could not turn Ford around but, we will try to get him/her on with Mazda and let them take a whack there and pay him/her with the stock money we supply.
Now, do you see?
06-29-2015, 06:56 AM
#67
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rotary does still have good traits. It is light and can sit low. With another rotor, the tq 'issue' is a thing of the past or, they should have released the 16x or, something like it, years ago. Different size rotary engines are nothing new. There are many more, too.
06-29-2015, 07:03 AM
#68
Why would you fire or let one executive go just to place him/her in a rival company that you own stock in???
The person could not turn Ford around but, we will try to get him/her on with Mazda and let them take a whack there and pay him/her with the stock money we supply.
Now, do you see?
The person could not turn Ford around but, we will try to get him/her on with Mazda and let them take a whack there and pay him/her with the stock money we supply.
Now, do you see?
"Hey, we just bought 30% of Mazda, and we want to get our money's worth. Let's put one of our people in charge so they can take advantage of our resources. That should help Mazda get back on track."
And from Mazda's perspective:
"Hey, we'd rather not go out of business. Let's have a Ford guy in charge so he can take advantage of their resources."
06-29-2015, 07:04 AM
#69
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They won't let ANY engine other than a V8 with certain specs compete.
I dunno. I have no desire for more than 2 rotors, honestly.
The following is just my stream of consciousness. Not trying to tell you you're wrong; just weighing in.
If we're honest, there are only two clear advantages to a Wankel engine over a piston engine: Size and weight. Every other advantage (high RPM, simplicity, volumetric efficiency) is offset by a disadvantage (low torque, finicky wear characteristics and oil demands, thermal inefficiency). Heck, even the size and weight aren't slam-dunks because of the beefier cooling hardware needed, all of which ends up overhanging the front axle.
So, there's exactly one reason to buy a car with a rotary engine these days: because you're willing to sacrifice just about everything at the altar of better handling. More rotors means more power -- but that isn't the point of a rotary IMO. It also worsens all the bad aspects (heat, inefficiency, etc.) while sacrificing the things that ARE the point of a rotary (size and weight).
I can see it in a tuner car for SURE. It sounds awesome and is very unusual. I can also see it in a race car. I just don't see it in a production street car.
I dunno. I have no desire for more than 2 rotors, honestly.
The following is just my stream of consciousness. Not trying to tell you you're wrong; just weighing in.
If we're honest, there are only two clear advantages to a Wankel engine over a piston engine: Size and weight. Every other advantage (high RPM, simplicity, volumetric efficiency) is offset by a disadvantage (low torque, finicky wear characteristics and oil demands, thermal inefficiency). Heck, even the size and weight aren't slam-dunks because of the beefier cooling hardware needed, all of which ends up overhanging the front axle.
So, there's exactly one reason to buy a car with a rotary engine these days: because you're willing to sacrifice just about everything at the altar of better handling. More rotors means more power -- but that isn't the point of a rotary IMO. It also worsens all the bad aspects (heat, inefficiency, etc.) while sacrificing the things that ARE the point of a rotary (size and weight).
I can see it in a tuner car for SURE. It sounds awesome and is very unusual. I can also see it in a race car. I just don't see it in a production street car.
06-29-2015, 07:15 AM
#70
If memory serves, Mazda did make a test engine that was all aluminum with special ceramic based apex seals, that according to them showed no signs of wear after the equivalent of 60,000 "hard" miles. Admittedly, that engine would have been very expensive to build because the of the components and materials.
06-29-2015, 07:23 AM
#71
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or:
"Hey, we just bought 30% of Mazda, and we want to get our money's worth. Let's put one of our people in charge so they can take advantage of our resources. That should help Mazda get back on track."
And from Mazda's perspective:
"Hey, we'd rather not go out of business. Let's have a Ford guy in charge so he can take advantage of their resources."
"Hey, we just bought 30% of Mazda, and we want to get our money's worth. Let's put one of our people in charge so they can take advantage of our resources. That should help Mazda get back on track."
And from Mazda's perspective:
"Hey, we'd rather not go out of business. Let's have a Ford guy in charge so he can take advantage of their resources."
It is the same basic principle of Subaru and Fugi. Fugi can pull the plug on Subaru. Ford cannot do this with Mazda but, wants to. Mazda had a trick up their sleeve all this time, the rotary. Mazda, seriously, is up in the air now. Sky activ better work or Mazda is history in the coming decade.
Just for those out there that said something about the 'clone' cars. All major companies were doing that, as early as the late 70s. Chrysler and Mitsubishi. I cannot think, off hand who GM was in with at the time though, brain fart.
I think it was Toyota, if, I remember right.
Nascar did not used to have strict rules about motors until the 60s. When the rotary was viable enough to use, the rules were in place to keep out imports due to them not having any 'home' built v8s. They all do now but, only Toyota chose to enter. Since the rotary has several different ratings for displacement, depending on how the 'officials' want to view it, Mazda decided to not make an attempt.
Mazda could have made a variation of the 10a and did 5 liters and carbed (which it was anyway) back then and competed.
Last edited by cliffkemp; 06-29-2015 at 07:28 AM. Reason: mis-type
06-29-2015, 07:26 AM
#72
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If memory serves, Mazda did make a test engine that was all aluminum with special ceramic based apex seals, that according to them showed no signs of wear after the equivalent of 60,000 "hard" miles. Admittedly, that engine would have been very expensive to build because the of the components and materials.
06-29-2015, 07:33 AM
#73
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for every thread about there being dummy gauges, there would have been two asking if the gauge moving is normal if they weren't. the new Mazdas (and Volvos) don't even have gauges anymore.
she does look good for 12! i'm too lazy to find the pics, but mine is too, i basically haven't had to do anything at all to it in over a year, except oil changes.
i didn't weigh my current 04 GT, but i did weigh an 04 base, full tank of gas was 2950lbs, and just for reference, my 1987 Rx7 GXL was 2880. so they did a good job of making the Rx8 light, its almost 2 feet longer than the Rx7....
she does look good for 12! i'm too lazy to find the pics, but mine is too, i basically haven't had to do anything at all to it in over a year, except oil changes.
i didn't weigh my current 04 GT, but i did weigh an 04 base, full tank of gas was 2950lbs, and just for reference, my 1987 Rx7 GXL was 2880. so they did a good job of making the Rx8 light, its almost 2 feet longer than the Rx7....
There, threw that out there.
06-29-2015, 07:37 AM
#74
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you think the Rx8 is bad, don't buy an Audi, or a BMW.
the BMW's are funny, every time someone suggests a "fix" on the internet, and gets criticized because its hackey, or bad, or something, BMW has done it from the factory. for example, we are always told that narrow band o2 sensors are useless to tune with, as the output is pretty binary. BMW put the narrowband o2 signal through an amplifier, to get a 0-5v signal, and then ran that in closed loop. they also not only put a radiator cap on plastic, but go that extra step and use recycled plastic, so this means the entire cooling system basically needs to be replaced every 60k or so. i could go on (and on, and on)
the Audi is just a torture device disguised as a car.
the BMW's are funny, every time someone suggests a "fix" on the internet, and gets criticized because its hackey, or bad, or something, BMW has done it from the factory. for example, we are always told that narrow band o2 sensors are useless to tune with, as the output is pretty binary. BMW put the narrowband o2 signal through an amplifier, to get a 0-5v signal, and then ran that in closed loop. they also not only put a radiator cap on plastic, but go that extra step and use recycled plastic, so this means the entire cooling system basically needs to be replaced every 60k or so. i could go on (and on, and on)
the Audi is just a torture device disguised as a car.