|
I knew Mazda's aim what they think about power and handling. I knew what power = weight ratio is.
Mazda will be build near 1200 kgs next RX with nearly we guess and hope 300 hp with naturally aspirated engine. Do you believe that engine gets more torque ? Discuss it with renesis 231 hp 212 nm i guess it makes 240-250 nm so if you want 50 th anniversary 300 hp car be happy with it. Alfa Romeo 4C One of my favorite power = weight ratio sports car Specifications Top speed 258 km/h (160 mph) 0–100 km/h (0-62 mph) 4.5 seconds Type straight-4 Displacement 1.75 L (1742cc) Power 240 PS (180 kW; 240 hp) @ 6,000 rpm Torque 350 N·m (260 lb·ft) Lateral Acceleration 1.1 g Look what i share with Alfa Romeo's 4C and the details of that car is impressive sale price 51.500 euro. Do you believe Mazda will get these numbers with 16x or not ? I wish |
"Smiles" aren't listed in your spec list, so I don't know and don't care. It isn't about the numbers for me, and it never will be.
|
How many times have they announced officially and then officially canned the next "RX-7"...
|
Originally Posted by thunderberk
(Post 4571738)
I knew Mazda's aim what they think about power and handling. I knew what power = weight ratio is.
Mazda will be build near 1200 kgs next RX with nearly we guess and hope 300 hp with naturally aspirated engine. Do you believe that engine gets more torque ? Discuss it with renesis 231 hp 212 nm i guess it makes 240-250 nm so if you want 50 th anniversary 300 hp car be happy with it. Alfa Romeo 4C One of my favorite power = weight ratio sports car Specifications Top speed 258 km/h (160 mph) 0–100 km/h (0-62 mph) 4.5 seconds Type straight-4 Displacement 1.75 L (1742cc) Power 240 PS (180 kW; 240 hp) @ 6,000 rpm Torque 350 N·m (260 lb·ft) Lateral Acceleration 1.1 g Look what i share with Alfa Romeo's 4C and the details of that car is impressive sale price 51.500 euro. Do you believe Mazda will get these numbers with 16x or not ? I wish I dare you to call up any Alfa Dealer in your country, or any of the surrounding ones, and tell them you have your 51,500 €, and that you want your 4C. Let us know how long you last before you give up trying to find one for that price that is available to buy. You can't even buy them here in the US yet, because Alfa hates Americans. BC. |
Originally Posted by red_dragon
(Post 4571798)
How many times have they announced officially and then officially canned the next "RX-7"...
|
No manual, and the worst paddle shifter in recent memory?
|
Originally Posted by Bladecutter
(Post 4572250)
Yes, the 51,500 € price sounds fantastic, but can YOU actually BUY one?
I dare you to call up any Alfa Dealer in your country, or any of the surrounding ones, and tell them you have your 51,500 €, and that you want your 4C. Let us know how long you last before you give up trying to find one for that price that is available to buy. You can't even buy them here in the US yet, because Alfa hates Americans. BC. Forgot 4C buy Lotus :worship:
Originally Posted by RIWWP
(Post 4571744)
"Smiles" aren't listed in your spec list, so I don't know and don't care. It isn't about the numbers for me, and it never will be.
Fun = Move Move = Power Power = Priceless
Originally Posted by RIWWP
(Post 4571744)
"Smiles" aren't listed in your spec list, so I don't know and don't care. It isn't about the numbers for me, and it never will be.
RX-7 isn't a cheap car in 1993 36.000 $ while e36 m3 28.000 $ so don't wait cheap sports car from Mazda. In my opinion for 10 years RX-8 sales are great numbers enough for a Rotary sports coupe. Now they need challenger sports car. Lightweight, Powerful, Tuneable. 16X able to get 300 hp but Naturally Aspirated Renesis Engine will be same as 13B MSP low end power figures and high revving engine. They need decrease the peak power 6-7.000 rpm's 10.000 rpms sounds good but when you are driving your ride your rivals behind on you and you feel you are the boss or winner but it is not the reality when your powerband comes @high rpms If they know their pros & cons 13B MSP engine and RX-8 is a great example of that. Please Mazda listen to me give that car Supercharger and give more Rotary enthusiast Respect for their rivals. |
Your "logic" confounds me.
|
Originally Posted by thunderberk
(Post 4572379)
Smiles = Fun
Fun = Move Move = Power Power = Priceless |
Originally Posted by thunderberk
(Post 4572379)
Smiles = Fun
Fun = Move Move = Power Power = Priceless |
I understand smiles = priceless, but I don't see that anywhere without taking a huge leap of faith over the confounding equations.
|
Ok just do this every one that believes all the hype and roomers hold your breath till all is fact. Personally I'm not holding my breath I'm just enjoying moding and driving my 8 like you all should do. Just remember "be careful of what you wish for you might just get it"
|
Originally Posted by thunderberk
(Post 4572379)
Smiles = Fun
Fun = Move Move = Power Power = Priceless
Originally Posted by thunderberk
(Post 4572379)
low end power figures and high revving engine. They need decrease the peak power 6-7.000 rpm's 10.000 rpms sounds good but when you are driving your ride your rivals behind on you and you feel you are the boss or winner but it is not the reality when your powerband comes @high rpms
It doesn't matter, because the rotary is deader than 2Pac and Michael Jackson combined. Power output requirements have gone up along with the stringent emissions standards. This will continue to get more pronounced. The very nature of a rotary engine requires higher concentration of fuel to fill the combustion area, and subsequent ejection of unburned fuel. Bad for both economy and emissions. Add to that the hysterically poor reliability figures Mazda had with the RX-7 and RX-8 means any perceived "marque halo car" value would be buried under a storm of warranty fixes. The only possible way I could see them using a rotary engine is as an engine option for the MX-5, given the chassis could easily support it, the transmission could be re-used, and the low curb weight would let them run a NA engine which would help with reliability and cost. If they slapped a hardtop on the new MX-5, and ~300 bhp NA rotary it would be a little rocket. It also saves them huge money by re-using the bulk of the platform. Will Mazda ever do this? Probably not... so until Hell freezes over or you see an actual RX-7 in dealer showrooms, I wouldn't get all that worked up about these bullshit press releases. |
Originally Posted by RIWWP
(Post 4572391)
Your "logic" confounds me.
Originally Posted by dynamho
(Post 4572451)
You lost me at 'Fun = Move'.
Originally Posted by blackenedwings
(Post 4572561)
I suspect that your "math" here is not a universal formula. I personally agree that any new sports car should have competitive power/weight to its rivals, but if you think a new rotary would pick the Supra, NSX, or GT-R as rivals I think you are delusional.
For starters, I could barely read this, so I'm assuming English is not your first language. Secondly, peak power is far less important than area under the curve. If you want a big lazy V8, they sell plenty of them. The whole benefit of the rotary is that it is lightweight and can spin at high rpms. It doesn't matter, because the rotary is deader than 2Pac and Michael Jackson combined. Power output requirements have gone up along with the stringent emissions standards. This will continue to get more pronounced. The very nature of a rotary engine requires higher concentration of fuel to fill the combustion area, and subsequent ejection of unburned fuel. Bad for both economy and emissions. Add to that the hysterically poor reliability figures Mazda had with the RX-7 and RX-8 means any perceived "marque halo car" value would be buried under a storm of warranty fixes. The only possible way I could see them using a rotary engine is as an engine option for the MX-5, given the chassis could easily support it, the transmission could be re-used, and the low curb weight would let them run a NA engine which would help with reliability and cost. If they slapped a hardtop on the new MX-5, and ~300 bhp NA rotary it would be a little rocket. It also saves them huge money by re-using the bulk of the platform. Will Mazda ever do this? Probably not... so until Hell freezes over or you see an actual RX-7 in dealer showrooms, I wouldn't get all that worked up about these bullshit press releases. So if i were Mazda if they are going to produce 300 hp sports car give it RX-8 name again because of RENESIS powerplant maybe 4 seater version etc. Maybe like what Nissan has shown Datsun Concept maybe retro RX3 why don't. |
Originally Posted by thunderberk
(Post 4572573)
I don't know why but your comments always argue with me why ? As i understand old posts on this thread you don't give any thesis of your ideas, you always don't like what ever i said just Relax..
Trust me. If I park an RX-8 between a Ford Pinto, a Prius, a GTR, and a Veyron, I can guarantee you that not a single one of those other cars has one single opinion about the RX-8. They won't hate it, they won't love it, they won't feel belligerent, etc... No car will have it's feelings hurt by a lack of competition. If the next rotary "competes" with cars like the GTR, it isn't the cars, it's the people driving the cars that are doing the competing, and they are only competing with ego's that require flattery from other people in order to "win". It's rather lame. Trust me, if the next rotary is 150hp, I'd probably still get it, and who cares that it "lost" to a GTR? Not me. Only someone that wants to yell "look at me! I'm rich!" will care. Feel free to look down your nose at me then, I won't notice. |
It's not about power for me either. MX-5 isn't powerful and it's the single most popular sports car ever produced. And the things that make the rotary engine so pleasurable can't be measured in numbers.
|
Originally Posted by RIWWP
(Post 4572595)
I am relaxed. I just completely disagree with your statements and "demands" to Mazda, and I have no problem saying so. I have presented solid reasons why consistently, if this is what you mean by a "thesis". On the other hand, your reasoning is entirely based around a belief that power is the only thing that matters and a belief that the next rotary cares what other cars think about it.
Trust me. If I park an RX-8 between a Ford Pinto, a Prius, a GTR, and a Veyron, I can guarantee you that not a single one of those other cars has one single opinion about the RX-8. They won't hate it, they won't love it, they won't feel belligerent, etc... No car will have it's feelings hurt by a lack of competition. If the next rotary "competes" with cars like the GTR, it isn't the cars, it's the people driving the cars that are doing the competing, and they are only competing with ego's that require flattery from other people in order to "win". It's rather lame. Trust me, if the next rotary is 150hp, I'd probably still get it, and who cares that it "lost" to a GTR? Not me. Only someone that wants to yell "look at me! I'm rich!" will care. Feel free to look down your nose at me then, I won't notice. For many years RX-8 owners, fans grumbling for more power +50 hp making RX-8 may give respect to it many years many people hate it because low power.. Why do you act like a norrow minder ? Calculate above what i shared 895 kg 240 hp Alfa 4c 0-100 4.5 seconds the other details writtend 1 page ago.. Calculate your 1200 kg 300 hp sports car 0-100 or the other details it is not enough for a RX-7 do you understand me yes power or other upgraded parts costs and equals on sale price. RX-7 never be cheap 1993 36.000 $ E36 m3 28.000 $ Then don't wait cheap RX-7 if it will be RX-3 or RX-5 or RX-8 it can be 300 hp and 1200 kgs i hope do you understand what i am wrting about all of my words are clear enough. Thanks. |
You are suggesting a competitor to a $70,000-$90,000 car. I don't think $40,000 is considered "cheap", which is where another RX-7 is likely to land.
The 0-60, 0-100, the calculated power to weight.... they don't mean anything to me. I also reject the "Requirement" that a future RX-7 needs to have the power numbers that you keep quoting. It doesn't need the power "to make sales", it doesn't need the power "because of it's past", it doesn't need the power "to compete with GTRs". The last RX-7 was...252hp when it was released in 1993? Where does that mean that the next one needs to have 500-600hp? It doesn't. Sure you want the power. So buy it as it is and add more power?
Mazda has no reason to try to produce a car with the power levels you talk about. No reason at all. |
I seriously doubt there will be a successor. The RX8 came out just before gas prices tripled and there's no way to make a rotary get better mileage. Everyone--who didn't buy an 8-- say they would have if it just had another 40-50 horse. But if it did it would get 13 mpg. You OK with that? Didn't think so. And the last decade of internet has soured too many people on reliability. And really, life's too short to drive the same model of car again. As much as I love my 8, I will be moving on soon. Not holding my breath for the new Miata to have a properly placed gas pedal or enough headroom though. The new WRX looks tempting..
|
Originally Posted by Beefy98
(Post 4572741)
and there's no way to make a rotary get better mileage.
At the engine: - move to an all aluminum engine to improve how much energy is wasted from differing iron vs aluminum expansion rates that causes sealing problems - they already talked about having found a way to have significantly better sealing for the seals through the entire rotation - The 13b's rotors are too wide, the combustion doesn't actually reach the rotor corners wasting a fair amount every combustion. A narrowed rotor (such as the 16X configuration) solves this - improving the low end torque typically translates into better mileage since peak torque is also peak engine efficiency. The 16x design should have significantly more torque from several different factors (longer stroke, more leverage, more effective combustion, etc...) - Igniting a combustion chamber accurately and consistently while it is changing dimension dynamically has efficiency problems. Laser ignition can overcome this and Mazda has been pursuing this - Improving the vehicle aerodynamics will improve gas mileage - much higher compression (they figured out a ton from the SkyActive piston engines that can be applied here) - Variable intake/exhaust port timing (The RX-8 only has a very minor degree of this, and it could be expanded) At the car: - Dropping 700lbs off the weight of the RX-8 (RX-8 to Miata weights) - Improving aerodynamics - reducing drivetrain drag - e-loop and/or other energy recapture technology (like this?) ...and that doesn't take into account whatever else the crazy guys in the basement at Mazda R+D are working on/figuring out. Don't put blinders on and state that it isn't possible. :) |
I just realized another reason I wouldn't want it to be called an "RX-7". I don't want RX7Club.com to be the primary forum for it. :lol:
|
Mod edit:
You acknowledge it's off topic, but post it anyway? I believe there is a thread around here about it, feel free to post that there. -RIWWP |
Originally Posted by RIWWP
(Post 4572747)
I just realized another reason I wouldn't want it to be called an "RX-7". I don't want RX7Club.com to be the primary forum for it. :lol:
Doesn't matter... There won't be a another rotary. :sad: . |
Originally Posted by RIWWP
(Post 4572697)
You are suggesting a competitor to a $70,000-$90,000 car. I don't think $40,000 is considered "cheap", which is where another RX-7 is likely to land.
The 0-60, 0-100, the calculated power to weight.... they don't mean anything to me. I also reject the "Requirement" that a future RX-7 needs to have the power numbers that you keep quoting. It doesn't need the power "to make sales", it doesn't need the power "because of it's past", it doesn't need the power "to compete with GTRs". The last RX-7 was...252hp when it was released in 1993? Where does that mean that the next one needs to have 500-600hp? It doesn't. Sure you want the power. So buy it as it is and add more power?
Mazda has no reason to try to produce a car with the power levels you talk about. No reason at all. I don't mean $40,000 sports car is cheap but i mean price = performance equality for sports car it must be challanger with its JDM rivals. 252 hp when it released after years it has 280 hp don't forget it is not naturally aspirated engine if fd rx-7 has n/a engine it wouldn't be like now. It has torque do you understand me ? It is behind is open for tuning and aftermarket parts. Now 16X engine we are talking and it will be or must be 300 hp but it is naturally apirated engine it needs torque if it will be 1200 kg's it is not different as RX-8 for performance wise. 1200 kg isn't enough for 300 hp RX-7 if it will be 1000-1100 kg 300 hp yes it will be orgasm machine both their rivals power = weight ratio. As you can see many samples of RX-8 p port 300 hp set up's like pan speeds old set up 8 it is nearly 1100-1200 kg and it has sequential transmission etc and in circuit you can easily with fd's it is 1 more foot behind them lots of modification. Why i am writing these bacause of this 1200 kg 300 hp looking view not enough yes not enough. If it will be RX-7 yes it needs better transmission forget manual one now we are in 2010+ years what manual are we talking about if they can't have ability or new inventions about rotary it must be dual clutch transmission etc. Do you understand me bro ? What i mean if you want another RX-8 version i don't write to you about this looking view i mean they need new legend new sports car for future and rotary. Thanks. |
I understand you, and I completely disagree.
I used the original 252hp number because that was the power at release... vs a new engine at release. The 280 was slowly climbing iterations over the years, the same as might happen for a new RX-7. Compare start to start. "Must" have a double clutch transmission? Nonsense. Complete nonsense. Another thing that would drive the price way higher than it needs to be, when a simple manual is so much more enjoyable, and joy is Mazda's target, not speed. I've driven a stock FD with completely refurbished engine and stock twin turbos, and I've driven an FD with a big turbo and 400+whp. After driving those, I crossed the FD off my list of cars I'd ever get. They look beautiful, but I would prefer the N/A high compression RX-8 engine in every single driving environment I face. Whether cruising on the highway, back road fun, canyon carving, track, autocross, etc... The FD is inferior to the RX-8 in my opinion. I have zero desire to return to that and it doesn't matter how many "musts" you throw out, I reject all of them. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands