Exactly.

 

 

OK guys, sorry if someone already posted these recent links and I missed them - I looked back a few pages and just saw a bunch of angry dudes arguing over RX7 Vs. RX8 and trying to personally define what a "sports car" is supposed to be, and I saw one link saying the RX7 will be back in 2017. This article is from just 2 weeks ago as of right now (Article written on Feb 14) and I didn't see it previously mentioned, I thought it might be relevant since they're basically now saying that the new RX7 will be here in 2016, or even as early as 2015 (doubt it, but we can all hope right?).

Mazda RX-7 coming in 2015 or 2016 with a new rotary engine

And a similar one on the same date here:

New Mazda RX-7 Could Get 250-Horsepower Rotary Engine



Something else encouraging that I actually just noticed - in this article: Mazda RX-7 to return in 2016: The iconic Mazda two-seat coupé is set to be reborn in 2016, powered by a 250bhp rotary engine - - They specifically said 250 "BHP," not 250 at the flywheel. Now THAT would be awesome.

And suddenly, a shimmering ray of hope shined down upon the formerly-disheartened rotary community!


[Again, sorry if someone already posted these and I just didn't see them]
.
.

 

A) BHP is measured at the flywheel, so "250bhp" means the same thing as "250 at the flywheel". There is a term for measuring at the crank rather than the flywheel, which isn't BHP, but I forget off the top of my head. I expect you are getting excited over an assumption that BHP means "at the wheels", which it does not.

B) Any article that starts with "According to this other source..." isn't actually providing anything new. Lots of articles with their own theories, and they are using the same flawed article from Autoweek as the basis. That doesn't make it true.

 

For example...from: Mazda RX-7 coming in 2015 or 2016 with a new rotary engine - report

This is the only true statement in the article.

No, details are NOT emerging, just more rumors and theories. For example:

...this is obviously not their new information.

So they don't know if the engine has 2 or 3 rotors, but yet they know that
Wait, so they don't know if it's two 600cc rotors vs three 400cc rotors? Really? Isn't that kinda major? Making a huge assumption here.

Based on...what? There is nothing to back up this claim. I think it's likely personally, but there is nothing supporting this statement.


It may be more fuel efficient, but I hope it's not more oil efficient. That would spell doom for the engine's reliability, which is rather counter productive. Shows that they don't really know anything about the engine

Wait wait wait. So they expect it to have the same weight as the RX-8? (which started at 2,850lbs for the base trim) A zero weight reduction for losing a pair of doors and shrinking by 18 some inches in length? When Mazda cut 200lbs off their 3 and is cutting 200-400lbs off their MX-5? It's a rather absurd claim when you think about it.

So this car that Mazda hasn't finalized the engine OR chassis on has to be completed WITH lots of QA testing, the factories set up for tooling, copies of the car sent to every 1st world government for crash testing and emissions testing, the entire supply chain for parts has to be built and supplied, and it still has to be shown at the Tokyo Auto Show, which usually happens 1-2 years ahead of time... and this all has to happen in the next 10 months?

Is that REALLY believable?


Not to me.

 

These videos of stock RX8s passing stock FD RX7s are meaningless unless the drivers have the exact same skills and swap cars so we can compare their times with them driving each car under the same track conditions. This argument will never be settled unless you produce THOSE videos folks. Anything else is just unproven. But I guess folks here have to have something to discuss and disagree about or the forum gets boring. lol

My experience with owning and driving both cars is different from what you show in this video. I loved my FD and I love my present RX8, but yes I wish I still had that FD in my garage to keep.

 

I was just trying to be optimistic.

Also, what is Brake Horsepower? Someone told me (apparently incorrectly) that it was at the wheels. Is Crank Horsepower CHP? and Flywheel Horsepower FHP or FWHP? Or is that Front-Wheel Horsepower? Or does that even exist? I thought RWHP was Rear-Wheel Horespower..? Now I'm just really confused... O.o

 

No problem with being optimistic, just don't let it blind you to stuff that clearly doesn't make sense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
Wheel Horsepower is abbreviated "whp". They may get additional letters based on the drivetrain configuration, like "fwhp", "rwhp", or "awhp" (front wheel horsepower, rear wheel, or all wheel respectively). Generally these labels stay lowercase, not uppercase.

Power at the crankshaft is SAE Net or SAE Certified (which just means the test is done under strict conditions to keep the manufacturer from playing with the results with special oils, fluid levels, etc...)

SAE and BHP need an engine dyno with the engine out of the car.

Wheel horsepower is what everyone uses in the aftermarket community, since pulling your engine for an engine dyno isn't really very realistic, so dyno testing is done at the wheels. It's more relevant anyway, and I personally think that auto makers should release those numbers, not the bhp or sae numbers. The AWD cars would take the biggest hit, followed by RWD cars, with FWD cars having the least power drop. But that is another discussion for elsewhere.

 

That's what we need !!!! LOL

 

or midship engine, transaxle gearboxe like real sportscars have