Mazda CEO officially rules out RX rebirth- again
11-18-2013, 10:46 AM
#26
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
We engineers.....OK....laugh!...dont give up your day job, OK...
"Shameful"...OK...you should be the one saying that hey..
"Shameful"...OK...you should be the one saying that hey..
11-18-2013, 10:48 AM
#28
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
The new CEO doesn't seem as "fun friendly" as prior CEOs.
But as I've said before, until they actually disassemble the rotary engineering lab and fire / transfer the rotary engineers, they aren't actually done with it, and something could easily be found in the future. This doesn't mean that I think it's around the corner, but until they make a definitive statement of action by disolving their rotary research completely then the hope still exists that the nut-cases can figure out a way to make it happen. It doesn't surprise me that a CEO that started in accounting would insist on figures like that, and no, I don't think they are easily attainable. But 14:1 compression ratio on pump gas wasn't supposed to be possible either, and they did it.
I'll never bet against someone at Mazda doing something that the rest of the world thinks is impossible or even impractical. It's a losing bet.
But as I've said before, until they actually disassemble the rotary engineering lab and fire / transfer the rotary engineers, they aren't actually done with it, and something could easily be found in the future. This doesn't mean that I think it's around the corner, but until they make a definitive statement of action by disolving their rotary research completely then the hope still exists that the nut-cases can figure out a way to make it happen. It doesn't surprise me that a CEO that started in accounting would insist on figures like that, and no, I don't think they are easily attainable. But 14:1 compression ratio on pump gas wasn't supposed to be possible either, and they did it.
I'll never bet against someone at Mazda doing something that the rest of the world thinks is impossible or even impractical. It's a losing bet.
11-18-2013, 10:53 AM
#30
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
The current direction doesn't really tell me anything but "not right now". A reversal of direction is always possible. The current guy won't always be the CEO.
11-18-2013, 10:57 AM
#31
I recall reading the development of the Renny was taken on by a handfull of engineers after hours on their own time . . . so I am with Paimon on this (guess we engineers think alike). They will continue to develop it and if they start turning profits for several consecutive years as it looks like they will, there will be another rotary. Having a smaller R&D budget than the big Japanese 3 means they ahve less R&D budget, it is being used right now to finish the Skyactive line of vehicles, then the next Miata. Once these have all been released and if then continue their success, we will see some MazdaSpeed versions, then if those do well there will be budget enough to develop the next rotary. I think it all really depends on how the 3, 6, 5 and 7 do in sales. If they have several profitable qrtrs and a couple profitable years, we will see one sooner.
11-18-2013, 11:43 AM
#32
11-18-2013, 01:05 PM
#35
Registered
Not the most reliable source, but here it is.
Two or three years' worth of Mazda 3 production total more cars than the whole Mx-5 production run of more than 20 years.
Indeed, even if we take into account the Alfa partnership, using the reasoning in that article (100000 units annually) the MX-5 program should be dead also. And it isn't.
Halo cars are rarely profitable. Their commercial purpose is a form of "driving advertisement", and in that sense a new RX-7 may even generate 100000 sales per year... of other Mazda models. And that's perfectly fine for Mazda.
An Rx built on a lengthened Mx-5 chassis, also, cannot be that expensive. You reuse a lot of the engineering that went into the chassis and you can use a lot of components borrowed from other models (even if the finished product looks completely different). And that keeps costs down.
Add to this the good current financial situation for Mazda and, as others have said, the enthusiasm that many inside Mazda have for the rotary.
All of this to say that I'm optimist and think that, just like paimon.soror said, it's much easier (and safer) for them to say "no" now and then come with a surprise announcement to say "yes" than it is to say "yes" and then have to come back later to say "sorry, we can't".
Andrea.
Two or three years' worth of Mazda 3 production total more cars than the whole Mx-5 production run of more than 20 years.
Indeed, even if we take into account the Alfa partnership, using the reasoning in that article (100000 units annually) the MX-5 program should be dead also. And it isn't.
Halo cars are rarely profitable. Their commercial purpose is a form of "driving advertisement", and in that sense a new RX-7 may even generate 100000 sales per year... of other Mazda models. And that's perfectly fine for Mazda.
An Rx built on a lengthened Mx-5 chassis, also, cannot be that expensive. You reuse a lot of the engineering that went into the chassis and you can use a lot of components borrowed from other models (even if the finished product looks completely different). And that keeps costs down.
Add to this the good current financial situation for Mazda and, as others have said, the enthusiasm that many inside Mazda have for the rotary.
All of this to say that I'm optimist and think that, just like paimon.soror said, it's much easier (and safer) for them to say "no" now and then come with a surprise announcement to say "yes" than it is to say "yes" and then have to come back later to say "sorry, we can't".
Andrea.
11-18-2013, 01:12 PM
#38
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
Don't get too hung up on the "model" production numbers, considering the statement is referring to the engine. If you totalled up how many MZR 2.0L engines vs MZR 2.3L engines vs SA-G 2.0L engines, etc... then you are comparing apples to apples. Yes, most rotaries only have 1 model that they are in, but I expect that to change if it comes back. I would expect it in more than 1 model, possibly even as alternate engines in existing models (the 6, the 3, and the MX-5 are all viable in theory)
11-18-2013, 01:56 PM
#39
Don't get too hung up on the "model" production numbers, considering the statement is referring to the engine. If you totalled up how many MZR 2.0L engines vs MZR 2.3L engines vs SA-G 2.0L engines, etc... then you are comparing apples to apples. Yes, most rotaries only have 1 model that they are in, but I expect that to change if it comes back. I would expect it in more than 1 model, possibly even as alternate engines in existing models (the 6, the 3, and the MX-5 are all viable in theory)
Would be a smart idea, and all they would need is different PPF or motor mount configuration to pull it off. Space wouldn't be the issue. Could make them limited production, or by order only, but make it an option either way.
I bet a rotary MX5 would sell pretty damn well.
11-18-2013, 02:26 PM
#41
Registered
I just realized this: Masamichi Kogai (the original source of that article) is the CEO of Mazda, but Takashi Yamanouchi is the Chairman. And he is very enthusiast about the rotary, as far as I know.
It looks like we still have some friends up there
Andrea.
It looks like we still have some friends up there
Andrea.
11-18-2013, 02:55 PM
#42
Registered
I don't think I've seen such a high sales number for justification of halo car production.
The benefits of a halo car production are the stuff of marketing black magic.
I simply read this to mean that Mazda cannot do this now. That to do this now, Mazda needs to sell 100k/year. But who knows? There might come a time when Mazda can afford a loss to strengthen its identity.
The benefits of a halo car production are the stuff of marketing black magic.
I simply read this to mean that Mazda cannot do this now. That to do this now, Mazda needs to sell 100k/year. But who knows? There might come a time when Mazda can afford a loss to strengthen its identity.
11-18-2013, 03:00 PM
#43
It always has to do with profitability of the company, Mazda has been posting losses quarter after quarter (as most car companies have been) until recently. Once the company has posted a few qrtrs of profitability and all the mainstream models are out making money, there will time and money for further RX research and development. If putting the next one on a stretched MX-5 platform is true, then the only thing they really have to work through is the power train development which is less costly than an entire car so that is even better for us. I am sure they do not want to deal with another rotary quality issue like with the early 8's and have to issue full engine replacement and further tarnish the rotary brand. Basically, when there is money to produce a money losing halo car, they will most likely produce one.
11-18-2013, 03:07 PM
#44
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
They don't even have to lose money on them. If they did a one off production run of say 1,000 NC MX-5s with a Renesis2 installed instead of the 2.0L, they could probably have sold them at ~$45k on special order only. That price wouldn't stick if it was a 5,000+ run, there wouldn't be enough people willing to pony up the money. But I bet there is 1,000 people out there that have the means and the motivation to buy such a car. Pretty much anyone that isn't rotary paranoid in the MX-5 community that would love another 60whp with a huge powerband, and anyone in the RX-8 community that loves the engine, wants to shed 600lbs, and doesn't needs the back seats/doors.
Just an example, and there are probably emissions and crash testing implications/costs that kept that from being viable.
Small run production cars are entirely viable to be profitable, at the right price point. Just the rotary has to be more main stream for people consider it a success, and mainstream means pricing it a lot lower, and that is the challenge.
Just an example, and there are probably emissions and crash testing implications/costs that kept that from being viable.
Small run production cars are entirely viable to be profitable, at the right price point. Just the rotary has to be more main stream for people consider it a success, and mainstream means pricing it a lot lower, and that is the challenge.
11-18-2013, 03:14 PM
#45
Small run production cars aren't viable if you have to use a production line to make 1000 of them when the same line could produce 3\4\5000 cars in the same time. Including downtime of course (re-program the line, retooling etc).
11-18-2013, 03:27 PM
#46
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
My point wasn't "how best to maximize profits during production run", so that statement doesn't refute my point. At the right price point, they could still turn a profit on a limited production run. Including any retooling, down time, etc...
11-18-2013, 03:31 PM
#47
Sure but they have to maximize profits, not just make profits.
Using an old, abandoned platform (NC\FE) to produce 1000 more cars that nobody really wants isn't the way to go when you have to come out with new models soon. Such cars would have to pass their crash tests, emission tests and whatever other beaurocratic bullshit each and every govt. comes up with.
They should have done it for an anniversary, screw the cosworth built miata!
Using an old, abandoned platform (NC\FE) to produce 1000 more cars that nobody really wants isn't the way to go when you have to come out with new models soon. Such cars would have to pass their crash tests, emission tests and whatever other beaurocratic bullshit each and every govt. comes up with.
They should have done it for an anniversary, screw the cosworth built miata!
11-18-2013, 03:41 PM
#48
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
You have the wrong context here. No sports car, much less a halo car, will ever be made to "maximize profits". Ever.
You maximize profits by low cost efficient commuter cars that the masses buy which are then loaded with cheap features that can drive the price up to double base. Any sports car will either have a profit or not, but the inherent nature of them will never let the company maximize profits from a given assembly line if the model is left as a choice.
My point was simply that they could make such a car, and they could make it at a profit. The rest of the SkyActive line is what is working on those maximized profits. Eventually it will mean that there is enough play money left for our niche.
You maximize profits by low cost efficient commuter cars that the masses buy which are then loaded with cheap features that can drive the price up to double base. Any sports car will either have a profit or not, but the inherent nature of them will never let the company maximize profits from a given assembly line if the model is left as a choice.
My point was simply that they could make such a car, and they could make it at a profit. The rest of the SkyActive line is what is working on those maximized profits. Eventually it will mean that there is enough play money left for our niche.
11-18-2013, 03:47 PM
#49
A halo car makes a brand more visible. Think GT86 or GT-R. Unnecessary cars that made hordes of people look into a brand.
A rotary miata would only be a wishful present from Mazda to its customers... and Mazda doesn't give a flying **** about its customers, at least in europe.
A rotary miata would only be a wishful present from Mazda to its customers... and Mazda doesn't give a flying **** about its customers, at least in europe.
