When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
You're right. It really isn't that hard - I think you took me out of context. No one said drop a new engine in an Rx and call it an Rx. My point is that the total looks and handling package of the car are so great, and it's obvious there won't be another for a loooong time if ever - in such case, I'd rather have an Rx8 with a i4 or a V6 than not at all. Heck, call it a pinto or a Cheeto puff for all I care.
Have you looked at a Mazda 6? It's a 4 door sedan with good handling and an I4. It even had a turbo I4 for a couple years, and a V6 for a while. I doubt Mazda would make a 2nd competitor to it.
Originally Posted by wankelbolt
Are you f'ing kidding me? (and who said anything about "top performance"?)
Let's see, Mazda game-changing sports-cars:
1. Cosmo
2. RX-3
3. RX-7
5. Miata
6. RX-7
This is humorous. You said the ND would be a game changer with more power. And then claim that some of the lowest powered cars Mazda produced were the game changers. I agree with this latter claim, but your argument is inconsistent.
Edit:
To phrase it differently, you essentially said:
"155hp is great, but not a game changer. 167hp would be a game changer, just like the 100hp one was."
Just imagine how much quicker it would be if they'd kept the same horsepower. Then it would be a real game-changer.
It's fantastic as it is, but not a game-changer.
But now we get the rare opportunity to see if Mazda is right, or if the ND really would be better with more horsepower. So long as the Fiata isn't stupidly overpriced (come on, it's a Fiat not an Alpha!), there will be a Miata with more power to compete with the "base" Miata.
Unfortunately the deal probably includes a requirement that the Fiata price be sufficiently higher than the MX-5 to limit competition.
It doesn't need to be a game-changer, which it IS the game.
This is humorous. You said the ND would be a game changer with more power. And then claim that some of the lowest powered cars Mazda produced were the game changers. I agree with this latter claim, but your argument is inconsistent.
Reading comprehension fail.
Where did I say that only power made a car a game changer? I didn't.
You pulled that assumption out of your keister.
Each of those cars was a game-changer. The low-powered FB certainly was a game-changer as was the first Miata. The FD was a game-changer not only because it was beautiful and a handling demon, but because it brought significant power to RX-7 line. The RX-8 changed the game because it brought true sports-car performance to the 4-door, 4-seat sedan, not because it was powerful.
The ND is not a game-changer because it's just another lightweight, beautiful, brilliantly-handling Miata. More of the same. Doing something not done before is what would make it a game-changer. A Miata with significant horsepower would do that. If they made it weigh 1500 lb, that would be a game-changer too. Or if they made it stick to walls. Or, say, with a diesel that was actually clean. Or fold up into a matchbox.
Comprende?
P.S. You still haven't explained how the high-horsepower, not-that-light MS3 fits into what you apparently think is Mazda's "culture".
Have you looked at a Mazda 6? It's a 4 door sedan with good handling and an I4. It even had a turbo I4 for a couple years, and a V6 for a while. I doubt Mazda would make a 2nd competitor to it.
This is humorous. You said the ND would be a game changer with more power. And then claim that some of the lowest powered cars Mazda produced were the game changers. I agree with this latter claim, but your argument is inconsistent.
Edit:
To phrase it differently, you essentially said:
"155hp is great, but not a game changer. 167hp would be a game changer, just like the 100hp one was."
I doubt they would either, but that doesn't mean we can't dream..and talk about it. Haha
1. Of course they could make it lighter, but not smaller. The 8 was is the perfect size. You're not going to make it 3-400 lbs lighter unless you make it really small or are using expensive materials like carbon fiber. The 8 was already light for it's time. You make it sound like it was a dodge charger. it was already the lightest sport coupe of it's time
2. Again, i don't mind lighter weight. It's smaller packaging. Don't micro size the car just cause you can't get the power or performance you want. Give me the same size at 200 lbs lighter with 250 hp and I'd be happy.
3. I believe the whole reason for the 16X was for not just better mileage, but more power. To say that Mazda didn't want more power out of the renesis is inaccurate, hell, they lied about the horsepower from the beginning.
4. I've sat in the BRZ, twice. It's not comfortable at all. At the time I still had my 8. My 8 was cavernous in comparison. I'm too old to be contorting myself into a car every day. All of those other cars were 2 seaters. If you take the back seats out of the 8 you can definitely make it smaller. Again, I say what makes the 8 special is the back seats. I used to take my son camping with the boy scouts in my RX8. That's not going to happen in a Miata, ND, BRZ etc.
5. To say that mileage is and wasn't a problem for the 8 is ridiculous. You can get hi power v8s with much better mileage. It affected mazda's corporate fuel rating, not for the good.
1. Of course they could make it lighter, but not smaller. The 8 was is the perfect size. You're not going to make it 3-400 lbs lighter unless you make it really small or are using expensive materials like carbon fiber. The 8 was already light for it's time. You make it sound like it was a dodge charger. it was already the lightest sport coupe of it's time
The 8 is still light compared to American sports cars yes. Moderate to heavy compared to many others, and far too heavy for it's engine.
The ND is ~200lbs light than the NC, or about 8%. 8% on an RX-8 would be 240lbs. It wouldn't take much of a chassis shrinking at all to get another 60lb reduction. So no, it doesn't have to be really small. If it WAS really small, we would be looking at more like a 700-800lb reduction (of which I would approve, but I know not everyone would).
Mazda will pursue and accomplish a weight reduction over the RX-8. How much depends on how small they want to go. If they return to a 2-door coupe that the RX-7 came from, then it could be significantly smaller and significantly lighter. They may or may not do that.
Originally Posted by TALAN7
3. I believe the whole reason for the 16X was for not just better mileage, but more power. To say that Mazda didn't want more power out of the renesis is inaccurate, hell, they lied about the horsepower from the beginning.
The final statement isn't a follow on to the former. And the 16X was solving for a whole lot of problems, but power actually wasn't one of them. Torque was. And yes, the distinction matters here. Greater eccentricity means more torque, but it also means more mass moving at a more stressful angle, which means RPMs weren't going to be able to remain as high. Without nearly as high RPM, that extra torque won't mean a peak power increase. In fact, this precisely follows the NC vs ND 2.0L development. They got a whole lot more torque down low (~30% more), enough to make the car significantly faster. But peak power is lower. I expect something very similar out of the next rotary. More torque, faster, but less peak power.
The rest of the reasons for the 16X also contribute to power improvement on a smaller scale, largely in that better sealing, more complete burn, and greater thermal efficiency all mean extracting more energy from the fuel charge ... which means better mileage and emissions when not on the loud pedal, and better power when you are.
Originally Posted by TALAN7
4. I've sat in the BRZ, twice. It's not comfortable at all. At the time I still had my 8. My 8 was cavernous in comparison. I'm too old to be contorting myself into a car every day. All of those other cars were 2 seaters. If you take the back seats out of the 8 you can definitely make it smaller. Again, I say what makes the 8 special is the back seats. I used to take my son camping with the boy scouts in my RX8. That's not going to happen in a Miata, ND, BRZ etc.
I didn't fit the BRZ's side bolsters, so no, it wasn't comfortable for me either. But it had nothing to do with the size of the driver's space. I had plenty of arm, leg, head room. 6ft 1, ~180 at the time. Just the side bolsters made contact with my flanks at an uncomfortable angle.
Yes, I can see the desire for back seats. While I don't see that happening with the next rotary, I do see plenty of other good handling sports sedans with great mileage and good reliability and acceptable power that do have them, and will continue to have them. There is no risk of the sports sedan disappearing. The number of light well handling sports cars is far lower, and that is what I advocate.
Originally Posted by TALAN7
5. To say that mileage is and wasn't a problem for the 8 is ridiculous. You can get hi power v8s with much better mileage. It affected mazda's corporate fuel rating, not for the good.
Shrug. Mileage isn't a problem for the RX-8. Owner perception of mileage is a problem. Owner perception that mileage is mileage is mileage, without acknowledging their responsibility for what that mileage is is the problem.
My lowest mileage was 9mpg .. from a parts failure. The only time I got lower than 15mpg I was either romping on the gas pedal constantly or I had a parts failure. I got 18-19mpg just enjoying the engine and revs. I got 20-22 every time I settled down into a cruise and didn't bother paying attention to mileage. I got 23-24mpg every time I was cruising and focused on mileage. I even got 27mpg 3 tanks in a row hypermilling the hell out of the RX-8 (and it was boring as hell, not worth it).
That was all before I sold my RX-8.
I bought it back 2 years later, and my first gas tank leaving Seattle for the drive back to PA was 22mpg.
My MSM has an even bigger swing. The lowest it's seen is 7mpg, the highest 36. I often get 20-22 having fun. I often get 27-28 cruising.
S2000. It's mileage is similar to the RX-8. 350Z is only faintly better. Most sports cars are in similar ranges. Most trucks are way worse. Many vans are worse. Yes, there are V8s like in the corvette that get much better mileage, but for reasons that can not, and will not, transfer to other engines. It's easy to get good mileage out of an engine when it has enough idle torque to keep the car rolling at highway speed in top gear, and is geared to do just that. In theory, a rotary putting out that much torque at idle would have similarly good mileage, but it's almost scary to think about how big the engine would be to do that.
No, mileage isn't a problem for the RX-8. Owner perception of mileage is the problem.
Make another Furai, mid engined 16X based NA 3 rotor, throw a couple electric motors front and back to make an even 1000bhp, keep the weight at or under 3000 lbs and go fight McLaren, Ferrari and Porsche!
But keep the price under $70k... (destroy Hellcats, Shelbys, Corvettes and Vipers! Bwahaha)
I have an actual question to you guys who actually know people at the various Mazda levels.
Is there anyone in the entire Mazda organization we can write to about what our desires are from a Mazda enthusiasts angle, who would actually read it?
I'd love to just write a letter to someone, and know that they were the best person to get words in front of. Maybe if a few of us started a small letter writing campaign, maybe something will fall out of that Mazda Tree-o-Surprises for us.
Make another Furai, mid engined 16X based NA 3 rotor, throw a couple electric motors front and back to make an even 1000bhp, keep the weight at or under 3000 lbs and go fight McLaren, Ferrari and Porsche!
But keep the price under $70k... (destroy Hellcats, Shelbys, Corvettes and Vipers! Bwahaha)
I have an actual question to you guys who actually know people at the various Mazda levels.
Is there anyone in the entire Mazda organization we can write to about what our desires are from a Mazda enthusiasts angle, who would actually read it?
I'd love to just write a letter to someone, and know that they were the best person to get words in front of. Maybe if a few of us started a small letter writing campaign, maybe something will fall out of that Mazda Tree-o-Surprises for us.
BC.
I don't have any contacts, however I've talked with Jon Doonan several times at racetracks around the country. Most of the people that make up the corporate structure of Mazda are enthusiasts too. I remember seeing a while back a run down of quite a few of them listing out their rotary cars, Miatas, who tracks, who races, who autocrosses. It was most of them. It's one of the quiet angles that many outsiders don't really expect, but has a heavy influence on the company decisions.
"Emissions and fuel economy haven't exactly been areas of strength for past rotary power plants, but absolutely no one with a soul has ever cared." - Autoweek
Problem is the RX-8 was bought by a lot of soulless people who wanted it as a sporty daily-driver sedan alternative, which is what it was marketed as. Mazda wanted - nay needed - the car to appeal to a broad audience outside the traditional "real" sports car buyer. These people weren't familiar with the rotary's quirks and started getting 16-17-18 MPG and were not pleased. That MPG is not perception, it's reality. Competitive (in the minds of these buyers) contemporary sporty sedans got much better mileage.
But yes, for people who know what the RX-8 is actually all about, MPG doesn't mean dick. My worst economy is 7 MPG and it always happens on the best day ever - at the track! Lifetime MPG excluding track is 18.5, on-track average is 8.2.
What's really interesting to me is Brits bought just as many RX-8's as the entire USA! 100,000 bad-mileage RX-8s in a country with $5/gallon gasoline! I don't know if they just really appreciate a great sports car (long history there), or if Jeremy Clarkson's "best car I've driven this year" Top Gear review sold it, or likely both.
BTW the full quote from that November 2012 Autoweek article:
Mazda is keeping the rotary power scene alive. At least that's what we hear from The Motor Report. They're reporting that Mazda's program manager for the MX-5 has confirmed that a new, rotary-powered RX-7 is slated for 2017. Emissions and fuel economy haven't exactly been areas of strength for past rotary power plants, but absolutely no one with a soul has ever cared.
Prescient?
If it's true, a sizeable portion of the Free World will lose it's fracking mind. Myself included.
Last edited by wankelbolt; 09-29-2015 at 09:57 PM.
"The design of the sports car concept to be unveiled in Tokyo is modern but maintains a sense of lineage and authenticity, appearing almost to condense Mazda's entire history of sports car development into a single model."
09-29-2015, 11:53 AM
(and who said anything about "top performance"?)
You said the ND would be a game changer with more power. And then claim that some of the lowest powered cars Mazda produced were the game changers. I agree with this latter claim, but your argument is inconsistent.
