|
Originally Posted by ASH8
(Post 4740639)
Seeing this is a RE forum I just thought I would 'quickly' pass on a discussion I had with a couple yesterday as I was leaving an auto parts store, there was parked a current shinny new Mazda CX-5 (2.5) in Soul Red, the owners were a little older than me.
The windows were down so I could not resist complementing on the car, anyway, we started talking 'Mazda' and what we had owned, I was asked what I had (MX-5, RX-8). The guy then said, oh one of those oil and gas guzzlers, I was instantly offended and abruptly said with a smile that all Rotaries ever made consumes engine oil for internal lubrication, it is not a defect..he said nothing back and we moved on...20 minutes later I walked away ;) My point is (unfortunately) the perception is still there and always will be, and any new 'Vision' if it ever happens will Only ever be an enthusiasts car (guys like us), and that is the current conundrum, even IF Mazda can 'technically' pass all the necessary regs and issues we all know about. And this is precisely why the MMC JAPAN bean counters (including the man in charge) are not overjoyed, let alone the majority of private retail Mazda Dealers around the world. And as Are-ex-eight said (no 4 doors) and this was again the exact reason why the RX-8 sold initially in good numbers for only 2 years, until gas prices and reliability took a hit (and the early coil, engine problems)...believe me, the guys in the front line (Dealerships) had a gut-full of seeing dead or problem RX-8's. The FD was a great concept, but $80K in Australia! in 1991!, only 'specialists Dealers' which I was in one could sell them here too, I think only 550 (from memory) ever sold in the entire FD sales time-line in Oz. Whatever 'we' enthusiasts think the RE's reputation is shot to pieces. I still do not see any acceptable sales numbers to warrant production...as too little is actually known. Edit: And the 20,000 RX-Vision "Facebook" launch likes is interesting, but I would guess < 2,000 would be buyers, the rest? |
It's coming
Don't worry friends, it's coming. Barring a world financial collapse a rotary car is coming, and soon. What will it be called? No idea.
That's as much as I'll say for now :) Paul. |
Originally Posted by Mazmart
(Post 4740821)
Don't worry friends, it's coming. Barring a world financial collapse a rotary car is coming, and soon. What will it be called? No idea.
That's as much as I'll say for now :) Paul. Maybe when they start getting 10 years old with some small dents and dings in the paint and years worth of wear and tear I'll be able to afford one too... Roll on 2027! Anyway, since I better post some speculative content, I read somewhere about someone trying to modifiy an RX8 engine to run highly lean with split timing on the plugs, using the trailing plug to ignite the mixture enrichened at the rotor tip, which then compresses the rest of the lean mix to the point where the leading plug can light it. The engine computer wouldn't let it do it for more than a few minutes, but it worked until the computer adjusted back to 15:1. Maybe Mazda might looking at something like that. Especially with a rotary engine naturally burning cooler because of such a large internal area, you'd have less issues with NOx and the like. Add in turbocharging and you're almost getting something efficient. With good direct injection, it almost seems plausible. |
I'll absolutely trade my M3 for whatever this ends up being, provided that it's done correctly.
IMHO, the world has changed alot since the RX-8 came out. This new car needs at least 400hp. It will fail with less. A also really hope that mazda ends up doing more than a 2 rotor as well. Mazda has the ability to make something purely epic for the ages, I just hope they actually do it. The amount of space between the front wheels and the dash in the concept leads me to believe they have to be looking at at least a 3 rotor configuration here. Solves the torque problem too. I personally will be waiting until at least the 3rd model year, so the bugs can be worked out. |
Originally Posted by ASH8
(Post 4740639)
Edit: And the 20,000 RX-Vision "Facebook" launch likes is interesting, but I would guess < 2,000 would be buyers, the rest?
Look at it this way...suppose these 20,000 likes would want to buy the car. The big question becomes, would all 20,000 be able to afford it, or < 2,000? We still don't have any concrete info on where Mazda is going with this car. I have a hard time believing this would be a viable project financially with an expensive, super low volume Cayman competitor, as has been suggested by some. |
I wouldn't mind a 2.6l turbo. A 26B turbo would be pretty badass....
|
Well, lets look at the specs Mazda has to meet in order to build a car that competes with the Porsche Cayman (base).
So, first thing's first: 2016 Porsche Cayman 275 hp and 213 lbs-ft torque. ~2900 lbs curb weight Invoice for a completely basic Cayman is $47,340. I'm going to use that as the target price for the car, even though NO ONE buys a Cayman for that little, ever. And last, Porsche has been selling 3400 Caymans to the US market since the 981 was released in 2013. So, let's see what's realistic, and what isn't. Can Mazda build a rotory engine that can produce 275 hp? Can it be reliable while doing it? Can Mazda build a rotory engine that can produce 213 lbs-ft of torque? Can it be reliable while doing it? I think this would be the biggest hurdle, and probably not possible. So how much torque can Mazda build into their new engine? Can Mazda build a SkyActiv sports car that weighs around or under 2900 lbs? I think this is the easiest of all the issues Mazda has to face. How light can Mazda go, if they wanted to? Could they make it 2600 lbs? Can Mazda use enough parts from their SkyActiv parts bin to sell the car for under $47k? Would RE sports car enthusiasts be willing to shell out $47k for a new sports car that has all of the above points met or exceeded? And finally, Can Mazda sell 3400 RE sports cars per year, at $47k, without ruining the company, or maybe even turn a profit on this car? Well, what do those in the know think about this target list? Is this list feasible for Mazda to achieve? Is the Target price reasonable? I think this car I listed out above would be a fantastic car to drive. But can Mazda build it? BC. |
Originally Posted by hornbm
(Post 4740826)
This new car needs at least 400hp. It will fail with less.
thats a ridiculous statement. :wtf: |
Originally Posted by Bladecutter
(Post 4740955)
Well, lets look at the specs Mazda has to meet in order to build a car that competes with the Porsche Cayman (base).
So, first thing's first: 2016 Porsche Cayman 275 hp and 213 lbs-ft torque. ~2900 lbs curb weight Invoice for a completely basic Cayman is $47,340. I'm going to use that as the target price for the car, even though NO ONE buys a Cayman for that little, ever. And last, Porsche has been selling 3400 Caymans to the US market since the 981 was released in 2013. So, let's see what's realistic, and what isn't. Can Mazda build a rotory engine that can produce 275 hp? Can it be reliable while doing it? Can Mazda build a rotory engine that can produce 213 lbs-ft of torque? Can it be reliable while doing it? I think this would be the biggest hurdle, and probably not possible. So how much torque can Mazda build into their new engine? Can Mazda build a SkyActiv sports car that weighs around or under 2900 lbs? I think this is the easiest of all the issues Mazda has to face. How light can Mazda go, if they wanted to? Could they make it 2600 lbs? Can Mazda use enough parts from their SkyActiv parts bin to sell the car for under $47k? Would RE sports car enthusiasts be willing to shell out $47k for a new sports car that has all of the above points met or exceeded? And finally, Can Mazda sell 3400 RE sports cars per year, at $47k, without ruining the company, or maybe even turn a profit on this car? Well, what do those in the know think about this target list? Is this list feasible for Mazda to achieve? Is the Target price reasonable? I think this car I listed out above would be a fantastic car to drive. But can Mazda build it? BC. Sorry, if performance and pricing were about the same, people will choose the Cayman 95 out of 100 times. I just don't see people willing to shell out that much for a Mazda, especially given the rotary's already bad reputation. Mazda should at least start out with something on the lower end...something better then the BRZ and RX-8 but not in Cayman territory. Prove that they can produce a reliable rotary, and then maybe a few years down the road they can attempt to go more upscale and challenge the Cayman. This next rotary is probably Mazda's last shot at this. |
how I wish for a head-exploding surprise from Mazda!
All aluminum 3-rotor 24X with semi-peri intakes and individual side exhaust ports (even if the block is a little longer, the rx-vision concept has a looong hood!) with long-tube "skyactiv" header... port and direct injection, multifuel (H2, Gas, Ethanol and diesel?)... with stop-start and ieloop... AND Wake up! |
I'll be surprised if they don't add the option of flight / teleportation. In today's economy, it's easier to get from point A to point B with little to no hassle. Mazda NEEDS to realize this, or they can GTFO! And with gas prices going down, I see no reason to not make the jump.
|
Originally Posted by zoom44
(Post 4740977)
thats a ridiculous statement. :wtf:
You can buy a freaking Camry with almost 300HP these days. V6 rental car special mustangs make more than 300hp with a v6. A pure sports car cant have 200ish HP anymore, not in 2016. The auto industry seems to have gotten into a HP war, which for us as enthusiasts is a total win. If you are going to make a purebread sports car, which this thing seems to be implying it is, you need the power to back it up. The Miata philosophy wont work here. They don't need two excellent handling underpowered cars in the lineup, whats the point? The design of the car looks like a real FD successor. In 1993, 255hp was alot. It isn't anymore. There's no more 280HP gentleman's agreement anymore either. |
It never felt underpowered to me. Most passenger cars here struggle to go beyond the 90-150bhp range. Different strokes for different markets.
|
Originally Posted by DartzIRL
(Post 4741082)
It never felt underpowered to me. Most passenger cars here struggle to go beyond the 90-150bhp range. Different strokes for different markets.
Consider the fact that until the rx-8 came out, in Japan, you couldn't even get a N/A rotary since 1984. An rx-8 can get beat in a straight line by a freaking nissan maxima, or a toyota camry, or a VW 1.8T golf or jetta. That is NOT ok! It should be faster than ANY econo box, or "ordinary, cheap" car. Sure the rx-8 has good enough power, but its not enough power to match the chassis. |
Originally Posted by hornbm
(Post 4741076)
Is it? The rx-8 was underpowered. Period. There's no way to sugar coat it. It should have been turbocharged. Phenomenal chassis, but underpowered.
You can buy a freaking Camry with almost 300HP these days. V6 rental car special mustangs make more than 300hp with a v6. A pure sports car cant have 200ish HP anymore, not in 2016. The auto industry seems to have gotten into a HP war, which for us as enthusiasts is a total win. If you are going to make a purebread sports car, which this thing seems to be implying it is, you need the power to back it up. The Miata philosophy wont work here. They don't need two excellent handling underpowered cars in the lineup, whats the point? The design of the car looks like a real FD successor. In 1993, 255hp was alot. It isn't anymore. There's no more 280HP gentleman's agreement anymore either. The Renesis was developed in the early 2000s and lasted in production until ~2011. Not very fair to compare the RX-8 to cars that come out today with an engine platform(piston otto-cycle) that has existed a lot longer than the rotary... |
Don't fit in an FD. Been in one and it's quick with a single turbo.
But I like how the 8 delivers it's power. No hesitation. Not surge. If it's in the right gear it just snaps off. It's just enough power to be fun without being a ditchfinder. More than enough chassis to handle it and keep you from stuffing it. And feels great with the foot down winding up to 9000. It's an easy car to pull the maximum out of, without being threatening. Doesn't need big power to be fun, just enough to be interesting. Not all about bhp. (Also, I learned to drive a shitbox turbodiesel so I wanted something different) |
Originally Posted by Love_Hounds
(Post 4741093)
The Renesis was developed in the early 2000s and lasted in production until ~2011. Not very fair to compare the RX-8 to cars that come out today with an engine platform(piston otto-cycle) that has existed a lot longer than the rotary...
On the other hand, since the Renesis is just an evolution of the 13b, it wouldn't be wildly inaccurate to say that Renesis development started way back in the 70's. Also, the RX-8 would probably lose a drag race to a 2003-2007 Honda Accord V6 Coupe (0-60mph in 5.9s vs 6.6 for RX-8) and definitely lose one to the updated Accord V6 from 2008-2015. Of course, power isn't everything and drag races aren't the point of a streetable rotary car. But the buying public doesn't know that. By and large, most people look at 5 major details (in no particular order): features price brand power reliability (though not too many because people still buy VW's and we all bought rotaries) |
Originally Posted by NotAPreppie
(Post 4741119)
Also, the RX-8 would probably lose a drag race to a 2003-2007 Honda Accord V6 Coupe (0-60mph in 5.9s vs 6.6 for RX-8)
Laguna Seca Lap times with same driver (Randy Pobst): 263hp 2007 Mazdaspeed3 GT - 1:50.37 232hp 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3 - 1:50.42 155hp 2016 Miata Club 1:50.68 240hp 2006 Honda S2000 1:50.74 200hp 2013 Subaru BRZ 1:51.30 166hp 2009 Miata 1:52.18 |
Originally Posted by NotAPreppie
(Post 4741119)
Given that it was developed with zero budget and during free time, I'd bet the development for the Renesis started in the late 90's.
On the other hand, since the Renesis is just an evolution of the 13b, it wouldn't be wildly inaccurate to say that Renesis development started way back in the 70's.[...] |
Originally Posted by neit_jnf
(Post 4741120)
... just sayin'
Laguna Seca Lap times with same driver (Randy Pobst): 263hp 2007 Mazdaspeed3 GT - 1:50.37 232hp 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3 - 1:50.42 155hp 2016 Miata Club 1:50.68 240hp 2006 Honda S2000 1:50.74 200hp 2013 Subaru BRZ 1:51.30 166hp 2009 Miata 1:52.18 Allow me to rephrase my point... The average car buyer isn't going to care about weight or 0-60 times. My point wasn't that people cared about 0-60 times, my point was a rebuttal at Love_Hounds' argument that comparing modern cars to the '8 was unfair. I pointed out that even when you compare the '8 against a contemporary V6 Accord Coupe, it's still going to be beaten in at least two categories (one of which people pay a LOT of attention to). Just in case you did and you decided to throw this strawman out there for fun, allow me to retort... Do you really think that the horsepower junkies out there give a rats ass about laptimes in cars they'll never own on a track they've only heard of in Forza? Seriously? Finally, a disclaimer: I mean no offense by the following words.
Originally Posted by neit_jnf
(Post 4741120)
... just sayin'...
You don't have to tell us that just you said something because you literally just said it. On the other hand, if you meant something like, "So there!" or "This is just my opinion." you should probably just say those things rather than sounding ambiguously obtuse. |
I'm just having fun and it worked! I got a good laugh out of it :yelrotflm
|
Originally Posted by hornbm
(Post 4741076)
Is it? The rx-8 was underpowered. Period. There's no way to sugar coat it. It should have been turbocharged. Phenomenal chassis, but underpowered.
You can buy a freaking Camry with almost 300HP these days. V6 rental car special mustangs make more than 300hp with a v6. A pure sports car cant have 200ish HP anymore, not in 2016. The auto industry seems to have gotten into a HP war, which for us as enthusiasts is a total win. If you are going to make a purebread sports car, which this thing seems to be implying it is, you need the power to back it up. The Miata philosophy wont work here. They don't need two excellent handling underpowered cars in the lineup, whats the point? The design of the car looks like a real FD successor. In 1993, 255hp was alot. It isn't anymore. There's no more 280HP gentleman's agreement anymore either. Two of ways you can get the performance you imply without actually having that peak number... - Cut the weight back to 1,875lbs from the current 3,000lbs. Not very realistic, but not actually impossible either. There ARE registerable production cars that light in the world, and ones that aren't old. Most of them with engines far heavier. - Peak HP doesn't actually mean much. The ND MX-5 LOST 12 peak HP from the NC, 155 vs 167. But it gained 1 second in the 0-60. 1 full second. Despite lost HP. And no, an 18% faster 0-60 was not gained soley by an 8% weight reduction. Think about it. And then you get into how Mazda just doesn't even play in the power game. It doesn't. Some people want them to, but they simply don't. Their call, not yours. Their financial cost of failure, not yours. At every evolution of the rotary, people say what "must" happen for them to succeed. Mazda often doesn't achieve that. Ok, it usually doesn't achieve it. But they keep walking forward anyway. Some people, ok a lot of people, wish that they wouldn't. Mazda never seems to listen to these people. And then there is a final point. What is Mazda trying to accomplish with the car? That's not an idle question. If Mazda put the next rotary in a FWD hatchback city car, would you STILL stand by the statement that it needs 400hp to succeed? I know this probably comes across as absurd to you, but really think about it for a minute. A big power mark is only a "requirement" if the goal of the car has anything to do with big power. If Mazda isn't trying to do anything for which it needs the power, then it can indeed succeed brilliantly without much power at all. A goal isn't a trivial thing. You can only "fail" to achieve something you were trying to achieve. A zebra doesnt "fail" at flying any more than a cat does. They were never intended to fly. So yes... a statement of...
Originally Posted by hornbm
(Post 4740826)
This new car needs at least 400hp. It will fail with less.
|
Amen, RIWWP !!!
In every generation and evolution of the Mazda rotary car in America, folks said it needed more power or more handling or whatever, to succeed. Mazda maybe gave us less than we had wished for, but each RX they gave us had its own personality and its own uniquely satisfying driving experience. Every single new RX would go on to win Import Car of the Year, or Sports Car of the Year, or 10Best Car or numerous other accolades. And each RX evolution would captivate a new generation of rotary enthusiasts, even with all the other competitive choices in the marketplace. Will the next RX (if it ever even is made) satisfy expectations ? Only if you keep your expectations realistic. As RIWWP speaks to it, look at Mazda's rotary history, some wins ,some missteps, but always innovation and driving fun. You don't need 400hp for innovation and driving fun. The next RX will be Mazda's halo car, if it gets to production. It won't be a mass-marketer's dream, but I predict it will excite and perform and it will find its buyers. To get this one right , out of the box, will require years of real-world testing, so I don't expect any production model to be ready for sale before 2020. I will be ready with my money when that day hopefully comes. |
Originally Posted by hornbm
(Post 4741089)
You ought to drive a stock FD once. Or even a lightly modded Turbo II. You'll absolutely think the RX-8 is slow after driving that.
An rx-8 can get beat in a straight line by a freaking nissan maxima, or a toyota camry, or a VW 1.8T golf or jetta. |
Also, Mazda's effort isn't to sell to 16 year old street urchins who live life 1/4 mile at a time. At least that's what I'd hope...
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands