The amount of butthurt in here is strong... Say the rx-8 is slow and everyone seems to lose their minds.

The RX-8 was underpowered. Quick, but underpowerd. The chassis was begging for another 100hp. A 6+ second 0-60 is not fast no matter how you spin it.

You claim Mazda has never played the power game, but they have, just not in the US market. The FD was at 280HP before it left the Japanese market, which was the cap of the Gentleman's agreement, and the Eunos Cosmo was pushing 300HP+ despite it being advertised as 280HP.

The rx-vision is the first rotary powered car that they have designed outside of the gentlemens agreement. All the other Japanese makes are releasing products with significantly more than 280HP now/

I owned a RX-8 6 years, and have had countless other years of rotary ownership. The last 3 years of RX-8 ownership made me wishing for more power nearly everytime I drove it. The RX-8 was marginally faster than both of my modded 1st gen rx-7s and slower than my TII. (both cars 20 years older than the rx-8) And slower than a stock FD.

Ultimately what I believe hurt the rx8 the most, was only getting 13-15mpg, and only making 232hp while doing it. It wasn't ok in 2004, and certainly isn't going to fly now.

Mazda already decided not to play the power game. Its called the Miata. It competes squarely with the brz/frs.

Why in the heck would they make a second car to compete in that range? It makes no sense.

The FD was a proper sports car. The RX-8 was not and was largely the product of compromises due to Ford putting their nose where it didn't belong. It should have had two doors, it should have been turbocharged. If it wasn't for Ford, it probably would have been.

This new RX-vision seems to be shooting at what the FD was, a purebread sports car. 255hp was alot in 1993. It needs the modern day equivalent. 400HP would be it today.

Hey Hornbm, I have owned both an FD and a modified Turbo II and now a RX8, and I don't think the RX8 is slow. If you think it is slow, you are not driving it correctly. LOL

Maybe you aren't driving your FD and turbo II correctly?

6+ seconds 0-60 is not fast.

232HP is not alot of power.

160ft/lbs of torque is not alot of torque.

13-15mpg is not good mileage, especially for 232hp.

The RX-8's saving grace is its chassis, which is a work of art. The Renesis was a step backwards from the 13B-REW in nearly all aspects. Power, torque, and mileage. The simplicity of the renesis was the one thing they really got better than the 13B-REW. (no rats nest!)

It's a matter of preference. I like the high-revving character - turbo cars exist everywhere these days and I learned to drive in a chugging turbodiesel. An NA screamer for my first car was the complete opposite. I mean, what sold the car to be was that first second-gear pull joining the motorway - and managing to make it to the speed limit before the end of slip road.

It's unlikely the new Rex will be unboosted, unfortunately.

Well, different strokes for different folks. Besides, having more chassis than engine makes it safe enough for us normal plebs who aren't the Stig to chuck it around, let it slide a bit, let it do its thing and just feel like heroes brapping around a rain-soaked race-track.

If I agreed with you any more on this point I'd actually BE you.

I have to expect that the engineering required to mate their existing turbo-4 or V6 options with their existing '8 platform would be minimal (relative to a ground-up new design). Call it the MX-6, price it in between the Toyobaru and 370Z and blow the pants off both of them.

My guess is that they don't want to put reintroduce the RX-8 chassis with a piston engine as the MX-6 is because it doesn't fit into their "All SkyActiv, all the time" product line. Also, they don't want to give people any reason to not buy into the RX vaporware.

It seems no new RX will ever please some folks. That is perfectly fine. If it is actually made,that will just leave more available for the rest of us.

I'm with Hornbm on this one. The RX-8 is undeniably slow now. I recently bought an FD and the difference between the two is night and day.

I still love the 8 though, it doesn't have to be fast in a straight line to be fun. It's actually nice that I can floor it and not worry about it flying off the road!

But Mazda will never attract the kind of buyers it needs if the next RX is not "sufficiently" powered. It doesn't need 400 hp if it's light obviously, but it needs to go fast in a straight line. Look at the newest Camaro SS, it's doing 0-60 in 4 seconds for under $40k. The average US buyer doesn't care that much if it handles like a dream, it needs to do a burnout and pull hard to impress.

Well, your hypothesis can't be tested if Mazda won't ever get around to, oh I don't know, PRODUCING it.

Fast - No, not by today's standards off the line.
Quick - you bet.

Fun - We all know the answer to this. Really this is the bottom line. What does the car feel like while driving? I think putting a turbo on the 8 would have ruined it. The high revving power band that ran up silky smooth was an incredible feeling.

My current 3 series is a sub 5.0 seconds to 60 and feels fast but not quick, it's heavy on corners and takes too long to break. The steering is numb and I don't feel like the same confident driver I was in my 8. This is with 330 HP and 330 lb ft of twist.

Keys to a successful future rotary (IMHO)

1. Value - it doesn't have to be sub 30k or sub 40k even but it depends on what is being offered. It has to have value given its' performance.
2. 275+HP - this is probably the minimum amount of HP they should bring to the market to ensure it remains "quick".
3. Zoom-Zoom. It has to feel as good or better than the 8 while driving.
4. 2+2 configuration. If it only has two seats they would be better off making a coupe version of the MX-5.
5. Tech - This is probably a controversial wish but I feel like they will need to compete with all manufacturers who are throwing technology at cars like 1's at strippers.
6. 8 year/100,000 mile warranty. They will need to capture the average buyers confidence in their reliability due to the inaccurate perception of rotaries.

I hope they shoot for M2 performance at 370z prices.

Just my 2 cents.

I just want it to come to fruition

Judging by the list of cars that you have owned, I don't know how you could say a turbo would have ruined it. Maybe you should drive a turbo rotary first? A turbo rotary is still high revving and silky smooth.

Well that's pretty easy. The current 3 series (f series) sucks. The e90/e92 was better in nearly every way. Especially steering feel.

My e92 M3 will out handle, out brake, out accelerate, the rx-8 while having a level of comfort and fit and finish that the rx-8 can't get anywhere near. Also a 8300RPM v8 with a very linear power curve, just like our lovely renesis. Granted, the two cars are nowhere near the same price point.

I had a current 3 series as a loaner when I was having warranty work done on my M3, and I could only think- people actually pay money for this car? It's awful. Interior is cheap, handing sucks, steering is awful compared to the e90/e92.

It depends on who you are, what you like out of a car, etc...

My MSM has, many times, made me wish it was naturally aspirated, despite meaning that I'd lose more than 40% of the power and more than half the torque it has. Turbos are great for a lot of reason. But there are definite reasons and places in which they hurt more than they help. Even consider my last tune for my MSM. It got faster, but a bit less fun, because it was significantly harder to drive at the limit.

Stuff like that really does matter to many many people. Including quite a lot of the people making the decisions at Mazda.

And only a few people in here are going to argue that the RX-8 isn't fast, or that it couldn't have used more power. (so you can drop the 'butthurt' comments. If there is any of that, it's from the people that can't get over what Mazda actually DID do, and are crying for them to do something else) I do agree with you that it certainly could have. Although I'd personally have preferred the same power with less weight. I mean, look at what "more power" gets you in a Renesis from a reliability standpoint. I'd vastly prefer the same reliability as stock, but in a chassis 300-600lbs lighter, rather than 40-70hp more but half the reliability. And having driven 3 different turbo RX-8s, a supercharged RX-8, and a number of stock and modified RX-8s... the turbo ones felt incredible in a straight line, but they lost something everywhere else. Something not really explicable, but definitely tangible. Same tangibleness that I lost going from a 110whp NA Miata to a ~230whp turbocharged Miata. Of the FDs I've driven, the stock twins felt vastly better than a single big turbo. Still not ideal, but far more driveable and enjoyable. An FD with similar stock power, but NA would be even better.

180tq, 250hp (detuned from a 16x dimensioned engine, capable of more in aftermarket removing the detune) 2,600lb chassis 2 door 2 seater is what I would buy in a heartbeat. It's the FD, with modern technology, not a headache to own, and a warranty. It's also entirely plausible that Mazda can hit these marks. If they want to return the RX-7, it's also likely.

And it would probably be $40-45k. Remember the Clarkson comment: "The old RX-7 was priced to compete with Porsches..." Mazda is targeting them again, with a car that they want to bring back.

I too believe it will be in the $40-45K range, again to compete with Porsches, as the FD did back in 1992 when I bought mine and it listed for $38k (GT) .

I couldn't agree more. There're too many people obsessed with top-line horsepower figures to the exclusion of all else. There's a lot more that goes into making a good car. Horsepower brutes tend to be one-trick ponies, just to keep themselves under control.

All it really needs to have is more horsepower than an MX-5.

Although if I felt like delivering 'sick burnzz [sic?]' I'd politely suggest that anyone who thinks an RX8 is slow, is unable to drive fast.

The 8's perfectly capable of going bloody quick around a a full wet racetrack with the DSC/TCS/ABS firmly in 'Fuck this, I'm out of here' mode.

There's very little I'd want to try the same in these days. Just about everything else had problems....

Anyone ever swapped a Renesis into one? Be lighter, for a start. Probably not.


As for money. The quick answer is 'More than I can afford' (What, empty after 300km AGAIN?:p:)

I wouldn't bother to be honest. You can N/A build the RX-7's motor for more power than the Renesis comes with, for cheaper than any swap would cost trying to get the Renesis in.

If/when I get an FD, it's likely that the first engine failure I'd run into would push me right to an N/A build. Not popular with many, but 250-300whp is possible depending on how unstreetable you want to deal with (which... lets be honest, it's an FD, you will always have that), plus losing all the weight of the turbo hardware.

But I'd rather just buy a modern N/A "FD" from Mazda directly.

Those people continuing to compare it against the Cayman, may be interested in the specs released for the 718 Boxster. 300 and 350 HP turbo-4 for the base and S respectively. If Porsche follows their current pattern, we'll probably see these in the Cayman as well.

Prices on the Boxster base and S start at $56k and $68.4k.

^everything I would want to own is in that price range... it's only forcing me to do one thing: make more money. I'm in, as long as it's under $80k and worth the price. Don't build a 30k car and put an 80k tag on it

Honestly, if you were going to do a N/A setup in a FD, a 20B is the way to go IMHO.

Not too complicated of a swap without the turbo plumbing.

According to Car and Driver, Porsche is swapping the hierarchy, making the Cayman lower than the Boxster in the price lineup, and that means probably power lineup too. But point made. Mazda is the one that said "Cayman target", so I guess that depends on if they are targeting the Cayman at the time of the statement, or Cayman at the time of the release :) A subtle distinction that means a lot.

Depends on goals.

Why I agree with me old mate RIWWP on any new RX-? and the pricing for US market, any $40-45K US translates to about $65K AUD and Canada, to 33K British pound (roughly).

If a 2 door only (which is likely) @ a premium price, would it sell in the production numbers required?...it does concern me.

IMO 'if' this new RE eventuates it will be born off the new ND MX-5 platform, meaning some stretching and mandatory upgrades (larger, stronger) suspension, MT transmission, Differential, all Wheel Hubs, Brakes and drive-shaft parts to conform to the extra HP/weight as the ND being lighter than the NC would not suffice as is.
This extrapolates to a lot more start up production and tooling costs, but is the only way Mazda could make this break even and return some profit.

Would it sell?

I definitely believe it would. I don't think it would sell in the volumes that a Mazda pencil pusher once quoted of "100,000 units" unless that was over the entire run of the engine design, and they kept it around a long time. But I never really believed that the 100k comment was an informed comment by an enthusiast anyway. Or there was a lot lost in translation or just not said, like maybe counting range extenders, etc... Dunno.

I'd expect lower volume than the RX-8, maybe half. If they wanted more volume than the RX-8, the price would have to drop into the 25,000 USD range, and that means a significantly lower performance point (though still a bump up from the 8), and definitely not competing with any Porsche.

But can they be profitable even on a shorter run? I believe that yes, they certainly can. Could the black and white boring financial numbers "insist" that the money is better spent elsewhere? Yes. There will always be people that will advocate that. But I think the current un-crippled un-hindered Mazda can certainly make the car profitable.

So back to my question:

Would a sports car, built by Mazda, with an RE not be profitable if they were priced at $45k, with about 275 hp, and weighs around 2700 lbs?

Currently Mazda's most expensive vehicle in the US market is a White CX-9 Grand Touring, with all the trimmings, and it's MSRP is $41k. Mazda sold 11,417 CX-9's last year in the US, which was a 48% increase over 2014's total of 7,721. And this includes having to buy the engine and transmission from Ford, first.

So, can Mazda turn a profit on all Mazda sports car that they might sell 2500 to 7500 per year (in the US), if the price starts at $45k?

BC.

Considering the cost savings of reusing the ND chassis (stretching), and pricing it more than $20,000 higher than the starting RX-8, yes, I totally believe that they can.

I guess the questions are, "How many units will they have to sell( and at what price) to recoup the engineering and tooling investment?"

more than just that. I don't pretend to know all the factors, or what Mazda's numbers are, but ...

• R+D (to a point)
• Tooling
• Materials / Parts
• Assembly labor
• Inspection labor
• Shipment
• Estimated warranty costs
• Government testing and certifications (emissions/crash/etc...)
• Advertisements
• New training for techs (even trivial amounts add up fast)
• Taxes / Import / Export costs

There are probably more that are pretty model-specific.

I would guess though that Mazda's per-car costs have come down enough that a future RX would have similar or slightly lower production costs than the RX-8. I theorize this because of how much they can share with the ND, because of their specific work reducing costs, specific work in increasing production efficiency, etc... Pretty much everything else in the list is probably really standard/typical, and would have applied to the RX-8 too, though the costs on that may have gone up some, even if just from currency exchange rates.

Given an expected $20,000 price tag increase over the RX-8, that's a lot of margin room that I'd have to be really far off on something in order for it to fall to just the RX-8's profit margin. So yes, I expect that there will be a clear profit on the next RX.