Mazda RX-VISION Concepts
06-10-2016, 12:18 PM
#926
Think it through guys..... Much lighter weight materials available now, the weight of a 3 rotor engine would still be very light.
Gas mileage mandates are not based on WOT driving---right? They are in town and cruising on an open road. OK both in town driving and open road driving will be helped by the increased TQ
so you can keep the rpms DOWN. Not only that maybe there could be a rotor deactivation during cruising--since sufficient power ( and engine balance) would be on tap.
I remember when I placed the S2 trans into my S1 car. Cruising rpm dropped by 3-4 hundred rpm ( cant remember exactly) but my cruising gas mileage went up 2-3 mpg just by that little drop. How do you think the C6 Corvette Z06 gets 26-28 mpg on the Hwy? ( that is what I am running in now) Right--rpms at 70mph are only about 1.6K.
All I know for sure is the rotary engineer said the 3 rotor design was more efficient at cruise than the 2 rotary.
Unfortunately I don't think that with the comfort features required in these modern times will allow a sub 3K lb car. At the price range I am thinking it will almost mandate things like heated seats, navigation, back up camera etc etc. Hope I am wrong.
But one thing I do know from being into cars for the last 55 years. if they do not give us one that has at least 350 --400hp--- then they may as will pack it up. People are not going to drive a costly sports car that cannot keep up with an SUV from a stoplight.
My old rx8 with the Pettit kit was putting down maybe 330-340 hp at the flywheel. It was drivable, it performed pretty good. But that was some years ago. Now a days a Porsche Macan Turbo would beat me ---hell a Mustang V6 with just a few bolts owns would be a pretty good match. Its a competitive time. I know mazda can do it and I pray they will. Depending on specs, but if it all looks good to me , I will order the first one in my area!
with the newer engine design and advances in catalytic converters--don't think emissions will be a problem for them?
Gas mileage mandates are not based on WOT driving---right? They are in town and cruising on an open road. OK both in town driving and open road driving will be helped by the increased TQ
so you can keep the rpms DOWN. Not only that maybe there could be a rotor deactivation during cruising--since sufficient power ( and engine balance) would be on tap.
I remember when I placed the S2 trans into my S1 car. Cruising rpm dropped by 3-4 hundred rpm ( cant remember exactly) but my cruising gas mileage went up 2-3 mpg just by that little drop. How do you think the C6 Corvette Z06 gets 26-28 mpg on the Hwy? ( that is what I am running in now) Right--rpms at 70mph are only about 1.6K.
All I know for sure is the rotary engineer said the 3 rotor design was more efficient at cruise than the 2 rotary.
Unfortunately I don't think that with the comfort features required in these modern times will allow a sub 3K lb car. At the price range I am thinking it will almost mandate things like heated seats, navigation, back up camera etc etc. Hope I am wrong.
But one thing I do know from being into cars for the last 55 years. if they do not give us one that has at least 350 --400hp--- then they may as will pack it up. People are not going to drive a costly sports car that cannot keep up with an SUV from a stoplight.
My old rx8 with the Pettit kit was putting down maybe 330-340 hp at the flywheel. It was drivable, it performed pretty good. But that was some years ago. Now a days a Porsche Macan Turbo would beat me ---hell a Mustang V6 with just a few bolts owns would be a pretty good match. Its a competitive time. I know mazda can do it and I pray they will. Depending on specs, but if it all looks good to me , I will order the first one in my area!
with the newer engine design and advances in catalytic converters--don't think emissions will be a problem for them?
Last edited by olddragger; 06-10-2016 at 12:21 PM.
06-10-2016, 12:36 PM
#927
FULLY SEMI AUTOMATIC
iTrader: (9)
denny if you have some inside info please spill the beans man. is the rx vision the reason for your sudden return?
06-10-2016, 12:55 PM
#928
Registered
Think it through guys..... Much lighter weight materials available now, the weight of a 3 rotor engine would still be very light.
Gas mileage mandates are not based on WOT driving---right? They are in town and cruising on an open road. OK both in town driving and open road driving will be helped by the increased TQ
so you can keep the rpms DOWN. Not only that maybe there could be a rotor deactivation during cruising--since sufficient power ( and engine balance) would be on tap.
I remember when I placed the S2 trans into my S1 car. Cruising rpm dropped by 3-4 hundred rpm ( cant remember exactly) but my cruising gas mileage went up 2-3 mpg just by that little drop. How do you think the C6 Corvette Z06 gets 26-28 mpg on the Hwy? ( that is what I am running in now) Right--rpms at 70mph are only about 1.6K.
All I know for sure is the rotary engineer said the 3 rotor design was more efficient at cruise than the 2 rotary.
Unfortunately I don't think that with the comfort features required in these modern times will allow a sub 3K lb car. At the price range I am thinking it will almost mandate things like heated seats, navigation, back up camera etc etc. Hope I am wrong.
But one thing I do know from being into cars for the last 55 years. if they do not give us one that has at least 350 --400hp--- then they may as will pack it up. People are not going to drive a costly sports car that cannot keep up with an SUV from a stoplight.
My old rx8 with the Pettit kit was putting down maybe 330-340 hp at the flywheel. It was drivable, it performed pretty good. But that was some years ago. Now a days a Porsche Macan Turbo would beat me ---hell a Mustang V6 with just a few bolts owns would be a pretty good match. Its a competitive time. I know mazda can do it and I pray they will. Depending on specs, but if it all looks good to me , I will order the first one in my area!
with the newer engine design and advances in catalytic converters--don't think emissions will be a problem for them?
Gas mileage mandates are not based on WOT driving---right? They are in town and cruising on an open road. OK both in town driving and open road driving will be helped by the increased TQ
so you can keep the rpms DOWN. Not only that maybe there could be a rotor deactivation during cruising--since sufficient power ( and engine balance) would be on tap.
I remember when I placed the S2 trans into my S1 car. Cruising rpm dropped by 3-4 hundred rpm ( cant remember exactly) but my cruising gas mileage went up 2-3 mpg just by that little drop. How do you think the C6 Corvette Z06 gets 26-28 mpg on the Hwy? ( that is what I am running in now) Right--rpms at 70mph are only about 1.6K.
All I know for sure is the rotary engineer said the 3 rotor design was more efficient at cruise than the 2 rotary.
Unfortunately I don't think that with the comfort features required in these modern times will allow a sub 3K lb car. At the price range I am thinking it will almost mandate things like heated seats, navigation, back up camera etc etc. Hope I am wrong.
But one thing I do know from being into cars for the last 55 years. if they do not give us one that has at least 350 --400hp--- then they may as will pack it up. People are not going to drive a costly sports car that cannot keep up with an SUV from a stoplight.
My old rx8 with the Pettit kit was putting down maybe 330-340 hp at the flywheel. It was drivable, it performed pretty good. But that was some years ago. Now a days a Porsche Macan Turbo would beat me ---hell a Mustang V6 with just a few bolts owns would be a pretty good match. Its a competitive time. I know mazda can do it and I pray they will. Depending on specs, but if it all looks good to me , I will order the first one in my area!
with the newer engine design and advances in catalytic converters--don't think emissions will be a problem for them?
I mean, in order to keep a constant speed, one needs a given amount of power to the wheels. It's not like a more powerful engine needs to put out more power to keep the same speed all else being the same.
Obviously the more powerful engine will need to be throttled more in order to produce the required amount of power, and that's one of the main factors that make more powerful engines less fuel efficient than lower powered ones. There will also be higher drivetrain losses most likely, and so on.
But research can compensate for that. I like to bring back this link from 2010 every so often, just because it seems like many people here underestimate the improvements that Mazda can make to the rotary engine: Mazda's rotary engine stalled, not forgotten
A top Mazda powertrain executive said today that the 1.6-liter rotary engine, called the 16X, is about 30 percent more fuel-efficient than the current rotary engine used in the RX-8 sporty car.
In fact, the 16X so far performs slightly better than Mazda's standard two-liter gasoline engine, said Mitsuo Hitomi, general manager of the Japanese carmaker's powertrain division.
In fact, the 16X so far performs slightly better than Mazda's standard two-liter gasoline engine, said Mitsuo Hitomi, general manager of the Japanese carmaker's powertrain division.
I also support your idea of 350 to 400hp (or slightly more) as being a realistic target. Less than that and the car risks being left behind performance-wise, no matter how well it handles. It would need to be seriously light in order to be competitive with such a power deficit, and being so light likely means exotic materials and thus high cost.
More than that is unlikely, as it would be a very bold move for Mazda, too bold imho.
Lastly, about the rotor deactivation thing, I thought about that as well, but in that case running on 2 rotors would be awkward, as you'd end up with uneven firing, as in fire-fire-miss-fire-fire-miss etc. The only options would be either 3 active rotors or 1 active rotor. The latter may still be useful for idling or light cruise.
A 4 rotor would give more options in this regard. One can dream...
06-10-2016, 05:40 PM
#929
Administrator
cylinder deactivation in a rotary requires turning off a face at a time so that you don't create pumping losses that negate the benefits, keep the firing properly balanced and keep the faces hot to avoid combustion issues that lead to emissions problems and carbon build up. not the whole rotor, a face at a time.
in a two rotor that goes f1,r2, f3, r1, f2, r3 ( or something like that, havent thought about it in 5 years or more) more rotors obviously up the complication of the firing order. modern pcms can handle it obviously but its a tricky thing. you might even swap leading /trailing firing order
in a two rotor that goes f1,r2, f3, r1, f2, r3 ( or something like that, havent thought about it in 5 years or more) more rotors obviously up the complication of the firing order. modern pcms can handle it obviously but its a tricky thing. you might even swap leading /trailing firing order
06-11-2016, 06:16 AM
#930
Registered
cylinder deactivation in a rotary requires turning off a face at a time so that you don't create pumping losses that negate the benefits, keep the firing properly balanced and keep the faces hot to avoid combustion issues that lead to emissions problems and carbon build up. not the whole rotor, a face at a time.
in a two rotor that goes f1,r2, f3, r1, f2, r3 ( or something like that, havent thought about it in 5 years or more) more rotors obviously up the complication of the firing order. modern pcms can handle it obviously but its a tricky thing. you might even swap leading /trailing firing order
in a two rotor that goes f1,r2, f3, r1, f2, r3 ( or something like that, havent thought about it in 5 years or more) more rotors obviously up the complication of the firing order. modern pcms can handle it obviously but its a tricky thing. you might even swap leading /trailing firing order
If individual faces are disabled, then it's not possible to use full throttle opening for the non-firing faces and partial opening for the others. So you'd be actually throttling even the non-firing faces, thus increasing pumping losses.
Sure, the best approach would be to do what piston engines do, that is keep all valves shut and reduce the non-firing cylinders to mere air springs. Zero pumping losses that way. That's not trivial with a rotary, and so the next best approach is to open up the throttle for the non-firing rotors to reduce pumping losses.
Am I missing something?
06-11-2016, 10:31 AM
#931
Registered
cylinder deactivation in a rotary requires turning off a face at a time so that you don't create pumping losses that negate the benefits, keep the firing properly balanced and keep the faces hot to avoid combustion issues that lead to emissions problems and carbon build up. not the whole rotor, a face at a time.
in a two rotor that goes f1,r2, f3, r1, f2, r3 ( or something like that, havent thought about it in 5 years or more) more rotors obviously up the complication of the firing order. modern pcms can handle it obviously but its a tricky thing. you might even swap leading /trailing firing order
in a two rotor that goes f1,r2, f3, r1, f2, r3 ( or something like that, havent thought about it in 5 years or more) more rotors obviously up the complication of the firing order. modern pcms can handle it obviously but its a tricky thing. you might even swap leading /trailing firing order
06-12-2016, 01:44 PM
#932
I have nothing totally concrete. Just fairly creditable information that is what the direction is.
It is logical also.
About cylinder deactivation and rough running.
I drove from atlanta ga almost to macon ga ( ran out of gas) on one rotor. Once it got pass a certain rpm I could not tell it was running on just one. It was smooth.
I dont think Mazda can get to a competitive HP level and have dependability on 2 rotors. Low boost ( reliability) on 3 rotors would very doable. Heck with 3 rotors they may be able to get there without boost. We will just have to wait and see.
As good as Mazda is, they cannot afford to play with a car that will not sell. They are too small to have a signature car like Nissan does with the GTR, or Lexus with the LFA . They have to have a car that will sell enough to justify the development.
In order to sell in the performance market that a rotary powered car in a form like the concept certain parameters are paramount. One of those is HP. I will repeat that if the engine doesnt have 350-400 hp, it will not sell as needed.
Now if Mazda would drop a 16X in the Miata ....I would look also!
Can you imagine the press Mazda would get with a 3 rotor engine
It is logical also.
About cylinder deactivation and rough running.
I drove from atlanta ga almost to macon ga ( ran out of gas) on one rotor. Once it got pass a certain rpm I could not tell it was running on just one. It was smooth.
I dont think Mazda can get to a competitive HP level and have dependability on 2 rotors. Low boost ( reliability) on 3 rotors would very doable. Heck with 3 rotors they may be able to get there without boost. We will just have to wait and see.
As good as Mazda is, they cannot afford to play with a car that will not sell. They are too small to have a signature car like Nissan does with the GTR, or Lexus with the LFA . They have to have a car that will sell enough to justify the development.
In order to sell in the performance market that a rotary powered car in a form like the concept certain parameters are paramount. One of those is HP. I will repeat that if the engine doesnt have 350-400 hp, it will not sell as needed.
Now if Mazda would drop a 16X in the Miata ....I would look also!
Can you imagine the press Mazda would get with a 3 rotor engine
06-13-2016, 03:10 PM
#934
Well the comments by the North American Mazda Corp president is not promising. He actually called Mazdaspeed "Childish" ....wow.
It seems Mazda is a little stretched(? who knows for sure) and really, I am sensing that the car may not even be built by the fall of 2017. Mazda seems to have shifted more toward "cars that sell" ....meaning in significant quantities and perhaps they are anticipating that the American market make not be as it was. The presidential elections are causing some rethinking. Damn!
I do hope my impression is wrong.
It seems Mazda is a little stretched(? who knows for sure) and really, I am sensing that the car may not even be built by the fall of 2017. Mazda seems to have shifted more toward "cars that sell" ....meaning in significant quantities and perhaps they are anticipating that the American market make not be as it was. The presidential elections are causing some rethinking. Damn!
I do hope my impression is wrong.
06-13-2016, 03:34 PM
#935
Rockie Mountain Newbie
Mazda is heading slightly up market with their offerings.
More luxurious interior and exterior design, combined with hopefully very reliable drivetrains.
Sounds like they are slowing shifting the driving dynamics to be less tiring also.
BC.
More luxurious interior and exterior design, combined with hopefully very reliable drivetrains.
Sounds like they are slowing shifting the driving dynamics to be less tiring also.
BC.
06-22-2016, 12:10 AM
#936
i submit to this discussion this article
Mazda reveals new comfort-focused electronic chassis system | Autocar
and this quote
One Mazda engineer admitted to Autocar that the company was rejecting the notion that improving driving dynamics inevitably meant increasing a car's general agility. "We cannot optimise our vehicles for what is a small customer base [which wants sportier chassis tuning]. A more relaxed driving experience frees the driver’s mind, and will make the drive more fun."
Mazda sources insist that the new philosophy of maximum driver comfort, more effortless progress and greatly reducing fatigue over long journeys is more in tune with shifting global tastes, seen in rapidly expanding trends for 'wellness' therapies and 'human-centred' personal luxury.
here i see a tentative of rebuilding the "Anfini/Xedos/Amati" strategy of the early 90's.
At this point i don't have an opinion about wrong or right. I need to see some car.
Mazda reveals new comfort-focused electronic chassis system | Autocar
and this quote
One Mazda engineer admitted to Autocar that the company was rejecting the notion that improving driving dynamics inevitably meant increasing a car's general agility. "We cannot optimise our vehicles for what is a small customer base [which wants sportier chassis tuning]. A more relaxed driving experience frees the driver’s mind, and will make the drive more fun."
Mazda sources insist that the new philosophy of maximum driver comfort, more effortless progress and greatly reducing fatigue over long journeys is more in tune with shifting global tastes, seen in rapidly expanding trends for 'wellness' therapies and 'human-centred' personal luxury.
here i see a tentative of rebuilding the "Anfini/Xedos/Amati" strategy of the early 90's.
At this point i don't have an opinion about wrong or right. I need to see some car.
06-22-2016, 11:34 AM
#937
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Georgetown
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't anyone here arrange to take Trump and Clinton for a ride in their RX8?....it doesn't have to be together (although that would be more interesting) .
Show them how much fun these cars are!....
Show them how much fun these cars are!....
06-22-2016, 12:46 PM
#938
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
i submit to this discussion this article
Mazda reveals new comfort-focused electronic chassis system | Autocar
and this quote
One Mazda engineer admitted to Autocar that the company was rejecting the notion that improving driving dynamics inevitably meant increasing a car's general agility. "We cannot optimise our vehicles for what is a small customer base [which wants sportier chassis tuning]. A more relaxed driving experience frees the driver’s mind, and will make the drive more fun."
Mazda sources insist that the new philosophy of maximum driver comfort, more effortless progress and greatly reducing fatigue over long journeys is more in tune with shifting global tastes, seen in rapidly expanding trends for 'wellness' therapies and 'human-centred' personal luxury.
here i see a tentative of rebuilding the "Anfini/Xedos/Amati" strategy of the early 90's.
At this point i don't have an opinion about wrong or right. I need to see some car.
Mazda reveals new comfort-focused electronic chassis system | Autocar
and this quote
One Mazda engineer admitted to Autocar that the company was rejecting the notion that improving driving dynamics inevitably meant increasing a car's general agility. "We cannot optimise our vehicles for what is a small customer base [which wants sportier chassis tuning]. A more relaxed driving experience frees the driver’s mind, and will make the drive more fun."
Mazda sources insist that the new philosophy of maximum driver comfort, more effortless progress and greatly reducing fatigue over long journeys is more in tune with shifting global tastes, seen in rapidly expanding trends for 'wellness' therapies and 'human-centred' personal luxury.
here i see a tentative of rebuilding the "Anfini/Xedos/Amati" strategy of the early 90's.
At this point i don't have an opinion about wrong or right. I need to see some car.
07-01-2016, 08:21 AM
#939
Registered
I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm driving, I'm relaxed in part because I know I can trust my car if I have to react quickly to a sudden bad situation on the road. If I have to use my autocross skills because an 18 wheeler plowed through a barrier, I want a chassis that can react. You can compensate with seats and ergonomics to achieve long-term comfort.
A car with a sporty size and aero design will do well in heavy cross-winds. I've seen semis swerving to get back in the middle of their lane and thought, "Oh, I guess it's pretty windy." Didn't affect me. Reducing the onus on the driver to be keen results in a happy driving experience for the normals.
I put 1400+ miles on my 8 2 weekends ago. I'd make some ergo tweaks, but it's a perfectly comfortable road trip car.
Many of the things I love about my 8 are rolled up here and directly apply to a relaxed trip: It handles the road, it can respond in a pinch, it makes cruising easy, it's straightforward to race competitively for not much money, it's pretty enough to suit my vanity, the happy pedal is overridingly fun to use. Any trip in my 8 is a pleasure.
SO BUILD ME A NEW ONE DAMMIT.
A car with a sporty size and aero design will do well in heavy cross-winds. I've seen semis swerving to get back in the middle of their lane and thought, "Oh, I guess it's pretty windy." Didn't affect me. Reducing the onus on the driver to be keen results in a happy driving experience for the normals.
I put 1400+ miles on my 8 2 weekends ago. I'd make some ergo tweaks, but it's a perfectly comfortable road trip car.
Many of the things I love about my 8 are rolled up here and directly apply to a relaxed trip: It handles the road, it can respond in a pinch, it makes cruising easy, it's straightforward to race competitively for not much money, it's pretty enough to suit my vanity, the happy pedal is overridingly fun to use. Any trip in my 8 is a pleasure.
SO BUILD ME A NEW ONE DAMMIT.
07-16-2016, 03:42 PM
#941
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Unless a new "Administration" is prepared to change even tougher CAFE rules then there will be no new RX-Anything for the USA, without the US on board the RX is dead for the rest of the world too.
Current Admin (USA) regulates a 54.5 MPG average fleet by 2025.
No wonder Mazda does not want a V6, I did not realise the compliance average was so steep.
Mazda simple will not pay for fines to have ANY guzzler in their range or the buyer pays the fine cost, and that aint going to happen.
Bye Bye RX-
http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...autonews-blast
"The most disturbing thing about it is that essentially no notice was given," said one auto executive with responsibility for fuel economy strategy. "You make your regulatory plans based on a certain set of assumptions. To have it change suddenly without notice and without the ability to respond is really troubling."
Current Admin (USA) regulates a 54.5 MPG average fleet by 2025.
No wonder Mazda does not want a V6, I did not realise the compliance average was so steep.
Mazda simple will not pay for fines to have ANY guzzler in their range or the buyer pays the fine cost, and that aint going to happen.
Bye Bye RX-
http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...autonews-blast
"The most disturbing thing about it is that essentially no notice was given," said one auto executive with responsibility for fuel economy strategy. "You make your regulatory plans based on a certain set of assumptions. To have it change suddenly without notice and without the ability to respond is really troubling."
07-16-2016, 08:10 PM
#943
///// Upscale Zoom-Zoom
Unless a new "Administration" is prepared to change even tougher CAFE rules then there will be no new RX-Anything for the USA, without the US on board the RX is dead for the rest of the world too.
Current Admin (USA) regulates a 54.5 MPG average fleet by 2025.
No wonder Mazda does not want a V6, I did not realise the compliance average was so steep.
Mazda simple will not pay for fines to have ANY guzzler in their range or the buyer pays the fine cost, and that aint going to happen.
Bye Bye RX-
http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...autonews-blast
"The most disturbing thing about it is that essentially no notice was given," said one auto executive with responsibility for fuel economy strategy. "You make your regulatory plans based on a certain set of assumptions. To have it change suddenly without notice and without the ability to respond is really troubling."
Current Admin (USA) regulates a 54.5 MPG average fleet by 2025.
No wonder Mazda does not want a V6, I did not realise the compliance average was so steep.
Mazda simple will not pay for fines to have ANY guzzler in their range or the buyer pays the fine cost, and that aint going to happen.
Bye Bye RX-
http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...autonews-blast
"The most disturbing thing about it is that essentially no notice was given," said one auto executive with responsibility for fuel economy strategy. "You make your regulatory plans based on a certain set of assumptions. To have it change suddenly without notice and without the ability to respond is really troubling."
07-16-2016, 11:00 PM
#944
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Who exactly is it that creates these standards? These CAFE targets are absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic. Do they expect everyone to drive around in 3 cylinder, 50hp turds?
Last edited by 77mjd; 07-16-2016 at 11:28 PM.
07-17-2016, 09:14 AM
#945
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Prague, MN
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAFE standards are all about fleet average. Without such aggressive targets there is no incentive for manufacturers to work on hybrids and EVs. (BTW one way around this is to buy CAFE credits from companies like Tesla.)
07-17-2016, 10:51 AM
#946
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No. They are expecting more low-end, less expensive small cars, more hybrids, and more EVs.
The CAFE standards are all about fleet average. Without such aggressive targets there is no incentive for manufacturers to work on hybrids and EVs. (BTW one way around this is to buy CAFE credits from companies like Tesla.)
The CAFE standards are all about fleet average. Without such aggressive targets there is no incentive for manufacturers to work on hybrids and EVs. (BTW one way around this is to buy CAFE credits from companies like Tesla.)
07-17-2016, 11:18 AM
#947
Registered
Yay, catastrophism! 
Did anyone even try to run the numbers?
Mazda currently sells about 320000 cars per year in the USA (source: here). How many Rx-whatever will they sell per year? If it's competing with the Cayman, it will be priced higher than the Rx-8, which managed about 23000 units in the USA in 2004, its best year (source). On the other hand Porsche managed less than 4000 units in 2015 as a whole. But let's be generous and assume that the new Rx manages about 10000 in its best year, shall we?
Let's also assume the worst case scenario, that is that the average for all other Mazda vehicles combined is EXACTLY at the limit of 54.5 mpg, nothing more than that. Also, let's assume that the new Rx only manages 20mpg. What's the total average then?
((54.5 * 320000) + (20 * 10000)) / (320000 + 10000) = (17440000 + 200000) / 330000 = 17640000 / 330000 = 53.45 mpg
What a disaster, that really kills the average!
Even if Mazda had to pay the fines, that would be 11 (tenths of an mpg below the limit) * 14$ * 330000 = 51 millions. Mazda makes about one Billion (of us dollars) of net income per year. Would it go bankrupt if it had to pay the fine? Don't think so. Especially as the sales of the new Rx would invariably drop off after the first year, so the average would recover "naturally", lowering the fine for each subsequent year, all else being equal.
And this is the worst case scenario: if the Rx does better than 20 mpg, the number will be better. If the rest of the fleet does better than the limit the result will be better. If total Mazda sales increase the result will be better.
Did anyone even try to run the numbers?
Mazda currently sells about 320000 cars per year in the USA (source: here). How many Rx-whatever will they sell per year? If it's competing with the Cayman, it will be priced higher than the Rx-8, which managed about 23000 units in the USA in 2004, its best year (source). On the other hand Porsche managed less than 4000 units in 2015 as a whole. But let's be generous and assume that the new Rx manages about 10000 in its best year, shall we?
Let's also assume the worst case scenario, that is that the average for all other Mazda vehicles combined is EXACTLY at the limit of 54.5 mpg, nothing more than that. Also, let's assume that the new Rx only manages 20mpg. What's the total average then?
((54.5 * 320000) + (20 * 10000)) / (320000 + 10000) = (17440000 + 200000) / 330000 = 17640000 / 330000 = 53.45 mpg
What a disaster, that really kills the average!
Even if Mazda had to pay the fines, that would be 11 (tenths of an mpg below the limit) * 14$ * 330000 = 51 millions. Mazda makes about one Billion (of us dollars) of net income per year. Would it go bankrupt if it had to pay the fine? Don't think so. Especially as the sales of the new Rx would invariably drop off after the first year, so the average would recover "naturally", lowering the fine for each subsequent year, all else being equal.
And this is the worst case scenario: if the Rx does better than 20 mpg, the number will be better. If the rest of the fleet does better than the limit the result will be better. If total Mazda sales increase the result will be better.
07-17-2016, 12:13 PM
#948
The CAFE average projection numbers are simply ridiculous, and unrealistic.
I seriously think there will be some real world adjustment before those numbers actually go into effect. They were likely created by people with no freaking clue of what a realistic goal should be or who understand the automotive industry at all.
Consider this. Look at the big 3 american manufacturers. Look at the massive number of trucks they sell. They will hurt that cafe average so bad that it will never be obtainable. They will NEVER get anywhere near 54mpg by selling that many trucks.
I know the tree huggers don't want to hear it, but we are not going to be all driving hybrid powered K cars! Just freaking stop already.
Anyway- I will now go back to driving my gas guzzling 13MPG v8 powered M3 thank you very much. Gas mileage be damned.
I seriously think there will be some real world adjustment before those numbers actually go into effect. They were likely created by people with no freaking clue of what a realistic goal should be or who understand the automotive industry at all.
Consider this. Look at the big 3 american manufacturers. Look at the massive number of trucks they sell. They will hurt that cafe average so bad that it will never be obtainable. They will NEVER get anywhere near 54mpg by selling that many trucks.
I know the tree huggers don't want to hear it, but we are not going to be all driving hybrid powered K cars! Just freaking stop already.
Anyway- I will now go back to driving my gas guzzling 13MPG v8 powered M3 thank you very much. Gas mileage be damned.
07-17-2016, 12:27 PM
#949
1% evil, 99% hot gas.
iTrader: (21)
The unelected bureaucrats appointed by the politicians we elect. Moral: VOTE and VOTE SMART!
Do they expect everyone to drive around in 3 cylinder, 50hp turds?
07-18-2016, 03:02 PM
#950
