RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

It would be a lot more than that, and that is already more than the difference between the 4-port renny and the 6-port renny. Think about the difference in the exhaust system and intake system that has to flow more, cooling system, the oiling system, the engine mounts, the strength of the drivetrain parts (driveshaft, differential, axles), the brake size (it's power based after all), the transmission and/or differential will have to be geared differently, there will be 50% more injectors and ignition parts which means different wiring harness, different ECU requirements, different fuel rails, probably a different fuel pump and/or regulator.

The list keeps going.

Plus the beaurocratic differences which include wanklebolt's reference above.

It is very not-simple.

djgiron

Wow, that is one nice looking car from that angle. Here's to hoping for a 50th anniversary of the Rotary, Rotary revival! I think the current 3 and 6 are some of the best looking cars out right now so Mazda is definitely on their game since the split with Ford. I wish they would have gotten the diesel released before the VW debacle though, that will hurt any possible future sales I would think.

fmzambon

And yet Mazda did just that with the 13B REW and the 20B REW, with the added complexity that these were sequential twin turbo engines.
Most of what was listed above is just a different choice (or number) of commercial off-the-shelf components, or perhaps doesn't need to be specific for either engine.
If anything, I'm much more worried by additional R&D costs that may be implied by the dual engine option rather than these things mentioned.

Easy? Maybe not. Cheap? Again, maybe not. Doable? I'd say definitely yes. Even more so if one considers the upcoming 100th anniversary for Mazda in 2020 and the likely need for something special to properly celebrate it.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

Oh yes, it's certainly doable. But cost was the point that I raised, and your rebuttal was that it would only have some e-shaft and center plate differences. My reply was then pointing out all of the other differences that would cascade. I totally agree that it's doable, but it isn't something that is very cost effective at all on what could easily be a money-losing proposition even with 1 engine.

A rotary at all would be special enough for me. A ~200-220hp rotary in a 2,300-2,500lb 2-door coupe would be incredibly special.

wankelbolt

iTrader: (21)

The 20B never left Japan, officially.
The JC Cosmo - the car with that engine choice - was one of the deep cuts that nearly bled Mazda to death in the 1990s.

.

77mjd

If they keep the power low, it still has to be faster and better than the BRZ, or nobody will buy it..and it probably needs to be at about the same price point as well.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

It will be easy to be as fast or faster than a BRZ.

Subaru BRZ Reviews - Subaru BRZ Price, Photos, and Specs - Car and Driver
Peak Power: 200hp
Curb Weight: 2,700lbs
0-60: 6.4s
Top speed 139mph

Mazda MX-5 Miata Reviews - Mazda MX-5 Miata Price, Photos, and Specs - Car and Driver
Peak power: 155hp
Curb Weight: 2,300lbs
0-60: 5.9s
Top speed: 129mph (drag limited, no roof kills the aero up high)

I.e, Mazda could have it faster than a BRZ with nearly 75hp less than the Renesis, which I seriously doubt a cut that far down.


Even if it WAS slower for some reason ... people would buy it. No, it would never be a mainstream car. The rotary will never be. But people will buy it. Several people in this thread alone equate to more than "nobody".

Flip it another way. What if someone told you: "The BRZ had to be faster than the RX-8 or nobody would buy it". Because it is slower, but plenty of people did buy it.

Some people look at more than printed or measured performance numbers. I'd buy the BRZ if it had a rotary in it. The only thing I hate about the car is it's engine feel and sound. I have no problem with the power, just things that have nothing to do with performance specs. I'm not unique there.

ASH8

Maybe...

MattMPS

i hope not....

I want something that "overtake" Kodo....a design that will be inspiring Mazda in the next decade.

Kodo is seen al lot of different models today, i want something different (if we speak about an hypothetical Rx-7 FE)

Mazmart

iTrader: (12)

Where are all the nay-sayers now? Where is the RE is dead crowd? Okay, I know the doubters are still lingering- "I'll believe it when it's at the showroom" blah, blah,blah!
Never doubt what Mazda is intending to do or is capable of, especially with the rotary engine.

Okay- My guesses and my assessments:
GUESSES
This car is meant to make a statement RE-garding the rotary engine .
After it's concept period, the new production car will be named, RX-7.
It will weigh less than 2700 lbs in production trim.
It will be powered by the latest development of the all aluminum 1.6 rotary.
It will be shown in production form next year and be sold late next year or early 2017.
It will make more than 300 hp if naturally aspirated and more than 400 if turbocharged.

ASSESSMENTS
This concept shows Kodo evolution and sports car application.
It is rather sexy with that muscular rear and flowing stretched front end.
The tail lamps cry "I am the descendant of FD!"
The creased roofline brings back a bit of the double bubble from the FD.
I can't wait and I'm praying that I like the front end.

Paul.

Love_Hounds

As long as they make it big enough for me to fit in it, I'm game.

Sato Tatsuya

I don't suspect that it will look something like that, only because it looks too much like any other Kodo-designed vehicle ( i.e. Mazda 6 ).

Especially since this statement made by Mazda that it makes it seems like it will most definitely be something different than what we have seen thus far from Mazda.

Now I could be wrong, but that's just my interpretation of that statement.

zoom44

hey Paul the 8 has double bubble too

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I doubt that level of power, though I agree with the weight. In many ways, I hope it is lower ... with a lot of headroom that the aftermarket can have fun playing with.

I also don't think that's the name, since zoom44 said he already knows the name, and can go get the domain for it. He can't get the RX-7 domain.



As far as the naysayers... There will always be rotorheads, closet rotorheads, and the naysayers. Even when it's driving on the street breathing fire again.

SpaceCaptainSteve

I would be surprised if it's lower than 270 HP.

Even though Mazda is always the kind of company to go against the flow, public opinion be damned (only! 155 hp on new MX-5), they are surely aware of the common public perception that the RX-8 was a "let down" due to its low power output.

I agree that it's plain obvious from driving the ND last weekend a new RX would be an amazing car with "just" over 200 hp.. but from a pure marketing standpoint it would be a disaster. They have to be aware of this.

I am betting they go all out, whether its NA or not. 300+ HP. For these same reasons I'd also be surprised if the production version of the concept car isn't called the RX-7. I can feel the desire of Mazda to push some serious batshit insane technology once again and really make a no-holds-barred sports car.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I really don't understand this perspective.

The ND is faster than the NC, but you still say "only! 155" It shows how pointless the single number actually is. There is even a substantial number of people, some in the US, many many more around the world, that say that the ~128hp 1.5L is the BETTER engine for the new Miata than the 155hp 2.0L.

So no, I don't at all believe that "it would be a marketing distaster". It wouldn't take as many magazine headlines, and the people that only shop their cars based on magazine numbers won't buy it ... but plenty of the rest of us would. Not at all a disaster.


Think about it another way. A 2,700lb 300hp car would have a weight to power ratio of 9lbs per hp. If they give us a car where they didn't bother spending any R+D money on the suspension or interior, we might have a car as low as the high 40,000s. But it's Mazda, so those are more important. The car most easily compared with good chassis, good interior, and that weight to power would be the 911. So pricing would be somewhere north of $70,000.

And how many people out there would buy a $70,000 Mazda? $80,000? $90,000?

Sure it would get all sorts of rave magazine articles about it. But the actual volume of buyers would be really really really low. That sounds much closer to the "disaster" to me.


It would be far better for Mazda if they made a car that was capable of 300-400hp from the aftermarket without things blowing up left and right, but actually released it with sub 250hp. More affordable car, less spent on engineering to build up the rest of the car's drivetrain to that power level, less warranty problems, an engine run well within it's peak output zone means it lasts longer for people that don't, so cheaper warranty expenses. Etc... The people that want that power can get it, but Mazda won't have to pay for it, and Mazda won't have to put the car out of reach of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of others.

moldyviolinist

iTrader: (1)

I'm not sure about this. The renesis had very little room for power improvement without adding a turbo. But even then, power levels are low compared to turbocharging the REW, and the renesis is much more prone to failure when turbocharged (high compression rotors, side exhaust port heat, etc).

We don't know what improvements Mazda has made in the next gen engine, but I think the 16X also has high compression rotors and side exhaust ports, meaning that turbocharging is very difficult.

I'm very worried that Mazda will release a slightly lighter car but with less hp than the renesis, and still no potential for bolt ons or turbocharging. Please Mazda, just give us a NA 3 rotor from the factory!

Sato Tatsuya

I agree with everything RIWWP is saying.
I know that a lot of people really want a powerful rotary, but if we really try to look at this through Mazda's perspective, they really like to make cars the way they believe in. The entire company philosophy is built upon the idea of "zoom-zoom" ( what the new slogan "Driving Matters" ). Mazda really wants to build cars that are fun to drive. Mazda has never truly cared about just building cars that are powerful, and would cause the drivers and passengers to stick to the back of the seats.

Personally, I think building the next RX-model in the low-to-mid 200s HP would seem to be the most ideal route for them. While keeping the weight down, and focusing on handling that would cause any driver to smile.

Let's use the ND as an example again. Road & Track put it a good way; DESPITE having less power than the NC, they were able to personify the feeling and emotion that the ND is able to extract from within that, when compared to the NC, no other cars can do.

So ultimately, we all have our wishes and hopes for the next car, but I think this proves that Mazda knows what they are doing - it isn't just about the power, it is about the emotion that comes with the driving experience. Every turn of the steering wheel, every inch pressed or released of the accelerator, brake, and clutch pedals. Everything inch of that car is built to ignite an emotion from within all drivers.

SpaceCaptainSteve

You're reading far too much into my comment, I am well aware that the ND is an amazing car - I was referencing the initial public outcry when learning that the new car would have lower output than the outgoing NC.

As much as we love the RX-8 here, and as much as Mazda is going to get our money (especially mine) if they make this new thing happen regardless of its power, there comes a time when we must acknowledge the reality of the dumb public and its ability to influence the market.

How many people, even gearheads included, hold the opinion that the RX-8 was a lemon and the FD was the last true rotary sports car? We know they were different cars, and we know the 8 has its merits, but the majority of people don't hold that opinion. A big factor in that opinion was the lower power. The two most common things I hear from people in real life are "oh neat is that a wankel engine?" and "that car is junk, the RX-7 was way better"

My position is simply that Mazda is going to want to tap into that mass market appeal and make their new sports car have high numbers, for those who drive automatics and only care about 0-60 times and HP.

Also, I wouldn't bother comparing prices to Porsche (the definitive price-gouging auto company with the highest margins?) especially when Mazda has proven you can get more for less across their entire range. Interior probably will be nice but not hardcore luxury. The RX-8 in its best trims was a very nice car and not that expensive. I bet Mazda can pull off a 300 hp car for under 50K. I agree there is no way they would market a car for 70K but I also think they can achieve 300 hp for far less.

TL;DR, I am of the opinion the car will be good no matter its power but public perception of the RX-8 will drive its horsepower numbers higher regardless of lighter weight.

We know so little at this point that its just speculation anyway. Time will tell!

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

Be wary of drawing too great a parallel to the RX-8 on a future car. The little headroom for improvement was because Mazda extracted everything it could from the engine at the factory. What if they hadn't?

Think about what the RX-8 would have been if the Renesis was actually rated for like ... 150hp from the factory, and was in a coupe version of the NC Miata. Restrictive intake and exhaust, maybe even weaker spark plugs, etc...

But with aftermarket stuff, it could easily be woken up to ~230hp (crank). It would have had a significantly higher aftermarket development following, greater tuning appeal, and that weight to power would have made it a sought after car to tune up.

If the 16x derivative is capable of 300-400hp (which I do believe the 16x would certainly be capable of that power), but Mazda only releases it with ~200hp. That is a lot of very appealing headroom that can be leveraged and enjoyed in many areas that Mazda doesn't have to pay the R+D for.

fmzambon

That's true, but using an engine that's too large for its intended power target means that the engine is larger and heavier than it needs to be. Being larger displacement it's also possible that it could be less fuel efficient at cruising power levels.

It doesn't seem like this approach would fit Mazda's line of thinking of lightness, lightness, lightness, lightness, lightness, lightness...

Mazmart

iTrader: (12)

Very true Zoom, very true! The double bubble on this concept looks a lot like the version on the 8, maybe a little more pronounced.

Paul.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

Wait, why does the engine have to be larger and heavier?

The 16x should be capable of 300+hp, and it's already the same size as the Renesis, and presumably even lighter since it's all alunimum instead of partly iron. Detuning it to 200hp won't magically make the 16x bigger and heavier.

fmzambon

No, the 16x won't get any larger or heavier for sure.
But if you can, theoretically, get 300hp from the 16x, then it means that you don't need 1.6 liters of displacement if all you need is 200hp. You can do it with a smaller displacement, which can be packaged in a smaller and lighter engine.

wankelbolt

iTrader: (21)

Your statements are contradictory.

If they "detune" it, then it will be larger and heavier than it needs to be to make the horsepower it is being delivered with. That's contradictory to the "Mazda culture" you've been touting.

You also say about the RENESIS: "Be wary of drawing too great a parallel to the RX-8 on a future car. The little headroom for improvement was because Mazda extracted everything it could from the engine at the factory." That directly contradicts your belief they will "detune" the alleged 16X.

Why do you think they would extract everything possible out of the last rotary engine, but leave something on the table (at the expense of cost and weight) in the next rotary? Cognitive dissonance.