"Detuning" can increase engine reliability and engine life.
Mazda got everything out of the 13b-MSP. The 16x is/will be a different beast, with direct injection, decreased engine weight, different materials, and changes to the rotors and eccentric shaft.

I think if the next rotary car is a 4 seater Mazda should shoot for under 2700 lbs weight, 250 hp, and as much torque as they can safely get. If it's a 2 seater than of course it could be lighter still (I would lose interest), say under 2600 lbs. At that weight it should still shoot for minimum of RX8s power level (230), and more torque. Both cars would be quick enough. I also believe it should be a detuned engine, so there's room for tuners. Make a 270 hp car but detune it to 240, a 250 hp car, detune it to 230. When you make an engine, that's already deemed weak by the crowd, then make it un-tunable, that's where you loose the attention of the enthusiast crowd. The enthusiast crowd is what these cars are made for. If you don't lock them in your car is doomed. The 16x is a bigger engine than the renesis, with a longer stroke to help it make more power. Mazda says NA it tops out at 300. Make it 250 hp and it should be easier to live with. Mazda's goal is more than 300hp though. I read their goal is over 400hp or 335kw. I think the real reason we haven't seen a new rotary is that Mazda is shooting for a supercar rotary engine

I'm chuckling. :)

No, I'm not being contradictory.

Yes, if they wanted a peak power 200hp rotary, they could make a 12b or something to accomplish that. And it might be lighter or smaller, though I don't know by how much. But we already know that the 16x dimensions were heavily developed. Sure, it might not be the 16x dimensions, but I think the odds are pretty good. So from a narrow view, your statements are correct, that a 16x derivative engine is larger and heavier than it would strictly need to be, but given it's size and weight vs the Renesis, it's not at all in a direction contrary to Mazda's efforts. The ND is the same size as the NC, but lighter and faster. The 2.0L in it is the same size as the NC's 2.0L, but lighter and produces more torque but less peak power from the factory (there are numerous clues that there are noticeable gains to be had from the ND's engine, look at valvetrain and octane vs the Mazda3 variant). See where I'm going with this? The 16x is the same size as the Renesis, but would be lighter and could easily produce more torque but less peak power from the factory.

They even indicated a whole lot of clues in that direction. The 16x dimensions themselves lend it to more torque, especially low end torque, and a lower redline. They also said that the RX-8's intake is too complicated and they will simplify it. This will probably have a loss of power somewhere in the curve. Since consumers are more readily looking for low end torque, and a low end torque tuned improvement would also help gas mileage, a lower flowing intake and exhaust would improve this at the expense of higher RPM power.

It would also increase the ability of aftermarket companies to extract more power with higher flowing intake/exhaust options.



And yes, Mazda extracted everything they could from the Renesis, and that is part of the problem. An engine that is developed for more and detuned lasts a whole lot longer than one that is run on the ragged edge like the Renesis. Mazda has nothing to gain but magazine accolades from wringing out as much power as it can from a 16x derivative, and lots to lose. On the contrary, it has a whole lot to gain from not doing that this time and detuning it, and nothing to lose except people that bemoan a lower power number from a car they didn't like anyway.

And most manufactures have detuned engines from the factory vs what they could produce. It's why the aftermarket power parts developers exist.

I agree with you on all of that except the last few lines. :) I read that too, but I also read it from one of the worse offenders of the rumor mongering, with absolutely nothing actually from Mazda to back it up. Just speculation on what those people would like to see.

Isn't the Renesis detuned from 250 hp?
I realize its not much but 300 hp was the alleged value of the 16X in 2007. 300 hp could certainly be a detuned value from a modernized 16X.

Nope.

Agreed, it's possible.

I thought motoring.au were the start of the rumors of a potential 450 hp twin turbo, and they were the first ones to break the news of Mazda hinting at a tokyo auto show reboot.

I'm still waiting on the cool Diesel Mazda 6 that was going to make it not lame.

this is the news we've been waiting on for quite some time and I'm pretty excited about what they've shown.


I've heard from sources inside Mazda that they've had plans for the 50th anniversary for quite some time and that they have been hard at work on a Halo Car. Until they were happy with the concept, they were staying tight lipped.
Well....


I agree with almost everything Paul mentioned in the last page with his guesses and assessment. It seems to line up perfectly with what I've been anticipating (shocker! Paul and I agree ;) )
2 door
lightweight
Rotary lineage
Larger motor
phenomenal chassis
Kodo

As for the engine; that'll be the interesting part because recently I'm told that Mazda said to the engineers, "it doesn't have to be a 2 rotor"
take that for it's worth.
I expect to continue to see upgrades in the interiors as Mazda has set quite a high standard for themselves in that regard and have started to deliver on it. Just look how far some of their recent models have come compared to the last generations.


Performance: It won't lead in HP, it doesn't have to but Mazda's engineers aren't aiming to compete with the BRZ, the bar for the 50th anniversary was set much higher, long ago. :suspect:

Yes and yes. But one does not validate the other. Just look through their history and you can see how many of their claims have already been proven wrong.

Im pretty certain the car in the pic is a 2+2

I'd like a diesel mazda 6. Damn you Volkswagen, DAMN YOU!!!:crying:

It looks like just a 2 seater to me even though its long. Getting FD vibes with that rear window (hatch?) swooping all the way to the back.

Mazda wouldn't *not* offer a 6 spd, right? I think I had a nightmare last night that they would only go paddle shifters. I keep telling myself theres no way they wouldn't make a stick, but it nags the back of my mind

Guess we are all getting carried away, they have to get beyond the concept-car stage first. And lets hope the front end is as good looking as the back. As much as I love the 8 I think they could have done better styling on the front (both gens).

I hadn't even thought about paddle shifters. Why did you bring that up? Now I won't be able to sleep.

Because the new NSX and the FT-1 are/were massive let downs in that regard. :puke:

Well there are 2 schools of thought here. First is make the Halo car, the one that gets feet in the door at Mazda because the current 6 and 3 and SUVs are very good. They don't have the sales because they don't have the following. Get ppl in the door, look at our amazing RX100000, Oh I see you have a camry/accord/sonata, have you driven the 6? Same as Nissan started with the GTR. Nobody wanted to by an 80k nissan, but the people came in to see it, then drove home an altima. You don't have to make money on the Halo, cause you are getting more foot traffic now and making more on the rest of your line-up which is superior to the mainstream cars now. But maybe you can get the tuner crowd interested in the Halo also, and you can start making money on it later (like the GTR).
Second, make it affordable and fun and attractive. Get the younger generation in love with the rotary and keep it going that way. However, isnt that what they tried with the Rx8? Too many ppl who just wanted to buy an appliance car bought it and didnt maintain it.
I think you make the Halo, get the foot traffic for the rest of your line-up. And yes, DAM YOU VW for the diesel debacle! I have been waiting to drive a 6 oil burner!

I hope that doesn't mean 2 rotor + hybrid motor. And having a NA 2 rotor with hp maxing out at 280 to 300 will be, at best, a Z car competitor, assuming the RX's curb weight < 3000 lbs. Targeting a lame performance car like the Nissan is a lowly goal anyway, as it itself is inferior performance-wise to its predecessor (Z32).

It's definitely high time to take the legendary RX-7 name further upmarket as they did with the FD, and continue to stay competitive with the Vette, which out of all Mazda's 90s competition, is the only one still around. Only a turbocharged 3 rotor could do that, IMO.
I hope they aren't setting their sights on BRZ as it's a bottom-feeder on the sportscar totem pole. Nevermind that the MX-5 with a hardtop is effectively direct competition to the twins.

I'm looking forward to the announcement - even if it is a rotary/hybrid. If they can make the RX50 in a retro style that complements the FD and styling cues from future/present cars and keep the 4-person format - I'm sold and will be 1st in line at the dealer.

I agree, The BRZ twins aren't worth it IMO. You have to set your sights on something higher. I would make 2 cars, since they have 2 milestones coming up. One car should be a lightweight, affordable sports car for the masses and the other should be a halo car. Maybe a mazdaspeed variant of the first car. I would shoot for under 40 grand for 1st car, and basically the sky's the limit on 2nd. It's about time for Mazda to get into the supercar business to take things up a notch.

They make great cars...that no one buys! Even the critics in the mags rate them the highest in their respective classes. What's the holdout? For one, their cars are sporty, but they should have higher performance versions of all of their cars. Someone mentioned a halo car. They need one but a 60 grand halo car won't get you foot traffic, but a 5 grand more Mazdaspeed 3, 6, or CX5 will get people in to test drive.

All they need is 1 high power turbo 4 that can be used for the 6, 3 and anything else they have. They don't have v6s anymore. If I was Mazda, I would push Mazdaspeed, make it more of it's own division, and have my showrooms littered with mazdaspeed vehicles. I guarantee they'd get people in the showrooms. Oh, and they've got to get better showrooms and much better service departments. They should rebrand the Mazda ownership experience, making it more upscale, even if they have to raise the price of each car another $100-$200 bucks.

Since Toyota is currently in bed with Mazda, don't be surprised if the next twin is a Mazyota twin.

huh?

Yes, they are small in the US, but the US isn't the world. Mazda is the 2nd highest volume brand in Australia for example. They were selling SkyActive 2.0L equipped cars faster than they could produce engines for them.

People definitely buy them.

I meant the US. That's where I am. Here, they aren't as big as they should be. I would rather have the 3 or 6 over any other car in their respective classes but, the ownership experience is not as good. mazda needs to work on that more. Rebrand the showrooms, raise their service level, take it more upscale, offer free maintenance on all cars, push performance more on all cars, bring back zoom-zoom live, better advertise their cars and wins/awards etc. In short, they need to put more money behind the ownership experience. That's how Subaru grew.

1: They are indeed growing. Rapidly.

2: I don't want them to become too big. That's when the fun goes out of the brand.

3: "I would rather have the 3 or 6 over any other car in their respective classes but, the ownership experience is not as good" doesn't make sense.

4: Every idea you have costs money... and lots of it. With no certainty of actually driving all those sales you want. BMW has all of what you listed, but still pretty close to Mazda in sales volume. What does that tell you?

No, the way to drive all the sales numbers up as far as you want in the US, the cars have to become very un-Mazda. They have to be either huge power numbers for cheap (which means something else is sorely lacking), or they have to be completely mundane and boring to cut costs to the point that the profits are big enough to be able to afford to give huge warranties and free maintenance, etc... That's what appeals to most of the people here unfortunately. I for one, am glad as hell that they don't. If that keeps them small, so be it. I don't need to buy all of their cars, just one (or three). If they only sold 20,000 cars a year in the US, that wouldn't bother me because I could still go buy one of them and enjoy it. I don't need everyone else to be enjoying it too. Their loss, not mine.



So how big "should" they be? And what does that actually accomplish for you?

They are not as big as they should be, agreed, but they are not as small as you think.

Mazda USA outsells: Lexus, Buick, Audi, Cadillac, Acura, Infiniti, Lincoln, Mitsubishi, Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, Porsche, Mini.

Mazda USA outsells the combined sales of Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, Porsche.