New RX7 and RX9!
05-28-2010, 06:59 AM
#26
the idea of a 4 door sedan with rotary under the hood is old in MAzda and absolutely not bad...
c'mon guys, other carmakers sell A LOT of" sleek" sedans..... selling them with the name "sport" or "sporty".
Mazda is doing that (if this rumor is true) with a proper engine.....
They need something more "premium" and upscale than a Mazda 6......
rx-7 is also interesting for more track-oriented people
c'mon guys, other carmakers sell A LOT of" sleek" sedans..... selling them with the name "sport" or "sporty".
Mazda is doing that (if this rumor is true) with a proper engine.....
They need something more "premium" and upscale than a Mazda 6......
rx-7 is also interesting for more track-oriented people
05-28-2010, 07:01 AM
#27
I agree but the rx7 with 230hp should become an exige-like car to be competitive given where the industry is leading. I will buy the next rotary anyway so i'm just keeping my fingers crossed!
05-28-2010, 07:19 AM
#30
Heh123
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious, wouldn't the 16x technology be more advance than the renny since renny is derived from 13B. If so, then why would they put a less advance engine into a 10 year cycle production car? wouldnt that make the renny an ancient engine 10 years from 2012? Please correct me if I am wrong
05-28-2010, 08:28 AM
#31
That's kind of hard to say. The only true information we have about the 16x is the dimensions. We don't know for sure what technology will be in the final version and for all we know, they could apply a lot of what they learned to the renesis as well. If the renesis gets another update, then it's not necessarily outdated. We just have to wait and see complete specs and such.
05-28-2010, 09:20 AM
#33
Pet Peeve
This is all exciting news although I will increase my enthusiasm when they put it in print (Green flag).
As far as engine names go; it's not renesis vs 16X. They would both be renesis engines but of different displacement (If Mazda is doing two). The 1.6 engine would not use the X designation in production form if they follow the pattern they've used throughout time. People are always saying renesis vs 13B whereas the present renesis IS a 13B so maybe we'll get a 13B renesis and a 16C renesis. Who knows? I sure don't.
I hope the rumors are true.
Paul.
As far as engine names go; it's not renesis vs 16X. They would both be renesis engines but of different displacement (If Mazda is doing two). The 1.6 engine would not use the X designation in production form if they follow the pattern they've used throughout time. People are always saying renesis vs 13B whereas the present renesis IS a 13B so maybe we'll get a 13B renesis and a 16C renesis. Who knows? I sure don't.
I hope the rumors are true.
Paul.
05-28-2010, 09:20 AM
#34
A more evolved Renesis would be a good thing, in addition to the 16X. Mazda now well knows the Rene shortfalls and presumably is advancing that engine along with the prospective new core.
Again, a light 2-seater with an advanced Renesis would be an excellent model (even tho' I had hoped for the 16X).
Again, a light 2-seater with an advanced Renesis would be an excellent model (even tho' I had hoped for the 16X).
Just curious, wouldn't the 16x technology be more advance than the renny since renny is derived from 13B. If so, then why would they put a less advance engine into a 10 year cycle production car? wouldnt that make the renny an ancient engine 10 years from 2012? Please correct me if I am wrong
05-28-2010, 02:12 PM
#35
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it make sense to support 2 different rotary engines? Business wise you would think it would be more reasonable to put the 16X on both cars. Think economies of scale, parts, technical support, documentation, etc.
Also, aren't both those engines supposed to be the same (external) size? it's not a matter of fitment, right?
Also, aren't both those engines supposed to be the same (external) size? it's not a matter of fitment, right?
05-28-2010, 02:44 PM
#39
Does it make sense to support 2 different rotary engines? Business wise you would think it would be more reasonable to put the 16X on both cars. Think economies of scale, parts, technical support, documentation, etc.
Also, aren't both those engines supposed to be the same (external) size? it's not a matter of fitment, right?
Also, aren't both those engines supposed to be the same (external) size? it's not a matter of fitment, right?
05-28-2010, 02:48 PM
#40
doin' the bull dance
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Quahog, RI
Posts: 3,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just being a wisearse.
Though I wouldn't mind a 2 revival. I love the old 2s.
On the 2 different rotary engines issue . . .
There's also not much cost to be considered since Mazda already supports the renesis and there likely wouldn't be any major changes to it for the 7.
It's not like they're working R&D on two rotary variants.
05-28-2010, 03:30 PM
#42
Administrator
i can confirm the diesel for the Mazda 2. So that bit is absolutely true. No reason for E to be wrong about the rest since his source has been confirmed in the past.
Just a point- If they do go forward with both cars then they need to give props to Paul and I for pushing that concept for/to them over the last few years. we have been consistent in saying if they push the 8 up a little bit they have room underneath for the "7". Its our Idea- just saying'
Just a point- If they do go forward with both cars then they need to give props to Paul and I for pushing that concept for/to them over the last few years. we have been consistent in saying if they push the 8 up a little bit they have room underneath for the "7". Its our Idea- just saying'
05-28-2010, 03:48 PM
#45
they need another engine (or a version) to meet US pollution standard for diesel....
any toughts?
and for AT tranny?
05-28-2010, 04:32 PM
#46
Administrator
the new sky diesel. its not ready yet but will be for late 2011. same as the tranny in the current 2 here in the states. bland old 4-speed because the newer one isnt being built yet
05-28-2010, 04:45 PM
#47
Just a point- If they do go forward with both cars then they need to give props to Paul and I for pushing that concept for/to them over the last few years. we have been consistent in saying if they push the 8 up a little bit they have room underneath for the "7". Its our Idea- just saying'
We don't need a car that isn't sure if it's a sports car or a sedan.
Paul.
05-28-2010, 04:49 PM
#49
I'm not taking credit at this point, but yes, we have been saying for years that it would be logical to have a slightly more mature 4 door car a la Lexus IS with a little more torque and luxury (Less Boy racer) 0 flooding or other foolish inconveniences. A back to basics 2 door light weight is the other logical car that can share multiple parts with the MX5.
We don't need a car that isn't sure if it's a sports car or a sedan.
Paul.
We don't need a car that isn't sure if it's a sports car or a sedan.
Paul.
Last edited by Easy_E1; 05-29-2010 at 10:59 AM.
05-28-2010, 04:51 PM
#50
Administrator
iTrader: (7)
wonder if they'll have any surprises for us at SS XIII
