77mjd

Bingo...and I still maintain that is the MAIN REASON that the RX-8 has been a major turn off for the car buying puiblic. Had the RX-8 in it's current form been capable of 26-30 hwy I think it would have been an absolutely huge hit.

LionZoo

If this rumor is true (and it is pretty dated now) then I'm reaching for a dislike button. A near RX-8 sized RX-7 will have me firmly leaning towards buying a Lotus instead.

pking1122

^ To each his own. This is why it would make sense to do the 7 and 9 to satisfy the 2 buyer types they created. While the hardcore bunch will be all over a 2 seater track monster, many of the buyers who were attracted to the 8 for combination of practicality along with performance will feel alienated by Mazda strictly offering a 2 seater. More options mean more potential rotary buyers.

LionZoo

But more models is more development costs. It's a fine balance.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

How much in development costs is the question.

For example, if the RX-7 is a re-skinned MX-5 with a Renesis2, then it doesn't really have much in the way of extra development, or even re-tooling, as long as Mazda has the MX-5 in production. If they also offer an RX-9 with the 16X, then an RX-7 with the 16X wouldn't be much more in development either, as the development costs are already there.


They are developing 1 engine. They have developed another engine already.


For example, the Mazda5 and Mazda3. How much development costs were shared between the 2? I'd bet nearly everything. Not quite everything, but damn close.

Sharing the engine across more than 1 chassis is only significant extra development costs if it isn't on a pre-existing platform. If they are developing the RX-9 chassis based on the RX-8, then the RX-8 chassis cuts costs. If they use a Renesis2 for the RX-7, and put it in an MX-5 chassis, there is almost no development costs.


At this point, there is only 1 thing being truly developed, and that's the 16X. Something with minimal development costs like a Renesis2 MX-5 chassis RX-7 has the performance potential to ignore any mileage concerns (no one mentions mileage for most other sports cars in reviews), and with next to no R+D that needs to be paid for, it could easily be a very profitable car.

The RX-9 with a 16X is where I think their stumbling block may be, but can be pulled off well.


I think there is more appetite for more than 1 rotary car than people realize.

I just don't think that many people have an appetite for more than 1 rotary car themselves, so they can't see the flip side clearly.

Mazmart

iTrader: (12)

I'd personally like to have both cars myself. If there were an RX9, similar to my dream IS destroyer, I think I'd start with it first and get the simple sports car later.

Paul.

pking1122

I envision the RX-7 as a hardtop MX-5 with a rotary and different sheet metal. There's not a whole lot of additional development in doing this if the 16x was already in development, and the 13b MSP has been used for almost 10 years. This is basically taking pieces that already exist in Mazda's lineup, and putting them together to create performance vehicles to appeal to all potential buyers. This method would optimize savings, not add cost. The key is hitting the $25k price point that the 370Z left behind, and you'd see a **** load of 350Z owners, FD 7 owners, and youth all over the 7 like flies to ****. The 9 would like the new R3 8 in the $30k range. If Mazda addresses the power output, thermo-efficiency, and transmission issues that hurt the 8's sales, and maintain the sexy styling, Mazda has a commercial winner on their hands.

MattMPS

Paul, do you think that a real 4-door layout (IS-like) is possible eventually for a RX-9?

i think that Mazda6 dont' "represent" very well Mazda into "mid-high" segment, especially without a mazdaspeed version (turbo and 4WD)...
i'm talking about outside-US market (i know there is a 3,5 liter mazda6 in USA)

pking1122

+1

TALAN7

If Mazda was able to pull off a new 8, or 9 if you will, with 275 hp and make it 150 lbs lighter and get 2-3 more mpg, they would have a winner on their hands. if they did a 7 with same hp they need to cut about 400 lbs off, which I think is doable. You'd be looking at low to mid 5s in the 7 and high 5's in the 8/9. If I was Mazda though I would shoot for 300 hp/210 foot lbs, (or more), 2800 lb 8/9, loaded, and a 2500 lb 7. Those 2 cars would rule.

WTBRotary!

iTrader: (6)

If this RX-7 is supposed to be based on the Miata chassis and be roughly the same size or a tad bigger I hope the two look ALOT different. I love the Miata and whats its stood for since it came out, but the current shape/design of it makes me throw up a little in my mouth

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I'm sure it would be. I don't think they want their MX-5 line to be spoiled by die-hard MX-5 fans that would throw up by putting a rotary in it.

It's like the 3 and the 5, the chassis and power train are the same, but they have different frames, different sheet metal.

MattMPS

+1. honestly i ' dont see room enough for a rotary powered mx-5. i'f you watch MAzda history they have cut the rx-7 cabrio right after the big success of miata.

no cannibalism is alloweed in a small cap like mazda.

HiFlite999

iTrader: (2)

Remember too that Mazda has pioneered flexible production lines where they can make different model cars on the same line. Parts sharing between the MX-5, RX-7 and RX-9 would make this easier (and cheaper) to accomplish. Making the RX-9 the rotary-equivalent of the VW CC would be, as the kids say, "like totally sick" especially if they can come up with an Audi-like interior to match.

Huey52

iTrader: (2)

Many moons ago the original Mustang, also in a down economy, followed the same philosophy. Iacocca took the Falcon chassis, an engine, and a number of other components already on Ford's line, gave it sleeker sheetmetal, and voila.

imho there's room for both 4-seat and 2-seat models.

lepichichi

iTrader: (10)

I hope the new 7 doesn't look as gay as the new miata, and the concept of a mita with a rotary has always been my dream car.

WTBRotary!

iTrader: (6)

+1, already said that lol...

LionZoo

Well let's do some math. Let's assume that over it's lifespan, one new rotary car will sell 250,000 units. The mean price that the car will sell for is $30,000. The industry standard profit margin is a bit less than 5%, but sports cars tend to be a lot lower than that. Therefore we will analysis with both 5% and 2.5% profit margin figures.

Profit at 5% : $30,000 * 250,000 * 0.05 = $375 million
Profit at 2.5% : $30,000 * 250,000 * 0.025 = $187.5 million (probably more realistic)

This "profit" has to pay for all development costs of the car as well as marketing and any recalls. While I don't know the tooling costs in the automotive industry, I know that tools for the sheetmetal parts of computer servers will run past the million dollar mark. Considering a server is much much smaller than a car, and a car uses multi-ton presses instead of NCT machines, I think it's safe to say tooling for the body alone (and the body will be completely different no matter the architecture) will run into the tens of millions.

Also, even if the underpinnings are 100% the same (a poor assumption as we find even in the transition from Series 1 to Series 2 RX-8, there are differences in suspension geometry), a RX model will have different bumper covers, different wheels, most likely different dashes, seats, and interior trim. Not to mention different exhausts, transmission gear ratios, modified diffs, driveshafts, axles, etc. etc. As you can see, the parts count quickly adds up and suddenly similar switchgear seems like small gains indeed.

Those are just the small items. If you have two rotary cars, even if they're on the same platform they will probably have different wheelbases so the entire floorpan will need to be changed and with that comes A LOT of redevelopment costs as you'll need to pay the engineers and testers for two different cars. Plus, two rotary cars will doubtless result in some sales cannibalization as we can see even on this board, some of us that bought the RX-8 will only buy the more practical car while others will only buy the 2 seater. Therefore, what used to be close to $200 million in profit for one platform might end up being more like $125 million in profit per platform if you have two rotaries. However, the development costs will likely be similar per rotary car so you'll end up looking at diminishing returns.

Yes sharing architecture saves cost, but that generally just means you'll pay hundreds of million for a new model based on an existing architecture rather than the billion it might take for a completely new architecture. Costs are reduced, but it doesn't mean you can make a good new car for nothing.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I never meant to suggest that you could. Simply that the massive development costs that people seem to think is required if 2 rotary cars are in production isn't the case if one of those uses an engine and chassis combination that already had their development completed and used in other cars.

If this was not true, then we wouldn't see things such as the 2.0l, 2.3l, or 2.5l I4 engines being used among multiple cars. The chassis of the 3 being used among multiple cars. The 6 sharing a chassis and v6 engine with the Ford Fusion.

There IS cost savings there, and they are quite significant, and people that decry that Mazda can't afford that are forgetting this one fact.


There are massive numbers left out of the math you did, though I imagine it wasn't supposed to be an all-inclusive list. Parts sales, financing interest, advertisement cost, etc... Enough that your rough numbers really aren't usable.

As for cannibalization, every single car sale in the world is takes a car sale from someone else. It's called market share. In order to increase market share of the rotary, it needs to widen it's appeal. They tried to do that with the 8 by making it fit multiple needs and uses (and succeeded quite well in making it fit multiple needs, but the mass market didn't agree with their wallets). Splitting the attributes between two cars is a natural progression at this point.
And unfortunately, that means the numbers on paper that everyone else in the world loves have to be competitive. The thrill of driving will only appeal to the niche. Too many people won't buy for that. If the RX-7 is produced as mentioned, it will have performance numbers that plenty of people here, as well as plenty of people from other communities, and those that aren't even enthusiasts, buying it.

LionZoo

I'm not here to do an exhaustive breakdown as these days I barely have the time to post on the forum. Hell, it's been days since my last visit. It was to give you a rough idea that while parts sharing can reduce costs, multiple rotary cars will still require nine figures to put into production. Hundreds of millions of dollars is only a fraction of the billion or so that is typically required for a new car architecture and is a significant cost savings. If I told potential clients I can develop the same product for them for 20% of their normal budget, they'd be beating down my doors. However, hundreds of millions is still a significant investment, especially for something as niche market as a rotary car. My illustration is that the sales of a rotary car is so low that it's hard to justify the extra cost of development for a second model.

The point of market share is to take it from other manufacturers, not from models in your own lineup. I bet a significant portion of RX-9 sales would be taken from the same rotorheads that might otherwise buy a RX-7. Even at the modest costs that you would need to make a RX-9 from a RX-7, you'll need to guarantee that sales of two rotary cars would be significantly (as in at least 1.8X) that of one rotary model. I just don't see that market as the sports sedan market tends to not like the thought of a rotary engine or the Mazda badge.

On a final thought, you might list other sources of profit, but there are also other costs that are not listed such as buybacks, recalls, downtime for assembly line conversions, the possibility of taking finite assembly line capacity from a more profitable model, etc. etc. Nonetheless, the point of my example is to show that regardless of the cost savings of using shared architecture, the development cost of a second model will still be in the nine figure range and thus you need to make more than that in gross profit to justify it. I'm not sure you can.

TALAN7

Ultimately, the only feasible way for the rotary to continue may be a very light 2 seat sports car that could make due with less power/torque because of it's weight. It would by default get better mileage and be a better performer. Seems weight might be the rotarys' biggest enemy. I'm not really interested in a 2 door sports car though. I like them but they aren't practical enough and I don't have the money to be able to justify the cost.

Mazmart

iTrader: (12)

I agree with you on most points and most people are unaware of the costs involved. All of your business statements are correct. I do wonder however, if the rotary needs to be treated as SO unique that it can't go in more than one car. It would be different than offering 2 rotary sports cars. Subaru offers several cars with the same unique engine as each other. Rotary needs to come out of the 'odd' zone to make sense and be successful. Keeping it in only one chassis does not help that cause.

Paul.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

And Paul says it better with less words

Getting it into more than 1 chassis is only beneficial, even in tiny profit margins.

mushkid

iTrader: (6)

i can see it now!! 2 years from now the same scenario as our rx-8's.

nissan will have their fast car so will honda and toyota etc.. we will be enjoying our cars but at the same time have to be dealing with teh rotary newbs:

"Yo WhY iS mY cAr SlOw, I wAnNa Be MaD fAsT yO!. "I ThOuGhT rX-7 hAd TuRbOs?" "y WoNt My cAr StArT?

im hoping that they make 16x Swap Friendly!!, just incase my renny bites the dust. i can just drop in a 16x and call it a day. lol

WTBRotary!

iTrader: (6)

I get what you mean but thats the way life goes... as cars get older their value drops making it affordable for the younger crowd. Ask me how I know? I was the only one around here that was 16-17-18, hell even below 21 that had an RX-8. I drove a couple of my friends around and all of the sudden BAM, mommy and daddy bought them an RX-8. Now all of the sudden instead of me being the only RX-8 around there is 5 kids around my area, 2/3 of which dont care about the rotary engine in general and dont take care of the car. I regret my decision ever since I took them on a ride.

Thats just the way it goes though... ever car goes through that unless its a supercar...