RX-7 confirmed. Hallelujah!
10-31-2012, 10:53 PM
#52
11-01-2012, 07:17 AM
#56
Can people hold off on this until we know exactly what we're dealing with? It seems a bit ridiculous to be posting stuff like this already. There are plenty of other sports cars that manage fine without turbos and we're dealing with a whole new engine here.
11-01-2012, 07:21 AM
#57
11-01-2012, 08:18 AM
#58
Old news Paul, by a day..
https://www.rx8club.com/general-auto...3/#post4375535
Go Auto are saying 2015, not 2017.
https://www.rx8club.com/general-auto...3/#post4375535
Go Auto are saying 2015, not 2017.
I do hope that the timeline from Go Auto is right but I think we can trust the head of the sports car program and Skyactiv RE program more than any of the journalists. I corresponded with him yesterday but I refuse to ask questions related to stuff like that.
Paul.
11-01-2012, 08:28 AM
#59
Registered
Typical rotary community full of whiny little crybabies. You've asked for years for Mazda to bring back a rotary flagship car and here it is but you don't want to pay flagship pricing. You've complained about the power level of every rotary up to this point yet always loved the cars in hindsight. When the RX-8 came out you complained that it needed more power and less weight. Here is it and you hate it. Wtf is wrong with some of you people? Go drive a Camaro or Mustang and be done with it. Drink the 13 second, 400 hp heavy American muscle car Kool-aid if you truly want image with no substance. The 255 hp FD ran mid 13's AND it could turn a corner! A lighter car with more power is going to absolutely keep up with other far more powerful cars.
Here's something to think about the for ill informed out there who lack even one iota of knowledge about how performance is achieved. Let's look at a car with a power number that fat stupid people drool over, the Dodge Challenger SRT-8 with the 6.4L/392 cu in V-8.
This car has a curb weight of 4132 lbs. But the engine makes 470 HP so it must be fast!!! While certainly no slouch, it has a power to weight ratio of 8.79:1. The FD was around 10:1 so clearly not as fast but that was 20 years ago. A lighter RX-7 around 2600 lbs with 300 hp has a power to weight ratio of 8.66:1. That's faster! Keep in mind the above mentioned Challenger has a rated fuel economy of 14/23 and costs around $45,000. We all know the 16X is more fuel efficient than the Renesis. Put this in a lighter car and the economy rises more. Add in the fact that there is still a few years left to improve the engine further and the possibility exists that by the time a new RX-7 arrives, it'll out perform or at the very least be competitive with every American muscle car in terms of straight line acceleration, will still maintain the fantastic cornering ability of it's predecessors, will be priced competitively with other cars of it's performance level and could do it with a mileage figure around 23/33 or so. Compared to the competition, that's a super car!
Stop crying. Be excited. You haven't seen anything yet!
Here's something to think about the for ill informed out there who lack even one iota of knowledge about how performance is achieved. Let's look at a car with a power number that fat stupid people drool over, the Dodge Challenger SRT-8 with the 6.4L/392 cu in V-8.
This car has a curb weight of 4132 lbs. But the engine makes 470 HP so it must be fast!!! While certainly no slouch, it has a power to weight ratio of 8.79:1. The FD was around 10:1 so clearly not as fast but that was 20 years ago. A lighter RX-7 around 2600 lbs with 300 hp has a power to weight ratio of 8.66:1. That's faster! Keep in mind the above mentioned Challenger has a rated fuel economy of 14/23 and costs around $45,000. We all know the 16X is more fuel efficient than the Renesis. Put this in a lighter car and the economy rises more. Add in the fact that there is still a few years left to improve the engine further and the possibility exists that by the time a new RX-7 arrives, it'll out perform or at the very least be competitive with every American muscle car in terms of straight line acceleration, will still maintain the fantastic cornering ability of it's predecessors, will be priced competitively with other cars of it's performance level and could do it with a mileage figure around 23/33 or so. Compared to the competition, that's a super car!
Stop crying. Be excited. You haven't seen anything yet!
11-01-2012, 08:33 AM
#60
This car has a curb weight of 4132 lbs. But the engine makes 470 HP so it must be fast!!! While certainly no slouch, it has a power to weight ratio of 8.79:1. The FD was around 10:1 so clearly not as fast but that was 20 years ago. A lighter RX-7 around 2600 lbs with 300 hp has a power to weight ratio of 8.66:1. That's faster!
You're right RG, people just can't be pleased.
If Mazda gave them a turbo 16x with 400hp they'd complain about the pricetag of a real supercar and its fuel economy...
11-01-2012, 08:41 AM
#62
Registered
The FD just about hit the $40K mark in 1995. Just under it. In today's money a near $40K car with far more performance is a bargain by comparison. Sounds like a great replacement to me! You'd get that rotary sports car. It wouldn't be a super car but it would sure feel like it!
11-01-2012, 09:01 AM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the concept of the car from the article. Reminds me of the first gen RX-7 in some respects - light, nimble and most likely NA.
The premium price tag doesn't bother me. I'd rather pay more for a light nimble sports car than pay less for a bloated Z car.
The premium price tag doesn't bother me. I'd rather pay more for a light nimble sports car than pay less for a bloated Z car.
11-01-2012, 09:02 AM
#64
Legend In My Own Mind
As a comparison a new Corvette cost 37k in 1995 and starts around 50k today. Where does that put the price at for the new 7 in 5 years? I sure hope that doesn't put the majority of buyers into the same group. It would be a shame if most of them were owned by retirees in the midst of midlife crises that only barely putt around in them on the weekend.
I still think it's awesome. Guess I'm just in a cynical mood.
I still think it's awesome. Guess I'm just in a cynical mood.
11-01-2012, 09:58 AM
#66
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
I am no Mustang fan by any stretch and I actually hate most generations of the Mustang but obviously you have never driven a new Mustang or a Camaro for that matter. If you think either are about image without subtance then you need to do some research. Both have models that are down right fast for a production car in just about any category and are a great value.
Last edited by 9krpmrx8; 11-01-2012 at 10:02 AM.
11-01-2012, 10:40 AM
#69
I am no Mustang fan by any stretch and I actually hate most generations of the Mustang but obviously you have never driven a new Mustang or a Camaro for that matter. If you think either are about image without subtance then you need to do some research. Both have models that are down right fast for a production car in just about any category and are a great value.
At every track I go they get routinely spanked by e46 m3 csl or e92 m3.
Not to mention the 1m.
Hell, even an opel corsa OPC is faster than those things when braking and turning is involved.
11-01-2012, 10:47 AM
#70
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
And this is just a GT and the video is pretty old already. I would Imagine a Leguna Seca edition Mustang or a Camaro ZL1 would do better. I still would prefer an M3 over both of them but they are still performers. Imagine what the 2017 Mustang and Camaro will be packing.
Last edited by 9krpmrx8; 11-01-2012 at 10:53 AM.
11-01-2012, 10:55 AM
#71
I see the m3 being faster there, I'm not sure if the current m3 is a watered down version of the european one as it happened with some previous models though.
The rustang has a live rear suspension system with a panhard rod... that's nothing sporty.
The rustang has a live rear suspension system with a panhard rod... that's nothing sporty.
11-01-2012, 11:03 AM
#73
Legend In My Own Mind
I think Pobst called it "The Rustang" at one point while he was driving. A guy buying a Mustang over an M3 gets to go out and spend some leftover dollars on new tires and suspension. Then go put a down payment on a house. The live axle is frustrating, especially when Cobra versions have had independent rears. As much as a Mustang seems cheesy it's hard to argue against the value.
11-01-2012, 11:09 AM
#74
Administrator
Really hope they can make this possible! I have my doubts though... if they really are going to use the 16X how are they going to get the fuel economy to be up to 2017 standards? I believe it's mandated to be somewhere around 36mpg on the combined cycle by 2016 in the US!
CAFE= Corporate AVERAGE Fuel Economy. The Company's line of vehicles needs to meet that average together. some under and some over. There are minimum's to meet for individual models so as to not hit a guzzler tax but that wont be difficult
11-01-2012, 11:13 AM
#75
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
I think Pobst called it "The Rustang" at one point while he was driving. A guy buying a Mustang over an M3 gets to go out and spend some leftover dollars on new tires and suspension. Then go put a down payment on a house. The live axle is frustrating, especially when Cobra versions have had independent rears. As much as a Mustang seems cheesy it's hard to argue against the value.
Yep, hard to talk **** on the setup when it works.