DoctorWho

Just read this, and thought "Oh No! What about the RX-9"!?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/01/auto...dex.htm?hpt=T2

With all of the troubles Mazda has had keeping the power up and the fuel consumption down, one would have to think that unless there is a major breakthrough, we may not see new RX-x's after 5 years.

Personally, the rotory was one of the major factors for me purchasing this car. To have a piston motor in this would just be WRONG.

What are your thoughts?

Earl the Pearl

Yeah that was my first thought also. I didn't read the specifics but usually this is a fleet average for cars so we should be good given the small number of RX cars sold compared to Mazda 2s 3s, etc.

Jlvelez

I took a different view of it. I thought that this is what Mazda have been waiting for to give the 16X the go-ahead. Maybe wishful thinking on my part but, I tied this announcement with what Mazda said about the 16X not been good enough. This may be the thing they were referring too, but they may have had a bigger number in mind. The other reasoning is that some of the stated reasons did not make sense to me. Like the direct injection being too heavy. Mazda already use direct injection in the CX-7 since 2007 so they should have known about any weight issues for a long time. Besides 16X have been in development since 2007, that's 2+ years, more that ample time in my opinion to develop an engine. That led me to believe that they were waiting for something else, and this may be the thing. Remember that this numbers are fleet numbers therefore the 16X would have an impact on the entire product line. When I read the article I though that we should expect an announcement from Mazda about the 16X soon.
Just my take.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

There are 2 ways to read the report. A "national average mpg", or an "average mpg".

The first implies that the total combined average of all vehicles sold needs to be at that average point, allowing for vehicles that are severely under it, and carried by vehicles that are over it. This would basically be a higher CAFE mark.

The second implies that for each single vehicle, the average combined MPG is above that point. This would be the end of enthusiast vehicles, forgetting just the rotary. Well, not totally, and not impossibly, but realistically. (my idea of an overdrive gear that engages a series hybrid drive could work for this)

I also agree that this is basically a higher CAFE mark to reach. Not a restriction on every single vehicle.

It's already getting to the point that stretching the commuter cars and trucks MPG higher and higher will have less of an impact than if they moved the big-rig mileage up by a few mpg. Like 5.

zoom44

first there is already a thread on this just a couple of threads down. second what do people not understand about Corporate Average Fuel Economy ? thirdly answer that in the other thread because this one is closed.