A (high efficiency) gasoline rotary is on its way. Please wait for it ..Mazda BOSS
10-24-2010, 02:36 PM
#77
Momentum Keeps Me Going
^ you guys are nuts...I grew up with muscle cars. It wasn't insurance that killed them. It was the reputation their owners and the drivers bestowed on them. They were either killing themselves and their friends racing on back roads, or they were killing Ma and Pa Kettle dragging on the Interstates or in town. And every kid that didn't own one, was driving around crazy and trying to do the same tricks.
The conservative, sane citizens, who prefered to die a natural death thru old age, decided enough was enough, and pulled the plugs in whatever way they could. Regulations, emissions, traffic laws, and insurance were the most effective tools, and they were used and they worked.
It's always the idiots among us that take something fun and ruin it for the rest. beside, putting that kind of power into the crapola handling cars of that era that folded up like the tin cans they were, was a major recipe for disaster anyway.
The conservative, sane citizens, who prefered to die a natural death thru old age, decided enough was enough, and pulled the plugs in whatever way they could. Regulations, emissions, traffic laws, and insurance were the most effective tools, and they were used and they worked.
It's always the idiots among us that take something fun and ruin it for the rest. beside, putting that kind of power into the crapola handling cars of that era that folded up like the tin cans they were, was a major recipe for disaster anyway.
10-24-2010, 02:46 PM
#78
So I'm right it was the insurance rates.
The cause for the increase is like I said. They didn't want drivers to have that much HP.
You gave the results of high HP...... CRAZY driving.
The cause for the increase is like I said. They didn't want drivers to have that much HP.
You gave the results of high HP...... CRAZY driving.
10-24-2010, 04:30 PM
#79
Actually the musle car issue died because the liberals thought they were too dangerous. That peopledidn't need the HP.
So they increased the insurance rates so you couldn't afford one.
I rember the day when you could get any musle car for cheap but insurance would kill you.
So they increased the insurance rates so you couldn't afford one.
I rember the day when you could get any musle car for cheap but insurance would kill you.
10-24-2010, 04:40 PM
#80
^ you guys are nuts...I grew up with muscle cars. It wasn't insurance that killed them. It was the reputation their owners and the drivers bestowed on them. They were either killing themselves and their friends racing on back roads, or they were killing Ma and Pa Kettle dragging on the Interstates or in town. And every kid that didn't own one, was driving around crazy and trying to do the same tricks.
The conservative, sane citizens, who prefered to die a natural death thru old age, decided enough was enough, and pulled the plugs in whatever way they could. Regulations, emissions, traffic laws, and insurance were the most effective tools, and they were used and they worked.
It's always the idiots among us that take something fun and ruin it for the rest. beside, putting that kind of power into the crapola handling cars of that era that folded up like the tin cans they were, was a major recipe for disaster anyway.
The conservative, sane citizens, who prefered to die a natural death thru old age, decided enough was enough, and pulled the plugs in whatever way they could. Regulations, emissions, traffic laws, and insurance were the most effective tools, and they were used and they worked.
It's always the idiots among us that take something fun and ruin it for the rest. beside, putting that kind of power into the crapola handling cars of that era that folded up like the tin cans they were, was a major recipe for disaster anyway.
Another thing did it too, and is used as an example in many marketing texts. While surveys showed that the pony car owners loved them, less-read studies also showed that these same people had no intention of buying another one. The typical buyer was a young couple. As soon as their kids grew up a bit, the useless rear seating and small trunks sent them to sedans and shortly thereafter, the minivan.
By then too, primitive smog controls made performance cars perform not much better than standard ones. (Sort of a mirror of what's happening today).
10-24-2010, 05:02 PM
#82
For nostalgia sure. But let's be honest here OD, they were pretty lousy as cars, only good in relation to other lousy cars of the time. Consumer Reports recently did a test of the 2011 V-6 Mustang and drug out a similar test they did of the legendary 1971 Boss 302 Mustang. The V-6 blew away the Boss in both 0-60 and 1/4 mile and got exactly double the gas mileage on their test loop. (I wish my time foot-running a 1/4 mile were the better now as then.)
10-24-2010, 05:45 PM
#85
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
Weight. Weight. Weight.
...Reduction.
If the RX-8 somehow weighed 2,400lbs instead of the 3,000 it is (GT), it would have had even better handling, but the acceleration of a ~235whp car (~295hp crank). And the torque "deficit" wouldn't have been nearly as blatant or noticeable.
Sure, it would have made it a smaller car, but that's hardly a bad thing.
Mazda's on the right track with weight reduction across the board. It may not be as "easy" to get as horsepower, but you can get the same raw acceleration feeling from a light weight low power car as a heavy high horsepower car, but you also get your customers lower insurance rates, funner cars, and inevitably safer cars (less mass to try to keep under control).
...Reduction.
If the RX-8 somehow weighed 2,400lbs instead of the 3,000 it is (GT), it would have had even better handling, but the acceleration of a ~235whp car (~295hp crank). And the torque "deficit" wouldn't have been nearly as blatant or noticeable.
Sure, it would have made it a smaller car, but that's hardly a bad thing.
Mazda's on the right track with weight reduction across the board. It may not be as "easy" to get as horsepower, but you can get the same raw acceleration feeling from a light weight low power car as a heavy high horsepower car, but you also get your customers lower insurance rates, funner cars, and inevitably safer cars (less mass to try to keep under control).
10-24-2010, 11:08 PM
#86
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Weight. Weight. Weight.
...Reduction.
If the RX-8 somehow weighed 2,400lbs instead of the 3,000 it is (GT), it would have had even better handling, but the acceleration of a ~235whp car (~295hp crank). And the torque "deficit" wouldn't have been nearly as blatant or noticeable.
Sure, it would have made it a smaller car, but that's hardly a bad thing.
Mazda's on the right track with weight reduction across the board. It may not be as "easy" to get as horsepower, but you can get the same raw acceleration feeling from a light weight low power car as a heavy high horsepower car, but you also get your customers lower insurance rates, funner cars, and inevitably safer cars (less mass to try to keep under control).
...Reduction.
If the RX-8 somehow weighed 2,400lbs instead of the 3,000 it is (GT), it would have had even better handling, but the acceleration of a ~235whp car (~295hp crank). And the torque "deficit" wouldn't have been nearly as blatant or noticeable.
Sure, it would have made it a smaller car, but that's hardly a bad thing.
Mazda's on the right track with weight reduction across the board. It may not be as "easy" to get as horsepower, but you can get the same raw acceleration feeling from a light weight low power car as a heavy high horsepower car, but you also get your customers lower insurance rates, funner cars, and inevitably safer cars (less mass to try to keep under control).
My thoughts exactly...and that's part of the reason I can't decide on a replacement for my 8. There's not much else that can give a lightweight/glove feeling the 8 does at a reasonable price. While I thought long and hard about the mustang GT I decided to pass. I know it's nothing like the 8 but...love the performance and TORQUE but don't really feel like laying out that much cash in addition to getting bent over without lube by the insurance increase compared to my 8.
Last edited by 77mjd; 10-24-2010 at 11:12 PM.
10-25-2010, 02:28 AM
#87
Londons Yellow Peril
also I guess materials might have a big part to play in this.
If Mazda can find a good material that works well in a rotary engine, that's light, strong and thermally effective in a rotary, AND cost effective to use, that could play a BIG part too.
Its the cost effective part that will be the decider in production engines.... for all we know, they may be using a really cool material already, but need to work out if its affordable to use it.
Also, who knows. If they come up with something awesome, maybe it could end up in a few cars, some as a rotary petrol engine, and some as a 1 rotor electric generator?
If Mazda can find a good material that works well in a rotary engine, that's light, strong and thermally effective in a rotary, AND cost effective to use, that could play a BIG part too.
Its the cost effective part that will be the decider in production engines.... for all we know, they may be using a really cool material already, but need to work out if its affordable to use it.
Also, who knows. If they come up with something awesome, maybe it could end up in a few cars, some as a rotary petrol engine, and some as a 1 rotor electric generator?
10-25-2010, 09:37 AM
#89
Weight. Weight. Weight.
...Reduction.
Mazda's on the right track with weight reduction across the board. It may not be as "easy" to get as horsepower, but you can get the same raw acceleration feeling from a light weight low power car as a heavy high horsepower car, but you also get your customers lower insurance rates, funner cars, and inevitably safer cars (less mass to try to keep under control).
...Reduction.
Mazda's on the right track with weight reduction across the board. It may not be as "easy" to get as horsepower, but you can get the same raw acceleration feeling from a light weight low power car as a heavy high horsepower car, but you also get your customers lower insurance rates, funner cars, and inevitably safer cars (less mass to try to keep under control).
Now let's do a little dreaming. Mazda execs say over and over again, they are not going to produce more than 2 sports car lines. We interpret this as saying "one rotary car". What if they are thinking about adding a rotary-engined true 4 door? If one assumes they want or need to move up-market in the next few years, they are severely lacking a flagship car. The -6 is fine, but hardly exciting. The CC is doing really well for VW in both sales and image enhancement. (The Phaeton was a disaster, largely because it was too big a step). It's also an example of a modestly-powered car with a high-end glow, good fuel mileage, and solid engineering. Suppose Mazda comes out with a "CC" of it's own. Why would one buy it, assuming interior/exterior styling meets flagship level? Two things come to mind: the rotary and the Sky-Diesel.
The rotary is the one absolutely unique technology that is totally identified with Mazda. An analogy, though weaker, is BMW's inline 6 or Porsche's flat 6. No one is in any position to compete with Mazda on this point. Assume one can tame the remaining problems with the 16x, and puts the all-aluminun engine in the flagship 4 door. The usual rotary advantages apply, but for one thing, a low hood profile. As mentioned above, thanks to EU pedestrian requirements, that won't happen. This means the little rotary will be in a relatively huge engine bay. Ah! What do do with all that space? Light hybrid! Drive the front wheels with electric motors, matched with a battery pack that provides all of 1 minute of full battery power and you'll transform the car. It will plug the torque hole of the rotary at low rpm, plus allow engine shutoff at stoplights. (The EPA presently doesn't include this as part of the mileage caclulation cycle but is likely to in the near future.) The light weight of the rotary will offset the added weight of batteries and motors and eliminate the pig-heavy weight penalty of true hybrids.
The Sky-D by the time a Mazda CC comes out, will also be recognized as a transformational technology. There will be plenty of room for it under the bulky hood. By then too, Sky-D versions of the 2 and 5 will be stomping the competition, with highway MPG at 60 or so. It will not need to be hybid to do it, nor will it be a $5000 option (more like $500), since it will not need heroic measures to get NOx under control as is the case with normal diesels. Nor does it have any significant weight penaty normally associated with diesels.
Offer a "CC" with these two engine options and Mazda has its flagship.
<dream mode off>
Last edited by HiFlite999; 10-25-2010 at 09:42 AM.
10-25-2010, 10:03 AM
#90
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
It's not that far of a dream. I see the same interpretation as you. People are looking at the words being used and not realizing what it isn't saying.
"No room for 2 sports cars" does not mean exactly the same thing as "no room for 2 rotaries".
MX-5 + RX-7/8/9 + Rotary Sedan = 2 sports cars and 2 rotaries...
I also see a low boost turbo rotary with a really tall geared transmission and/or rear end as a viable option for good mileage rotary sedan.
I think people on here keep getting blinders on about what is possible, and not really opening up their mind to where Mazda can go with this, and make it work.
"No room for 2 sports cars" does not mean exactly the same thing as "no room for 2 rotaries".
MX-5 + RX-7/8/9 + Rotary Sedan = 2 sports cars and 2 rotaries...
I also see a low boost turbo rotary with a really tall geared transmission and/or rear end as a viable option for good mileage rotary sedan.
I think people on here keep getting blinders on about what is possible, and not really opening up their mind to where Mazda can go with this, and make it work.
10-31-2010, 01:58 AM
#91
Aluminum side housing is part of the weight reduction effort ---- Its NOTHING new, RB has been offering that upgrade for like what 20 god-damn years. it cost almost triple.
Mazda also tested Aluminum rotors like 20 yrs ago, it ran very good, much better than iron cast rotors. but again cost was what kills it.
lets see what they come up with on the body. given the stupider emission/safety requirements. 2700 lbs should be good.
Mazda also tested Aluminum rotors like 20 yrs ago, it ran very good, much better than iron cast rotors. but again cost was what kills it.
lets see what they come up with on the body. given the stupider emission/safety requirements. 2700 lbs should be good.
10-31-2010, 08:37 AM
#92
my 55 chev was turning low 12 in the `1/4 mile and was a DD, my 69 vette was the 350 cu in with "rated" 350 hp. they would hang with anything build now a days in the 1/4 mile --unless you get into the ridiculous. Simple cars with carburetors. From just a performance view they would hang in there. Just couldnt stop the dang thing(55) with those drum brakes!)
Yesterday I saw a MX5 with the Renesis engine in it. The goal stated was wgt of around 2300-2400lbs and a wheel hp of 235-245. This is with a NA motor and it is doable. 250-260 at the flywheel is possible with the right people doing the build (sorry guys cant keep my mouth shut) Much less parasite loss in the miata diff also.
The engine look like a perfect fit.
A good question to ask again is why mazda doesnt do this? They have the engine, they have the platform, they have a demand and they need their identity signature to continue. It needs to be a mazdaspeed version MX5.
Also transonic combustion is becoming more doable. Its not here yet, but it is too good imho to let go off it. I believe this would be more doable in the rotary than the recip.
Interesting times
OD
Yesterday I saw a MX5 with the Renesis engine in it. The goal stated was wgt of around 2300-2400lbs and a wheel hp of 235-245. This is with a NA motor and it is doable. 250-260 at the flywheel is possible with the right people doing the build (sorry guys cant keep my mouth shut) Much less parasite loss in the miata diff also.
The engine look like a perfect fit.
A good question to ask again is why mazda doesnt do this? They have the engine, they have the platform, they have a demand and they need their identity signature to continue. It needs to be a mazdaspeed version MX5.
Also transonic combustion is becoming more doable. Its not here yet, but it is too good imho to let go off it. I believe this would be more doable in the rotary than the recip.
Interesting times
OD
10-31-2010, 11:58 AM
#93
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
Yesterday I saw a MX5 with the Renesis engine in it. The goal stated was wgt of around 2300-2400lbs and a wheel hp of 235-245. This is with a NA motor and it is doable. 250-260 at the flywheel is possible with the right people doing the build (sorry guys cant keep my mouth shut) Much less parasite loss in the miata diff also.
The engine look like a perfect fit.
A good question to ask again is why mazda doesnt do this? They have the engine, they have the platform, they have a demand and they need their identity signature to continue. It needs to be a mazdaspeed version MX5
The engine look like a perfect fit.
A good question to ask again is why mazda doesnt do this? They have the engine, they have the platform, they have a demand and they need their identity signature to continue. It needs to be a mazdaspeed version MX5
10-31-2010, 01:39 PM
#95
You forget about Music,
Eagles, Led Zepplin Pink Floyd and the list goes on.....
Not to mention many artist from the 60's preformed there best music in the 70's.
10-31-2010, 01:58 PM
#96
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Ah the 70's...platform shoes, body shirts (jersey knit), flared pants, seersucker.
UGG boots..
Mazda RX-2, RX-3, RX-4, RX-5...RX-7
Toyota Celica, Supra.
70's was a GREAT decade.
10-31-2010, 03:52 PM
#97
Momentum Keeps Me Going
Yeah...
Ah the 70s - the gas 'crisis', when OPEC took control over and then limited the supply of oil and caused the price to quadruple by 1974. Gas lines at nearly every filling station, thereby bringing about the death of almost all Mazda rotarys at the time what with them only getting 14-17mpg, double digit inflation around 14%. There were wars in the Middle East with Syria and Egypt attacking Israel and the U.S. economy was a total wreck, with recession and stagflation (inflation combined with a stagnant economy).
And that's not even considering the awful clothing styles, hairstyles, and plastic everything being made lol! Those were the days...sigh.....
Ah the 70s - the gas 'crisis', when OPEC took control over and then limited the supply of oil and caused the price to quadruple by 1974. Gas lines at nearly every filling station, thereby bringing about the death of almost all Mazda rotarys at the time what with them only getting 14-17mpg, double digit inflation around 14%. There were wars in the Middle East with Syria and Egypt attacking Israel and the U.S. economy was a total wreck, with recession and stagflation (inflation combined with a stagnant economy).
And that's not even considering the awful clothing styles, hairstyles, and plastic everything being made lol! Those were the days...sigh.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
