Motor Trend: 2012 RX-8 to evolutionary not revolutionary
10-24-2009, 01:15 PM
#1
Administrator
Thread Starter
Motor Trend: 2012 RX-8 to evolutionary not revolutionary
What's going on over in Mazda's RX department? Rumors are flying of an RX-7 revival, an updated RX-8 and a new rotary engine, but the truth is likely to be a bit less exciting that the rumors would have you believe.
At the moment, the only real product is the RX-8, which is due for an update in 2011 as a 2012 model. While the car and its styling were fairly revolutionary when they hit the scene back in 2003, the new model and third generation of the car is likely to be far more evolutionary than revolutionary. Mazda's own design boss, Ikuo Maeda, told AutoCar that while the car will feature Mazda's newest design language and technology, it won't be a radical change from the current formula. That means the front-engine, rear-drive, rotary-powered, four-seat sports car will likely stick around, though it's not know what will become of the rear-opening clamshell doors.
Unfortunately, the next-gen RX-8's big star likely won't make it to the debut party. Mazda is hard at work at a next-generation rotary engine known as the 16X, so called for its larger 1.6L displacement compared to the RX-8's 1.3L Renesis engine. The larger displacement lends itself to improved torque, a common complaint about the RX-8, but the rotary's thirsty and dirty nature are making the engine a tough prospect in the days of fuel-efficiency and low emissions.
"The 16X demonstrated the possibility, but that performance is not good enough. We are doing R&D which will incorporate more new technology," Mazda's head of R&D, Seita Kanai, told Automotive News. "The 16X is more a profile of a rotary still in our concept stage. It needs more evolution."
In addition to the extra displacement, that evolution is also expected to include direct injection, the first ever for a rotary engine. If it's going to outgun the Renesis' potent 232 hp, disappointing 159 lb-ft and even more troubling 16 mpg city/22 mpg highway on premium fuel, the 16X has to be a big step forward for rotary engines, and being the purveyor of all things rotary, we're sure Mazda wants to get it absolutely right.
Some of you may have been disappointed in reading above that the next RX-8 will likely still be a four-seater, since making it one was a big departure from the original RX-7. Maeda has told AutoCar that he'd love to make a real RX-7 with just two seats and rotary power, but he has to get it past the management first. With the rotary's aforementioned aversion to fuel-economy, torque and emissions laws, though, it'll be a tough sell. The fact that Mazda already has a two-seat sports car in the Miata and a rotary-powered sports car in the RX-8 makes a third sports car that essentially combines the other two a tough proposition, especially in these cash-strapped times.
At the moment, the only real product is the RX-8, which is due for an update in 2011 as a 2012 model. While the car and its styling were fairly revolutionary when they hit the scene back in 2003, the new model and third generation of the car is likely to be far more evolutionary than revolutionary. Mazda's own design boss, Ikuo Maeda, told AutoCar that while the car will feature Mazda's newest design language and technology, it won't be a radical change from the current formula. That means the front-engine, rear-drive, rotary-powered, four-seat sports car will likely stick around, though it's not know what will become of the rear-opening clamshell doors.
Unfortunately, the next-gen RX-8's big star likely won't make it to the debut party. Mazda is hard at work at a next-generation rotary engine known as the 16X, so called for its larger 1.6L displacement compared to the RX-8's 1.3L Renesis engine. The larger displacement lends itself to improved torque, a common complaint about the RX-8, but the rotary's thirsty and dirty nature are making the engine a tough prospect in the days of fuel-efficiency and low emissions.
"The 16X demonstrated the possibility, but that performance is not good enough. We are doing R&D which will incorporate more new technology," Mazda's head of R&D, Seita Kanai, told Automotive News. "The 16X is more a profile of a rotary still in our concept stage. It needs more evolution."
In addition to the extra displacement, that evolution is also expected to include direct injection, the first ever for a rotary engine. If it's going to outgun the Renesis' potent 232 hp, disappointing 159 lb-ft and even more troubling 16 mpg city/22 mpg highway on premium fuel, the 16X has to be a big step forward for rotary engines, and being the purveyor of all things rotary, we're sure Mazda wants to get it absolutely right.
Some of you may have been disappointed in reading above that the next RX-8 will likely still be a four-seater, since making it one was a big departure from the original RX-7. Maeda has told AutoCar that he'd love to make a real RX-7 with just two seats and rotary power, but he has to get it past the management first. With the rotary's aforementioned aversion to fuel-economy, torque and emissions laws, though, it'll be a tough sell. The fact that Mazda already has a two-seat sports car in the Miata and a rotary-powered sports car in the RX-8 makes a third sports car that essentially combines the other two a tough proposition, especially in these cash-strapped times.
well there ya go......they're basically writing an article about what was written in AN and Autocar.
10-24-2009, 01:48 PM
#3
Administrator
iTrader: (7)
Nothing new here, I'm just glad they're still trying to push the Rotary engine forward.
I think all other companies would have given up by now. Oh wait...
I think all other companies would have given up by now. Oh wait...
10-24-2009, 01:51 PM
#4
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Im still not sure I understand this right. So if the 16x is not where they want it yet, does that mean the next facelift of the RX-8 in 2011 will still have the current engine? If so, why even bother unless the next facelift magically sheds 500lb which won't happen.
Last edited by 77mjd; 10-24-2009 at 01:54 PM.
10-24-2009, 05:18 PM
#5
Go Texas Longhorns!
Color me confused.
At this point, at its current sales rate, a revised RX8 doesn't make financial sense to me unless they could improve the power/economy, which won't happen until we get a 16x.
As much as I want to see the RX8 continue, I just don't see the business case. A smaller RX7 2+2 would make more sense to me as it could be lighter and get more bang for the buck in terms of the current engine.
At this point, at its current sales rate, a revised RX8 doesn't make financial sense to me unless they could improve the power/economy, which won't happen until we get a 16x.
As much as I want to see the RX8 continue, I just don't see the business case. A smaller RX7 2+2 would make more sense to me as it could be lighter and get more bang for the buck in terms of the current engine.
10-25-2009, 02:10 AM
#6
Software Engineer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 1,376
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Color me confused.
At this point, at its current sales rate, a revised RX8 doesn't make financial sense to me unless they could improve the power/economy, which won't happen until we get a 16x.
As much as I want to see the RX8 continue, I just don't see the business case. A smaller RX7 2+2 would make more sense to me as it could be lighter and get more bang for the buck in terms of the current engine.
At this point, at its current sales rate, a revised RX8 doesn't make financial sense to me unless they could improve the power/economy, which won't happen until we get a 16x.
As much as I want to see the RX8 continue, I just don't see the business case. A smaller RX7 2+2 would make more sense to me as it could be lighter and get more bang for the buck in terms of the current engine.
If you read the article, they said that the 2012 RX8 will have the 16X, thus meaning improved power and fuel efficiency..
10-26-2009, 08:09 AM
#7
jersey fresh
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-27-2009, 07:21 PM
#12
NewB
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Smithtown
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They should either:
1. Dump the miata in favor of a"new" RX-7 that would be a 2 seater and badass
2. Have a low boost turbo on the existing 13b so it can compete with the Zs and STIs
3. Do some combo of the 2
Just remember that the people on this board don't make a car profitable, its all the people out there that you wave to when you see them in an 8, but they just look at you wondering why you're waving at them. Too bad Mazda can't be like Ferrari and say f*+& it with profitability in their sports cars.
1. Dump the miata in favor of a"new" RX-7 that would be a 2 seater and badass
2. Have a low boost turbo on the existing 13b so it can compete with the Zs and STIs
3. Do some combo of the 2
Just remember that the people on this board don't make a car profitable, its all the people out there that you wave to when you see them in an 8, but they just look at you wondering why you're waving at them. Too bad Mazda can't be like Ferrari and say f*+& it with profitability in their sports cars.
10-27-2009, 08:20 PM
#13
3-wheeler
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue with adding a low boost turbo setup is cost and reliability. The 13BREW was boosted and had a terrible track record of problems. The reason Mazda went with a higher power N/A platform is to get away from the problems they had with the boosted FD's.
If Mazda were to provide a low boosted version of the RX8 they would have to offset much of the previous issues with increased cost. You'd be looking at a $35,000 RX8 at a minimum with costs closer to $40,000. When you cross $40,000 for a car the options open up big time to a used M3 to various other cars which are faster and better overall performers.
Mazda understands their market. If they wanted to produce a $40,000 rotary car they would eliminate much of their market while being forced to compete with serious performance cars. Could they do it? Sure! But it would be a serious risk in a market that is already suffering from a lack of disposable income.
What made the RX8 so appealing was the price. Hell, a used RX8 now for $11,000 is tons of fun for the cash you're spending. Mazda is going to have to do one of two things:
1. Provide a new generation rotary car complete with the balance and performance of the RX8 with a higher output motor and do so with a $29,000 to $35,000 MSRP.
2. If costs for the vehicle are between $35,000 and $42,000 MSRP then they will need to produce a serious performer. Something with at least 240 WHP (a 60whp increase) and matching or improved handling to the RX8.
Frankly the RX8 market is having to compete with the Speed3 market in a huge way. I just saw a 2010 Speed3 at a local Mazda dealership for $25,000 MSRP. That's CHEAP power. Is the handling or performance on par with the RX8? Not exacly, but if you need a vehicle that you can haul stuff and haul *** it's certainly a contender.
So, the short of it is Mazda has a tough hill to climb. I think they are going to do it regardless but the question will be how much change will they bring to the rotary platform?
10-27-2009, 11:15 PM
#15
3-wheeler
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem comes down to, in my mind, a balance of price and stuff. A total redesign of the RENESIS into the 16x is going to mean a more expensive car and even more so if it brings serious performance. Mostly because that performance will have to be paired with emissions equipment and fuel mileage savings. That means cutting edge technology and a whole lot of cash.
Mazda needs to find a way to make the car profitable without breaking that $40,000 mark. If not, they better bring something serious to the table. They are going to have to draw in a whole new generation of rotary owners to keep this thing afloat.
10-28-2009, 07:32 AM
#16
NewB
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Smithtown
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can Nissan keep the Zs going with such a high price? They go for $30,000 to $40,000 and Nissan is a very profitable company. Is it because piston engines are cheaper to produce? Also, please tell me that the mazdaspeed3 doesn't have a faster 0-60 than the 8s.
10-28-2009, 07:46 AM
#17
The Slow and the Serious
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Communistwealth of Virginia
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A big part of the RX8's problem is in its public perception. Once a car gets branded as "underpowered" and "unreliable," it's hard to shake those stigmas. Unreliable can be corrected over time, and we'll see in the next year or two if RX8 v2.0 has the same problems with engines dying as the pre-2009's.
There's only one way to fix "underpowered," and obviously Mazda isn't going to do that as soon as we'd like. What's funny is that I never once felt like the 8 was underpowered or slow, but there's a difference between people who actually drive the car and people who only look for big numbers on paper. I didn't trade out of the 8 for power or speed, but for practicality. I wouldn't have gotten a regular 3 though, because I can't stand the lethargy of a N/A 4-cylinder. Never again!
There's only one way to fix "underpowered," and obviously Mazda isn't going to do that as soon as we'd like. What's funny is that I never once felt like the 8 was underpowered or slow, but there's a difference between people who actually drive the car and people who only look for big numbers on paper. I didn't trade out of the 8 for power or speed, but for practicality. I wouldn't have gotten a regular 3 though, because I can't stand the lethargy of a N/A 4-cylinder. Never again!
Last edited by kvndoom; 10-28-2009 at 07:50 AM.
10-28-2009, 07:49 AM
#18
It's Complicated
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dirty Jerz
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ Ok so we won't tell you the speed3 is quicker in a straight line for the most part.
Flash- you bring up some very good points. In the end at all comes down to money. Cost to produce for Mazda and the cost to buy for the consumer.
I hope the rotary will never dies out. It is Mazda's trademark and an almost lost engineering marvel.
Flash- you bring up some very good points. In the end at all comes down to money. Cost to produce for Mazda and the cost to buy for the consumer.
I hope the rotary will never dies out. It is Mazda's trademark and an almost lost engineering marvel.
Last edited by Pico; 10-28-2009 at 07:51 AM.
10-28-2009, 02:42 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fixing the public image of the 1.3L Renesis as being underpowered and poor at the pump is obviously an important (and necessary) goal for Mazda with the 16x. I am curious to see what Mazda's goals for the 16x are and how close they have gotten to them. Even if they are only half way to their goals, that motor would still be an improvement over the current engine and could help boost sales for a few years.
10-28-2009, 03:42 PM
#22
so my thinking is, if they're essentially just refreshing the car for the 2012 release, how about lower the cost of entry to the car to, say, $25,000 MSRP for the 6-speed manual base version, and $23,000 for the base 6AT version?
then you'll have a car that'll compete quite well in terms of performance/value ratio against the likes of Genesis 2.0T and Mustang V6, which really are the only comparable affordable RWD coupes on the market right now.
I mean, they've already got 1 full generation (2003-2011) worth of production to absorb most of the R&D cost for the 8, how about lowering the cost of entry to keep people interested instead?
then you'll have a car that'll compete quite well in terms of performance/value ratio against the likes of Genesis 2.0T and Mustang V6, which really are the only comparable affordable RWD coupes on the market right now.
I mean, they've already got 1 full generation (2003-2011) worth of production to absorb most of the R&D cost for the 8, how about lowering the cost of entry to keep people interested instead?
10-28-2009, 06:13 PM
#24
Man, We Ain't Found Sh*t!
How about if Mazda put the rotary in the 2-seater? Make it a true coupe like they sell in Japan and call it the truly limited edition RX-5 or the Riata.. I don't really care what they call it.. Just make one so I can buy it.. That would be a car I think we would all love and would easily fit below the 30k price point. A perfect combination of legendary chassis with a legendary motor..
10-28-2009, 09:11 PM
#25
The Slow and the Serious
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Communistwealth of Virginia
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fixing the public image of the 1.3L Renesis as being underpowered and poor at the pump is obviously an important (and necessary) goal for Mazda with the 16x. I am curious to see what Mazda's goals for the 16x are and how close they have gotten to them. Even if they are only half way to their goals, that motor would still be an improvement over the current engine and could help boost sales for a few years.
Right now I'm sure Mazda is working quite hard to improve power and avoid the gas guzzler tax. Talk about bad publicity- that would be a serious dagger. I'm still surprised the 2009+ models survived the EPA's revised process.
ZoomZoomH makes a good point that the cost of entry should be lowered. Hell, there's no way anyone but uninformed consumers are paying anything near MSRP now as it is. If the public perception is that the 8 is too underpowered to sell for 30k, and everybody is getting new ones for 3-5 grand off retail as it is, then lower retail to match expectations.