RX8 Banned in Europe
04-15-2010, 12:50 AM
#27
04-15-2010, 10:02 AM
#30
Administrator
no it means they cant continue to sell new ones that dont meet the Euro-5 spec. Basically(thanks Matt and Phillip for the clarification) while the Euro5 spec started in 2009 all previous models were "grandfathered" in until 2011 when all new cars sold must meet the spec.
RX-8 wont be the only model stopping.
RX-8 wont be the only model stopping.
04-15-2010, 10:54 AM
#31
al gore climategate strkes again. the world is melting, let's ban all cars!
for crying out loud, the earth at one time was much hotter, how do you think the oil fields under the alaska tundra were created? oil fields come from jungles.
the earth at one time was much colder, as north america was covered with a glacier, which receded faaaaar before our technology was beyond wood and fire.
bunch of enviro hype
i'm all for preserving our planet but it's going to get out of hand...
for crying out loud, the earth at one time was much hotter, how do you think the oil fields under the alaska tundra were created? oil fields come from jungles.
the earth at one time was much colder, as north america was covered with a glacier, which receded faaaaar before our technology was beyond wood and fire.
bunch of enviro hype
i'm all for preserving our planet but it's going to get out of hand...
04-15-2010, 12:06 PM
#32
'06 copper red shinka #66
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: maryland
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are oil fields in arctic alaska
fact:
oil is created from compressed plant material created over a period of eons
fact:
lush vegetation does not grow there at present.
you make the conclusions...
fact:
the middle eastern oil fields are located where there was once lush vegetation
you make the conclusions...
fact: north america was once covered with glaciers
you make the conclusions...
and according to the Pangea theory that i've seen, alaska was still in the north part of our hemisphere (toward the arctic) and africa/mideast was still at the equator area
i didnt see you post a single correct fact in your post! the actual debate is about whether human activity has affected the RATE of the climate change, not causing the climate change.
dont come here jangling people's ***** for the hell of it.
if you want to get on the scientist bandwagon with the rest of the head nodders great.
but i dont believe that human intervention has significantly affected our climate.
i love trees and forests and rivers myself. but emissions control on vehicles is adequate, and making them more stringent will not help the trees, forests and rivers.
that should be the focus. hell, the rivers here in DC are disgusting. i wouldnt dare eat a fish out of the potomac, and the anacostia is a joke. tires, junk, sludge, nothing but a pile of guuk.
what facts do you have to post?
04-15-2010, 12:31 PM
#34
Intended acceleration
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Durham NC
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why bring Al Gore into it?
Sometimes I think the only reason that natural conservatives are opposed to the idea of climate change is that Al Gore said it happens, and he must be wrong because he's the enemy.
The point is, whether or not you believe that global industry is affecting the climate is a very different question to whether or not you believe that individual people should or should not be allowed to drive particular cars. The RX8 certainly isn't the best car in terms of emissions, but it is far from the worst (supercars, SUVs, aging minivans, diesel vehicles, etc etc). And then there's the question of whether cars make a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions compared with, say, aircraft or power generation from fossil fuels.
Side with the naysayers and at best you make friends with a few like-minded individuals; at worst you risk being proved completely wrong by the next scientific data to come along (assuming you respect stuff like that) and you lose all credibility. Alternatively, you might be more effective if you tell the legislators that you appreciate what they're trying to do, but they're going about it the wrong way.
Sometimes I think the only reason that natural conservatives are opposed to the idea of climate change is that Al Gore said it happens, and he must be wrong because he's the enemy.
The point is, whether or not you believe that global industry is affecting the climate is a very different question to whether or not you believe that individual people should or should not be allowed to drive particular cars. The RX8 certainly isn't the best car in terms of emissions, but it is far from the worst (supercars, SUVs, aging minivans, diesel vehicles, etc etc). And then there's the question of whether cars make a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions compared with, say, aircraft or power generation from fossil fuels.
Side with the naysayers and at best you make friends with a few like-minded individuals; at worst you risk being proved completely wrong by the next scientific data to come along (assuming you respect stuff like that) and you lose all credibility. Alternatively, you might be more effective if you tell the legislators that you appreciate what they're trying to do, but they're going about it the wrong way.
04-15-2010, 12:33 PM
#35
'06 copper red shinka #66
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: maryland
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well north america is at the equator in your picture. how do you explain the glaciers that levelled our continent?
i've seen this picture:
either way, africa has always been at the equator. so for the middle east / sahara to have been highly vegetated means the earth was WAY colder at one point. a LONG time before the wheel was invented, much less the automobile.
i think it's everyone's right to form their own opinions on global warming.
thank God that Galileo was a true scientist, and didn't try to make science prove public opinion, like many of those today who are collecting billions of research dollars to prove global warming.
unfortunately for Galileo, even though he was right that the earth wasn't at the center of the universe, he was put to trial by the pope for his beliefs.
or how about Columbus and Magellan being brave enough to prove that the earth wasn't flat. i'm glad they didnt just follow the rest of the herd with public opinion.
i've seen this picture:
either way, africa has always been at the equator. so for the middle east / sahara to have been highly vegetated means the earth was WAY colder at one point. a LONG time before the wheel was invented, much less the automobile.
i think it's everyone's right to form their own opinions on global warming.
thank God that Galileo was a true scientist, and didn't try to make science prove public opinion, like many of those today who are collecting billions of research dollars to prove global warming.
unfortunately for Galileo, even though he was right that the earth wasn't at the center of the universe, he was put to trial by the pope for his beliefs.
or how about Columbus and Magellan being brave enough to prove that the earth wasn't flat. i'm glad they didnt just follow the rest of the herd with public opinion.
04-15-2010, 12:40 PM
#37
'06 copper red shinka #66
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: maryland
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because, Rev ... the issue is not the global warming, it's that public opinion and public policy (based on unproven science) are being used to restrict freedoms.
actually, i can name at least half a dozen supercars that are european-built, that probably chuck way more stuff in the air than my RX-8
actually, i can name at least half a dozen supercars that are european-built, that probably chuck way more stuff in the air than my RX-8
04-15-2010, 12:48 PM
#38
Momentum Keeps Me Going
I'm thinking this is a well deserved wake up call to Mazda. If they want to sell cars they say they're dedicated to, like the rotary, they'd better pony up some significant engineering resources pronto, rather than just offering faint lip service and minor upgrades. If the best they can do to refine and improve the rotary after 6 yrs of nothing since 2003 is the R2 upgrade, they've obviously miscalculated what it takes to keep up with automotive emissions and performance progress...aka the real world of automotive competition.
04-15-2010, 01:55 PM
#39
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe I mentioned this before in another thread. The biggest hurdle the rotary has from now on is emissions. It is in this light that I don't think Mazda will be able to compete with the rotary. Whatever they come out with is going to have to pass some strict emissions. That, along with the outcry for moe power/torque and better reliability is going to be the reason why the rotary survives.
My prediction? The rotary won't be around much longer in it's current state. They have a hydrogen version that I don't see selling well in the states if it even became available. maybe they could make a hybrid rotary, that would be the smartest direction, use an electric motor to overcome the rotary's main deficiency, torque. I see them working hard on a 16X but I see it having a hard time making it into production, I also see it being the last rotary. I wish Mazda had the money for some deep R&D for the rotary.
My prediction? The rotary won't be around much longer in it's current state. They have a hydrogen version that I don't see selling well in the states if it even became available. maybe they could make a hybrid rotary, that would be the smartest direction, use an electric motor to overcome the rotary's main deficiency, torque. I see them working hard on a 16X but I see it having a hard time making it into production, I also see it being the last rotary. I wish Mazda had the money for some deep R&D for the rotary.
04-15-2010, 02:02 PM
#40
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport...article-133325
Last edited by MattMPS; 04-15-2010 at 02:04 PM.
04-15-2010, 03:06 PM
#42
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't just worry about Europe. Depending on how much of the RX-8 customer base is in Europe, this may kill the volume of RX-8's produced, which can weigh very heavily on Mazda's desicion to produce them elsewhere.
I have no idea how many RX-8's sell per year in Europe, and I'm sure it's a lot more in Asia, they certainly dont fly off the shelves here, at least not where I live. I see 2 a month at best.
Crappy news, hopefully they can engineer their way out of this issue with the next Rotary.
I have no idea how many RX-8's sell per year in Europe, and I'm sure it's a lot more in Asia, they certainly dont fly off the shelves here, at least not where I live. I see 2 a month at best.
Crappy news, hopefully they can engineer their way out of this issue with the next Rotary.
04-15-2010, 03:54 PM
#43
I want a very choked exhaust system with heavy catalyzers etc so that I can expect a great bump in power when i go catless 
That's all it is about for me, the euro 5 will be a major pain in the back for diesel engines.
That's all it is about for me, the euro 5 will be a major pain in the back for diesel engines.
04-15-2010, 07:22 PM
#45
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the euro-4 or euro-5 "stuff" have NOTHING TO DO with Co2 emissions.... just HC,CO,NOX and PM.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport...article-133325
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport...article-133325
04-15-2010, 07:33 PM
#46
I'm thinking this is a well deserved wake up call to Mazda. If they want to sell cars they say they're dedicated to, like the rotary, they'd better pony up some significant engineering resources pronto, rather than just offering faint lip service and minor upgrades. If the best they can do to refine and improve the rotary after 6 yrs of nothing since 2003 is the R2 upgrade, they've obviously miscalculated what it takes to keep up with automotive emissions and performance progress...aka the real world of automotive competition.
The Rx-7 died in America partly because it couldn't meet emissions standards. Mazda did a significant redesign of the rotary 10 years ago for the Renesis and it was hailed for its drastic improvements in HC emissions from the side exhaust ports. Brake specific fuel consumption improved too, but vehicle weight went up and so nothing really changed in terms of real world fuel economy. Mazda has plenty of money into the engine and made a lot of progress, OMP debacle notwithstanding.
They'll bring it back and it will meet the standards. They always do. It's been that way for 40 years. Don't lose the faith. Here's to Mazda taking their time and doing it right. The new 16X architecture improves HC emissions by reducing quenching.
04-16-2010, 08:45 AM
#47
fact:
there are oil fields in arctic alaska
fact:
oil is created from compressed plant material created over a period of eons
fact:
lush vegetation does not grow there at present.
you make the conclusions...
fact:
the middle eastern oil fields are located where there was once lush vegetation
you make the conclusions...
fact: north america was once covered with glaciers
you make the conclusions...
and according to the Pangea theory that i've seen, alaska was still in the north part of our hemisphere (toward the arctic) and africa/mideast was still at the equator area
i didnt see you post a single correct fact in your post! the actual debate is about whether human activity has affected the RATE of the climate change, not causing the climate change.
dont come here jangling people's ***** for the hell of it.
if you want to get on the scientist bandwagon with the rest of the head nodders great.
but i dont believe that human intervention has significantly affected our climate.
i love trees and forests and rivers myself. but emissions control on vehicles is adequate, and making them more stringent will not help the trees, forests and rivers.
that should be the focus. hell, the rivers here in DC are disgusting. i wouldnt dare eat a fish out of the potomac, and the anacostia is a joke. tires, junk, sludge, nothing but a pile of guuk.
what facts do you have to post?
there are oil fields in arctic alaska
fact:
oil is created from compressed plant material created over a period of eons
fact:
lush vegetation does not grow there at present.
you make the conclusions...
fact:
the middle eastern oil fields are located where there was once lush vegetation
you make the conclusions...
fact: north america was once covered with glaciers
you make the conclusions...
and according to the Pangea theory that i've seen, alaska was still in the north part of our hemisphere (toward the arctic) and africa/mideast was still at the equator area
i didnt see you post a single correct fact in your post! the actual debate is about whether human activity has affected the RATE of the climate change, not causing the climate change.
dont come here jangling people's ***** for the hell of it.
if you want to get on the scientist bandwagon with the rest of the head nodders great.
but i dont believe that human intervention has significantly affected our climate.
i love trees and forests and rivers myself. but emissions control on vehicles is adequate, and making them more stringent will not help the trees, forests and rivers.
that should be the focus. hell, the rivers here in DC are disgusting. i wouldnt dare eat a fish out of the potomac, and the anacostia is a joke. tires, junk, sludge, nothing but a pile of guuk.
what facts do you have to post?
how exactly does anything you said disprove human influenced global warming (i'm glad to hear you actually realize the climate is changing -- not something apparent from your OP)? let's sum up what you're trying to say: here in Chicago, there is vegetation on the ground. and yet just 3 months ago there was 6 inches of snow on the ground!! that's a fact. omg, what does it mean?? you make the conclusions...
somehow, inexplicably, you think the fact that there were different conditions on the ground in the same physical place, regardless of its changing position on the planet, regardless of changes in solar activity, regardless of global scale events that resulted in significantly changed atmospheric conditions, all across the span of BILLIONS (that's thousands of millions) of years, is proof that humans can't/don't contribute to climate change. yes, you make the very obvious conclusions.
again, i never said i'd made up my mind and there are legitimate points on both sides. but that sure as hell aint one of em
04-16-2010, 11:29 AM
#49
Rotary wanabee
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't mean to sound mean but ...
did anyone who posted take organic chemistry ... if not .... don't pretend you know anything about the science behind global warming...
Truth be told ... carbon dioxide is not the main problem with emissions however It poses more of a problem when added to the chemicals that are created during combustion.
for instance ... who hear thinks acid rain is caused by carbon emissions???? anyone?
did anyone who posted take organic chemistry ... if not .... don't pretend you know anything about the science behind global warming...
Truth be told ... carbon dioxide is not the main problem with emissions however It poses more of a problem when added to the chemicals that are created during combustion.
for instance ... who hear thinks acid rain is caused by carbon emissions???? anyone?
04-16-2010, 11:56 AM
#50
Administrator
RX-8 will be discontinued in Europe, as the RENESIS rotary does not meet the required Euro-V emissions. We will continue to sell the RX-8 in the US for the 2011 model year.
As always, thanks for touching base with me.
J.
As always, thanks for touching base with me.
J.