vipeRX7

Rumors have been flying everywhere about a 4th generation RX7, and though by no means is its production set in stone, I would be surprised if it is not produced. What do you think the pricing should be?

IMHO, I think the 4th gen should be priced at about $100,000 and be one awesome car. It should be the kind of world beating car that the FD was, only moreso. While some may argue that it should be in the 30k-50k range to keep it affordable, I disagree. It is too late for that. The RX-7 is now Mazda's flagship car, and should be priced as such. After all, isn't it ironic that of the Toyota Supra, Mitsu 3000GT, Nissan 300ZX, Mazda FD, and Acura NSX, only the NSX remains today - even though it was nearly twice as expensive as the other cars? With the exception of reliability and repair cost, the (no offense to anyone here, it's just my opinion) 3rd generation RX-7 was (and is) superior to the NSX. The RX-7 was faster to 60, pulled more g's on the skidpad, had less weight, and many would argue a is better handling car. If you don't agree, see these quotes from Motor Trend:

http://www.pettitracing.com/sections/TKT.html

Despite the reliability problems, the RX-7 was significantly cheaper (I don't honestly think anyone spent $35k in repairs for the FD ). I think the reason that the RX-7 ceased to exist (I really doubt the reason it left the US was emissions) was for the mere fact that it WAS inexspensive. Most people think that you get what you pay for, and so the NSX would be a far better car because it was twice the price. For reliability, I assume that's true. Other than, the RX-7 is superior, not to mention that the NSX is overpriced IMHO (280 hp for $90000? puhleeez, hp isn't everything, but that's just absurd).

Another reason why I think the RX-7 should be ~$100k is because it's a lot easier to go upmarket than downmarket. For example: the BMW 1 series and the Mercedes A (or C) Class - what a joke! An Accord has beaten the base C class in a comparison (done by Motor Trend, if I remember correctly). In my opinion, all those cars do is degrade the image of BMW and Mercedes. Mercedes should instead focus on building the SLR which may elevate it to a ferrari/aston standing. Same thing goes for Ford and the GT. One Ford exec said something to the effect of "Kids don't say 'I want a 360 Modena.' They say 'I want a Ferrari!' That's the idea behind a the GT - it will draw buyers into the showroom." The same thing would work for Mazda.

The last reason I don't think the RX-7 should be in the 30-50 range is because it would compete with the RX-8 to some extent, and even moreso with Mazdaspeed version. The RX-7 and RX-8 need to be two distinct cars in price, performance, and consumer. Otherwise, Mazda will lose money.

Mazda must make sure to get the advertising right with the 4th gen RX-7. Auto reviews will only get you so far (as we saw with the 3rd generation). I have been disappointed with Mazda's advertising of the RX-8 because it fails to emphasize what is so special about the new rotary car. They shouldn't say "unique 250 hp Renesis engine" (heck, you can get an Altima with nearly much power that for about 5 grand less), Mazda should advertise the RX-8 as something "unlike you've ever driven." They should especially emphasize the 9000 rpm redline (not to mention handling), because it will get the general public interested in its engine. Advertising slogans are another problem. I hear people laugh at "zoom zoom", but never at Nissan ads (ever see the 350z commericial with "Words can't describe it"? Very clever ad). Mazda should especially focus on the legendary racing reputation and record of the rotary. After all, the wankel is most at home in sportscars. :D

So what do you all think about the pricing for the next RX-7?

vipeRX7

I changed my mind. I think $100k is a bit much, but $70000-$80000 would be good. Just imagine how high you could get the skidpad ratings using the light weight of a wankel ... 1.1 g's ... :D

RotaryXTypeSH

I think they should sell the car at a price that they could make good quality cars that runs at good reliability....

wakeech

ahahaha... interesting theory viperx7... :D but i disagree...

i think the reason that the NSX is still around is more because Honda can more afford to lose money on a flagship car than Mazda can, and Honda/Accura has a reputation: it's a status thing. EVERYONE knows what an NSX is, and they don't care how fast or slow it is, it's an NSX.
having a higher price tag without SIGNIFICANT bang-for-the-buck factor (which has always been an RX-7 trademark) would certainly not help the car's image, or it's survival in the market...

one thing's for sure though: if it costs more than $45k, all the old rotor heads who've been pining for this car will be royally pissed, becuase it'll be out of the price range of 90% of the existing enthusiast market.
Mazda tried some upward motion in the car market throughout the world (not so much in North America) through the early-to-mid-90's, with their Anfini brand among like 3 or 4 others, and really shot themselves in the foot (well, okay, ONE GUY shot the whole company in the foot).

sincerely, i think as the top-of-the-line car, the next RX-7 should max out around $42-45k, and that's with every option. the base model should be not much more than $36-38k, and these're both very very high estimations. without people to buy, love, drive, and race these machines, Mazda will have no image: there is no "gotta have one" factor as there is for Honda... look at the cheapest car they make, the Civic. "some" people (or as i like to call them, "idiots") seem to think that this car is somehow far more than the sum of its parts, and is mysteriously sexy, fast, and able... *shakes head at stupidity*. i'm not saying i don't like the Civic, it's a really good car, but it's none of those things. no, no it isn't, you idiot (sorry, just in case one was reading...).

anyhoo, Mazda's gonna make this thing a show stopper: i've got an itching feeling that they know the US market is key, and to be up-to-snuff down there (), you've gotta run with the big boys, or at least the biggest boy: the Corvette Z06... blah blah blah, Viper, whatever!! :p everyone knows the Corvette is faster :p

:D anyhoo, i'm suggesting that the next RX-7 will be light enough, and have enough top end to at least be in the ball park (i hope they don't go nuts and have a Corvette killer: you know it wouldn't last as a bi-rotor), and destroy it around a track.
target curb mass: 1000kg
target bi-rotor hp: 300bhp
...this'll be one *** kickin' machine. and for the record, if the base model Mark IV RX-7 doesn't make at least 1.0g's on a skid pad (i know it depends a lot on conditions and tyres... but it being set up for it, and being able to do it) i'd be sorrily disappointed. Mazda has the RX-8 to make comprimizes: the RX-7 would have nothing to "apologize" for

vipeRX7

You've got a lot of good points. I agree that the US will be an important factor because there is no 280 hp limit. With a 1000kg RX-7, even a 400 hp would be major competition for the Viper (and the new generation Z06), but the RX-7 must have good value. About the NSX, I also agree that a lot has to do with a name and reputation, which Honda, Acura, and the NSX have. I could definitely see people saying "$60000? For a Mazda?" (I would spend it in a flash, but for most people Mazda does not have the reputation it would need to justify the money). However, it's not just Acura that has a reputation. The NSX has also been sold under the Honda name, so I don't think a similarly priced RX-7 would be out of Mazda's reach IF, as you mention, they had the money to produce it. But let me ask you this: did Honda have the same reputation it has today back when the NSX was released?