NO RX-9, slight chance for RX-7
06-02-2011, 07:14 PM
#177
My summary :
The demographic that I see purchasing a future rotary sports car are: People with fine taste who are moved by sensory details. They want something a bit unique. They do not have a Ferrari budget. Some of them would consider a product from Lotus while some can only afford something priced with the Genesis coupe. A certain number of them would have owned a Miata previously and want the next step up. Some have owned a Honda as a teen and they are intrigued both by how well Mazda does rwd and the fun factor of the rotary. More of them would follow road racing than drifting or drag racing. Some would be previous owners of a rotary car and most would be new to it. Passion for driving is much greater with these people. Doubling the horse power would rank very low compared to getting in and enjoying the drive.
The shortcomings of the RX-8 do not necessarily represent what must be expected from a future RX-7. The power to weight equation should be way superior and perhaps they could be easier to modify (None of us know).
The passionate rotary enthusiast is someone who has had an 'Automotive experience'. If driving a rotary car does not give you a special sensation then you aren't going to 'get it'. Some people are only moved by BIG HP and TORQUE while some don't see why any of us like cars at all.
The rotary powered cars plant a smile on my face. If they keep building them I'll keep driving them.
Paul.
The demographic that I see purchasing a future rotary sports car are: People with fine taste who are moved by sensory details. They want something a bit unique. They do not have a Ferrari budget. Some of them would consider a product from Lotus while some can only afford something priced with the Genesis coupe. A certain number of them would have owned a Miata previously and want the next step up. Some have owned a Honda as a teen and they are intrigued both by how well Mazda does rwd and the fun factor of the rotary. More of them would follow road racing than drifting or drag racing. Some would be previous owners of a rotary car and most would be new to it. Passion for driving is much greater with these people. Doubling the horse power would rank very low compared to getting in and enjoying the drive.
The shortcomings of the RX-8 do not necessarily represent what must be expected from a future RX-7. The power to weight equation should be way superior and perhaps they could be easier to modify (None of us know).
The passionate rotary enthusiast is someone who has had an 'Automotive experience'. If driving a rotary car does not give you a special sensation then you aren't going to 'get it'. Some people are only moved by BIG HP and TORQUE while some don't see why any of us like cars at all.
The rotary powered cars plant a smile on my face. If they keep building them I'll keep driving them.
Paul.
06-02-2011, 07:30 PM
#178
As always, religious apologists will resort to ad hominem attacks to avoid the argument at hand.
I would be perfectly content to see the rotary motor go on as a viable powerplant well into the future. I don't have anything against it in and of itself. It is just a motor.
But, obviously, a reasoned discussion about it is well beyond many people's tolerance.
I would be perfectly content to see the rotary motor go on as a viable powerplant well into the future. I don't have anything against it in and of itself. It is just a motor.
But, obviously, a reasoned discussion about it is well beyond many people's tolerance.
Ad hominem attacks are your forte, at least in the opinion of this misguided, cheapass typical rotary owner, exhibiting trailer park behavior, not interested in reason, practicality, or objective results. (And that's only a list from the past couple pages of a single thread.)
Claims that others should be less offended generally come from those claiming a right to offend.
Whether or not Mazda continues with the rotary or not involve the action of humans, both as makers and customers, who are not (thank goodness) entirely defined by what you choose to call logic. "Zoom-Zoom" has nothing to do with logic, yet Mazda chooses to define itself in this manner. If not, please define "fun" as a logical construct.
I do rotaries for now, because it's fun. I modify them because it's fun. I am also a regular customer of a local sandwich shop because when they take my money, they say thank you at the end, not inform me that it's really misguided to not take a better one from down the street or that the primary reason for my visits is a "religious" fervor.
However, your general distain for many/most here and holier-than-thou attitude is not fun. Let me make it more clear: while I greatly enjoy the interactions I've had with Charles and have enjoyed reading contributions of Flashwing, the thought that you will get any more of my money as part of your share of BHR makes me
."If you ain't havin' fun, we ain't doin' it right". You fail dude.
Last edited by HiFlite999; 06-02-2011 at 07:33 PM.
06-02-2011, 07:45 PM
#179
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 253 Likes
on
110 Posts
So, to sum up:
MM, and others with his opinion, dislike the rotary for it's shortcomings, preferring other motors with styles, designs, or functions more aligned to their tastes. Whether or not Mazda keeps making them is largely irrelevant to their argument, since they will move on to piston engines anyway.
Myself, Mazmart, Hiflight, and others with our opinion, willingly accept the rotary's shortcomings in favor of what it is about the rotary that is aligned to our tastes, and hope Mazda keeps making them.
We won't convince MM to like them (not that we are trying), and he won't convince us to dislike them (it's hard to tell if he is trying or not)
Is any further argument about it needed?
MM, and others with his opinion, dislike the rotary for it's shortcomings, preferring other motors with styles, designs, or functions more aligned to their tastes. Whether or not Mazda keeps making them is largely irrelevant to their argument, since they will move on to piston engines anyway.
Myself, Mazmart, Hiflight, and others with our opinion, willingly accept the rotary's shortcomings in favor of what it is about the rotary that is aligned to our tastes, and hope Mazda keeps making them.
We won't convince MM to like them (not that we are trying), and he won't convince us to dislike them (it's hard to tell if he is trying or not)
Is any further argument about it needed?
06-02-2011, 07:55 PM
#180
Ad hominem attacks are your forte, at least in the opinion of this misguided, cheapass typical rotary owner, exhibiting trailer park behavior, not interested in reason, practicality, or objective results. (And that's only a list from the past couple pages of a single thread.)
An ad hominem attack is, by definition, "against the man". I never said anything particularly disparaging about you. The converse is not true, however.
I think it is quite clear that one of us is taking this discussion a lot more personally than the other.
So, to sum up:
MM, and others with his opinion, dislike the rotary for it's shortcomings, preferring other motors with styles, designs, or functions more aligned to their tastes. Whether or not Mazda keeps making them is largely irrelevant to their argument, since they will move on to piston engines anyway.
Myself, Mazmart, Hiflight, and others with our opinion, willingly accept the rotary's shortcomings in favor of what it is about the rotary that is aligned to our tastes, and hope Mazda keeps making them.
We won't convince MM to like them (not that we are trying), and he won't convince us to dislike them (it's hard to tell if he is trying or not)
MM, and others with his opinion, dislike the rotary for it's shortcomings, preferring other motors with styles, designs, or functions more aligned to their tastes. Whether or not Mazda keeps making them is largely irrelevant to their argument, since they will move on to piston engines anyway.
Myself, Mazmart, Hiflight, and others with our opinion, willingly accept the rotary's shortcomings in favor of what it is about the rotary that is aligned to our tastes, and hope Mazda keeps making them.
We won't convince MM to like them (not that we are trying), and he won't convince us to dislike them (it's hard to tell if he is trying or not)
That is an excellent summation, though I would add one caveat:
Were it possible to overcome the rotary's shortcomings, I would be very happy to continue to own one.
It is simply my opinion - whether you agree that it is informed or not - that market forces and physics are conspiring to make the anomaly that is the rotary motor not a viable power plant for future production vehicles.
The "argument" here wasn't/isn't about that at all. It is simply about whether the rotary is or isn't a viable motor for future vehicles from Mazda. It isn't about it's relative merits or shortcomings. Those are just points for the discussion.
The demographic that I see purchasing a future rotary sports car are: People with fine taste who are moved by sensory details. They want something a bit unique. They do not have a Ferrari budget. Some of them would consider a product from Lotus while some can only afford something priced with the Genesis coupe. A certain number of them would have owned a Miata previously and want the next step up. Some have owned a Honda as a teen and they are intrigued both by how well Mazda does rwd and the fun factor of the rotary. More of them would follow road racing than drifting or drag racing. Some would be previous owners of a rotary car and most would be new to it. Passion for driving is much greater with these people. Doubling the horse power would rank very low compared to getting in and enjoying the drive.
Now, what portion of the car-buying public in North America would you think actually falls under that description? 30,000 people? 40,000? I think that would be very generous. Of the hundreds of thousands of RX-8s sold world-wide, a vast number of them went to people who just kinda wanted something different. Have you actually done an informal tally of who is driving the RX-8s you might see on the road? I think you would be enlightened by the sheer number of people that bought the RX-8 despite the fact that it had a rotary motor or with little or no knowledge of the power plant at all.
For a manufacturer like Mazda to be willing to build a North American market-only vehicle, the numbers for a 10-year sales cycle would have to be 4 or 5 times that number at a minimum.
The RX-8 is an amazing achievement on many, many levels. Mazda's ability to have brought another generation of rotary engine to market in the uncertain 1990's (when it was in development) was also a singular achievement, if only in the "us-vs.-them" realm of corporate hierarchy.
An MZR-powered RX-8 would have been completely indistinguishable from what we actually got to the vast majority of folks that bought one.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 06-02-2011 at 08:30 PM.
06-03-2011, 09:15 AM
#182
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who knows if Mazda will continue with a rotary engine, Maybe it will come back in 10 years with one.
Mazda can make a very good sports car platform. We know they are working on a smaller and lighter MX-5. No reason not to make a larger 2+2 coupe on the same platform and give it a more powerful engine. It would be a great car if it has enough juice, a 2.0l, DI, turbo 4 would do the job nicely. There just isn’t a business case for a rotary. Even if they make a magic one that does everything modern piston engines do and is smaller and lighter and just as reliable it will still be hard sell to the public.
Mazda just make a nice MX8 with some of that great Kodo styling language, under 2,750lbs with 300+hp and I’ll add it to stable.
Mazda can make a very good sports car platform. We know they are working on a smaller and lighter MX-5. No reason not to make a larger 2+2 coupe on the same platform and give it a more powerful engine. It would be a great car if it has enough juice, a 2.0l, DI, turbo 4 would do the job nicely. There just isn’t a business case for a rotary. Even if they make a magic one that does everything modern piston engines do and is smaller and lighter and just as reliable it will still be hard sell to the public.
Mazda just make a nice MX8 with some of that great Kodo styling language, under 2,750lbs with 300+hp and I’ll add it to stable.
06-06-2011, 05:42 AM
#184
America is the market where they have to have a volume on a car like this. And in America the car probably won't compete without 300+ hp. While in Europe, a 300hp car is a luxury car that's WAY too expensive for most people. That's a dilemma in the decision to make a new RX-7/8/9 or not.
But imo the RX-8 looked way ahead of it's time in 2003, if they do the same with a new car it could perhaps compete with the likes of FT-86 given that it's based on MX-5 and is affordable.
A 2005 RX-8 still costs as much as a new VW Scirocco here in Norway. So outside of the US it's not a super affordable car at all. It's still well known though, I'm surprised at how many people know and like the cars.
But imo the RX-8 looked way ahead of it's time in 2003, if they do the same with a new car it could perhaps compete with the likes of FT-86 given that it's based on MX-5 and is affordable.
A 2005 RX-8 still costs as much as a new VW Scirocco here in Norway. So outside of the US it's not a super affordable car at all. It's still well known though, I'm surprised at how many people know and like the cars.
06-16-2011, 03:19 PM
#185
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, sad and depressing. Random thoughts -
a) Multi-platform cars make sound economic sense. If there is a follow on car, using a shared Miata platform would hold down costs, maybe enough to make it viable.
b) I always wondered if the rear door RX8 model put off some buyers, since the RX8 didn't really fit into any defined category.
c) Dreaming: I'd gladly take an RX7 coupe with a Miata chassis, rotary engine, nearly unusable kiddie 2+2 jump seats in back, and a hardtop/fastback coupe body to counter balance against the soft top Miata. The lighter weight, even with an engine similar to present, would be hoot.
a) Multi-platform cars make sound economic sense. If there is a follow on car, using a shared Miata platform would hold down costs, maybe enough to make it viable.
b) I always wondered if the rear door RX8 model put off some buyers, since the RX8 didn't really fit into any defined category.
c) Dreaming: I'd gladly take an RX7 coupe with a Miata chassis, rotary engine, nearly unusable kiddie 2+2 jump seats in back, and a hardtop/fastback coupe body to counter balance against the soft top Miata. The lighter weight, even with an engine similar to present, would be hoot.
With the RX-8, Mazda was trying to broaden the audience for its sports car by making it more practical (4 seats, 4 doors) but I think that is completely the wrong direction for them to have taken.
I think rotary engines are best used in cars that are as light as possible. Even though the RX-8 is very light for a true four seater, the addition of rear seats still makes the car larger and therefore heavier. The huge door opening required a bunch of extra stiffening that also adds weight. The low torque of the rotary is offset somewhat by gearing, but since most people are uncomfortable shifting at high revs in normal use, heavy weight will create the impression of a slow car.
My ideal next-gen RX car would be something like a hard top MX-5, a bit smaller than the current one. They could probably get the weight down into the 2200-2300 pound range. Even without any improvements in the Renesis, that would be a nice, quick car.
Last edited by val_lixembeau; 06-16-2011 at 03:23 PM.
07-05-2011, 04:20 PM
#186
reported by MAZMART:
The demographic that I see purchasing a future rotary sports car are: People with fine taste who are moved by sensory details. They want something a bit unique.
The demographic that I see purchasing a future rotary sports car are: People with fine taste who are moved by sensory details. They want something a bit unique.
The new rotary should have a redesign exotic style that blends the outside with the soul inside-(a la Ferrari) - showing a clean, stylish and distinctive display of the engine, and it's technology. Stylish intake and exhaust manifolds enhancing the exclusive sound notes of the multi-fuel hydrogen capable Wankel rotary.
Then throw in a high priced Furai edition, exotic supercar option with the 3-Rotor turbo version that will stand up against Lamborghinni's and Ferraris.
The high priced may not sell much units, but will give a status to the lower priced and will allow for racing concessions.
07-05-2011, 05:27 PM
#187
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love my 8, even though I bash it for reliability, lack of torque/power and terrible gas mileage, but I'm confident that I enjoy my 8 more that I would've enjoyed a 350Z, Mustang GT, G35 coupe had I bought one of them. To be honest, when I first saw the 8 I thought it was ugly. it had a very sporty look and some cool features but as a whole I thought it was too weird looking. THEN I TEST DROVE IT! After that I cancelled my negotiations for a 99 3000gt VR4 (beautiful car) and purchased the 8. The looks grew on me later.
07-05-2011, 05:47 PM
#188
While the MZR is a great little motor they are not fail proof. My speed6 is has the VVT problem currently at 68,000. I have owned it since new and it has been serviced very well. Also the rods have a tendency to break north of 300 hp to the wheels due to the amount of torque the little motor makes. Its not uncommon to here owners say not to go full throtal on the cars below 3K rpms.
The RX8 is great for what it is. Everyone needs to remember it is a 9yr old design. We just need a new one plain and simple.
I believe we will see something as there is far to much R&D that has went in already. Also if you look at history there has never been a good time for this little motor. Mazda has always pressed on with it.
There will always be a rotary in my garage, actually multiple. I have been driving them since 95 and will continue to drive them wether mazda makes them or not.
07-05-2011, 06:52 PM
#189
No motor is.
But to compare the total number of Renesis failures to the installed base vs. the total number of MZR failures to its installed base, I think it is clear which is, for consumer purposes, the more reliable motor.
For every Renesis that went out of the door, something in the order of 150 MZRs did the same and even the non-adjusted failure rate of the Renesis far out-strips the MZR.
But to compare the total number of Renesis failures to the installed base vs. the total number of MZR failures to its installed base, I think it is clear which is, for consumer purposes, the more reliable motor.
For every Renesis that went out of the door, something in the order of 150 MZRs did the same and even the non-adjusted failure rate of the Renesis far out-strips the MZR.
07-06-2011, 12:10 AM
#191
Originally Posted by BYRON MATHIOUDAKIS
Along with the truncated tail and cab-backward profile, a sort of early BMW Z4 meets current MX-5 flavour infuses the rendering’s finished product.
The current Miata is so far away from its roots that the voyage back to its essence is going to be fraught with peril.
I look at the new Mini and it reminds me how easily car manufacturers f*ck themselves with their desperate, vision-squashing chasing of the market. Mazda is in the same boat, I'm afraid.
As soon as they put a PRHT on a Miata, they lost their soul, just as they did when they put four doors on the RX-8.
On a separate note, if they retain even a fraction of this styling in any actual models, they will complete their decent into derivative marketing territory.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 07-06-2011 at 12:24 AM.
07-06-2011, 12:41 AM
#192
HTML Code:
<img src="http://www.rx8blog.com/images/shinari_rx7.jpg" HIEGHT=400 WIDTH=500>
Rotory laser ignition!
http://www.corksport.com/blog/are-th...days-numbered/
Last edited by FazdaRX_8; 07-06-2011 at 01:18 AM.
07-06-2011, 11:12 AM
#194
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not have purchased the 8 without the 4 doors or at least 4 seats. I don't have the money to afford the impracticality of a 2 seater. If the next rotary is a 2 seater I'm not interested. If it's a 4 seat coupe with only 2 doors, maybe.
07-06-2011, 12:21 PM
#196
If you can't afford a real sportscar go buy a prius, nobody can be always happy in life.
That's also the reason why i bought the rx8. The chassis has potential once you strip everything and starting taking out a bunch of stupid useless components.
If i had to buy just one car to do everything an e92 would have been my choice. That's Mazda's main mistake with the rx8.
07-06-2011, 12:28 PM
#197
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 253 Likes
on
110 Posts
...which is why I believe there is entirely a market for 2 different rotary models. One with a single pair of doors and seats, one with two pairs.
And it's doable without having to actually design two different cars, as it's just as viable to use the MX-5 chassis for the small one and maybe the Mazda3 chassis for the larger one.
Anyone that screams "it can't be done!" to this ignores the fact that it is done all the time.
-Ford's v6 vs v8 in a mustang
-Mazda's i4 vs i4 turbo vs v6 in the 6
-Hyundai's i4T vs v6 in the Genesis.
Sure it's a different engine layout compared to either I4 with different mounting and output shaft geometry points (where those examples are different length and width but same output shaft), but when it's taken into consideration at the design phase in the factory, this is hardly a difficult problem.
I wouldn't be surprised if Mazda comes up with a way to further lower the engine/output shaft by not having an oil pan directly under the engine at all. I can understand the need for one directly under the engine in a piston engine, but not a rotary. Seems entirely viable to mount it elsewhere (if designed with that in mind). Oil pan depth was shallower in the Renesis vs the RX-7's 13b, enabling an even lower mount than in the RX-7. I'm sure they could keep going lower (within reason obviously, no need to have your engine be the first contact point on bottoming out in a speed bump)
Lower engine means the driveshaft angle is closer and closer to what it would be at for a piston engine.
Spreading the R+D costs across multiple models is far better (financially) than keeping it restricted to 1 model that doesn't really share many components with any other model.
And I don't believe that it would be cannibalizing sales nearly as much as people think it would. The market exists for both.
And it's doable without having to actually design two different cars, as it's just as viable to use the MX-5 chassis for the small one and maybe the Mazda3 chassis for the larger one.
Anyone that screams "it can't be done!" to this ignores the fact that it is done all the time.
-Ford's v6 vs v8 in a mustang
-Mazda's i4 vs i4 turbo vs v6 in the 6
-Hyundai's i4T vs v6 in the Genesis.
Sure it's a different engine layout compared to either I4 with different mounting and output shaft geometry points (where those examples are different length and width but same output shaft), but when it's taken into consideration at the design phase in the factory, this is hardly a difficult problem.
I wouldn't be surprised if Mazda comes up with a way to further lower the engine/output shaft by not having an oil pan directly under the engine at all. I can understand the need for one directly under the engine in a piston engine, but not a rotary. Seems entirely viable to mount it elsewhere (if designed with that in mind). Oil pan depth was shallower in the Renesis vs the RX-7's 13b, enabling an even lower mount than in the RX-7. I'm sure they could keep going lower (within reason obviously, no need to have your engine be the first contact point on bottoming out in a speed bump)
Lower engine means the driveshaft angle is closer and closer to what it would be at for a piston engine.
Spreading the R+D costs across multiple models is far better (financially) than keeping it restricted to 1 model that doesn't really share many components with any other model.
And I don't believe that it would be cannibalizing sales nearly as much as people think it would. The market exists for both.
Last edited by RIWWP; 07-06-2011 at 12:33 PM.
07-06-2011, 03:35 PM
#199
Super Moderator
The current Miata is so far away from its roots that the voyage back to its essence is going to be fraught with peril.
I look at the new Mini and it reminds me how easily car manufacturers f*ck themselves with their desperate, vision-squashing chasing of the market. Mazda is in the same boat, I'm afraid.
As soon as they put a PRHT on a Miata, they lost their soul, just as they did when they put four doors on the RX-8.
I look at the new Mini and it reminds me how easily car manufacturers f*ck themselves with their desperate, vision-squashing chasing of the market. Mazda is in the same boat, I'm afraid.
As soon as they put a PRHT on a Miata, they lost their soul, just as they did when they put four doors on the RX-8.
The ONLY thing that has change in cars like the MX-5 are the REGULATIONS enforce by the good old USA on the WORLD, which adds weight...and more and more, and the people get Fatter and Fatter..
Going back to their Roots in the "new" MX-5 and losing weight and making smaller, another Publicity Bullshit.....the NC is ONLY 1.8 inches longer and under an inch wider that the first gens.
The ND will be smaller by about 5 mil...BIG DEAL!...
It will be lighter???, not by much at all, certainly not by the 700 lbs the media has got its **** in bind over...it will be IMPOSSIBLE for Mazda to make it that lighter and keep the cost down...IMPOSSIBLE.
The only issue Mazda have had which is out of their control is their countries currency..YEN!
07-06-2011, 04:05 PM
#200
Even the distances to control surfaces and the frame/doors/dash should be a give-away.
Unless you are really large, the expansiveness of the interior in the NC is a confidence destroyer.