Don't think it did if you factor in the engine replacements... lol

 

Missed that thread, thanks. Sales were much stronger than I had assumed... after looking at that no way Mazda throws in the towel on the rotary. They just need to re-evaluate/improve what will maximize sales. Fuel economy is important but it's not at the top of my list. Who in there right mind buys a sports car with that in mind...say it gets 5 more miles per gallon, is that really a deal breaker? It's a marginal savings at best big picture wise. I think the best thing they could do is halfway through production, 2-3 years, have a hp upgrade and a slighltly moderate body redesign. If done right, it would inject sales. I hope they plan to do this with the next car. I'd have already traded in my 8 if that was the case now.

 

I'm always baffled when people make comments about the RX-8 being a sales failure. It most certainly was not. The Series II has certainly not sold anywhere near as well as Mazda hoped, as stated by a Mazda official, but the RX-8 sales from the beginning have been a relative success. I also question how much weight would be saved on the RX-8 simply by swapping the rear doors with carbon fiber ones, as someone mentioned. They're already aluminum, and once you add all the passenger-car stuff to them, I can't imagine carbon fiber would make a huge difference. I seem to recall someone saying that the weight of his/her carbon fiber RX-8 hood was actually greater than the OEM aluminum one (not that I have any numbers myself to back that up).

In addition, if you read (and believe) the RX-8 book, the rear suspension design of the RX-8 was not changed from A-arm to multi-link for practicality or space efficiency or comfort reasons, but to achieve near 100 percent leverage ratio in the rear damper/spring unit. Their initial design was a double wishbone, and still had a slightly better leverage ratio than the FD had (which was 70%). Phil Martens was the one to catch the fact that the initial A-arm design was not good enough, and this resulted in the current multi-link setup, which gave the RX-8 its near-100% leverage ratio, and allowed for other handling characteristics they were looking for in the new platform, which was to remain competitive with the world's best sports cars for 10 or 20 years.

As much as many RX-8 haters would like us to believe, there were many genuine *improvements* in going from the FD RX-7 and the RX-8 in terms of pure sports car steering and handling. It never ceases to amaze me how many people refuse to take the RX-8 seriously as a sports car just because it has those rear half-doors (and perhaps rear seats, which many other "real" sports cars have), regardless of how many race car drivers and professional reviews state that the RX-8 handles as well as the best the world has to offer.

 

Rough napkin path says ~$5 billion USD from the sales of the 8s listed on that chart. Granted, there are production and warranty costs, but remember, dealers are the ones first purchasing them from Mazda, not the buyer. And if we assume that ~25% of them were financed through Mazda (a guess?) and average interest rates probably added about $5k onto the total buyer cost for those, that's another $500mil in interest. If even half of the 8s needed engine replacements under warranty, that's only a bit over $500mil in warranty costs.

When you factor in the sale of parts (Which are ludicrously marked up), including from all the Star Mazda engine rebuilds, other race teams, etc...


No, I'd say that even with all the problems, Mazda definitely made money.


Edit: before this turns into a tangent.
Costs such as shipping to the dealer, and the dealer costs themselves, trade in values, etc... have no real impact on Mazdas profits. Only indirectly as a profitable dealer will buy more cars from the manufacturer. Destination charges are passed to the customer, the dealer takes profits and losses of trade in values, etc... Mazda made their money the minute the dealer placed the order. Regardless of what happened in between. Mazda costs such as employees, marketing, etc... are pooled from all profit sources, not just a single model's sales, so you can't add in that cost. About the only thing you can count is the R+D of the chassis, body, and engine, the certifications in the various countries for safety, emissions, etc..., the tooling of the production line, and the production itself. And I don't believe THAT total to be more than the sales estimate of $5 billion.

 

I think you misinterpret some people. I am a person who said to drop the rear seats and 4 doors but I did so for weight and performance reasons. In no way is it an insult to the RX-8. Take the suspension design of the RX-8 but apply it to a smaller, simpler car like a 2 seater and it could be lighter, faster, and even more nimble not to mention the fact that fuel economy could even improve. That doesn't mean the RX-8 is bad. It means we could have an even better rotary powered car. Combine it with an improved rotary engine and it could be a very nice package. I'd be a fan if they only kept it naturally aspirated as well. If we could get a 2600 lb 2 seater that made an honest 250 hp at the wheels and could get upper 20's to lower 30's in mileage, we'd have a winner. For me any true usable 4 seater car absolutely positively must get greater than 30 mpg and even 30 itself is too low. That made the RX-8 a car I'd never own. A 2 seat sports car though I'd buy as a toy and in fact that's what my RX-7 is.

 

watch the BRZ/AE86 sales, if it's a hit come out with a better chassis of about the same size/weight (2600lbs) with a 280hp NA Rotary that makes 30mpg and with a lower price and watch them fly off the dealers!!!

Also, offer the same engine as a Mazdaspeed upgrade with suspension upgrades on a new lighter track monster Miata... I'll get one of each... one can dream

 

wow, I never saw that chart before. Interesting! Thanks for posting the link to that thread!

You misunderstood my earlier statement. (Perhaps I didn't explain myself well)

I thought the article and people were talking about a new rotary engine not using the traditional curve of constant width shape that Felix Wankel came up with (trochoidal shape). So that's the part that didn't make sense to me mathematically.

The 16X - as I understand it - uses the same trochoidal shape, but in a different size or dimension sort of speak. But the shape/design itself - regardless of new dimensions - remains the same. So the 16X is not a totally different curve of constant width all together (like a new rotary engine with a rotating square, rectangle, oval, etc.)

Does that make sense?

If you Google "curve of constant width" you will find tons of articles and examples of many different shapes that can achieve similar results. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=curve%20of%20constant%20width&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=xYVZT_3SAYji0gHD9IzlDw&biw=1274&bih=705&sei=x4VZT6i4O-fn0QG-4ciWDw
However...for the purposes of the 4 phases of combustion, out of all the possible shapes and curves of constant width there are, the one that Felix Wankel came up with is the only one that can work for an internal combustion engine. But again, that's not changing.

That's all I was arguing about, LOL



Excellent point.

In my earlier statement I mentioned that I do not consider the 8 a real hardcore sports car. But I said that mostly because of engine numbers along with the overall design/weight of the car.

But I agree with what you say. So many credible reviewers have praised the 8 so many times in the handling department, yet people don't seem to take those opinions seriously. I do

 

My comment wasn't particularly directed at your post. I just get tired of people slamming the RX-8 for invalid reasons. Personally, I have no problem with the size or weight of the RX-8. Any smaller, and I highly doubt I would be able to drive it. I can't fit in the MX-5. I test drove an MX-5 before the RX-8, and my knees were practically in my chest. And the RX-8 is lighter (sometimes by many hundreds of pounds, or even 1,000 lbs.) than just about every other car you can reasonably compare it to. I bought my RX-8 to be a toy, having at the time a 2005 Mazda3 as my daily driver. I never expected to make much use of the rear seats in my RX-8, but I appreciate that they are actually usable by adults, and are relatively easy to get into for my 9-year old son.

I would love to see exactly what you describe, though, even if there were no chance that I would ever be able to comfortably drive it. I'm really hoping that Mazda does have a rotary engine that compares well to piston engines for efficiency and emissions. I would love to see it in more than one niche car, and very much in a Miata-like vehicle. Hell, maybe my next daily driver will be a rotary-electric hybrid from Mazda, sure to drive better than any other hybrid (and just about every other car on the road).

 

Everyone knows that the only practical use for lasers is to mount them on sharks heads

 

IMO a lighter, 2 seater RX7 sports car wouldn't sell better than the RX8. When I purchased my 8 I looked at the G35 coupe, the 350Z, and then the 8. The G35 was what I really wanted but was too expensive. The Z car was a 2 seater so it wasn't even an option. See, I had a girlfriend, and even though I wasn't thinking about marriage there was times when I needed to be able to carry more than 1 other person. I couldn't even think about a sports car unless I had another car. A couple years later I was married with a child and the 8 was perfect size wise. I have a base 6-speed and I weighed it at Englishtown and it came in at under 2800 lbs. That's already light. The zcar which is only a 2 seater is heavier. Don't make it smaller and lighter as a fix for proper engineering. Engineer a powerful, efficient and reliable rotary.

 

Regarding unit sales, there are now only a handful [2011] available on US lots, so ultimately Mazda should sell all they built. They probably wish they could have sold more, but 2003 - 2012 (Japan) isn't a bad run for a 'halo' car. 'course compared to Miata .....

 

Sorry, but "smaller and lighter" IS proper engineering. It's not a "fix" for proper engineering. This is like saying the 4,000lb Camero is proper sports car engineering... IT'S NOT!

 

The RX8 is already light even with 4 seats and 4 doors. It's lighter than some 2 seaters. Don't build down to the engine, build the engine up to the car. Sure some people want a 2 seater rotary RX7, not everyone. To build a 2 seater car that's so small the average person won't be comfortable in it isn't the way to improve sales. I'v sat in the MX5. It's too small. The RX7 was too small. The RX8 is the proper size IMO. If the 8 had been making 50 more hp and more torque no one would be talking about it's too big. I'm just saying, make it too small and you loose a lot of buyers.

And the 4000 lb Camaro isn't a sports car IMO.

 

If the RX-8 weighed as much as a Camaro, it would run 19's. Then again if the Camaro weighed as little as the RX-8, it would run 10's!

 

...but it would also find many buyers that the RX-8 couldn't. Don't discount that part out.


But, it just goes back to what I've always advocated. 2 rotary models with the same engine. A larger GT based on the RX-8's chassis, and a smaller sports car based on the MX-5's chassis. Same engine, hit both markets, spread the development costs among a greater sales base.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing 2 cars as well, but 1st things 1st. They have to get more power and more torque out of the next engine as well as better mileage. Do we agree on that?

If so, I wouldn't mind seeing a 2 door weighing in under 2700 lbs with say around 280 hp and over 200 lbs. Then take same engine and apply it to the 4-door version with hybrid electric powertrain, either in wheels or electric motor. This version could have 2 settings, eco and sport bringing combined power to over 300 hp and much more torque..

 

no, they re-did the trochoidal shape, they made it slightly "better" so it gives better seal at low speed operation, mpg, and emission.

This is the first change since 30+ damn years ago, about freaking time. Jeeeeesus.

 

The smaller sports car would compete with MX5 sales (which Mazda has cornered) and the GT chassis would lose some sales to the smaller chassis rotary.

 

...so?

You would bring in more than you lose.

The BRZ is competing with the FR-S, but that isn't stopping each company from selling them. It's still a net positive cash flow.



It's like saying that you can't put a 2.3L MZR in a compact sedan, full size sedan, van, and small SUV, because it would steal sales from the others.

Mazda is still making money off of it! Who cares if the GT chassis or coupe chassis is shared with another engine? Just means even more options to bring the customers in. At no point in time would it be a net sales loss for Mazda.

 

Here's hoping that this new rotary engine comes to fruition and allows Mazda to offer more than one rotary-powered car. Assuming Mazda doesn't tank before that can happen.

 

If the "old" 16X, before Sky-Active" was applied, made 350 crank HP, without lasers; I wonder what the Sky-Active and laser ignition add?

Coud we have 450 crank HP from the next rotary?

 

Unlikely. I'd say that SkyActive tech will reduce the power output as they shift the focus on efficiency. Still a torque increase probably, but notice how all of the SA advertisements advertise torque and not power? SA is a net power decrease, even if it's a low and mid-range torque increase.

Extracting more energy from a combustion allows for greater efficiency and/or more torque/power, but it depends on how the engineers design for one or the other which will be the biggest gain. And in today's economy, they need mileage far more than power.

 

well, if they were capable of 350 bhp on the 16X with 10:1 compression (assuming it was the same as Renesis) and they improved sealing efficiency and also increased geometric compression to 14:1 or higher...

BUT allowed for miller/atkinson-type late intake port closing to get back to a 10:1 real dynamic compression and reduced or eliminated spark plug leak with the alleged laser ignition....

I say they could improve mileage AND power together.

If they used the late intake port closing on one rotor to "supercharge" the other then it could be even better.

If they increase super-cooled egr (read condensed water injection) to real high values they could have more aggressive tuning for even better power/mileage

but I know nothing of such things...

 

Agreed, power and mileage can both go up. But not to the 450 suggested over 350 1.6L design. Perhaps it's physically possible, but the efficiency would be down the drain, and that goes against what Mazda is striving for right now. Regardless of whether or not it would be accepted by buyers.

 

A lot of assumptions are being made (Of course) including people quoting a speculative 350 hp number. Mazda has made no such statement so we can put that rumor to sleep temporarily. People are also assuming that the improvements to the rotary mentioned by the Mazda powertrain head have only just occurred overnight. Everything rotary they have been working on for the last few years is 'Skyactiv' in the sense that it will not see production without meeting stringent goals. There is no telling just how far along they are or not. The recent press is at least pleasant and reassuring though.

Paul.