Not sure I agree with that assessment. Mazda has been busy introducing the Mazda2 and there have been recently or upcoming re-freshed Mazda3, 6 and 5. I'd say Mazda is focused on their core products and that there probably aren't many (if any) resources left over for a specialty car like the RX cars.

 

yep the mazda 3 is getting pushed hard---its a good car
OD

 

This is from the owner of a dealership. He said they would not tell him what the replacement would be.

 

Rx-7
________
Orchidina

 

No 2011 RX-8? Can we get some of our Mazda guys to confirm that?

 

No one from Mazda is talking. But think about it. It took a $5k rebate which was available in Dec, Jan and Feb just to clear out the 2009 RX-8 inventory. In another thread here, it is reported that Mazda sold 77 RX-8s nationwide in Feb. In terms of sales, the current RX is dead and only something like a redesign coupled with FI would revive it. The light refresh in '09 made a number of internal changes that no one on the marketplace cared about since they did not address the core complaints about the car (lack of hp/torque and relatively high gas consumption). Sales of the S2 show that Mazda just didn't do enough with the '09 refresh.

As for any new model, the further we get into 2010 with no announcement, the more likely that there will be no RX car for 2011. Check a place like Edmunds Inside Line and you will see the announcments for 2011s coming out every week. There have been announcments from Mazda, most recently a model refresh for the Mazda6/Mazda5 and the introduction of the Mazda2, but no word on any RX car.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the RX-8 was at it's end. It's had a normal life span and is pretty much at that point. It also wouldn't surprise me if we don't have another rotary for a while and that the next one would be in a hybrid. Rules are changing way too fast for it to keep up as the prime mover.

 

The 1st gen RX-7 went from model year '79 to '85. The series I was '79-'80. Updates to the body, emissions, engine, etc created the series II which was from '81-'83. A dash change, further refinements, and a fuel injected 13B option (GSL-SE) as opposed to the carburated 12A created the series III which was '84-'85.

The 2nd generation RX-7 ran from model years '86-'91. '86-'88 were the series IV's. '86 was naturally aspirated only with a Turbo showing up in '87 and a vert in '88. '89-'91 was the series V. It had body updates and engine updates for more power among many other things. There was only 1 model in '91. There was no RX-7 in '92 as they only sold remaining inventory until the 3rd generation came along for model year '93. It's last year in the US was '95 but continued in limited numbers until '02. Some versions only having a dozen or so examples.

Don't be quick to think that it wouldn't go away after only 2 years of an updated version. That's not out of the ordinary at all.

 

I would make a correction to that. Series II RX7 (12A) was produced from 81-85 at the same time the Series III (13B) was being made 84-85. The Series II was sold in the US as an S, GS & GSL models. The Series III was a GSL-SE.

 

I always just considered all '84-'85's as Series III's. Is that not the case in other parts of the world since the US only got the GSL-SE?

 

There were only a couple of interior changes in the 12A model years. There were also oil cooler changes through out the various GSL (83-85) model years. There were no body or chassis modifications throughout 81-85. The 13B model had a heavier frame than the 12A (and was no where near as nimble or fun).
The engine & frame changes is why I called the GSL-SE exclusively a Series III.
Rotary Nerds.

 

Too early to say that the 10 ym will be the last for our beloved 8. Everything indicates that it is.. My guess is that it is.... I mean, if nothing is said about a 2011 ym rx8 by September I think we can assume there will be no 11 model...

One is thing is left hanging.. The unofficial date (and yes I emphasize on the word unofficial) for a new RX is 2012. So nothing in 2011?

I suppose that if the new RX machine is slated for a 2012 release date then they could start selling it sometime in mid to late 2011.

 

The next RX could be an early 2012 model released in late Spring/Summer of 2011. If I recall correctly, the latest version of the Mazda6 was introduced and available in the summer of 2008 even though it was a 2009 model. So there is precedent for something like this and I would think that is the earliest time frame we can expect for a new RX car. I also think some kind of hybrid is the best bet for Mazda bringing out a new RX car.

I really think Honda could have been onto something with the CR-Z, a sporty hybrid. Unfortunately, I also think Honda shot themselves in the foot by poor execution. But I think the idea is sound.

 

If there is a successor, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if there is a year or two gap between them to get rid of existing inventory. If this happens you'll probably see tv commercials for the car again to try to help get the last few out. That's what they did in '92 which was a year without any production and the year before the 3rd gen RX-7 debuted.

 

Some kind of hybrid could be the best bet for Mazda bringing out a new RX car, or a hybrid version. Porsche, Audi and it looks like Ferrari is jumping on that bandwagon. Some sort of hybrid sports car. There is a lot of talk about the next MX-5 going through some kind of hybrid route as well, atlthough no department in Mazda is more obsessed about weight than the MX-5 department.

Anyways, I agree about the Honda CR-Z. At first I looked at it and thought "Hmm, interesting...a sporty hybrid" But the execution is terrible.

I got faith in Mazda that the next RX will be an awesome machine...

 

They do have a series hybrid using a rotary engine for the MPV/Mazda5. I think it has limited availability in Europe, although maybe it was just a running concept test out in public?

I could see a hybrid RX making alot of sense. For example (alot of detail missing here, obviously), on the highway you could trigger a cruise mode where the engine sets itself to a specific RPM A/F ratio for maximum efficiency and sends power to an electric motor instead of through drive train. Probably making the switch through the transmission, maybe like having a 6th or 7th gear not connect down to the physical drive train, but instead out to the generator, with an appropriate electrical motor connected into the rear diff. It would be a positive link as well, making it a different shift gate on the transmission, so you can clearly only have one or the other.

In cruise mode is the only time people seem to care about MPG, since the red light racers never talk about their redlight to redlight MPG. Under cruise, you simply don't need that much power, and I am sure an electrical motor designed specifically for cruise, and only for cruise, you could have it small 'enough'. Especially if you also put the chassis on a diet and lose a few hundred pounds. I think most existing hybrid or electric cars have motors that have to be able to accelerate the car from a stop, not just maintain a speed. Just like the rotary loses efficiency by having to work over a wide range, I imagine the electric motors can be optimized for just maintaining 50-70mph.

Sure, your cruise acceleration will be terrible, but 'downshift' out of the series hybrid drive 'gear' on the transmission to go back to direct gasoline drive as needed. Settle back to cruise and 'upshift' into hybrid drive. Forget heavy battery packs.

Adding a turbo or super charger, even a small one, would probably further improve that. Maybe the first car to get such a wide split of ~35hwy 16 city mileage. But it would shut up the people that cry about mileage on a sports car. Complicated, but probably not as much as it may seem.

Just a thought

 

I think it would be just the opposite. Hybrids are most efficient in city driving, not highway. Most hybrids switch to gas only above 30 mph as this is where the electric motor losses efficiency. If you look at an EPA sticker for most hybrids, they get better city than hwy and the only reason the hwy mileage is high is due to the small engines used.

If Mazda does a hybrid RX then it should keep the wankle on hwy duty and let the electric motors handle city driving. This maximizes the efficiently of both power plants. The wankle's weakness is in city driving where mileage is poor and lack of torque is apparent while it does well on the hwy with mediocre mileage and decent hp. An electric motor would greatly offset these weaknesses.

 

Actually that isn't the reason. The reason they are normally better city than highway, is that they run on entirely battery in the city and the engine is only idling. On the highway, THE BATTERY PACK can't maintain that, and the engine is forced to provide power as well. No existing hybrid car has the engine supplying electrical power to the electric drivetrain, so you can't assume this same effect will transfer. Batteries can never maintain a constant steady drain of power, and once it is gone, it can only supply what is being charged in.

In the setup I suggested, the engine itself can supply the voltage and current needed continually without dealing with the drawback of trying to supply power from a battery pack. In these cases, your city mileage would be lower than highway.

And I don't know of anyone complaining of city mileage on the 8. It sucks, yeah, but hardly more than most other cars. The CVT Sentra I drove recently was showing 11-14mpg city on the MPG display, as an example. Cruise mileage is what people really complain about.


Although I agree, it would be possible to have a 'city mode' or gear, which just downgears like crazy on the electric motor. Again, you only have 1 driving the car at a time though, not both via a battery pack like existing parallel hybrids.

Of course, once you get to this variability though, there will be a push to just downsize the engine and make it exclusively a generator. That is the future of cars in my opinion, but you lose what enthusiasts love about the rotary. Cruise is where the rotary isn't 'in it's element', and you can switch to a series hybrid without loss of enjoyment. Anywhere else, I'd much much much rather be on the pure engine.

Of course, I don't complain about the mileage either

 

What you are proposing is more like the system to be used in the Chevy Volt. I can see this being a viable option and concur that under this system engineers would likely be pressed to use the wankle entirely for electricity generation. Not a good option for a sports car though. I still disagree with you about the city vs hwy mileage impact. For me, I am fine with the hwy mileage...I get about 22 mpg. I am appalled by the city...about 11-13 mpg; this is where I could really use the electric motor and for off the line torque.

 

Yes, you are correct, the Chevy Volt is a series hybrid, not parallel like the Prius and other hybrids common out there. Series is where the future is, not parallel. At least the vast majority of train locomotives are series hybrid engines, a diesel engine powering massive electrical motors. And have been for 50+ years.

My highway perspective though is based on the Frazier Nash Namir, which has a small (900cc?) turbo'ed rotary as a generator for it's electrical motors, 2 pairs on each axle, and it's highway mileage was estimated as 93.7mpg or something.

City driving on an electrical engine is alot of acceleration. Broken up into tiny bits with deceleration periods, but city driving simply doesn't have steady constant power. It is lots of high load broken up by lots of no load. Cruising on the highway in a 3,000lb aerodynamic vehicle doesn't need more than 90-110hp. If even that. Accelerating a 3,000lb vehicle from 0 to 20 several dozen times a trip requires alot more than that. Well, not really, but if you don't go to higher power, you have the 'low power' or 'no torque' complaint that we have now. Regardless of vehicle speed, any given engine/motor can more efficiently produce 90-110hp than it can 200.

It's the lack of power needed to maintain highway speed, and lots of power needed to drive in the city, that leads me to believe that your biggest benefit would be highway driving, not city. I agree there would be a benefit to city driving available, but then we are getting into the realm of asking Mazda to make the next rotary a series hybrid. Which means it has nothing about it that makes a rotary win hearts. Sure, a low polar inertia great suspension chassis is still possible, and it would be a great car, but no longer a rotary in the sense of the rotary power delivery that we have come to love.

If they want to keep the next RX winning rotary hearts, but want to introduce a hybrid concept, then a series hybrid 'overdrive' for highway cruising is what would work, and what would sell.


Talk to a mustang owner trying to bash on the 8. "I can do 11 second quarter miles and still get 35mpg highway" (or whatever). They talk about shear acceleration without MPG as a factor, then highway MPG without acceleration as a factor.

Those same people are the ones complaining about the 8's mileage, and it isn't city. They keep talking about the highway. They may think they are talking about both, but they aren't.

If Mazda introduced an 'overdrive' 'gear' that engaged a series hybrid electric motor off the engine, and set the rotary to an optimum point and trim, strictly for highway cruising, it would give them 30+mpg highway but maintain the rest of the lower speed fun that the people that care less about mileage crave.


(btw, my highway is 22-24, my city is 19-20)

 

Guess I need new coils

 

As RG brought up in another thread a while back, the best thing the countries can do to reduce petroleum consumption though, is NOT worrying about the personal vehicles.

Get every tractor trailer in the US converted to a series hybrid system, just like the freight trains have. There is a larger fuel savings possible there than there will be via cars, and the trucking companies have a better chance at being able to pay for the conversions. Vs implementing changes and waiting the decades it takes for all of the existing commuter cars to be trashed or crashed and series hybrid bought in their place.

There are lots of advantages to going to series hybrid, and fuel consumption isn't the only one:

You can do away with brakes, and simply flow the current backwards (at the appropriate rate) to providing a braking effect on the axle. That's alot of carbon and material not being continually burned off.
Your unspring weight drops significantly, improving acceleration and deceleration characteristics, including fuel consumption to do so.
You lose alot of weight going to series hybrid, since you don't need the transmission or driveshaft any more. Just some flexible cables.
Your exhaust piping is way smaller, and can be precisely tuned to the RPM the engine sits at, along with all the other components of the engine.
Mechanical wear thus plummets.
Granted, there is an increase in electrical motor replacement cost, but it would probably be needed far less than people realize.
Heat is also now very controllable, since you know what the thermodynamic stress the engine will be under.
Oils that don't have to guard against extreme heat sheer can be optimized even better.
Fully precise AWD, traction control, and stability control.

The list goes on.

Series.

Not Parallel.

 

Well you better get your Electrian License now so you can rewire the armature on the motor.

 

it is a very good car, but every now and then i drive my rx8 and think, wow if it just had that tq. the rx8 would rule the sports car world!

this is a comment by a mazdaspeed 3 2010, and a 2004 rx8 owner.

but denny, dont think you have those issues!

beers

 

It does amaze me how much a car with absent low end power excites the hell out of me so much. RX-8 + gobs more tq & 50 hp more = win.