SUBE555 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I find it funny they put 18x7" wheels on there, not the best option IMO limiting tire options and making the majority of tires that barely fit, that 7" width at the very bare minimum for fittment. The extra half-inch would be much more friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Huh, I've got my February C&D in front of me now, which had the weight at 3500 lbs. Well, I also just looked up the specs on http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/pdf/specs_features/veh_specs_MS6.pdf and Mazda puts the curb weight at 3589. So I was a little low and you were a little high. Compared to the LGT at Subaru's claim of 3365 lbs., that almost exactly 200 lbs. heavier for the MS6. Pretty portly, but I can say that the 6 is a bigger car, so some of the weight is there. Cut some lbs off for us "unlimited" folk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I find it funny they put 18x7" wheels on there, not the best option IMO limiting tire options and making the majority of tires that barely fit, that 7" width at the very bare minimum for fittment. The extra half-inch would be much more friendly. Agreed...18x8 would have been ideal and 18x7.5 should have been the minimum....weird.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Subaru did the same thing with the Spec B too. Reason I'm not getting a set of Spec B wheels, width. Otherwise I would. Therefore it's Prodrives or Rota's for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Subaru did the same thing with the Spec B too. Reason I'm not getting a set of Spec B wheels, width. Otherwise I would. Therefore it's Prodrives or Rota's for me. Exactly what we were thinking when we first recieved that spec! Ugh..why?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 The whole "Mazdaspeed" concept is a joke. They're limited production cars that become obsolete within a year. Good luck with maintenance after the warranty expires. I'll bet every drive-train part on that car will cost 3 times the normal Mazda 6 replacement. Not trying to be biased here; I'm sure the Mazdaspeed 6 will look better than the Legacy GT, but if I were still on the fence, I doubt this car would sway me from a Legacy GT purchase. -- On a side note, as I've stated here before, the John Q Public's of the world (who don't strictly study 0-60 times and horsepower before making a purchase) already prefer the Mazda 6 to the Legacy, so how or why Mazda is trying to make a profit with the Mazdaspeed 6 is a mystery to me. If they want a flagship car, they should drop a real motor in the RX-8. Don't tell that to the Protege' fanatics. OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 um, just wait a bit. i think the next mazdaspeed product is a 'speed RX8. and i'm watching carefully. I wouldn't hold my breath. The redesigned Renesis is proving very difficult to slap on FI. Those who have (i.e...petit) have been able to get a whoping 5psi into the engine. The ECU is a pain to crack and the secondary ports are problematic. If they want to get anywere near FD numbers than a 20b three rotor swap is the way to go. OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Too bad they don't drop the 2.3L turbo-4 in. It's already got a great chassis, I can't imagine it would change the handling significantly, but it would significantly alter low-end power and make it a lot more fun to drive I'm sure despite losing the Renesis... oOoOoOo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Don't tell that to the Protege' fanatics. Although a limited run, seeing one compared to an SRT4 in autoX, I was really impressed with the MS Protege, it handled very well and was very smooth on power delivery. That has nothing to say about parts, but says Mazda can set up a car very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Too bad they don't drop the 2.3L turbo-4 in. It's already got a great chassis, I can't imagine it would change the handling significantly, but it would significantly alter low-end power and make it a lot more fun to drive I'm sure despite losing the Renesis... oOoOoOo Dump the Renesis, I'm all for it......the engine was designed to increase MPG. Which it did.....up to 13-15! OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Yeah, it's really not doing anything other than being different versus a piston engine. Pistons are more efficient and powerful in general than the Renesis. Heck, they could put the Honda Civic Type R engine in there and it would do better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Well, it was also designed to be VERY light weight (which it is) and VERY small so it can be pushed back in the chassis and low to the ground (both of which it is). But the drawbacks are almost too great. 1. No low end torque 2. Drinks too much oil 3. Sure can get 18-20 mpg if you drive it lightly...which means you'd be accelerating about as fast as guys in Geo's and Kia's. But since you need to rev it up to get moving with any kind of sports car/sedan motivation, you get 15 mpg. I'm sure this car will go by the way side very fast too. Unless they drop the Rotory engine in favor of the 2.3 turbo. But lord knows they better not mount the intercooler to the top of an already top heavy engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I have to say, I think they'll can the car before putting a piston engine in it. Everything Driver72 says has been said by many others, and is true. One other context is that the 13B without turbos made much less power, and the Renesis makes almost as much hp as a stock 13B-REW turbo. the gigantic difference is that with some insurance mods (cooling, fueling, etc so the thing wouldn't lean out or overheat) and then turning up the boost will get some major power out of a 13B-REW. the Renesis, in making more horsepower than previous NA rotaries, and being smog-legal, seems to be hamstrung for forced induction, and thus seems to be hard to get any more potential out of, plus the 8 being a bit heavier than a RX7. Somehow with an RX7, you could tolerate a temperamental beast that looked so dead sexy, and wasn't pretending to be a practical car. With the 8, it is trying to be a sports car, and a practical car, and still has the temperamental, high strung nature of a rotary powered car, which doesn't jive with practicality so well, and becomes less endearing. Plus the 8 can't rely on it's looks, the way the FD-3S could. That is not to mention that the 8's competition is much steeper from many more directions (practical coupes and sedans with comparable power, and a few sports car re-starts, like the 350Z.) than the 7's few competitors in the early nineties, who were collectively dying a slow death at the hands of a weakening dollar and strengthening SUVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Yeah, it's really not doing anything other than being different versus a piston engine. Pistons are more efficient and powerful in general than the Renesis. Heck, they could put the Honda Civic Type R engine in there and it would do better! God no!!!! Just give me back the twin turbo FD! OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Well, it was also designed to be VERY light weight (which it is) and VERY small so it can be pushed back in the chassis and low to the ground (both of which it is). But the drawbacks are almost too great. 1. No low end torque 2. Drinks too much oil 3. Sure can get 18-20 mpg if you drive it lightly...which means you'd be accelerating about as fast as guys in Geo's and Kia's. But since you need to rev it up to get moving with any kind of sports car/sedan motivation, you get 15 mpg. I'm sure this car will go by the way side very fast too. Unless they drop the Rotory engine in favor of the 2.3 turbo. But lord knows they better not mount the intercooler to the top of an already top heavy engine. It really doesn't drink as much oil as you'd think. I go down about half a quart every 1000 mi. Not bad at all. The low end torque can be addressed by the supercharger. OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatV8 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 There is a shop in Aus who makes a turbo kit for the RX-8 made a huge difference all over the rev range. I think it was http://www.rotormaster.com.au I have an article here from it in Motor Mag from a few months back. Ok they dont have it listed on site... sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boostjunkie Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I'm sure this car will go by the way side very fast too. Unless they drop the Rotory engine in favor of the 2.3 turbo. But lord knows they better not mount the intercooler to the top of an already top heavy engine. The Mazda/Ford 2.3L motor is actually an extremely light and efficiently packaged motor. It is certainly not "top heavy" by any means. If you want top heavy I'll haul out my old all-iron Ford 2.3L. The head alone would give you a hernia lifting it! Fully dressed that sucker weighs a little less than 400 lbs! The new 2.3L weighs something in the neighborhood of 150 lbs. That's pretty light. The MS6 weighs about 500 lbs. more than a regular I4 Mazda6. There must be some serious chassis reinforcements in addition to the AWD and turbo to account for that much weigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 There is a shop in Aus who makes a turbo kit for the RX-8 made a huge difference all over the rev range. I think it was http://www.rotormaster.com.au I have an article here from it in Motor Mag from a few months back. Ok they dont have it listed on site... sorry. They are not dealing with the USDM ECU or it's emission B.S. OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitestar Pilot Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 God no!!!! Just give me back the twin turbo FD! I don't think Mazda will ever bring back a turbo rotary again. You'll notice there are very few of the prior gens left. No tolerances, detenate once and the motor's shot. Turbo rotary engines should only be owned by enthusiast mechanics that know how to rebuild them. I heard a few stories back in the day about blown RX-7 Twin-Turbo engines, and warranty replacements. Mazda (who unlike Mitsubishi actually cares about it's reliability and customer relations image) replaced several blown rotaries, and probably lost their butt in the process. They ended up canceling the RX-7, but their reputation as a reliable car maker stayed mostly intact. Now the RX-8 is once again bringing them down on the reliability chart, and I would be shocked to see them release another forced-induction rotary of any type. When I said they should 'put a real motor in the RX-8,' I meant something like a supercharged 6-cylinder. They'd have to drop the "RX" badge though, because traditionally "RXs" are rotaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I don't think Mazda will ever bring back a turbo rotary again. You'll notice there are very few of the prior gens left. They ended up canceling the RX-7, but their reputation as a reliable car maker stayed mostly intact. Now the RX-8 is once again bringing them down on the reliability chart, and I would be shocked to see them release another forced-induction rotary of any type. The Rx-8 bringing down reliability??? Then why so many awards and the car is on every top ten list known to man. OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The Mazda/Ford 2.3L motor is actually an extremely light and efficiently packaged motor. It is certainly not "top heavy" by any means. If you want top heavy I'll haul out my old all-iron Ford 2.3L. The head alone would give you a hernia lifting it! Fully dressed that sucker weighs a little less than 400 lbs! The new 2.3L weighs something in the neighborhood of 150 lbs. That's pretty light. The MS6 weighs about 500 lbs. more than a regular I4 Mazda6. There must be some serious chassis reinforcements in addition to the AWD and turbo to account for that much weigh. Boost, I meant "top heavy" when compared to the current RX-8 rotary and our Flat4's. Our cars get away with having a TMIC because of the nature of how low the engine sits in the engine bay. But I don't think there's an excuse for Mazda to throw a TMIC onto the MS6. And if you were to do that to the RX-8, by comparison it would add quite a bit of top heaviness to the car. yes, the MS6 has structural reinforcements behind the rear seats (hence no more folder rear seat, and in the base of the chassis. Those, along with the extra weight of the AWD system, the 6 speed manual and the turbo and all the plumbing, and probably other things like larger intake/exhaust, etc is what adds the 500 pounds on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Boost, I meant "top heavy" when compared to the current RX-8 rotary and our Flat4's. Our cars get away with having a TMIC because of the nature of how low the engine sits in the engine bay. But I don't think there's an excuse for Mazda to throw a TMIC onto the MS6. And if you were to do that to the RX-8, by comparison it would add quite a bit of top heaviness to the car. yes, the MS6 has structural reinforcements behind the rear seats (hence no more folder rear seat, and in the base of the chassis. Those, along with the extra weight of the AWD system, the 6 speed manual and the turbo and all the plumbing, and probably other things like larger intake/exhaust, etc is what adds the 500 pounds on. The 8 will get a FMIC.. http://www.mazdatrix.com/8pics/RX8TurboKitS.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v189/shawrf1/rx8/ResizeofDSC00027_JPG.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v189/shawrf1/rx8/PICT0081.jpg OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evolutionmovement Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Car magazines rarely, if ever, give awards for reliability, durability, or serviceability. They don't have the cars long enough to really test which and there aren't any glossy cover shots in it for them anyway. As for the latter, nobody seems to know what they're looking at under a hood anyway, so serviceability would be highly relative to the few who even care. The rotary, Segway, and humans have a lot in common - a great idea on paper that just doesn't work so well in the real world. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The 8 will get a TMIC.. Dunno if you're being funny, but that's an FMIC kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Yeah, it's really not doing anything other than being different versus a piston engine. Pistons are more efficient and powerful in general than the Renesis. Heck, they could put the Honda Civic Type R engine in there and it would do better! Can you explain your logic please? How is a 2.0L with 200 HP more efficient than a 1.3L with 238 HP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.