2010 MazdaSpeed3

[Guest JessterCPA]

And it probably would weigh mroe than the 2700-2900lbs the rx-7 did because more is demanded out of a higher end sports car in that dept these days.

 

Ahh but even a youngster like yourself remembers the last wave of Japanese cars that nearly wiped them out. The 300ZX, the 3000GT, the last RX-7, the Supra. Awesome cars. Huge potential. But waaaayyy to expensive & impractical for their time, so they just about all died out. Nearly killed the brands in terms of cost & old inventory. The RX-8 brought back the trimmed down car, and along with the 350z, re-invented the Japanese sports car.

[05GT Guru]

In all honesty, in the grand scheme of things & in today's economic climate, who TF cares about the RX8? Mazda has made inroads with the 3 & 6 that GM & Ford (just Ford) would die for. They make a true Civic/Corolla and Camry/Accord fighter, something not many other companies have. To keep improving on your cash cows liek this is a very sensical & smart thing to do. The offering of a MS3 & MS6 helps the image of the brand overall. Once Mazda gets some cash back in it's account, then you may expect to see a new/improved RX.

 

Im not saying a new rx car is a bad thing, but how is mazda gonna keep the weight down to the 2800lbs standard, interiors and safety are different than in 95 when the rx-7 stopped. How are they gonna get a turbo rotary to compete with todays sports cars. It would have to have atleast 400hp and at those levels gas mileage and emissions will be hard to get the green light to produce this car.

[05GT Guru]

Ahh but even a youngster like yourself remembers the last wave of Japanese cars that nearly wiped them out. The 300ZX, the 3000GT, the last RX-7, the Supra. Awesome cars. Huge potential. But waaaayyy to expensive & impractical for their time, so they just about all died out. Nearly killed the brands in terms of cost & old inventory. The RX-8 brought back the trimmed down car, and along with the 350z, re-invented the Japanese sports car.

 

Lol a youngster like myself, i had a 517rwhp supra, so yeah i remember them well and i know there potential. But the rx-7 was killed off before all the others, why? Because in 96 even with just 250hp and a rather weak fuel system it couldnt pass the new emmissions regulations, so how will it in 2010 or 11 and with more hp which equals more fuel.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Ok but with the new mpg limits on cars can mazda really expect to release a 400-500hp rx car with a turbo rotary, it would be in the teens freeway and low low teens to high single digits city.

 

1: A stock Mazda RX car does not need to have 400-500 horsepower, if it is light enough. mid 300s to 400 would be more than most average joes would even want to handle in a light car.

 

2:Which is one reason among many that I hate government over-regulation, and at least that is fleet average. But government bullcrap limits market choices, and mutes market forces.

 

3: Those mileage figures are extrapolations, which may or may not be true, and shouldn't a customer decide what they want?

 

When cars like the vette are making over 600 and getting 20+ freeway. It just doesnt seems like a good idea.

 

So buy a vette, then. I don't want one. A rotary might be a lot of fun, though. I have long wondered why Mazda hasn't gone mid-engined with a rotary... The rotary is so compact, it might make traditional engineering challenges with mid-engined cars less of a hurdle.

 

I don't need 600 horsepower. I would take mid-engined handling balance over high power any day of the week, and twice on a sunday drive.

 

The Corvette isn't everyone's cup of tea, so it can't truly be the yardstick for everything. Mazda shouldn't be building corvettes anyway, they should be building Mazda's idea of a sports car.

 

And it probably would weigh mroe than the 2700-2900lbs the rx-7 did because more is demanded out of a higher end sports car in that dept these days.

 

Again, extrapolation that may or may not be true. But look at Cayman. Cayman weighs less than 3000lbs, and it has leather interior, and gizmos galore, two trunks, and a flat 6-cylinder engine, and big wheels and tires compared to cars just a few years ago...

 

Who is to say that a Mazda sports car can't be lighter? Miata is, even with a folding hard top, and a heavier piston engine. FD-RX7 had light-weight down to a science, and that was almost 20 years ago that it debuted.

 

What about all of the materials advancements since then? Aluminum and carbon fiber manufacturing techniques, high-strength steels that can be smaller for the same durability, better quality and durability thermoplastics... I think there is plenty that can be done to make a newly designed mazda sports car be quite light weight, especially a three-door 2-seat coupe, like RX7 was.

[IwannaSportSedan]

In all honesty, in the grand scheme of things & in today's economic climate, who TF cares about the RX8? Mazda has made inroads with the 3 & 6 that GM & Ford (just Ford) would die for. They make a true Civic/Corolla and Camry/Accord fighter, something not many other companies have. To keep improving on your cash cows liek this is a very sensical & smart thing to do.

 

There are some of us who are still enthusiasts who want enthusiast-grade cars. WE care about cars like Miata, RX8, and the LACK of RX7 or Kabura.

 

ARE you on CRACK? Ford doesn't wish for it, FORD IS ON THAT PLATFORM. And last I checked 3 and 6 were significantly behind Honda and Toyota in sales. Which is fine with me, because seeing what Honda and Toyota peddle as mainstream, I hope Mazda charts their own course, as I hope Subaru does, as well.

 

The Fusion/Milan/MKZ are based on the Mazda 6, as are the CX7, MKX, and Edge. it is a single scaleable MAZDA platform under all of those cars.

 

Scaled up a bit, that mazda platform also underpins the Taurus, MKS, Flex, and MKT, as well as CX9.

 

Ford hasn't seen fit to offer the Mazda 3's platform under the US-spec Focus, although the rest of the world does. The Volvo S40 and C30 are also on the Mazda 3's platform.

 

That is not "dying for", that is "already HAS."

 

I liked the previous mazda 6. And if the new one is an improvement, No Thanks... I'll pass. Bigger, bulkier, heavier, uglier than the rest of the world's version, and no manual transmission with the V6, and no 5-door sedan. ALL of those are WORSE than the outgoing model, for someone like me, who owns, and likes their Mazda sports car, and thought about buying a Mazda sport sedan, too.

 

Legacy beat the 6, and it soundly beats the new one. The '10 Legacy is following Mazda and Acura/Honda, and Toyota, and Nissan, down the ugly, bulky turnpike.

 

IF they don't want to improve and maintain their sports cars, then they should change their marketing plan.

 

"The soul of an appliance in everything we build. Putt-Putt..."

[05GT Guru]

You right they could make it light, with carbon fiber and what not, but then your not thinking about expense. Once you have a car with all that carbon fiber it gets into a price range with cars that are way above its class.

 

I agree the government limits too much in the car world.

 

I also think you underestimate how light rotarys are, yes there small but a 1.3liter rotary with the turbos and accesories is the same a 5.7liter ls1 with the bells and whistles.

 

I dont think mazda should build a vette liek car and thats not what i was saying, i was just trying to show if mazda did that they would be cars that weigh the same, make more power but need less money stuck into them and headaches and time at the shop.

 

Id like to see a twin turbo aluminium inline 6 from mazda go into the new rx-7

 

Let me ask yo ua question is mazda gonna go up against porsche in a whos 2 seater sports car is a better car for the same price range. NO, so they need it to be cheap to compete with the mustang,corvette,challenger G8 GXP, STI, EVO range of cars. That means good luck on seeing alot of carbon fiber body pieces.

[IwannaSportSedan]

You right they could make it light, with carbon fiber and what not, but then your not thinking about expense. Once you have a car with all that carbon fiber it gets into a price range with cars that are way above its class.

 

Carbon Fiber is cheaper than it once was... that is my point, most lighter and stronger materials, composite or metallic, are more attainable now than ever before, aside from the aerospace industry eating up most of the CF... It doesn't have to be CF, but aluminum is becoming much more common, and high strength steels can be smaller and lighter for a given strength capacity, and all of it is getting cheaper to manufacture.

 

I agree the government limits too much in the car world.

 

I also think you underestimate how light rotarys are, yes there small but a 1.3liter rotary with the turbos and accesories is the same a 5.7liter ls1 with the bells and whistles.

 

Are you kidding, still?

 

An engine the size of a watermelon with three main moving parts (an eccentric shaft, and two torroid rotors...) and a turbo or two, vs a V8 with 17 moving parts in the bottom end alone, not counting the valvetrain which adds a few dozen more moving parts?

 

The rotary, in terms of packaging, has all of the low CG and low clearance benefits of a boxer engine, plus the fact that it isn't wide, either. Short in length and depth, AND narrow, too.

 

Physics defy you to point out how a much larger assembly, with many more parts, is lighter...

 

I dont think mazda should build a vette liek car and thats not what i was saying, i was just trying to show if mazda did that they would be cars that weigh the same, make more power but need less money stuck into them and headaches and time at the shop.

 

Id like to see a twin turbo aluminium inline 6 from mazda go into the new rx-7

 

Corvettes weigh more than 3000lbs. A mazda RX7 doesn't. Mazda sports cars historically are very light, with small displacement, more like Lotus than Chevy.

 

Not everyone wants more power than they can handle, or the need for 12 inch wide rear tires, and their unsprung weight and rolling resistance, just to cope with that power.

 

A rotary can be maintained in a home garage, and even if they do need rebuilds every 60-80k miles, some people might think it is WORTH it for the rotary's unique characteristics.

 

An RX7 is not a Supra. Talk to toyota if you want another supra TT-I6, or talk to BMW about a 1-series or Z4 with their TT-I6.

 

They don't even HAVE an inline 6, they would probably go with the twin turbocharged DFI V-engines that Ford is branding as EcoBoost. The engine family is common between the brands, with slight variation in displacement between 3.5 and 3.7 liters.

[instantfury]

holy butterface

[05GT Guru]

You cant even dispute the fact that the 1.3 rotary turbo is the same weight as the 5.7liter ALUMINUM block,head and piston gm engine. Here you go, and the 27 gained wieght gained also includes the stock 5 speed of the rotary compaired to the t-56 6 speed with the ls1. There are hudnreds of guys who say the same exact thing, also most say they feel the handling inpoved with the ls1 and the CG feels lower because the crank of the engine is lower. You say some people liek havign a rotary over a ls1, you right soem do but all who have done the swap say they love the ls1 over the rotary by far.

 

http://www.supraforums.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-271025.html heres the link and there are hudnreds more

 

1993 touring model 5-speed

 

Before

 

LF 729 RF 695

LR 705 RR 692

 

Total--2821lbs

 

After swap 1999 ls1/t56 trans ac and power steering

 

LF 748 RF 717

LR 683 RR 700

 

Total weight 2848lbs

 

 

Weight gain only 27lbs

[Guest JessterCPA]

There are some of us who are still enthusiasts who want enthusiast-grade cars. WE care about cars like Miata, RX8, and the LACK of RX7 or Kabura.

 

ARE you on CRACK? Ford doesn't wish for it, FORD IS ON THAT PLATFORM.

 

Yes. Enthusiasts are everywhere, and I love an exciting to drive car as much as anyone. BUt you have to admit, very few companies make their money from the exciting cars unless their mainstream cars are also doing well.

 

Regarding your second comment, you are correct. I was struggling with how to write that out(and I guess I didn;t do too good a job at it ), in that Mazda is Ford and the 3 platform is all over the place. But in the US, the Ford isn't up to spec.

 

Teh 3 & 6 do not sell as well at the Honda/Toyota counterparts, but they do sell well, and are a viable alternative, as opposed to many others who simply are not.

[rao]

The rotary engine is no lightweight - there is more to an engine than the block

 

Also, rotary engine may only have 3 moving parts, blah, blah, blah, but that doesn't prevent them from having very high failure rates.....

[Guest JessterCPA]

You cant even dispute the fact that the 1.3 rotary turbo is the same weight as the 5.7liter ALUMINUM block,head and piston gm engine.

 

For real?? 27lbs?? Then why all the continual hype over how light the Rotary was? I am confused. Was the Mazda hype all for naught?

 

I know Mazda likes the RX to have the rotary, but sometimes you have to change. BMW did the turbo (as did Honda with the RDX), so maybe it's time for Mazda to re-think it's theory on that engine.

[rao]

It's called MARKETING

[Guest JessterCPA]

It's called MARKETING

 

But for 30+ years we have been fooled?

[rao]

Have you read just the posts in this thread?

[Guest heightsgtltd]

[CTATV]

my buddy has an RX-7 and it is a sexy car. he's pushing 365hp at the wheels and I think the RX should stay rotary.

[05GT Guru]

For real?? 27lbs?? Then why all the continual hype over how light the Rotary was? I am confused. Was the Mazda hype all for naught?

 

I know Mazda likes the RX to have the rotary, but sometimes you have to change. BMW did the turbo (as did Honda with the RDX), so maybe it's time for Mazda to re-think it's theory on that engine.

 

Hey look someone who can admit when someone teaches them something new. Now IWANNASPORTSEDAN its your turn

[05GT Guru]

my buddy has an RX-7 and it is a sexy car. he's pushing 365hp at the wheels and I think the RX should stay rotary.

 

I had a couple of rotary loving buddys, i almost bought my friend matts 450rwhp 93 r1 rx7. But then when he told me how he works on it almost every weekend to keep it just right i thought it wasnt a good idea. I like to make my sports cars fast, and then play with them every weekend without having to worry if it is gonna brake. But thats just me, some guys need to have a project every weekend and for those guys mazda introduces you to the rotary engine lol.

[rao]

my buddy has an RX-7 and it is a sexy car. he's pushing 365hp at the wheels and I think the RX should stay rotary.

 

Absolutely, and all Subarus should stay stock

[Guest heightsgtltd]

Hey look someone who can admit when someone teaches them something new. Now IWANNASPORTSEDAN its your turn

 

 

Says the 21 year old with "guru" in his name

[05GT Guru]

You know that all you ever say when you come on posts that i have typed on. Look at the 21 year old, sorry i wasnt born a couple years earlier, ill slap my mom in the face next time i see her and say why didnt you spawn me 5-10 years earlier. Then Heightsgtltd wouldnt have such a problem with the comments i make because atleast it would be someone over 30 saying it. lol

[IwannaSportSedan]

Yeah.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Wankel_engine

These and other innovative technologies allow the Renesis to achieve 49% higher output and dramatically reduced fuel consumption and emissions (the RX-8 meets LEV-II). It won International Engine of the Year and Best New Engine awards 2003 and also holds the "2.5 to 3 litre" size award for 2003 and 2004, where it is considered a 2.60 L engine. Finally, it was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2004 and 2005.

 

Sounds like the engine is all hype. Sure. [/sarcasm]

 

It also lists the dry weight of the renesis engine, fully assembled, as 344lbs.

 

From google search results for "LS7 engine weight":

from the January 2006 issue of Sports Car International on page 25:

 

"The net result is a fully trimmed engine that weighs 458 pounds, only 10 more than the 6.0-liter LS2."

 

For comparison, AMG's all-new 6.3 liter V-8 (it is actually a 6.2 liter V-8, but it will be called a 6.3 liter V-8 to pay homage to the 250 hp 1967-1972 300SEL 6.3) weighs 438 pounds vs. 485 pounds (old 5.4 liter supercharged V-8). The new V-8 has 510 hp at 6,800 rpm and 630 Nm at 5200 rpm.

 

Also, BMW's M5 Product Information Guide says that the M5's 5.0 liter 500 hp (SAE net) V-10 weighs 240 kg/529 lbs.

 

So...

 

The Renesis engine weighs 114lbs less than an LS7 specialized corvette engine. That is a lot of margin for turbos. Most turbos don't weigh that much, unless it is on a Caterpillar, or something.

 

That is a larger margin by well more than TWICE, than the weight differences between the LS7, older AMG V8, and the BMW //M V10, by those figures.

 

So... if you claim that the SBC is so wonderful by being lighter than other engines, the Rotary undercuts the SBC by more than twice the SBC's advantage over other high-output engines.

 

And that is just the engine alone. Not the transmission choice, not the chassis construction methods, or anything else. Assembled engine weight alone.

 

BTW, I have before, and I am willing and ready to admit when I learn something. When you teach me something, you'll know it. But not happening right now...

[05GT Guru]

Why are you even brining these engines into play, the ls1 vs the rotary has been covered by magazines and tons and tons of people. Tons have weighed the cars before and after like this guy and the ls1 setup with the bigger t56 is 27 more than the rotary. PERIOD, you said how can a samlled rotary engien weigh the smae as a huge SBC, well it does. Deal with it.

 

Here is a link of sport compact covered it

http://sportcompactcar.automotive.com/79491/0609-sccp-ls1-powered-mazda-rx-7/index.html

 

Heres the line you need to read

 

Le threw some Injen intake and exhaust parts on the car and mated a SPEC clutch and flywheel to the six-speed T56 transmission. After gutting the interior and adding a rollcage, the Bastard only weighs 77 pounds more than Wan's drift car, which is even more stripped down.

 

I have now given you two reliable links and like i said there are hundreds more. So stop arguing when you are wrong, the ls1 fully assmebled w/the t56 vs the 1.3 turbow/ stock 5 speed fully assembled weighs damn near the same. And liek it has said in both articals the weight distribution is the same. You gain reliability, way more power low end and mid range, way better trq and loose almost no weight and handling is the same.

 

Why woudl you argue with a win/win/win setup, because you hate SBCs soo much you cant admit there awesome lol.

[Guest JessterCPA]

Hey look someone who can admit when someone teaches them something new. Now IWANNASPORTSEDAN its your turn

 

That's a bit sarcastic don't ya think?