In Europe too. You can get Suzuki-badged Rav4s and Corollas:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_1X7A0433.jpg

https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/s..._Across_01.jpg

Sure, in 1985 terms… adequately powered in 1985 is generally considered underpowered in 2023 by the market. The game moves on. Imagine if the 2023 Mustang V8 still had just 165-210HP!

Also, cars don’t exist in isolation, they have to compete in the contemporary market. 120HP for 1,000kg is right about where the 1.5L MX-5 was… and that was removed from sale in our countries as it wasn’t considered powerful enough and buyers preferred the 2.0L.

I think the alleged car and its outputs make more sense in Japan, which has a Kei car culture and where cars like the 1.5L MX-5 are still appreciated. But I think it would be DOA in the USA or Australia. Which is probably why Honda scrapped any plans for an S1000 based on their cool S660 Kei car.

Those aren’t the Indian built ones.

Nah, but a wee more than 120HP would be nice in 2023. 120HP per L for a modern turbo engine is very under stressed, they could probably squeeze 150HP out of it with a little effort. Afterall, they are getting nearly 190HP per L out of the G16E 3 cylinder they are putting in the GR Corolla.

Alternately… make it lighter. The Suzuki Swift Sport with 5 doors and seating for 5 people is 970kg, makes 140HP, and meets all modern safety regulations in Japan and Australia. So why is this alleged dedicated 2 seat sports car (to be built by Suzuki?) not lighter than that, especially since it is less powerful? If the rumours are true, big IF, it seems like they aren’t really trying very hard.

Those aren’t the Indian built ones.

All those innocent bystanders saved....

Oh I get it. Frankly I don't want some overly turbocharged sewing machine engine anyway. I like to keep my cars too long for that.

I meant they're working together in Europe as well ;-)

Not sure the current over-abundance of hp is a good thing. I'd get insanely frustrated in a car that gets me into jailtime levels of speeding in a matter of seconds. Or in a car that can -theoretically- never see the top end of second gear outside of a track or the German autobahn (looking at you recent Porsches).

I'm also pretty sure the early NDs got better reviews with the 1.5 than the 2.0. But it was mostly down to the ND1 2.0 being a bit disappointing.

AHHH I get it now!

Needs at least double that.

THEN it might be fast enough.

Remember the current benchmark for 0-60 is like 3 seconds, otherwise it'll be too slow and underpowered.

There's a reason to go down under!

I'm not saying this 1,000kg car would need an 'over-abundance of hp.' I'm saying that 120HP is a bit low for non-JDM markets by 2023 standards.

In Japan that level of HP is acceptable as they have a kei car culture and accept that in their tight cities and towns low HP is fine. But I think we all know that a 120HP MR sports car isn't going to sell well in the USA or Australia (which explains why Honda never proceeded with the S1000 that they apparently briefly considered, and why Toyota didn't proceed with the SF-R).

Sure, a handful of enthusiasts would snap them up, but it wouldn't have the mass appeal of cars like the MX-5 or the Twins. Their power levels are fine and yet they get panned routinely for being under-powered. Imagine the vitriol this 120HP sports car would cop.

Which this car, even with 150-170HP, is not going to do. We're not talking about it needing 300HP, just 30-40% more than it reportedly has would make it a lot more appealing to Western enthusiasts and enable it to get out of its own shadow on our highways.

Completely different discussion. No-one here seriously suggested this tiny MR car needs 300HP, or even 200HP. That was other posters being facetious. I simply pointed out that it would need more than the rumoured 120HP if it was to be sold in our (non-JDM) markets with any success. I stand by that assessment.

By motoring journalists, who thrash the cars at the redline for a day on track and then throw the keys back to the manufacturers. I almost never hear of those same journos putting their own money where their mouths are and buying cars like the 1.5 MX-5, however. Famously Chris 'I love low powered purity cars like the 86' Harris nonetheless gets around in a GT3 Touring as his daily when he has the choice...

The buying public, however, whose opinion is the only one that really counts, voted with their wallets overwhelmingly for the 2.0 engine over the 1.5 in the MX-5. The take up rate in Australia of the 2.0 compared to the 1.5 was like 95% (not sure what it was overseas), which is why Mazda finally cut the 1.5 from our market entirely. The public who actually bought the cars voted and Mazda (thankfully) listened.

Right, and as soon as they tuned the 2.0 for the ND2 and had it rev out to 7,500 it quickly became the default choice of buyers, despite whatever motoring journos said about the 1.5 being sweeter or more pure.

In any case this is all probably moot, because I don't put much stock in this rumour. If any ICE car results from this I suspect it will be Japan only, as noted already.

You are probably correct, but I always question this because it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Did the buying public really vote with their wallet, or did they just buy what Mazda was selling? I doubt very few of these cars were ordered to the purchaser's specifications. They bought what was available because that is what Mazda built, and the consumer cared more about getting an MX5 than they did the size engine in it.

This ^
Useing sales numbers without the whole data stream is worse than meaningless. Sure they sold more 2's but were there 1.5's sitting on the lots unsold? Did they have to deeply discount them to get rid of them? Were they Aztecing them and sending them to the crusher since nobody wanted them at any price? Without the answers to those, and many more questions the sales numbers are deceiving.

What I can say with confidence is that they did not drop the 1.5 because of one or two years worth of sales numbers. That is just not how the industry works. The decision as to when to discontinue it would have been made 4 or even 5 years before it actually happened. They didn't get up one morning and say "oh everybody wants the 2 call the plant and tell them to stop making 1.5's" Contracts would have had a firm end date set many years prior.