Sick car yo! I per-ordered mine already!

dumb comments are dumb

If just the most boring, efficient way to make horsepower was the only measure of how good a car was, nobody would drive an 86.

There will never be anything like sound and feel of winding a rotary out to 9500rpm, fuel economy be damned.

It's kind of like how a newfangled V-6 turbo hybrid may actually make similar power and more torque on less fuel than a high-revving naturally aspirated V-10, but it will never get the adrenaline flowing like the latter.

fuck it, let's all just drive camrys I guess

reni you do realize building cars is a business, right?

This collection of people is probably the most passionate group about this platform and yet we are all over the place on what we expect. Do you think Toyota/Subaru has a hit on their hands? This thing is a flop. Do you think the last RX7 or RX8 was a success? They were flops.

Perhaps there is a marketing reason to make cars such as this, and a car containing a rotary, but from a fiscal standpoint it makes no sense.

Your comment about nobody driving an 86 is sorta true, they are not selling enough to keep it going. The FJ Cruiser sold twice as many units ON AVERAGE during its run as the 86s best year (in N/A) and they killed it....SUVs are popular........(effectively) two seat sports cars are NOT.

Most of these manufacturers are trying to tap into that Mazda NA magic. That was a huge success and even they have had trouble recapturing that.

That rolls right back to what consumers want. The NA was super bare bones, but no one would buy a car like that now, just look at the comments here. How many people on here would like to have a sunroof in their 86?

It would be cool to see another rotary, it would be cool to see VW do a rear engine Bug, it would be awesome if Toyota would bring their diesel Hilux to America.

If the rotary engine is really not feasible by any means, why not switch to a flat-6 boxer in a 3-way collaboration between Toyota, Mazda, and Subaru?

It is feasible. Rx needs a rotary.

Rotary is neat (I've owned one), but is not feasible for a real-world production car, even a limited 2-seat sports car. Too many major inherent issues, primarily inefficiency due to heat rejection of broad rotor faces and the difficulties of trying to seal broad flat surfaces as opposed to compact cylindrical surfaces.

They should develop a compact ~225-250hp 2.0-2.5 liter V4 to keep the hoodline and cowl LOW and wheelbase short, and power the Vision with that, with or without a 350hp turbo option.

*maybe* a rotary-powered option for the dedicated few, but for sure the "base" vehicle should be piston-engined.

You can want something without denying reality. Reni's is one of the more well reasoned opinions on the matter.

Like the RX-8, it would be silly to not base a rotary coupe off the ND's chassis.

Therefore, the "base" vehicle already exists, and it's getting a Fiat subsidy.

Honestly I wouldn't mind an RX-5, just an ND with a Wankel

I'd love one. Chassis rigidity and extra weight be damned

In the past I've thought that a higher-performance Miata/MX-5 should have been available, and in the days of the rotary that would have been a decent plan. Today, I think that Mazda should produce a higher-performance-than-Miata fixed-roof sports car, but to base its existence on the viability of it being a rotary is misguided.

*IF* they were to make a viable rotary engine, IMO it should be OPTIONAL on both the MX-5 and a new -7/Vision.

I like the rotary, but the *inherent* problems and the fact that you can get equivalent power/weight and power/size from a compact piston engine make it unnecessary at best. I also like turbine engines too, but there are reasons why it doesn't make a lot of sense for a volume production car. Rotary for the sake of rotary is dumb. The Vision deserves to make it to production, and a compact V-4 would offer all of the size/power advantages of a rotary without the inherent fuel-efficiency and reliability issues.

IMHO!

I think rotary for the sake of rotary is awesome. The low production numbers for this car means rotary enthusiasts would be the owners, and they could manage the car fine. Seems like sports cars drive brand enthusiasm more than profits.

Mazda RX-9 Could Get Aston Martin-Esque Doors
 

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Io1Yy3vSZ...RX-9-Doors.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Eztk9OSjK...-9-Doors-4.jpg

New Mazda RX sports car sports car still on track
 

Another big problem with rotary engines is that they will kill Mazda's CAFE standards avg fuel economy. Why would they want to produce an engine with 100 year old technology that gets horrible gas mileage and terrible efficiency? They are going in the right direction with the new SkyActiveX HCCI design- that's the engine of the future, not some inefficient ancient crappy unreliable wanker engine.

Why does any car still use a design that's over 100 years old for their engines?

Electric motors are the future, not some internal combustion engine with a ton of moving parts.

The AC motor was invented in the 1800s and cars on the road were in fact electric powered over 100 years ago tho. :bonk:

Then there's the conspiracy of whether The Ford Motor Company was owned by Standard Oil. :iono:

http://jalopnik.com/why-electric-car...ago-1771719651

http://jalopnik.com/5564999/the-fail...-thomas-edison

http://jalopnik.com/5870808/how-a-ne...ic-car-in-1900

http://www.reformation.org/who-killed-electric-car.html

eh, their new gen engines and partnering with toyota for their hybrid/electric tech will be more than enough to sustain a high cafe standard so im not sure if that is a concern.


with all the rumors and hype, it certainly sounds like mazda will have at least one more rotary project.

You might want to do some research on how manufacturer CAFE standards are calculated. A low volume sports car built by Mazda would have little to no measurable effect on their CAFE fleet average.

Unless Mazda starts posting $billion dollar profits each quarter (they are at around $100million right now), or Toyota wants to hand over the Supra platform, I'm not going to join the hype train for an RX anything.

At this point, the SkyActiveX technology is much more interesting to me. I don't know why we would want to innovate the rotary when Mazda can obviously be more successful focusing on conventional engine tech.

How about a 300 hp Miata with a turbo SkyactiveX engine that also gets 40 mpg? Maybe start there and see how that goes.

^Maybe because the SkyActiveX engines are low revving boring lumps of engines?

Also if Mazda could scale up the Miata platform for use as a new RX7, a new sports car would definitely be possible given their current financial status.

yup, almost like what Toyota did with the Celica Supra.

Mazda Patent Shows Novel Active Spoiler Design That May Already Be On The RX-Vision
 

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...su3r9xdtjx.png
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...9cybw0cqkq.png
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...ee7uqsa9f0.png
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...diw4et7egf.png

SkyActiveX is Mazda's new (still unreleased) HCCI tech. Revolutionary tech- anything but boring.

The RX8 died ~7 years ago. It's not happening.

RIP

This means that other than the 86, there is now almost nothing left that resembles why I fell in love with Japanese cars in the first place, or cars in general...

Well, there are.... It's just that you have to find them on Autotrader or Craigslist now....

In the eyes of most enthusiasts, boring

In the eyes of a hybrid driver - sure, exciting.

Well, HCCI would be a pretty big advantage for freeway mpg, which would allow larger engines to be used. It also means you can run leaner at high load without overheating the cat, which means enthusiasts won't need to retune their ECU to squeeze that last bit of power out.

It would be nice to have a 2.5L NA engine instead of a laggy 1.5L turbo for example, but I feel like Mazda isn't going to use this to bring back high revving 6 cylinder engines. IMO, that would be the dream.

Of course there will always be used cars.

It was just more of a sad comment that out of all the cars I think are cool, an increasing number of them are rapidly approaching the category of "classic cars", which makes me feel like some old fart rambling on about how great things were back in the day...

Now get off my lawn.

Now, how does this make you feel?

http://cdn2.evo.co.uk/sites/evo/file...?itok=eA3GaBIf

I've noticed several cars with the triple exhaust pipe of late.


Any advantage to this or is it just show?

Depends on if there are just three tips all connected to the same muffler or not. Some are just for looks and some serve a function. Good read on why the Civic has it here: http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...ree-tailpipes/

Depends upon the car, as others have said. In the case of the Type R, the third pipe acts as a resonator to limit highway drone while still having a louder exhaust, but not needing a multi-mode muffler to do it.

https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-h...ipe-1796235215

ETA: Oh hey, I said exactly what Tcoat did. Well shit.

It seems nice for a FWD other than the garish styling. If I was spending my own money I would probably rather have a WRX, although neither of them really get my heart pumping.

It makes me feel nauseous, lol.

Embrace the old fogey within and get ready for car meets on manicured lawns not midnight parking lots.

:bellyroll:


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_KQ_eONc3Os/maxresdefault.jpg

Seriously though, modern cars are safer, cheaper, faster, and there are a few that are still fun. For every RX-7 there's was thousands of Mazda 323's built that nobody gave a shit about, the AE86 was a minority out of all the Corolla's sold the same years, and on and on. Fun cars are the minority, they've always been the minority, like classic rock stations everything looks great in hindsight because everyone forgot the utter shit that polluted the options available and it died a quick death, just like modern economy cars will. We won't remember the Camry redesign that happened this decade, or the Prius Transformer, but we'll remember the 86, the ND, the CTR and the STI.

The 90s were sort of a golden age for "affordable" performance cars, there are some good cars today but overall it doesn't compare.

RX-7 => gone
Supra => gone
MR2 => gone
Lancer Evo => gone
Mistubishi GTO => gone
Eclipse => gone
Silvia / 240SX => gone
S2000 => gone
Celica => gone
323GTX => gone (spiritual successor in the MS3, but that's gone now too)
Old NSX: Ferrari-beater => New NSX: bloated hybrid
300ZX: twin turbo sexiness => 350/370Z: ugly as hell

Old vs new WRX - I'd call this one a wash
Old vs new Miata - wash
Escort Cosworth => Focus RS - wash
Old ITR / CTR vs new CTR - wash
R32/R33/R34 vs R35 - wash

86: New
Corvette: Better
Camaro: Better
Mustang: ?

True.
Out of your list above I for one would love to see new versions of (provided they stuck to the right recipe)

The supra, Escort/cosworth, RX7 and the S2000 :)

Oh, the line for affordable is $60k now?

Strike the NSX+GTR from your list, they cost more than a 911 back in the day as well as today. The 370Z is at least a wash, screw your subjective opinion on styling. I'll begrudgingly only mention cars under ~$60k, current base price of the Corvette and in line with car prices you mention from ~1993 or so (that also means less research for me to have to do to check prices on old cars)

Abarth: new
Alfa Romeo 4C: new
Alfa Romeo Giulia: new
BMW M2: wash v. e36 M3 (+200 lbs +120 hp seems like an OK trade to me)
Z3->Z4/Z5: wash
Fiesta ST: new
Hyundai Genesis: new
Jaguar F-Type: new
Mini Cooper S/JCW: new
Porsche Cayman: new (968 too expensive)
Porsche Boxster: wash
GTI/Golf R: probably a wash on fun, definitely better cars today

So by my count, not taking any cheats like the BRZ+86 = 2 and counting the stuff that's a wash like Mustang and Boxster as a point for both. As well as not including the NSX & GTR for being too expensive and the Escort Cosworth for being produced in such incredibly small numbers (~7k total) and not even in this country:
Current: 21
Old: 21

When you consider that three of your choices were from a now defunct Mitsubishi, and we got the Europeans picking up the slack from the Japanese I think we're doing ok.

:thumbsup:

What I find interesting making this list is the only thing really missing is those Corvette priced Japanese cars and the MR2. We still have hopped up econo-box AWD cars like the Evo/Escort and they're arguably better today, convertibles like the Z3 and Boxster that competed head on with the S2000 in the 90's are still in production as well as the MX-5, sporty FWD cars like the Celica/Integra/GTI are still made, affordable RWD like the 240sx with Mustang/Camaro/86, and European Corvette competitors from BMW, Porsche, and now Alfa and Jaguar, maybe the new Audi TT deserves to be on the list too, idk.

I mean I can understand criticizing modern standards for making cars heavy, less polluting, and less niche as well as towards Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Mitsubishi for dropping the ball. But I don't think we're any worse off today than we were 25 years ago.