Do you think Mazda will have to step it up now?

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

Your predictions are pretty accurate i would say. Its clear to me that the Mazda/Fiat alliance is another business venture to share resources. Because Mazda is not willing to share half the DNA of the Miata with another group. and fiat is not interested in producing another vehicle. Awhile Mazda is hurting bad financially and Fiat is profiting on a global scale with its other business endeavors. Even making Chrysler a chunk of profit in a piss poor economy. Its evident that Fiat and Mazda are building the next gen Miata together only financially.

If Fiat is indeed interested in a shared platform for the next gen miata, Fiat is going to have an interesting time selling for the first time, a RWD roadster under their flag. Which could end up a disaster.

So those who are thinking SUBARU/TOYOTA = FIAT/MAZDA ..should stop. Those are completely different joint operations and its less likely that FIAT/MAZDA is going to co-develop a vehicle at a level beyond resource sharing.

so no MX5 that looks like a tiny ferrari or small masaratti..or something of that nature.

I don't understand you here, War. The Italians have been selling rwd roadsters since forever. Also, why would Fiat/Alfa Romeo enter a deal to use Mazda's MX-5 chassis, when handling and chassis were always the best part of Alfa Romeo cars?

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

First item, yea I know right? Skyactiv seems to be putting them back in the game in most aspects of engine development, but they refuse to give their engines higher revs which is going to limit power. Hopefully they also figure out that 5 speed gearboxes are not acceptable anymore.

If the CRZ were mid engine RWD (coincidentally, cooling/engine in the back is a convenient way to cut pressure drag without extending the length of the car), I think it'd be worth a serious consideration, even with the nonsense 6500rpm redline and goofy front end. I wonder though, what is the maximum speed the electric motor can turn?

The idea of a hybrid never entered my thinking. I guess we're stuck with it, but I still can't see why anyone would want to drive batteries and electric motors all over town. Not in a sports car. When they develop a battery-less technology — a KERS system that does something else with the energy — then we'll be somewhere.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Marrk

The idea of a hybrid never entered my thinking. I guess we're stuck with it, but I still can't see why anyone would want to drive batteries and electric motors all over town. Not in a sports car. When they develop a battery-less technology — a KERS system that does something else with the energy — then we'll be somewhere.

The only stumbling block is the energy storage system really. For maximum fuel efficiency purposes you want as much energy storage as possible, and they want to move towards a full electric fleet which is why they want so much battery capacity on cars.

Electric motors and their controllers can have greater power density than gasoline engines though, with the really fancy ones getting several hp per pound weight, add in the circuitry necessary to control them and you're looking at high boost engine like specific power, except this power does not come from stuffing so much air into the cylinders that they need 30% excess fuel in order to not explode. Doing this electrically is really quite efficient, as with a mechanical link you'd need CVT (read: huge losses) or discrete gears + clutches (read: huge losses), which would need their own somewhat sophisticated control system too.

So hybrid systems can be very useful for increasing the power to weight ratio of a car, and around the track (and even around town) you have enough braking to use the electric power. The key is a lightweight and powerful energy storage system that holds a reasonable amount of juice but not more than it needs. The newer lithium ion doped ultracapacitors are looking pretty good for this application, I wrote about this in an older thread. ~10 pounds of the good stuff will get a lightweight car to 60mph, 20lbs will cover 50-100 or so (that's without the main engine's power, so realistically I think that should be about enough for track use as you won't be completely depleting the stores just from accelerating). No durability issues unlike batteries (of course you still need a small battery onboard to power the rest of the car).

Not to mention, mild hybrid systems increase low end torque (which everyone complains about), and give the most braking at high rpm (sound familiar?).

[Marrk]

Anybody interested in 400 hp in 880 kg?


http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/5...e-A110-50.html


I know that this car is not available at our price point, but the power train is sourced from the Megane Trophy cars, hot hatches currently available in the EU.

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by Marrk

I don't understand you here, War. The Italians have been selling rwd roadsters since forever. Also, why would Fiat/Alfa Romeo enter a deal to use Mazda's MX-5 chassis, when handling and chassis were always the best part of Alfa Romeo cars?

well im underplaying fiat a bit here. The way i see it, Fiat is the GM of the Italian Market. Even if GM manufactured and owns a portion of Chevy, does that mean GM was responsible for the design and engineering of the corvette? Even if Fiat owns 90% of Ferrari today, are they responsible for the design and engineering of the Enzo?

Now since this venture is for Alfa Romeo..this is a slightly different story. Since Alfa joined Fiat Group, under financial surveillance and is plans are to produce the next Spyder using the ND miata. They are helping Alfa as a car maker..not Fiat as a car maker.

Fiat Auto is not the same as Fiat Group. Fiat Group is helping Alfa regain grounds in the US market, even if the original contract under Chyster failed. And the new ties with Mazda and having the new Alfa Spyder also manufactured at Hiroshima sounds more like financial backing, rather than Alfa or Fiat be anywhere responsible for the engineering of the roadster as a whole.

Like i said, i don't believe Fiat is interested in building a RWD roadster under their flag just yet. But will continue financial backing for their subsidiaries to produce RWD roadsters.

[old greg]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I wonder though, what is the maximum speed the electric motor can turn?

It depends on size/construction. You run into issues with bearing surface speeds, tensile strength and centripetal force. Small motors can run to 100,000+ rpm without much fuss.

Originally Posted by Marrk

I still can't see why anyone would want to drive batteries and electric motors all over town. Not in a sports car.

Because torque vectoring.

[ngabdala]

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo XI is supposed to yield over 100mpg and still be a performance car

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by old greg

Because torque vectoring.

Fine. Build as many electric cars and hybrid cars as you like. That's one way to go. But how about if we figured out a way to make carbon fibre as cheap as cardboard? Then, we could mass produce sports cars with 160 hp engines and 1100 lbs. weight. Kind of like a Lotus Elite, only better.


P.S. "Torque vectoring"? When it comes to achieving handling, is that going to overcome a weight penalty? If I add 600 ft lbs of torque to a 5,000 lbs car, will it handle better than an Elise or a Miata or a Cayman?

[old greg]

Originally Posted by Marrk

But how about if we figured out a way to make carbon fibre as cheap as cardboard? Then, we could mass produce sports cars with 160 hp engines and 1100 lbs. weight. Kind of like a Lotus Elite, only better.

Better yet, let's figure out a way to make pigs fly.

There are many companies working on reducing the manufacturing costs of carbon fiber composites, and there have already been big improvements, but they will never be that cheap. And even with a carbon monocoque, 1100 lbs with modern emissions and safety standards is completely unrealistic for a mass market vehicle.

Originally Posted by Marrk

P.S. "Torque vectoring"? When it comes to achieving handling, is that going to overcome a weight penalty? If I add 600 ft lbs of torque to a 5,000 lbs car, will it handle better than an Elise or a Miata or a Cayman?

That's a straw-man argument and is unworthy of a rebuttal.

[juicyjosh]

Mazda's been lagging on a new RX-7, partly due to Ford's influence.

They can make a better RX-7, using aluminum alloys versus the antiquated pig iron housings and rotors they're too stubborn to move away from. Even so, it was an NA 4-rotor Mazda 787B that was the ONLY Japanese car - and the precursor to the 3rd-Generation RX-7 - to EVER win the 24 Hours of Le Mans. So Mazda has the ability to create another serious contender, but the bottom line is that they don't have anything right now.

Aside from an inherent design which also results in a low center of gravity (like the Boxer engine), a rotary engine is superior to a piston engine when it comes to exhaust pulses. Therefore it flows from that principle (no pun intended), that a rotary has an advantage over a conventional engine when it comes to pushing a turbocharger. A new 3-rotor displacing 1.8 to 2.0L (or 3.6 to 4.0 liters, depending on which measuring system you subscribe to) made from aluminum alloys with an engine bay large enough to accommodate, say a Garret GTX35R turbo, would be a devastating combination in a historically lightweight RX-7 chassis. But Mazda won't do it.

Toyota wins in technology, reliability, efficiency, safety and reputation, and because they actually built a car.

With Toyota's more aggressive Scion brand, we've introduced a new modern day classic, the Front-engined, Rear-wheel drive, Subaru-powered FR-S.

PM me for more information on Scion's iconic sports car.

Incidentally, here's my Touring FD3S (date of build: July 1992) parked in the back lot of my Scion dealership:

[Snoopyalien24]

Originally Posted by juicyjosh

Toyota wins in technology, reliability, efficiency, safety and reputation, and because they actually built a car.

With Toyota's more aggressive Scion brand, we've introduced a new modern day classic, the Front-engined, Rear-wheel drive, Subaru-powered FR-S.

Doesn't FRS mean Front-engined, Rear-wheel drive, Sports car? Not Subaru-powered

[juicyjosh]

Originally Posted by Snoopyalien24

Doesn't FRS mean Front-engined, Rear-wheel drive, Sports car? Not Subaru-powered

There's controversy about what "RX-7" means, too. "Rotary experiment," "rotary sports," "race sports...."

One may also suggest that the long-since discontinued Toyota Celica has been reincarnated as the Scion tC. The nomenclature is not really that important.

It's difficult to see because of the shadow, but "Subaru" is stamped below the word "BOXER" on the UIM of the FR-S.

[OrbitalEllipses]

I don't think you can compare the 787B to any road car Mazda could or has ever produced. That's a huge multi-million dollar program dedicated to that single chassis and engine perform in a particular scenario; single-track mind if you will.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by juicyjosh

There's controversy about what "RX-7" means, too. "Rotary experiment," "rotary sports," "race sports...."

One may also suggest that the long-since discontinued Toyota Celica has been reincarnated as the Scion tC. The nomenclature is not really that important.

It's difficult to see because of the shadow, but "Subaru" is stamped below the word "BOXER" on the UIM of the FR-S.

Toyota did a fair bit of un-fucking of that motor (sorting out bore to valve size and the fancy injection) but the S has more to do with Scion being un-original using a variant of the MR-S nomenclature hoping that it is less of an impact on memory/recognition than 'Scion'.



On topic, how is putting freakin' lasers in the new rotary not stepping up???