Rumor: Mazda Engineers pushing for more RWD models

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/08/16/m...all-new-model/

Just when I thought Mazda was "getting it": New engines, Low CR Diesel, DI, new designs...

They go and do something stupid, like bringing back an engine that only 8 people in the world give a shit about.

Face it there's only a handful of rotary apologists in the world and it's not enough to profit from.

Go home Mazda, you're drunk.

[MightyMeeple]

I appreciate this thread and the discussions that are happening. I am not an engineer, and obviously don't work for a car company. But I've often wondered why Honda, for instance, didn't create a RWD version of the Accord or the Prelude for the enthusiast market.
Would the costs be that much more?
I understand that the engine orientation/engine bay layout/drivetrain would be very different between the two. BUT, the rest of the car could remain basically the same. Why not go after that part of the market?

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by MightyMeeple

Would the costs be that much more?
I understand that the engine orientation/engine bay layout/drivetrain would be very different between the two. BUT, the rest of the car could remain basically the same. Why not go after that part of the market?

The more parts shared between cars, the cheaper the cars are. Developing a RWD car when most of your cars are FWD is expensive, the company has to re-engineer a new transmission, driveshafts, differential, a new chassis to accept the new motor orientation, TOOLING is a huge cost, etc. etc. Per your example Honda has VERY few RWD cars, in fact I can count them on one hand: S500/S600/S800, NSX, S2000. If they were to do a RWD car that wasn't a direct copy of previous models (wouldn't meet regs) the costs would be huge. Toyota/Nissan has the luxury of pulling the motors, transmissions, engineering etc. from their trucks (see 240sx and recent Z cars, they use the same motors and trannies as their trucks).

I'm not sure if from the ground up RWD is more expensive than FWD (assuming target of equivalent performance and quality), RWD seems way simpler in my mind (less development costs) but possibly more expensive materials (longer driveshafts, more mounts to the chassis, less compact transmission). If someone wants to chime in I'd love to hear an explanation.

[rice_classic]

From the ground up RWD is more expensive when you consider the holistic viewpoint.

1: efficiency
When you think about emissions standards that vary from country to country and things like "fleet averages" and whatnot. Making more cars that are rwd vs fwd means you have more cars that bring down the average since the rwd is a less efficient platform (drivetrain loss primarily). That difference is HUGE $$$ when considering you're selling a hundreds of thousands of automobiles.

2: Demand
It may be hard to believe that the demand for "not-rwd" is greater than the demand for it. FWD is a safer platform for the average driver - in panic situations as well as wet or snowy roads. It's more versatile. There's no question it has it's short comings when put on a race track but of all the vehicles sold what percentage go on a race track? Less than 1%? Maybe less than .05% Keep that figure in mind.

3: Litigious costs
When people wreck their cars, they have a bad habit of hiring lawyers and blaming anyone but themselves. Without taking the day off of work and hunting the economic statistics of this, I can bet that a rwd car carries a greater litigious risk than an equivalent fwd car. Especially regarding pre-2012 models where traction control wasn't required. Does the companies lose these cases? I would say rarely but it still is a cost to defend and a cost to settle out of court.

4: Cross platform compatibility
Most Subaru's are awd. Most BMW's are rwd. There's a lot of cross platform compatibility. A Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda etc sell lots of FWD economically priced automobiles. Creating rwd platforms means more unique design, means greater cost. Usually when a company creates a unique platform automobile the common economics behind it are: A) refresh brand image, B) expensive or luxury (thus profitable), or C) will be a high volume seller (like the CRV which has sold 2.3 million in the USA since 2002). http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01...s-figures.html

4b: Even the CRV used some cross platform parts from the FWD road cars like the B20 in the first couple gens.

[rice_classic]

isclaimer:

My above post is only what I think to be true however I am not an economist for any OEM so take it all cum grano salis.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

1: efficiency
When you think about emissions standards that vary from country to country and things like "fleet averages" and whatnot. Making more cars that are rwd vs fwd means you have more cars that bring down the average since the rwd is a less efficient platform (drivetrain loss primarily). That difference is HUGE $$$ when considering you're selling a hundreds of thousands of automobiles.

4: Cross platform compatibility
Most Subaru's are awd. Most BMW's are rwd. There's a lot of cross platform compatibility. A Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda etc sell lots of FWD economically priced automobiles. Creating rwd platforms means more unique design, means greater cost. Usually when a company creates a unique platform automobile the common economics behind it are: A) refresh brand image, B) expensive or luxury (thus profitable), or C) will be a high volume seller (like the CRV which has sold 2.3 million in the USA since 2002). http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01...s-figures.html

It's called transverse mid engine. You're welcome.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

It's called transverse mid engine. You're welcome.

Elaborate.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

By your logic we'd all still be using carburated flat heads. It's fair to say you don't care, leave the little black box to do it's thing but it's a wonder of modern times to harness billions of explosions to get to work every day.

you completely misrepresented what I said.

an engine has to do only one thing, deliver power.

over the years, the only constraint put on the manufacturers is to make the engines cleaner and fuel efficient.

also reliable.

the modern rotary barely achieved all 3

by comparison, squeezing a conservative 200 out of a 2 liter 4 banger in today's stringent conditions was quite good.

a few boltons and you're up in the S2000 territory from over a decade ago, without having to spin to 9000..


as for 86 being an 86, again, it's plain physics. What made the original 86 popular was the simple formula. Cheap + Lightweight + RWD. It also had rear seats and could fit a frige in the trunk.

The only reason it stuck around so long was because no one else bothered to make a competitor, so people babied theirs with extra care.


From a physics standpoint, making a good road handling car is well within the reach of any car manufactuer. The question is, why bother?

The FT86 is good because they simply chose to build it. There is nothing magical about it. It's lightweight, it's cheap, it's RWD. It also has rear seats but can't quite fit as much in the trunk. Oh well.

They focused on the basics and they catered to a niche demographic... and they did a fantastic job.

But there is no need to fanboi about it.

Just as there is no need to fanboi about the rotary. It's not delivering the most basic thing a modern engine needs to do, so why bother keeping it? Do we still run steamboats across the atlantic because it's cool?

[rice_classic]

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/maz...ver-1443500153

After reading this I have to change my position on Mazda and the Rotary (even though I hate the rotary engine). If Mazda wants to continue making toys for enthusiasts... God Bless them.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Elaborate.

Take a FWD drivetrain and stick it in the back of the car, like the MR2 or Lotus Evora/Elise/Exige or Alfa 4C or a number of British track day cars. No need for a drive axle/torque tube, no need for hypoid gears in the differential, no need for a different transmission, everything is plug and play.

[autobrz]

Mazda should make an MX-8 with suicide doors and a 2.0 turbo motor. The rx-8 sold quite well for being such a niche car. I can an MX-8 selling even better without the headaches of the rotary.

If they want to make a rotary car, at least please make a 2 seater and super light so the torquelessness isn't so obvious... come to think about it... the renesis made about the same torque as the fa20... that's why the twins feel so damn slow, lol...

are you listening mazda? lol... when my kids grow up, I'll need a 4 door 4 seat sportscar and you're the only one besides toyobaru that I feel is capable of making one that stays below 3200 lbs

[serialk11r]

I've been saying this for a while, but if they really get the whole laser ignition thing going then it would be feasible to make a 0.8L or single rotor engine that at least matches the efficiency of 90s engines and makes pretty good power, kind of like a 2ZZ-GE. That could work well in a Miata size car.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I've been saying this for a while, but if they really get the whole laser ignition thing going then it would be feasible to make a 0.8L or single rotor engine that at least matches the efficiency of 90s engines and makes pretty good power, kind of like a 2ZZ-GE. That could work well in a Miata size car.

Given the rotary's reliability history, I doubt adding lasers inside the damn engine is something that will improve that.

They just need to give the fairies some meth when it's time for them to push the triangles.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Given the rotary's reliability history, I doubt adding lasers inside the damn engine is something that will improve that.

They just need to give the fairies some meth when it's time for them to push the triangles.

It improves the fuel economy, not the reliability...I guess I forgot about that one