Here we go again! MR2 real this time?

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Red-86

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.

If you look at NDs on the used EU market, about 40% of the offerings are the 1.5-equipped cars. Of course, markets with relatively low fuel prices are always going to go for the powerful variants. But that's also -part of- why the US and Australia have amongst the world's worst per-capita footprints.

A small 2-seater MR car will always be a niche market thing. If you give it say, 180hp, it will still get laughed at most SUVs are just as quick or quicker. We should know, 86s face the same "problem".

I'm not a big fan of that listen-to-the-car-buying-public doctrine, as all it's given us is the death of sedans and estates in favour of needlessly large SUVs, that are as quick as they are boring. As some well-known automotive journo pointed out, all history's great cars were some enlightened individual showing a solution to the public, not the other way around.

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

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.

It might be different in the USA, but in Australia the MX-5 is always sold to order i.e. there are virtually none in stock on dealer lots other than a single car to test drive.

Instead you have to place a dedicated order to your specs and your car is sent over from Japan in the next shipment. So you get the exact spec you wanted (unless you opt to buy a car from another buyer’s cancelled order).

All this means the 95% take up rate for the 2.0 downunder was largely buyer preference. BTW, thanks to supply shortages the wait time for the MX-5 RF in Australia is currently over 12 months, as well.

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

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.

They didn’t stop producing the 1.5, it is still made and sold in Japan where it is still somewhat popular. In 2022 they simply withdrew it from sale in Australia, where both the 1.5 and 2.0 had been on sale together side by side since 2016 i.e. 6 years. That’s plenty of time for them to assess the relative popularity of the two engine options. And given how few 1.5s they were selling here, removing it from our market would have had very little impact on parts contracts or production arrangements.

Mazda themselves explained it was withdrawn here due to the low take up rate. Again, 95% of sales in Australia were 2.0 when both the 1.5 and 2.0 were on sale here together for 6 years. The 1.5 was also much cheaper during that time, and despite that it struggled to gain traction with anyone other than an occasional motoring journo.

Occam’s razor comes into play here. You can come up with as many alternate reasons for the poor sales of the 1.5 and its withdrawal as you want, but the simpler explanation, the one Mazda themselves gave (and why doubt them?), is that it just wasn’t popular enough and didn’t sell enough to bother keeping it in the Australian lineup. They cannot produce enough 2.0 MX-5s fast enough to satisfy Australian demand as is, so it stands to reason they saw no need to keep the 1.5 on sale here for a measly 5% of the sales.

This really isn’t as complicated as folks want to make out. I get that y’all want to defend low HP sports cars. But reality is the wider market has its own preferences, and manufacturers respond to that and have to make hard nosed decisions.

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by alex87f

If you look at NDs on the used EU market, about 40% of the offerings are the 1.5-equipped cars.

Both Europe and Japan are, as you note, different markets to Australia and the USA. And it was Aus and the US I was addressing with my comments about 120HP not being sufficient to make a viable business case for this alleged new MR sports car to be sold outside Japan.

I never said it wouldn’t sell inside Japan, and yeah, it might shift a few units in Europe too if it were to be sold there, but that alone isn’t a strong business case to make it an export model. You really need the North American market to be viable to make a strong case for making a niche Japanese sports car an export model.

Of course, markets with relatively low fuel prices are always going to go for the powerful variants. But that's also -part of- why the US and Australia have amongst the world's worst per-capita footprints.

Irrelevant. We’re not having a moral argument here about carbon footprints. We are discussing whether a 120HP sports car has a viable business case outside Japan (and maybe Europe).

A small 2-seater MR car will always be a niche market thing. If you give it say, 180hp, it will still get laughed at most SUVs are just as quick or quicker. We should know, 86s face the same "problem".

The problem is magnified, however. Yes, all sports cars are already niche products, which means the business case for them is already challenging. My point, which I think is being overlooked or misunderstood, is that the business case is even worse (i.e. less likely) for a sports car that is even less powerful than the MX-5.

I'm not a big fan of that listen-to-the-car-buying-public doctrine, as all it's given us is the death of sedans and estates in favour of needlessly large SUVs, that are as quick as they are boring.

You might not want to listen to market trends, but auto manufacturers have to. Sports cars are, as we both agree, already niche products they struggle to justify building in the first place.

So it is an even bigger stretch for them to justify building even lower powered and thus even more niche sports cars for export to countries like Aus and the US. Which was my point all along, this alleged MR car, if it really has only 120HP, is very unlikely to be sold in Aus or the US. And if it won’t be sold in the US and Aus, it is very unlikely to be sold anywhere else outside Japan. Because at that point the business case to make it an export model, and meet overseas regulations etc, just doesn’t stack up.

So far none of you folks have countered the actual arguments I am making about market viability, but instead are focussed on defending the idea of low HP sports cars against what you see as misguided consumer preferences. So be it, but that’s not the point, and it doesn’t make this alleged Suzuki-Toyota MR2 any more likely to sell overseas.

Let’s wait and see. Remember this all originated from clickbait rumours. It almost certainly isn’t happening. More likely is a Japan only kei style car, or a full EV (the latter likely being several years away).

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Red-86

This really isn’t as complicated as folks want to make out. I get that y’all want to defend low HP sports cars. But reality is the wider market has its own preferences, and manufacturers respond to that and have to make hard nosed decisions.

I'm not a big defender of low HP sports cars, I'll take as much as they'll give me. I just mentioned I never felt my '85 MR2 was underpowered.

As far as US sales, until the last two years cars were pretty much purchased from inventory. I doubt 10% of vehicles of any type were ordered. Obviously it is different in Australia, and based on the information you provided, it sounds like it was a sales volume business decision to pull it.

[WolfpackS2k]

I could be mistaken, but I'm 95% certain that the 1.5 liter ND was never sold in the US market.

Originally Posted by alex87f

I'm not a big fan of that listen-to-the-car-buying-public doctrine, as all it's given us is the death of sedans and estates in favour of needlessly large SUVs, that are as quick as they are boring. As some well-known automotive journo pointed out, all history's great cars were some enlightened individual showing a solution to the public, not the other way around.

Disagree with the above. The buying public has been brainwashed by the auto industry to think they "need" CUVs/SUVs. And you can blame lax fuel efficiency regulations (comparatively speaking) for these "trucks" since they don't have to meet those of cars, even though 99% of them are used for the same function as cars. It wasn't the buying public pushing the automakers. 100% other way around.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I could be mistaken, but I'm 95% certain that the 1.5 liter ND was never sold in the US market.



Disagree with the above. The buying public has been brainwashed by the auto industry to think they "need" CUVs/SUVs. And you can blame lax fuel efficiency regulations (comparatively speaking) for these "trucks" since they don't have to meet those of cars, even though 99% of them are used for the same function as cars. It wasn't the buying public pushing the automakers. 100% other way around.

Chickens and eggs. Madison Avenue combines with p e n i s envy to create demand for a product that few really use and fewer still really need.

But for the auto makers, I suspect the margins on $100 + thousand dollar suvs and pickups are the stuff of nocturnal emissions. It’s Americone capitalism at its best. Lol

[WolfpackS2k]

Yeah. Costs next to nothing extra to build them...can charge 20% more for them...

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I could be mistaken, but I'm 95% certain that the 1.5 liter ND was never sold in the US market.



Disagree with the above. The buying public has been brainwashed by the auto industry to think they "need" CUVs/SUVs. And you can blame lax fuel efficiency regulations (comparatively speaking) for these "trucks" since they don't have to meet those of cars, even though 99% of them are used for the same function as cars. It wasn't the buying public pushing the automakers. 100% other way around.

I would say the truth is someplace up the middle. The public wanted big but not station wagons or sedans so the automakers gave them something in the middle and they ate them up. Let's face it the big cars outsold the small ones since the beginning of the automobile. They are just a different shape now.

And let's not make believe that all SUVs are gas guzzling behemoths. Many get as good or better than the Twins. My wife's seemingly massive Ascent with the 2.4 turbo get's better mileage than half the cars posted on here.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
2012 C63 mileage at 14MPG means that most larger SUVs are the same or way better than your car. The GTi is better but then of course it means driving a GTi which is really to small for a family vehicle. Doesn't matter what the MR2 gets since it is useless to about 95% of the general public anyway.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Yeah. Costs next to nothing extra to build them...can charge 20% more for them...

Do you think all CUVs and SUVs are Lincolns and Cadillac's? Many are dirt cheap.
Again cheaper than any of the cars in your profile.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I could be mistaken, but I'm 95% certain that the 1.5 liter ND was never sold in the US market.

Disagree with the above. The buying public has been brainwashed by the auto industry to think they "need" CUVs/SUVs. And you can blame lax fuel efficiency regulations (comparatively speaking) for these "trucks" since they don't have to meet those of cars, even though 99% of them are used for the same function as cars. It wasn't the buying public pushing the automakers. 100% other way around.

Fair point, it's also a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Are carmakers so good -and successful- at making consumers want SUVs because they're ultimately profitable, or are consumers really after an unreasonable product, which ultimately leads carmakers into only building them?

I have to say I'm puzzled by the choices of new car buyers. People should tend towards a cartesian solution to the car-buying equation which leads to the purchase of something efficient, reasonable, comfortable, etc. But cars are such an image product that everyone wants to spend huge $$$ into what's really a secondary need. Based on utility and use time, they should come far behind home ownership, beds, couches, TVs / computers / phones, desks, etc. Yet we're shelling out a yearly income on an appliance with leather seats we'll use on average 1h/day.

Back to topic, MR2 revival seems unlikely as:
-Toyota didn't go through with the SF-R, which seemed a more advanced product
-Honda already has the S660 on the market

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I would say the truth is someplace up the middle. The public wanted big but not station wagons or sedans so the automakers gave them something in the middle and they ate them up. Let's face it the big cars outsold the small ones since the beginning of the automobile. They are just a different shape now.

And let's not make believe that all SUVs are gas guzzling behemoths. Many get as good or better than the Twins. My wife's seemingly massive Ascent with the 2.4 turbo get's better mileage than half the cars posted on here.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
2012 C63 mileage at 14MPG means that most larger SUVs are the same or way better than your car. The GTi is better but then of course it means driving a GTi which is really to small for a family vehicle. Doesn't matter what the MR2 gets since it is useless to about 95% of the general public anyway.

the hummer h2 was really a very terrible vehicle to pin the 'gas guzzler' moniker on. it got better mileage than the suburban, or the tahoe that it was based on, both of which easily out-sold the lesser-known h2.

of course, it wasn't as efficient as a geo metro, but it was comparatively better than most other suv's at the time.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by alex87f

Fair point, it's also a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Are carmakers so good -and successful- at making consumers want SUVs because they're ultimately profitable, or are consumers really after an unreasonable product, which ultimately leads carmakers into only building them?

I have to say I'm puzzled by the choices of new car buyers. People should tend towards a cartesian solution to the car-buying equation which leads to the purchase of something efficient, reasonable, comfortable, etc. But cars are such an image product that everyone wants to spend huge $$$ into what's really a secondary need. Based on utility and use time, they should come far behind home ownership, beds, couches, TVs / computers / phones, desks, etc. Yet we're shelling out a yearly income on an appliance with leather seats we'll use on average 1h/day.

Back to topic, MR2 revival seems unlikely as:
-Toyota didn't go through with the SF-R, which seemed a more advanced product
-Honda already has the S660 on the market

Again, how are CUV/SUVs unreasonable? There are all different levels not just top trim expensive ones. For the most part they are reasonable, comfortable, efficient, etc.
Why buy an 86 when there are perfectly good two door cars in Europe?
If you are spending a yearly income on a vehicle you are either earning far to little or living well beyond your means.
There is a lot of rock throwing going on in his glass house!

[ichitaka05]

Well… take this as a grain of salt, but last I’ve heard (late ‘22) it’s been pushed to the corner AGAIN for for the 30th time. Due to few other boring projects been bumped into “priority”. When I heard that news, I was pissed! Cuz all the stuff I was hearing was sounding “fair” & good. But again greedy a-holes… I’ll stop here.