No more wankel?

HiTempguy wrote: Boy, you sure try hard to make yourself sound like the person enthusiasts don't want working on cars, you know that eh? The "almighty" dollar and all of that. Even with low sales, over the past 50 years many manufacturers have made niche vehicles, and have still been successful. I understand your idea of a "successful" company is probably one that rings every living cent out of each product it makes, but we've saw what that does. Look at Honda right now, they decided to destroy their brand for the almighty dollar (like most japanese car companies have) and are starting to suffer because of it.

you can't wring every cent out of everything you make. That lead GM down the road to milktoast disaster. How many different cars can you put on the same chassis that are exactly the same except for badges and price?

I applaud Mazda for building TWO niche cars (miata and RX) and I hope they continue to do so.

As for Honda.. it looks like they and toyota need to look hard at Hyundai

mad_machine wrote: I applaud Mazda for building TWO niche cars (miata and RX) and I hope they continue to do so.

And maybe that is the issue right there, why does a smaller japanese car manufacturer need TWO niche cars?

The camaro is a mass produced nostalgia item, but it appeals to almost any "normal" driver that alpha refers to that is 40+ years old. So it might make money. The Corvette? Probably break even, but it is GM's halo/niche car. I firmly believe that the CTS-V was a Cadillac turning point (also a halo car).

My point? Each manufacturer should produce a niche/performance vehicle. After that, I understand the reasons not to. But rotary = mazda. While the Miata may be all that and a bag of chips, they should either amalgamate, or decide whether they want a low power roadster (which isn't even considered cheap anymore) or a GT, or to mix the two.

HiTempguy wrote:

alfadriver wrote: That's where I have the financial issue. How much money should be spent on a product where the return is next to nothing?

Boy, you sure try hard to make yourself sound like the person enthusiasts don't want working on cars, you know that eh? The "almighty" dollar and all of that. Even with low sales, over the past 50 years many manufacturers have made niche vehicles, and have still been successful. I understand your idea of a "successful" company is probably one that rings every living cent out of each product it makes, but we've saw what that does. Look at Honda right now, they decided to destroy their brand for the almighty dollar (like most japanese car companies have) and are starting to suffer because of it.

If that's how you look at it, well, can't do much about that.

But I don't see how you can justify having a company put someting out that loses them money, net.

Niche cars either pay for them selves via sales and cost (Ferrari and other high end companies) or sales/cost + advertising (Corvette). No company can do things for free- that's asking a lot of them.

Why would it that an "enthusiest" would be willing to take less money from a fellow "enthusiest?" They still have to pay for food, housing, and Jr's braces. So why would a company throw money away?

Toyota and Honda's problems are far deeper than making an enthusiest car- just reading their annual reports will tells me that. But how many Accords and Civics need to be sold via the S2000 for them to spend the money making a unique engine for the S2000? Even at $35k, that engine cost somewhere above $500M to develop, since it's unique just to that car. Even the NSX could be put together with parts largely developed for the Accord.

There's the all mighty dollar that people are greedy for, and then there's the dollar that you need to keep the lights on. If you can't pay for the lights, everything suffers.

HiTempguy wrote:

mad_machine wrote: I applaud Mazda for building TWO niche cars (miata and RX) and I hope they continue to do so.

And maybe that is the issue right there, why does a smaller japanese car manufacturer need TWO niche cars? The camaro is a mass produced nostalgia item, but it appeals to almost any "normal" driver that alpha refers to that is 40+ years old. So it might make money. The Corvette? Probably break even, but it is GM's halo/niche car. I firmly believe that the CTS-V was a Cadillac turning point (also a halo car). My point? Each manufacturer should produce a niche/performance vehicle. After that, I understand the reasons not to. But rotary = mazda. While the Miata may be all that and a bag of chips, they should either amalgamate, or decide whether they want a low power roadster (which isn't even considered cheap anymore) or a GT, or to mix the two.

A TON of the cost of the Mustang, Camaro, Caddilacs, and Vettes are spread out over every single V8 truck. Plants are incredibly expensive. Engines are the most expensive single part on a car, by a wide margin.

Like I've posted before- if any other Mazda had the Rotary, it would make a whole lot more sense. Or if the rotary obviously brought in the equivalent of that kind of advertising- it would still make sense.

Miata is somewhat easier, since the 3 and 6 share similar engines that can be developed and built together.

I think it's a cool engine, too. But the bottom line has to rule, eventually.

You would think that they would be able to cut a ton of development cost by putting the Renesis in the current Miata w/ a hatch and rebody.

I saw that exact swap in progress at a Mazda Salvage yard in Atlanta and apparently it was relatively easy mounting wise but the wiring was being a pain.

In reply to Greg Voth:

Call it an RX3.

Greg Voth wrote: You would think that they would be able to cut a ton of development cost by putting the Renesis in the current Miata w/ a hatch and rebody. I saw that exact swap in progress at a Mazda Salvage yard in Atlanta and apparently it was relatively easy mounting wise but the wiring was being a pain.

Exactly. Lighter weight than the RX8, more power and aerodynamics than the Miata. I'm thinking a transformation along the lines of the stock Z4 versus Z4M coupe. Widen the track by 4 inches or so to give it sexy fenders. I'd seriously rock that!

I love the RX-8, and would seriously consider buying one.........if it didn't get 15mpg. I love the endless redline, but I just can't bring myself to buy a car that swills gas that obscenely. Hell, I even kind of like the way it looks!

Yeah, yeah, I know.....someone out there has got 22mpg at a steady 70mph on the highway, but I'm not that guy. I put over 500 miles on one and the way I drive, I got 15mpg.....including a bunch of highway driving!

Sorry, in this world of 200mph -- 25mpg Corvettes, and 300hp--- 27 mpg Mustangs, this power to economy ratio just isn't acceptable.

kreb wrote:

Greg Voth wrote: You would think that they would be able to cut a ton of development cost by putting the Renesis in the current Miata w/ a hatch and rebody. I saw that exact swap in progress at a Mazda Salvage yard in Atlanta and apparently it was relatively easy mounting wise but the wiring was being a pain.

Exactly. Lighter weight than the RX8, more power and aerodynamics than the Miata. I'm thinking a transformation along the lines of the stock Z4 versus Z4M coupe. Widen the track by 4 inches or so to give it sexy fenders. I'd seriously rock that!

The third gen RX7 says, "Hello." The rumors surrounding the new RX car sound awesome, but I'm not sure if it'll ever be built. They could make a Miata hatch, make it redline at 12k rpms, have 350hp, get 30mpg, weigh 2200lbs, cost $35k, and have three rotors, but pretty much no one on this board would buy it. Enthusiasts generally don't/can't buy new cars.

In reply to rotard:

That's where you're wrong. If it's priced right, I'd buy one. Of course, pricing would be a big question mark.

I know some here have OEM experience, and I don't want you to say anything that could get you in trouble, but I wonder: Do other OEMs invest in non-reciprocating piston engines, or at least RP engines with unusual layouts? I ask because it seems to me like Mazda is the only major OEM at least willing to try an out-of-left-field engine layout. EcoBoost is great, but DI and twin-turbocharging aren't new just that reliability and fuel control have improved greatly. Mazda's probably tilting at windmills with the rotary, but they may be onto something with the SkyActiv engines. I can't help but like them for at least trying something different. I know the current Otto-cycle engine has life left in it, and I know developing a new engine is very expensive, but with ever-tightening fuel economy and emissions standards, I wonder why no one is exploring alternative IC engines. If they are, why they aren't more upfront about it? Trade secrets? Too early in development? Am I missing something here?

I guess we all should drive the identical model car with the same engine and transmission then.

I for one will always embrace the original and different car over the mundane, god help us when we can only buy a Camry Hybrid

In reply to RexSeven:

Only tier 1 experience here, but think about this: Profit margins for the biggest OEMs were under 10% last year. There really isn't a lot of money to be made and the business is hugely risky. There is a reason I don't work in that field anymore. I can't imagine putting millions into a wierdo engine development plan these days with regulations coming from left field and new and better competitors every day. Leapfrogging over the competition, while sexy, is no longer plausible. Look at GM, the Atlas I6 was a fantastic engine. They sold that engine family for what, a decade? I promise they lost money there. How about the small diesel V8 they started to develop, the one with the turbo in the valley? How did that work out? And those were not exactly hair-brained ideas.

DILYSI Dave wrote: No more wankel? We can only hope.

Amen! Not sure what the fascination is with this engine, didnt they tend to blow up a lot in the last gen RX7?

In reply to tuna55:

I haz a sad now. Technobabble with Dave Coleman was one of my favorite columns in Sport Compact Car (RIP) because he would sometimes talk about some entrepreneur who had created a new IC engine and go over how it would (or wouldn't) work. Most were pie-in-the-sky, but there was the occasional engine design that would have been crazy enough to work.

Well I don't care what the Haters say. The Wankel to me is an awesome engine. Having spent a lot of time around them, building them, and working on them, I have gained a fondness for them.

I accept that one day Mazda will stop making the Wankel, but until then I hope that they can continue to improve upon it.

I like rotary engines. They sound cool and rev like hell. I don't care about emissions or piss poor gas mileage. I mean why doesn't everyone on here just drive around in a damn Pruis. Choices never hurt anyone.

I agree with the rotor fans. Whi can't I get Ford to answer my e-mails about a flathead powered Fusion

alfadriver wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

alfadriver wrote: That's where I have the financial issue. How much money should be spent on a product where the return is next to nothing?

Boy, you sure try hard to make yourself sound like the person enthusiasts don't want working on cars, you know that eh? The "almighty" dollar and all of that. Even with low sales, over the past 50 years many manufacturers have made niche vehicles, and have still been successful. I understand your idea of a "successful" company is probably one that rings every living cent out of each product it makes, but we've saw what that does. Look at Honda right now, they decided to destroy their brand for the almighty dollar (like most japanese car companies have) and are starting to suffer because of it.

If that's how you look at it, well, can't do much about that. But I don't see how you can justify having a company put someting out that loses them money, net. Niche cars either pay for them selves via sales and cost (Ferrari and other high end companies) or sales/cost + advertising (Corvette). No company can do things for free- that's asking a lot of them. Why would it that an "enthusiest" would be willing to take less money from a fellow "enthusiest?" They still have to pay for food, housing, and Jr's braces. So why would a company throw money away? Toyota and Honda's problems are far deeper than making an enthusiest car- just reading their annual reports will tells me that. But how many Accords and Civics need to be sold via the S2000 for them to spend the money making a unique engine for the S2000? Even at $35k, that engine cost somewhere above $500M to develop, since it's unique just to that car. Even the NSX could be put together with parts largely developed for the Accord. There's the all mighty dollar that people are greedy for, and then there's the dollar that you need to keep the lights on. If you can't pay for the lights, everything suffers.

This is why I think GM has been so smart with it's LS motors. If you can legitimately run the same basic engine in everything from biggish FWD luxo cruisers to your top of the line Cadillac to pickup trucks to your 200 mph supercar, you've amortized costs pretty well. Hyundai/Kia is doing the same thing with its newer families of 4 cylinder engines. They're close to killing off the V6s altogether and they're doing it with two related engine families (Gamma/Theta) that are cheap to make, efficient and versatile.

Makes me wonder why so many other companies develop a new motor for seemingly every single model. If I'm, say, the CEO of Mitsubishi or Honda, I would be looking awfully hard at building a very modular family of engines that will stretch all the way from my Evos/S2000s to my Lancers/Fits.

And no, I don't think that would be bad for enthusiasts. What are we more likely to hot rod, a small block Chevy or a Maserati V8?

tuna55 wrote: In reply to RexSeven: Only tier 1 experience here, but think about this: Profit margins for the biggest OEMs were under 10% last year.

10% would be pretty nice. But I don't think even Toyota in it's best days were that high- they were around $200B in sales with $10-15B profit- which is 5-7.5%. And those were great days.

Most hover around 2%. Or lose money.

Do OEM's work on oddball ideas- of course. Do they get very far- depends on how good the idea is, specifically to make 100,000 engines a year. And how they meet both customer and regulatory requirements. Most "ideas" don't get very far.

If the engine is cheap to make, small, light, gets good fuel economy, is cheap to emmissionize, is quiet, etc- it will make it. Or if it's cheap to fix any of those. If it's expensive to fix, well....

Some of you guys need to start your own car companies. you can make the cars you want. Ferrari, Lamborghini, Panoz, Saleen, etc- lots of names out there of people who started their own car companies to make what they want.

friedgreencorrado wrote:

kreb wrote: Why the heck don't they use the Miata platform, dolly it up, and put a hardtop on it with the Renesis? Voila! A new RX7 with minimalized development costs.

And put that coupe top on some of them.

I'm pretty sure that's what kreb meant.

I've been wondering this for years... a higher price-point coupe based on the MX5 platform seems like a no-brainer... That Mazda/Ford haven't expanded the use of the MX5 platform is a real head-scratcher.

When Ford owned both Mazda and Volvo, I had dreams of a new P1800-ish car based on the MX5 as well, similar to how the Mazda 3 and S40 are/were platform kin.

The wankle is a tough question... I think Mazda has been sub-consciously associated with the engine for ages, but I also agree its inherent drawbacks will always be a limiting factor. I'd be curious if they could increase sales by offering it in stand-alone kit-form similar to the GM E-Rod engines.

93EXCivic wrote: Choices never hurt anyone.

My niece chose to leap off of our swingset last night. She broke her foot in two places. That was a painful choice.

Ian F wrote: That Mazda/Ford haven't expanded the use of the MX5 platform is a real head-scratcher.

For a decade, I had hoped for a Miata based Mercury. Even if it was 200lb heavier, and needed a bigger motor, I would have replaced my '99 the first day they went on sale.

and I wasn't the only one.

The next gen RX is supposed to be developed on the MX5 platform.

This just in:

Development Halted