Well it's only been halted, not killed off completely ...........yet.
Well it's only been halted, not killed off completely ...........yet.
One of the things I love most about my RX8, besides the fact it's unique, is that it generates opinions, both good and bad. No one gives a E36 M3 either way about Civics or E30s; great cars? Sure. Interesting? Not especially.
Haters, have at it. I'll continue loving the E36 M3 out of mine.
Will wrote: And according to Wiki, the US-spec FD TT only made 217 lb-ft of torque. That's not a lot of twist.
see, there's this thing called "gearing," and it's almost magical in how it multiplies torque between the flywheel and the wheels.
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?
you're right! automakers should focus solely on crossovers and Camrys. how foolish that someone would hope that an automaker would try to make something interesting or different, even if it wasn't a profit colossus.
How did I get onto the Consumer Reports website? You'd think that on a site called "Grassroots Motorsports," that a car that runs to 60 in under 6 seconds, hauls four real people in relative comfort, offers sublime steering and perfect handling balance, can be had with low miles for under $10,000, and is misunderstood by the masses wouldn't be the target of such vitriol.
I can tell you that the results of a search for cars "2004 or newer, under 50,000 miles, manual transmission, less than $10,000" are pretty bleak. What was I thinking? If I sell my car I can have had an almost-new Yaris, with a super-duper dependable and efficient 4 cylinder engine, for the same money!
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
As much as I love Miatas, it's hard to imagine buying a new one because the price/HP is so uninteresting. I also find convertibles to be a fun novelty, but most of the time - regardless of weather, I want a top. Put the renesis in something like this:
while keeping the price under $30K and it would be on my short list of potential purchases. - And Mazda could do it on the cheap!
I guess that I'm sounding like a broken record here
In reply to Buzz Killington:
So you are another who wants companies to suffer so that you can get what you want? ok.
There's a good reason why the cars all of you desire so much costs over $30k, used.
Buzz Killington wrote: you're right! automakers should focus solely on crossovers and Camrys. how foolish that someone would hope that an automaker would try to make something interesting or different, even if it wasn't a profit colossus. How did I get onto the Consumer Reports website? You'd think that on a site called "Grassroots Motorsports," that a car that runs to 60 in under 6 seconds, hauls four real people in relative comfort, offers sublime steering and perfect handling balance, can be had with low miles for under $10,000, and is misunderstood by the masses wouldn't be the target of such vitriol. I can tell you that the results of a search for cars "2004 or newer, under 50,000 miles, manual transmission, less than $10,000" are pretty bleak. What was I thinking? If I sell my car I can have had an almost-new Yaris, with a super-duper dependable and efficient 4 cylinder engine, for the same money!
I think you're missing the point, we are simply justifying why an automaker cannot support this. I like them, for certain tasks. My next lemons car will likely be powered by a wankel. I'd love it if automakers came out with wild and crazy engine ideas, but I am simply saying that high barriers of entry and very low profit margins don't make that possible all of the time.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to Buzz Killington: So you are another who wants companies to suffer so that you can get what you want? ok. There's a good reason why the cars all of you desire so much costs over $30k, used.
I think you made your point...a long time ago.
In reply to tuna55:
Manufacturers have always made some vehicles they don't make money off of. They do it for image, they do it to challenge their engineers, they do it to increase the credibility of their other vehicles, they do it to generate parts sales that will ultimately make up for the loss, they do it to further new technology, they do it for many reasons. Add to that that they don't always have to lose money to build an interesting vehicle.
To say a financially healthy vehicle manufacturer will not or can not make an interesting car because they won't make money on it contradicts history. It's happened many times, and it happens in many other industries also.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to tuna55: Car makers have always made vehicles they don't make money off of. They do it for image, they do it to challenge their engineers, they do it to increase the credibility of their other vehicles, they do it to generate parts sales that will ultimately make up for the loss, they do it to further new technology, they do it for many reasons. Add to that that they don't always have to lose money to build an interesting vehicle. To say a financially healthy vehicle manufacturer will not or can not make an interesting car because they won't make money on it contradicts history. It's happened many times, and it happens in many other industries also.
Other than niche brands, it doesn't happen very often where none of the engineering can be utilized across other platforms. The wankel is, unfortunately, one of those. The Viper was (note: was) another.
If you want a niche car, you have to buy a niche car, some of them are made as halo cars for a short time, see GNX, C4 ZR1 (although I argue that was an engineering experiment), Viper, turbo Dodges, and a few others. Most niche cars, like the Corvette, get used for their engines, suspensions and others across other platforms.
If you want a niche car that exists for and by itself, you really have to go to niche automakers. Regular old high volume OEMs don't do that that often. I agree that it's cool, if it were my company, I would try it too, I am simply saying that it doesn't happen often, and ending the project is usually pretty justifiable.
I love you guys that think nobody else knows anything or has worked in the automotive Industry.
bravenrace wrote:alfadriver wrote: In reply to Buzz Killington: So you are another who wants companies to suffer so that you can get what you want? ok. There's a good reason why the cars all of you desire so much costs over $30k, used.I think you made your point...a long time ago.
I thought I did.
But I also didn't say that it was all profits for every single car, it's also about how that effects other sales. as you also posted.
If Mazda spends $10M on a new RX, and only sells 10k a year, but increases the sales of all the rest of the cars by 100k, then it makes a whole lot of sense to do it. Viper and Corvette are prime examples of how the actual sales cost so SO much less than a Ferrari.
If it cost $100M, and sales increases by 100k across the board. Well....
Niche cars have a reason. The reason is to make more money. Engineers are challenge every single day with what needs to be done- you don't need to make up some unique product to do that. If the unique product takes engineers away from your core projects- that's even more risky.
No OEM is a charity. Everything is done for money.
bravenrace wrote: I love you guys that think nobody else knows anything or has worked in the automotive Industry.
I love it when people think "companies should do it the way I want it" no matter what.
Ian F wrote:friedgreencorrado wrote: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.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.
Ford never owned Mazda. Ford also has nothing to do with the MX5 platform.
You're being confusing. 
In reply to alfadriver:
You just proved my point. You think we don't know all this wisdom you are so gratiously imparting on us. We do, and you come off sounding just a bit arrogant. We are just looking at it from the perspective of enthusiast, and you are looking at it from the perspective of an accountant.
The fact is, vehicle manufacturers don't have to lose money to offer interesting vehicles. That leaves us mere mortals wondering why it is that some of them don't.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to Buzz Killington: So you are another who wants companies to suffer so that you can get what you want? ok. There's a good reason why the cars all of you desire so much costs over $30k, used.
Not what i said at all. Hell, I'm one of the peple who is glad Porsche is putting out things like the Cayenne and Panamera, b/c they subsidize things like the GT3RS and Boxster Spyder, which wouldn't be self-supporting. You seem to think endeavors like that are foolish. I don't; I think it's what gives a company its identity. Mazda has built its image on offering interesting cars that are more fun than what its competitors offer...and in doing so they've not only built a marketable image, but they've won loyal customers like me.
I'm glad Mazda still goes out and tries interesting things, even if they are not the most profitable. Do I want Mazda to continue work on the Wankel and introduce an even better replacement? Bet your ass I do. Do I think it's important for them to maintain a connection to a major (arguably, even defining) part of their history? Yep. Do I understand if they don't have the money to put into development right now? Sure, but I hope at some point they will go back to it. There is more of a future for the Wankel design than many people think, especially if hydrogen becomes a viable fuel source for ICEs.
shrug the car i desired so much cost me $12k, used, with 27,000 miles on it. but apparently that car sucks. 
This is getting ugly - I am not sure why. I'll leave now.
I think the worst part of the rotary is that some people seem to get genuinely offended by the fact that they exist.
I am actually very curious how much research money is actually put into Mazda's version of the Wankel (by Mazda)? It doesn't seem like much to the outside observer. I know of the 10A, 12A, 13B, 13g?, 20b, Renesis, 16g, hydrogen, diesel?, and thats about it. Of all those, the major changes have been less complicated than when a manufacturer changes the head on a 4cylinder mid production run to be slightly more emission friendly (SE-R). Move a port, try a new material, widen a housing, drill a few new holes, add a turbo or two, try direct injection, etc... I bet GM spends more researching cupholders.
Well, truth is the Rotary is like that really hot chick that you went out with who just did not ever come through...you keep thinking if I only do just one more thing...but alas, it never happens.
I know for a fact that this video has been posted many a time, but this thread won't be complete without it.
that is still a great video.
tuna55 wrote: This is getting ugly - I am not sure why. I'll leave now.
As far as I can tell, it has to do with Alpha... like usual, when ANY topic on automobile manufacturers arise and he has all of the answers.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Ford never owned Mazda. Ford also has nothing to do with the MX5 platform. You're being confusing.
Own... heavily influence... semantics...
My point is Ford management could have nudged the Mazda and Volvo brass towards that direction, or could have made use of the MX5 platform themselves had they wished.
alfadriver wrote:bravenrace wrote: I love you guys that think nobody else knows anything or has worked in the automotive Industry.I love it when people think "companies should do it the way I want it" no matter what.
Hey that's how John Q. Public is. I deal with them everyday. It's never going to change.
Ian F wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Ford never owned Mazda. Ford also has nothing to do with the MX5 platform. You're being confusing.Own... heavily influence... semantics...
If "heavily influence" means "stealing their chassis/drivetrain/suspensions and rebadging with tweaked bodies." 
But i hear you... i would have been all about a Ford-branded MX5 with a volvo T5 powertrain.
Point being missed here: Companies exist to make money, period. A company cannot spend more money than it makes or it doesn't stick around long (as a general rule) Mazda is a smaller company than say GM/Honda/Toyota so it has fewer resources to allocate to special products. The RX is a very unique car and is expensive to produce, times are lean for auto manufactuers so there's even less money to devote to unique product. Sure, Mazda could continue to spend resources on the RX but at what cost to Mazda as a company?
In reply to Buzz Killington:
Consumer Reports has the RX-8 as one of their highest rated sports cars.
I am not hearing much vitriol. I am just hearing that rotaries should break less and get better MPG if they want to compete with a piston engine.
You'll need to log in to post.
