Why does Mazda underpower their cars?

I would love to see Mazda take the either the 3.7L from the CX-9 or the 2.3T from the Mazdaspeed3 and put that in the Miata. Seems like they could very quickly and easily have something on par with a 370Z or maybe even base-model Corvette with very little engineering investment on their part.

And I'll come out and call the RX-8 underpowered. It might be an appropriate amount of power for the chassis, but when you're cross-shopping cars and start looking at price, performance, and mileage how do you justify the 240hp/150tq/22mpg sports car for $30k when you can go across the street and buy a 300hp/280tq/24mpg sports car for $30k or a 400hp/380tq/24mpg pony car for $30k, or a 300hp/280tq/30mpg pony car for $25k?

ReverendDexter wrote: I would love to see Mazda take the either the 3.7L from the CX-9 or the 2.3T from the Mazdaspeed3 and put that in the Miata. Seems like they could very quickly and easily have something on par with a 370Z or maybe even base-model Corvette with very little engineering investment on their part. And I'll come out and call the RX-8 underpowered. It might be an appropriate amount of power for the chassis, but when you're cross-shopping cars and start looking at price, performance, and mileage how do you justify the 240hp/150tq/22mpg sports car for $30k when you can go across the street and buy a 300hp/280tq/24mpg sports car for $30k or a 400hp/380tq/24mpg pony car for $30k, or a 300hp/280tq/30mpg pony car for $25k?

The RX8 seems underpowered because it's chassis will comfortably handle more. Much more.

I guess you'd have to call the S2000 underpowered at the same time.

Again, it's not a matter of the chassis, it's a matter of performance versus initial cost and fuel economy.

I'm not saying it's a bad car by any means, and I'd certainly like to own one and some point in the future.

I am curious as to how the sales numbers would have been different if it was an MX-8 and had used the aforementioned MS3's 2.3T instead of the Renesis.

Out of curiosity, what was the 300hp/280tq/24mpg sport car?

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Out of curiosity, what was the 300hp/280tq/24mpg sport car?

If the 2013 Genesis prices stay the same, the Genesis coupe with V6. Even the 2.0L turbo will be close to that, and only $25k cdn.

Of course, the RX8 isn't sold anymore, right? So if you are asking for comparisons from then, waddddunnno.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Out of curiosity, what was the 300hp/280tq/24mpg sport car?

350Z.

Blargh. I like power as much as the next guy, and i don't want to be a stick in the mud and say "There's more to a car than power," but... there's no way i'd drive one of those over an RX8, power and MPG be damned.

Just personal opinion, i'm not expecting anyone to agree.

I think one of the big problems with the MX-5's current sales is that it only makes 167hp. It's not a cheap car. It doesn't really cost the manufacturer more to have a slightly larger engine or more aggressive cam, etc.

Compare the RX-8 to it's direct competitors. I own one, it's a great car, but the only real negatives are the power (over the power band) and fuel economy. I like reving the engine, but a lot of people don't and want more performance. At low to mid RPMs it's not really any different than a Corolla. It's not terrible, but there are other more powerful options for similar money. More casual buyers zero in on that sort of thing. In the US it was priced reasonably well. In Canada they were $40-52k. That's approaching Corvette money.

I think the Mazda 3 GT should make more power as well. If you're spending extra money for performance the engine should make more like 200hp. This is a brand that's suppose to be focused on fun. Don't get me wrong the 3 is a great car. I think one could make an argument against the Mazdaspeed3 too. In this day and age the direct injection turbo engine in a performance oriented package should be able to make more power and torque than it does.

I don't know about all of their cars...but my mom has an '09 3 and it is nowhere near as peppy as I expected it to be. It's the 2.3 liter, too, not the base 2.0. Weight?

All things are relative.

My fiancee had an 04 mazda3 2.0/4spd.. we raced on the highway vs a 95 firebird 3.4 i bought (for $400 and sold for $1200) and the slowest mazda3 stomped it.

Funny thing tho, the firebird actually felt punchy at most speeds. The mazda NEVER did.

I think if they got the same mpg id rather have the punchy power delivery of the slow firebird rather than an actually-faster but not responsive motor.

Which very much relates to why people complain about rx-8s...

I bought a 2011 Mazda 6 with a V6.

It has plenty of power, but the delay between when I step on the throttle and when it goes drives me nuts.

My wife hasn't noticed it.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Blargh. I like power as much as the next guy, and i don't want to be a stick in the mud and say "There's more to a car than power," but... there's no way i'd drive one of those over an RX8, power and MPG be damned. Just personal opinion, i'm not expecting anyone to agree.

Most would agree, but it's not like you get a chance to push the handling envelope on the daily commute (I realize some have awesome back-roads commutes, but most are on surface streets or the highway), so the extra HP is a bit more entertaining.

Like me, once I pull out of my neigborhood, I have about 5 minutes on a 50mph side road, then 9 minutes on a 65mph expressway. No real turns.

I don't think many manufacturers make a living on sports cars. Porsche offers all the bonkers cars it does because it makes a killing on Cayennes.

The Miata and RX-8 are halo cars, not profit leaders. Selling zillions of copies of a fuel-efficient 3 is more likely to put them in the black than putting more power in the RX-8. The 3 is the brand's best-selling car: more 3s sold in the first three years of production than all the Miatas sold since 1989 (in the US). But until these Skyactiv drivetrains, the 3 got the worst (or nearly) gas mileage ratings for the class.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=26372&id=29701&id=28583&id=26377

Sure, those aren't astronomical differences. But when you're facing gas at four bucks, these things matter.

With the new engines and such increasing their MPG numbers, Mazda will hopefully be more competitive in the marketplace. Then I hope they have the extra cash to make a bonkers Miata or RX car.

As for Mazdas being underpowered, I think the new MX-5 is plenty quick. It's never been a high-horsepower car.

Much as I like 'em, it's tough to make an economic case for the RX-8 though when I could have a lot of 30mpg Mustang for that money. Don't they have small fuel tanks, too, so cruise range is super short?

Alan Cesar wrote: I don't think many manufacturers make a living on sports cars. Porsche offers all the bonkers cars it does because it makes a killing on Cayennes. The Miata and RX-8 are halo cars, not profit leaders. Selling zillions of copies of a fuel-efficient 3 is more likely to put them in the black than putting more power in the RX-8. The 3 is the brand's best-selling car: more 3s sold in the first three years of production than all the Miatas sold since 1989 (in the US). But until these Skyactiv drivetrains, the 3 got the worst (or nearly) gas mileage ratings for the class. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=26372&id=29701&id=28583&id=26377

^THIS. The SkyActiv drivetrains, esp. in the 3, CX-5, and upcoming 6 replacement, are what will make or break Mazda. With the 3, they still have the problem of it being ugly, and with the CX-5 they face the daunting prospect of tearing soccer moms away from their RAV4s and CR-Vs. Mazda will bounce back only if they can get some sort of market share with the normals, or if they can find a new sugar daddy to replace Ford. I've heard they are offering to license the SkyActiv technology to other automakers. It will be interesting to see if anyone bites.

Alan Cesar wrote: Much as I like 'em, it's tough to make an economic case for the RX-8 though when I could have a lot of 30mpg Mustang for that money. Don't they have small fuel tanks, too, so cruise range is super short?

I personally love my RX-8 and have no plans to EVER sell it. I'd rather have it than any Mustang. My brother is a Ford salesman so I've been exposed to plenty of them, and they just don't get my fizz going. That said, there is absolutely no economic case for buying an RX-8. mine is a Series II which has a slightly larger tank, but I've never gotten 300 miles between fill ups. The only thing worse in fuel economy that I've owned is my old Econoline, but that thing has 2 big tanks so the range is crazy, despite depressingly bad mileage. If I had the choice again, I'd still choose the RX-8. Instantly. Even faster if it was a bit lighter.

Also, for the record, I don't think the RX-8 is underpowered. Compated to it's boat-like competitors, it's way underpowered, but as a stand alone car it's fine. Would I like a turbo? No comment, but I'm fine without one.

RexSeven wrote: Mazda will bounce back only if they can get some sort of market share with the normals, or if they can find a new sugar daddy to replace Ford. I've heard they are offering to license the SkyActiv technology to other automakers. It will be interesting to see if anyone bites.

The idea of "licensing" SkyActiv is interesting to me. From what I see it is basically good engine building philosophy that typically gets compromised due to cost and packaging constraints.

^^^

that. it's not like it's a black box or something.

You guys need to read Mazda's site on SkyActiv. It's way more than you think...

Javelin wrote: You guys need to read Mazda's site on SkyActiv. It's *way* more than you think...

I have-Tuned length intake, tuned headers, good injection and head work, etc... It is impressive that they did it and did it well, but didn't seem that revolutionary. I guess what they can market is the name of the package. Kind of like Eco-Boost is really just a direct injected twin turbo V-6 designed and built really well but the name sounds cool.

In reply to MrJoshua: Ecoboost isn't just the V6. There's also the Ecoboost 4 used in the Taurus and its derivatives.

ReverendDexter wrote: In reply to MrJoshua: Ecoboost isn't just the V6. There's also the Ecoboost 4 used in the Taurus and its derivatives.

Gotcha.

bobpink wrote: My daily driver Protege5 is underpowered. Little torque and runs out of breath at around 4000rpm or so. Thankfully it handles like a go-kart and is fun to drive. Think I'll keep it a little longer.

I think you just spoketh for me!

But until these Skyactiv drivetrains, the 3 got the worst (or nearly) gas mileage ratings for the class.

Sucks that EPA screwed Mazda on the 3. Mine ALWAYS beat the factory numbers. Worst AVG was 27 while i was BEATING IT LIKE A SLAVE. Usually averaged 30 with majority in-town driving. On the highway it was always a guaranteed 37 with the ac off, 35 w/ on, and it went up from there. If i tried to get good mileage it would get close to 40. My best highway tank across flat land was 42mpg. And mine was auto! I knew one guy who had the same car and 5spd and he got 42 CONSISTENTLY with mild hypermiling techniques.

And now we have people bragging about getting 40mpg highway with their new elantras like it's god gift to small cars when, by my count, Mazda 3 was doing that most of a decade ago, and unlike comparing a new elantra to an 87 crx HF, it's actually a relative fair comparison to make.

MrJoshua wrote:

Javelin wrote: You guys need to read Mazda's site on SkyActiv. It's *way* more than you think...

I have-Tuned length intake, tuned headers, good injection and head work, etc... It is impressive that they did it and did it well, but didn't seem that revolutionary. I guess what they can market is the name of the package. Kind of like Eco-Boost is really just a direct injected twin turbo V-6 designed and built really well but the name sounds cool.

You realize SkyActiv is way more than just the engine, right?