Why not go for broke?

mazdeuce - Seth said:

That's how the R63 happened. Not smaller or lighter, but completely absurd and one year only. Dodge kind of did it with the V10 SRT truck thing, at least the first year they did it. 

Mazda has had a bunch of engines that they could have put in the Miata. Chevy or Ford or Dodge is just a parts bin away from a proper sport truck at any point. 

Mazda has always stated the Miata was not about power.  Its a Ballet slipper, not a Doc Marten.  That's what the RX-7 and its ilk were more about.  Also Mazda is a small company that really tries to go their own way, but they also have to be successful enough to keep building cars.

The MS3 is great, but with FWD only you're really limited to how much power you can actually use.  This has been one of challenges for all of the hot hatches since the dawn of their time.  The fact that Ford brought the RS over and outside of VW (and they of course did it their way), no one really answered back is quite telling about where the market for hot hatches is at.  There's a price/performance point that can make or break a product in that space.  So FWD only and lowered power output.

Re: hot hatches

I love my GTI (Mk5) and its ability to carry a lot of stuff. That means a big cargo area combined with a hatch that is big enough to use that space for something bigger than grocery bags. My gf's Focus hatch has a big cargo area but the narrow opening restricts it to smaller items. The Veloster looks to have the same narrow and tucked in hatch design. Hot hatches lose out when they compete in the 4-door sedan/CUV market. Of course, it's 2020 and everything is made better with 4 doors, 2 full American rows of seating, and all the creature comforts, just look at the trucks you see tooling around. This design philosophy of a "do it all" car doesn't leave a lot of room for specialization and a hot hatch is a bit of a specialized car in that you might have to sacrifice rear seat massagers and that cute little tuck that's in the hatch of every car that isn't a GTI.

The American car buyer expects their one-person commuter to have 2 full rows of seating and 4 full doors, with head and leg room sufficient for a defensive lineman and enough LED lights to light up a city block at Xmas time.

Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:

mazdeuce - Seth said:

That's how the R63 happened. Not smaller or lighter, but completely absurd and one year only. Dodge kind of did it with the V10 SRT truck thing, at least the first year they did it. 

Mazda has had a bunch of engines that they could have put in the Miata. Chevy or Ford or Dodge is just a parts bin away from a proper sport truck at any point. 

Mazda has always stated the Miata was not about power.  Its a Ballet slipper, not a Doc Marten.  That's what the RX-7 and its ilk were more about.  Also Mazda is a small company that really tries to go their own way, but they also have to be successful enough to keep building cars.

The MS3 is great, but with FWD only you're really limited to how much power you can actually use.  This has been one of challenges for all of the hot hatches since the dawn of their time.  The fact that Ford brought the RS over and outside of VW (and they of course did it their way), no one really answered back is quite telling about where the market for hot hatches is at.  There's a price/performance point that can make or break a product in that space.  So FWD only and lowered power output.

Yep, I had a '10 Speed3. IIRC, they are boost limited in 1st, 2nd, and maybe 3rd.................and they still wouldn't hook up.

shagles said:

In reply to Mndsm :

MS3 is what I was thinking too. From an interview I read with one of the engineers on that team, they had a lot of freedom to make it crazy. Then when it was close to production time they could either release it on time or fix the crazy torque steer, and decided the torque steer added to the craziness and released it on time.

And it was that sort of thing that sold me on mine. I had a 2005 Mazda 3. It was loaded. I loved that car. But I drove the ms3 and was like "so, this is my car, but louder and way faster. I'm failing to see a downside here" . 13 years into ownership.....I still think it's probably the best overall car I've ever owned. 

Making a somewhat flawed car is kinda the point. If you put a bigger motor in, the keep adding bits and pieces so that it goes up a class, the price tag will go up accordingly, and you have conflict between offerings. If otoh, you install the bigger motor and create a hair ball car like the MS3, there's still an upgrade path via the aftermarket. But more  importantly, you've enabled a generation of hooners. 

Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:

mazdeuce - Seth said:

Mazda has had a bunch of engines that they could have put in the Miata...

Mazda has always stated the Miata was not about power.  Its a Ballet slipper, not a Doc Marten.  That's what the RX-7 and its ilk were more about...

The MS3 is great, but with FWD only you're really limited to how much power you can actually use...

I remember a photo on this forum of Mazda engineers testing a V6 in California, but nothing ever came of it.  The turbocharged Mazdaspeed Miata and Mazdaspeed 6 were interesting cars, but didn't sell. Neither did the 2003 MX-5 Club Sport.  I suspect that much of the whole we see in the market is because we as enthusiasts don't actually buy new cars in sufficient numbers to make them worth the wile of OEMs to invest in making them.

The0retical (Forum Supporter) said:

Having to federalize a separate engine and emissions package is almost definitely the hold up. Reading about what Subaru went through with the WRX STi S209 package I can see why many manufacturers choose not to. Especially with cars that sell in small quantities.

Dodge likely gets away with the SRT and Hellcat line because the chassis costs .50 cents to produce after 10 years of tool amortization. (Kidding. Mostly. It's a brand image thing and they know the demographic that will buy them.)

For the record, I'd also love a 2GR-FE GT86 like the Tom's SEMA car or a ND with the upcoming Mazda i6 engine.

The cost of fitting a powertrain where it does not is light years more expensive than hte emissions development. 

BTW, the title of this thread is exaclty why it doesn't happen- it's never a good thing for a business to "go for broke".   One does not surive very long doing that.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

BTW, the title of this thread is exaclty why it doesn't happen- it's never a good thing for a business to "go for broke".   One does not surive very long doing that.

And part of that is why I dont think it happens more often. I'm reminded of the viper in particular. It was a wild, costly adventure that really satisfied no real need and came at a time when the market was very soft. Then Chrysler is like "berkeley it, here's a v10, it might kill you".  It got people talking. They came to the showrooms and wandered towards pentastar during auto shows. Same with the prowler, and later the srt4, and even now with stuff like the hellcat. Let's be real, the hellcat isn't a great car. Virtually anyone can make that power out of the box these days. It's a TON, but absolutely doable. But the idea of a 700hp purple retro car gets a lot of people talking. Or, look at the trackhawk. Who needs700 in a jeep that can't even go off-road? Maybe no one. But if you walk in to look at jeeps and maybe buy a renegade, awesome. I don't believe this type of car is ever meant for mass sales. It's all marketing. 

In reply to Mndsm :

The Viper was a long term advertising campaign.  Not a real car.  

There are very few cars that can double that well as a vehicle to sell as well as an advertisement.

And at the same time, the Viper was basically a Miata- unique platform with a common engine that has been tweaked for use.  

Renault 5 Turbo is sort of the 'go for broke' type car made by a major manufacturer, but it was made only to comply with the homologation requirements of the day so they could have a mid-engined rear wheel drive turbocharged car to compete with the Stratos. So, I guess it doesn't really count.

An example from modern times is the Hyundai Veloster RM19, but that is not a car that is for sale and if it were it wouldn't be street legal.

Maybe what we need is some sort of racing series with homologation rules that encourage OEMs to build special versions of their cars and sell them to us. Seems like that pretty much went away with Group B and or FIA GT1 cars of the 90's.

In reply to T.J. :

In theory, that's why the Ford GT existed.  And probably why the new vette is mid-engined.  

Somehow, if that could move down market.... but most modern rally cars are currently made- Ford RS and whever the higher version was.  And now that I think about it, the racing Miata is pretty much what you can buy.  Are there any race cars out there that isn't available in the same form?  I know you can get a turn key racing Mustang.

What we don't have are any international rules where the powertrain insert is some wild allowable combination, like a turbo V6 in the middle of a Civic.  Realistically, that only happened for a very brief time.  

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

BTW, the title of this thread is exaclty why it doesn't happen- it's never a good thing for a business to "go for broke".   One does not surive very long doing that.

It's certainly not something one does very often. I especially like the rx8 idea because it was a sales disappointment already, the tooling was paid for, and it wouldn't threaten any other models. I'd take a 3.7 rx9 over a 370z 10 times out of 10.

The Renault Clio V6 was a hairball kind of car. Mid engined V6 hatch with nowhere to race, just because the 5 Turbo was cool and why not do it again? 100% street car.  And weirdly, it actually got two generations. 

Plymouth went all in by daring to put a modern drivetrain in a modern interpretation of a 32 Ford hot rod.

People hated them for it.

Then Plymouth actually went broke.

TopNoodles said:

Plymouth went all in by daring to put a modern drivetrain in a modern interpretation of a 32 Ford hot rod.

People hated them for it.

Then Plymouth actually went broke.

Disagree. The Prowler doesn't really fit the category of vehicle which we are discussing. But since you mentioned it, the design was polarizing, but it isn't like they had to make a ton of them. I was a fan, as were many. Where they went wrong IMO was in wimping out on the motor. It's like they built a Harley instead of a Hayabusa. Can you imagine a Prowler with a proper hemi underhood? 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

TopNoodles said:

Plymouth went all in by daring to put a modern drivetrain in a modern interpretation of a 32 Ford hot rod.

People hated them for it.

Then Plymouth actually went broke.

Disagree. The Prowler doesn't really fit the category of vehicle which we are discussing. But since you mentioned it, the design was polarizing, but it isn't like they had to make a ton of them. I was a fan, as were many. Where they went wrong IMO was in wimping out on the motor. It's like they built a Harley instead of a Hayabusa. Can you imagine a Prowler with a proper hemi underhood? 

Except they didn't have a V8 that made more power than the V6 they used.  So it made sense to use the more powerful and exciting engine.

The "Hemi" wasn't redirected until later.

Look at the Shelby GLHS.  They went for broke and many sat on lots for quite a while, especially so with the 87 and later models.

I'm on board with everybody's yearning for a Honda Fit SI. Heck, even a 2 liter engine under that hood would be worlds better. 

Its a shame that Mazda never took the 5 and put a Skyactiv or turbo motor in it. Mazdaspeed 5 anyone?

Even Nissan could've done something with the Versa Note and given it a bigger engine and a 6 speed manual or even a Nismo Note with the turbo motor that was in the Juke.

ShawnG said:

Why the Miata never got a rotary is beyond me...

It was called the '79 RX-7.

Drive a Series 1 RX-7 (meaning '79-80) and an NA6 and the main difference you'll feel is the NA6 has a stubbier shifter, and more road noise due to the soft top.  Even the dashboards look the same.

It's as if the Mazda guys made the RX-7 more and more bloated in 1981, and 1984, and 1986, and were like "Hey guys!  Guys!  Dudes.  Seriously, we berkeleyed up.  Let's go back to the basics."  And the MX-5 was born, and sold zillions, like the Series 1 RX-7 did.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

BTW, the title of this thread is exaclty why it doesn't happen- it's never a good thing for a business to "go for broke".   One does not surive very long doing that.

It's certainly not something one does very often. I especially like the rx8 idea because it was a sales disappointment already, the tooling was paid for, and it wouldn't threaten any other models. I'd take a 3.7 rx9 over a 370z 10 times out of 10.

 

That would only really work if there was literally nothing that had to be done to make it fit.  And for that to happen the engine would come from a Mustang.  And if a Mustang is chosen for a 3.7l RWD Lincoln coupe for the powertrain, then it would make more sense to just use a Mustang for the job- as it would fit a lot easier.

It's not as if it was never looked at- I do very much remember the look into putting a 3.0l into an FD back in the mid 90's.  For Lincoln.  And the same powertrain put into an NB was for the same reason.  Neither of which went far- except for the Miata one- that one got so far to be driven by a lot of magazines.

One interesting note- for many years, a Mustang based Lincoln was a dream in people's eyes.  I dount it will ever happen.  The last T-Bird could have been that car, and arguably should have been that car- the DEW98 platform was great, especially for Lincoln.  Sucks that never got far enough.

Heck, I would do addition by subtraction... A wagon minus the cladding and lift. Again the market has proved that wagons aren't a huge seller (Outback notwithstanding...) so push all the chips in and give me a VW GTI/GLI Sportwagen (GWI?), Buick Regal TourX GS, Subbie Legacy WRX, etc. All the parts are there.

FCA does it as a nod to what Chrysler did in the ‘60’s.  And they did it in the ‘60s because they were pretty much on a shoestring budget.  Slapping the big engine in the small car was the easy button.  

We live in truly amazing times for performance automobiles. So I guess the complaint is not, why aren't there crazy fast cars (because there are tons), but, why aren't there crazy fast cheap cars?

I'd argue that there are.  Like, the 4-cyl pony cars are seriously fast, as is a GTI, as are whatever new Veloster trim is fast, etc. Yes, not as cheap as super fast versions of Corollas, but as Keith pointed out, you need a higher profit margin to make up for the development costs of the fast version.

Sometimes they just screw up.  Like when Toyota put their V6 in the first RAV4’s.  Those little buggers were serious sleepers.  I don’t think Toyota intended for that to happen.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

One interesting note- for many years, a Mustang based Lincoln was a dream in people's eyes.  I dount it will ever happen.  The last T-Bird could have been that car, and arguably should have been that car- the DEW98 platform was great, especially for Lincoln.  Sucks that never got far enough.

Long wheelbase Lincoln Mustang.

My grandfather had one, but with the 160hp TBI engine, not an HO.

Yes it is technically a Lincoln Thunderbird (a tradition going back at least to 1972) but it's the same Fox chassis.