Automotive No-Brainers, Vol. 1: Miata-based RX-7

"AMC/Renauledge" (n2skylark)
11/14/2013 at 12:40 • Filed to: Automotive No-Brainers, Miata, Rotary, RX-7, Mitsubishi, Eclipse, RCZ, Citroen

As an enthusiast who follows the car industry, I see some companies come up with with ideas that are fanciful and fantastical, but that never quite make it in the real world. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

However, some ideas are so simple, so far-reaching in their ability to solve problems, it's a wonder why the manufacturers don't see and implement them.

Here's my first in a series I call Automotive No-Brainers .

MX-5 Miata + Rotary + Roof = Next RX-7

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! about a new RX-7 ever since the RX-8 was put out to pasture. Mazda, a small and newly independent car company isn't exactly flush with cash once the Yen fluctuations are taken into account. Mazda has been trying to find a business case for the next RX-7 and the next rotary engine going in it.

Mazda has also been trying to improve the MX-5 Miata's business case by !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

So why not kill two birds with one stone here? The Miata's bespoke platform needs volume to cut costs. Why tool a whole new, different platform for the next RX-7, when all the Miata would need to become the next RX-7 is a hard roof and a rotary?

Every few years or so, Mazda toys with the idea of making a Miata coupe.

Putting the next rotary in a Miata coupe would keep the RX-7's costs low, much like the original's was back in 1978. Its low purchase price would make it a deadly rival to cars like the BRZ/FR-S, and a deadlier rival to the much more expensive 370Z, to boot. And it would add economies of scale for the Miata platform, itself.

So why hasn't it been done yet? Why can't Mazda see the simple, inherent logic in this? Am I missing something?

DISCUSSION (44)

davedave1111 > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 12:48

In all honesty, who would actually buy one? There's not a huge market for small coupes, and the Toybaru has a good chunk of it sewn up for the next few years at least.

The all-round excellence of the MX-5 has a lot to do with the lack of other small roadsters out there. No-one tries to build them because it's so hard to do a better job than the Mazda in the price-bracket that you're not going to sell many. The Toybaru could turn out the same way, but even if not, that's a small segment.

At the end of the day, apart from a rotary engine that Mazda don't build at the moment, you're talking about an MX-5 with a roof. Why buy one when you could get one without a roof that's no worse?

AMC/Renauledge > davedave1111
11/14/2013 at 12:56

Why would you buy a Toyobaru coupe over the planned convertible?

Look, Mazda is already working on a new rotary and a new RX-7. So obviously they see a market for this kind of thing.

If they stick a roof on and a rotary in the Miata, they can provide a car that beats the 370Z in performance at a price that'd be competitive with the BRZ. How would that NOT succeed? In fact, it was the original RX-7 formula to begin with!

They can improve the Miata platform's business case, bring a brand-defining model back, cater to the enthusiast crowd, and give us all an incredibly good product.

And the mere idea that the BRZ/FR-S has the market sewn up is kind of ridiculous to me. It's brand new to the market. Nissan is looking into joining it.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 13:01

Iacocca's failed DeLorean?

You may want to re-read automotive history.

John Z. DeLorean is the man behind the company and car bearing his namesake, and previously worked as an engineer and manager for General Motors, and was the father of the Pontiac GTO, and the Sprint OHC Inline 6

Lee Iacocca worked for Ford, and was the man behind the original Mustang, and later went to Chrysler in the 1980s, and revived that company with the K-car platform that underpinned all of Chrysler's FWD vehicles in the 80s, and into the '90s.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 13:02

It's a tv show reference.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 13:16

I'd love to see this happen. Even if it has different styling, but is still built on the MX-5's platform.

What would be even better is if they engineered it so that the engine bay has a good deal of space, and then Alfa can use it for a new GTV6.

Yes please.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > davedave1111
11/14/2013 at 13:18

It's a small market segment, but it's one that gets a lot of publicity. This would be a cheap way to get people to view Mazda as a serious contender in performance cars.

Porsche sells more Cayennes than 911s, but the 911 is still the one that people think of when they consider a Porsche.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 13:18

Miata and RX8 were derivatives of each other. Not directly the same floorpan, but they were both PowerPlant Frame RWD chassis, the Miata being shorter. NC Miata and RX8 were not that far apart from each other.

RX8 didn't sell well, as it was a compromised premise, somewhere between a sleek and good looking coupe, and a practical and comfortable sedan, but doing neither well enough to really capture enthusiasm. A tiny trunk, with fixed rear seat backs, and no practical consideration for a spare tire didn't help... in addition to Renesis' perceived reliability and fuel consumption issues, without being as powerful as previous 13B Turbo engines.

I am a fan of rotary engines, and I know there is more potential, and I hope the 16X rotary will realize a lot of it.

And I wouldn't argue with it being an up-option engine on the next Miata, and the next RX being derived from the ND Miata/Alfa roadster platform, as well.

But it needs to be more than just a coupe Miata with a rotary. It needs to be very compelling on it's own merits.

I think it is possible, but a half-hearted attempt won't overcome the obstacles, and a compromised premise won't fly.

I think there is real potential with SkyActiv, and a KERS type hybrid assist system to supplement the rotary's low-RPM torque, and to potentially relieve the oil starvation issues of the wankel rotary at low RPMs under high demand, and cold-restart flooding, and compression blow-by at the spark plug cavities, and reduction in emissions and fuel waste.

But it needs to really hit the nail on the head.

I wouldn't argue with a rotary front-engined RWD car, but I really would like to see a mid-engined rotary layout, possibly even transverse-mounted, for compact packaging, and that might actually be better than a front-mid rotary, with a rear electric-assisted transaxle. A longer torque-tube prop shaft at engine-speed may not hold up all that well to a rotary's 9000+ RPM capability over time... and it adds mass to that spinning assembly.

davedave1111 > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 13:20

Are they actually building a new rotary, or just making their usual wistful noises? If the former, awesome, somehow I'd missed that.

I can definitely see the point of a rotary MX-5, no question about that. It's the point of putting a hard-top on it and calling it an RX-7 that I miss. It won't get significantly stiffer, because the whole shebang is designed to be a roadster. So where's the advantage to having a roof?

"If they stick a roof on and a rotary in the Miata, they can provide a car that beats the 370Z in performance at a price that'd be competitive with the BRZ. How would that NOT succeed? "

Because it'll be completely impractical. Have you ever been in a hard-topped MX-5? There's barely space for a washbag, let alone luggage for a weekend away. It makes the BRZ look like a minivan, in that respect.

"And the mere idea that the BRZ/FR-S has the market sewn up is kind of ridiculous to me."

I'm not saying they've got it sewn up entirely. But they're already in the market with what we all agree is a really good product. That means any competitors are either going to have to be pretty good themselves and satisfied with a share of the market, or absolutely outstanding if they're to grab most of it.

Maybe I'm wrong, and the Toybaru's not as good as we all think. Otherwise, though, it's tough competition for any new cars that come along.

I'm really intrigued to hear about a new rotary, though, in light of the Mazda-Alfa link. I'd love to see a rotary-engined Panda.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 13:22

While I understand your point, I seriously wonder why you'd have to change the styling, size, or packaging much to get a new RX-7 off the Miata platform.

Why spend money making things more complicated? A rotary Miata coupe would sell a lot better than a more expensive program they can't make a business case for.

davedave1111 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
11/14/2013 at 13:27

How much publicity does it really get? What cars have inhabited the sector lately apart from the Toybaru? Small sports coupes are rare enough, and MX-5 sized ones are vanishingly rare.

Larger and/or more expensive and/or less sporty coupes are much more common. Cheap, light, sporty, and smallish is not nearly as common.

AMC/Renauledge > davedave1111
11/14/2013 at 13:28

It's called the 16X .

And a lot of the Miata hardtop convertible's storage issues are down to its folding metal roof. Which adds weight high in the chassis, as well.

A Miata-based RX-7 coupe wouldn't have that problem because the roof would be fixed. No need for space for a soft convertible top, either, for that matter. Plus, if they designed the roof line like a fastback and engineered the rear door to be a hatch, it would be pretty practical.

Making a coupe version of the Miata isn't so much about stiffness as it would be about lightness, about differentiating it from the Miata so they wouldn't cannibalize each other, and about being true to the RX-7 heritage of being, primarily, a coupe.

davedave1111 > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 13:34

I was thinking of the previous gen MX-5 with an actual hard-top, not a folding metal roof:

Kinja'd!!!

The convertible roof takes up minimal space; it's just a very small car on the inside. Even with a fixed roof, you gain very little extra room.

Your fastback/hatch idea is interesting, although then it would be a shooting-brake.

"Making a coupe version of the Miata isn't so much about stiffness as it would be about [...] differentiating it from the Miata"

Maybe I'm not understanding quite what you propose, but I just don't see how it's different from the MX-5 apart from having a roof.

Take the Alfa 4C carbon tub and add a rotary, then we're more in the right ballpark. But that's going to be quite a bit bigger than an MX-5, and quite a lot more expensive - just like the RX-7 was originally.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 13:40

Miata has a friendly, non-threatening look. I own one, a 99 NB. I like it, but it isn't an FD-3S RX7, style-wise, even with a distinct resemblance with the simple and clean coke-bottle curves. NA and NC don't even resemble any RX7 generation that closely, and if ND is going to be aggressive, it may lose some of it's demographic audience. Maita doesn't need to look aggressive. A new RX does, after RX8's looks.

An RX5 option for the MX5 Miata is not bad. but if it is labeled and portrayed as an RX7, it won't fly.

It won't appeal to people looking for a performance car.

Miata is a lifestyle car that happens to perform quite well, and thus stands where others have fallen... S2K isn't around anymore. The Kappa GM convertibles are gone, too.

But if Mazda wants to be taken seriously as an alternative to cars that are bought on performance, like Mustang GT, Camaro SS, Challenger, or others... even lighter weight, like an affordable alternative to Cayman, it has to bring more to the table than a Miata with a roof and a rotary, especially with Rotary's public reputation for being unreliable.

If it brings new compelling reasons, it may get re-considered. If it looks like a re-hash of something else, and a compromise, it won't overcome RX7's reputation for finicky reliability, and RX8's reputation for reliability issues, and compromises in practicality and looks.

It has to be a home run, not just put a runner on base.

davedave1111 > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 13:40

"I seriously wonder why you'd have to change the styling, size, or packaging much to get a new RX-7 off the Miata platform."

I don't think you realise how much bigger and more expensive the RX-7 was.

The S4/5 RX-7 and NA MX-5 were roughly concurrent. The MX-5 sold for about $15k when the RX-7 was going for $30-35k. The RX-7 is a foot longer, seven inches wider, and at least 500lbs heavier.

AMC/Renauledge > davedave1111
11/14/2013 at 13:45

Right. And the S4/5 RX-7 sold poorly at that price. So poorly, Mazda withdrew it from the world's largest car market after only 3 model years.

The original RX-7 - the most successful in the line - was much closer to the NC Miata's size, even taking into account the park bench bumpers they hung off the front and back.

davedave1111 > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 13:48

The original RX-7 was a generation earlier, though, so scale it up one size to compare it to the MX-5.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 13:49

That kind of stupidity is about Michael Scott's speed, I guess, but I haven't seen that episode of The Office.

But you may want to make it a quotation or more clearly identified allusion, if you don't want it ascribed to you by people who don't know the reference.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 13:53

I dunno. I look at the '79 RX-7 and the '90 MX-5, and I don't see a whole lot of difference that 11 years of stylistic evolution wouldn't bring.

It was Mazda walking away from the simplicity and low cost in the original RX-7 formula that rendered the car irrelevant eventually.

There is nothing wrong with the chassis of the Miata itself. Maybe a new front end and IP to go with the roof and new rear quarters you'd need would do the trick. But I don't think it'd need to be any bigger than the Miata is now.

Triumph did a similar thing with the GT6 back in the '60s and '70s. They took a Spitfire, added the straight-6 from their big sedan, a coupe roof line, and it sold rather well.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 13:54

Good idea.

AMC/Renauledge > davedave1111
11/14/2013 at 13:55

Why?

My point is that, in getting bigger, heavier, and more expensive, the RX-7 lost its way, and sales reflected that.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 14:04

Arguably, the Miata, especially the NA, and the NC tried to revert back to it, is much more like a Lotus Elan or MGB than a Triumph Spitfire.

Spitfire was already somewhat aggressive, with sharper lines. With the long front clamshell hood, had a bit of "affordable junior e-type alternative" going for it... which the GT6 really capitalized on.

Plus, it didn't have the pre-conceived notions to overcome that some people have about rotary engines.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > davedave1111
11/14/2013 at 14:09

Not nearly as common, so maybe easier to make an impact. Look at the BRZ.

To be honest, I'm not an ad man or a product planner. I just want a rotary Mazda again, and a rotary MX-5 would be an easy way to do it.

Depending on how clever they make the MX-5 platform, they could stretch it so that it does compete in the bigger coupe class.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 14:09

I'm sure if Alfa can be different enough on ND to help defray costs, a more aggressive coupe body for the RX-7 would, without adding to cost, weight, or complexity.

Think of how much fun the MX-5 is now. Now think about how much fun it'd be with less weight and a 250hp rotary screamer? How would that not make for a good 4th-gen RX-7?

davedave1111 > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 14:15

Because it stayed the same size, it's just sizes got bigger from one generation to the next.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 14:15

As I said, I don't think a Miata with a rotary upgrade engine as an option is a bad idea.

But it won't automatically fly as an RX-7 for the same reason that the Holden Monaro coupe didn't quite make for a highly accepted Pontiac GTO, and why the 88 Ford Probe design didn't replace the Fox-chassis Ford Mustang as it was originally going to, when people found out, and barraged Ford for it.

The name carries expectations, and has pre-conceived notions of what it should be.

If Pontiac had called their version of the Monaro a Tempest, or a LeMans, or even a new Grand Prix coupe, rather than putting the highly-particular GTO name on it... it may have been better received, before Pontiac got unceremoniously axed by the government's re-structuring under bankruptcy.

RX7 is something particular, especially after the timelessly gorgeous, giant-killer performing FD-3S.

That is why RX8 didn't have a 7 in the name instead.

AMC/Renauledge > davedave1111
11/14/2013 at 14:19

Relative to the rest of the industry? I see your point.

Except that didn't really work out for the RX-7 or the Starion/3000GT or the Supra or the Celica or the MR2.

The cars all got bigger and heavier and had to be powered by bigger, heavier engines, which made them all too expensive and pushed the delicate balance that lower-priced successful sports cars have to strike way out of whack.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 14:21

See, this is what doesn't make sense to me.

The RX-7 has to adhere to the formula that killed it, a formula that would continue to negate its business case, in order to be successful?

Again, I think about the original RX-7. It was a simple, inexpensive, and wildly successful formula. Going back to that formula will, I believe, make it viable and successful again.

davedave1111 > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 14:28

You have a point there. It was stuff like the hot hatches which really killed them, though, which comes back to what I was saying about a really good car in a different sector being able to close down variety in others.

The MX-5 is the default answer here for a reason. If you're in the market for a small, light, reasonably-priced two-seater, you'll at least look at the MX-5. Which describes potential buyers of your RX-7, though, so they'd be cannibalising sales.

MX-5 with a solid roof and rotary engine, sold for a couple or three thousand more than the regular model? Sure, why not, if they can design it cheaply enough. But calling it an RX-7 just seems like badge-engineering to me.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 14:38

FD-3S is in more people's memory than the original RX7, and it suffers from the same thing that everything does that sets a really high bar for itself.

People don't often like the idea of regression. RX7 progressed from it's simpler, less expensive origins, to a giant-killer in it's 3rd iteration. One of the best handling cars ever, and arguably the best, regardless of price, at it's time, with horsepower enough to keep up or pass cars with big engines.

There wasn't a single excuse that FD-3S had to make, aside from perhaps reliability due to most being unfamiliar with the intricacies of a wankel rotary engine, and how they differ from piston engines.

If it regresses, some may construe it as a failure to live up to the high bar already set. some others may see it as a repudiation of that high bar.

Most see a successor as something that meets or exceeds the predecessor, or ascribe failure to do so.

Arguably if one were to revert to the original RX7's formula, it would either have to be entirely retro, and look unmistakably like the original car, or would have to use a new name to start over with that premise.

Frankly, the RX-Evolve concept and RX8 tried to replicate the first-gen RX7's B-pillar look, and I didn't like it either way. I have respect for the original RX7, but to be honest, aesthetically, I greatly prefer the FC- and FD generations. I am not sure that a retro-looking return to the original RX7 would be well received by more than just a few people.

And if it didn't look like the original RX7, but tried to be simplified, and still bears the RX7 name... it would be seen as a 4th generation RX7 that gave up on trying to carry the torch on from the third.

Even if it were given RX2, RX3, RX4, RX9, or even RX1, as a name, it could possibly get away with returning to a simple premise much like the original RX7, but then charting it's own new model course, not strictly defined by the lineage and expectation of RX7.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 14:53

A Miata with the 16X in it would be faster than the FD-3S. How would that be a step backward?

And I would argue that the Nissan Z33 was a successful return to form after the glorious excesses of the Z32, without being retro.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 17:41

How do you figure that a miata with a 16X would be faster than a turbocharged 13B FD-3S? FD was not that much heavier than Miata, and the turbo gives a LOT to a rotary engine.

And you should count NC miata weight and size, if not even a slight bit more, not NA or NB. Government safety regs are only getting stricter, and cars are getting bulkier because of it. Manufacturers can't just ignore the regulations. An NC miata may weigh about the same as an FD-3S RX7, body and chassis wise, if i had to guess, somewhere between 2750-3000lbs.

I wasn't aware that factory horsepower specs on the 16X were out yet.

And in terms of Nissan Z... it wasn't drastically retro, but it did try to revert to cues from the 240Z. And the VQ35 was more powerful than the VG30DE, even if not more powerful than VG30DETT.

And I still would prefer a pristine Z32 than a Z33, and both more than a current vampire-frog looking 370Z.

And Nissan is still mulling over lighter and smaller successors with retro looks, to chase after BRZ/FRS buyers, because 370Z is not selling particularly well. 350Z wasn't gangbusters, nor a flop, but rather luke-warm. 370Z is closer to a flop, despite losing a little weight, and gaining a little power with the VQ37.

It doesn't look good... and a car that isn't practical... had better be gorgeous to make up for it, it has little excuse not to be. And if it is a performance-first vehicle, it had better look aggressive as well as gorgeous, rather than Miata's friendlier round curves and sunny-disposition smile. A large segment of Miata's demographic is women, and they can't afford to change that. Enthusiasts alone don't buy enough Miatas to make the model financially viable.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 18:12

They aren't.

But let's say the 16X improves on the 13B-MSP's power outputs to 200hp for the 4-port (if there is one) and 250hp for the 6-port (up only 3 and 12, respectively). That would probably be a safe, conservative guess.

Let's also say that an ND with a coupe body and a rotary does no better than hitting the I4 roadster's 2,200lb weight target. That would probably be a safe, conservative guess, too, since it'd need less bracing and would be using a smaller, lighter engine under the hood.

That would give the 200hp 4-port 16X ND RX-7 a power-to-weight ratio of 1:11.0, and the 250hp 6-port a 1:8.8 ratio.

In 1995, the US market FD-3S with the twin-turbo 13B-REW weighed 2,826lbs and developed 255hp. That gave it a power-to-weight ratio of 1:11.1.

So even if the lower-powered 16X, with its conservative power improvements, were to be installed in an FD-based RX-7 that has no weight advantages over the I4 roadster it's based on, it'd be at least comparable to the last FD-3S we got Stateside. Gearing would be the only major consideration.

A 6-port 250hp version would blow the FD-3S into the ever-loving weeds in all its NA glory. It'd also get better fuel economy due to the improved design and almost 25% less weight to move around.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 18:56

I'll believe a fully federalized 2200lb Miata, coupe or convertible when I see it.

And even if it could exist with current USDOT/NHTSA regs, I wouldn't fit in such a small car, (my 99 NB is 2400+ lbs, and I can barely fit, but I do. NC is bigger, and heavier. The only way to go lighter, is to go much smaller to reduce the material mass. The bumpers and side impact intrusion protection can't go away.

It would have to also be much smaller than a BRZ/FRS, which weigh in at ~2900lbs, as does Cayman and Boxster.

I don't see how 700lbs can be cut out of the car without it being a go-cart that is barely licensed for the road. Material has mass and weight... no way around that law of physics, and there has to be enough material to encompass a certain volume of space. Less material for less weight means less volume enclosed.

And I don't think Miata is going to be made out of carbon fiber and titanium and still be anywhere near the price point it has, and remain affordable.

So far it is wishful thinking, and while it may be a nice wish in some respects, it strains rational reasoning in others.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 19:11

Mazda has been extremely successful at taking weight out of their cars of late. And several sources are stating the MX-5 should come in around 2,200-2,300lbs.

While they would have to redesign the car significantly, I don't think it'd have to be much smaller, if at all smaller . The '14 Mazda3 is lighter than the '13, and yet bigger.

It's also worth noting that a lot of that weight savings is said to come from a new smaller-displacement engine.

So even if the MX-5 and an RX-7 coupe based on it end up at 2,500lbs they'll still have better power-to-weight than the FD-3S.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/14/2013 at 19:54

They have been able to cut a bit of weight... maybe as much as a couple hundred pounds.

But it isn't as if the Miata is built out of lead now.

2450-2550lbs for the NC was only able to be cut down to 2200lbs on the 2009 Superlight concept, and it didn't even have a windshield.

The current MZR engines are aluminum, rather than the B-series iron blocks before. There isn't a tremendous amount of weight to lose there.

And if the engine gets much smaller than 1.8 liters, without a turbo (which adds weight again), it will seriously lack power, granted, not part of your rotary premise.

And my previous points about RX7 having expectations to meet still applies, and being a thin-skinned hyper-lightweight isn't it.

I would rather it weigh 3000lbs, and have 300+ horsepower, than 2200lbs and 200hp, and feel like sitting down in it upsets the suspension balance, and taking a rough road might cause the structure to fold up because the metal is so thin.

Plus, very few FDs stayed at stock power levels, as even just a boost controller adjustment yielded far more than stock horsepower levels, the RX8 and other naturally aspirated rotaries are not so easily tuned up.

I don't think an RX-7 would succeed if it had to make excuses about power levels the way BRZ and FRS do... it's only 200 horsepower, /but it is light weight... It still has a 7+ second 0-60, and still doesn't have the rush of a more powerful car.

FDs and FC turbos were seen as much more of a performance car than naturally aspirated FBs and FCs, even if the earlier cars were not strictly slow for their day.

I said it before, and I will say it yet again.

Your premise isn't flawed, but it isn't likely to ignite the fires of people who know the lineage of the RX7.

A good ultra-compact car like that, with a naturally aspirated 16X would be fun, and would be a consideration, if it doesn't have to carry the baggage of expectations of the RX7 name, and a 22-2500lb Miata with a roof just isn't going to carry that intangible load.

An RX_ with another digit besides 7 might be a convincing alternative to a BRZ or FRS... but I don't think it would be spoken in the same comparison as a 2015 Mustang GT, or other cars like it, let alone a Porsche 981, if it is so small, and so light, and anywhere near 200-250 horsepower, and likely modest low-end torque.

An RX7 would be better served with a bit larger body, (longer and wider looks sleeker and more aggressive if it is still low, and can fit some more aggressive wheel and tire sizes without looking comically cartoonish to put larger wheels and tires on a tiny car. Anything over 16" inches starts to look odd on an NA or NB, and due to the huge fender arches, 17" is about the limit on the NC. Most other performance cars wear 18-20" wheels as stock anymore, and at least 8" wide, minimum. Even FD can wear 17-18" wheels well, due to it being longer than a Miata, and RX8 wore 18" wheels as stock.

I would rather RX7 weigh ~3000lbs give or take, and have a 24X 3-rotor with 300+ horsepower, and have a SkyActiv/KERS mild-hybrid for supplemental low-end torque, than have a stripped-out ultra-light-weight car with 200hp.

What you are talking about would probably end up being something like a caterham 7 with fenders, and a thin roof skin. It might make a compelling track car for some, but I am not sure it would have wide enough appeal to really compete against other performance cars with 300+ or even 400+ horsepower.

Who would compare a 22-2500lb Miata coupe as an RX7 with 200-250hp, compared to a 420-440 horsepower 2015 Mustang GT, that if the rumors are right may cut some bulk and weight, as well as getting some new handling chops with an IRS... Even if the Mustang weighs 1000lbs (~180%) more, it will have twice the power (190-220% depending on actual figures)

Would it even compare favorably to the 2900lb, 325hp 981 Cayman S?, which likely with an ECU re-flash would have 991 Carrera 3.4's 345hp with the exact same engine.

FD-3S beat Corvette, Porsche 944/968, Z32, JZA-80 Supra, and other car's handling... and with relatively easy engine mods, easily eclipsed their power to weight ratios, due to the nature of turbocharged engines, and turbocharged wankel rotaries, particularly.

Even if the car you are suggesting could out-handle much more expensive hardware, I doubt an atmospheric 16X with light, easy mods, would beat their power levels, even if stock-for-stock, it might exceed the un-tuned FD-3S' peak power number from more than 20 years ago.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/14/2013 at 20:02

I think our disagreement comes down to our reference point.

My point is that the RX-7's humbler beginnings were more successful in the marketplace and a car like that with the setup I've described would be rather good.

Your point is that the ultimate RX-7 concept should be advanced if they're going to use the RX-7 name. I just don't think Mazda is in any position to deliver that car anytime soon.

To me, an RX-7 that's true to the original's successful formula would be better than no RX-7 at all. I think an ND RX-7 with 250hp would blow the doors off any Mustang anywhere near its price. And anything else anywhere near its price, too.

It appears we're at an impasse. But I bet you dollars to donuts that Mazda will make a lighter MX-5 without it being flimsy.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/15/2013 at 10:52

I hope they make the ND Miata another great car, but I'll wait for the specs to see.

I disagree with your assertion "To me, an RX-7 that's true to the original's successful formula would be better than no RX-7 at all."

And it all comes down to the "to me" bit.

To you, you would like it. To me, I wouldn't mind it, and I like rotaries enough to give it a chance.

I fear that it won't gain market 'traction' and sell well, though, and I have stated why I think it is largely a psychological reason tied to the name.

I think if Mazda were to risk it's quite finite resources since it's split with Ford, on a car that isn't a gangbuster home run of an RX7 that nobody can help but take notice of, it will actually do damage to the model name, likely be cancelled, and may never get re-tried again after that.

I have seen japanese companies do that time and time again... mostly Subaru, Toyota, and Honda.

If something isn't a home run, it languishes until it's cancellation, and then is never seen again.

I think if they use the RX7 name, it has to be a home run to survive. Otherwise it will end up killing the RX7 name like a parasite, even if it is a good car on it's merits, but just isn't a good 'RX-7'.

I'll bring up the Pontiac GTO again. Those who own them, like them. It seemed to be a decent car, even if not as flashy as the Zeta-based Camaro that followed it.

But it wasn't a good GTO, and the failure to live up to that name plate caused most enthusiasts to write it off of their list to consider, and the car didn't sell particularly well.

If it hadn't had that psychological hurdle to overcome, it might have been considered solely on it's merits, and sold a few more units. Maybe not enough to solve GM's endemic problems, but it wouldn't have a negative connotation.

Mazda would stand a real risk of repeating that mistake, if they were to name a good, but not 'home-run' car as RX7, and would be better off calling an RX_ with another number.

I would rather see an RX1 or RX3 or something else, as a stepping stone to get Mazda back firmly in the black, and growing... and a home-run RX7 later, than a decent car that ends up being a sales dud, and killing the RX7 name for another 15 years or more.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/15/2013 at 11:14

I have seen japanese companies do that time and time again... mostly Subaru, Toyota, and Honda.

If something isn't a home run, it languishes until it's cancellation, and then is never seen again.

See, this is exactly what Mazda did with the FD-3S . Dynamically, the car was a homerun. A legend.

But it flopped because the formula wasn't right. It was only sold in America 3 model years before it was withdrawn and allowed to linger in the JDM for another 7 before being quietly killed off with no replacement.

It's been 11 years now, and there's still no replacement. And no vehicle for the 16X, making its production prospects less likely, as well.

So why would Mazda spend all that time and money adhering to an unsuccessful formula that got the RX-7 killed off in the first place?

If it didn't work for Mazda then, what makes you think it'll work now? Or ever again?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I think Mazda could design a proper RX-7 off of ND, with better performance than the FD-3S, at a lower price. And I'd rather have that than no RX-7 ever again.

Which is what we have now.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/15/2013 at 11:26

The RX7 didn't kill itself off because of it's own stats, design, or anything else.

There was a one-two punch... CAFE regulations that greatly favored trucks, spawning the SUV boom, combined with monetary exchange rates that made japanese cars too prohibitively expensive.

MR2. Supra. 300ZX. 3000GT/Stealth. Eclipse/Talon. SVX and 2.5RS Impreza, Eventually NSX as well. Even the Camaro and Firebird, made in north america didn't survive the coupe-icide of the 1990s.

Some lasted longer than others, but they all demised in the mid-late 1990s, and a few stragglers in the early 2000s.

Some have come back. Others have not. But the demise of all of those cars, within a decade, is not because all the cars were bad. Arguably they were the last great coupes before safety regulations made modern coupes much bulkier and heavier than necessary.

RX7 didn't languish because it was a bad car that nobody liked, it was a victim of government-influenced economics.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/15/2013 at 11:47

The RX-7 was killed off in 1995.

The last Supra, MR2, and SVX ran twice as long in America as the FD-3S. The Z32 ran 7 years in America. The 3000GT ran almost 4x as long . The NSX ran almost 5x as long . The Eclipse ran 22 years through 4 generations, 16 of those coming after the RX-7 was canned. The 2.5RS Impreza was a stopgap precursor to the WRX.

CAFE regs didn't kill off the RX-7. Are you seriously suggesting that people who bought trucks in the '90s would have bought an RX-7 instead if it weren't for CAFE? CAFE hadn't changed since the '80s, for crying out loud!

The RX-7 got a massive price hike for its 3rd generation. It went from an affordable 100hp small sports car in 1979 to a Lexus-priced Corvette-fighter in 1993. And it flopped. Badly. It flopped worse than all its competitors . It was excellent (except for the bone-jarring ride, the lack of reliability, and the high price), but it flopped. Badly.

It was the shortest-lived of all the RX-7s (on the American market). It was the shortest-lived of all the Japanese sports cars of the '90s.

Why would Mazda want to repeat a formula that killed the RX-7 in the first place?

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/15/2013 at 12:07

300ZX was introduced far before RX7, but killed off at about the same time.

SVX was unchanged and sold off remaining inventory for it's last year.

NSX was unchanged for almost all of those years, and refreshed shortly before the end... and was intended to be more expensive, and was likened not to an expensive japanese car, but a cheaper alternative to a Ferrari. It was slightly insulated by it's market placement, but still languished before it's cancellation, rather than being truly re-designed for a second generation. Fixed headlights don't count as a re-design.

Eclipse became a FWD uninspired shell of it's former self after the 2nd generation, and is not considered a performance car after it lost it's turbo and AWD options.

2.5RS gave way to WRX... but GD Impreza was not offered as a coupe any longer, and Subaru went for 15 years without any coupe whatsoever, until they started building them for Toyota, now.

Keep in mind, the japanese yen exchange rate was the other half of the problem, not just CAFE... Z32, JZA80 Supra, RX7... even to a certain extent, SVX, SUFFERED for being so expensive due to the exchange rate... The only thing more complex about the FD-3S than a turbo FC-3S was the dual turbo system. Otherwise, it wasn't drastically mechanically different... the price increase was not due to the car, but due to the economy.

Pair that unfavorable exchange rate with the US government penalizing automakers with thirsty performance cars in their fleets, and not being as strict with trucks... and Mazda sold MPVs, B-series trucks as re-badged rangers, and re-badged Ford Escapes as Tributes, CX7s, CX9s, now CX5s... instead. Multiple 'light truck' options, while only the Miata lives on. They didn't even have the business case to sell the NB Miata Coupe in the US, nor did they actually build the Miata based Kabura concept as a production car. I wish they had.

It isn't that I don't like the premise of the car you are proposing. I don't think enough other people will buy it, if it doesn't reach out and GRAB people by the face, and make them notice, the way FD did.

And if it doesn't the people who love the FD RX-7, in some numbers, maybe not all, will not adopt it. If the Mazda rotary enthusiast community is not wholly behind it, it won't be seen by others as being a proper successor.

That is all too much pre-existing baggage for any new car to really handle.

I am trying to suggest ways in which the car you suggest won't be at a distinct disadvantage before it is even up for sale, and the possibility of it not being hampered by other people's expectations, even if you don't have those expectations. Mark my words, other people will have them.

CAFE regs made it more expensive for any company selling passenger cars as performance cars with poor fuel economy... and RX7 was not a fuel miser.

Companies shifted fleet averages, and advertising focus to truck-based SUVs, and coupe and station wagon sales plummeted to the ground, and SUV sales skyrocketed... so people with disposable income during the 90's bought SUVs, rather than a sports car. Maybe not enthusiasts as much, but the general population did, and the aggregated sales stats show it.

I am trying to make the point that you and I may like a car, but if it isn't WIDELY popular, to some extent beyond the car-geeks, it won't sell well enough to succeed, and they get cancelled.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/15/2013 at 12:28

It wasn't just the yen that was responsible, though. And again, CAFE hadn't really changed for over a decade.

The Z32, FD-3S, 3000GT, A80 Supra, and SVX were all bigger, more luxurious, and more technologically advanced than the vehicles they replaced. All of that added to their bottom lines, as well.

And again, why was the FD-3S so short-lived in the world's biggest auto market when every other Japanese performance coupe lived much, much longer?

Again, the RX-7 had evolved from a car with half the power of the Corvette to one that competed with it in price and performance by its 3rd generation.

And are you seriously suggesting that CAFE had something to do with the NB Miata coupe never making it here? The NB coupe would have helped Mazda's CAFE ratings with every unit sold.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > AMC/Renauledge
11/15/2013 at 12:48

CAFE took a big step forward in 1995, after the previous decade. And automakers took notice. Coupes and station wagons were scaled way back, in favor of two and four-door SUVs, Sedans didn't take as much of a hit, because they are a stalwart traditional purchase.

Z32, Supra, MR2, FD-3S all left the US market, and continued in Japan until 1999.

I am saying that the coupe sales fall off, and the US market shift as a whole, away from coupes as performance cars, to V8 SUVs, made the target market too small for the NB coupe to be considered in the US. Not that Miata gets bad gas mileage, but the automaker marketing response to shift passenger car sales to SUV sales was effective, and niche car sales suffered as a result. Enthusiasts are not a big enough demographic to make up for that.

NB coupe wouldn't have made a drop's worth of difference to Mazda's fleet average, and would have probably not sold enough to break even on the costs to federalize the coupe variant, and import it.

You and I may have wanted one, and I know I did, as well as the NC-based Kabura, but it didn't happen, because the market wasn't there.

On a market segment that small, a failure is death for a product, if it can't be profitable.

And an RX7 that has an immediate hurdle to clear due to part of it's own model history, is behind the 8-ball before the first unit is sold.

I don't want that obstacle to success, so I would rather it bear another name to side-step that hurdle. A different name make it no less of a good idea, it just makes it unencumbered.

If it is as close to an MX5 Miata as you suggest, frankly, it SHOULD wear and RX5 badge, and embrace it's similarity. And frankly, it would probably do better as a folding-hardtop spyder (think of a F458 or MP4-12C Spider style car, built with similar materials to the current NC folding hard-top) than a strictly fixed-roof coupe, to still have the lifestyle aspect of the Miata to help sell it.

Any help it can get, and as few obstacles to overcome as possible. The market penetration of that type of niche car is so small to begin with, that any help positively, or any obstacle negatively, can make the difference between profit and loss, survival or cancellation.

The Mini Speedster and Coupe are languishing, mostly on looks alone. But imagine if the Speedster and Coupe were mid-engined, instead... the FWD drivetrain swapped to the back of the car, basically like a FWD corolla drivetrain in the back of an AW-11 MR2... And if the coupe didn't have the ridiculous backwards-cap roof spoiler nonsense...

Imagine if Mini had the only affordable RWD mid-engined runabouts on the market, either fixed or folding roof...

They'd be making a lot more waves than they currently aren't.

A car with such a small niche needs to be bold, and not encumbered by obstacles... it is too easy for niche cars to fail, and most product planners abandon ideas, rather than learning from them, and re-risking a refined second attempt.

I ****LIKE*** your idea of a rotary-powered Miata, with a fixed roof, or a folding roof, rigid or not...

But saddling it with a bunch of baggage to overcome is going to put it at a disadvantage that it doesn't NEED to be saddled with, simply with another digit in the name.

AMC/Renauledge > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
11/15/2013 at 13:21

Even with a different body? Even with better performance than the RX-8 and FD-3S?

If Subaru and Toyota can make a credible, affordable, successful RWD performance coupe with only 200hp, Mazda can. Maybe calling it RX-5 would be better. But at 500lbs less than the Toyobarus and 50hp more, it absolutely would grab people by the face and make them take notice. I think it would absolutely do justice to the RX-7 name, at a price that would ensure success.

And a coupe Miata with the same 4cyl engine wouldn't have flown. But make it rotary-exclusive, with all that power, and it would definitely find its own niche. Especially with different body styling.

But at this point, we've argued our perspectives pretty thoroughly. I think we can respectfully agree to disagree.