Curious: who would buy a new RX7?
 

If Mazda manages to get a new RX7 out with the 16X (google it), under 2700 lbs., with 280+ hp, who else here would want one?

I'm just curious how die-hard the die-hard Z fans are ; )

I'd probably wait until the second year to make sure they have a chance to correct mistakes in the motor, but if they could get the look right, I think I'd have to trade in the Z for one (*600* lbs lighter with a larger rotary would be pretty sweet). It means dropping some of those torques, but it could be fun...

If I were to get a RX7, it would not be this model.
I would probably wait 2 years...
I don't like mazda but the RX7 is an impressive car.

I wouldnt consider it if they was still trying to sell the rotary design. No power and no gas milage? holy crap sign me up onto that fail boat!

i dont care if its light weight, not every thing is "the track" for me.

I will go ahead and not order one now. I like the nissans.

I wouldnt buy one, like the posts before mention under powered for its price range not to mention those things are so unreliable. I dont care too much about the weight factor seriously. If i really need to shave weight ill join weight watchers(jk) or carbon fiber my ride either way itll benefit us both. But its the unreliability thing that gets me.

um..power to weight ratio and power per cubic inch is incredible for rotary engines....they just make very small engines. The current version is only 1.3 liters. The new 1.6 liter engine is going to make almost 300 HP and it's going aluminum to further reduce weight. If they can keep the vehicle weight down to 2700 lbs, this is going to be a serious car. As far as reliability, I drove an RX7 for almost 10 years and only put about $200 worth of maintenance into it.

If the acceleration was better than the 370Z stock for stock, I might have to trade up.

from kellybluebook
Rotary, 1.3 Liter
232 @ 8500 RPM
159 @ 5500 RPM
16 mpg City / 22 mpg Hwy
Curb Weight 3064 lbs.

The only thing impressive with those facts i listed is the 1.3L can achieve that power, but actualy owning it, i think thats a different story.

Not impressed with this current rotary design.

Maybe new one is better? but i am going to dout it.

All i can see is a 1.6L engine getting 14/20 MPG and still not being faster than any other car. Then again what do i know im a novice to this stuff.

I doubt there will be to much difference (if Mazda makes those numbers). But an RX7 at 2700lbs can be made so sticky on the track, it ain't funny.

That's a smaller engine in a bigger car introduced in 2003. We are talking about the RX7 that significantly boosts power AND significantly reduces weight. Whether they can actually make those numbers is a different story. We heard all kinds of rumors of the 370Z being under 3000 lbs before it's launch. The RX7 does get to chop out the back seats so it should be a good bit lighter in any case.

The RX7 would have the benefit of being based on a Miata platform, which only weighs ~2400 lbs. in current form (and is supposedly getting even lighter).

Unfortunately for the Z, it's based on a sedan platform.

I personally worry that Mazda won't get the styling right on the RX, which is one of the reasons I'm going for the Z now. I think I'll be very very happy with the Z for at least three years. Then - we'll see... it's all about the :driving:

The FD3S,300ZX, and the GT-R34 are some of my favorite sports car. So far the 370Z and GT-R have done a fine job at continuing its legacy but the RX-8 is a huge disappointment. Hopefully the RX-7 16x can do a better job to revive the old FD3S legacy.

I've driven a rotary for a month, long story short - I got tired of having to rev up to 7k just to get on to the interstate, in addition to the horrific gas mileage, the engine had major leaks (well at least in the early models)
If I am paying for the gas millage of a gallardo and getting acceleration of a civic, something is wrong.

I don't see a future in rotary gasoline engines, sorry if I offended any rotary supporters

Which model?

$200.00, you've got to be kidding me? How often did you drive it? less than 36K over a span of 10 years?

Nah, not me.

I'm more curious about the new Toyota/Subaru 086A prototype. Never been a fan of rotary power but the FD RX-7 was a work of art.

I would stick with the 370

I hoped this site would not have some who respond in ways that show their ignorance.

The rotary when NA is a bulletproof engine. HELLO!! LEMANS AND ROLEX 24 winner!!! They are very durable.


Not sure if the acceleration numbers would best the Z, but the new 7 WILL best it on the track if numbers all remain the same as today. Gas milage?? PEOPLE... REDUCED WEIGHT = what? And don't even say the new, larger engine will make up the difference as one of Mazda's corporate goals is to increase gas mileage by 20% I believe. That will translate to much improved milage for this new 7.

I will counter myself and say... I also am suspect about the styling. I LOVE my MS RX8; I am hesitant about the new 7. Also, by the time this 7 comes out with its 270-300 HP 16x Rotary, the Z will have DI!

All that said: I have decided to wait until 2010 for more news from Mazda on this car. As it stands right now, I will get the Z.

$200 not including repetative maint such as oil changes, etc. 110,000 miles, 1 carb rebuild kit and one alternator. Clutch was barely hanging on when I sold it.

Actually gas mileage is a weak point of the rotary design. Strengths are simplicity (1/3 the moving parts) and power to weight ratio. Almost all ultralite aircraft use rotary engines because of this. The ideal setup would be the Rotary in the Lotus Exirge body. Torque is somewwhat a product of displacement so a small rotary = small torque much like a Mustang has less HP but more torque due to it's engine than a 370Z. As far as performance window possibilites, look at the RX7 to the 370Z much like the 370Z to the new Camaro. :D

Not trying to hate on rx8. I daily drive far more than i will ever track. To this day i still have not step foot on any track but i would love to. So this is why i focus on subpar MPG with no power. For a daily driver the 370z hits the spot.

The rx8 has its advantages just they dont happen to be any advantage for "me".

I'd like to see an actual unveiling of what the production model would look like not chopped images and art school design projects. But for now my answer is NO.

For me, the everyday low end torque of the 350Z and better acceleration compared to the RX8 decided the issue. A lot depends on when the new RX7 actually comes out as to whether it even gets a look.

What you have quoted is the RX-8's specs, not the last RX-7. No disrespect to RX-8 owners, but Mazda always said the RX-8 is NOT a direct RX-7 successor.

The last RX-7 was a pure sports car. The '98-'02 models, which were never sold in the US, were rated at 280 hp and Curb weight was about 2750 lbs in the sportier trims.

(But dynos in Japan had it closer to 300 hp. Recall in the '90s there was a gentlemen's agreement in Japan not to exceed 280 hp, even the GT-R was rated 280 hp.)

I owned a '93 RX-7, bought new back in the day. But I wouldn't buy the future 16x version unless the hp is more than 300 and the weight truly is kept at about a flat 2700. Otherwise, it's not any faster than the former RX-7 it replaces (and again I'm not talking about the RX-8).

Then of course there's looks. I'm not a fan of the current Mazda styling trends. In fact, I still prefer the looks of most of the '90s era cars over the styling of their current counterparts.

Looks wise:

Z32 > Z33 (But it's a close toss up between the Z32 & Z34)
RX7 > RX8
Original Miata > current one
R34 GT-R > R35 GT-R (Sorry, the new car's performance is a beast, but its looks are not for me.)
MR2 > MRS
Supra > ? well, you get the idea

When I see the word "Rotary", I think of 3 magic words:

"Apex Seal Failure"

Close after that, is "Shitty Gas Mileage"

I think I'll also stick with my Z, nothing Mazda has appeals to me but to each their own.

For the turbo versions.... NA version = not so much.

I know full well of the 8's challenges and I will be the first to admit it cannot even stand in the same 'city' as the 370z. But the proposed RX7 will give the Z a run for its money if all things remain equal as of today. BUT... we know they will not.

Now.. I would be curious to see what BMW does with the next 1series with their 300HP twin turbo 4 and lighter weight. There is suppose to be a true M version of that car. Hmmmmm.... Too many choices and strategies at play here....

I remember hearing that somehow the "true" displacement of a rotary was in actuality double what they say it is, but I cant remember why...I'll have to look into it...

That's how they were rated on the racing circuit after kicking mucho asso in GTU racing.
*****
In 1991, Mazda became the first Japanese manufacturer to win the 24 hours of Le Mans. The car was a 4-rotor prototype class car, the 787B. The FIA outlawed rotary engines shortly after this win. To this day the rotary powered Mazda is the only Japanese manufacturer to have ever won the prestigious 24 hour Le Mans race outright.[citation needed]

Mazda began racing RX-7s in the IMSA GTU series in 1979. That first year, RX-7s placed first and second at the 24 Hours of Daytona, and claimed the GTU series championship. The car continued winning, claiming the GTU championship seven years in a row. The RX-7 took the GTO championship ten years in a row from 1982. The RX-7 has won more IMSA races than any other car model.
******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-7

You are correct. It is actually 1.3L per rotor, so technically it is a 2.6. So you essentially have a 2.6L rotary engine that has the low end power of a 4-cylinder and the gas mileage of a V-8. Not real impressive when you look at it that way.

For the record, I will consider one but for now I am considering the 370 or the slightly improved RX8 R3 or just holding on to mine until there is some concrete info about the new rotary. Even more important to me than the power, if they can't do something about the gas mileage I dont think I could pull the trigger. I know the 8 is a performance car, but I cant accept the fact that with my mostly highway driving commute to work I still only manage about 20mpg. I know 2 people that have 350zs with a similar commute and they manage close to 30mpg.

This is incorrect. From the WIKI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Wankel_engine
*****
In auto racing, the displacement of a Wankel engine is usually doubled for classing purposes. For Japanese tax purposes, the displacement of Wankel engines is defined as the equivalent of 1.5 times the nominal displacement. So the 1.3 L 13B engines count as just under 2.0 L for these purposes.

The 13B is the most widely produced engine. It was the basis for all future Mazda Wankel engines, and was produced for almost 30 years. The 13B has no relation to the 13A. Instead, it is a lengthened version of the 12A, having 80 mm (3.1 in) thick rotors. Each rotor had a displacement of 654 cc, for a total of 1308 cc displacement in the engine.
*****
The upped cc measurement was strictly for balancing racing capabilities.

Interesting...

More interesting is the R26B 2.6 liter 4-rotor engine they built (kinda two 13B's wedged together) that makes 700hp. :D

Its true if you grandma at 60-65 you can obtain those numbers in the 350z. But i dont know about my 370z i have not driven it enough, i am suspecting grandma'ing it will achieve 28mpg. Thats what i have seen on a long highway drive no nasty hills.

Long highway rides, relatively flat, cruise set to 75. I get 28.5mph in the 370Z.

Houston to Louisiana and back with cruise set around 80 MPH about 90% of the time = between 26 and 27 MPG in 2006 350Z Auto.

I just saw an old 93 era RX-7 on the street today, and that solidified in my mind that no, I would not buy a new styled RX-7. The old one is legendary, much like the Supra of the same age, and every new concept for a potential new model that comes out just pails in comparison. The current one in particular just doesn't look right at all.

I owned one of those, great car, very fast and handled great, but the twin turbos usually went at about 75,000 miles, and was very expensive to replace.

John