What an absolutely beautiful car and the return of the triangle. Really hope we get a price point on it sometime soon, because I think I have found my new dream car.
Fuk ii like it ai
>>13815290
I doubt they'll say anything about price until maybe 2017.
I'd guess 38k-49.8k base.
There's always the chance they'll ruin everything by making it NA and price it to compete with the 370z, though.
Now, if only the driver could see anywhere but almost straight up.
Looks like shite, m8
>>13815986
lmao, faam
>>13815290
>What an absolutely beautiful car
bullshit
>>13816672
>>13816676
lmao mad that the god machine is going to be dorito powered
>>13815290
The price worries me. They can literally put any pricetag on it, upwards of 50K, just because it's "muh rx7" and "muh triangle engine"
thats ugly af tbqh
>>13816726
no shit its going to be be 60+k
would be stupid to expect different
>>13816219
This thing will be 55k easy. Hell, a loaded miata costs 35k
>>13816731
Yeah I wouldn't really be surprised if it starts at low 50k. A Shelby GT350 starts at 53k, I think. The one with carbon fiber wheels and shit is like 11k more.
But at that cost, they'd have to match performance a Cayman GT4, and not just the more usual Caymans, I think.
Mazda is good at making good value, so I feel they'll shoot for the lowest price they reasonably can make the car they want at, and not just mark it up "because doritos".
Mazda is never gonna make another production rotary powered car.
this version will be 100K+ and in limited numbers just 2 make the fanboys's dicks hard.
>>13817740
>Pistonfag worried his pushshit will get BTFO
>"Guys i-it will n-never happen!!1! R-rotary engines are proved to not work"
>yfw Mazda engineers BASED AF
>yfw rotary are no more inherently designed then piston engines
>yfw you realize it's habbening
>>13815290
Hopefully the production version isn't a mile long and has windows.
base price of $35-40k if the RX-8 is anything to go by.
>tfw no glorious new good looking dorito
i like rotaries but it looks like shit
>>13818468
Probably closer to look at FD prices, so $50 - 60k. Unless they make a non turbo version as well like the FC. Some could say the FC and FB were much cheaper than the FD and they might price it like that, but those two cars were around before the Miata. At the very cheapest, maybe a turbo version would be around 40k. The FC was like that.
>>13818503
PROTIP: the base model won't have a turbo. they may not even have a turbo available at launch
>>13815290
I think it's going to be a double Dorito, well I can wish
>>13819395
Why. So far they have only said it will have a turbo. That doesn't mean it won't have a non turbo version, but it will have a turbo at launch and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turbo only. Also consider that there have been 6 rotary Mazdas with a turbo, and only halve of them had a non turbo rotary. The 3 with turbo only models were also the newest. I think it is a good chance it will be turbo only, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does have a non turbo.
>>13815290
needs new front, and to not be so flat
But I like how long it looks
>>13819395
There probably won't even be a base model
This is more FD RX7 than RX8
>>13820917
The NA 1.6L should be making at least 300hp, and Mazda has literally zero history of caring about HP wars. With 300+ hp in a sub-3000lb car, it should be more than fast enough for what Mazda wants.
Not to mention that Mazda's track record shows that turbo+rotary=poor reliability.
>>13820982
It will probably be somewhere between the FD and the RX-8.
>>13821002
fair chance this won't be rotary at all
unless they go hybrid
>>13817740
Being a pessimist must have you drowning in pussy.
Do you guys look into anything at all before you make threads or just see a picture and suddenly it's your "dream car" yet you weren't interested in it enough to see if it will even be produced! Eleventeen year olds the lot of you. There's no new rotary engine. Look it up. It's a concept. That's it.
>>13821078
>Global Rule #2: You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.
>>13821078
>guaranteed replies
![Mazda-Shinari-Concept[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gYmL6tY.jpg "Mazda-Shinari-Concept[1].jpg")
>>13821010
>rx vision
>not rotary
>it's just a concept gaiz
So was this, in 2010.
![2011-mazda-takeri-concept-1_1600x0w[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0UTcCaP.jpg "2011-mazda-takeri-concept-1_1600x0w[1].jpg")
>>13821131
This was the concept from 2011-12.
![01-2014-mazda6-lt[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/j90hcLN.jpg "01-2014-mazda6-lt[1].jpg")
>>13821141
This came out in late 2013 as a 2014 model.
>>13821131
>>13821141
>>13821150
This. Mazda typically makes pretty wild concepts, so when it's as tame as the RX Vision then there is a good chance they are looking to go to production.
>>13821010
Except for the part where they explicitly said it would be rotary
>>13821131
What is your point? Are you saying because a previous concept looks like a production car then that means mazdas developed a new rotary engine? Excellent correlation!
>>13821131
>>13821141
>>13821150
>pistonfags face when they realize they will get btfo turbo hard in 2018
>>13821165
>pistonfag in denial
>He knows it's all over if the rotary comes back
>yfw you realize you should have waited for 2018 instead of buy that C7
>>13821131
>>13821141
you can't see the difference between this and the RX Vision?
literally eleventeen year olds
>>13821172
>PISTONFAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH
lol retard
![mercedes-benz-intelligent-aerodynamic-automobile-concept-2015-frankfurt-auto-show_100527784_l[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YUDKqjB.jpg "mercedes-benz-intelligent-aerodynamic-automobile-concept-2015-frankfurt-auto-show_100527784_l[1].jpg")
>>13821131
There's different types of concept car.
The RX Vision is firmly in the hopes and dreams category right now.
![mazda-cosmo-3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YXCC4kv.jpg "mazda-cosmo-3[1].jpg")
>>13821165
The 16x existed years ago, they've said it's working well and they're talking about using a turbo.
The Mazda Cosmo came out in 1967, do the math.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHzeGEHWMjo
>>13821221
>expecting a tripfag to have any idea what he's talking about
I guess the joke is on me.
>>13821186
>am a full on mazda fanboi. Owned 2. Favorite manufacturer. Nice try. Loved the concept just saying they don't have a fucking engine.
>>13821236
Please tell me all the facts about this conceptual engine that never went into production great wizard.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Qk659gz.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>13821242
>concept cars that stayed concepts
sorry, i don't understand your point
![ND_Wheelbase_zps2ee0cab2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Pef8oBK.jpg "ND_Wheelbase_zps2ee0cab2[1].jpg")
>>13821221
Is it?
What did the wheelbase of the ND end up being, and when was the last time Mazda had an FR car with gill vents like that?
>>13821254
hella JDM camber
mad swag
vapin while scrapin
>>13821189
>thinking piston fags aren't on suicide watch
![583883639XX025_MAZDA_At_Tok[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6VmOBxA.jpg "583883639XX025_MAZDA_At_Tok[1].jpg")
>>13821253
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/27/mazda-debuts-new-gen-rotary-in-taiki-show-car/
>2007
I'm sure you're not talking about a presentation you haven't watched.
>>13821254
The point is that when Mazda makes crazy shit like the cars in that picture, they stay concepts. When Mazda makes something as toned down as the RX Vision concept, it means they are close to going to production.
Try to keep up, tripfag.
>>13815290
no way those headlights make it to production.
![Mercedes-Benz-Vision_CLS_Concept_2003_800x600_wallpaper_15[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aZTBagk.jpg "Mercedes-Benz-Vision_CLS_Concept_2003_800x600_wallpaper_15[1].jpg")
>>13821294
the shibari was a statement of intent for future design language, the takeri was a 6 concept, made in the knowledge of what a production 6 would end up looking like.
>close to going to production
yes i'm sure they're revving up that skyactive-r production line right now, just waiting for the apex seals to be delivered.
the rx-vision might have a chance if it had a conventional drivetrain like the 6. it might look toned down but the proposed drivetrain puts it in the same league as those other concepts.
>>13820917
It would be stupid to make two versions. Making two versions will take twice as much testing and regulations work, as well as needing two different rotors.
They're almost surely going to make it turbo only and it'll cost at least 38.5k for sure.
>>13821002
>The NA 1.6L should be making at least 300hp, and Mazda has literally zero history of caring about HP wars. With 300+ hp in a sub-3000lb car, it should be more than fast enough for what Mazda wants.
Of course they care. Look at what they did with the FD.
They CLAIM they don't care so they don't sound confident about the low power cars they make now, because MPG sells and they don't want to lose sales to the sports car enthusiasts at the same time they pander to the casuals.
300 HP with how peaky and untorquey that motor would be is not enough to sell cars that at that price point.
Mazda will fail again if they try an compete with the 370z at the same price like they did with the RX8 instead of trying to compete with the Cayman, M2, 4C, etc at a lower price.
300 HP (and ~200 lb-ft of torque) is no matter much like it was 8 years ago when they claimed that.
>>13821529
That's what I thought. If there is only one version I would bet that it will be turbo. I don't know why you picked 38.5k specifically, but I would bet more than that. Probably high 40s to low 50s base price.
Maybe it will be cheaper though. There were some FD models in Japan that cost less than 3 million yen, which would have been something like 24k USD. That was in 2000. I doubt it would be that cheap in the US, probably not even Japan any more.
>>13821160
>>13821189
>>13821242
>>13821221
The past 4 years they've made every concept into a production car. Why would the VX-Vision be different?
The concept isn't far off from a production car like some of that other shit.
The engineers and CEO have all spoken as if they are making it, and that they'll have something else to show (either production version or a rotary race car) in 2017.
>>13821243
They've been working on it for 8 years on and off.
Mazda have said many times in the past that while they have no rotary powered car in the pipeline for production, that they are still working on an engine to eventually go in one.
The CEO, who said they had no plans for a rotary car back 2-3 years ago, is now saying they are now making one. You're so retarded you don't even believe the CEO of a company that changed his mind on it?
>>13821609
>The past 4 years they've made every concept into a production car. Why would the VX-Vision be different?
the engine doesn't exist. at all.
>>13821262
The ND wheelbase is 91.1", 2313mm, buddy.
There was no MX-5 with a 94.1" wheelbase. Why do you repeatedly post that bullshit? Holy shit.
>>13815290
>Beautiful
>>13821635
Sure it isn't finalized. But they've said they have a few years for their engineers to solve the problems.
They said they're doing it, but they're not putting a date on it, since they don't know if they can solve the problems with the current 16x in 1-2 years, but they're trying to.
>>13821653
Furai is better than this.
>>13821661
tell me more about your engineering credentials
>NA 1.6L making 300-325hp
>light hybrid system
>less than 3000 lbs
>base price of $35k-$40k
take it to the bank
>>13821679
>NA 1.6L making 400-425hp
>light hybrid system with double VTAK
>less than 1000 lbs
>base price of $13k-$14k
PISTONFAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH AM I RITE?
>>13821663
Furai was the greatest car of all time, hard to beat
>>13821691
>Twin Turbo Vtec inline rotary 2JZ
>500hp
>under 2000lbs
>25k
>>13821733
Why was there never an attempt to make another?
>>13821760
Probably cost. At the time there were no concrete plans for the Furai, and there wasn't much to gain from building another expensive super car. Sometimes I dream that somewhere Mazda is working on a new one, that is faster, lighter, cooler, meaner, sexier and even more radical. I can't imagine a world where the Furai become a real race car, or even a production car. Just think about a three rotor, 1500lb Japanese hyper car. It would change the sports car world.
>>13821635
>the engine doesn't exist. at all.
>at all.
Except it does if you're going to say "at all". They have prototypes. They're not as modern as they need to be, and there is still problems to solve, but Mazda's head of R&D said that they are going to be starting new prototype testing on a engine very soon.
If you're going to say there is no production ready engine that has passed all the testing and certifications, then sure, that's true. But that's true of tons of cars. That's true of the new R8 and GT-R coming next year, too. So what the fuck is your point? Either way you're spewing shit.
>>13821760
>>13821798
The Furai was never intended to be more than a concept. It already did the publicity tour, and there was little incentive to build a second.
>>13821679
They said they likely won't make a hybrid, but the next gen one after this one is likely to be hybrid.
And they said it'll be lighter than a Cayman. The FE3S, at least.
>>13821808
I can assure you if there is a GTR coming next year the engine "exists".
You don't seem to understand how production works.
>>13821809
The project leader said himself they wanted it to race in Le mans or another series, and mentioned the possibility of a production car
>>13821985
The only way they can race in Le Mans is by using a GTE class car, as far as I'm aware.
Rotary are banned from LMP classes.
And the GTE class would probably be unwinnable since they have to have a minimum weight of like 2750lb when the production car is probably going to weigh that. They can't just increase the displacement from 1.6l to 2.0l or whatever either if it's not what the production car uses, and there are restrictors that hurt rotary more. So they would have to run with a car with a far far worse power-weight ratio than they could actually make based on the production chassis, and it wouldn't be able to breath nearly what it could breath, and it'd be far lower displacement even when you double it than the Ford GT and C7 they'd be racing against.
So it's basically hopeless unless FIA changes rules.
>>13822035
IIRC American Le mans hasn't banned rotaries.
>>13822047
You mean United SportsCar Championship.
But do people car about United SportsCar Championship victories?
It looks like they'd be allowed and competitive in all but the GTLM class, at least.
Air restrictors by their nature hurt rotaries more since rotaries can breath more than a piston engine ever can for any given 1/2 displacement if there was no restrictor.
Air restrictors are fucking stupid, and should have been replaced by fuel limits long ago, anyway.
But other than that, yeah I guess they could race in USCC, but who cares?
>>13817761
Looks like an /o/ cars of the future shoop, powered by a lolnotorque dorito, rice price tag because of MUH RX7.
Litterally everyone who praises mazda drive some shitty rusted Mazda3 or 6 and circlejerk to the miata and RX's because mazda has never made anything half decent apart from those cars. Wooow broo soo jdm!!!
All this hype and I guarantee this car will be a fucking flop just like the RX8 was.
>>13821985
>The project leader said himself they wanted it to race in Le mans or another series, and mentioned the possibility of a production car
And people in hell want ice water. But as >>13822035 said, there wasn't a feasible path to get to Le Mans.
>>13822117
>all this anal annihilation
>>13822125
>he has an opinion, he must be mad about how great this car will be!
>>13822143
>the pooper pain keeps flowing
>>13822143
>he is shouting his opinion like he thinks anyone cares
>projecting about owning shit boxes
>typical jab at le jdm from redneck sister fucker
yeah bro you aint mad
>>13822120
I mean there's the "lobby FIA" path, but it's not a very good path.
It's expensive and FIA can just ban them again after rotary BTFOs all the boing boing engines, which wastes a lot of money for Mazda.
>>13822117
>All this hype and I guarantee this car will be a fucking flop just like the RX8 was.
RX8 wasn't a flop. It did decent compared to Mazda's general sales. They never had the sames of Toyota, Honda, or Nissan. They were always the smallest Japanese company.
It got good reviews, and is still renouned for its handling today. Yeah it wasn't a super-sportscar like the FD, or Cayman, or whatever. But for a 4 door sportscar it was in a class of its own at the time, just underpowered, sure.
It wasn't what RX7 owners wanted, but it wasn't a flop. It was a different car.
Also, it was apparently Ford who pressured Mazda to make the next RX a four door.
Mazda has 50 rotard engineers working there who want nothing more than to make a serious rotary powered car like the FD again.
50 engineers who have been making the skyactiv piston engines that are more efficient than any others, don't have the carbon build up problems that affect many other GDI engines, that are super light weight, and making these amazing chassis.
They are only there, doing that to prove themselves to Kogai-sama so he will release the chains on Fujiwara-kami and allow him and his team of rotards to unleash the G O D M A C H I N E upon the world. Prepare your noose, pistonkek.
>>13822117
I guess the RX-8 was so much of a flop they sold it for 10 years straight.
![1446047555470[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/N6advfU.png "1446047555470[1].png")
>>13822153
Well Mazda say they want to make RWD cars, which generally is a safer bet than making dorito powered 2 strokes (given that even making diesels clean enough for future regs will be hard work) so this might be a styling exercise for a future coupe.
Probably 4 seat to start with, then maybe (wishful thinking) use the power plant to make something more like what the jap bloke talked about to rival the Cayman and F-Type.
I'd rather it was an i4 turbo or hybrid than never get made.
>>13822153
RX8 hurt Mazda's rep, so I'd say they'd consider it a failure in hindsight.
>>13822191
ur retarded
>>13822152
>3 replies
I guess people do, shitlord
>>13822191
>dorito powered 2 strokes
What... Rotary engines have 4 strokes. They just finish four stroked in one rotation of the rotor. Personally, I may go as far as to say I would rather it not get made then be an I4 turbo, but that would be just blind fanboyism at that point. Any more sports cars is good, even if they aren't made the way fans want it to be. If they made it an I4, you might as well just make a stretched Miata coupe platform. The passion would be gone. I'm sure it would sell, lots of people would've loved the old Rx7s to be I4 turbos because the chassis were so good, but I would lose a lot of interest.
I don't think the Rx8 is a flop. Mazda fans and 90s JDM fans compare it to the Rx7 and say it is a flop, but that comparison isn't really fair. The Rx8 was much cheaper than the Rx7 and had a usable back seat. The mission statement was just entirely different, which is a double edged sword. The chassis was ultra stiff (it took inspiration from the S2000s fantastic X-bone design, but put a roof on it and more bracing), and had very good suspension, but the added doors made it too long and heavy which took away from it's nimbleness. The engine is the same way, a powerful n/a rotary is cool, but it is hard to extract much power from it with turbo or porting like the previous ones. The car has it's faults, but it sold well and I think it will make a great used car 5 years from now for builds. Imo, one day I wouldn't be surprised if the Rx8 and 350Z are like the 240SX and FC (but not as good or cool...)
>>13822318
>mfw the RX-8 had a backseat and two extra doors and still weighed less than the 350Z
>tfw the RX-9 isn't powered by a pair of doritos
>it's powered by three doritos
>>13822339
Nissan is shit these days and they have no signs of ever being good again.
But people keep buying their cars.
>>13822357
At least they aren't Toyota.
>>13822355
>tfw you're not powered by a triangle
>>13822355
Hm.
If the RX-8 got 230hp from 1.3l, then a new 2.4l 3 rotor with DI should get over 400 HP, right? Maybe even 500 HP with bigger ignition and direct injection?
I'd rather have a variable geometry turbo 1.6l, though.
>>13822364
I dunno. The FR-S/BR-Z has a lot more soul than the 370Z.
Boxer engine, 2+2, light weight.
It's traction control is awful and the FR-S is ugly, though.
>>13822369
Also Toyota is aiming to have a 3 sports car lineup and I think they're upping the FR-S power.
They'll have the S-FR, FR-S with 220-250hp, and the Supra.
It's not like the FR-S is just a RWD Camry or something stupid like that that you could totally see Toyota doing.
>>13822339
>>13822357
>Honda is coming out with a new NSX
>Toyota has the recently introduced 86, plus the SFR and a new Supra in the works
>Mazda just released the ND and is working on a new RX
>Nissan has nothing new at all
It's like Nissan isn't even trying.
>>13822375
What do you mean? Doesn't look like Honda is even trying with the NSX, either.
Nissan had the IDx which was fucking awesome, and they dropped it. They're the worst company now.
>>13822375
No nissan has new shit but its just that shit
>>13822369
Being tail-happy isn't the same thing as driving soul.
>>13822382
>/o/ jizzes their pants over the Rally Fighter
>somehow the GripZ is a bad thing
I don't even like Nissan, but come on.
![0fc[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6f6uA4q.jpg "0fc[2].jpg")
>>13822392
>>13822357
Nissan hasn't been good since 2002. The year the Z32, Silvia and real Skylines died. The 350Z and G35 do nothing better than any of those cars. I almost feel like the 350Z was supposed to be a successor to both the Silvia and Z, it has traits of both of them. It just turned out bad though, not being able to do anything that well. The G35 is the V35 Skyline in Japan, which is just awful. No more turbo, heavy (Skylines weren't light, but non awd ones weren't too bad), and pretty much went full on luxury. The GTR is okay, it is really fucking fast but that is about it. It looks bad, it's bloated in every way, more than a computer on wheels than the last one and got even more expensive. The real kicker though, all three of them share the same platform...
>>13822382
>>13822392
I like the GripZ concept. A lot nicer than the Juke.
But it's no IDx and not enough to make them not shit.
>>13822392
If it were a one off or actual concept for another car or be off road worthy it would be hailed as such.
But its supposed to be the replacement for the Z, which is utter bullshit.
![Conceptz[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HON4zFF.jpg "Conceptz[1].jpg")
>>13822395
>this is what we could have had instead of the 350z
>>13822401
I liked how the 350z and 370z looked for the most part.
But they're heavy and shit, bit too short wheelbase with long overhangs for a modern car.
It should be 2700lb. Instead it's 3300.
>>13822398
>its supposed to be the replacement for the Z
And if you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
>>13822407
The looks were the worst part. I could forgive the weight since the Z was always a touring car like the American pony cars, but the z33 and z34 were just way too pigfat. Their lines were a disgrace to the cars that came before them.
>>13822407
The 370z is like 5% larger than an ND MX-5.
167-171" L x 73-74" W x 52" H vs 154" L x 68" W x 49" H
But it's 1000lb heavier than the 2.0l MX-5.
RX-8 had 2 more doors and seats, and was 550lb lighter than then 350z. (350z was 300lb heavier than the 370z even. Christ)
Nissan engineering.
I don't get why they couldn't have the same dimensions, same body, same engine, and make that car like 600lb lighter.
The fuck is all the weight from? It's not a big car. It's a 2 door with 2 seats.
It's not very stiff. I guess it's the cheap steel that Nissan uses.
>>13822364
I disagree, Toyota is more fun right now. The FRS is the only thing they have right now, but soon they will have a new Supra and ultra affordable sports car. A new Soarer is coming too, which is luxury coupe but it is still kind of cool. They have the RC too, even though it wasn't so great.
Nissan on the other hand has had the same two sports cars for 8 years (three if you count the G37). The GTR is supposedly finally being replaced in 2017, but will be even more fat and computerized. The G37 is being replaced by the Q60, but that car is losing any sense of sports car the G37 barely had. The 370Z only concept for replacement is the GripZ so far.
>>13822381
I think Honda is trying, but they are going the wrong way with the car. It is another heavy computer on wheels like the GTR. I'm sure it will be hella fast around a track, but it isn't what it should have been. The NSX should have been the opposite of the GTR, a pure, light, drivers car.
>>13822419
I wonder if we'll get a new MR-2 soon.
>>13822375
Also
>Honda also making a three tiered, mid engined sports car line up (NSX, S660, + something else)
>Mazda looking into luxury cars, or more rwd cars in some way
>>13822421
I doubt it. The FRS fills the same spot the MR2 did in the 90s for Toyota. Unless Toyota decides to make it more expensive or discontinue the FRS for it (not going to happen), I wouldn't hold my breath for one.
>>13822417
It looks nothing like previous z cars, but I like it. Most people I know IRL seem to like it's looks too.
But whatever, that's subjective. It's fatness is not and is plenty to dislike it over.
>>13822419
I guess you're right. Honda is TRYING, and have worked on this car for like 8 years, but it's still coming out shitty.
One of the ugliest cars ever, and looks like it isn't going to perform very well either, and looks like it won't be any fun.
>>13822421
>>13822432
I could see Mazda making a new cheap rear engined car by 2020 or soon after. Maybe even if a rotary if it turns out their new Skyactiv-R is "As fuel efficient and environmentally friendly as a typical piston petrol engine" like they said it'll be.
They said they want to make more RWD cars again, and RR/MR makes them cheaper and more efficient, and they've made MR cars in the past.
The S660 is rear engined and there is a possibility of a 1.0l turbocharged version for export.
>>13822433
Maybe the retro styling trend will hit Japan in time for the z35 and we can get a new Z car that looks like the 240z, z31, or z32.
>>13822443
>and there is a possibility of a 1.0l turbocharged version for export.
Yet another competitor for the Miata to kill off.
>>13822433
>One of the ugliest cars ever, and looks like it isn't going to perform very well either
I disagree. It has a lot of hp, very advanced torque vectoring and weighs no more than a GTR but with a lower COG. The first reviews said when it isn't in track mode it sucks, or with the shitty tires. Most of the problems so far with the NSX can be fixed with just programming, so maybe some of that will be fixed. Even then, it will still be a computer on wheels that does most of the driving for you. Can't fix that in 6 months before release. I think it looks good too compared to most super cars today. The original NSX looks way better still. Modern super cars just don't look that good in general imo.
>>13822444
I have always thought the same thing. If the next Z had a retro style like the Mustang and Camaro, that would be bad ass. I wouldn't even care about the specs or how it drives, Nissan would at least be partially forgive by me.
>>13822454
Audi is coming out with a new R8 next year that will probably spank it so hard.
And the new GT-R will probably be faster than the last while I imagine the NSX is going to be similar or slower than the GT-R Nismo.
As for looks, the back of it looks like the front of a CUV, and the front has too much black cladding. It'd look much nicer if it was all body color painted. I saw a photoshop like that which actually looked nice.
>>13822444
Maybe.
The RX-Vision has the whole long hood fastback look like the 240z, so Nissan might return to more those proportions.
I think the z31 is pretty ugly. All that overhang.
Wheels at the corners are my fetish.
The IDx was retro styled and pretty fucking awesome(assuming some toning done for production like the VX-Vision will get too), but they're shit and dropped it. Was a bit too fussy, but the proportions and angles were right.
>Nissan 370z and GT-R, Toyota GT86, S-FR, and Supra, Mazda Miata and RX, Honda NSX and S660, Ford GT, Focus RS, and Mustang, Chevy Camaro and Corvette, Dodge Challenger, various bullshit out of Europe
Is it just me or are 2016 and 2017 going to be the best years for sporty RWD cars in a very long time?
It was only a few years ago that the only ones on the market were the Z, the Mustang, the Miata, and the Corvette plus whatever Europe was shipping over.
>>13822475
I thought Audi already came out with the new Audi R8?
>>13822477
RX won't be in production until probably 2018 at the earliest. Maybe 2019.
In 2017 they'll probably show the production model or a race car.
But yeah. Stuff sucked ass for sports cars in the late 90s up until recently.
Ironically enough, the fuel economy and safety shit is getting manufacturers pushed toward more aluminum, higher quality steel, and carbon fiber to make them lighter and stiffer.
>>13822482
I thought they were scraping the etron R8 in favor of making a hybrid like the P1 that's going to be really fast?
>>13822491
From what I read, they are making the E tron which is an all electric or almost all electric car.
>>13822499
Ah.
I just don't expect to be the NSX to be good performance for its value for long if at all, even if it is at launch.
Maybe when track times come out, I'll be wrong. But even if it is fast, I think something else will come along within 2 years to stomp it hard.
It's a 3900lb FR car with under 600hp and its torque vectoring only splits power so much.
We're in a period where AWD has been fading away because improved traction control and tires actually makes putting a thousand horsepower down to the rear wheels of a 3000lb car like the P1 very feasible, and it's better to just have a rear weight bias. Not to mention, the massive improvements that have made in suspensions for rear bias cars like in the Cayman GT4.
>>13822510
I bet the next GTR will be faster than it. I would be surprised desu if the NSX isn't faster than the modern GTR, but only by a little bit. The next GTR will probably be faster. RWD is still viable but I think for lap times awd will be superior. You can't replace all wheel torque vectoring with traction control. I still think the NSX should have been rwd anyways.
>>13822510
you can light up the rear wheels in a P1 up to 100mph, and 918 has a clear advantage in traction
AWD matters more than ever with higher and higher power levels
>>13822519
>>13822419
How much do you think the new Ford GT will cost?
It weighs 2900lb and goes 0-60 in 2.5s.
I'd imagine it won't cost too much more than an NSX and is coming out around the same time.
Honda just really launched the NSX way too late. It already seems dated.
>>13816219
Its turbo confirmed
>>13822630
No it's not confirmed. They said it's likely.
>>13822630
>>13822632
literally none of it is confirmed
>>13822637
The CEO confirmed they're making a new rotary RX. Just no specifics, no date.
If you don't believe the CEO, I don't know what the fuck to tell you.
>>13822649
he said he wants to make it. until they start taking dealer orders, absolutely nothing is set in stone.
>>13821242
RIP Furai.
>>13822460
Never thought about that. Modern Zs are just okay IMO, but older 240z are fucking gorgeous.
Would love to see a reinterpretation of older datsun sports cars.
De-conceptized. 11 hours in KidPix.
My prediction:
>1.6L 2-rotor
>280hp in NA form
>350hp w/ hybrid (electric) turbocharger
>i-ELOOP (regenerative braking) standard
>6sp manual w/ auto rev matching or 6sp dual-clutch
>2600lbs in base manual NA form
>starting at $33k USD
>turbo starting at $42k
>>13822893
Looks good, Anon.
Maybe a little TOO high, really, but it'll likely be shortened that much.
Your predictions are unlikely, tho.
Electric superchargers lose efficiency from the conversion even if it has an i-ELOOP system. I don't see Mazda trying something completely new like that when they can just use a variable geometry turbo.
And pricing a sports car at 33k probably isn't a good idea. It'll lose so many sales to people that like at the 370z's 330HP and think that it's a better top. It seems like they want to make a Cayman fighter, which won't be 33k, and won't have an NA option unless it's a 3 rotor.
>>13822935
Or an electric-gas hybrid turbocharger for that matter, which is even more newfangled.
>>13822935
>Electric superchargers lose efficiency from the conversion even if it has an i-ELOOP system. I don't see Mazda trying something completely new like that when they can just use a variable geometry turbo.
it's literally waste energy, the inefficiency loss doesn't matter
>>13822955
But what do you do when the caps are dry? You just get lag? The inconsistency of that sounds bad for a road car. It'll feel like something is wrong.
And like I said last time, rotary have inherit problems with getting rid of as much exhaust gas as possible after each cycle. Excessive backpressure is incredibly bad, which is what extra resistance on the turbo will cause. That's why ditching a lot of the emissions on the FD massively improves reliability.
So even though using it in combination with i-ELOOP theoretically would work(http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a8965/why-electric-superchargers-make-sense-now/ even mentions Mazda's i-ELOOP system to take the idea to mass market), especially for piston engines, I just don't see it working on a rotary without negatively impacting reliability.
A variable geometry turbo is simpler and works good enough.
>>13822893
>starting at $33k USD
>turbo starting at $42k
No fucking way. $55k base minimum on release, $100k in 2 years.
>>13822935
I think there will definitely be an NA version. And I think they will price it to compete with the 370Z. Sure, you could have more power for the money (if that's what you're after the Mustang is the best buy), but the Rx will be much lighter, and much more of a "sports car" for the sports car purist. Going to a large displacement, and applying modern tech (direct injection, etc.), should make an NA rotary less 'gutless' off the line.
re: electric hybrid turbo, it'd eliminate all turbo lag (especially big consideration with a rotary), and if paired with their battery-less regenerative braking it'd also improve fuel economy (since the electricity is 'free'). This seems like a logical route to me, vs. a more complex all-mechanican turbo setup.
Having a DCT 'automatic' option would also do wonders for the RX's viability, since for the first time the automatic RX will be just as powerful as the manuals, with the same quick and high-revving (which wasn't possible with a torque converter automatic).
>>13822970
AFAIK the way Mazda's ieloop system works the capacitor won't ever be allowed to go empty (if there isn't enough braking happening it will charge up the old-fashioned way parasitically from the engine, although that'd be less efficient obviously).
A hybrid turbocharger would be pushing the envelope for sure, but seems like a technology that's going to make it to production cars sooner or later (probably sooner, given all the research going into turbochargers to improve economy). Would also be another way to make the high-spec model stand out (not only does it have a dorito like everyone's favourite lemans car, but a hybrid turbocharger like F1 cars).
>>13823136
why does diesel need throttle valve?
>>13823075
Mazda knows they won't get 370z or FR-S sales volumes even if they price it to compete with the 370z and even if it's a significantly faster car.
They'd get half as many, if they were super lucky.
They know they'd make more money selling a car that competes with the Cayman but costs less where they make 2-4x as much for every car sold.
>>13823136
Yes, and charging it from the alternator is inefficient. That's what I just said.
I don't know. I guess we'll see.
>>13822978
They could definitely deliver at a mass-market price: that's really the advantage Mazda would have over a similar Porsche, Lotus, etc. If they price it like a Cayman people will just buy a Cayman.
They already have a platform in the new MX-5 (starting at only $25k) that fits all the requirements, and they could build a new RX down the same line for even more volume efficiency.
>>13822978
>>13823163
Yeah. Mazda has repeatedly been delivering good engineering and value for cheap.
And besides recently, they did it for the FD too. It was $32.5k in '93 when a '93 911 Carrera that was very similar performance, with exact same 0-60 and quarter mile times, was $66k.
The Porsche Cayman is $52,600. Figure in 2018 it'll be like $55,600.
I imagine they'll price it significantly cheaper than the Cayman base model, so under 49k and likely closer to low 40s if not high 30s, with Cayman S or GTS level of performance at the very least.
Like anon says, people would just buy a Cayman instead if it doesn't offer good value. I have an FD myself, and I'd just get a Cayman if the FE is 55k and only performs as well as the base model Cayman.
Maybe it'll be around the Cayman base price and GT4/911 performance since Mazda sends to exceed the benchmarks they shoot for, but I doubt it.
>>13823198
Indeed Mazda has always delivered amazing value. People seem to think the FD was so expensive, but forget that it was priced much lower than its Japanese competition at the time (Supra, 300ZX, 3000GT, NSX) let alone the Europeans. It was also much smaller, lighter, and more stripped-down that its competition. I think they'll stick with that formula.
re: the viability of using the MX-5 platform, here's a Vision shop compared to the ND. Seems to match up very well. People who are expecting a new RX to be a big GT car have the wrong idea imo. A Miata for the hardcore is more what I'd expect.
>>13821002
They ditched the n/a 1.6l years ago. It was no more efficient or powerful than the standard 1.3 The 16X rotary died a miserable death.
Which is why this entire fucking thing is just a big cocktease from Mazda. The rotary engine cannot be made clean and efficient enough.
>>13823340
>I know because my dad works at Mazda
>>13823277
Yeah, the Supra turbo was an absolutely insane $44k.
>>13823340
Fucking bullshit.
At SAE World Congress in 2014 they were talking about their new developments as far as oil consumption went. That was 6-7 years of testing after the 16x was first announced in 2007.
Kill urself, lying faggot.
>>13823277
They said they will not be using the MX-5 platform.
They might start with it in as an engineering basis, and try to use the same tooling, but it's going to be a new, much stiffer chassis.
A new chassis isn't really expensive if they don't have to retool. But they could end up using a considerable amount of carbon fiber. They said new materials are likely, just like how they first started using a mix of aluminum and steel with friction welding on the RX-8.
With Mazda becoming really profitable the past 2 years, it's probably wise to dump the money soon on new tooling for carbon fiber. They need it anyway to keep making cars lighter and more fuel efficient.
>>13821640
That's clearly a mule for some other car, friendo.
I think the outstanding problems with making a rotary meet emissions are sealing, and incomplete combustion.
Sealing is really a matter of materials, and one they seem to have mostly figured out already.
Incomplete ignition is a hard nut given the irregular shape of the wankel's combustion chamber. But using a quantum fucktonne of computing power they should be able to now model an ideal direct injection spray pattern (using direct injection), which should make the irregular shape a moot point.
>>13823457
I have no fucking idea what that person is trying to say.
The mule obviously did not have that wheelbase. His efforts of guessing it were retarded and wrong. Even if he was right, he doesn't make any point.
>>13823430
Mazda's always managed to make their cars light without resorting to exotic (expensive) materials. I really doubt we're going to see heavy use of carbon fibre (IIRC the RX-8 used it for its drive shaft).
>>13823496
And they would be even lighter-er and stiffer with carbon fiber.
I'm not expecting a lot though. Like maybe just the top half of the chassis (A+B pilars, roof), drive shaft, wheels, front splitter, side skirts, rear diffuser at most.
Enough where Mazda can start getting experience in making carbon fiber components in house and they can upsell carbon fiber wheels on the MX-5 to ricers, basically similar to what BMW is doing which in the long run saves money and makes money.
Road cars can't have carbon fiber front and rear subframes anyway because of crash safety.
The RX-8 had a carbon fiber drive shaft, but that was out sourced.
>all this Nissan hate
I'll remind you they're the only company who ALWAYS had a performance car out. Mazda left for some time, Toyota is a fucking joke, Subaru only has the outdated STI which hasnt improved in a decade, etc etc
Scream the Z is pigfat etc etc but fact of the matter is people still buy them like hotcakes because they're a great fucking car. The GT-R has also BTFO out of most manufacturers since it came out and has improved litterally every year.
Why would Nissan release a new performance car at SEMA when their lineup still BTFO all these new cars people are coming out with?
I don't know how nissan does it but every time someone releases some new car they manage to shit all over it with a car thats nearly 10 years old
>>13823520
I mean A+C pillars.
>>13823565
Mazda has always had the MX-5 and their hatch is legitimately sporty.
>>13823277
The handle-less doors on the concept are so nice. I wonder if they'd be viable for production. Even F-type-like pop-out handles would ruin it imo.
>>13815290
This looks like someone gave a nigger the reigns to design a new car. The wheels are way too large, the front way too long. Why the fuck is the nose so long when the last rotary that was made was tiny as fuck? Did the engine suddenly quadruple in size?
The front looks like an uncircumsized dick. Mazda has the Miata and this dick car now.
>>13823601
I'm sure they'll do something unique with them, like the FD had.
Maybe you push in on the edge of the door to make them unhinge and pop out to pull out by the edge the rest of the way? It's not like such a mechanism doesn't already exist all over the place.
I'd be fine with the black handles by the window too, though.
>>13823602
Why are the wheels too large?
They're like 19".
What's actually bad at having a small amount of fender above the wheels? It looks fucking gorgeous.
>>13823623
It would be cool if you could touch them and have the door would open. They could hide a failsafe mechanism in the side mirror or something.
>>13821661
>Sure it isn't finalized.
Hasn't even started is indeed pretty far from finalised
>>13823654
They started more than 8 years ago, retard.
>>13823668
That's like saying they started the Renesis in the 60s
>>13823674
No, it's not.
>>13823682
You're acting like you're working with the design team here...
>>13823695
You're acting like a retard.
>>13823640
It's the tiny fender over the wheel that makes them look so large.
In this pic >>13823277 the RX shop looks like it has much larger wheels than the Miata, but it's mostly a trick of the proportions. The Miata needs that clearance for the engine. Not sure if a rotary would be small enough to make the RX-Vision's hoodline possible.
>>13823707
lol you're clueless, but keep thinking the next rotary is gonna be amazing.
they've been "working on it" long enough
>>13823716
pushrods would be a better solution towards a less tall engine, tried and tested
>>13823716
...actually looking at underhood pictures of the RX-8 with all the cladding shit taken off, the engine is SUPER SUPER short and compact. You can't even see it it's buried so far low and back behind the wheels. Vision's styling seems very doable; in fact Mazda's be crazy not to, since nobody else could do a hoodline like that in a front engined car.
>>13823396
Whatever, sport. I'd be willing to bet real money on it.
I've also owned a couple rotary cars and know how they work and what their issues are. And all the tears and butthurt of the internet will not overcome thermodynamics.
Their time has passed. It ain't coming back. But feel free to get blue balls while this thing is perpetually 2 years out.
>>13823768
Yeah people keep saying how it must be able to fit a V12 with the long ass hood, not realizing how small the car actually is.
The engine bay is really SHALLOW. They also want the entirety of the engine behind the front axle.
The 13b is only about 14" high without the oil pan and the super tall intake.
The LS1 is 28" high. It would not fit in that engine bay due to height restrictions.
I'm actually not even sure how they're supposed to fit a rotary given the current attachment sizes. They must be doing away with the wrap over intake (I hope so) and a shallower oil pan. But I hope that super shallow engine bay, with the really low hood, is what the production model will have. It's doable.
Anyone think a new RX might be a true (usable) 2+2?
>>13824034
No. It may be a 2+2, but it'll have really small seats in the back. Probably 911 sized or even smaller.
It's barely bigger than the MX-5 ND, and smaller in some areas. They said it's likely to be smaller than the concept.
>>13823768
The 16 was more than 10% shorter than the Renesis, as well.
>>13823488
>didn't have that wheelbase
It clearly wasn't the same wheelbase as the Miata, the only other thing it could be is the Fiata 124.
>>13822622
It's supposed to be like over 300k
>>13824034
I Japan they had a back seat, but were terrible. some FCs in the US had them, but were very small. They were an afterthought pretty much, In Japan having backseats made registering the car or insurance or something cheaper.
>>13825134
Ah. Based on what the previous one cost, and how cheap carbon fiber is getting, I didn't think low 200k was out of the question.
Pretty hilarious how oil money rednecks were happy to pay over 200k for the previous Ford GT despite the 140k MSRP, though.
And oh, apparently Ford plans to sell 200 for 400k each.
Well, that's fucking stupid. They sold over 4,000 of the previous Ford GT. That's 20 times more. The fuck are they thinking?
"Wow! We sold 4000 of this expensive as fuck car. Lets make it more than twice as expensive and only sell 1/20th as many next time".
>>13825219
I mean, I don't mind back seats that can't fit big people. But yeah the FD's were ridiculous.
911's back seats are small, but just having something that is that level would be a dream to me. I'd like them to fit that much without sacrificing the car elsewhere for BR-Z level of seats.
Even if they had BR-Z size rear seats, retarded reviewers would still bitch just the same. Like what are they even thinking? "hur dur why didn't they fuck up the car so you can car pool your fat ass coworkers? That's what people buy a sports car for"
I just want tiny back seats that can fit my smallest friends when I really need it. Two seats is pretty limiting. IF they have to bow their head and the front seats need moved up uncomfortably, boo hoo, good enough to at least have that option.
>>13825350
Obviously they don't want the car to compete with other super cars. Just be a halo car to make the brand seem cooler. Hard for me to get excited about cars like that. Even cars like the NSX and GTR I don't get too excited for because I will probably never even drive one, but at least I will actually see one on the streets. Something like a Ford GT, LFA or P1 I will probably never even see one (I did see a 918 the other day, holy fucking shit it's big).
>>13825350
>>13822622
>>13825134
>How much do you think the new Ford GT will cost?
I know someone who ordered one. $400k.
>>13825406
Isn't it better when people actually fucking see them on the road?
With 200, I will never seen one. I've seen the previous Ford GT that they sold 4,000 of. Just seems retarded to me.
Maybe they don't have 4,000 people complaining about what lemons they were again.
>>13825434
With only 200 of them, the quality better be there. Really any car that cost over 100k should have good quality...
>>13815290
Waiting for RX Vision Hot Wheels to hit the shelves
