GTP Cool Wall: Mazda Cosmo

  • Thread starter Thread starter BKGlover
  • 113 comments
  • 23,989 views

Eunos Cosmo

  • Total voters
    108
  • Poll closed .
Definitely a cool car. They're hard to find, almost non existent in the US, and yet they aren't ostentatious at all. It's big but conservatively designed. It's engine is novel but its not obviously weird to people and doesn't gather much attention. You can drive a very unique, properly nice, interesting piece of Mazda history that might occasionally gather a few questions, at which point a person will learn something very interesting.

Unlike a Ferrari this car is actually interesting.
 
Done up right, it can look pretty cool. But stock, it's at least uncool. Several reasons:

Rotary engines have almost no torque, especially down low, but they rev into the stratosphere. Makes me wonder what one is doing in a big, heavy car that's more likely to be used for long-distance freeway cruising than all-out drag strip throwdowns, and why it's backed up by a slushmatic transmission with only four forward speeds.

And speaking of being a big, heavy car, it gets that wrong too. Unlike the old rear-drive Monte Carlos and other American personal luxury coupes, it might pack a heck of a swing, but it has no swagger. It's too bland, too sophisticated, too latteish. Sort of like a 626 that got put on the management fast track.

Also, it looks slightly awkward from some angles.
 
[QUOTE="White & Nerdy

Rotary engines have almost no torque, especially down low,

.[/QUOTE]

And that affects it's coolness because?
 
White & Nerdy
Done up right, it can look pretty cool. But stock, it's at least uncool. Several reasons:

Rotary engines have almost no torque, especially down low, but they rev into the stratosphere. Makes me wonder what one is doing in a big, heavy car that's more likely to be used for long-distance freeway cruising than all-out drag strip throwdowns, and why it's backed up by a slushmatic transmission with only four forward speeds.

And speaking of being a big, heavy car, it gets that wrong too. Unlike the old rear-drive Monte Carlos and other American personal luxury coupes, it might pack a heck of a swing, but it has no swagger. It's too bland, too sophisticated, too latteish. Sort of like a 626 that got put on the management fast track.

Also, it looks slightly awkward from some angles.
Click to expand...

I love how people accuse rotary engines of having no torque based on normally aspirated 13b and 12a engines. A 13b is 1.3 liters of swept displacement and is roughly a 1x1x1 cube in physical size. Show me a piston engine the same size, weight, and displacement that can make as much torque.

Also, a 20b-rew has a very broad torque curve. In fact the Cosmo makes peak torque (280lbs*ft of it, from a 2 liter engine) from just 1800rpm, and maintains most of it all the way to the 7,000rpm redline. This is when a contemporary FIVE LITER Ford V8 made 300lbs*ft @ 3200rpm then falls on it's face approaching it's meager 5700rpm redline.

Combine this with the inherent smoothness and awesome cruise-o-slushmatic, and I know which engine I'd rather have in my highway battlecruiser...

Edit: I'd also like to add that almost no engine sounds better than a 20b. Turbo or n/a it doesn't matter.




 
Last edited:
White & Nerdy
Rotary engines have almost no torque, especially down low, but they rev into the stratosphere. Makes me wonder what one is doing in a big, heavy car that's more likely to be used for long-distance freeway cruising than all-out drag strip throwdowns, and why it's backed up by a slushmatic transmission with only four forward speeds.
Click to expand...

It had 300 lb-ft of torque, that's only 40 lb-ft less than Corvette of the same year. Also the Cosmo was a luxury coupe, there was no need for a manual transmission since anyone who wanted the sporty version just bought an RX-7. It was also the mid 90's, a vast majority of automatic transmissions were only 4 speeds.

Eunos_Cosmo
p1-8.jpg
Click to expand...

Yup, I really like the way that looks. :drool:
 
This is one of those cars that will be a hard to find classic in just a couple of years. Luxury, classic lines and a turbo'd rotary = sub zero in my book.

Edit.

Upon further investigation, the time has already arrived that it is a hard to find car. Only 3 for sale in the Netherlands.
 
Dennisch
This is one of those cars that will be a hard to find classic in just a couple of years. Luxury, classic lines and a turbo'd rotary = sub zero in my book.
Click to expand...

Mazdas stubbornly refuse to appreciate in value. You can get a clean original Cosmo Sport in the US for something like $30,000. From a historical perspective, it's just as special as a Toyota 2000GT but the Toyotas fetch well upwards of $200,000 and in some cases, far more than that! I've seen Eunos Cosmos trade hands in the states (where there are less than 10 examples, period) for a mere $5,000.

That said, these certainly won't be getting any more common, especially as people just love to rip them apart for their 3 rotor engines. :/
 
sub-zero.

This is one of my favorite Mazdas of all time behind the FD only.

Beautiful car, absolutely wonderful design IMHO.

Motor is a major plus.
 
Joey D
It had 300 lb-ft of torque, that's only 40 lb-ft less than Corvette of the same year. Also the Cosmo was a luxury coupe, there was no need for a manual transmission since anyone who wanted the sporty version just bought an RX-7. It was also the mid 90's, a vast majority of automatic transmissions were only 4 speeds.

Yup, I really like the way that looks. :drool:
Click to expand...

Just because it has that much torque doesn't mean it's street able torque. Having it down low in the rpms without having to rev to the heavens to move especially in a heavy car is more preferred for daily A to B driving and helps with shifting in manual trans cars (doesnt matter what car). Less needed.
 
Slashfan
Just because it has that much torque doesn't mean it's street able torque. Having it down low in the rpms without having to rev to the heavens to move especially in a heavy car is more preferred for daily A to B driving and helps with shifting in manual trans cars (doesnt matter what car). Less needed.
Click to expand...

It had 296lb-ft of torque at 3000rpm, that's not exactly a high rpm, especially when a 1995 Corvette had 340lb-ft at 4000rpm.

Or to put it in terms you can even understand, a 1996 Mustang had 285lb-ft at 3500rpm.
 
Joey D
It had 296lb-ft of torque at 3000rpm, that's not exactly a high rpm, especially when a 1995 Corvette had 340lb-ft at 4000rpm.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't know the exact specs of this car (as far as what RPM power was made at) so I stand corrected.
 
Slashfan
helps with shifting in manual trans cars (doesnt matter what car). Less needed.
Click to expand...

I suppose that particular point depends on what you're after in a car. Needing to make fewer shifts isn't automatically better, particularly for a driver who enjoys the process (and this forum is full of such people, me included, albeit car-dependent).

Though since this car is an auto, that's fairly academic. Though I can see the benefits of huge gobs of torque in a car with only a few gear ratios to call upon.
 
Cool, it looks generic and unique at the same time, that's saying something.:lol:👍

I also want to buy one and name it Kramer.
 
homeforsummer
I suppose that particular point depends on what you're after in a car. Needing to make fewer shifts isn't automatically better, particularly for a driver who enjoys the process (and this forum is full of such people, me included, albeit car-dependent).

Though since this car is an auto, that's fairly academic. Though I can see the benefits of huge gobs of torque in a car with only a few gear ratios to call upon.
Click to expand...

Most people, that aren't enthusiasts tend to just go from point A to B and having more torque at a low RPM and less gear changes makes life generally easier. Unless it's a performance oriented car. Then things change.
 
Not commenting on this, although I did vote "Cool"... Might do a write-up once the next vehicle to be polled is posted, I do have some minor gripes with the car...
 
Voted cool. It's a really nice, classy look and the rotary adds a bit of intrigue. Overall it's just a very pretty car.
 
I had an RM one of these in GT1, I beat everything I ever came across.

Sub-Zero.
 
Great looking coupe that had close to the performance of the German luxury coupes. Rare and different engine without being in-your-face about it.

Sub-Zero.
 
Not a big fan of the styling. But turbo rotary, beautiful interior and rarity.

I voted Cool. 👍
 
Full width dashboards are always great. They were cool in the Prelude. They were cool in the Cosmo. They are even add a bit of cool to one of the most uncool of cars, the Avalon.
 
Sub Zero.

Coupe? Check.
RWD? Check.
300bhp 2l twinturbo wankel? Check.
More than meets the eye? Check.
 
playnthru
It only comes with a automatic seriously uncool.👎
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Slashfan
Most people, that aren't enthusiasts tend to just go from point A to B and having more torque at a low RPM and less gear changes makes life generally easier. Unless it's a performance oriented car. Then things change.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I agree with that. I suppose on that note it's more down to expectations than it is enjoyment - having loads of low-down torque is fine for the A to B driver who also happens to want loads of performance. It's not so important for the A to B driver who literally just wants to get from A to B, which is why things like Civics and Corollas still happily sell in large numbers.

In other words, some non-enthusiasts still want to plant their foot and get a move on, whereas other non-enthusiasts don't plant their foot enough to need a car with loads of torque.

As for the Cosmo, it's an unusual one anyway. I doubt the buyer of a rotary-engined luxury coupe is a typical A to B driver!
 

Latest Posts

Back