Toyota fails..... Again

[homeforsummer]

I see loads of them in the UK, people buy sports cars here like they're going out of fashion. I've been getting the impression though that they haven't really taken to them over there.

 

[dudejo]

@ homeforsummer

true, i had forgotten about those. but yeah, it's pretty much like you said.

however, i personally think the main problem with the MX-5 is its comfort level. the interior space is borderline for me and i'm not especially large. my knees can bump the steering wheel even with the seat backed-up (at least the older ones). plus, i hear it's a bit stiff on the bumps.

but yeah, perhaps i should say we don't get many good affordable japanese sports cars.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm about 5'9" and mine is just about right for me, but I can see how any taller (i.e, most people) and it'd start getting uncomfortable. The new ones are much better though, I'd suspect they can happily accomodate someone six foot or more. And they're certainly a damn site more refined than mine is!

Part of me thinks the NC's problem in the US might still be power-related or something. I reckon a turbo'd 200bhp one would go down a storm over there even though it wouldn't necessarily make it much more fun.

 

[dudejo]

NC? you mean a MX-5 model?

wasn't there a Mazdaspeed model that DID have 200 hp?

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

^ That was the NB Mazdaspeed MX-5, and no it didn't feature 200hp but 180hp.

-> The NC never came out a Mazdaspeed trim (yet). The most significant NC model by far is the Roadster Coupe (aka. the PRHT {Power Retractable Hard Top}).

 

[niky]

The NC isn't doing too horribly... it's still alive while the Solstice and Sky shuffle off to the great junkyard in the sky, along with Pontiac itself. But even before the end, the NC started gaining sales back against the Solstice, after the initial glow of the new car wore off...

Not as popular as the old car, but it's kind of expensive, now, especially since the US doesn't get the base model. Hmmm... maybe they should release a turbo 1.5?

why should Honda send us a Type R Civic if all most of us needs is a DX Civic and a bodykit?

Because having one to aspire to makes more kids buy DX Civics.

It's the BMW "M(ass) Effect". Wherein BMW only has to make a small number of "M" cars and they get to sell a zillion 316s, 318s and 320s fitted out with "M" kits.

As HFS says... regulations, regulations, regulations. Many old Japanese performance cars (in fact, even some decidedly non-performance cars) couldn't meet US regulations, and they figured the sales volume wasn't worth going through the extra effort for.

 

[YSSMAN]

Not as popular as the old car, but it's kind of expensive, now, especially since the US doesn't get the base model. Hmmm... maybe they should release a turbo 1.5?

God, I was reading the other day that they're talking about dropping a Renisis in there for 2012. For the life of me, I can't figure out why. Although, Mazda being the cheeky bastards they are, I'd like to see an EV model, just to say they can did it, kept it light, and kept people like me happy.

 

[Tornado]

God, I was reading the other day that they're talking about dropping a Renisis in there for 2012.

Who, Mazda themselves? Does the 2.3 turbo not fit or something? What would compel them to do something that silly?

 

[niky]

It's a rumor circulating. I don't think Mazda itself started it.

The 2.3/2.5 is a little long in stroke for a sportscar. You want your boutique sportscar to be nice and revvy. The 2.0 does that part just fine (especially with the new internals, which up the rev limit to 7500 rpm).

A turbocharged 2.0 would fit. I'm unsure whether Mazda would do it, though, thanks to EURO5 fears about performance, which is what has killed the RX8.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm not sure what the 2.3/2.5 weighs either but it seems a little like overkill for a lightweight sports car. With the larger variant you're getting on for a litre more capacity than the original has...

The way to go with the next one is definitely smaller engines and less weight again. Or even (shock, horror) a hybrid.

I'd heard the Renesis rumours. If they make the car light enough then there's no reason not to - the less weight, the less the lack of instant torque matters. And to be honest, the Renesis weighs a fifth of sod all anyway so there's step one on it's way to completion.

Didn't realise the States didn't get the base NC. No 1.8 for you guys then?

 

[Tornado]

I'm not sure what the 2.3/2.5 weighs either but it seems a little like overkill for a lightweight sports car. With the larger variant you're getting on for a litre more capacity than the original has...

I was talking about why they would think about putting the Renesis in it for more power instead simply using the CX-7 engine, which is (probably) cheaper, (definitely) easier to live with and (certainly) better in regards to mileage.

I'd heard the Renesis rumours. If they make the car light enough then there's no reason not to - the less weight, the less the lack of instant torque matters. And to be honest, the Renesis weighs a fifth of sod all anyway so there's step one on it's way to completion.

There's also no reason to do it. Light weight or not, I'd rather they keep the rotaries out of the Miata. That's a pipe dream that you have as a kid before you grow up and realize a lot of people who own RX cars don't even want the rotary engines in those.

 

[niky]

You know how it is. Anything under 4 liters Stateside is "small". Which is why all these next-generation V6s have grown from 3 liters to nearly 4 (Honda,Toyota: 3.5; Nissan, Ford/Mazda: 3.7; Hyundai: 3.8).

I've driven the 2.3 and 2.5 in the 6. The 2.5 has a 6200 rpm redline. Which is absolute suck for a sportscar. The older NC had a decent 7000 rpm redline. The facelifted NC has a 7500 rpm redline. Destroke the engines and add a turbo, you can maybe get an 8000-rpm 1.6 with more performance than the current line-up.

Granted, the 2.5 does run nicely, despite the low redline, but it doesn't suit the character of the car... and making it revvier may be difficult, as they're approaching the maximum stroke possible with that MZR-architecture... and it's difficult to make long-stroke engines rev. Just look at the problems Nissan had with the QR25DE in the Sentra. It took them nearly ten years before they brought the redline up to 7000 rpm from a measly 6200. And they had to resort to a lot of expensive internals to do it. And despite those expensive internals, the engine is still relatively fragile. Contrast that to the shorter-stroked SR20DE, which could hit 7500 rpm and could sustain 8000 rpm or more de-limited. (and could handle more boost... let's not forget that...)

And, so as not to be totally off-topic, Toyota's current 2.0, from the Camry, has a 6000 rpm redline. Even worse, it runs like a diesel.

All torque, no trousers.

 

[Tornado]

And, so as not to be totally off-topic, Toyota's current 2.0, from the Camry, has a 6000 rpm redline. Even worse, it runs like a diesel.

All torque, no trousers.

Even more curious, the crappy Camry 2.2 from the ST182 Celica at least revved if you wanted it to (not that it had any power up high, but you could get it up there). The current Camry engine is all like "lol wut?" if you try to rev it past 4000.


Unless that is what you meant when you said it runs like a diesel.

 

[niky]

Even more curious, the crappy Camry 2.2 from the ST182 Celica at least revved if you wanted it to (not that it had any power up high, but you could get it up there). The current Camry engine is all like "lol wut?" if you try to rev it past 4000.


Unless that is what you meant when you said it runs like a diesel.

Precisely. Lazy-revving, no real point in going past 4000 rpm except to generate noise.

Okay for a family car, but not a sports-car.

 

[Eric Demory]

Toyota - brakes & appliances sold separately.

 

[homeforsummer]

I was talking about why they would think about putting the Renesis in it for more power instead simply using the CX-7 engine, which is (probably) cheaper, (definitely) easier to live with and (certainly) better in regards to mileage.

It would, but then it's not really a sports car engine, as Niky is pointing out. It'd be like putting the Camry engine in the Elise - more power and torque than the stock 1.8, but heavier and slower-revving - completely goes against the ethos of a lightweight sports car.

As for the mileage thing, Mazda are apparently working on it. They already did a good job of solving the rotor tip wear thing (and therefore the oil consumption) with the changes to the combustion chamber in the RX-8, I'm sure further tinkering will yield better MPG too.

There's also no reason to do it. Light weight or not, I'd rather they keep the rotaries out of the Miata. That's a pipe dream that you have as a kid before you grow up and realize a lot of people who own RX cars don't even want the rotary engines in those.

I don't mind if Mazda decide to drop a rotary in. It's an engine unique to the company and currently, the Miata is pretty unique to the market. It may not be the best engine out there but it fits in perfectly with the concept of the car.

As for RX owners not wanting rotaries I'm sure they have their reasons, but although I'm not bothered about people swapping engines and the like, you question the point of buying a car whose USP is a rotary engine simply to get rid of the engine...

 

[dudejo]

another problem with putting a rotary in the MX-5 is how the maintenance costs will raise it out of range from lighter wallets.

the lighter wallets they're aiming the car at in the first place.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

As for RX owners not wanting rotaries I'm sure they have their reasons, but although I'm not bothered about people swapping engines and the like, you question the point of buying a car whose USP is a rotary engine simply to get rid of the engine...

The RX-7? I was under the impression people bought it for the sublime balance the chassis had. Was that at least partially due to the Rotary's small size and weight? Yeah. But an LSx sitting under the hood isn't much of a weight difference, and is in a whole different galaxy of reliability. As much as I always cringe a bit hearing about a Chevy/Mazda hybrid, you can't argue with the sound logic of it.

 

[homeforsummer]

I suppose there is that (RX-8 likewise), but it's a pretty idiosyncratic car and much as though I have no beef with people swapping engines (in fact, I think people dropping Chevy V8s into Miatas and S2Ks is pretty cool), I think it's a shame that so many RX7s and similar will stray from their original ethos.

I guess you could say it's logical, but not necessarily faithful to the rotary cause...

 

[Tornado]

It would, but then it's not really a sports car engine, as Niky is pointing out. It'd be like putting the Camry engine in the Elise - more power and torque than the stock 1.8, but heavier and slower-revving - completely goes against the ethos of a lightweight sports car.

You are missing my point. Mazda has plenty of engine options if they felt they needed to give the Miata more power. I simply chose the first one that came to mind, which is the 2.3 MZR used in the CX-7 and MS3. They could simply turbo the existing 2.0 engine if they wanted to.

As for the mileage thing, Mazda are apparently working on it. They already did a good job of solving the rotor tip wear thing (and therefore the oil consumption) with the changes to the combustion chamber in the RX-8, I'm sure further tinkering will yield better MPG too.

Wankels use more fuel. That's one of the inherent drawbacks with the design. It is no more possible to solve that than it would be to make a V12 that had less moving parts than a V6. They could make it use less fuel, but it isn't as if the MZR series is the most advanced 4 cylinder on the market in that regard either.

I don't mind if Mazda decide to drop a rotary in. It's an engine unique to the company and currently, the Miata is pretty unique to the market. It may not be the best engine out there but it fits in perfectly with the concept of the car.

Except for the "its like a British roadster but reliable" part.

As for RX owners not wanting rotaries I'm sure they have their reasons, but although I'm not bothered about people swapping engines and the like, you question the point of buying a car whose USP is a rotary engine simply to get rid of the engine...

Because RX-7s are light, have good weight balance and look pretty cool.


How did we even get talking about this?