Mazda RX-9

>>15963323

I hope they put a turbo'd I4 with two electric motors in it just to BTFO all of you dumbfucks desperate for an engine technology that serves no fucking purpose in 2016 and beyond.

>>15963325

I don't think they will but it'd be funny as fuck if they did.

>>15963323
Overrated meme engine

>>15963325
>>15963346
Wouldnt call it an RX if theres no R

I dont get the hate. Isnt there enough conventionnal engine? Why shit on the only car with a rotary..

I only hope it's priced as a normal sports car and not a GT-R competitor.

>>15965489
Call me uninformed but was the RX7/RX8 always priced competitively/affordably?

>>15965468
t. attention whore

>>15965495
Base RX7 was around $35k in 1993 or $58k today.

>>15965489
I'd put my money on it being priced as a Cayman competitor but that might be overly optimistic.

>>15965495
The FD RX-7 was serious money when it was new. Not supercar expensive but it was definitely a higher end car price wise. The RX-8 was relatively inexpensive but they cut corners hard on it and it showed.

>>15965495
The first and second gen RX7s weren't too expensive, and neither was the RX8; it was the third gen (FD) RX7 that was prohibitively expensive (more than a well-optioned Corvette) due to exchange rates at the time.

>>15965495
It will probably be around $50-60k

If they could price this at the $30-35k price point they wouldn't be able to produce them quick enough.

It doesn't need 400hp. It doesn't need carbon fiber interior.

I have to believe there's a big enough market of enthusiasts who want something a little more than a burger flipper BRZ.

File: 1472422008130.png (166KB, 343x343px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 343x343px

>>15963325
first post best post

>>15965489
It will most likely be a GT-R/NSX competitor considering Mazda already has the Miata.

>>15965534
I'd reckon it'd be slightly cheaper than the base Cayman, which is $52,600, but faster than the Cayman S which is $64,100.

Thinking it'd be $35k is probably pretty crazy.

>>15965535
The 3rd gen still sold very very well for a car of it's price, especially for a Mazda, at the time. 13,879 in the USA alone. Way way way more than Turbo Supras which where like over 10 grand more expensive.

Compare this to the Corvette, a much more established brand in America, 20,000 of them were sold in 1992. 6,000 of those were Convertibles.

FD owner here.

They should stay down market. Make it more like the sa/fb. Bean counters killed the FD.

>>15965495
SA/FB and lower tier FCs were fairly affordable
Turbo FCs were pricey and FDs were Porsche money when new

>>15963325
>engine technology that serves no fucking purpose in 2016 and beyond
They're actually quite useful outside of cars.

>>15965468
This. No matter how good or bad it ends up being, having another rotary on the market is a win for anyone who likes cars.

File: 8657534342.jpg (6KB, 310x163px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 310x163px

>>15963323
>save the rotary engine

That ship has sailed. Tightening emissions and fuel standards are working against a ICE that burns oil and a transient combustion chamber. The advent of powerful hybrids and EVs was the final nail in the coffin.

>>15966946
>generating electricity and manufacturing batteries is free of cost, labor and environmental consequence

>>15967118
>If the battery manufacturing is done somewhere else it isn't our problem!

>>15966881
Question about FDs

Hows yours been reliability wise? Drive it often or is it strictly a weekender?
13B tarbo or NA?

>>15966852
>I'd reckon it'd be slightly cheaper than the base Cayman, which is $52,600, but faster than the Cayman S which is $64,100.
I'm thinking 60 is the minimum with the top trim being around 70 although I hope you're right and it comes in 10 grand under those estimates. I guess it depends on how much carbon fiber they end up using and how much progress they make in their affordable carbon fiber project.

>>15967128
>13B tarbo or NA?
All FDs are twin turbo from the factory. Many people do a single turbo conversion for reliability, though.

>>15966881

unfortunately the current lineup strategy seems to be:

1. halo car that we spend a fortune on, and make 500 of
2. everything else as cheap and thoughtless as possible
3. reversing cameras in everything so people think theyre buying "fancy new cars"

the age of the cheap but quick car is over

>>15963323
>Will Mazda save the rotary engine?
You mean like they did with the RX-8?

>>15963323
No. Rotaries are fucking stupid, and as others have said, the EPA would climb so far up Mazda's ass for having a car that burns oil off the lot by design. And if they did somehow meet emissions, I'd love to see assblasted Rotards get fucked when it's the most unreliable engine ever fucking built

>>15968049
>for having a car that burns oil off the lot by design.
So just like every performance car from every manufacturer?

>>15968049
only person assblasted here is you anon.

>>15968059
I'm not aware of any performance car other than the Mazda rotaries (even though they're not really performance cars) that literally have injectors that put oil into the combustion chamber.

>>15968059
>>15968074
>>15968081
Assblasted

>>15966946
A rotary is the perfect partner for electric motors and batteries. Full electric is still going to have problems for decades to come.

Solves the low end torque problem, while the rotary is a lot smaller and lighter so you don't end up wasting a lot of extra space and weight.

I really wish the next RX would be hybridized in some way. A hydrid-electric turbo and mild hybrid system. I'd be fine with NA+electric motors, as well. To just straight up turbo it like the FD sounds like a failure from the start even if they solve the reliability issues. It's simply a fact that hybrid gas-electric cars are the best performing TODAY and this car isn't coming out until probably 2019. I don't buy Mazda's bullshit about a hybrid not being able to feel soulful.

>>15968081
They're also the only manufacturer to put triangles in their engines!!!!!11
The oil consumption rate is the same, so what's the issue?

>>15968081
True that, recalled and warrantied Corollas and Camries are not performance cars

>>15963323
probably gonna get cucked with electric motors so it can meet EPA ratings with a 100K+ price tag. rotary fags give up.

>yfw the RX-9 is an electric car

>>15963325
You should learn Mazda codes
Rotary eXperiment 9
Mazda eXperiment 5

File: IMG_3398.jpg (96KB, 636x848px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 636x848px

>>15963323
>mow they announce that it's 86/frs/brz competition

>>15968124
>The oil consumption rate is the same, so what's the issue?
the oil consumption is the same if you're talking about the worst piston engines

>>15974153
Mfw fuck

>>15963325
well parotted m'lady

The look reminds me of a 350z

>>15963323
more like Rotard
more like No-tary

keep that garbage outta here

>>15974153
Better than a Nissan GT-R/Ford GT/Honda NSX competitor.

But what we really want is a Cayman/F-Type competitor.

>>15963323
woah its even uglier than RX-8

Can rotaries be very efficient within a specific rev range? If so they would make a decent powerplant for a more aggressive electric hybrid, the kind where the gas motor is only connected to a generator.

Unfortunately although they are compact, rotaries still weigh a fuckton.

>>15971162
Explains alot m8.
>Cuck experiment 9

Buddy drives one.

>>15974552
Not really. Sure, they have an "optimal speed" like with all internal combustion engines, but rotaries (or at least the ones we've seen from Mazda so far) aren't very efficient even at their optimal speed. Too much oil & unburned fuel out the tailpipe.

>>15974298
More realistic desu, but one could dream for a decent price point

>>15974298
Yeah exactly.

Or even more like the original GT-R, when it was affordable for the performance and smashed cars that cost 5 times as much, before its price doubled and other cars caught up.

There isn't any reason why Mazda couldn't make a $45,000-$55,000 car that not only beats the $64,000 Cayman S, but is more like GT4 performance, and all the other way more expensive cars around that performance. They just have to have the balls to actually do it.

I'd hope it's similar to the GT350/GT350R. You have a base car that's a bit under 50k, then the like $12,000 package with carbon fiber wheels, maybe dynamic aero, that's 5% faster or so and even more track capable.

If it's priced to compete with the 350Z or FR-S, you know it's going to be shitty. Why bother? The reason the RX-8 didn't do well is because it wasn't the car people wanted. People wanted another world-beater like the FD.

>>15974552
Yes. Their highest efficiency is at a higher RPM than piston engines are tuned to. They get better mileage on a track, comparably, to the road.

The whole reason why the 787B was so successful was reliability and fuel efficiency. The other cars were nearing the end of their fuel allotment and had the slow down near the end of the race or not finish at all, and that's if they didn't already blow up. While the 787B could run all out until the end, even though it's peak horsepower was lower.

>>15974552
Rotaries don't weigh a fuckton. You're retarded for believing what LS fags say.

The 13B weighs 150 lbs. The FD had a complicated turbo and emissions setup which weighed twice that itself, and you can fix that pretty easily.

>>15976755
This. Thats why rotary is literally the only option for a proper rwd swaped hondas. Because otherwise your weight distribution is absolutely fucked.

>>15968081
And still burn significantly less than bmws and Hondas

File: 5b973d7f-1036-44c0-8306-2c5753068a08..jpg (66KB, 1023x745px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1023x745px

>>15974693
Is he your butt buddy because I want to meet both of you guys in the same bed

File: Takumi.jpg (5KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 100x100px

>>15966670
The BRZ is almost exactly what everyone claimed to want, and then hates for illogical reasons because they're poor and can't afford it.

I hope this car is fucking 60k and "perfect" like the Cayman, just so the fagg/o/t aspies who fail at life and can't even make middle-class income have to face the fact that they're poor, instead of projecting their problems to hate cheap cars that they can't afford to make themselves feel better like "Hurr how to merge on highway with 6.4 1-60 slower than a minivan".

>>15963323

where you getting that pic from OP?

looks pretty good.

..looks like it could look if it actually made production.

although it aint real.

now for copypasta..

Powertrain: Mazda acknowledges that 50 engineers have toiled eight years developing a new 16X two-rotor engine. The company even filed a patent for a new rotary engine earlier this year. Direct fuel injection, turbocharging, and a displacement 23 percent greater than the RX-8's 1.3-liter will help clear the hoped-for 400-hp hurdle. Switching from iron to aluminum for the end plates (analogous to portions of a piston engine's block) yields a significant mass savings.

>>15977109
>I hope this car is fucking 60k and "perfect"

I'm guessing 70+. at least I hope so. FC and FD was 911 money, at least over here.

other than that, you're pretty much spot on.

>>15976755
You're right but, it's weird how people compare the 13B, a nearly 40 year old engine, with modern ones, isn't it?
The 13B-REW isn't much different.

The 16X was a modern engine and what you should compare those to, which is smaller, lighter, more torquey, and more powerful.
And the upcoming engine is even more modern than the 16X, and is likely to have 30-60 degree offset ports which are going to help improve efficiency more.

But yeah, one of the reasons I recommend an RX to those that want a tuning car is because of how easy it is to improve it .
The stock FC Turbo II is roughly comparable to a Porsche 944 stock. But the 944 is less reliable, and harder to get more power out of. On the other hand with the FC, for less than $1000 you can take off 100+ lbs of weight from the FC, and get well over 50 more hp.

>>15977114
I hate it. It looks like a mustang. The concept looks Italian and gorgeous except for the roofline being too low and the back looking unfinished. But the front and sides and profile are perfect.

>>15977118
Well the 911 has inflated way up in price. That's why most look to the Cayman, which Mazda themselves said they are targeting. The Cayman is the proper sportscar, anyway.

On the other hand, the new ND Miata is cheaper than the original NA Miata. AND the new Miata has extensive usage of aluminum, and AC and power windows standard, which were a $1500 option on the original Miata IIRC, an extra $3000 in today's money.

So while the FD was $58,000 in today's money, it's not beyond reason that it could be $45,000-$55,000 for a modern version of it that's as much of an improve on the FD as the ND is an improvement on the NA.

>>15977467
You can get way more power out of a turbo II for that money

Port of your choice, megasquirt, up the boost. 100 horsepower. Add in a little more for bigger injectors and you're even more set

I hope this is like the FC Turbo II in terms of relative price and performance. Around the Cayman/M2/well optioned Camaro SS

>>15977486
Yeah. I was being very, very conservative.

>>15977538
Rotaries are cool

File: 1475589987294[1].jpg (4KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 205x246px

I NEED a Dorito engine NOW

>>15963597
Ix9

>>15968081
burning by design is better than burning by poor design

Nice mustang

File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (249KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1280x853px

>take Club version of this
>add 9" to the nose and 6" to the rear
>wider fenders, wider tires
>big wing on the back
>new fascia
>hardtop
>twin rotor and small turbo

That's literally all you have to do

>>15977655
They've said it'd be a new platform, and sharing parts of the platform between the NC and RX-8 gimped the NC especially.

RX-7 FD - 168.7" x 69.3" x 48.4". 95.5" wheelbase
RX-Vision - 172.8" x 75.8" x 45.7". 106.3" wheelbase
ND MX-5 - 154.1" x 68.1" x 48.6". 91.1" wheelbase

I wouldn't be surprised if they share a good deal of parts, but not like the whole front and rear.

>>15968121
This.

Honestly I don't think they will even bother to make it if its not hybrid.

But something like 150 hp electric fwd + 300 rotary rwd can really rock if done well.

>>15977910
I wouldn't be surprised if the RX9 is part of Mazda's masterplan to relaunch their rotary line with it primarily being comprised of one rotor hybrid econoboxes. It is an ideal motor for the gasoline generator style of hybrids so if they can get emissions, oil consumption, and apex seal life under control they'd have a pretty solid economy hybrid.

>>15977910
I'd rather have a system like the P1 with the electric motor doing torque-fill. But eh. Maybe.
150hp electric is probably too much. These supercars mostly have 130-185hp electric motors. A 70hp electric motor would be plenty. Don't forget that with their even torque, electric motors feel more powerful than their hp numbers sound.
A 350hp rotary engine plus a 70hp electric one would probably mean better power-weight, not to mention overall performance, than the Corvette Stingray. That's what Mazda SHOULD make, but they probably won't, if they make it at all.
Or heck, 280hp NA with a 140hp electric motor, that works too.

I feel like Mazda just doesn't have the guts to spend the engineering effort, though. The engineering costs are much higher than just slapping a turbo on.
Look at them now, they basically only have a single engine that they put in every car.

The Porsche Cayman is a pretty good selling car. It sold like 20k cars its first year, and still sells 10k a year 10 years later.
That's roughly the sales that the RX-8 got, with far more profit per car sold. That's what Mazda should be aiming for, but it needs performance per $ that you can't argue with.
In 2014, GM sold 34,839 Corvettes. That's almost as much as the best sales year for the RX-8. But again, far more profit per car.

>>15978002
That'd be a good plan if they could get HCCI and/or laser ignition working in a rotary. Use the rotary sportscar as the halo car to sell their rotary range extended econoboxes.

>>15977910
So they're gonna put the engine in the rear according to you? Fuck off retard. No one wants an AWD Rx and that would destroy the perfect balance each one has had so far.

>>15978088
What's wrong with a MR/RR rotary car? It's a common swap for VW Bugs.

That makes the most sense to me. I don't get why they went with FR with rotaries to begin with, besides cooling, but with enough radiators and the right ducting that's not a problem.
You get less drivetrain losses with MR and can make a more compact car.

The Cayman is 45/55, but with a lighter engine in the back a similarly setup car wouldn't be as rear bias.

I don't think you understand the fun of rear bias as long as the suspension is good. 50/50 is not inherently better at all, it's just a different feeling. 50/50 is just the minimum you want as opposed to any front bias.

>>15977655
>completely redo the body, frame, suspension, wheels, and engine
Yea not too bad. Any guy can do this, really.

>>15978133
Original rx was built on the same platform as piston commuter cars so it would have been retarded to make it mr

>>15978135
So can any woman, you fucking misogynist.

File: 1444721942111.jpg (72KB, 567x523px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 567x523px

>Arguing that adding more weight to the front of a car whose greatest strength is its balanced and light RWD chassis

Yeah, 'cause that worked so fucking great for the new NSX, right, fellas?

>>15978249
>new NSX is literally no faster than a Mustang

Simple is better. It's always worked for Mazda so I hope this trend continues.

>>15976715
787b was very reliable true, but it's fuel consumption was horrendous

>>15978088
50:50 isn't perfect balance you fucking retard. Just make a cheap rotary MR2 and you'll be basking in neetbucks

>>15978080
I suspect laser ignition is some ways off since it hasn't even shown up in F1 cars yet and it'll be some time after it hits the bleeding edge before the components have a long enough lifespan and are cost effective enough to make them practical for replacing spark plugs in consumer cars.

Wankel HCCI is something I could see happening in the next generation since they're current researching it and already have piston engines that are capable of it. HCCI would be the kind of silver bullet Wankels need to survive the emissions crackdown.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/mazda-skyactiv-r-rotary-could-use-compression-ignition-36576
This article seems to hint that it'll use it in some capacity.

>>15978315
The problem of purely HCCI is the low RPM range it works in.

I don't believe it'd work in the high RPM that Wankels live for.

And if you still have a spark, you still have that hole in the housing that drains efficiency.

>>15978338
I suspect it'll either be relegated to an eco-mode like every other fun killing efficiency boosting system the modern car manufacturers are forced to include or Mazda has worked some serious Dorito magic and it works across the whole rev range. I'm really curious to see how they pull this whole thing off.

>>15978384
Yeah I'm not sure.

Mazda said they've already solved the problem of the spark plugs leaving a gap in the housing in the Skyactiv-R, but they haven't said how.

Maybe rotary engines can operate over a wider RPM range with HCCI.

>>15978133
I was more opposed to having an all wheel drive RX9. I only brought up the engine being in the rear because of how much ass it would suck if they still put it up front AND had electric motors on the front wheels, but I wasn't very clear about that. My bad.

Still like the RX7's balance of stability and wildness though, something that you can't really get with 55/45(tail happy but not that stable) or 45/55(stable in a corner and a straight line but not sideways).
>>15978274
It is if you wanna get hektik. It's what the RX stands for m8, great handling at any angle and extreme versatility. It's harder to get the tail out than front heavy cars, but has a lot more control and is satisfying as shit; it has less lateral grip than rear heavy cars, but you can take so many different lines to make up for that.

>>15978502
Yeah it'll be interesting to see if they solved the problem with interesting geometry for the spark plug or if they've done something more out there.

God bless Mazda for being that last holdout in sports cars

File: Australian_Aborigines_hd_4.jpg (178KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 800x535px

>>15977109
>>>15966670
>The BRZ is almost exactly what everyone claimed to want, and then hates for illogical reasons because they're poor and can't afford it.
Fucking this

>we want a lightweight, RWD, manual, but inexpensive car that handles well and has decent horsepower
>"86 Twins"
>WAAAAAH 3SLOW5ME

>>15978900
>inexpensive
It's not that cheap for what you're getting. That's the problem. Which would be fine if it was a low compression engine ready for bolt ons. Sadly they tried to package it as a final product, which none of the tuner cars of yore were ever packaged as.

>>15978921
Yeah, compared to the Nissan S chassis or other classic slow sports cars that were complete trash stock the 86 is taken about as far as you really can without putting a whole fuckton more money into it.

>>15978921
They start at 25k new and quickly depreciate. 2013 FRS are at 15k right now for what is basically still a brand new car. That's cheap.

The compression is a legitimate complaint, but I've read that the engines are perfectly reliable with something like an Edelbrock super and a tune.

>>15978900
It's not that lightweight. It's not that inexpensive.

People wanted something with more tuning potential, and lighter. It's no AE86 successor.
The FR-S is just a worse RX-8. The RX-8 was much faster, better handling, more comfortable, more fun to drive. So no.

The MX-5 outperforms it while having a lot more going for it (better handling, better looks, better 0-60, better fuel economy, better price, the top goes down. Better everything except for back seats)

The MX-5 feels like a marvel of engineering for the cost. The FR-S is just meh. We want a car that's the same marvel of engineering for the cost that's a 2+2 coupe with power instead of just a "lightweight roadster".

>>15978976
>It's not that lightweight.
2700 lbs is lightweight
>It's not that inexpensive.
$25000 on a car is easily attainable for most adults

>>15978976
The FRS is literally cheaper than a 240SX off the lot, when you account for inflation.

>>15978976
>top goes down
And so do you, on your bf who is driving the Miata

>>15978962
15k will get you an automatic though.

>>15978991
Yeah 2700lb is pretty light, I agree!

The FR-S is 2,760lb, tho.

And it's not that inexpensive for /what you get/, is clearly what I meant by the context of the rest of my post.

>>15978994
And uh.. so was the RX-8, pretty much, so what's your point? For roughly the same price, the RX-8 was significantly faster, and far better handling. And it's 10 years older technology.
I covered that in my post already, thanks.

>>15978997
Being straight doesn't make your car less slow, faggot.

>>15979183
>Yeah 2700lb is pretty light, I agree!
>The FR-S is 2,760lb, tho.
True. People seem to get a lot of track utility out of stripping the interior. They say it's what the car needs.
>And it's not that inexpensive for /what you get/, is clearly what I meant by the context of the rest of my post.
If it was clear, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

File: work2010-057.jpg (50KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1024x768px

>>15978994
>sure this Alienware computer is an overpriced piece of shit, but it's cheaper than a 20 year old 486 was if you account for inflation!

>>15963323
>Supra being spotted lately
>RX7 being revived
>NSX not too shit
>GTR due for a overhaul soon

lads I am so happy. thank you to Nissan for being a pioneer and blazing the trail for the comeback of the 4 kings.

>>15979350
NSX is garbage because >hybrid

>>15979350
>>NSX not too shit
The new NSX is pretty shit, anon

But I agree, love it or hate it the success of the R35 GTR is responsible for the resurgence of Japanese sports cars.

>>15979401
Hybrid can be good. They just did it wrong with the NSX.

>>15979871
I don't like the R35 personally, mostly because it's just too damn tall. But I respect the performance, especially for the price it was initially before that got inflated.

just get a vette if you want an advanced balanced chassis with decent power

>>15979956
I don't like my sister and don't want to fuck her, tho

>>15979975
You can continue to suck as many dicks as you please, except you get to enjoy superior American engineering in your motor vehicle.

>>15979956
>Vette
>balanced
They are tail happy as a puppy

>>15980090
It's 49.4% front, 50.6% rear. With wider rear tires. Being "tail happy" mostly just comes from its torque and your lack of throttle control.

>>15979956
>advanced balanced chassis
>front weight bias and leafsprings
roflmao

>>15980133
you have them wrong way around

>>15977109
>car comes out
>loads of kids in their 20s get it
>its slower than a miata and has a retarded power dip in the mid range because muh fuel injection technology lmaooooo

"UMMM YOU GUYS ARE JUST POOR HAHA"

>>15980141
No, I don't. The C7 Corvette is rear biased.

Maybe look it up yourself instead of assuming dumb shit with your dumb shit brain.

>>15980134
>light, simple and powerful engine
>rear mounted gearbox
>double wishbones all round
>optimum wheelbase
>perfect weight to track ratio
>low centre of gravity
stay mad faggot

File: 1445331046241.jpg (142KB, 880x558px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 880x558px

>>15980225
unreliable, ecu programmed to severely cut and limit power when you try go fast. simple is a nice way of saying retarded ohv shit.
rear mount gearbox to offset the weight of boat anchor engine
double wishbones just like a shitbox miata, great, still has leafsprings btw
for navigating a mcdonalds drive through? maybe
lol
even lower once the fatass driver jumps inside

>>15980155
i looked it up, 50.3% and 49.7% for a c7 z07

>>15980235
The Stingray is the other way around. It's not like you can afford a Z06, anyway.

File: stingray-002.jpg (488KB, 1512x1080px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 1512x1080px

>>15980245
a stingray has most weight in its front half, idiot

>>15980235
>still more reliable and powerful than any mazda
>still a better drivetrain layout than any mazda
>doesn't know leaf springs have been used in f1 cars in the last decade
>thinks hurr murrifats is an argument

>>15980351
It's not that he's a Mazda shill, it's that he hates the Corvette. Now stop replying to him before this thread becomes totally derailed.

File: 787B-915.jpg (126KB, 630x439px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 630x439px

>>15980351
more powerful sure but not reliable (less powerful than mazda racecars btw lol)
better layout? fd rx7 is fmr and isnt a front heavy pos, its perfectly balanced
f1 cars dont have corvette leafsprings try again

>gm has never ever won le mans
roflmao

>>15963323
There's some sort of electric fuckery going on under the hood in this one so that'll add a bit of weight to it. Any idea how heavy is this thing going to be, and whether or not it'll be more front-heavy than the RX-7.

>>15980662
Mazda has repeatedly said they aren't looking to electrification for this one, but it's likely for the model after it.

And they said they're targeting like 2700lb. Or was it 2800?

File: Rotary Engine Love-uPBr3Pet1mo-1.webm (3MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 853x480px

>>15963323
>Will Mazda save the rotary engine?
The rumored price is ~$100.
For that price I expect a triangular miracle.

File: 1466872138829.jpg (133KB, 603x1232px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 603x1232px

>>15982616
>$100
I meant $100,000

>>15963323
Not unless they've invented a magical apex seal that never wears out.

>>15982624
They've already said it'll cost under 80k USD.