Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by FD3S, Nov 3, 2012.
It depends on the person. I honestly think one can have as much fun in a Miata and a Porsche.
I was merely pointing out the irony of calling the RX7 a hairdressers car compared to a Porsche when you have the Boxster the quintessential hairdresser car.
and being a hairdressers car and being a good drivers car are not mutually exclusive e.g. Miata, Boxster, MR2 Spyder all amazing driving cars with the stigma of being women cars.
lol..yeah the boxster..stupid guy i know bought one..bragged about how he owned a porsche and went into debt over it...terrible.
Great car but, I could never own one for shallow reasons lol.
1. Hairdresser Stigma
2. Everybody thinks you bought it because you couldn't afford a 911
3. 911 owners like to make fun of it e.g. "not a real porsche"
986's are dirt cheap these days too. But, it suffers from the same illness as the 996. Egg Yolk Headlights = Epic Fail.
if mazda wants to create a new RX-7 halo car that competes with the porsche, the new NSX, GT-R, etc -- it's going to have to magically come up with far more than 300hp that the renesis engine is supposedly capable of. or it will have to create a car that weighs about as little as a miata with that 300hp.
1st and 2nd gen rx-7's were affordable sports cars. the early 90's rx-7 was stupid expensive. it's no coincidence that toyota supra and rx-7 are no longer around.
a $40k+ mazda sports car is a hard sell -- less than 1000 cars a year. the only reason mazda would do that is if it really wants a halo car for image. nissan's GT-R is a beast of a car and sales for that are not exactly stellar - about 1500 or so a year - but it brings people into the dealership.
my prediction is mazda creates a sports car that slots above the miata and mazdaspeed 3 in their lineup. and competes with brz/fr-s/370z/genesis coupe.
i have a 370z Nismo and the ride is super harsh.
On roads that aren't perfect, the car feels like it has a flat tire :shock:
Richard Hammond said it best when they reviewed the S2K/Z4/Boxster.
"There's only one reason why anyone would buy a Porsche Boxster, it's because they can't afford a 911."
At work. there's a porsche panamera Turbo S that sometimes is parked next to my car. One day, I went online to check the price of that car. Holy cow, it's so expensive! :shock:
She bought the RX-7 in like 88 or 89. I dont think they were making Boxsters at that point, but maybe Im wrong becuase I dont have legendary knowledge on porsches, and Im too lazy to wikipedia.
You guys must grow up in different times and area's. Around here nobody in the market for a porsche would have for one second considered a RX-7 as an alternative.
I'm glad to hear MAzda has decided to continue the RX-7. The 1st one I owned was a '91 N/A (2nd gen Series 5). The one I own now is an '87 N/A (2nd gen Series 4).
A lot of RX7 owners don't know that the oil consumption of 1Qrt/2500 miles is the result of an automatic system at work. Because rotaries behave like 2 cycle engines, oil needs to be mixed with the gas. Knowing that no modern car owner would be willing to manually mix, the Mazda engineers designed a pump system that injects a small amount of crankcase oil into the combustion chamber. Therefore, if you are an RX7 owner, you should know to check and top off oil frequently.
They handle amazingly well; hug the road and 6500 rpms and 100 mph in 3rd gear does not phase them.
That's because, and by no mean am I disrespecting Porsche owners, but they tend to be less knowledgeable about cars, and simply buy because of the name. The FD RX-7 was one of the most balanced sports car ever created. It was loved for the very same reason why the NSX was loved, because it handled like a dream.
Truth. If you gave me a choice right now between a reliable(keyword) FD and a 996 N/A. I'd take the FD.
Unless they are in PCA they usually know jack about cars. Those PCA guys though... are usually a good bunch of knowledgeable drivers.
Haha, this reminds me of a funny story I heard on TTAC - apparently there was a Mazda dealership who sold a bunch of FD's to people who were in the right tax bracket (doctors, etc...) but weren't very... well versed on the unique vehicles they had, or what they had to do to maintain them. (Never mind the fact that for the majority of them, a quart of oil every so often was all they needed so long as they didn't try to futz with the turbo setup).
Needless to say, engine rebuilds abound
I don't know what's more amazing about this thread:
1) The fact that one niche car has generated such a lengthy discussion.
2) The fact that the stuff is still intelligent and healthy 4 pages in.
I think it's amazing we went 4 pages and no mention of Dominic Torreto RX7 beating Brian Spillners Eclipse. bwahahahahaha
The movie we all love to hate and make fun of but, for some reason can recite it line for line...
ANNNNNNNNNDDDD the intelligence streak is broken at 4 pages... thanks -.-
Hey, if nothing else - that movie was quotable as hell!
"You almost had me? You never had me! You never had your car!
Stop it, stop it now.
Granny shifting, not double clutching like you should. You're lucky that 100 shot of nos didn't blow the welds on the intake. Now me and the mad scientist gotta rip apart the block and replace the piston rings you fried.
Ask any racer. Any real racer. It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile winnings, winning.
On a more serious note, no matter what price point this model eventually targets, I really hope they take their styling cues from the FD instead of the RX-8... or any other car they have right now for that matter. Because I swear, if that damn grin shows up on the newest RX-7...
RX-8 didn't have that stupid grin, but then again it also didn't have guts. (OH NO I DIDN'T!)
I bought my 2009 Mazdaspeed 3 GT back in 2010, right when the 2nd gen came out and I SPECIFICALLY looked all over the bay area for a 1st gen because I liked its overall unassuming/sleeper look, and most importantly, no stupid smile!
Oh, the RX-8 may not have had the grin, but to be honest it never really resonated with me aesthetics-wise. It was curvy and well-proportioned, but it also struck me as a design that tried a little bit too hard to be distinctive. (Some people make the same argument about the first gen MZ3 in comparison to the Protege5). I don't think it helped that its predecessor looked like... well, the FD!
The RX-8 did plenty for me aesthetics-wise.
1st gen Mazda 3 changed the game of the compact car. It did away with boring, uninteresting designs that was associated with "economy/compact" cars. On top of that, it offered features (for its time) that rivaled premium cars, such as:
- Automatic climate control
- Standard disc brakes on all 4 wheels
- (for the non-drivers) Manual mode in the automatic
- Heated seats and leather
- Ridiculous cargo space for its size
Bottom line, if it weren't for the 1st gen Mazda 3, there won't be any any of the premium features found in current Hyundai Elantra/Accent, Ford Fiesta/Focus, and any other car companies that want to differentiate themselves from the image of boring economy car. I really want to see how long will Toyota and Honda hold out and sell just based on their reputation, because the Corolla and Civic are getting lapped by others' offerings.
Dude, you're preaching to the choir - I love my Mazda 3, and plan on driving it until the engine blows
I'd say Honda needs to get something going more than Toyota, to be honest. Yeah, the Corolla hasn't been associated with performance since the AE86/GT-S and is boring as all hell (something the S and XRS trims tried and failed to change) but considering the reputation for sportiness and value the Civic USED to have... I mean, what the hell happened? It's not a bad car, by any means, but it's not the luminary it was in the 1990's either. I'm still fond of the 94 Si hatch, myself.
That'll be a while, I also have a 2004 Mazda 3 2.3 Auto (yes, I have two Mazda 3's, 2004 2.3 Auto, and a 2009 Mazdaspeed 3 GT).
And my 2004 2.3 has ~120,000miles, and ZERO mechanical issues. The only repair I've had to do was replace some transmission sensor. That was it. I have been running full synthetic ever since I got the car though, so maybe that had something to do with it.
But, modern day inline 4 are built like tanks.
The XRS from the previous generation was a rare and badass car. Anytime you put the Celica's 8000rpm VVTi motor in a car, it's going to be a good car. If it's good enough for Lotus, then it's good, period.
See, that's the weird thing - one of my car buddies (he drove a Cobalt SS before and currently drives an STI) who test drove one was kind of looking forward to it b/c of the new block, but when he actually did it his impressions was that the XRS was competent but still kind of lifeless in spite of the new engine, which surprised me a lot. To be fair, I'm not entirely sure how hard he pushed it or how the stock suspension of the XRS felt to begin with; it'd be cool to drive one myself to see if that's true or not, especially since driving the stock Corolla is more of a chore than anything else. People on Toyota forums seem to like it, but that's kind of a weighted exercise
For me, liveliness of a car comes down to two things: transmission and handling (part of that is chassis too).
If I'm in the market for a second car, I'll take a used Lotus Elise over a brand new 370z (or similar car) in a heartbeat. You can take your beast of a car, but I want mine to handle.
Turbos are not really that efficient. I have a Genesis Coupe with a 2L Turbo. I get around 21-23mpg in mixed driving. It's fun to drive, but efficient it isn't. Did you read the road test between Ford F150 with Ecoboost (turbo) and F150 with V8. Even though the Ecoboost had a higher EPA mileage rating, in real world driving, the V8 did better. Turbos cram air into the cylinders, and more gas is needed to burn it.
Thinking about getting an RX8. Love the suicide doors and the 6 speed gearbox.
Ever wonder why Mazda[along with its Wankel engine] is the only Japanese manufacturer to ever win the world's largest and most important motor race, the 24hrs of Le Mans? Honda couldn't do it neither could Toyota or even Nissan.
Torque steer doesn't happen in rear drive cars anyway.
Mazda without Ford may be a problem in the future.
But, I like Mazda - my favorite Japanese brand besides Nissan...
The Mazda 3 was built on a Ford platform. I agree it was a great subcompact, but it only changed the game for car reviewers and magazines. It's never reached a sales volume to truly change the game.
I agree that Honda and Toyota have definitely dropped the ball on their designs and only sell now because of reputation. Informed buyers realize how much new Toyotas and Hondas are extreme let downs from former models; VW to a certain extent as well...
Handing was the issue, though. Apparently it got from point A to point B a lot faster than the base Corolla, but he said that the XRS still lacked the fun factor that he was expecting; the steering and clutch response weren't at all what he was expecting them to be. The suspension was firm, apparently, but there was nothing the made him want to push the car. It was competent, far moreso than the base Corolla - but it never quite got to sporty. Could be that his expectations might have been too high.
He was expecting a Toyota to be fun? Was he high or something?
Things I associate Toyota with:
- Mind-numbingly dull drive
- Idiot drivers who doesn't know the difference between low beam and high beam
- Asian driver who leaves the signal on for a f^%king mile. I'm Asian so I can say it
- Whale-cars, Solara was a gorgeous car, but it drove like a boat. Same with the Lexus SC line.
Hahaha, I was so close to asking him this! I guess it came through in my expression, because he just kinda rolled his eyes and said something to the effect of "Dude, they couldn't stop talking about how Toyota finally had something for the enthusiasts - I thought that meant 'hey, it's not boring as f**k anymore! Awesome, I'll give it a go!'"
In retrospect, though - with that engine as a base and a much improved suspension and better styling, the XRS could have done so much better than it did.
For the record, the 3 did really well here in Canada - surprised it didn't penetrate further in the States. I mean, it beat the pants off damn near everything else in the price segment when it come out...
I'm not surprised. People in the market for an economy/compact car don't generally care for the MAIN selling point of the Mazda 3: Handling.
People general care about reputation, MPG, and soft ride. Which in my humble opinion, the Mazda 3 accomplishes none of them.
The 1st gen Mazda 3 had to ride on Protege's reputation which wasn't all that good (mind you, Protege5 made wagons "cool" again).
Non-Skyactiv Mazda 3 has HORRIBLE MPG. The motor was built for torque and when you have torque, you're just not going to have good MPG unless it's a diesel.
Finally, Mazda 3's ride is far from soft. It's like riding on rocks in relationship to its competitor's cloud/floaty/soft suspension.
Always felt for the Protege5 - it seemed to be a critical success, but that never translated into real life. I mean, there were a ton around and the drivers liked to gush about their cars, but like you said; it had the reputation of the base Protege surrounding it already, meaning a great car was perceived as average or a little better than.
I thought the MZ3 suspension was nice and soft too - Racing Beat springs, Konis STR.T's, and MS3 sways went a looooooong way toward fixing that
Believe it or not, I'm not particularly thrilled with MS3's suspension. It does its job as far as performance goes (and then some), but its setup leads to a rather unpleasant daily driver. It's stiff, there's no other words to describe it. Friends of mine have commented that it's even stiffer than the EVO 8 (one of which has one and from a roll I pull even with him , I'm not going to kid myself and claim the MS3 can smoke an EVO, but it kept up)
Aside from being stiff, the fronts are stiffer and the rear is softer, I believe it's to combat understeer. But in a daily driver, you end up with a ride that's jarring, and the dreaded "highway float" sensation.
But hey, I got what I paid for, not going to complain when world beater such as EVOs are north of $30k and approaching $40k.
Yeah, I use to have a 2011 Mazda3 with the 2.5 motor. Average 21-22 overall MPG no matter how I babied it. Sold it for a 2012 Hyundai Accent.
Same with my 2.3, there are talks that motor is just drinking gas on idle. Hence the horrific numbers for city driving.
I heard that too - I can't speak for the setup in general, but a lot of MZ3 drivers who swapped in MS3 shocks/springs seemed kind of underwhelmed.
The suspension setup makes a ton of sense on a track, with it smooth surface and ~zero bumps. But on the streets, sometimes it feels like the torture chamber.
Let's just say Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear would not be pleased with the ride.
Ah, gotcha. You consider in swapping in new springs/shocks, or are you going to stick with stock for now? Lots of drivers seem to like running Prokits with Koni Sports. The FSD's might be a good choice as well if you don't lower.
I have a set of H&R springs in a box, looking to get Bilstein shocks when the time is right (shocks aint cheap and the installation aint cheap either). Yes, I know I just made a little rant about the car's stiff suspension and here I am talking about new suspension. But since when did modding a car make sense to begin with? :twisted:
I've done every shifter mod possible and it shifts beautifully now (to me at least). No short shift plates though, my gearbox reacted to it, and it went: "No no, you take that plate off right now." But I do have a short shifter from TWM so the throws are short anyway. Maybe I'm rationalizing my decision to remove the SSP, but I really didn't care for throws as short as a "click". I still want to throw it into gear, know what I mean? Confidence with my shifting is probably more important to me than anything else.
I have a MS CAI, and CP-E TIP. I'm not touching the TIP ever again, it was a nightmare of an install. Those two mods freed up ~25-30hp (as reported by users who have dyno'd their cars after the mod) Mazda's original intake setup was really restrictive. No tune yet, I won't be doing any exhaust mods, the car is loud enough, and I think I'm done with making power with this car. I'm approaching 300bhp just with those two mods, and with a tune, I'm sure I'll break 300bhp. And I humbly remind myself that this is still a FWD, once you go past 300bhp, there's really no point. I also have a Turbosmart BPV for that nice ricer whipped sound. How did I rationalize getting a BPV? The stock was made out of plastic and reported to not hold pressure consistently... well it was made out of plastic, come on man. For the used parts on a good deal, so I jumped on it. I spent about $300 on making power.
This may interest you, there are reports of MS3 having an extremely efficient drivetrain with ~8% power lost from engine to the wheels. There are reports of the stock car dynoing at ~240hp to the wheels. The car is advertised at 263bhp. So it's one of two things, either the car is underrated, or the drivetrain is really that efficient.
Doubt the car's underrated It somehow doesn't surprise me that out of all the hot hatches, it's the MS3 that has the least drivetrain loss. From the praise I've heard of it, though, the new Focus ST might give it a run for its money.
No doubt! I like the Focus ST. I just wish the Focus RS will come to America.
Might depend on how the ST does. Having both those cars in its North American portfolio would be a godsend to enthusiasts, though. I'm still honestly not sure why it took them so long to start sending the good Focuses/Foci over here...
how did this thread devolve into discussion about a torque steering front wheel drive econobox?
mazda rx-7. or mazdaspeed rx-9 turbo GSL limited millenium edition.
Separate names with a comma.