Mazda droped the ball!

Post by **Tsukai240** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:05 am

Well they did it, they took away another performace car. the suspected specs on the new miata are very depressing. 1.8 litre 4 banber with less power than a stock KA in the big arse rx8 chassi isn't going to be much fun. i'm a lil pissed because i was considering on geting the new miata if it had the rotary. now that it is out, i don't know what to look into.

i realy want a new car with the same formula as an s13.

Post by **MaineExport** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:31 am

Buy the RX-8.

It's not like the Miata will be priced that far off from the RX (unless they cut costs dramatically), so pony up the extra bucks. Not that the RX-8 is all that impressive, but better than a miata in my opinion.

Website · Post by **Bronze MFP** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:02 am

i doubt they are using the rx-8 chassis for the new miata. I saw a picture of it, and it does look like an rx-8 but R&T track said it was smaller and only looked like it's big brother. but yeah, unless they keep the mazdaspeed turbo miata package going, just get an rx8. rotaries are soo smooth

Post by **rico05** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:20 am

"RX" = Rotary Xperimental

IF Mazda EVER puts a rotary in the Roadster, I will offically stop calling myslef the Biggest Mazda Fan in the world (which I currently am). Keep the Roadster what is has always been: light, nimble, and low powered. I like it that way. I love the rotary (used to own one myself) but the spirit of the Roadster needs to be maintained with a N/A <2.0l IMHO.

Post by **themadscientist** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:08 pm

The Renesis NA rotary in the Miata would not upset its balance, to Mazda I say "no balls". I find it hard to beleive they would take a step backwards though, didn't they just release a turbo Miata?

Post by **Tsukai240** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:57 pm

it is on the same platform. it dosn't have to be the exact shape as the rx8 it just uses the same tub, general structure, various hardware, ect. think of it as a convertable rx8 with the rear seats deleated with a 4 banger.

WHAT HAPPEND TO THE IBUKI CONCEPTS?

Post by **BuudWeizErr** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:55 pm

rico05 wrote:"RX" = Rotary Xperimental

IF Mazda EVER puts a rotary in the Roadster, I will offically stop calling myslef the Biggest Mazda Fan in the world (which I currently am). Keep the Roadster what is has always been: light, nimble, and low powered. I like it that way. I love the rotary (used to own one myself) but the spirit of the Roadster needs to be maintained with a N/A <2.0l IMHO.

and you drive a swapped Nissan. interesting.

Post by **Jesda** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:24 pm

The Miata was created to replace the Lotus Elan and various British roadsters. Thats its job, and thats what the fanatics keep coming back to buy.

Post by **themadscientist** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:10 pm

I would get one and throw a wicked rotary in it if I didn't have all these other half-started project cars.

Post by **MinisterofDOOM** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:25 am

To say the Miata is built on the same platform as the RX-8 does not mean it's the same SIZE as the RX-8.

Think about it...the Frontier and Titan are the same platform. Different sizes and different weights. The G35 and 2006 M45 are also the same platform. The M is MUCH bigger but still the FM platform. The Miata won't be sacrificing it's smallness, it'll just be a new small platform, derived from the RX-8 platform. If you take a look at a lot of vehicles that are said to "share" platforms, you'll find that a lot of times the platform is quite different from one to another. It's not as bad as you make it sound.

The thing I don't like about the new Miata is that it's going to look like the RX-8. I love the look of the RX-8, but there are many good reasons not to use it on the MX-5. First is that it's the RX-8. The Miata is an MX-5. Different car families, one rotary, the other normal IC. They should not be attached. It's the same thing that's wrong about making the new skyline look like a G35(DO NOT start giving me crap about that, I never said anything about whether any of that is true or not, it's just an example issue that most of us here can relate to). It just doesn't work. The other reason is that those lines don't work when diluted and shrunk like they are going to be on the new MX-5. The last is that, while the RX-8 is a good looking car, it's also the standout Mazda sports car. It needs to be differentiated from the rest of the lineup, and it needs to have a uniqueness about it to help it to stand out. If Mazda starts making every car look like the RX-8, it'll loose its distinctiveness.

Post by **themadscientist** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:39 am

the RX8 is an abomination. It's the Mazda equivalent of an AMC Gremlin. It did give the rotary a new lease on life though so while it makes me physically ill to look at one it served a good purpose. The blurring of breed by the major manufacturers is troubling. What is the point of different models if they are basically the same car.

Post by **Tsukai240** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:02 am

well minister i think you will also be dissipionted because alot of manufactures are following the one-style across the whole line. Nissan mitsu chevy mazda. i know, it sucks. so much fo individuality!

Post by **MinisterofDOOM** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:27 am

Yeah, most of them are, and it really irritates me sometimes. But at least with Nissan you can tell them apart. They've got individuality in them. The Z is very sporty, still looking like a Z...very much like the Z23 when you pay attention. The Altima is sporty and swept back, the Maxima is still sporty, but slightly more...I don't know...refined?...no that's not it. The Murano and Quest are very distinguishable (and fugly--but it's almost an attractive fugly...). With the MX-5 and the RX-8 it's just a direct ripoff...but smaller.

I definitely agree about not making so many car models if they're all basically the same. I also find it very stupid when manufacturers share components between different types. Example: Toyota Highlander. Based on a CAMRY! W! T! F! And the most frightening thing there is that Toyota's not the only one doing this. The Pathfinder and Trailblazer are the only truck based midsize SUVs left. Why in the blazes would anyone buy a four wheel drive vehicle based on a CAR!? I have big issues with the way the automotive market works lately. That's one of the main reasons my two favorite car manufacturers are who they are; because Nissan and Cadillac tend to avoid doing crap like that. Cadillac makes a car-based SUV, but it's meant more as a station wagon.

Oh, and that brings up another cross-vehicle-type bit of idiocy that drives me nuts: Subaru. They pass off their WAGONS as SUVs. Structurally, the Forester is no more of an SUV than an AWD G35, but somehow it's still classified as an SUV. It's NOT. It's a damn station wagon. But for some reason that's a bad word now...Congrats to Dodge for making their mainstay vehicle a stationwagon and not trying to disguise it as an "SUV."

Post by **turtl631** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:38 am

I, too, was wondering why the biggest Mazda fan in the world drives a CA s13.....

Post by **Chingon** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:19 am

renesis in the miata would be a smart move IMHO. Perhaps they would lose some hard core fanatics, but they would gain new respect from others.

And yes, I hate all the new retro/futuristic crap coming out lately... Why not keep the streamlined trend of the 90's? What was so wrong w/it? Toyota comes out w/a crappy looking celica, and all of the sudden, it's the way to go?

Post by **Jesda** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:41 pm

"Stationwagon" conjures up childhood images of being in the third rear-facing row of an Olds Cruiser going across the country constantly asking "ARE WE THERE YET!?!?! SOMEONE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TELL ME IF WERE THERE YET!!!!"

Post by **Nismo_Freak** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:56 pm

MinisterofDOOM wrote:I definitely agree about not making so many car models if they're all basically the same. I also find it very stupid when manufacturers share components between different types. Example: Toyota Highlander. Based on a CAMRY! W! T! F! And the most frightening thing there is that Toyota's not the only one doing this. The Pathfinder and Trailblazer are the only truck based midsize SUVs left. Why in the blazes would anyone buy a four wheel drive vehicle based on a CAR!? I have big issues with the way the automotive market works lately. That's one of the main reasons my two favorite car manufacturers are who they are; because Nissan and Cadillac tend to avoid doing crap like that. Cadillac makes a car-based SUV, but it's meant more as a station wagon.

How many SUV owners take their SUV's offroading? I mean 100% going down some rocky path offroading, not driving down a gravel road. I think you will find it's something like maybe 10%. Now take the small percentage of 4x4 owners that actually use the 4x4 capability of the car to do the same thing. What you end up with is a very small minority of owners that actually use the SUV as a 4x4 off road vehicle. So now it should be more than obvious why Nissan and a number of other companies use a unibody chassis to build their 4x4 small SUV's.

The automotive market never favors the enthusiast... it favors the daily person driving their 2.5 kids to soccer practice that likes to be totally oblivious that anything is around them. So cars will continue to have more and more focus on that individuals wants... some of which are obvious. Like more space, more seats, more power, more driving assist features, more airbags than a mini truck show, and other crap that basically adds up to the 4-ton tank that guzzles gas faster than a Top Fuel funny car and can take out about 50 other cars when the driver decides to do something apart from driving.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Oh, and that brings up another cross-vehicle-type bit of idiocy that drives me nuts: Subaru. They pass off their WAGONS as SUVs. Structurally, the Forester is no more of an SUV than an AWD G35, but somehow it's still classified as an SUV. It's NOT. It's a damn station wagon. But for some reason that's a bad word now...Congrats to Dodge for making their mainstay vehicle a stationwagon and not trying to disguise it as an "SUV."

You should take a few classes on market analysis and advertising. It's all in how you word things. All an SUV is, is a large truck based station wagon. Someone came up with the idea of the name "SUV" back in the day and it stuck.

If you look at Subaru's nomenclature in Japan you'll find a different story. Wagon's are popular to some extent, and the coined term SUV is not commonplace because the Japanese don't need quasi-Sherman tanks for daily drivers

Post by **Tsukai240** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:11 pm

word^^

Post by **Rex** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:15 pm

Jesda wrote:"Stationwagon" conjures up childhood images of being in the third rear-facing row of an Olds Cruiser going across the country constantly asking "ARE WE THERE YET!?!?! SOMEONE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TELL ME IF WERE THERE YET!!!!"

Completely off topic, but this stationwagon owns you .

Modified by Rex at 9:27 PM 12/22/2004

Post by **Tsukai240** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:53 pm

jeeez how did ths thread go from talking about the new miata to f'n station wagons

Post by **Rex** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:01 pm

Okay, I'll try to help remedy that

If you know German, here's an article

Post by **Rex** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:02 pm

More spy photos, but why are all the people standing around???

Post by **Rex** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:04 pm

Post by **Rex** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:10 pm

More spy work.

My work here is done.

Post by **Tsukai240** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:14 pm

thanks thats cool pics they give better prespective of its size than the one in scc

Post by **Rex** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:17 pm

Those look like Millenium 5 lug rims???

Post by **gibbo80** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:53 pm

im with reco on saying the rotary should stay with the rx, if you put one in a miata it wouldnt be a miata to me. They could make it faster tho

Post by **jacob360** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:46 pm

It's all Ford's fault

Post by **Tsukai240** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:55 pm

jacob360 wrote:It's all Ford's fault

word

Post by **themadscientist** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:03 pm

it's Ford's fault Mazda exists at all, don't bite the hand that feeds you even if it feeds you something you don't like. Nissan would have been going down in flames too if the frogs hadn't bailed them out. Both companies screwed up and had to sell their respective souls to the devil, result? I give you the RX8 and the "new GTR"

Mazda droped the ball!

Mazda droped the ball!

Re: (rico05)

Re: (rico05)

Re: (Jesda)

Re: (themadscientist)

Re: (MinisterofDOOM)

Re: (Tsukai240)

Re: (MinisterofDOOM)

Re: (Jesda)

Re: (jacob360)

Re: (Tsukai240)

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums