Automakers race to meet sizzling demand for performance vehicles

[mmcartalk]

The difference with Mazda today is the level of refinement and fuel efficiency to go with the Euro ride/handling. Big step forward with Skyactive designs, very different from past designs.

Mazda has achieved a lot last couple of years. Names are just names, but the new machinery today is truly better.

Note: rotary is done for 2015, a gas sucking, gross polluting piece of cool history. Those that wanted more power in Mazda Miata were shopping wrong car, therefore they were largely ignored. Miata is about balance.

Oh, yes, I agree the Miata is not about power, but balance and handling (I've driven several of them). But then, I'm not the one complaining about its lack of power, either.

The rotary, BTW, not only used a lot of gas, but oil, too.....many rotary-engine owners routinely carried a spare quart with them in the trunk. Though not as oil-hungry as a two-cycle piston engine, it used oil because the rotor's apex-tips, which needed constant lubrication as they spun, (comparable to piston rings in a conventional engine) swept some of the oil around with them into the combustion chamber, where the spark plugs lit it off with the air-fuel mixture. That's also why the rotary produces a lot of emissions without an efficient catalyst.

Though the rotary engine is small and very space-efficient...and can spin almost as smoothly as an electric motor, I tend to agree with you that its days may be numbered, but not totally over. There are rumors of another RX-7 in a few years, but Mazda is mum on it. Mazda spent decades working on past rotaries, it, and they never really achieved what the company wanted. The last turbo RX-7 of the 1990s had such good performance to just because of the light engine but because the whole car was very light, somewhat like an oversized Lotus. The company made the chassis parts so light that they tended to get bent or broken on rough roads. There are rumors of another upcoming RX-7, but Mazda is quite mum, and the upcoming CAFE rules do not bode well for another rotary.

 

[Bulldog 1]

Umm...this got really cerebral and non-Lexus but my two cents.
I was a diehard F-Body fan when GM made them.
Owned and drove daily an '84 Z-28, '89 RS, '92 Trans Am, '97 Formula, '98 Formula, '99 Trans Am and finally my still original owner 2002 Firehawk Trans Am.
They stopped building them, Pontiac died, and I pulled my car off the road after two years to preserve it as the limited production numbered car that it is.
After driving four door daily drivers since 2003 (Lexus exclusively since 2008), I just can't see the practicality of a 2-door or a high performance car.
My Firehawk is a monster on four wheels, and I can't really do anything with it.
Sure, the testosterone coupled with deep nostalgia for the anemic muscle cars of the '80's leading up to the more powerful V8's of the '90's and 2000's are tempting to me.
But when I've driven no more than 10 miles per day to work, I can't justify the added expense of a high performance anything with the high cost of ownership (gas, insurance, high performance tires, maintenance, temptation to modify from stock etc.)
Yes, there are an insane amount of choices, and the horsepower wars are getting scary to me, but I am perfectly content driving my IS250 F Sport daily with sporty looks and handling but V6 fuel economy daily; ES350 luxury and V6 power on the weekends.
The rare occasion I feel like unleashing the beast on a fair weather weekend, it's always there waiting for me in the garage.
Putting logic before emotion, I haven't been able to justify a second high performance car in the garage in over a decade now.
Mind you, had someone let me test drive the RC350 three weeks ago, I'd be sitting here typing as a complete and utter hypocrite LOL.

 

[mmcartalk]

Umm...this got really cerebral and non-Lexus but my two cents.
I was a diehard F-Body fan when GM made them.
Owned and drove daily an '84 Z-28, '89 RS, '92 Trans Am, '97 Formula, '98 Formula, '99 Trans Am and finally my still original owner 2002 Firehawk Trans Am.
They stopped building them, Pontiac died, and I pulled my car off the road after two years to preserve it as the limited production numbered car that it is.
After driving four door daily drivers since 2003 (Lexus exclusively since 2008), I just can't see the practicality of a 2-door or a high performance car.
My Firehawk is a monster on four wheels, and I can't really do anything with it.
Sure, the testosterone coupled with deep nostalgia for the anemic muscle cars of the '80's leading up to the more powerful V8's of the '90's and 2000's are tempting to me.
But when I've driven no more than 10 miles per day to work, I can't justify the added expense of a high performance anything with the high cost of ownership (gas, insurance, high performance tires, maintenance, temptation to modify from stock etc.)
Yes, there are an insane amount of choices, and the horsepower wars are getting scary to me, but I am perfectly content driving my IS250 F Sport daily with sporty looks and handling but V6 fuel economy daily; ES350 luxury and V6 power on the weekends.
The rare occasion I feel like unleashing the beast on a fair weather weekend, it's always there waiting for me in the garage.
Putting logic before emotion, I haven't been able to justify a second high performance car in the garage in over a decade now.
Mind you, had someone let me test drive the RC350 three weeks ago, I'd be sitting here typing as a complete and utter hypocrite LOL.

Welcome to the world of common sense. You have the maturity (and, by that, I mean brain maturity, not necessarily age), to
not be overly-enamored with something that would make you live beyond your means. The IS250, on top of that, for most driving functions, is a perfectly sensible vehicle, especially in AWD setup for bad weather, unless you need a roomy rear seat, where it definitely won't haul NBA guys.

 

[IS-SV]

(

The rotary, BTW, not only used a lot of gas, but oil, too.....many rotary-engine owners routinely carried a spare quart with them in the trunk. Though not as oil-hungry as a two-cycle piston engine, it used oil because the rotor's apex-tips, which needed constant lubrication as they spun, (comparable to piston rings in a conventional engine) swept some of the oil around with them into the combustion chamber, where the spark plugs lit it off with the air-fuel mixture. That's also why the rotary produces a lot of emissions without an efficient catalyst.

Though the rotary engine is small and very space-efficient...and can spin almost as smoothly as an electric motor, I tend to agree with you that its days may be numbered, but not totally over. There are rumors of another RX-7 in a few years, but Mazda is mum on it. Mazda spent decades working on past rotaries, it, and they never really achieved what the company wanted. The last turbo RX-7 of the 1990s had such good performance to just because of the light engine but because the whole car was very light, somewhat like an oversized Lotus. The company made the chassis parts so light that they tended to get bent or broken on rough roads. There are rumors of another upcoming RX-7, but Mazda is quite mum, and the upcoming CAFE rules do not bode well for another rotary.

Yes, we know that, and we also know the probability of rotary coming back to US market is extremely low if not zero.