I've been a big mazda fan for many years now and I really like the changes they have made to become respectable again. The styling is cutting edge and they are really focusing in on a smaller segment of the market that they feel they can please, instead of what they were doing before when they were trying to please everyone and take on Honda and Toyota.

Althought I think they are really making a mistake with their lack of technological innovation. When I think of Mazda in the past I think of their innovative engineering that introduced the rotary engine, when everyone else gave up on it.....now it seems like they just want to keep up with the other car makers and not try to break new ground ( have they even introduced any fuel cell vechicles)....I think if they really want to be relevent they need to reintroduce the Miller cycle engine.......sure I know that engine was expensive to build but that's what people are looking for in mazda (well if you ask me) . I think they should throw on variable valve timing on that engine and throw it into the Mazda6 and then advertise why this engine is better.

 

First off, the miller cycle engine was nice but why on god's green earth would mazda (hurting for profit after 8 years of huge losses) make a more expensive, less powerfull, more difficult to maintain/repair engine than the current duratec 3.0L?? Makes no sense from ANY standpoint.

Secondly, Yes mazda does have a hybrid car. It's an Rx8. It's a hydrogen powered car. It's actually very fast. If I'm not mistaken it's as fast as the autmoatic RX8 (gas-powered) which would easily make it the fastest alternative-fuel vehicle on the road. The renesis responds VERY WELL to hydrogen fuel.

Mazda is and has always been about driving enjoyment. This goes back as far I can remember (1990 and the introduction of the miata). From that moment every other car on the road fell from grace. The Miata started a trend towards the importance of handling. I know the first and second gen Rx7's were great cars also but the miata really kickstarted what I refer to as the "handling revolution". Rotary power is a great source of future drivetrain power and with the new renesis' ability and reliability and Ford's financial backing and universal platform sharing you're going to see a lot of great new rotary powered vehicles. Once you have 3-5 different rotary cars on the road you know other manufacturers are going to start trying their hand at them. Mazda didn't invent the rotary....just kept prefecting it.


p.s. those millenia with the millercycle engines were SLOW. 2.3L V6?? are you kidding me?? When nissan is running a VERY stout 2.5L four banger...Mazda wouldn't stand a chance with a new miller cycle.

 

come on now if mazda had given up on the rotary engine because of it's shortcomings then we wouldn't have the renesis motor today. People that buy imports are looking for features like variable valve timing, hybrid technologies, and you can throw the miller cycle engine into this same category. Plus they have already devoloped it, it's not like they are going to have to start from scratch again. The duratec 3.0 is a step back from the miller cycle there is nothing on it that's ground breaking. It's good that mazda has finally come out with a hybrid (even if it is a concept), but how long did it take for them to finally come out with this? Toyota and honda have already come out with second generation hybrids for sale while mazda has nothing to announce on the horizon.

 

not to pick but your posts make it sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

do you know anything about the economy, emissions, common sense, and market segment??

 

hey i'm expressing an opinion, I could say the same thing about you....

my opinion is that mazda isn't an innovator like they once were. Economy, emisions, and common sense would have killed the rotary engine a long time ago.....but obviously they saw some promise in the rotary engine and were willing to work out these issues....If they didn't see the same promise in the miller cycle do you really think it would have even made it to production like it did?? The miller cycle engine is unique like the rotary and they shouldn't have given up on it so easily. But that's beside the point this whole post is not about the Miller cycle engine it's about Mazda's lack of vision when it comes to developing new technology. They seem to be too slow to respond to market conditions.....why did it take them this long to come out with a motor with variable valve timing when honda and toyota was doing it for ages? For a small company like mazda there is no reason why they can't respond quickly, but for whatever reason they're as slow as the big 3.

 

Actually Mazda has been using VVT technology for quite a while, and Mazda never "brought back" the rotary, it was alive in well in japan until '03 until the renesis came out in '04....the duratec is hardly a step back from the miller cycle...umm more power for less money?? And if Mazda has lack of vision then why have they won several awards already for the new series of MZR engines....and MANY awards for the new Renesis....hmm..for a company with so called "lack of vision" Mazda's sales have increased 87% since 2001

 

I just read an article yesterday, I think it was Popular Mechanics, which quoted one of the high-ups at Mazda talking about there lack of hybrid vehicles. He said the reason they have yet to jump on the hybrid wagon is that the 700 Mazda dealers in the US are not equipped to service the vehicles, and it would be a very large undertaking for them to do so. Also, the performance of the hybrid's isn't quite able to keep up with the "zoom, zoom" image, but he did mention the hydrogen rotary being developed in Japan, and said that if the demand for hybrids eventually grows large enough, they WILL follow suit.

 

You know, Mazda doesn't need any help becoming a "force" in the market. For one, their sales are up this year world-wide due to a full raft of new (and mostly excellent) product. Mazda continues to innovate, but innovation isn't everything. Sure, the Prius might be more technologically advanced than a Mazda3, but does that make it more fun to drive?

And, does every car company need to have huge annual sales volumes to be successful? If that were the case, every car company on earth would want to be more like General Motors and less like BMW. BMW, by the way, usually makes a tidy little profit. Even if it is on a smaller volume, not selling to rental agencies and fleet customers has a way of keeping the bottom line intact. I think it's better to be a small, rich company than a big, cash-strapped one. Especially since as an enthusiast, I value the quirky little companies that build cars with bags of character - such as Subaru, Mazda, BMW, and the like.

 

fiat, lotus, volvo, saab, etc....all GREAT companys/cars all have their own "vision/innovation" all owned by larger manufacturers like GM and Ford!

Doing your own thing often means doing it without a lot of operating money (supercharger project anyone?!?)

It pays to sell out.

 

Uhh... you may want to check back with Saab and Fiat on that one. Saab released a rebadged version of a Subaru WRX recently, and is poised to release a rebadged Chevy Trailblazer as the Saab 9-7. No joke, you'll find it in the media. Then, Fiat is on its death bed (seemingly). And their only hope may be forcing GM to buy the remaining shares of the company!

Ford ownership of a company (Jaguar, Aston Martin, Land Rover) is a hands-off thing, mostly. The little captive companies prosper, and are better for it. But GM has a way of choking the daylights out of its little companies in search of more profit, draining their engineering resources away, and relegating them to selling rebadged Chevrolets. Just ask Isuzu about its Ascender, Hombre, etc....

You know, I would still buy a slightly used Saab 9-3 Viggen, though. Torque steer and all - it's an awesome car (even if it has a ton of Opel parts in it). Oh, and in my book, it's still a real Saab! Somebody pass the canned herring...