You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Damn that's a really disappointing announcement from Mazda. They've been sort of hyping up for a while but it's a hard pass.
42km on the PHEV battery by itself, 8km shy of maxing out the federal rebate
EDIT: Like a few posters above, Mazda could have saved a ton of money by making the CX 60 crash test certified for our shores.
Advertisement
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_AK
Or you meet some girl at the club, cum inside of her, find out shes only in grade 12, so you buy a Prada bag for her to make things right, she finds out the bag is a fake and decides to have the kid
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX_Renesis
wtf did she get some bolt-on titties or what?
they look sooooooooooo much bigger than they were 2ish years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nns
I can't stand the sound of Mandarin either. Boo yow nee bey nee shing bo now noong gey shee mayo mayo mayo mayo mayo mayo mayo.
Putting out 1/2 baked products every now and then is the same habit that has been hurting Mazda's books as far back as I can remember. Wasn't their MX-30 experiment recent enough to remind them not to do this?
Mazda's the quirkiest of the mainstream automakers and without that we'd also wouldn't get cars like the RX-7/8s or the Miata (or even the Millenia). They make cars that often make little commercial sense so I can live with weird stuff like the MX-30.
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 959
Thanked 826 Times in 402 Posts
A truncated CX-90 was what I expected for the CX-70 given their R&D investment in the I-6 engine and RWD platform.
Without any insight into their product planning process, the CX-90 should've launched as the CX-70 with 3-row as an option, followed by a CX-90 with a more squared-off design to rival the Telluride / Palisade (effectively making it a Japanese BMW X5).
Maybe one day we'll find out why Mazda took this approach. For now, I'm more worried Mazda will run out of money because these products don't seem that competitive.
wowsa the 8AT isn't torque converted or DCT, it's almost like the ferrari f1 trans? people complaining it's not very smooth i thought it was just tuning/shift logic
wowsa the 8AT isn't torque converted or DCT, it's almost like the ferrari f1 trans? people complaining it's not very smooth i thought it was just tuning/shift logic
It's more comparable to the AMG 9 speed which replaces the torque converter with a clutch instead. The setup isn't the problem here - it's the tuning - as this works just fine for Mercedes and most torque converters lock up at pretty low speeds anyways.
This was a packaging decision - the clutch is skinnier than the torque convertor AND with a mild hybrid system you should be able to get initial drive with the electric motor so you don't get low speed clunkiness with the clutch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDMDreams
Isn't the cx90 already like x5 size, it looks pretty long
A truncated CX-90 was what I expected for the CX-70 given their R&D investment in the I-6 engine and RWD platform.
Maybe one day we'll find out why Mazda took this approach. For now, I'm more worried Mazda will run out of money because these products don't seem that competitive.
(again, used to work in product planning) >> Mazda's R&D cost for CX70/90 is 2-3X all of Toyota's recently refreshed trucks while selling a lot less volume and at a 10-20k discount to Lexus.
The body on this wasn't shortened because it can cost ~40% of all non powertrain R&D costs for a new program. Maybe 20% since it would reuse a lot of CX90 front end. It's crazy that Mazda's still alive when they're making moves building niche products like they're SAAB.
If I were at Mazda, I would've improved the steering/powertrain/suspension calibration of the Highlander / Grand Highlander. Program would cost 50-60% less and product would be better. CX-5 would've gotten hybrid and plug-in hybrid by now.
Would've developed heat pump tech that Toyota/Subaru could then go use in their EV (part of why Toyota took stake in Mazda in the first place, to get access to Skyactiv related expertise to hit 40% thermal efficiency on their new 4 cylinders).
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 959
Thanked 826 Times in 402 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstulzerRZD
(again, used to work in product planning) >> Mazda's R&D cost for CX70/90 is 2-3X all of Toyota's recently refreshed trucks while selling a lot less volume and at a 10-20k discount to Lexus.
[...]
It's crazy that Mazda's still alive when they're making moves building niche products like they're SAAB.
Their spending is why I'm concerned it'll financially handicap them on future projects if this is the output. I understand they want to stand out by building on their reputation gained with the MX-5, but it seems like a risky gamble when most SUV customers don't care about the driving benefits of an straight-6 in a RWD-based platform. I agree with your suggestion that they should've tuned an existing platform and make it their own flavor to save cost and keep tabs on the EV adoption rates, but I also can't imagine Toyota giving them access to their bread-and-butter models like the Grand Highlander.
Maybe one day the platform / powertrain will find its way into Toyota / Subaru to recoup some of the cost, but that feels unlikely as those two brands are moving more towards PHEVs / EVs.
I want Mazda to succeed, but between R&D on this platform and the MX-5 program, it seems more like a big gamble given their size and industry shift into electrification.
I agree with your suggestion that they should've tuned an existing platform and make it their own flavor to save cost and keep tabs on the EV adoption rates, but I also can't imagine Toyota giving them access to their bread-and-butter models like the Grand Highlander.
Maybe one day the platform / powertrain will find its way into Toyota / Subaru to recoup some of the cost, but that feels unlikely as those two brands are moving more towards PHEVs / EVs.
There were rumors but Lexus adoption isn't happening anymore unless it's for a future low volume bespoke F model.
I expect warranty costs to be quite high for this platform too; all new brakes / chassis / driveline vibration / whatever. I trust an X7 or Durango more than this for a sporty 7 seater.
(again, used to work in product planning) >> Mazda's R&D cost for CX70/90 is 2-3X all of Toyota's recently refreshed trucks while selling a lot less volume and at a 10-20k discount to Lexus.
The body on this wasn't shortened because it'd cost ~40% of all non powertrain R&D costs for a new program. It's crazy that Mazda's still alive when they're making moves building niche products like they're SAAB.
If I were at Mazda, I would've improved the steering/powertrain/suspension calibration of the Highlander / Grand Highlander. Program would cost 50-60% less and product would be better. CX-5 would've gotten hybrid and plug-in hybrid by now.
Would've developed heat pump tech that Toyota/Subaru could then go use in their EV (part of why Toyota took stake in Mazda in the first place, to get access to Skyactiv related expertise to hit 40% thermal efficiency on their new 4 cylinders).
yeah i thought it was a lot of value given how much they dumped into it
if teething issues are resolved and it's a smaller pkg, i want one
I don't get why they had to develop a new straight 6, when the market is going electric, why not that wankle range extender EV. Or just buy the Infiniti fx/ 400z platform and build a rwd SUV on it like the fx50.
I don't get why they had to develop a new straight 6, when the market is going electric, why not that wankle range extender EV. Or just buy the Infiniti fx/ 400z platform and build a rwd SUV on it like the fx50.
Nissan platform's too old and too small. Even if you re-use the underbody/brakes/suspension, you're only saving 20% cuz you still have to invest in upper body, hvac/interiors, assembly/paint, etcetc.
Range extender EV tech's definitely an experiment cuz some people at HQ did it on a shoestring budget or had enough political pull to keep it alive, nothing serious. FWD based products will probably use Toyota tech in next gen.
(again, used to work in product planning) >> Mazda's R&D cost for CX70/90 is 2-3X all of Toyota's recently refreshed trucks while selling a lot less volume and at a 10-20k discount to Lexus.
The body on this wasn't shortened because it can cost ~40% of all non powertrain R&D costs for a new program. Maybe 20% since it would reuse a lot of CX90 front end. It's crazy that Mazda's still alive when they're making moves building niche products like they're SAAB.
If I were at Mazda, I would've improved the steering/powertrain/suspension calibration of the Highlander / Grand Highlander. Program would cost 50-60% less and product would be better. CX-5 would've gotten hybrid and plug-in hybrid by now.
Mazda's management gives me so much anxiety b/c they do such crazy stuff that no one else would do. As someone who loves the brand I worry all the time that they won't be around in 10 years. Their stubbornness is a lot like 70's Honda but they just don't have the resources in today's world to be that stubborn.
I agree with you on leveraging more of Toyota's tech - build a 3 row off the Grand Highlander (the TX passes pretty well as a luxury SUV so it can be done). Or build off the Skyactiv platform to launch a mid-size 2 row (I never got why they didn't build something between the CX-5 and CX-9 to sell in North America - easy money relatively speaking). I'd love for them to do a few things that just print money (like building a 3 row off the Grand Highlander) rather than be so stubborn about who they are.
But zoom zoom, it's the same shit as Toyota and Subaru Won't turbo the 86 or offer stis anymore
ICE powertrain generally amortized over 10 yr time horizon. Even Honda had to redo the J series V6 last year to cut emissions by 40-50% ...and even then it's only meant to stay compliant till 2030ish.
FA24DIT probably emissions capped already & Subaru's not investing in a new high performance 4 cylinder when their next gen is probably all hybridized N/A I-4 >> so no STI.
86 is a price point problem - the fact they have a pretty decent feeling interior now and still sell at 30k CAD is nothing short of a miracle/low development costs - that's 26k USD... base Civic money.
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 959
Thanked 826 Times in 402 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstulzerRZD
Ironically I could see the CX70 selling fairly well.
In a lot of America, the oversized CX70 2 row might just do the trick; CX9/90 only sold 30k, many to rental fleets.
In a weird way I also think the CX-70 will do well if it's priced a few grand below the CX-90, but it'll be at the expense of CX-90 sales because people generally don't want their more-expensive car to look the same as one with a lower numerical hierarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstulzerRZD
86 is a price point problem - the fact they have a pretty decent feeling interior now and still sell at 30k CAD is nothing short of a miracle/low development costs - that's 26k USD... base Civic money.
The ND3 at $35k is pretty unbelievable as well given its dedicated architecture and market cap, especially when Toyota needed BMW to justify the Z4/Supra, and Subaru for the GR86/BRZ.
The ND3 at $35k is pretty unbelievable as well given its dedicated architecture and market cap, especially when Toyota needed BMW to justify the Z4/Supra, and Subaru for the GR86/BRZ.
The ND generation has been out since 2015/16, so I suspect a lot of the costs have already been amortized. No arguing that a dedicated platform was (and is) incredibly costly for a small company like Mazda. I love my Miata and I intend to keep it for some time, but it would be nice to have something to look forward to upgrading to in the future.
I really hope their next generation small car platform will be profitable enough to carry them through the next decade. The next generation 3 and related cars have a lot on their shoulders...
The CX-90 has some real shortfalls, but I'm really hoping that they can refine the design and fix up some of the teething issues to make it more competitive. I wonder if Lexus would be interested in doing some joint development of the I6... Imagine the return of a proper IS 300 or RWD vehicle with an I6!
Mazda really needed a CX-5 replacement like... yesterday. A hybrid and/or plug-in option with comparable range to the Rav4 Prime would be a huge win for them.
im looking at a bmw x5 for the wife to replace her ULTRA RELIABLE RX350. yes im idiotic.
I want that sweet sweet b58
tbh I feel like it's a commodity engine - really fucking fast and reliable but not thatttt special. A Grand Cherokee with ZF8 and Hemi feels special the moment u start it up
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
