It’s a new week and we’re got a Titan-sized dump bed full of news, starting with the first real timing for the return of the Mazda rotary! Car fans and journos have been waiting for the return of the rotary like Yankees fans have been yearning for a pennant, and for about as long. One of those two groups is going to be made whole very soon.
Plus, we’ve got Toto Wolff (maybe) being a jag, Acura bidding farewell to China, and Rolls-Royce saying hello to euros, dollars, and dirhams.
Rotary Rotary Rotary Rotary
I’m going to share Mazda’s entire press release, titled “Rotary Engine Reborn for the Electric Age,” because it’s not that long:
Faithful to its multi-solution approach to the global challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Mazda will introduce a new powertrain option for its MX-30 at the Brussels Motor Show 2023. Available on the European market from the spring this year the unique plug-in hybrid powertrain of Mazda’s compact crossover will feature an electric generator powered by a newly-developed rotary engine.
The new MX-30 model will be unveiled on the Mazda stand at the Brussels Motor Show on January 13th 2023, with a press conference at 10:00 CET.
The famous Brussels Motor Show!
This news is surprising to absolutely no one. The gas-powered Mazda MX-30 is a great little crossover with one super annoying problem. The EV is a bizarre, low-mileage offering that’s too expensive for what you get. You can spend $33k for a Mazda that gets 100 miles of range or pay less for a Bolt EUV that gets almost 250 miles!
It makes little sense, unless the company built a Mazda CX-30 with a rotary range extender. The linked article explains how this system’s probably going to work. We have no new details, but we’ll get to see the vehicle in a week and hopefully learn how much extension we get on that range.
We do get to see the badge, though, and the badge is stellar. It’s a little rotor with the letter E in the middle. Perfect. No notes.
Is Toto Wolff Being Toto Wolff, Again?
My absolute favorite impression of late is Mercedes F1 boss Toto Wolff, who has become the rare non-driver star in the Formula One paddock. There’s something extra fun about recreating him pleading into his headset during the Abu Dhabi Gran Prix with his dense Austrian accent: “No Michael, no Michael! Dis iz so not right!”
It’s not even that I think was Wolff wrong in that situation, it’s just that the puffed Austrian racing billionaire seems to carry himself with such a stunning lack of self awareness. When Netflix did “Drive to Survive” it was clear, immediately, that Red Bull’s Christian Horner understood the mission: Real Housewives of F1. Horner played the cad, but he played the cad perfectly. Wolff’s team kept winning races and yet, somehow, Horner kept making Wolff look like the silly one. Horner would prod Wolff just a little bit and Wolff would get serious and start grousing and you’d suddenly forget that Mercedes F1 had dominated Red Bull F1 for years.
Lately, though, Wolff has become more hip to the assignment. Wolff’s an extremely smart guy and has sort of leaned into the role of the Big Bad. There are lines, however, not worth crossing. I was quite jazzed last week when Cadillac and Andretti racing announced they were going to try and put together an F1 team.
Then I saw this tweet from FIA head Mohammed Ben Sulayem:
.@Cadillac @FollowAndretti @GM @FIA @F1 pic.twitter.com/ziVL91FCec
— Mohammed Ben Sulayem (@Ben_Sulayem) January 8, 2023
Hmm… Ben Sulayem doesn’t specifically call out who was complaining, which didn’t stop Twitter from automatically assuming it was Toto Wolff:
You can say his name, he’s called Toto Wolff.
— Mark Whitelegge (@Mark_Whitelegge) January 8, 2023
I can see where this is coming from. When Andretti, sans Cadillac, announced its intention to join F1 last year there was specific carping from Wolff that a new team joining F1 would dilute the amount of money each team gets with no promise they’d raise the sport’s value. He’s probably not alone in this view, but he’s the Big Bad so that’s kinda his job to represent all teams.
Curiously, Wolff came out this morning to say some nice things about the Andretti/Cadillac entry in an interview with media:
“I think Andretti is a fantastic brand and they’ve shown in many other series that they can be competitive,” Wolff told media, including RacingNews365.com.
“What I’ve said before is ‘What can you add to the show?’ if I’m trying to join up with a big auto company and manufacturer that would invest the same amount of money and activation in the promotion and advertising in the racing – which is what we do – it would be a fantastic add-on.”
[…]
He added: “If we were to add an American team I’m absolutely up for it, but what are you bringing? What are you bringing to the show? Because that team needs to be up at the front with an American driver and that is super good for all of us.”
See! Toto Wolff’s not a bad guy. He gets it.
Rolls-Royce Had Its Best Year Ever
There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the concept of “monoculture.” This is the idea that, because of popular media, there’s a shared understanding of what is popular and good. It could be argued that monoculture peaked in the MTV/Top 40 radio era when you couldn’t not hear the same song all the time. In music, at least, the idea of monoculture has been challenged by streaming platforms.
Car people, I think, sometimes fall into the trap of thinking it’s a monoculture instead of multiple diverse cultures. I bring this up, because I respect and appreciate the engineering and design that goes into modern Rolls-Royce automobiles while also not particularly liking them. They are not for me. That doesn’t make them less valuable (they are quite valuable). That doesn’t make them bad. They’re just not for me.
Clearly, they are for a lot of people! If you were curious where all the microchips were going, Rolls-Royce sold 6,021 vehicles in 2022, up 8% from 2021. The brand also had the “highest value” Bespoke commissions in the company’s 118-year history. That last bit, from their press release, is key:
The almost endless possibilities for Bespoke personalisation resulted in clients being willing to pay an average of around half a million Euros for their unique Rolls-Royce. Thanks to the high value of Rolls-Royce’s unrivalled Bespoke offering and the company’s consistent focus on profitability, the marque will make a significant contribution to its principal shareholder.
Emphasis mine. The average custom Rolls-Royce is about $500k. That’s impressive, even if a Ghost, for instance, starts at $340,500.
Acura Is Dead In China
Welp, they tried. Honda attempted to sell Acuras to a luxury-hungry China through a joint venture with China’s Guangzhou Automobile Group (GAC) and lasted just seven years.
Acura is the second foreign car brand to exit China, the world’s largest auto market, in recent months. In October GAC said it was closing its joint venture with Stellantis (STLA.MI), which made Jeep vehicles, following a sharp decline in Jeep sales in China over the past four years.
GAC-Honda, which started producing Acura cars in 2016 in China, only sold 6,554 of them in the country in 2021, down 45% from the previous year.
It’s interesting timing given that the Guangzhou Motor Show is starting this week. Let’s see how that’s going:
#AutoGuangzhou2022 gets off to a “fiery” start. The concept from Chinese vehicle design and engineering company IAT that caught fire on the eve of this year’s Guangzhou Auto Show. pic.twitter.com/s2w0s6oQdr
— Lei Xing邢磊 (@leixing77) December 29, 2022
Fun times!
Would You Buy A Rotary Hybrid?
Ok, my little Rob Dahms, would you buy a range-extended Mazda rotary?
-
Even CarMax’s CEO Thinks Used Car Prices Are Too High
-
The Auto Industry Thinks The Future Of Cars Is Everything But Driving
-
Chinese Car Companies Had A Huge Year In Europe And They’re Just Getting Started
-
Mercedes To Challenge Tesla’s Supercharger Network V6 Artura Already Recalled For Fire-Causing Loose Nuts
-
Here’s What You Need To Know About Tom Zhu, Tesla’s New ‘Number 2’
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
Photos: Mazda, Mercedes F1, Acura, Rolls-Royce
I am wondering about this American F1 Team. If I recall correctly when I was a young fan my favorite driver was Mario Andretti and he was from an Italian team.
I am sorry but that design looks like the 1970s sex symbol for female male copulation.
So, uhhh… that fire in the exhibition space is pretty damned scary. THAT much fire and no sprinklers? No flashing lights? No nothing?
Jesus, China. Get your shit together. Get it all together and put it in a backpack
Why cheap labor over populated those leaders look at huge deaths as a win. But yeah you can buy a cheap car and keep them on power. And if enough people do it many people here lose their jobs. So lets push China syndrome.
Is there a reason why Mazda didn’t bring the MX-30 mild hybrid to the U.S.? (Probably cost, but I’m curious.) Was it to not cannibalize sales from the CX-30? (While a similar size, its style is too funky to make a dent.)
Having it alongside the BEV could have provided more attention and sales to the model, increased Mazda’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy numbers, and make further inroads for Mazda’s electric plans in the U.S.
Regarding the Mazda Rotary hybrid… I’m curious what Mazda did to make it efficient and emissions compliant. The past rotaries were known for bad fuel economy and bad emissions.
Now having said that, I think it will still be a waste of time and money. Mazda should have allocated the money they wasted on this into building a proper BEV.
And would I buy one? Too early to say. Maybe it’ll be fantastic. Or maybe it’ll be terrible. We shall see…
Regarding Acura… I’d like to see Honda make Acura more ‘special’ with proper model/brand integrity. The problem I see with Acura is that one model that is an Acura in some markets (such as the NSX), is a Honda in other markets. That’s bad for brand image and brand integrity.
I agree that Acura needs to better differentiate itself from Honda. Acura makes perfectly fine vehicles, but they aren’t really luxury cars. I keep wondering when Honda is finally going to get serious with Acura and quit half-assing it.
That was going to be my comment on the rotary. Other than possibly packaging (though the rotary has a much hotter exhaust that needs to be managed), I don’t see how it’s better than a small 4-stroke also optimized for a narrow rpm range, but inherently uses less fuel and, in trade, produces less emissions before even getting into reliability history (even if the rotary should be much happier used as a steady-speed generator).
The Mazda rotary REX is designed to run under a static load at a certain RPM with very little deviation. That greatly simplifies the work to bring it into emissions compliance.
I’ll probably go test drive one if we get them anywhere except California. I could pretty easily be convinced to buy something like this as it eliminates a bunch of the extras (engine driven accessories and a transmission) that turn me off to traditional hybrids.
I have to disagree about the logo. The nearness to a G and the orange make me think it’s the logo for a fancy new type of Gatorade. Upmarket Gatorade, sure, but it’s not what I would choose for a car.
I was kind of waiting for this post.
And here’s something I was wondering, is the collapse of Jeep sales because the bubble is close to bursting, or because home-grown models are the ones with cultural cachet? If you need a Chinese car to get ahead in the world, other brands will see sales implode, joint ventures will erode, and manufacturers will have got what they want anyway.
“Plus, we’ve got Toto Wolff (maybe) being a jag”
Didn’t know you were fluent in Pittsburghese, Matt
I’ve said it before and will again now. Electric cars are rotary powered.
As for Acura exiting China, good! Too many manufactures have resorted to even more awful styling to capture Chinese consumers. By exiting the market, maybe Acura can get back to styling their vehicles in ways that are less offensive to the rest of the world.
I don’t know enough about rotary engines to be able to have an informed opinion of whether I’d prefer one over a more traditional engine type as a range extender in an electric car. But I DO like the look of the MX-30, I do not require much range regularly, but it would be nice to have the peace of mind of a REx for rare occasions when the battery range is not enough.
I would be open to it, but I wouldn’t be the first in line. I’d want to see how it worked in the real world and how reliable it was before taking the plunge.
When will it be confirmed that the MX-30 was always meant to have the REx, but when the system took years longer than expected to develop, Mazda started selling the 100-mile range EV since they had already finished design and engineering on that part?
Reminds me of how the AMC Pacer went on sale with an inline-six while Curtiss-Wright (and then GM) put the finishing touches to their rotary engine.
Check your headline please. It’s *MX-30* not CX-30
It seems like every 10 years Mazda introduces another generation to the joys and miseries of the rotary engine. The torque and longevity of a two cylinder engine with the power of a six cylinder engine and the smoothness and fuel economy of a V12.
I’ve been very interested in the rotary PHEV Mazda since they first announced it, but the EV they released tempered my expectations. I am still interested, but not at the likely price. The city EV might have been a good idea years ago and/or for a much lower price, but it’s a disaster now. And a non-US made EV/PHEV NEEDS to be competitively priced in the US since the tax credit change.
While it’s the best use case for a rotary engine, since it can just run in optimal range and let the battery do the work, I’m not sure I’m sold on it. Given the range of the EV, I’ll be really curious where things like overall range and cargo space land when they work in the gas tank.
The Fiat Twinair engine would be good for hybrid or range-extender use. Even though it’s Fiat, it’s still better than any wankel
Yep, that’s what we need. Build a suv/cuv, whatever, with a too small battery. Lousy range, then add the most problematic engine. Poor fuel consumption, poor emissions, poor reliability. Use the rotary for a range extender. California will just love it.
I’m as much of a rotary dork as anyone, but I don’t see why Mazda bothered to develop one as a range extender for their EV. I just don’t see the advantages over a small reciprocating engine, which surely would have been a cheaper way to go, and wouldn’t have required them to sell customers on the idea of a non-standard engine design with a reputation for poor reliability.
I get that this application mitigates some of the disadvantages of the rotary, but that doesn’t necessarily make it better than a more traditional solution. I guess it has some potential advantages in terms of packaging and NVH, but packaging a small piston engine and isolating its noise and vibration are pretty much solved problems in automotive design. It’s not like a rotary range extender is going to change the character of the car in any significant way.
I dunno. It just seems like an odd choice, doing something different just for the sake of being different. I applaud that spirit, but I’m not sure it’s the best thing for Mazda to be doing.
I wonder how many people in the subcompact CUV market have even heard of a rotary, would be able to describe it’s differences, pros, and cons, etc.
Honestly, this is going to be like the BMW surveys where some crazy percentage of buyers thought the cars were FWD. No one is going to notice or care about the layout of their range extender…..which just makes your point stronger about why they bothered.
Packaging and NVH are a bigger deal for PHEVs than for most cars because there’s so much more stuff that has to be crammed in there. As a result, common complaints about PHEVs include loud engines, insufficient engine power, and batteries or engine taking up interior volume.
Take for example the BMW i3 REx. It uses a W20K06U0 scooter engine, which has bad power and efficiency, simply because they couldn’t fit anything bigger and still get the 70+ miles of EV range. A rotary would have been a terrific addition for that vehicle.
I disagree just based on my on level of want – but then I am reminded that any company which introduces something I love seems to go bankrupt shortly thereafter (Isuzu, Saab, TVR). I am the kiss of death for any product.
I feel certain it is because of the physical size to power output potential, but it still seems like a questionable Idea.
“Would You Buy A Rotary Hybrid?”
Probably, but not THAT rotary hybrid. Same drivetrain in a 6 or a 3, perhaps.
Re: the Mazda rotary logo,
I agree it’s excellent, but yes, we do have notes.
That center bar coming in from the right? Invert it, so the long part is on top. And extend the orange color trim across the top of the bar, so it looks more like an “e” and distinguishes itself more from a “G”.
Even as-is, it’s pretty stellar.
Re: rotary range extender,
A rotary range extender does bring concerns regarding apex seals, but if they mount it with the shaft vertical instead of horizontal, that changes the oiling and wear characteristics entirely. I’m very curious about how they mount this, and what other changes they’ve done to make it last. I wouldn’t rule it out, but I’m not yet ready for full BEV, so this is very interesting.
i would think it’s part of the cleverness that it reads G or E depending on if you have it plugged in.
There are always additional design notes. I like yours a lot.
They could’ve done the color accent in both orange and blue so both letters would be present. Blue on top of the bar to make an e, and orange on the bottom to form a G.
Or to be trendy and techy, light them in orange and blue LEDs, alternating based on whether the REX is running or not.
If there was a rotary extender in a car with a longer EV range, I’d be interested. You could potentially advertise a 500-800 mile range. However, the CX-30’s tiny battery means this car won’t really have any range advantage and be pointless.
Why? If I have 200 or 300 miles of EV range I am going to use the extender incredibly rarely. 50-100 mile electric ranges make sense in cars like this. Enough electric range for commutes and can still be very efficient on average for weekend trips. Plus if I’m adding the weight of the range extender I also don’t want a 100kwh battery pack.
People are kind of ridiculous about EV range. A percentage of the population probably in the single digits is cool with driving 300+miles at a time without stopping. Even across the great plains that’s 3.5+ hours. More of a charging infrastructure problem atm. 800 mile range would be a selling point for maybe 3 people?
I just drove across the country with like 250 miles of gas range (was towing) and the only difference between that and the usual 400 mile range was that I felt more awake because I stopped more frequently (and could practically feel my wallet lightening).
Agreed. I grew up riding OTR in my dad’s semi and we used to do these really long rides without stopping. I was accustomed to those types of drives but as an adult I usually stop every 3 hours on longer drives to stretch my legs, get a drink, use the bathroom… etc. What’s the rush?
I absolutely love big range PHEVs and want to see them succeed. However, I fear that this is going to be a sales flop because nobody actually wants a rotary.
I can only hope it doesn’t make manufacturers go “welp, nobody wants range extenders” and stop building them.
I’m afraid it’ll be a sales flop because it will be the MX-30 short range EV with a small tank of gas for a range extender at a price premium over the already expensive EV. I’m hoping I’m wrong, but I am afraid this is going to be a situation where they take a 100 mile EV, slap in a small engine and gas tank in that doesn’t add enough range to justify it. I’m watching, though, because I would like to buy one if it ends up packaged in a way that makes sense.
I am with you. Longer EV ranges in PHEVs are ideal for a lot of users. Do normal day-to-day on electric, but still have the option for gas on longer trips. I run a PHEV and I’d love to have around double my 26 mile EV range, since I drive around town just enough to run out of range at least once a week. On gas, I have over 500 miles of range. I’d gladly trade a bit of that for more EV range, since 500 miles is a long drive in one go.
Yeah that’s a great point. In range extender mode it’s basically a gas car so it’s going to need to have a 300+ mile gas only range. Shoving 10+ gallons in there is not going to be an easy task.
“Car people, I think, sometimes fall into the trap of thinking it’s a monoculture instead of multiple diverse cultures.”
I respect your opinion, but I don’t know how anyone can argue this with a straight face. It’s not necessarily bad that there’s a monoculture in auto journalism, but there definitely is one. Certain opinions are not to be questioned, and certain ones are not allowed to be expressed publicly.
I think we actually agree. I think the idea of the monoculture exists specifically because autojournalism has created one (I could argue that Jalopnik, under my tutelage, perhaps was most successful in creating this idea of what “good” is w/re cars) and our goal, as The Autopian, is to break that.
In that case, I have tons of possible op/eds (of varying degrees of seriousness) for you guys to consider writing:
-It’s OK not to like manual transmissions or wagons
-CUVs are OK actually
-EVs aren’t all that great, and maybe shouldn’t be considered inevitable
-Big trucks are awesome and more people should drive them
-Paying cash for a car isn’t inherently virtuous; neither is buying “only what you need”
-The 90s weren’t a golden age of cars
-The Ford Maverick sucks
-Donks, stanced cars, and diesel tuning get a bad rap
-Most people don’t need snow tires
The point of pluarlism is that all the things you said can be true and not true. But, personally, here we go:
-It’s OK not to like manual transmissions or wagons
Absolutely. It’s more fun if they are not for everyone, honestly.
-CUVs are OK actually
I might write this one up because I agree and I’ve had this thought for a while.
-EVs aren’t all that great, and maybe shouldn’t be considered inevitable
I don’t agree. I’d listen to the argument, but I’ve spent enough time with EVs to enjoy them and see their utility.
-Big trucks are awesome and more people should drive them
I’m with you on the first half. Big trucks are awesome! I’d be curious about “more.” I don’t think MOST people should buy them. But if you like a big truck, are responsible, why not?
-Paying cash for a car isn’t inherently virtuous; neither is buying “only what you need”
Agreed, though buying only what you need for a regular commuter car probably is virtuous.
-The 90s weren’t a golden age of cars
This is entirely subjective, but to me (as a Millennial) the ’90s were a golden age. Everyone gets their own golden age.
-The Ford Maverick sucks
Boooo!
-Donks, stanced cars, and diesel tuning get a bad rap
Agreed!
-Most people don’t need snow tires
I’m from Texas, so big agree here.
To be clear, these aren’t necessarily opinions I hold, just ones that I see as being far enough outside the mainstream that I think it would be courageous to publish an article advocating the point.
If nothing else, you’d get people mad at you in the comments, just like I can hear footsteps of people coming to get mad at me now.
-CUVs are OK actually
I might write this one up because I agree and I’ve had this thought for a while.
Speaking for myself, the reason I don’t like CUVs has nothing to do with the form factor a CUV is, rather they seem to be killing other cars I do like. That’s my objective take. My subjective take is they are shit at nothing but mediocre at everything. Meanwhile everyone only really uses 20% of all the things they are mediocre at.
My theory on the proliferation of CUVs/SUVs is a sociological one. SUVs used to be (and still are) a typical choice for those that were upper class. So, everyone saw the upper class driving (or being driven in) SUVs, and they wanted SUVs. Automaker were ecstatic to oblige. So the upper middle class got their SUVs in the 90s. The Lower middle class got them in the 2000s with the dawn of the CUV to get the look but not the costs/downsides of a body on frame SUV. Now the lower class is getting their CUVs in the form of Ford Eco Sport and Chevy Trax. Now everyone can say they have an “SUV” except that after 30 years is no longer any type of status, its just the status quo.
If we took sheer size out of the equation for CUVs, the form factor is useful and happened in Europe a while ago with their tall-roofed, upright-seating people movers. You can fit more people and cargo in the same footprint with a two-box design. In Europe, there’s cities to worry about, which puts pressure on vehicles to be smaller.
Now, as for AWD, increased ground clearance, and ruggedization that you see in CUVs, you might think they would be useful for the cobblestone roads and absolute goat paths along mountains you see in some parts of Europe. Those images are mostly lies though, and the quality of European roads are much better than in the US. Decades of putting off maintenance on American paved roads have turned our highways into modern day goat paths. Having a car with higher ground clearance, and more robust suspension is a way to deal with the utter trash of American roads.
Americans need to learn to stop hoarding crap. So much crap. We store crap in our cars, so getting around in a 2 row CUV now turns into a need for a 3 row CUV. Honestly, I expect to see families driving west along the Oregon Trail with the amount of crap in their cars. And we hoard crap in our oversized houses as well. Cue the George Carlin clip about storing crap. Maybe it’s because we are ‘rugged individualists’ and our society lacks the structures to give people the confidence not to always be overly prepared instead of properly prepared.
Why do you desire to create animosity? Are you thinking they will sell themselves for clicks? I like that the writers here write about cars, share their knowledge, and listen to others opinions. Now i wholeheartedly support you right to post here. But just tossing out ideas to create arguments is not what I think the owners of this site want. I maybe wrong owners correct me but I think this is a site wanting to except car aficionados of all ilk and not allowing hate mongers to prevail here. 2 million people have come here to read car news i don’t think they need the real housewives of jalopnik.
There’s no hate here my friend.
We can all debate, disagree, and still enjoy each other’s company.
I personally come here to read differing opinions and the rationalization for them.
Weirdly justified and sneakily intelligent opinions are pretty much Torch’s brand, and I’m here for that.
If you don’t don’t like hate then why do you spew it so often here? You’ve shat on just about every writer here, constantly on some. Are you that drunk when you do it that you don’t remember it?
The nice thing about discarding a monoculture is that I can respectfully disagree on a bit of that.
Namely, as someone from truck country, my life would be immeasurably improved if at least half the people driving big trucks traded them in for something else. I imagine this utopia, where people aren’t driving vehicles too large for them to comfortably park so I could actually get groceries. Where people aren’t standing in the rain bouncing their door off mine because they can barely hoist their children and groceries into their 4×4 F150. Where the person tailgating me in a Ram is at least not filling my mirrors with their badly aimed LED headlights…
Ah what a dream world this would be.
I probably wouldn’t hate trucks if I didn’t live somewhere everyone drives trucks. But since I do, half to three quarters of truck drivers should be in something else. They are a menace.
As an aside you could do this as a point-counterpoint, and I promise I wouldn’t be petty and just take a picture of a Silverado taking up four spots at Superstore.
Could we add “Malaise era cars really aren’t that bad, are actually an important part of automotive history and are kind of important to save” please?
As an unironic lover of brightly colored velour interiors, a whole-hearted yes from me on this one
Going further, I might argue there are things to be learned from the malaise era.
Namely, there is merit to cars focused solely on comfort. Sporty has kind of been the go-to, and the result is all black interiors with firm seats and, honestly, why? Crossovers are the big sellers, nobody is autocrossing an Equinox. Why not make a model with a big red comfy couch designed to be as squishy as possible because nobody is pretending this thing is going to, or even can, go fast.
My only question is WHY MAROON INTERIORS??!! I just don’t get it. I’d rather one of Volkswagen’s darkest, dreariest late ’80s interiors than maroon. Casinos and whorehouses are not comfortable places to me, so I don’t want my car to look like one.
Gimme a green interior any day… the best I’ve seen recently is on an early Renault Espace, but I can’t share it until March or so.
They ride stiff because they have to not roll over with the high ground clearances, cg, and the high percentage difference between gross and net vehicle weight on the bigger ones. Other than expensive active suspensions, there’s not much else they can do without making everything lower, but I keep seeing and hearing from all the out of shape mummies out there who buy the S/CUVs and trucks as commuters that they need to sit high or they’ll apparently be forever stuck in their vehicles and they think they need at least 7.5″ of ground clearance to drive down a gravel road on occasion, so shit-riding vehicles are the compromise people have decided they prefer.
As squishy as possible doesn’t necessarily lend itself to long term comfort though. They still have to be firm/supportive enough to prevent muscle fatigue.
I do agree that sporty has gone too far though. I drove a Volvo with 20″ rims on it and the car drove well enough but would’ve been a much better ride with 17 or 18″ rims and more sidewall. It would’ve been a better car if it leaned more towards comfort than putting forth some sham “performance” feel.
I recently rewatched all 6 seasons of CHiPs when it was on Prime and one thing I noticed is that the highways were far more interesting to look at back then. Growing up in the 70s/80s/90s things changed slowly enough that even though we vaguely remember cars having color matched interiors back then it’s something else entirely to see an entire freeway or parking lot full of multiple exterior and interior styles and colors vs the see of black/silver we have now.
User name checks out.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call them good, but there’s a charm to the driving experience that’s underrated and I liked the GM G and B bodies which, by the ’80s, were pretty reliable (with V8s). I would rather buy something new with that floating dynamics, piloting them with one hand on the window sill while sat upon a velour bench seat in a vividly colored bordello interior than stupid shit like overpowered pothole-banging Nurburgring tuned CUVs or CUVs that just ride like they were with dining table sized center consoles cramping space in a black cave interior, hard seats of cheap leather, and obnoxious wussy “safety” features constantly beeping for no reason or tugging at the steering wheel because you were avoiding a jogger that refuses to run on the adjacent sidewalk.
Having lived through it firsthand, most malaise era cars really are that bad, but they are indeed an important part of automotive history and absolutely deserve to be saved.
Signed, a proud and happy owner of an ’88 Jaguar XJ6 (XJ40 type)
Yeah, I ‘m going to go ahead and disagree with all of that except #3 (also agnostic on the Maverick, and haven’t owned snow tires since I lived in Colorado – it almost never snows in NYC any longer; what am I supposed to do? Swap wheels for two days?).
The thing is, the nationwide, all-encompassing monoculture already agrees with you. Just look out the window; it’s all CUVs and trucks with slushboxes and 72-month loans, which means that this is a safe space for those who do not swim with the stream.
“-CUVs are OK actually”
Yes! And can I add to this? Motorcycles with three wheels are also OK. I’m a devotee of all things two-wheels, but riding a Can-Am was just stupid good fun. Burnouts and drifts for days!
“-Big trucks are awesome and more people should drive them”
I mean, I already recommend big trucks in MMM and advocate for the purchases of entire buses (lol), I can do that!
“-Paying cash for a car isn’t inherently virtuous; neither is buying “only what you need””
I’ve financed two new car purchases thus far, and plan to finance a new motorcycle. Just, I won’t finance a car through Mercedes-Benz Financial Services again, holy crap was that experience horrible. David and I probably give the “only what you need” people a headache. lol
“-Donks, stanced cars, and diesel tuning get a bad rap”
Diesel tuning is fun! My little diesel Smart originally made 40 HP, but now makes about 55 HP through a tune. It sounds like a pissed off tractor and still gets 70 mpg. 🙂
You forgot:
– walking and public transit are absolutely not an option.
– destroying riverbeds and forest floors are not cool just because you ‘offroad’
– track days/racing are a stupid waste of fuel and rubber
– CVTs…oh I give up.
I know you aren’t really asking, but here’s some of my takes on these:
-Not liking manual: given that automatic transmissions are much better than they used to be, most drivers won’t gain much benefit from doing their own shifting, and cruising is just as valid as racing, absolutely.
-Not liking wagons: with all the form factors out there, the wagon is fine to dislike. Maybe you prefer something shorter, maybe you are a die-hard van person, or maybe you like utes. Or something else.
-CUVs can be great for the same reasons as wagons, plus they often ride a little higher. While a van might be more practical, there’s nothing wrong with a CUV.
-EVs could definitely be much better. The race for acceleration and horsepower (and the other race for the most range) isn’t as helpful to most people as just having a very functional vehicle. The longer charge time vs refueling is offset by the practical reality that most of your recharging is done at home, saving most people more time throughout the year than they will lose on a road trip. That said, US vacation time is such that making the most of it is important. It would be nice to see charging at tourist attractions and such so that people get to do interesting things while charging. EVs are pretty much inevitable, because that is where all the research and development is pointed, but there may be some interesting alternatives pop up.
-Big trucks can be great, and people should drive a variety of vehicles in order to get their driver’s licenses. If your license qualifies you to drive anything from a Geo Metro to an RV, you should be required to demonstrate competency with a whole range of vehicles. Maybe if people had to learn how to drive larger vehicles, they’d have an easier go with them. I also would suggest supercars require special licensure to ensure people know how to handle them.
-Further on the paying cash point, if you qualify for 0% interest when offered or any interest lower than what you will earn on the money in the same time frame, paying cash is the worse choice.
-Buying only what you need is kind of the antithesis of car culture. That said, knowing what you need, what you want, and what you can handle are important, even if you choose something far beyond what you need and far below what you can handle.
-The 90s weren’t my golden age for cars, or yours, but we all have our preferences. I’d love to see a piece in which different people offer their golden age and the cars that make it so.
-The Ford Maverick sucks at traditional pickup things, but it is great at bringing traditional pickup aesthetic to a vehicle better suited to a lot of people’s lifestyles. I prefer the Santa Cruz’s unapologetic ute identity, but there’s something to be said, at least in pickup country, for giving people a “pickup.”
-Donks are fun. If people can have massive lifted pickups, why not lift other stuff?
-Stanced cars are interesting, and only a problem if the person has done something to make it harder to see or done a poor job and hurt normal handling.
-Diesel tuning gets a bad rap because of people who use it to roll coal or increase emissions. Using it to tailor performance to your needs is fantastic, and should be encouraged.
-Snow tires are useful, but a solid set of all-seasons is better than a set of snow tires that aren’t on when you need them. That unexpected first snow sucks if you have summer tires and still need to get winter tires on.
-It’s OK not to like manual transmissions or wagons
Of course there’s levels to being an enthusaist. Disliking manuals slots you into the lowest category, but you’re still in there. Like how I’ve driven a few autoslaloms so I’m basically a racecar driver just like Lewis.
-CUVs are OK actually
CUVs are perfect for seniors and new moms alike, as it’s a car but you don’t have to bend down to load or get in it.
-EVs aren’t all that great, and maybe shouldn’t be considered inevitable
Strong disagree. The EV experience is quite a step up from ICE, and great innovations are looming.
-Big trucks are awesome and more people should drive them
I drive them all the time. They kinda suck compared to a car except when you need to push a dead bus off a busy road.
-Paying cash for a car isn’t inherently virtuous; neither is buying “only what you need”
Getting the best deal possible is virtuous, but cash doesn’t always get you there. If what you really want is “only what you need” then that’s very virtuous.
-The 90s weren’t a golden age of cars
So, so true. I was a teen in the 90s and I have heavy nostalgia for Supras, etc. But it was still pretty much the malaise era. I will say that in the 90s most cars could be much lighter weight and lower roofline due to safety regs, but modern engineering and materials resulting from fuel economy legislation are slowly bringing us back to those lower weights.
-The Ford Maverick sucks
Agree. It’s a rebodied Escape, which is a 5 year car in Canada.
-Donks, stanced cars, and diesel tuning get a bad rap
Sometimes the diesel guys exhibit some pretty obnoxious behavior, but I can appreciate any corner of car culture that stands for having fun and being creative.
-Most people don’t need snow tires
100% depends on your location.
Yes i see where you are going. Create articles that cause people to become angry and post angry posts. Then other people will become angry and post vile stuff.
I think we have Jalopnik for that. I respectful disagreement is fine, nay educational. I post supporting something no one agrees with to create anger and vile responses is not what I think the owners and members of this site are looking for.
Don’t dislocate that shoulder applauding yourself. After all that site is dieing. Not sure when you were there but anytime after 2010 it wasn’t increasing readership. Frankly Autopian is at 2 million Jalopnik has lost 3 million in readership metrics.
Journalists are only second go marketing people for creative language to create their perception. IMHO.
So here’s the unique thing about range extenders – they don’t have to do everything that an ICE powertrain does. There’s no reason that the rotary ever has to “rev”. It can be totally optimized for one operating range to generate electricity and not have to do anything else. Temperature, sealing, etc. can be better controlled if it’s only ever going to go 1000RPM (made up number) instead of need to operate from 600-8000RPM.
Tune your intake and exhaust tracts for a narrow RPM range and use your motor/generator to spin it up so you’re not wasting fuel trying to operate outside that range, and your peanut-dorito will be very happy. Put it in a plug-in hybrid that’s going to use the power unit like 20 hours a year and your apex seals only have to last 200 hours of runtime before you yank out the power unit and send it in for overhaul.
Any modern engine that requires overhaul during it’s lifespan of daily on road use is an engine that should be scrapped and forgotten, and I’m saying this as an EJ257 owner.
Here is a basic thing about range extenders. Tbey have to extend range. If your EV range is 200 miles less and your range extender only adds 200 miles it is a range averagizer. My word I created it.
RE reverse: I’m going to make a BOLD prediction. The CX-30 with the range extender rotary will be a complete sales flop and will be the final death nail in the Rotary’s peanut shaped coffin.
I doubt it. There are several startups doing very interesting things with rotaries that are being designed specifically for power generation, especially as the size scales down. I’m sure that Mazda will be able to innovate the platform that they pretty much developed in a way that will allow it to work.
Now, if it fails for some other reason…
Agreed and with that same guru like knowledge i predict people going to the beach will prefer sunny weather. People will oppose kicking puppies, they will prefer lower gas prices, and will continue to vote in their own self interest. But i may be wrong here.
“…would you buy a range-extended Mazda rotary?”
maybe, eventually. But not year one or two. How will the apex seals hold up? What warranty will Mazda offer on the drivetrain?
“Would You Buy A Rotary Hybrid?” err, does it have a 100,000 hour run time warranty? Can the extender be removed and set aside until needed without being a mechanic? Rotary motors have the same connotation as Cam-phased triton v8’s and DFM Laden GM v8’s. I get the small size, but I am not sure advertising the angry Dorito is a good thing or bad to others. It is a wary thing for me. I would have to see one in the wild for 3-5 years to believe it was reliable without ta massive warranty backing the little guy up.
A removable REX would be an awesome thing. Because of their high power to weight ratio, I could see a rotary in this application.
Someone would need to design some easy to operate cam-lock connectors for air, fuel, exhaust and cooling; and a big foolproof locking plug for electrical and control circuits. You’d also need a good set of covers for the same, for when the REX is out.
Or make the REX in a suitcase, with all the connections integrated on one or more sides of the box.
This would be amazing, and make servicing the REX simple. It would also stifle most reliability concerns.
I was laughed out of another automotive forum for suggesting something similar a while back (“You just created a Chevy Volt with extra steps,” I was told.).
My idea was a trailer that contained either supplemental batteries or an ICE REx. According to everything I’ve read, most car trips are short, but objections to EVs often center around those rare occasions when a longer trip is necessary. My proposal would have allowed the EV to run on its internal battery alone for those common around-town trips. Then when you want to take a road trip, you attach the trailer, which in addition to much more range, may also provide some extra storage, which could come in handy for long trips. Why lug around all that extra battery or the REx when you don’t need it?
I still think it has merit, and if the supplemental battery / REx could be made small enough to fit inside the vehicle itself, that could be even more appealing. But I’ll acknowledge that there may be some significant technical challenges by making a system like that modular.
The biggest problem with this is that you can’t get lunch at a drive-through with a trailer. Yes, our society really is THAT lazy.
Another major issue is that people don’t know how to drive with a trailer.
Third, where does it store when they don’t need it?
Fourth, you don’t always know what trips are going to be longer than planned. It’s a very small problem in the real world, but imagine how annoyed you’d be if you’re out without the REX, try to do a side trip, and then end up five miles short. I can’t even imagine the social media bitching and piling on that would result.
These are the major problems with trailer-based REX solutions, whether ICE, fuel cell, or battery. I’d like the option because I’m an oddball, but I don’t see it being a mainstream solution.
If you want the oddball approach to range extension, skip the ICE genset and go with a pusher trailer:
http://www.evalbum.com/img/4880/4880a.jpg
That’s fair. I’ve never done it, but I’m sure driving with a trailer is a real PITA. A friend of mine bought a camper trailer, and he says that attempting to back it into a parking space is a real test of the strength of his marriage. The average driver would probably cross shop my trailer idea and a long-range EV (or one with a built-in REx) and go with the latter — even if it’s a little more expensive or a little less efficient — just because it’s simpler and more convenient.
I was out walking my 2-year-old the other day. Like his dad, he loves vehicles. A recently moved in Slav couple were trying to reverse their trailered brand-new jet-skis into a 1920s Queens driveway (i.e. small), with the wife giving direction. My kid wanted to watch but after we had stood there for about fifteen minutes the couple’s nerves were fraying considerably and the husband’s looks in my direction convinced me to move ourselves.
My take on this similar idea solves 3 of 4 of your problems. Rather than a trailer, a roof mounted, turbine-powered range extender. Use of a turbine would not only provide power for a generator but would also generate thrust to aid in forward motion. Would be particularly advantageous on highways where range extenders are frequently needed and where EVs perform worst.
Eliminates a trailer, so points 1 and 2 are moot (although could present a height issue when added to SUVs.
For storage, just install a hoist to the ceiling of your garage to lift it off the car when not needed, and keeps it out the way, provided you have sufficiently high enough garage ceiling.
Fourth is still an issue unless you just keep the Jeterator(TM) attached all the time.
Bonus points for discouraging tailgaters.