2000 Mazda Miata Mx-5 Convertable - All Electric on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mazda will have a new rotary concept at Tokyo show, trying to bring it to production

Despite ending production of the rotary engine in 2012, Mazda has repeatedly insisted that it's still working on rotary engine tech, and it has continued to tease a potential future rotary car with concepts, the latest of which was the RX-Vision. The company even continues to file patents on rotary tech. It seems the company is continuing this pattern, since the vice president for Mazda's European R&D center told Auto Express that it has another rotary concept ready for this October's Tokyo Motor Show. According to Auto Express, the car expands on the groundwork laid by the RX-Vision concept. In addition to revealing the existence of the concept, the executive also reiterated the fact that there's still a team in Mazda working on the rotary engine, and people are still trying to make a business case for a new rotary sports car. Auto Express expects a production car could come in 2020. The news outlet also asked if the hypothetical car would be hybridized, and the Mazda executive didn't give much of an answer beyond it being possible, though he would prefer a purely rotary-powered car. We at Autoblog think a hybrid rotary of some sort would make the most sense. It would make for an impressive halo vehicle that could be used to promote future Mazda hybrids. This would also help with the business case side of things. An electric motor, or motors, would be highly complementary to the rotary engine as well. Electric motors produce oodles of torque from down low, which rotaries don't, and the rotary engine's high-rpm horsepower would compensate for the electric motors when they've started running out of power. Not only that, but using a hybrid powertrain could help a thirsty rotary engine meet fuel economy and emissions requirements while still producing plenty of power. A hybrid system is also more possible now that Mazda is teamed up with hybrid expert Toyota. Related Video:

Mazda 3 Sedan and Hatchback Luggage Test | Trunk comparison

A major reason for buying a hatchback is for added cargo space and versatility, right? Seems logical enough. It's certainly a reason I've been fond of them over the years. And since so many SUVs these days are just glorified hatchbacks, it certainly stands to reason the buying public has reached this conclusion as well. To test this hypothesis and potentially bust this myth, Mazda kindly provided three vehicles that are virtually identical apart from their body style: the Mazda 3 sedan and hatchback, as well as the Mazda CX-30 crossover that's really just a raised and rebodied 3.  On paper, in descending order, the CX-30 is tops at 20.2 cubic feet of space behind the back seat, the Hatchback has 20.1 cubic feet and the sedan has 13.2. OK, let's see how the order turns out once luggage is used. Here is the 3 Hatchback on the left and 3 Sedan on the right. Immediately, the sedan doesn't look that much smaller than the Hatchback. Actually, doesn't it look bigger? Below is the CX-30.  Note that this CX-30 did not include its rigid cargo cover, but already, you can start to see the difference between 3 Hatch and CX-30. The crossover has more space above the back seat line than the Hatchback. So, even if the 3 Hatch has more cargo area length, the CX-30 has more height. That's why you have virtually equal cargo capacity numbers despite having different spaces.  To that point, let's bring in the bags. As in every luggage test I do, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). CX-30 for the win (above right) as all the bags fit. The fancy bag and smaller roller are slightly blocking the rearward view, but you can still see out and the bags won't fly forward. Importantly, they also fit when closing the CX-30's hatch. They won't if you attempted the same formation in the 3 Hatchback, which can't fit the fancy bag or one of the midsize rollers. And no, you can't fit the fancy bag in the middle there — the hatch wouldn't close on top of it. A smaller duffel will, however.  So, although the 3 Hatch has a slightly longer space, the difference doesn't matter as much as the CX-30's extra height in this usage case.

2016 Mazda CX-5 [w/video]

It's difficult for me to get excited about crossovers. I try hard not to be the stereotypical car guy: ignoring the fact that the rest of the world loves these tall hatchbacks, while yelling, "station wagons make more sense!" until I've voided my lungs of air. Deep down I am that guy, but I work around it. Historically the Mazda CX-5 is one crossover that has been quasi-immune to my knee-jerking. It doesn't weigh two tons, offers a manual transmission (in poverty spec, but still...), and looks faster than its competitors. Most importantly, the CX-5 can round a corner without wobbling like a Slinky at the top of the stairs. No item on that list of plaudits would likely crack the top ten "desirables" for average small CUV shoppers. So, for the 2016 update, Mazda instead upgraded the in-cabin experience along with the requisite nips and tucks to the exterior. I borrowed a 2016 model CX-5 to see whether or not those concessions to comfort affected the car-nerd stuff. And to see if the Mazda could still be my go-to CUV recommendation. Driving Notes The engine options are unchanged for 2016. You can still have the fine, 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine, with its 184 horsepower and 185 pound-feet of torque, or its wimpier 2.0-liter lil' brother. My fully spec'd Grand Touring came with the bigger engine, which feels adequately powerful for the class, but not quick. In an era where turbocharged engines are everywhere, revving the Skyactiv 2.5-liter up to its torque peak at 3,250 rpm takes some commitment. I'm annoyed that there's no manual offered with the 2.5L (a combo I can have in both the Mazda3 and Mazda6), but I don't hate the automatic transmission. The six-speed unit is unobtrusive 99 percent of the time; something I regretfully can't tell you about certain nine-speed autos. There are no paddles to play with, but you can tap the shift lever up and down if you're struck by a need for total control. With a new center console and dash, and the addition of the Mazda Connect infotainment system, the '16 CX-5 feels like a new vehicle from behind the wheel. An attractive, pliant, leatherish material swaths the neat console and surrounding real estate. And the perforated leather seats feel damn near upscale. I think that Mazda Connect's version of the central control knob (with handy adjacent volume knob) is almost luddite-proof in its simplicity. There's no latency between twisting and reaction on the screen.