Should Mazda produce a new AWD MPS?

[wyvernone]

Mazda makes great cars and I am loyal to the brand and I hope Mazda bring out an AWD GT MPS of some kind to keep the AWD club happy :-)

Now just for chatting...
- Come to think of it, I haven't seen BMW and Mercedes with AWD in their passenger range of 'driving machines'. In specialist models maybe.

- How about a 5 MPS with RWD? now that's something that'll set Mazda apart.

[Jono]

Keep the 3 FWD, it keeps the car in reach for the 'boy racer'.

I'm all for an AWD 6 MPS. Perhaps something with a high performance V6, or perhaps a 2.5L turbo. A 2.5L turbo, I'd hit that.

[mpsJOE]

I don't see the obsession with an AWD 3, people go on about the major lacking of the 3 is AWD or RWD...
With power being delivered to all 4 wheels, performance will ultimately be lost in the driveline unless it is increased altogether.

Look at the Mazda 3 MPS at targa over the past few years, beating the likes of wrx and evo at their own game! Rally cars have been using FWD for years, and I see it as just another alternative. Yeh you can't drift or do donut's (in a forward gear ) but handling and power in normal conditions is ultimately the same. Besides, how often do you drive like a fukn idiot when it rains anyway. Typical wrx driver as for RWD in the wet, yeh it's fun, but there is probably more control in a FWD

[foxy]

To give some UK price comparisons of AWD saloons are:

EVO X £30,000
S4 £34,000
Insignia VXR £31,000

I know that the 6MPS is not as powerful as these but it still represents good value at its original price of £24,000 in full spec form without sat nav. So I agree, there is definitely a niche to be covered here. However it never really sold in the UK.

[kmh001]

Of course you're entitled to your opinion Joe, but I really disagree with some of your assertions.

Let's start from the beginning.

The ONLY reason FWD cars are produced is because it's cheaper to bolt the entire engine and driveline into the frame in one go. Production cost and profit margin are the only reasons FWD cars exist. If it was about vehicle dynamics (and it should be for performance cars) the FWD configuration would simply not exist because the dynamics are inferior. That's why the likes of BMW and Merc have refused to move in the direction of FWD.

Sure you can make a FWD car go quickly, but the handling and power delivery are never the same as a RWD/AWD. If everything else is equal, it's physically impossible for a FWD car to perform at the same level as a RWD/AWD car. For example if the 3MPS came in an AWD version it would deliver a superior driving experience and almost certainly outperform the FWD version by a large margin.

And it's not about outright speed, it's about capability. When I'm driving my AWD in the rain, I'm using about 50% of its capability, but when I'm driving my other car which is FWD, at the same speed in the rain I'm on the ragged edge. The same difference applies in the dry, only the speeds are higher.

The last thing I want is for car makers to think we've all been brain washed into accepting and tolerating the inferiority of FWD as the mainstream performance car configuration.

[rd415]

Of course you're entitled to your opinion Joe, but I really disagree with some of your assertions.

The ONLY reason FWD cars are produced is because it's cheaper to bolt the entire engine and driveline into the frame in one go. Production cost and profit margin are the only reasons FWD cars exist. If it was about vehicle dynamics (and it should be for performance cars) the FWD configuration would simply not exist because the dynamics are inferior. That's why the likes of BMW and Merc have refused to move in the direction of FWD..

Sorry but I have to disagree with you Mal, the comments you make are not quite true in any respect.
1. The original successful FWD was by Citroen in the late 1930's and purely to allow more interior space, nothing whatsoever do do with cost. (read automotive history books) FWD picked up by Sir Alec Issigonis making the Morris Mini successful. BMW make a FWD car -the new Mini. Mercedes A-Class are front wheel drive also so your use of BMW and Merc as an example doesn't work. It is also more expensive to build FWD, particularly gearboxes, if it was cheaper all vehicles including the light commercial would be FWD.

2. Dynamically it is better to pull a car around a corner rather than push. One of the reasons a torque tube drive car was invented was to push from the centre rather than the front of the rear springs on more expensive high performance vehicles. Speed and handling is far superior on a fwd over a rwd in cornering - you just can't compare the two. Just look at the old minis racing against much more powerful cars the mini's got done everytime down the straights but by the second or third corner they were back in front. There are disadvantages with FWD the main being that when you loose traction under power you also loose steering.

3. Of course AWD is much more superior than FWD or RWD because with a third diff the drive can be altered to suit the occassion when fitted. Less of an advantage on symetrical AWD but still somewhat better.

4, On the topic of a MPS3 AWD - yes, but I bet the price would go up and therefore put it out of reach for many, and in a class of it's own. Probably applies for a MPS6 also.

[kmh001]

I have to disagree with you Russell. Sure Morris and Citroen played with FWD, but the only reason it is in mainstream production cars today is because Toyota saw the production efficiencies of it and shortly after proving it all Japanese manufacturers adopted it.

The reasons for the Japs moving from RWD to predominantly FWD is used as a case study of production efficiency in TQM and Lean Six Sigma courses, which are the process improvement methodologies largely perfected by the Japanese. In fact Lean is largely attributable to Toyota.

It's a matter of historical fact that the Japs put FWD into mainstream production for the sole purpose of reducing cost and increasing profit.

Conversely, Holden and Ford are required by their parent companies to produce justification for retaining their much more expensive to produce RWD platforms.

BTW Newtons third law is the bottom line on the physics of it. FWD just can't compete.

[bd581]

Where in history does it say that FWD is cheaper to produce?
But say it is, it will still just be an added bonus. The MAIN reason is the space savings, you can get more interior space in a smaller car.
And to the majority of consumers that would be a larger factor in purchasing a vehicle.

One of the reasons I sold my Pulsar was that i required more space, the boot was tiny because of the diff.
I don't know the specifications, but i'm pretty confident that a standard Mazda 6 has a larger boot than the MPS 6.
There are a lot more factors that manufactures take into account when designing and producing a car than its performance.
FWD is probably the best comprimise for real world driving for the average person in a small car.
Large, long wheel base cars are a different story


Yes an AWD MPS 3 would be a fantastic car, but realisticly it would be priced to compete with the EVO and STi. And with how few MPS are actually sold i would say even fewer at $55,000 no matter how good they are.

I just don't think it would make financial sence for Mazda to do it.

A new 6 MPS is a different story.

When the MPS was first released it was the wrong time. Mazda still didn't have a fantastic reputation in Australia, fuel prices weren't too bad, the Subaru was a decent looking car.
Now, Mazda has a good reputation, more fuel efficient cars are desired so those wanting a performance sedan will look that way instead of Holden and Ford and the Subaru looks like its fallen from the ugly free and hit every branch on the way down

[rd415]

I have to disagree with you Russell. Sure Morris and Citroen played with FWD, but the only reason it is in mainstream production cars today is because Toyota saw the production efficiencies of it and shortly after proving it all Japanese manufacturers adopted it.

The reasons for the Japs moving from RWD to predominantly FWD is used as a case study of production efficiency in TQM and Lean Six Sigma courses, which are the process improvement methodologies largely perfected by the Japanese. In fact Lean is largely attributable to Toyota.

It's a matter of historical fact that the Japs put FWD into mainstream production for the sole purpose of reducing cost and increasing profit.

Conversely, Holden and Ford are required by their parent companies to produce justification for retaining their much more expensive to produce RWD platforms.

BTW Newtons third law is the bottom line on the physics of it. FWD just can't compete.

Morris and Citroen did more than play with FWD - Peuget had a FWD in 1900 (Peugeot - the oldest motor company in the world) - Citroen in particular have almost always been FWD and made it viable for use - there were others that played with it including in 1895 the Gräf & Stift so FWD goes back much further than the japanese. In fact the Japanese are fairly insignificant in anything to with motor vehicles. The only thing that Japan can lay claim to is that they took a good design and made it cheaply, in the process of cheapness improved the components used but not the design or purpose.

Motor vehicles are ALL designed for a purpose, not a price. The adoption of FWD was just something that was taken on board by many companies. Without a doubt FWD was invented purely by Citroen in the 1936 Traction Avante to make a car roomy. A roomy vehicle in a small packege. Come to think of it there is more room in the back of Brads MPS3 than there is in my MPS6. That's the real reason for FWD - nothing to do with cost.

The problem of living in Australia is that we are the dumping ground for Japanese cheap cars - we don't get the good ones as there is not enough sales. It is a pity that Australians don't seem to be able to accept that Europe has more to do with car design than Japan. I have continual discussions with FORD fans who are under the opinion that Henry Ford invented the car and the Ute. Both totally incorrect, Henry didn't even invent mass production but was the first to use it in automobile production. Ford invented the ute (arguably the coupe Ute) a play on words as all utes were pickups until that time, they didn't invent the vehicle just the name.

Your comment on Holden and Ford is also a bit off - don't forget Europe again - Ford Focus, nearly all the Vauxhall's are FWD Australians justify RWD by sales and tradition, our distances and roads have dictated large family RWD cars for years. It is only recently starting to change (just like the time it has taken Australians to accept diesel powered cars). 50% of all new cars in Europe are diesel only 20% of all new cars in Australia are Diesel.

I know one thing for sure that as a mechanic I would prefer to work on RWD over FWD any day and I will always dispute the idea that RWD is cheaper to produce.

Please read Macquarie dictionary of Motoring page 177 will once and for all put pay to opinion and add fact

[shakespeare]

As interesting as this thread is, it has drifted off the original topic of "Should Mazda produce an AWD MPS?"

So whilst I and others appreciate all the information and debate here, can we please keep this thread to the topic and feel free to start a new thread around the RWD vs FWD vs AWD discussion.

Thanks everyone
Chris