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

[Jmac]

MPS6 Should stay in the range, In the family orientated luxury performance, daily driver weekend warrior category (@ that price point) there is no other contender.

MPS3 Should stay FWD because the weight advantages etc make it exactly what it is, adding AWD would ADD grip but DETRACT from its character (which is) its power/weight ratio and torque steer. Im confident in saying 95% of 3MPS owners LIKE the torque steer and the dr jekyll and mr hyde persona.
Also this would be effectively taking it away from XR5/GTI competition as a hot hatch and adding it to WRX/STI/EVO.

Please DONT make an AWD MPS3 Mazda.. and for gods sake BRING BACK THE MPS6.
All of the theoretical photos ive seen of the facelift model look sexual and in the QShip market there is no equal.

Damn american market wrecking it for the rest of us

[mpsJOE]

MPS6 Should stay in the range, In the family orientated luxury performance, daily driver weekend warrior category (@ that price point) there is no other contender.

MPS3 Should stay FWD because the weight advantages etc make it exactly what it is, adding AWD would ADD grip but DETRACT from its character (which is) its power/weight ratio and torque steer. Im confident in saying 95% of 3MPS owners LIKE the torque steer and the dr jekyll and mr hyde persona.
Also this would be effectively taking it away from XR5/GTI competition as a hot hatch and adding it to WRX/STI/EVO.

Please DONT make an AWD MPS3 Mazda.. and for gods sake BRING BACK THE MPS6.
All of the theoretical photos ive seen of the facelift model look sexual and in the QShip market there is no equal.

Damn american market wrecking it for the rest of us

I agree, if you want AWD bring back the 6, and at the same time they will be eliminating the AWD monopoly that Subaru has, in the performance family car target market anyway.

[rd415]

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

I don't believe the posts are far off topic as they are an explanation as to why Mazda won't produce an AWD 3 or 6 in the near future. Albeit a long winded way around making a point.

It all boils down to Mal's point about cost. Mazda make cars for a profit and if there isn't the market they won't make the cars.

Australia is a very insignificant player in car sales, sadly the US market dictates production.

[kmh001]

Not trying to labour the point, but since the question was asked:

The Japs are in no way an insignificant factor in automotive engineering and production. Toyota is the largest car manufacturer in the world and got to be that way largely as a result of their Toyota Production System (TPS).

Once upon a time most cars were by default RWD, even Corolla’s used to be RWD. Until people like Shigeo Shingo and Taiichi Ohno dispassionately (some would say ruthlessly) applied TPS to the identification and elimination of production waste. One of the external signs of change at the time was a fundamental shift from the production of RWD to FWD cars. Another was the introduction of robots on production lines.

TPS was so economically effective that it went on to carry Toyota to its current position as the dominant force in worldwide automotive production. Toyota effectively wrote the book on modern automotive production.

The Europeans and Americans may have their unique approaches to engineering, but from a production perspective, if you’re not making cars the Toyota way, you’re doing it wrong. Today almost all car makers have adopted TPS production principles and the economics of FWD cars over RWD is so well-established in automotive lore that new cars designs are by default based on a FWD platform unless a business case justifies the higher cost of a RWD/AWD platform, or unless you’re Merc/BMW and make RWD cars as a matter of policy.

A good example of production economics in action was the Magna and Avalon, Australian made large cars on FWD platforms. And they were always going to be on FWD platforms because the Japanese parent companies would have rejected a RWD business case.

It might be nice to think that FWD has some dynamic or space saving advantages, but those things are largely irrelevant to major car makers where high-level decision making is based on economics.

Like I said earlier, the only reason we get predominantly FWD cars from the majority of car makers is because Toyota showed the world you get bigger profits from FWD.

Despite that, I truly believe that Mazda could offer an AWD 3MPS for under $50k and not only make a profit, but rip a huge chunk out of the ridiculously over-priced EVO/Sti market. Not hard to imagine given the base 6MPS was under $50k and the most of the leather pack 6MPS’s eventually sold for around $50k.

The new 6 has a different platform to the old one and I suspect the development costs for a new 6MPS with AWD would be much higher than for an AWD 3MPS, which could almost come off the existing production line.

[bd581]

Sorry mal, all Toyota have done was give it a fancy name. BMC worked out all of that well before Toyota even existed. They figured they could undercut the price of their rivals by at least 10% with the FWD mini while still remain profitable. Had they have known how poupular the mini would become they admitted they could easily have matched the price, and still sell as many cars.

All the Japanese have done is take every idea and made it work better. In the same way as Henry ford did. Very little was actually their own idea.
Every car manufacturing country in the world had been building FWD cars before the Japanese. Yes, even Australia.
And the reason was purely for space.
Honda were mass producing FWD cars long before Toyota.

I see the point your trying to make, but Toyota I think is the wrong example.
Toyota is (or was until Recently when VW has taken over) the largest car company for other reasons, like they have the largest range of cars than any other manufacturer, something for every market. And they are sold in every country in the world, and also their reputation for reliability that surpasses everyone.

In my book on the history of Mercedes Benz it states about the A class being FWD to allow for more passenger space

---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------

To pull this back onto topic,
to add AWD to a 3 would take some of it's practicality away, just as it did with the 6, it would make it less fuel efficient, which is a major factor in car design today. Mazda have already said they are planning to make cars lighter, not heavier.
What we Australians want matters very little on things as a whole

as I've said before, an awd 3 would be great, but it's not going to happen, the market is not there, the sales figures are low enough as it is and Mazda doesn't have the same reputation and x factor mitsubishi and Subaru have

[kmh001]

Well if you're so opposed to it press the NO button, and you can be the only one.

In the mean time there are 69 people on this forum alone, most of them actual MPS owners, who want a new AWD. That says to me that the market is there. In fact the word from Mazda insiders is that the demand does exist and the desire to build the car exists, but the economic decision makers in Japan don't see a business case for it. Not enough profit. Funny that.

[bd581]

you have got me completely wrong
I am one if those that voted, I voted YES to an awd Mazda 6 mps, but NO to a mps 3 AWD.
An awd 6 makes business sence, but I don't think an awd mps3 makes business sence.

My only critisism with anything you have said is your claim that fwd cars are ONLY built because it's cheap and everybody is copying Toyota.

[rd415]

831 members and 69 voting for a AWD MPS - 12% as much as my heart says YES - not enough interest.

[CharlieBrown]

Acutally, its closer to 20%.

Members: 831, Active Members: 351

69 / 351 * 100 = 19.65% == 20%

[bd581]

Not really, it would be more realistic to count total members as that would be closer to the actual number of mps mazdas sold. And how many of those that say yes to any of the options will actually put their money were their mouth is and actually buy one?

Fact is, we can debate this all day long, but without the American demand it is nothing more than a dream