Mazda's Gr. 3 Cars Review:
Since the game's launch in late 2017, Mazda's war horses in Gran Turismo Sport has been a pair of Atenzas modified by Polyphony Digital for Gr. 3 and Gr. 4 competition, the equivalent of FIA GT3 and GT4, respectively.
While the competition cars are based on an existing road car, the Atenza Sedan XD L Package, Mazda themselves didn't have a hand in the fictional racing car versions of the Atenza. That has recently changed with Mazda's partnership with Gran Turismo, as they've now introduced the RX-Vision GT3 Concept into the game as the headliner of Update 1.59.
This of course immediately begs the question; which of Mazda's two Gr. 3 cars is better?
Well, if you're going by the looks of the machines, then it's not even close: the RX-Vision takes the cake on that front, complete with cherries on top, extra sprinkles, and the whole hundred candles on it. I've said it years ago, but it bears repeating: the Atenza in Gr. 3 and Gr. 4 guises look like trying to stretch a bikini around pregnant women to get them to look attractive; it's just not going to work. As a sedan, it's one of the most attractive in the market, but the sedan Atenza will never look as good as the Bona Fide sports and supercars that are designed and engineered to be evocative, like the Vipers, the 458s, the 650Ses, and so on. One might even make the argument that, on the same grid as these GT3 machines, the Atenza just looks out of its element.
The RX-Vision is a concept car that made its debut in the 2015 Tokyo Auto Show. As a non functioning, showcase concept car, looks are of course the only thing it has, empty promises notwithstanding.
(Photos:
Mazda Zoom-Zoom Blog)
Even if it were a one trick pony, though,
what a trick it is! It's low, it's wide, it's sleek, it's curvaceous, it's sexy, it's mystical, and it looks like it's going to punch you in your face to soften it up so it could swallow your head whole. Bathed in the company's flagship paint of Soul Red Crystal, the endless curves and crevices of the immaculate concept car each was worth a second, third, and even a fourth look, as different angles of lighting brought out different layers and depth in the car's paint, in a symbiotic symphony for the eyes as the curves and paint both brought the best out of each other. Soul Red Premium Metallic and Soul Red Crystal I maintain are colours you have to see in real life to really appreciate, as I find that camera lenses, computer screens, and my non HDR TV I have GTS on doesn't capture a sort of depth and presence the paint has in real life.
While the RX-Vision is a showcase of the current Mazda vision, theming, and technology, it at the same time feels like a love letter to the fans and its own past glory, as it borrows more than heavily from the FD generation RX-7, so much so it feels like a natural evolution of the FD, instead of its own being. The FD is the car I still consider to be the best looking car to ever have been mass produced, in my very biased opinion. Most obvious of the callbacks to the FD is in its unified rear light cluster, although the front daytime running lights do form a shape reminiscent to the panel gaps formed by pop up headlights, an automotive joy that is sadly no longer with us.
Back in 2015, while I was ecstatic to see the car and Mazda's continued interest in the Rotary Engine, I couldn't help but to feel a little wary about the dimensions of the car. The long nose, short deck theme has produced a bonnet so long that it looked ready to house a longitudinally mounted V10 engine. A Rotary Engine, often praised for its small size and big power output, shouldn't need a nose that long. Even back in December last year, when the GT3 version of the car was announced for Gran Turismo Sport, a lot of us were speculating if it would even come with the fabled dinosaur of an engine, given its less than stellar reputation for reliability, low end torque, heating, and sealing issues. Concept cars are usually just for a shock and awe factor, a lightning in a bottle for marketing purposes kind of thing, and if a concept car were to gain enough popularity and demand, the ensuing production version usually omits a lot of the styling cues and features shown without promises on the concept car. Hopefully you can understand then, where the scepticism, caution, and speculation comes from. This is, after all, a
concept car,
said to be powered by a dinosaur of an engine, a Rotary Engine of unspoken specifications, that looks long enough to swallow a V12 whole. Other worries, like whether the car will even have a rendered interior stripped for racing in-game, was brought up as well.
(Photo:
Mazda Zoom-Zoom Blog)
May 21st, 2020. 2100h Singapore time. Gran Turismo's Facebook page releases a scheduled post
advertising a video. The unmistakable silhouette of the RX-Vision GT3 in a dark studio, mostly cloaked by its own high contrast paint, served as the thumbnail. I click on the video. Familiar sights greeted me as the camera is brought around the car in the same dark studio. And, hoo boy, if you thought the RX-Vision as shown in 2015 was a stunner, the GT3 Concept is that same girl, now properly dressed up for business, decked out in flashy accessories, and is looking to ruin the days of many, many people on the track. At the 30 second mark, the heavy atmosphere set by the dramatic music is shattered by the first sounds of the RX-Vision the world has ever heard
It was the unmistakable, inimitable, smooth, high pitched wail of a Rotary Engined racing monster.
Panning shots of the car, including those showcasing the interior of the car, set the community into a frenzy of hype and appreciation. After the RX-8's discontinuation in 2012, Mazda has been without a Rotary Engine car in their lineup for a good 8 years and counting, through the 50th birthday of Mazda's first production Rotary Engined car, the Cosmo Sport, in 2017. With Mazda now showcasing the equally mind blowing SkyActiv-X engine, Rotary Engines seemed for a while to be relegated to range extenders, museum pieces, and hopeful dreams of enthusiasts. Now, even is only virtually, Mazda has come up with a "New RX", and upon hearing a streamer say that, I realised how long I've been longing to hear that phrase unknowingly. I might've shed a tear or two.
Sorry, it's impossible for me to talk about Mazda Rotary cars without getting a bit too personal and emotional.
All driving impressions are formed with BoP On, the cars' default of Racing Hard Tyres, except where otherwise stated. I am a garbage driver with an A/S DR/SR.
Here is a link to my KudosPrime page. I've pulled out of Sport Mode entirely due to the broken penalty system, and therefore am very out of practice. I am usually a second per minute slower than the top time in leaderboards when I was playing more frequently. I've never signed with any manufacturer other than Mazda in FIA races, though I do drive other Gr. 3 cars outside Manufacturers' for private races and Nations.
Aside from the fact that they both bear the Mazda badge, are both FR GT3 cars, and come in red, there is very little similarity between the two stable mates. The obvious body style difference aside, I think the biggest difference between the two is the engines, which is of course the defining trait of the RX-Vision. The Atenza uses a familiar 2.5L Inline 4 as the road going car, although now tasked to output 615PS. In the absence of a Hybrid system, insane power figures from small engines is usually achieved with big turbos, and the Atenza Gr. 3 is no different. In contrast, the RX-Vision GT3 achieves its 536PS "'cuz it's a Rotary!" What came genuinely a surprise to me is that the RX-Vision is naturally aspirated, as Rotary Engines aren't traditionally known to produce 600PS levels of power naturally aspirated. The exception to this is of course, the daddy of all Rotary Engines, the R26B in the 787B, which I'll mention again later. For now, just know that the Atenza is powered by a 2.5L* Inline 4 Cylinder Turbo, and the RX-Vision, a 2.6L** Inline 4 Rotor NA.
*not specified in-game. I'm assuming the Gr. 3 Atenza shares the same block and displacement as the road going Atenza.
**not specified in-game. Information taken from
Mazda's official blog. The power and torque figures seem a little different from those reported in-game, however.
The Atenza is a mighty quick car in Gr. 3. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that it's the best all rounder FR car in Gr. 3 alongside the AMG GT3, in a class swarmed by similar FR turbos. Unfortunately, it isn't a top 10 leaderboard darling car because, ultimately, it is an FR car in an MR's game. The only FR cars that dominate Top 10 time leaderboards are the GT-R and the Supra, and those only get the honour because of their disgusting acceleration and top speeds, which gives them the unquestioned advantage in tracks that promote and require that kind of speed, such as
Monza,
Bathurst, and
Suzuka. While the Supra and GT-R are straight line, top end missiles, that of course comes at the cost of cornering and handling. I've always hated how the GT-R GT3 drove in particular. I can't get it to turn, I can't get it to stop, I can't get it to put power down... I can't get it to do anything, basically. The GT-R demands and requires a very specialised style of driving it, and makes the driver adhere to its own rules. It's a necessary evil if you want to succeed in the game.
However, that is not to say that the Atenza doesn't have its own niche even in a niche company. The Atenza is the King of Mid Range: I would say has almost the mid range acceleration of these straight line missiles, but lacks in the top end, while being much better to drive in the bits between the straights. It stops disgustingly quickly as well. With engine braking, you'd almost swear you hit a brick wall every time you stomped on the brakes. While I find it to be the quickest with a front brake bias at -2, it can easily use any brake bias from -3 to +3, to balance out tyre wear, and performs with enough stability under braking even with a rear bias. As I mentioned, it's a niche within a niche, but it always has a shot to do really well in race conditions, and even has an entire racetrack dedicated to its strengths:
Interlagos. In the hands of an alien, it's still capable of setting top times, as Kokubun Ryota (
Akagi_1942mi) constantly proves in FIA Manufacturers.
I've gotten used to the car, having signed with no company but Mazda ever since I started doing FIA races (I'm a fanboy, shush you!), but that is not to say that the Atenza is an easy drive; it's just a lot more pleasant than the uncouth grossness that are the GT-R and Supra. It is, at the end of the day, an FR sedan shell with an engine boosted to hell and back. There will always be difficulties taming it. While GTS doesn't disclose mass distribution figures, the Atenza feels to me very slightly front biased in mass distribution. It's not unwilling to turn in per se, but compared against MR cars, it's always going to feel like trying to wrestle a pig into biting a corner. With the full 100 litres of fuel on board, it puts down power adequately well, but on low fuel loads in race conditions, the back end always felt too floaty for comfort, especially at low speed corners where its towering, imposing rear wing is basically useless.
Akagi-san on his top Asian leaderboard time trail run in his Atenza Gr. 3, attacking Turn 4 of Red Bull Ring. As you can see, the fastest way to get this thing to put down power is with a slight hint of a slide, and quick jabs of opposite lock of the steering wheel.
It's always difficult to put power down in this car, especially because of how spiked the torque curve is on this heavily boosted engine, and it only gets worse in the low speed, tight corners where the engine is forced into low revs, forced to transition between on and off boost, with no aero to help it. It's an engine that will punch you in the guts with no warning when the mood hits, even with no variance in throttle input, and it'd look you in the eyes and tell you it'd be happy to do it again if you aren't cognizant of the revs it's doing mid corner. The annoying part is that this "punch", this switchover point is well within operating range in a race. Often in the Atenza, you'll be using a gear higher than what the revs and speed allow (see: Turn 4 Interlagos), because a higher gear is more stable, and this is where the engine really punches you out of the blue. Granted, this can be a good thing as the Atenza has healthy mid range torque, but it's frustrating because you never know how much power you're going to get each time you press the gas pedal, especially with
GTS' ridiculously mapped throttle pedal. Often in the Atenza, the optimal way to put power down is to mildly spin the rear tyres with a hint of opposite lock to keep it straight, and even then, it is fighting a losing battle with MR cars.
The sort of driving style it demands from the driver to wring the most out of it means that it suffers in longer races that involve tyre wear and fuel depletion. With brake bias optimally towards the front, the slightly front heavy Atenza chews through its tyres at a menacing rate. To share an example of this, I qualified pole at Red Bull Ring for 2020 Series Round 2. I ended up 3rd behind 2 911s as they slowly eroded my lead away.
SuperGT in an AMG GT3 also caught the pole Atenza in that very same race. With only Racing Hard tyres on offer and a relatively mild 5x tyre wear rate over 15 laps, the Atenza visibly struggles, so you can imagine what a longer race with worse wear rates and softer compounds will do to the Atenza.
Me in a 911 Sandwich
That all said, I do wholly believe the Atenza is almost the best FR car in Gr. 3, and improvements on an FR platform will be very difficult to achieve. Thus, I was a little annoyed when Mazda announced a new Gr. 3 car, that is still an FR. The Atenza is as good as an FR car is going to be in Gr. 3, so the RX-Vision isn't going to change anything for Mazda, unless it happens to be disgustingly overpowered in some areas due to preferential treatment of an official partner, which would stink even worse than if the car was bad. Then again, Mazda's only rear mid engined production car is the AZ-1, which isn't wowing anyone when listed by its lonesome on a résumé. Mazda knows how to make spectacular front engine cars, from the Demio to the RX-8, so it's hard to fault them for sticking with what they know. In fact, if Mazda attempted a MR car right now, it'd probably end up worse than the FR RX-Vision we currently have. It's just such a waste, because a virtual environment is the perfect place to start learning how to make a stellar MR car. The competitive nature of the game makes me wish they'd at least try it, but Mazda probably can't justify the cost of putting resources into a 2 door, mid engine sports car, even if only in a fantasy setting. I still fantasise and daydream of a transversely mounted 4 Rotor rear mid engine all wheel drive car from Mazda, though. *cough* Sorry, where was I? Oh, right, Atenza vs RX-Vision.
Even without looking at the numbers, the first thing that strikes anyone I'm sure when seeing these two cars together is just how much shorter in height the RX-Vision is. Despite its long hood big enough to swallow Tokyo Skytree sideways, it has a wheelbase visibly shorter than the sedan based Atenza, being a 2 door coupé. These dimensions directly and emphatically translate over behind the wheel; the RX-Vision is a way sharper cornering beast than its stable mate Atenza. The trademark effortless front end turn in of a front mid engined Rotary car is unfettered and undiluted with time, as the RX-Vision is a car whose front end you really can chuck into corners at breakneck, almost comical speeds. It's almost startling how much the front end grips and yanks the car sideways when you tell it to, even on the default Racing Hard tyres. Being naturally aspirated, it doesn't have sudden torque spikes as the Atenza, even if Rotary Engines are peaky by nature. While the SkyActiv-R in the RX-Vision is as mentioned, a peaky engine, the buildup is a lot more linear, and therefore more predictable.
So linear and responsive is the throttle in fact, that, coupled with the car's natural lightness and compact dimensions, this car feels as if it were pivoted dead centre in between your brake and accelerator pedals. Any slight touch or adjustment of either feet, and the car leans accordingly to the front or rear in a proportionate manner instantly. It's a car that is so responsive and tactile, it honestly feels like part of your body sometimes. This, coupled with how tail happy it is, makes for a very exhilarating drive, as you, the driver, is wholly in control, and are given all the tools to make or break a lap, and the car is always looking to break its rear end out.
Another advantage Rotary Engines are known for is their top end performance, as they traditionally rev very smooth, high, and make everything up top. This also means Rotary Engines and turbochargers are a match made in heaven, and why I was so surprised the SkyActiv-R is NA. However, the RX-Vision is a very strong contender in the top end, with a peaky engine in a low drag body, à la FD RX-7. It flirts with 280km/h (~174mph) before having to brake for The Chase at Bathurst. This puts it on equal footing with the pre 1.59 nerf GT-R GT3 (see: Bathurst link above), which you may remember as the King of Straight Line Missiles.
It's lighter than the Atenza. It hits higher speeds than the Atenza. It turns in better than the Atenza. It looks better than the Atenza. It's looking like a complete landslide victory for the RX-Vision in this sibling squabble. But that's not to say that the RX-Vision doesn't have its own set of flaws, either.
The RX-Vision has a claimed mass distribution of 48:52, presumably with a full tank of fuel aft the cockpit, where FRs usually keep their fuel. I was initially very happy to hear the mass distribution, as I had hoped that it would make it handle a little like a MR car. Yes, it does almost have the turn-in capability of an MR, though you have to wring it harder than a MR for it. But therein lies the problem; the mouth of the RX-Vision writes cheques its butt can't cash. The front end is responsive, willing, able, and savage, but the rear simply can't keep up with how well the front end turns. Fully utilising all the front end grip available on turn-in, especially in slow to mid speed corners, usually invites the rear end to swing out. Often, you'll need to roll onto the throttle just a little bit right before hitting an apex, just to get some weight over the rear tyres to settle the rear of the car before the corner exit.
Given the car's tail happy nature, I think most will set the brake bias towards the front much like the Atenza, at about -2. That is not to say however, that the RX-Vision's brake bias is non negotiable; on tracks that favour MR cars like Spa, I've found my best hot lap time to be set with a rear brake bias, at +1, as Spa really necessitates sliding the car into late apexes in braking zones, and don't have many downhill braking zones like Bathurst that kills slidey cars under braking. Unlike the Atenza however, the RX-Vision's Brake Bias choices are purely for handling purposes, instead of being a spiteful compromise for longevity.
Because of how tail happy it is, the RX-Vision is almost the FR equivalent of the Huracán GT3 in the game: both require sliding the car precisely into corner apexes, are difficult to master because of it. They both have very high skill ceilings, but is extremely rewarding to any driver that has the skills to make the most of the car's strengths. The RX-Vision, just by adjusting its brake bias, is a very adaptive, malleable, and tactile tool, with a wide range of behaviour options, and with each setting producing distinct, but not drastic changes. These are traits I absolutely adore in my cars.
In terms of raw stopping power however, the RX-Vision requires a markedly longer distance to scrub off speed for a corner in comparison to the Atenza. That's fine, of course, because that's akin to saying that the brakes on the RX-Vision don't stop the car as well as running the car into a brick wall, which is what stopping the Atenza feels like. The difference is only about a few metres on Hard tyres, but it multiplies on softer compounds. This comparative lack of stopping power and stability under braking means the RX-Vision needs to brake early and carefully, which makes it prone to being passed, and hard to make passes with, especially if it gives a car behind its slipstream for a long straight.
This all makes the RX-Vision a rather tricky car to nail a lap with. However, I find that on Racing Medium tyres and above, the nervousness is somewhat massaged out of the car, and its slides give you more margin for error before biting your head off. This is a very, very strong car on softer compounds of tyres, almost as if it were set up for them instead of its default Hard tyres. In fact, the car's suspension is set so stiff that it absolutely falls apart into shambles on a track like Bathurst, Soft tyres or not. I don't even want to imagine what this thing feels like on the Nordschleife.
Lastly, and this is the one thing that left the strongest impression on me after having driven the RX-Vision, and it's sadly a bad one. I take huge issue with how this thing sounds. I am not kidding you when I say that this car has the EXACT same engine note as the 787B's sound in this game, which in itself is a joke in comparison to the real thing. Please let me indulge you in a slight tangent on the history of the 787B's sound in Gran Turismo Sport:
The 787B debuted in Gran Turismo Sport sounding... distinctly off.
Here's a link to a thread I started discussing the 787B. It's so bad that it was immediately addressed in the next patch, the most notable fix being the reintroduction of the "brapping" (the irregular idle sounds bridge ported Rotary Engines are known for) at idle that the real car is synonymous with. Even then, the brapping felt very artificial, as it seemed to just be a sound sample played when the engine was idling, and then stopped when you revved the car. This was in contrast to the earlier GT6's more true to life 787B, whose brapping will increase in frequency with revs until it was so frequent it became a consistent sound, forming the engine's note, and will similarly break from a smooth, constant sound into highly frequent braps when revs decrease.. This, coupled with how starkly different it handles in Sport in comparison to 6, made me doubt the 787B's overall authenticity in Sport.
The kicker came when I chanced upon a Facebook post, shared on my news feed (Mazda fanboy here, remember). It was
a post by Defined Autoworks, which stated that the folks at PD approached DA to record sounds from a 4 Rotor RX-7 to be used as the sound for the 787B, and I immediately flew into a rage.
So you're telling me that you have the 787B in the game, but you couldn't even run its engine to record sounds for the game? If the car couldn't even run, how would PD have gotten its performance data to replicate faithfully in the game? The car is sitting in Mazda's HQ in Hiroshima! It's kept in running condition to be
occasionally brought out for demo runs in events! And you're telling me it's easier to fly over to America, find a 4 Rotor RX-7, and record
that instead? Is the 787B in this game just an aesthetic skin then? That approximates the 787B's performance based on... what, exactly? That thinks any 4 Rotor is a suitable substitute for the King of All Rotary Engines, the R26B? In a game that touts itself as "The Real Driving Simulator"?
2 years later, PD and Mazda jointly advertise a brand new Rotary Engine in the RX-Vision, dubbed the "SkyActiv-R". Bad enough they're the sound isn't even authentic, but they're trying to pass off a 29 year old Group C engine as a brand new SkyActiv-R engine! That's the part that really disappoints me and gets me mad. You're telling me Defined Autoworks have developed the new SkyActiv-R by themselves, and sold it to Mazda out of the sheer goodness in their hearts? You're telling me damn near 30 years later, and Rotary Engine technology hasn't advanced? That you have had no new breakthroughs, no new ideas? Earlier, I said that only the Group C Rotary Engines could make this kind of power in NA trim. Well I guess that sentence still holds true, because the RX-Vision GT3 just has a crippled approximation of a Group C engine in it, producing two thirds of the power and revving 500rpm lower.
Even the torque curve looks almost identical, with the RX-Vision smoothening out the curve a little and chopping off the last 500rpm. Peak power of the 787B comes at 9,000rpm, just 100 above the RX-Vision's 8,900rpm peak power (
Mazda's official blog claims the RX-Vision's peak power is at 9,000rpm). Peak torque is produced at exactly the same RPM: 6,500rpm for both cars. This is literally just a 29 year old Group C engine lumped into an FIA GT3 race car that's SUPPOSED to enforce production engines to be used in the race cars. Well, Mazda, you feel like selling a homologation car with a NA Bridge Ported 4 Rotor that does 9,500rpm, does the brap brap brap at idle, while still passing emission laws?
Here is a video comparing the startup sounds of the 787B and the RX-Vision GT3:
I'm not an audiophile, so I'm not sure what exactly are the terms I'm looking for to describe what I'm hearing. The RX-Vision has the exact same engine note as the 787B's, just redlining a bit sooner, so it can't achieve the highest pitch of the 787B, though everything before the last 500rpm sounds identical. The two cars sound the most different in the cockpit, as the 787B seems to have a lot more... ambient? auxiliary? reverb? other mechanical sounds mixed in with the engine, whereas the RX-Vision sounds a lot simpler in comparison, but still uses the exact same engine note. In essence, the RX-Vision seems to have a very simplified, pared back version of the 787B's sound.
For reference (and because everyone SHOULD hear this engine at least once in their lives!), here's what a 787B sounds like in real life:
The main reason why I'm so happy to see the RX-Vision brought back into prominence in 2020 is because it showed me Mazda still has a vested interest in the Rotary Engine. That it was still developing both the engine and a car around it. If Mazda doesn't even have one fantasy Rotary Engine it can supply to Gran Turismo, then I don't want to 🤬 hear it. I don't want to 🤬 see it. This is like showing up to a car workshop only to be told, "Welcome, we can't fix your car, but we have really good coffee in a luxurious waiting room and our receptionist is hot and single".
I DON'T CARE, can you fix my car or not? I don't care if the
new RX car looks good, I don't care if it's the best car in the game,
DOES IT HAVE AN ENGINE? I don't think I'm being unreasonable, either. It's literally advertised as having a brand new Rotary Engine, dubbed the "SkyActiv-R".
8 years since the RX-8 discontinued. 8 years and there still isn't even anything somewhat credible or tangible on Rotary Engine development. 8 years later and I can't even get an approximation of a production Rotary Engine for the near future. This car is basically the same as any other concept or fantasy car: empty promises and ego waving. I feel played. I feel cheated.
ooh I am so mad. I WANTED to see, hear, and drive a
NEW Rotary damnit. Is that really so awful? Is that asking for too much? And if it is, can you stop playing with my feelings, pretending it's not too much to ask, Mazda?
Urgh. I still have a review to wrap up.
Alright, calm down. Diplomacy. Namaste. Zen. Heiwa. Be an adult. Deep breaths.
Given the state of the world right now, it's not difficult to imagine that the development of the RX-Vision, be it for the real world roads or digitally, has been hampered. I therefore can understand the need to reuse an old engine. Having the car right now, I'm really not sure if it would have been better off delayed until it had a proper engine. Still, the car was promised to be in the game by May 25th, before the whole world went into chaos. I applaud PD and Mazda for being able to get the car into the game 3 days early despite that. I love the contests held with the RX-Vision, and how involved Mazda are with them. It's a level of involvement that is unprecedented for a manufacturer in this game, and I'm happy to say that Mazda did it.
Back to the car.
Here are the results of some hot lap and high tyre wear tests I did for both the Atenza and RX-Vision.
Circuit de Spa Francorchamps
12:00h
Grip Loss: Real
Tyre Wear (Time Attack): Off
Fuel Consumption (Time Attack): Off, full tank
Tyre Wear (Wear Test): 10x
Fuel Consumption (Wear Test): 1x, full tank start
Driven with Logitech G29 on Game Version 1.59
Time Attack:
Wear Test:
Atenza was on -2BB, RX-V on +1. The Atenza had its nuts revved off the engine because that's the fastest way to drive it. The RX-Vision was short shifted at about 9,000rpm, as I find that that's the fastest way to drive the RX-Vision. Yes, I'm short shifting a Rotary. Someone tie me to a stake and shoot me.
Possibly because of its lower drag and lighter body, the RX-Vision very slightly edges the Atenza out on fuel consumption. It certainly helped that the RX-Vision was short shifted. Tyre wear however, is a complete annihilation by the RX-Vision. The RX-Vision on the 5th lap alone pulls an advantage of 2.6 seconds over the Atenza, and a total advantage of 8.1 seconds over 5 laps.
I did the same test at Bathurst, a track that nixes the trend that MR cars are the ideal layout for racing, since Bathurst has many steep downhill braking zones that unsettles and slides out MR cars. The following is the result:
Despite the RX-Vision having the clear advantage on the top end, the Atenza sets a faster time than the RX-Vision, and it's probably the only track it'd be able to beat the RX-Vision in. The Atenza is a lot more forgiving and less upset by the imperfections in the road surface that defines Bathurst. It is also frighteningly quick down Brock's Skyline, where the RX-Vision has to tiptoe around it to keep its rear end in check, even with Brake Bias set at -2. Not only is the Atenza a lot faster than the RX-Vision here, it is also a lot easier to drive. I suspect however, that in the hands of an alien, the RX-Vision just might set a better lap time than if he could in an Atenza. There felt like a whole other dimension of untapped potential in the RX-Vision I couldn't, daren't utilise on Bathurst, and there was a freak accident lap where I was suddenly up on my PB by some 7 tenths of a second at Codrod Straight, before choking it away. I have never been able to replicate that.
My personal let down hopes, dreams, and expectations aside, the RX-Vision completely dominates the Atenza Gr. 3 on every front, except for very few exceptional oddities in tracks that men in suits would shudder to even look at, like Bathurst. I want to say that the Atenza is at least an easier drive, but its torque spikes don't make it very beginner friendly. Given the incredibly tail happy nature of the RX-Vision, I'd say the Atenza is still a markedly easier drive than the RX-Vision, and that's even discounting the fact that I'm more used to the Atenza. If the Atenza retained its performance pre 1.59, I'd say that it'd be a dead even heat between the two, as it would be slightly quicker in a hot lap scenario, with an advantage in braking and accelerating, while losing out on longevity, top end, and cornering. In fact, I'm quite sad that the Atenza is seemingly shafted now because of the arrival of the RX-Vision. I've been with the Atenza since the game's launch, and I've many fond memories with it. I wish it had its own niches against the RX-Vision at a competitive level, so we have more open and realistic options, instead of being made to fawn over the new toy. A new toy I'm highly dissatisfied with, that has left a very bitter taste in my mouth despite being clearly the better racing car of the two.
Small visual things:
The RX-Vision is a beautiful car, and I think many in the player feel the same. However, while I find the design language and individual elements of the car beautiful, something about it as a whole just doesn't "click" with me. I still think it's way too long length wise, and I really don't see why it has to have a hood that long. Perhaps it's to harken back to some type of classic coupé or roadster that I'm not aware of. On its own as-is, the proportions make it look almost like a LM GTE racer, stretched out for stability and aerodynamic purposes for high speed runs on Le Sarthe, except with the long part in the wrong end. It makes photo shoots a little awkward for me, as frontal shots are usually dominated by the long front end, with the rear buried away into the back of the shot. To look at in a moving, interactive manner, such as walking around it during paused replays, the car conveys to me more of a Hot Rod and straight line monster on rails feel, rather than a well balanced, corner craving machine that Mazda cars, especially the RX line, are renowned for. Of course, that's not to say it doesn't handle well, or that it shouldn't be a missile in the straights; I'm just saying the styling conveys very mixed and confusing messages to me, personally. It doesn't have the cohesiveness and focus in a package I'm looking for. I personally believe that form should follow function up to a certain point in automotive design, but the RX-Vision feels like a designer's fantasy sketch trying to wrestle physics into submission more than something built from the ground up to perform well.
That said, the view from the interior is really good in this car, the disproportionate hood notwithstanding. The default interior view of this car seems to be designed around the game's HUD elements, such that everything is visible at once, which makes me think the folks at PD are more responsible for this interior than Mazda themselves. I think this is most prominent where the screen showing the rear facing camera's feed is mounted. The game's Multi Function Display (which shows things like brake balance, fuel map, etc.) is right beside the screen, but never overlapping.
In VR mode (WARNING: Spoken profanities in the linked YouTube video), your lap times and lap count are shown right above the screen, again, never overlapping. I do wish the screen itself was set higher and possibly larger though, where the VR HUD would be. The bucket seats are also so ridiculously deep in this car that the seat is all you'll see when looking sideways, unless you're playing with VR and can move your head forward. Otherwise, the interior of the RX-Vision GT3 doesn't have much else noteworthy to offer, which is perfectly fine for a stripped out racing car.
The display on the dash accurately displays:
- Revs
- Fuel used (But not fuel remaining?)
- Speed
- High beam use
- Lap count
- Last lap time
- Best lap
Everything else in this display is either irrelevant in this game, or complete bollocks. Tyre pressures at all four corners are displayed, but is completely irrelevant in the context of this game as players can't adjust tyre pressures, or does this game simulate tyre pressure intricacies to my knowledge. Water and oil temperatures are displayed, but serve no function as the game doesn't simulate heat issues. Brake bias, traction control, fuel map, and ABS are entirely bollocks; they're static displays that have no regard for what your car's settings actually are. There are 7 squares lining the bottom of the display, one of which houses the high beam display. I'm not sure what the other 6 can be, as the display doesn't have a handbrake indicator. I can't be too mad at the semi functioning display, since this game has several cars with semi functional displays. Or maybe I can be angry, but am just too tired to be.
Even the rear view on the RX-Vision is excellent. The RX-Vision is one of the very few Gr. 3 cars in the game that has a rear glass panel instead of an opaque piece, so you actually get to look backwards (deep seats notwithstanding). The rear wing's height is set just above your line of sight when looking backwards, which is a very thoughtful and user friendly touch that just somehow oozes Mazda. The RX-Vision GT3 is also one of the very few Gr. 3 cars in the game that uses a more traditional, bottom mount wing stand. Most Gr. 3 cars in the game, real like the R8 and 911, or fictional like the Atenza and NSX, use top mount, swan neck wing stands.
The car has the most comically tiny rear turn signals I HAVE EVER (almost never) SEEN. Take a look!
Hazards are on in the above shot, by the way. Not sure if you noticed.
Pictured: perfectly adequate and legal turn signals in some universe far, far away.
For a car that started life as something that might've seen production, this car doesn't even come with reverse lights, or a third brake light in the middle, which is a personal pet peeve of mine. The microscopic turn signals and complete lack of reverse lights are all consistent with the original 2015 Concept.
Up front, the daytime running lights turn from white to orange and flash on and off. Pretty cool, as I don't think Mazda has used multi function daytime running lights on any car prior. The car comes stock with white lights, which I've changed to yellow on the grey car, because this is supposed to be a GT3 car, is it not? With yellow headlights, the strips of daytime running lights above the headlight also turn yellow.
While it borrows heavily from the FD in terms of styling, I can't help but to find the rear ducts aft the rear tyres almost identical to that of the Atenza Gr. 3's.
Overall, I'm surprisingly bummed out about Update 1.59. The Atenza Gr. 3 was already as good as an FR car could be, so I therefore didn't have much expectations for the RX-Vision, aside from maybe being a pleasant or exciting drive. Even though it out performs the recently nerfed Atenza, the RX-Vision still not a leaderboard darling car; I spent about 20 laps at Spa trying to set a time, and then hopped into the familiar R8 LMS, did 2 laps, and immediately beat my RX-Vision's time by 3 tenths. Despite the wow factor of having a new, stunning looking car added to the game, ostensibly, nothing has really changed for Mazda as a manufacturer, not unless it gets a firm kick in the nuts in Gr. 4, where the Atenza is just about the worst car in the class. Mazda has never qualified for a Gran Turismo World Tour event to date, and I want to say the abysmal Gr. 4 Atenza is to blame for that. As Mazda is now an official partner of Gran Turismo, they're automatically guaranteed a spot in future World Tour events, which comes at the cost of some other manufacturer who has to qualify by merit. And that kinda sucks.
A Very Emotional Tangent:
Mazda is the latest among the Japanese carmakers to captialise on the insatiable thirst for nostalgia that's selling like hotcakes today. Me personally, I find such acts pandering and distasteful. Look, I get it. The FD RX-7 is my childhood dream car. Always is, always will be. I would take an FD RX-7 over any five Ferraris. But those legendary cars of 90s Japan are products of their time, and I understand that. Without an economic boom, how else could Mazda afford to produce something as focused and expensive as the FD RX-7? With today's ever stricter emission and safety laws, we will never have a car as low, sleek, unique, and curvaceous as the FD RX-7 again, and certainly not the pop up headlights. I understand that.
Car manufacturers seem to think that we as car fans just want them to produce sports and supercars that bear their badge. It's more than that. A car means and symbolises more than that. Seeing how badly received the NC1 NSX and A90 Supra have been, I think it's clear that it's very difficult to get a modern car to mean the same thing to us fans, and very difficult for it to stand for the same things as the legendary cars of the 90s did. And that's fine, because this is a very different time and environment from the 90s. What I find distasteful is that automakers feel the need to call these modern sports and supercars the same names as their older legends. When someone mentions "NSX" to me, what immediately comes to mind is the rawest, purest driving experience, an unmistakable, symphonic sound, from a body that's both timeless and classy. A car that pioneered many norms, such as VTEC, and Type Rs. When someone mentions "Supra" to me, I think of a similarly stylish body, with an engine so severely and ridiculously under stressed, 4 figure horsepower numbers are realistically possible. I think of a car that flips the middle finger to what usually comes to mind when people mention "Toyota". I think the only modern take on a classic legend done correctly is, oddly, the one that's the most difficult to pull off: the R35 GT-R. It still has the same insane tuning potential of the original, and it even replicates the original cars' insane success in motorsports, to name just a few things the R35 has done so, so right.
Neither the NC1 NSX nor the A90 Supra deliver what are synonymous with their names. It's a very different world we now find ourselves in. I'm glad to have been able to enjoy a bit of that immaculate magic that was the 90s Japanese car boom, but I also understand and accept that the past is dead. I'm in the shocking minority in wanting the past to just be left alone to rest in peace, out of respect for my own experiences. Putting these legendary names on cars that share little to nothing in vision, concept, and ideals to the original cars feel to me as disrespectful as telling someone their dead wife is back, and shoving another woman onto him with the same name. It's not what I'm looking for. What I'm looking for can never be here anymore. And it's insulting to insinuate that I could ever have it again.
If the day ever comes where Mazda ever releases a new Rotary Sports car, a new "RX", I hope it will be every bit as beautiful to look at, timeless in design, uncompromising in its attitude as the FD RX-7, while offering a driving experience so raw, unfettered, cohesive, and balanced, that could only come from a Rotary Sports car, that can only come from a company that cares as much about driving dynamics as Mazda. I hope it'd be low. I hope it'd be lightweight. I hope it will at least come with the option of a manual. That's all I want. And I think Mazda is up for that task, if the continued success of the Roadster is anything to go by. I know they know beauty and driving dynamics, and I trust that if they ever release another sports car, it'd look and drive great. The only problems I see right now is getting Rotary Engines to meet emission laws, making the low end torque adequate for street driving, and figuring out its comparatively short maintenance intervals. Oh, and, of course, justifying the cost of developing a sports car in a world strangely obsessed with SUVs.
I understand that it will take time. I understand that it will cost a lot of money. I know it's difficult being the only car manufacturer taking the Wankel Engine seriously. I know the accountants and managers and marketing department will probably give the crazy engineers a hard time. And it's okay. I'll wait as long as it takes. Please just make sure that if or when you guys do release a new Rotary Sports car, it is done right, out of respect for your own legacy, and for anyone who's had their lives impacted or changed by the cars you've made, me being just one of them. I hope I can see someone's passion, soul and ideals in it. I just hope it can be as honest and pure as the FD RX-7 is. I hope it will mean as much to the world, and to Mazda themselves, as the FD did. And if it's not looking to be possible, if you guys just want to focus on the equally groundbreaking SkyActiv-X engine, please, just go right ahead with it. Win Car of the Year awards with it. Win Le Mans with it if you can. Part of the reason why I really dislike this pandering to nostalgia in games, in cars, is that the past always feel so much like shackles, preventing newer, better ideas to be born, let alone nature and flourish. Go ahead and make something as impactful and mind blowing as the RX-7 was in the past if you want to, if you can. It doesn't even have to be a Rotary. Just don't call it a "RX" if it isn't.
So, please, there's really no need to tease me with a Rotary revival like that. There's really no need to play with my hopes and feelings by releasing a half baked fantasy car into a dying game. I don't need this sort of anguish; real life is cruel enough to me.
