There's a rumor circulating right now. A great rumor. A rumor that says that there will be a new Mazda RX-7 debuting in 2017 and an even more amazing Mazda RX-9 coming in 2020. Yeah, that's almost definitely not gonna happen. Sorry.
Every couple of years, the rumor mill, much like a rotary engine, starts turning over with people saying that Mazda will bring back its halo sports car. Every single time this rumor emerges, it basically says that Mazda's business is doing well and they're ready to bring the rotary back to market in a few years in a brand new sports car.
And every time it's a load of crap.
It's always about two or three years out, and it'll always be amazing. The problem is, if any of these rumors were true, we'd have had a new RX-7 about 13 times by now. This time, the rumor originated in Australia and people have gone apeshit with the notion that the RX-7 will be back for the 50th anniversary of the rotary in 2017. But we must say that 2017 is a year we've heard before.
Of course, that would be great. And that's the basic quote that the Aussies are basing their report off of:
Although Yasuhiro Aoyama, Mazda's General Manager of Global Sales and Marketing, refused to confirm the RX-7 or RX-9, he conceded to motoring.com.au that "this is a very fantastic idea, 2017, [for] a new rotary."
"Fascinating," he remarked with a grin.
"We celebrate the anniversary of rotary in 2017; 50 years. Then 2020 is the Olympics in Tokyo and the 100th anniversary of Mazda," he added.
So, a refusal of confirming something that most likely doesn't exist and saying a new rotary is a good idea is basically confirmation of a new RX-7.
Not buying it. Congrats motoring.co.au, you're the boy who cried RX-7. And everyone believes you. If it were actually coming in 2017, why have there been 0 development prototypes spotted? Why isn't Mazda going crazy with teasers and concepts of the rotary revolution that's prepping to take back off? Because it ain't happening.
Though, if they are actually right, we'd gladly eat as much crow as we could.