The 3rd Gen is an amazing car. I had a 93. The only real problems that you have to watch for are heat and the apex seals. Mine was blowing smoke when I bought it. I guess thats why I got it for $10,000. The first thing I did was replace the apex seals with 3mm ones. Now to take care of the heat I installed a larger radiator with twin spal fans. Also upgrading the hoses to the silicon hoses is a great idea. There are those few things that are simple to fix that can cause major headaches if they go wrong. As for the twin turbo. It's great if you are not looking for some major power or numbers. I myself installed a larger single turbo like a T-77. Now with a system like that you can really fly down the track.
RX7 vs. MSP
- Thread starter MikeyK 5
- Start date
Flat Black said:
Jesus some of you guys are so hostile. Immediate to take offense. He wasn't saying that as a fact. He was saying it as his own opinion. I fully agree with him. I researched rx-7's for close to a year before I realized insurance was too much for me. I was only interested in the 3rd gen rx-7's. I would say the twin turbos is what makes the 3rd gen rx-7 aside from it's sexy curves and evil look IMO.
thanks for all the responses, guys
I love the RX-7 (sexiest car ever!), but never knew they only came turboed for the 3rd Gen. I knew the turboed ones were fast, i was just wondering how the N/A's compared. I had been looking at a 91 N/A a year before I got my Speed, and I was just guessing that I grabbed the betetr car. I couldn't afford a 3rd Gen, tho.
I love the RX-7 (sexiest car ever!), but never knew they only came turboed for the 3rd Gen. I knew the turboed ones were fast, i was just wondering how the N/A's compared. I had been looking at a 91 N/A a year before I got my Speed, and I was just guessing that I grabbed the betetr car. I couldn't afford a 3rd Gen, tho.
what you could do, is do what my friend did. he got a N/A supra that was in excellant shape, but cheap because everyone wants the turbo. when he had the money (he couldnt afford the TT) he bought an aftermarket turbo and made it just as fast. the main benefit is that hes paying insurance on a N/A supra instead of a TT
The clutch and flywheel on the 3rd gen rx7 goes to s*** really quickly so its not lightning fast off the line.... but once it hits 3rd that car if absolutely ******* insane. I'd venture to say if I raced my rx7 vs my MSP my MSP would definately have a jump but it'd be very shortlived. By the time both turbos hit in third an rx7 would have about 6 car lengths on our car.
Also downshifting in an rx7 is like warpspeed in star trek. When you downshift you literally can feel your head get jerked back. It's a powerfull ******* turbo.
And for anyone who thinks the rx7 has no torque (common argument) you're simply wrong. We've dyno'd at 207hp with 354tq and then 227hp with 397tq. Once you get through first and second this car grips something fierce.
The downside is 3rd gens are NOT daily drivers. However they arent broken down 9 months out of the year like some imply. Our rx7 has spent a month in the shop this year total and that was to rebuild the turbo and replace a few seals. Outside that, it's been fine.
Also downshifting in an rx7 is like warpspeed in star trek. When you downshift you literally can feel your head get jerked back. It's a powerfull ******* turbo.
And for anyone who thinks the rx7 has no torque (common argument) you're simply wrong. We've dyno'd at 207hp with 354tq and then 227hp with 397tq. Once you get through first and second this car grips something fierce.
The downside is 3rd gens are NOT daily drivers. However they arent broken down 9 months out of the year like some imply. Our rx7 has spent a month in the shop this year total and that was to rebuild the turbo and replace a few seals. Outside that, it's been fine.
7
70
N/A rotaries are not torque monsters...
Turbo rotaries are. That is a common arguement because it is true.
Turbo rotaries are. That is a common arguement because it is true.
NA rotaries arent really fast cars
and belive me I get tons of people talking s*** about my 3rd gen not having torque right before they get their ass kicked by a few bus lengths.
and belive me I get tons of people talking s*** about my 3rd gen not having torque right before they get their ass kicked by a few bus lengths.
StuttersC said:N/A rotaries are not torque monsters...
Turbo rotaries are. That is a common arguement because it is true.
Black Majik MSP said:
I take offense to that. N/A rotary is the ORIGINAL RX7. Technically the 2nd and 3rd gen's weren't RX7's at all. They were RX8 and RX9...but Mazda decided to use the RX7 name again. RX2,3 and 4 were all just changes from the previous model.
Now, back on topic. I have a FC turbo and a 12A FB. The FC turbo is better handling and faster in the straight then the MSP. FB's are not as fast in the straights, but faster in the turns.
Pkay said:
Usually I'm not one to jump all over people about horsepower/torque numbers, I like to give people the benafit of the doubt. But either your car is REALLY messed up or your flat out lying. I'd really like to see that dyno sheet. Unless you have a LOT of stuff done that is not in your signature, then your car is NOT putting down 354 and 397lb/ft of torque. Sorry, its NOT possible with the stock computer. Espically seeing those HP numbers...RX7's ALWAYS put down equal amounts of torque/hp or lots more hp than torque(depending on setup). I see your on stock twins, so your numbers are 50% false(HP numbers maybe be accurate).
Also, a good driver in an RX7 can ALWAYS pull off faster than an equal driver in an FWD car, unless the FWD car is running drag slicks or something. It all has to do with weight shifting. With a RWD car it takes a LOT more to make the tires spin. On launch, the weight shifts to the back of the car, loading the rear tires, taking weight off the front. A FWD will spin MUCH easier.
Sorry, like I said, I don't usually do this, but this is a lot of very made-up information. If you have dyno sheets to prove this I will gladly retract my statement...but I have dyno'd quite a few cars and watched many many many more being dyno'd. I know what is accurate and what is not, these numbers just don't make ANY sense.
flat_black
Member
I dunno... My FC handles a lot better than my old FB did, at speed or in the tight twisties. =)
flat_black said:
Stock FB's take a tiny bit of work to get handling correctly. Here's one trick(gets them to handle GREAT)... turn the struts 90 degree's in the front. As they come from the factory they have almost no negative camber in the front as to preserve the tires. 90 degree's so the strut "Lobe" faces the inside gives the car about 1-1/2 to 2 degree's of negative camber and the car handles GREAT.
Here's the results from yesterday's autocross:
http://www.clemson.edu/cscc/results/nov012003.txt
Our club car(83 RX7) got 7th place. That is without a LSD and the car was running crappy still(work-in-process). With an LSD that car would be AT LEAST 5th place, if not better. Granted, this car was on race tires, but its still better than most other cars out there.
We are getting rid of the watt's linkage in the back and changing to a panhard bar, as well as fooling around with sway-bars. That combined with some good springs and shocks and this car can be a top 5 finisher and possibly top 3. Our last car consistantly had people in top 5 and even had a really warn out motor.
This is truly a worthless debate...
Both cars are unique in their own way and trying to debate which one is better is a waste of bandwidth and my precious oxygen, so quit wasting everyones time.
I vote for RX-7 AND MSP, as I have already stated. You can't be a well rounded person without both. As far as the debate between NA and turbo RX-7's, I'll take both of those as well. It depends on the car AND the driver, and I am suprised everytime I autocross how many nicer, faster, and better cars my little stockport 12a manages to beat. It feels much better on an autocross course than my TII ever has. Nowhere near as fast on a straightline, but definitely more nailed down in the turns.
Both cars are unique in their own way and trying to debate which one is better is a waste of bandwidth and my precious oxygen, so quit wasting everyones time.
I vote for RX-7 AND MSP, as I have already stated. You can't be a well rounded person without both. As far as the debate between NA and turbo RX-7's, I'll take both of those as well. It depends on the car AND the driver, and I am suprised everytime I autocross how many nicer, faster, and better cars my little stockport 12a manages to beat. It feels much better on an autocross course than my TII ever has. Nowhere near as fast on a straightline, but definitely more nailed down in the turns.
N1XRR said:
1) your claim "rx7s always put down equal amounts of torque/hp" is ******* hillarious.
2) I have the dyno sheet somewhere and will gladly post it when it gets found
3) Like I said cluthches and flywheels on rx7's with over 75k miles on them are usually worn to s***.
Funny thing is I own both a 3rd gen rx7 and an MSP. Unless you have a 3rd gen sitting in your driveway you can't account for the majority of the RX7 unique issues, perks, and otherwise.
mazdaowner123
Member
That's one weird dyno chart. Have you repeated it to make sure it wasn't a fluke? I thought all dyno charts were supposed to have equal hp and torque at 5250 or around there. Not calling bs, just wondering. Third gen and MSP...my two favorite cars. You lucky bastard, hehe.
~brian
~brian
