Anyone ever thought of this?
08-25-09, 08:57 AM
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone ever thought of this?
Has anyone thought about these wheels. It is pretty crazy but can anyone give me a reason this wouldnt work
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Summi...Q5fAccessories
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Summi...Q5fAccessories
08-25-09, 09:13 AM
#4
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im new to rx7s. Is the +2.5 offset too low?
It says that they have over a 656 lbs load capacity per wheel. I bet these are stronger than a cheap aftermarket wheel.
It says that they have over a 656 lbs load capacity per wheel. I bet these are stronger than a cheap aftermarket wheel.
08-25-09, 09:37 AM
#5
I think you'd lose that bet.
A first gen is 2800 lbs at the curb. Divided by 4, that's a static load of 700 pounds per wheel.
Your wheels are 50 lbs over rated capacity sitting still.
Imagine your first attempt to dive into a curve at half a gee, and what that load (well over 1000lbs) will do to your 656-lb-rated outside front wheel.
A first gen is 2800 lbs at the curb. Divided by 4, that's a static load of 700 pounds per wheel.
Your wheels are 50 lbs over rated capacity sitting still.
Imagine your first attempt to dive into a curve at half a gee, and what that load (well over 1000lbs) will do to your 656-lb-rated outside front wheel.
08-25-09, 10:29 AM
#6
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
i'm cleaning up my enkei meshies and they are 1600lbs load capacity. 650x4=2600, be afraid to have a passenger, and hit a bump
Trending Topics
08-25-09, 01:22 PM
#9
Zoom Zoom
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'd lose that bet.
A first gen is 2800 lbs at the curb. Divided by 4, that's a static load of 700 pounds per wheel.
Your wheels are 50 lbs over rated capacity sitting still.
Imagine your first attempt to dive into a curve at half a gee, and what that load (well over 1000lbs) will do to your 656-lb-rated outside front wheel.
A first gen is 2800 lbs at the curb. Divided by 4, that's a static load of 700 pounds per wheel.
Your wheels are 50 lbs over rated capacity sitting still.
Imagine your first attempt to dive into a curve at half a gee, and what that load (well over 1000lbs) will do to your 656-lb-rated outside front wheel.
To the OP-this have been covered many times before. ATV wheels cannot be used on FB's.
08-25-09, 02:13 PM
#10
Lets rock.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SLC, Utah
Posts: 1,355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2800lbs with passengers probably. My 89 auto FC tipped the scales at 2910. I'd say FB's range from 2280 (base model SA) to 2630lbs (loaded GSL-SE) depending on the model. Either way I wouldn't risk it.
08-25-09, 02:32 PM
#11
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
Do you have a source? I'm most certainly not doubting you, I'm just suprised because thats 500 pounds more than I've ever heard quoted for a FB. I've been looking for this myself and several places online that claim they got the weight from mazda's brochures say around 2300lbs curb, and I'd like to know the real answer.
To the OP-this have been covered many times before. ATV wheels cannot be used on FB's.
To the OP-this have been covered many times before. ATV wheels cannot be used on FB's.
5/78 SA GS no ac 2420lbs (thermal reactor + steel bumpers make these about 80lbs more than an 81-83)
83 limited 2330lbs
84 gsl-se w/RB exhaust 2540lbs (its a porker i know! but why?
for a "curb" weight you'd add the driver at least
08-25-09, 06:24 PM
#13
On/DEFEAT
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Pole, AK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i've put a bunch on the scale, all with full tank of gas, and no driver, as that's repeatable. all cars are stock except where noted
5/78 SA GS no ac 2420lbs (thermal reactor + steel bumpers make these about 80lbs more than an 81-83)
83 limited 2330lbs
84 gsl-se w/RB exhaust 2540lbs (its a porker i know! but why?
for a "curb" weight you'd add the driver at least
5/78 SA GS no ac 2420lbs (thermal reactor + steel bumpers make these about 80lbs more than an 81-83)
83 limited 2330lbs
84 gsl-se w/RB exhaust 2540lbs (its a porker i know! but why?
for a "curb" weight you'd add the driver at least
Granted, i weigh 230lbs, i don't know how an FB could be at a curb weight of 2800. I always figured mine would be one of the heaviest of the 12A models.
08-25-09, 06:55 PM
#14
i've been curious to see how much mine weighs.....hmmm i might go to the recycling center tomorrow to find out.
85 GSL
no emissions, no A/C. power windows, E-fan, RB header to a pre-silencer and a ractive muffler...a few tools in the bin....any guesses? lol
85 GSL
no emissions, no A/C. power windows, E-fan, RB header to a pre-silencer and a ractive muffler...a few tools in the bin....any guesses? lol
08-25-09, 08:06 PM
#17
"Curb Weight" is fully loaded, crewed, and all fluids topped. It's Gross Vehicle Weight.
The SA's are somewhat heavier than the FB's, due to the exhaust differences and also things like the heavier bumpers and thicker fender metal. I'm only fully up on SA's.
Per the sticker on my door post, that's 2805 lbs for my '80. Since the payload (per the tire sticker on the door) is 340 lbs, that's an unladen but fully fuelled gross weight of 2465 lbs.
Pretty darned close to J9's 2420.
The SA's are somewhat heavier than the FB's, due to the exhaust differences and also things like the heavier bumpers and thicker fender metal. I'm only fully up on SA's.
Per the sticker on my door post, that's 2805 lbs for my '80. Since the payload (per the tire sticker on the door) is 340 lbs, that's an unladen but fully fuelled gross weight of 2465 lbs.
Pretty darned close to J9's 2420.
08-25-09, 11:32 PM
#19
"Curb Weight" is fully loaded, crewed, and all fluids topped. It's Gross Vehicle Weight.
The SA's are somewhat heavier than the FB's, due to the exhaust differences and also things like the heavier bumpers and thicker fender metal. I'm only fully up on SA's.
Per the sticker on my door post, that's 2805 lbs for my '80. Since the payload (per the tire sticker on the door) is 340 lbs, that's an unladen but fully fuelled gross weight of 2465 lbs.
Pretty darned close to J9's 2420.
The SA's are somewhat heavier than the FB's, due to the exhaust differences and also things like the heavier bumpers and thicker fender metal. I'm only fully up on SA's.
Per the sticker on my door post, that's 2805 lbs for my '80. Since the payload (per the tire sticker on the door) is 340 lbs, that's an unladen but fully fuelled gross weight of 2465 lbs.
Pretty darned close to J9's 2420.
From a racer's point of view the 79-80 RX7's are significantly lighter than all of the other years. In fact the SA's are the only RX7's that can typically make the ITA minimum weight of 2280 w/driver. Of course ITA cars are stripped of emissions, most of the interior, under coating, sound deadner, etc.
Oh, and the ATV wheels.....bad idea...really bad idea. For the same money you could buy some steel wheels from Diamond racing wheels.
08-26-09, 12:09 PM
#20
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
"Curb Weight" is fully loaded, crewed, and all fluids topped. It's Gross Vehicle Weight.
The SA's are somewhat heavier than the FB's, due to the exhaust differences and also things like the heavier bumpers and thicker fender metal. I'm only fully up on SA's.
Per the sticker on my door post, that's 2805 lbs for my '80. Since the payload (per the tire sticker on the door) is 340 lbs, that's an unladen but fully fuelled gross weight of 2465 lbs.
Pretty darned close to J9's 2420.
The SA's are somewhat heavier than the FB's, due to the exhaust differences and also things like the heavier bumpers and thicker fender metal. I'm only fully up on SA's.
Per the sticker on my door post, that's 2805 lbs for my '80. Since the payload (per the tire sticker on the door) is 340 lbs, that's an unladen but fully fuelled gross weight of 2465 lbs.
Pretty darned close to J9's 2420.
08-26-09, 12:11 PM
#21
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
zyrano's FB in CSP trim, no ac, no emissions, RB exhaust, full interior, we think was 2450 with him in it, so the car should be about 2200...
08-26-09, 12:32 PM
#22
I'm betting there are several dozen pounds' possible difference car-to-car when they rolled off the assembly line, back in the 80's, just due to assembly differences and options;
AC or no
Sunroof or no
5-speed or 4-speed
wheel variations (steel vs alloys)
Interior trim variations (cloth v leather alone is probably a couple pounds)
GVWR is probably the "safe" number, assuming worst case heaviest build, since it's a regulatory number.
AC or no
Sunroof or no
5-speed or 4-speed
wheel variations (steel vs alloys)
Interior trim variations (cloth v leather alone is probably a couple pounds)
GVWR is probably the "safe" number, assuming worst case heaviest build, since it's a regulatory number.
08-26-09, 12:48 PM
#23
We kind of got off track here. 
The point is that even if the car is stripped down to 2000lbs, you should still not run those wheels!
Do one of the following:
- get a nice set of stock wheels ('83 LE wheels are nice, paint/polish if you like)
- pick up some new aftermarket rims in 4x110 (not many choices) or get some old school 4x110 rims
- get wheel adaptors to run a more common bolt pattern
- swap a GSL-SE suspension on there (GSL-SE pattern much more common)
- upgrade to the re-speed.com big brake kit (better brakes, more wheel choices)
There are lots of options for you. These are all much safer than the ATV wheels and some options would not cost any more than the ATV wheels. If you are too broke for any of the safer options, just stick with the stockers until you can afford something esle. Wheels/brakes/tires are things that you shouldn't mess around with.
The point is that even if the car is stripped down to 2000lbs, you should still not run those wheels!
Do one of the following:
- get a nice set of stock wheels ('83 LE wheels are nice, paint/polish if you like)
- pick up some new aftermarket rims in 4x110 (not many choices) or get some old school 4x110 rims
- get wheel adaptors to run a more common bolt pattern
- swap a GSL-SE suspension on there (GSL-SE pattern much more common)
- upgrade to the re-speed.com big brake kit (better brakes, more wheel choices)
There are lots of options for you. These are all much safer than the ATV wheels and some options would not cost any more than the ATV wheels. If you are too broke for any of the safer options, just stick with the stockers until you can afford something esle. Wheels/brakes/tires are things that you shouldn't mess around with.
08-26-09, 01:49 PM
#24
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
I'm betting there are several dozen pounds' possible difference car-to-car when they rolled off the assembly line, back in the 80's, just due to assembly differences and options;
AC or no
Sunroof or no
5-speed or 4-speed
wheel variations (steel vs alloys)
Interior trim variations (cloth v leather alone is probably a couple pounds)
GVWR is probably the "safe" number, assuming worst case heaviest build, since it's a regulatory number.
AC or no
Sunroof or no
5-speed or 4-speed
wheel variations (steel vs alloys)
Interior trim variations (cloth v leather alone is probably a couple pounds)
GVWR is probably the "safe" number, assuming worst case heaviest build, since it's a regulatory number.
08-27-09, 09:09 AM
#25
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow this turned into something crazy. I didnt really like the wheels, just was thinking of an inexpensive alternative for the 4x110 guys. Anyway. Thanks for the thoughts though. I didnt really do the math on the load capacity.