A) it was not a 79 (81 body)
B) NGK helped to sponsor it but it was not there car (it was racing beats) there were other sponsores also, amsoil, Mazda Factory Race (Mazda Speed), and a couple of others.
C) that was not even the crowning achievment, when racing beat raced daytona, and tore all of the "well known and respected brands" a new ******* was the really important stuff

kenn

 

Actually, it was a whopping 138 hp.... had one with a 4 speed. It was a fun car!

 

[/QUOTE]The car is not extremely loud, although it can set off car alarms, and the power range is just fine for the street. The only thing that could really be improved on would be my exhaust. I am running without any cats, and the smell is pretty obnoxious.[/QUOTE]

Scared myself half to death yesterday. First time my car has set off a parked cars alarm.

Made me giggle a bit must say.

12a Streetport very streetable, mine does about 100k's a day for work and with plenty of poke.

Cheers Sue

 

The engine in this vehicle was not a 12A but a peripheral port 13B! It broke the Group E/Grand Touring class record. Mazda considered the 12A would not generate enough power to break the previous record so opted for highly modifying the 13B 4 port engine originally designed fot the RX-4

 

Well, to all the people sayin the 12A doesn't have enought torque to get moving in 2nd from a stop, I was able to get my VERY tired 12A moving in 3rd!!! Not an easy thing to do, but she would do it.

BTW, there was one version of the Mustang GT that had a 289 or something in either 79 or 80 that only made 115hp. I have a book on all the american muscle cars from 1950 till now and it seems pretty accurate. I love old skool imports to death, but you just gotta love a 69 Camaro SS or Chevelle SS454.

 

what are all you guys comparing a 12a's low end torque to a chevy 350? or a pontiac GTO? thats crazy, and rotaries have plenty of low-end torque, didn't that article or atleast one that I read mentioned the nice low-end torque to get out of turns fast.

 

I have an '82 RX7 base model 12A with low mileage (less than 90k) absolutely stock, but everything tuned right on the monies, I also have a '91 MR2 turbo and off the line the rex takes it every time, Anything over 120 and all you see of the MR2 is the tailpipe. But the 7 pulls harder in the lower gears and will break traction even in 3rd, and thats with 1/2 the horsepower of the MR2.
It AINT the number of ponies in the corral, it's all about heart !!!

 

I'm not buying that.

 

im with hammmy on that one, breaking the tires loose in third is highly unlikley with a stock setup....

 

I wasn't selling, both cars are a blast to own. pic was too large to attach, will take new pics.

 

That's pretty much all wrong. A properly tuned pp will have a very flat torque curve and there's a hell of a lot more of it even from low revs. Also, saying they won't idle below 3000rpm is ridiculous. IIRC, Mazda recommends something like a 1500rpm idle for their factory housing engines. About the only time pp's suck is under light load due to exhaust gas dillution caused by the large overlap.

 

he might be right, I can easily break the tires loose shifting to 3rd on wet pavement, and really easy in 2nd on dry pavement; given you have to get the R's up

To every one conpairing small block chevy's to 12a's of corse they have more torque they are about 4.6L bigger that means more spinning mass = more torque if Mazda wanted the 12a to have 200ft/lbs of torque they would have built them that way, but that wasn't the goal

and since everyone is compairing here is some food for thought
I have a 84 Chevy short bed 4x4 with a 360 (350 bored .060 over) with about 325 hp and 350ft/lbs and I had a good friend race me, my truck against my stock 7; I blew the doors off of my own truck ( until about 100mph), I think pretty highly of my trucks I didn't think I would win but I did. (now I need to get him to drive my Ford)
by the way the truck ways 4400lbs get my point

 

On my completly stock 85 12a when it was still running and a brand new clutch I could scratch third of course I had an open diff and stock 13 inch steel wheels granted I also had to powershift the **** out of it but even my cousins old 94 ford escort GT could scratch third if he really tried, come to think about it I scratched third gear in a little mitsubishi mirage I test drove. Point is the rx7 has more power than a lot of people give it credit for as I watched my freinds 83 gsl with the gsl-se 13b pull his dads truck out of a ditch granted it took everything that little car had but extremly respectable considering it was a half ton chevy truck extended cab long bed and the ditch was deep enough to swallow the Rx7

 

I double checked this one, as I had a new 1979 4 banger (new) and the 1979 V8 (in 1980). I remember the V8 was 138 hp and the ill-fated turbo was 135 (tons of lag). I double checked and learned that for the 1980-81 Mustang, the V8 DROPPED to 119 hp, and then went to almost 160 with the introdution of the HO V8 in 1982.

P.S. Got to love car trivia!

 

I think that would be a funny sight to see.

But anyway the engine could be called weak compared to today's standard but it would be stronger compared to the standards from then. I have been told by many friends of mine that as long as the torque is higher or equal to horsepower it is fine. That may not be true but that is just what my opinion of torque has become.

I think the engine has excellent power based on the weight (which according to a site I visited was 2100lbs. in the SA, may not be accurate) and good torque.

 

*sigh*

 

what does it matter if you can slip the clutch till it smells like a bonfire and take off in third? and i can get an eek out of third if im wound tight, power shifting, in a curve. thats with a new clutch, too.

 

I didn't necessarily mean to compare a Chevy 350 to a 12A. But if you still say a stock 12A has decent low end torque, then your standards must be pretty low. Of course I can start off from a standing stop in 3rd gear just barely too, but I can do the same in almost any new and heavier car with around ~100lbs of torque too.

Not that I don't have a huge problem with the 12A's low end torque (but it would be nice to have a little more), and it just means using the gearbox a little more. And might I add that the SA/FB have among the best and smoothest shifters for a ~25 year old car.

 

ok, guys my name says it all. i love fox body mustangs. and i love my little 84 FB. i dont really know much about mustangs from 84 or older. but when the 85 came out....Whoooo. 210hp with right around 300lbs/ft of TQ. thats impressive for mid 80's. i just wanted to say that. i doubt the thread starter has ever seen a 1st gen drive by him. my Rx-7 is currently down for repairs, but the other day i was driving my girls eclipse, and saw a blue FB drive by, man, the stance it had said, "Move outta the way, i'm coming thru".

and on a final note, not trying to be a dick or nothing, but please try and use grammer. its so frustrating having to read a sentece 3 times because it makes no sense. or atleast no sense until i add grammer for you. this isnt for everyone, this is for the people that type with out periords or commas at all.


~Steve

 

Well, when I had my streetport (220hp) Rx-7 back in the late 80's. I had enough torque to beat a 5.0 Mustang hardtop, 5.0 Convertible mustang, Toyota Mr-2, Porsche 911 on the highway, and a Buick Grand National in a park. The guy with the Buick told me I won because his turbo didn't boost in time, but of course he didn't want to try again. BGN's are animals too, so maybe he was right.

Anyhow, everyone has thier stories and experiences.

Theres nothing like a Rotary and theres nothing like an Rx-7 both combined truely is an awesome experience.

 

okay, deal... if you use spell check.

only joking.

 

If you want a true comparison of the RX-7 with vehicles of its vintage just read an auto magazine of the period.

I have a Car and Driver for Dec 1984 bought at the same time as my RX-7. In it are several reviews.

Chevrolet Corvette. 320 bhp 330 lbs-ft torque 1/4 mile 14.4 seconds

Saab 900 Turbo 160 bhp 188 lbs-ft torque 1/4 mile 16.5 seconds

Chrysler Charger 146 bhp 165 lbs-ft torque 1/4 mile 15.9 seconds


This clearly shows by 1984, the 12A engined RX-7 may have had the looks but its performance and torque was out of date.

 

For what they are, they have plent of torque...I agree about the shifter thing too...108,000 and the shifter is perfect...very crisp! And yes GNs are beasts...13.8-14.2 stock...alot of guys are into the 12s though because they are rediculously easy to mod...$1000 to get in the 11s. I should know, we own one.

 

I never said the car goes squirlly going into 3rd, I just meant that it screamed in 1st,squeeled in 2nd and gave a good healthy chirp in 3rd, (on dry road). It's an everyday driver (gotta get my wife out it) so for now, it'll stay stock.
By the way, nice job on the Forum guys, it's been a great source of info. I'm a diesel mech. and spend most of my time working on school busesl, the info. gleaned from the forum has made the transition into the rotory world a lot smoother, thanks.