Lets get This Straight: Stock vs. Stock
07-06-06, 11:26 PM
#29
Apprentice Guru
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Cloud Nine and Peak of God
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=79rx_7]Magazine test aginst 4 other cars, it beat all of them in accel test. QUOTE]
As I said in a previous post the US got the slow versions of the Gen 1. The car tested was the 1981 German market RX-7 SDX model which had a 12A engine producing 115hp and 112lbft. In addition it had the rear end spoiler which reduced Cd drag to 0.32, compared with the US FB of 0.34, which according to Mazda was equivalent to 5hp. So it was equal to a 20% improvement in power over the US FB as fuel consumption and emmission control was not a problem.
The fuel consumption figure of i6.7 litres per 100km is horrifying, around 15mpg!
As I said in a previous post the US got the slow versions of the Gen 1. The car tested was the 1981 German market RX-7 SDX model which had a 12A engine producing 115hp and 112lbft. In addition it had the rear end spoiler which reduced Cd drag to 0.32, compared with the US FB of 0.34, which according to Mazda was equivalent to 5hp. So it was equal to a 20% improvement in power over the US FB as fuel consumption and emmission control was not a problem.
The fuel consumption figure of i6.7 litres per 100km is horrifying, around 15mpg!
wtf is this?
07-07-06, 12:50 AM
#32
love the braaaap
Originally Posted by PaulFitzwarryne
The fuel consumption figure of i6.7 litres per 100km is horrifying, around 15mpg!
07-07-06, 01:13 AM
#33
Originally Posted by blwfly
What cars can a 1st gen run with and beat, stock vs stock. either 12a or 13b engine. I want to see a whole list here.
iv beatin a 4wd turbo eclipse in a straight line through 3 gears then had to slow down
my cars relitivly stock
iv beatin a 4wd turbo eclipse in a straight line through 3 gears then had to slow down
my cars relitivly stock
Yes, dreams do nor count,lol.
I've seen alot of these claims. You have to take in consideration the following facts.
Was the other person really even trying. Alot of times these guys in the other cars do not put the pedal to the metal. Why? Either they don't want a ticket, you are trying to race them in a school district or they just don't like to race.
This thread is useless. As others have stated the car was not built for racing, especially 1/4 mile. It is just a good all around fun car to drive. For it's time it had good acceleration especially the Se's. But more so it is known for it's handling capabilities in stock form.
07-07-06, 01:25 AM
#34
Roll to Heaven in a RX-7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Westminster, B.C - Canada
Posts: 790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rx7doctor
`
Yes, dreams do nor count,lol.
I've seen alot of these claims. You have to take in consideration the following facts.
Was the other person really even trying. Alot of times these guys in the other cars do not put the pedal to the metal. Why? Either they don't want a ticket, you are trying to race them in a school district or they just don't like to race.
This thread is useless. As others have stated the car was not built for racing, especially 1/4 mile. It is just a good all around fun car to drive. For it's time it had good acceleration especially the Se's. But more so it is known for it's handling capabilities in stock form.
Yes, dreams do nor count,lol.
I've seen alot of these claims. You have to take in consideration the following facts.
Was the other person really even trying. Alot of times these guys in the other cars do not put the pedal to the metal. Why? Either they don't want a ticket, you are trying to race them in a school district or they just don't like to race.
This thread is useless. As others have stated the car was not built for racing, especially 1/4 mile. It is just a good all around fun car to drive. For it's time it had good acceleration especially the Se's. But more so it is known for it's handling capabilities in stock form.
07-07-06, 08:56 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Indy In.
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, my research has shown that the 84-85 RX-7 GSL-SE's were the fastest na RX-7's built...
Faster then a :
87 BMW M3
88 Porsche 944S
75-82 Corvette's
80 Ferrari 308
93 Mustang GT (Auto)
Faster then a :
87 BMW M3
88 Porsche 944S
75-82 Corvette's
80 Ferrari 308
93 Mustang GT (Auto)
07-07-06, 10:02 AM
#39
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: san diego
Posts: 23,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rastarajah
is it running the big 50 shot?
like i said my spec killed a tII
07-07-06, 10:16 AM
#41
Rotary Enthusiast
Originally Posted by Dougster
Actually, my research has shown that the 84-85 RX-7 GSL-SE's were the fastest na RX-7's built...
Faster then a :
93 Mustang GT (Auto)
Faster then a :
93 Mustang GT (Auto)
07-07-06, 10:16 AM
#42
Apprentice Guru
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Cloud Nine and Peak of God
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 85rotarypower
Try your math again. 16.7L/100 KM is about 17 mpg, not 15. That is quite the difference considering MPG readings are not linear. The difference between 50 and 70mpg is very little, while the difference between 15 and 17 is actually quite a bit. This is the main reason why L/100KM is the most accepted way of measuring fuel mileage.
Wearing my mathematical hat. 1 US gal=3.875 litres,1 mile=1,609 m; thus 16.7 litres= 4.3097gals and 100km=62.1504 miles; by extension 62.1504 miles using 4.3097 gals gives 14.4210mpg
However, if you use Imperial gallons the consumption was 17.3205mpg. The majority of members on the forum use US gals[16.6 gals per tank], this is why I converted the German data to it.
I fully agree l per 100km is the best way, but people to the south of you get confused. The above figure looks dreadful as I use just 8 on the highway and 10 around town.
07-07-06, 10:20 AM
#43
Rotary Freak
Originally Posted by Lt. Dan
I wonder what was wrong with the Mustang....... LOL
Or the S4 N/A with a hood scoop that 2cute keeps boasting about.......loln't
07-07-06, 11:04 AM
#44
Apprentice Guru
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Cloud Nine and Peak of God
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Dougster]Actually, my research has shown that the 84-85 RX-7 GSL-SE's were the fastest na RX-7's built.]
I agree it was the fastest na RX-7 with 16.3 second 1/4 mile and topspeed of 126mph. In comparison the GT figures were 15.3 and 145mph. Kitten v Tiger!
The problem with comparison data is the initial results depended on the ability of the driver and the condition of the press car. I have driven some review cars which were decidedly tired, but I also know of at least one factory producing sportscars which gave tweaked cars to motoring magazine reviewers.
While I can not comment on all the cars listed, my experience with Porsche was the 924 was marginally slower, the 944 marginally quicker than a GSL-SE. In practice 944s tended to be driven harder than a 924.
I agree it was the fastest na RX-7 with 16.3 second 1/4 mile and topspeed of 126mph. In comparison the GT figures were 15.3 and 145mph. Kitten v Tiger!
The problem with comparison data is the initial results depended on the ability of the driver and the condition of the press car. I have driven some review cars which were decidedly tired, but I also know of at least one factory producing sportscars which gave tweaked cars to motoring magazine reviewers.
While I can not comment on all the cars listed, my experience with Porsche was the 924 was marginally slower, the 944 marginally quicker than a GSL-SE. In practice 944s tended to be driven harder than a 924.
07-07-06, 12:08 PM
#46
Originally Posted by Dougster
Actually, my research has shown that the 84-85 RX-7 GSL-SE's were the fastest na RX-7's built...
Faster then a :
87 BMW M3
88 Porsche 944S
75-82 Corvette's
80 Ferrari 308
93 Mustang GT (Auto)
Faster then a :
87 BMW M3
88 Porsche 944S
75-82 Corvette's
80 Ferrari 308
93 Mustang GT (Auto)
07-07-06, 01:22 PM
#47
According to this... http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html
A 93 Geo Storm GSi would eat a stock 12a
Thats just sickening! But who cares, its a Geo. JEEEEHOOOO!!!
A 93 Geo Storm GSi would eat a stock 12a
Thats just sickening! But who cares, its a Geo. JEEEEHOOOO!!!
07-07-06, 06:37 PM
#48
Apprentice Guru
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Cloud Nine and Peak of God
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rbf41182gt
what factory was giving out tweaked cars to magazine reviewers?
Unfortunately, I can not publically state which factories I know tweak their cars before serious reviews. Another legal practice is to handpick components with the optimal tolerances to put together 'stock' competition cars, commonly called selective blueprinting. My experience is you can get up to 20% more power. In some events checking is very tight. One well known make was disqualified from winning a major European rally because the headlight bulbs were non standard!
Sometimes cars have a potential weakness if seriously 'tuned', one model had head problems so in cars earmarked for performance there was a special run to avoid cracking. A slight variation in alloys can make all the difference even with identical tolerances. On the other hand remember Henry Ford, when a car broke down he was just as interested in what survived in case it was over engineered and there could be cost savings by lower specs for that part.
An example of how easy it is to get improvements is, there was no outwards noticeable difference between 12A engines, but on RX-7s built in the same year the output ranged from 101 to 116hp according the the market.
Last edited by PaulFitzwarryne; 07-07-06 at 07:01 PM.
07-07-06, 06:44 PM
#49
Rockin' the suburbs!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well... I have beaten every Honda aside from the S2000 around here. Integras unless it is an RXS-s. V6 Mustangs. Family Sedans... unless it's an SHO Taurus or any form of Cadillac or modern Buick.
07-07-06, 09:18 PM
#50
Rotary Freak
