2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.

0-60

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 04:25 PM
  #1  
mazdaman1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Orange Village,Ohio
0-60

0-60

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a base model 1987 RX-7

It has no mods

from 0-60mph is it 7.0 or 8.0 or7.5 or faster

I think it gets 7.2sec from 0 to 60mph.


Is that right?
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 04:29 PM
  #2  
OverDriven's Avatar
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 938
Likes: 0
From: VA
7.9 seconds i believe.

-Joe
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 04:53 PM
  #3  
RotaryWeaponSE7EN's Avatar
Rotary Freak
Tenured Member 20 Years
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,937
Likes: 3
From: Mission,KS
I think its more towards 7.4, depends on the driver and how well the car runs....compression, etc......blah, blah blah.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 06:08 PM
  #4  
ajsuper7's Avatar
Nothin But a G Thang
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,213
Likes: 0
From: Houston, Texas
ive pulled an 8.1 with a stock s5, 9.3 with stuck 5th and 6th ports cloged shut, and with a few mods (catback, bonez cat replacement, msd ignition, and a cone filter) i pulled a 6.4. this is n/a btw. i concider that pretty good for a mildly modded s5 n/a. this was using a gtech, all multiple runs at the same place and these are the averages. though the gtech is not the best indicator it does show a definite improvement. this was on a stock clutch too, so i have no doubt with a better clutch i could of had that down to low 6's 0 to 60. even though a 1/4 mile is best to judge i find 0 to 60 a good indicator of what the car can do around town, i mean there is so much traffic in houston its hard to get past 60 or 70 and expect to live thus i stick to taking (slow) cars out at stoplights. btw i believe for the 6.4 run i had taken the spare tire out and a few other small things i didnt need.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 06:17 PM
  #5  
koukifc3s's Avatar
Clogged cat
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
its around 8 for a stock one
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 06:50 PM
  #6  
totallimmortal's Avatar
Is that thing Turbo?
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
yup through some exhuast and intake on her and she'll open up alot, those were my only mods when i ran a 15.2 in the 1/4 mile. Not sure what my 0-60 was tho but it's an 86 base, very light at 2500 pounds on the scale at the track

Last edited by totallimmortal; Jul 21, 2004 at 06:56 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 07:44 PM
  #7  
ddub's Avatar
i am legendary
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,478
Likes: 1
From: Kirkland, WA
No... You are all a little off there. People think way too much, sorry to say, of the n/a rx7's. It is NOT that fast stock, end of story. Here are the stats of an 86-87 base model rx7

Obtained from C&D
0-60: 8.5
1/4 Mile: 16.5


And does anyone actually search? There is a new thread at least weekly about "how fast is my n/a rx7" or "what can i beat in my rx7!" or "my n/a rx7 is so fast but it has no mods, how come?" etc etc etc. It really gets annoying to have to read these all the time, especially since most the time people post false info.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 07:49 PM
  #8  
ajsuper7's Avatar
Nothin But a G Thang
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,213
Likes: 0
From: Houston, Texas
^ exactly, i keep hearing how n/a's are so hard to get into the 14's with but im sure i was close, with the times i was running on my gtech and the cars i had beaten. im not saying na's are fast at all in the scheme of things but compared to stock id say it was very surprising what the right mods can do for these cars.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 07:55 PM
  #9  
ajsuper7's Avatar
Nothin But a G Thang
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,213
Likes: 0
From: Houston, Texas
oh also take into account that houston is at sea level and in many cases below so it is an ideal location to run. these results are not going to happen to all cars and in different locations. i happened to have a car in great shape with excellent compression and just about any mainteince a person could do was done to it. also i dont weight that much and i usually run my times with less than 1/4 tank of gas. so my times are done in ideal situations, many variables can throw things off.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 08:32 PM
  #10  
coldfire's Avatar
ERTW
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
From: Ottawa, Canada
i ran a 0-60 of ~8.7 seconds. this was in the wet, with a passenger, my auxilary ports were only opening at 5500rpm, and it is a S5 with a S4 motor, but i had a pretty low tank of gas. so i think low 8s is not unreasonable...
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 08:33 PM
  #11  
IaMtHeRuThLeSs1's Avatar
I'm awesome!
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
From: Greenville, SC & Atlanta, GA & Clovis, NM
its 7.2 in a stock well running s5...the s5 has 20 more horses so expect a s4 0-60 to be around 7.8-8, depending on the driver
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 08:41 PM
  #12  
Molotovman's Avatar
Ban Peak
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,256
Likes: 553
From: Northern Virginia
Originally Posted by IaMtHeRuThLeSs1
its 7.2 in a stock well running s5...the s5 has 20 more horses so expect a s4 0-60 to be around 7.8-8, depending on the driver

S5 also has more weight. I read that a s4 base runs like a 7.9 with stock everything. So, lightly modded with a good driver, and good compression, I'd vote a 7.5 0-60. Anyway, who wants to dragrace, it's the track that matters, it's what our cars were designed for.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 09:00 PM
  #13  
coldfire's Avatar
ERTW
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
From: Ottawa, Canada
again agreed^
threads like this are USELESS

you want bragging rights in a straight line? go get yourself something that has at least 8 of those bouncing cylinder thingies. or maybe just six, but it has to be forced induction, behind you, and have 'Porsche' written on the top
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 09:01 PM
  #14  
ddub's Avatar
i am legendary
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,478
Likes: 1
From: Kirkland, WA
Originally Posted by IaMtHeRuThLeSs1
its 7.2 in a stock well running s5...the s5 has 20 more horses so expect a s4 0-60 to be around 7.8-8, depending on the driver
Totally wrong! S5 has more power, but the extra weight causes it to be the same quickness as the S4. Both S4 and S5 will run the same 0-60's and 1/4miles stock, or at least very close.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 12:04 AM
  #15  
coldfire's Avatar
ERTW
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
From: Ottawa, Canada
yup, so me having an S4 engine in an S5 should put me at an even greater disadvantage^
so if i can manage to run 8.7 with all that **** going against me, i'm sure at least a second faster is easily attainable in stock form (under good conditions, for car, driver, and weather)...
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 12:33 AM
  #16  
koukifc3s's Avatar
Clogged cat
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
The magazine I have says 8 sec 0-60. It's from when the FC came out and tells all about the car.

I found some links and their source is Mazda itself:
http://www.fasterfords.com/mazda/rx7.htm

http://www.lemmings.com/mark/rx7specs.htm

http://www.rx7.voodoobox.net/infofaq/rx7specs.html

hmmm... 7.2 for S5 n/a?

Last edited by koukifc3s; Jul 22, 2004 at 12:39 AM.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 12:53 AM
  #17  
ddub's Avatar
i am legendary
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,478
Likes: 1
From: Kirkland, WA
Originally Posted by koukifc3s
The magazine I have says 8 sec 0-60. It's from when the FC came out and tells all about the car.

I found some links and their source is Mazda itself:
http://www.fasterfords.com/mazda/rx7.htm

http://www.lemmings.com/mark/rx7specs.htm

http://www.rx7.voodoobox.net/infofaq/rx7specs.html

hmmm... 7.2 for S5 n/a?
Those links are so full of ****. I'd like to see any stock n/a rx7 run low 15s, bullshit. The stock n/a rx7 runs low to mid 16's, I don't believe any of those for a second.


Those turbo times seem really fucked up too. The TII's ran low 15's maybe high 14's stock.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 01:00 AM
  #18  
koukifc3s's Avatar
Clogged cat
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
haha i know they seemed sketchy to me too but yea
so I guess they're from low to mid 8 sec
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 02:32 AM
  #19  
ddub's Avatar
i am legendary
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,478
Likes: 1
From: Kirkland, WA
Originally Posted by koukifc3s
haha i know they seemed sketchy to me too but yea
so I guess they're from low to mid 8 sec
Pretty much. Unless a fairly large group of people with stock cars, n/a and turbo, completely stock can prove to me otherwise. I've just read and seen too many n/a and turbo cars that are stock or very lightly modded run 16-17's.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 09:46 AM
  #20  
Molotovman's Avatar
Ban Peak
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,256
Likes: 553
From: Northern Virginia
I believe mazda tests are on the actual mazda japan RX-7 page, I can'tr remmeber though, i want the link!
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 10:55 AM
  #21  
grinder's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: UK
just to shed some light on this ...

i have a stock 1990 TII ( apart from the main cat has been removed )

my first time on the strip showed these times

1st Run - 15.98
2nd Run - 16.45
3rd Run - 15.87
4th Run - 15.34
5th Run - 15.57
6th Run - 16.17
7th Run - 15.07
8th Run - 15.23

not sure if it will help you solve the argument though
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 11:08 AM
  #22  
BlackIceGuitar's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
From: Zeeland/Holland ,Michigan
I don't put much belief behind most sites on the internet. I've seen them say 0-60 was a low as 6 seconds and as high as 12.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 02:12 PM
  #23  
ddub's Avatar
i am legendary
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,478
Likes: 1
From: Kirkland, WA
Originally Posted by grinder
just to shed some light on this ...

i have a stock 1990 TII ( apart from the main cat has been removed )

my first time on the strip showed these times

1st Run - 15.98
2nd Run - 16.45
3rd Run - 15.87
4th Run - 15.34
5th Run - 15.57
6th Run - 16.17
7th Run - 15.07
8th Run - 15.23

not sure if it will help you solve the argument though
Since your best run was a 15.07 with an average of 15.71 (granted it seems you could have had a better average with more consistent/better driving/launching since you WERE able to get it down to 15.07) maybe this will show the n/a guys that they ARENT running mid to low 15's stock.

Any stock n/a that thinks he/she is running mid to low 15's, go to the track and report back your times, please...
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Garrett
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
20
Oct 18, 2002 11:46 AM
BDoty311
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
12
Sep 29, 2002 02:30 PM
CYCLE7
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
9
May 8, 2002 04:20 AM
Rx-7$4$me
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
3
Apr 11, 2002 03:13 AM
Rx7Boi
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
14
Oct 8, 2001 10:53 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.