1987 RX7 VS 2003 Accord?
 

Who do you think would win a 1/4 mile drag? a 3.0L VTEC 2002 Honda Accord LX Sedan 4D or a 1987 RX7 13B, 5-speed, non-turbo? both cars are completely stock. I found info online saying that the stock RX7 runs a 16.2s 1/4 mile stock. but i cant find what the Accord is suppost to run stock. i want your opinion.

And i own the RX7 and my friends owns the Accord and he thinks that it will take my car without a problem...

Don't have actual numbers but I'm pretty sure the Accord will take you. Sorry to say it but stock NA FCs are not fast, and that Accord has 230hp.

Yeah bro thoes accords a kinda fast for what they are...and we are talking about the v6 also not the pussy 4 banger if its a 4 then u could have a chance but if its a v6 then hes right, u need a boosted 7...I'll race him lol

go slash your tire soyou dont get embarresed...... :(

Also, the rotary engine isn't exactly the best for any kind of straightline racing. Now, take the guy to the track and the lower weight, tighter suspension, and balance could allow you a win.

Also, is the accord an auto or a manual (and as said i4 or v6?).

I kept up with a s4 vert no prob with my moms 03 accord (I4, 160hp)

Do you mean bone stock or lightly modified. The "80s/90s technology" in the stock exhaust & intake on the RX-7 is a pig, and upgrading headers + a freeflowing system will cut your 1/4 mile times.

The Turbo II is the muscle version of the rx-7, while the non turbo is ALL about highRPM fun mixed with superior handling, high cornering speeds, and "go-kart" tossibility that adds up to tearing up the streets, racetracks, and mountain roads.

The 6cyl V-TECH's torque gives a better power:weight edge, but I'm not sure about Honda's gearing and 60foot speeds. Just being in traffic behind one they pull pretty hard, so you'd need to win on better shifting & 60 foot / off the line speeds.

Personally I'd bracket race just to have fun since "any POS with a big engine" can beat most high RPM sports cars.

why does everone think a na rx-7 isn't fast makes me wonder some times

Vtech is a phone. It's V-tec heh

Because my 99% stock S4 GTU got spanked by a minivan.

I agree, it seems that the N/A RX7s are fast... i can easily and quickly get to 80 from a dead stop... Ive even heard from a few people that they used to spank 300ZXs for fun in NA 7s...

just doesnt add up... Bagh... 1/4mile racing sucks anyway... ill stick to the track.

https://www.rx7club.com/racing-kills-lounge-10/mr2-turbo-vs-modded-90-n-514228/

N/A can be semi-fast.. like mine :)

because a stock na rx-7 simply isn't fast, at least when you're talking about quarter mile runs from a dead stop.

i agree na's are preaty quick i have a 87.5 na with full exhaust and a cone filter and i lkept up with a mildly modded 87 gta totaly spanked a h22 civic swap and haded a mr2 its ass .... and as for the hwy .... a 350z .....we were alsmost even untill about 180 kmh .. then he started pulling ... but i had an exhaust leak /.. i had no idea how much that will actualy hinder the erformance of our cars ... neways totaly off topic and wrong section BUT ... na's arent that shlow .. just depends on how you drive them i guess and what condition they are in ....

I love my S4 N/A!
It can beat a lot of cars, especially on the freeway.
I'd have to say no, on winning that one though, they would get by you in 2nd and then you would keep up but not catch up once you hit 3rd.

If a mini-van beats you then...

1. You suck at driving the car.
2. The mini-van has balls.
3. Your car sucked (bad compression/badly needed tune-up).

N/A haters just like to talk smack on forums because they know they dont have to back it up. yay e-peen.. i have a tII and you dont etc... Although N/A owners who think they have or could build track-worthy cars need a reality check i guess, but who cares its their car.

Well before my 88GXL i had a 88 se....(this is how i bought it) all it had was a cheap airfilter, all emisions taken out, a really ghetto exhaut (lol the header was for a 12A but it was nigger rigged to fit a 13b) and a new stock clutch, and that bitch was pretty fast for me, i ran a 16.2 but i was positive it would have ran a 15.9 but that was my first car and i was new at driving stick, anyways my car blew up like 3 months later, rip Blacky (thats what i named the car lol)

as for the Question about the stock fc VS. the 3.0 automatic Accord, hate to say it but the accord would spank it, dont think to bad about it though, think about it, it took honda 20 years to get close to us, but they still need another 20 years before they learn front wheel drive sucks lol

even though i respect the NSX

n/a's just arn't that fast. Some can be when built correctly but relative to modern cars or turbo cars they arn't that fast. Stock they arn't that fast. Now i'm not saying that they suck or that they are no fun, that's not it at all. I've owned 4 n/a's and am now on to a T2.. Boost is goooood :) Oh and the accord will smoke you if you're stock. The accord will hang if you are mildly mod'd.

My 88SE with RB headers, no cat and hks intake, RB 4puck non spring clutch and 93k on the motor lost against my friends 99 Civic SI with DC intake, (back in 2000) in a race everytime. I would pass him on take off but by the end of 3rd to 4th gear he would start pulling away and beat me by a car length everytime.

So an N/A the way you described it against the v6 accord is no contest

lol i love my 89 turbo rex... ill never go to NA just because i love the sound of it, "SPOOL..... WOOSH" lol sorry, but i looked it up, the accord, depending on wether its a 4 or 6 cyl, and wether its a 6spd, 5spd, or auto it will do nething to 16 flat, to 14.9 so my oppinion is.... put off the race till u get a turbo then show him what its all bout.. lol

I did some research on this....

Civic SI is as fast or faster than the v6 accord, that is obvious cause its SI
The V6 accord has LX and EX models, The EX is doing mid 14s stock
The LX which we are comparing it to, does mid to low 16s
Those times are from manual coupes (2door)

With that in mind Rx7 NA would probably be a good race for a LX, in fact with a good exhaust set-up alone you would bury it.

Edit:
I see he is a 4 door LX, so i change my vote to rx7 assuming your car runs good .YOU SHOULD WIN!!

99 Civic SI had 160bhp ... Which I owned for a brief period, and I currently own a V6 Accorde EX which has 240bhp. My accord is much faster than the Civic.

Now if you speaking in terms of an LX than I couldn't answer the question. There was this old saying we had about RX7's back in the day when we discussed straight racing and that was: An RX7 (n/a) is great for racing several telephone pole lengths but top end killed us against many cars.

I would be interested to see the outcome of this race. Keep us posted!

Its true about the stock fc being pretty slow, but if you think about it, was fast in its time, also you cant expect to run what it says it ran when it first came out of factory, come on were comparing a 2002, to a 1987... anyways the fastest N/A that ive seen that hasnt been portd, would be my friends 91 coupe... he ran 15.5 at the track, (honestly im not making this up)
and damn the Accord ex v6 can run in the 14's, was that stock or did it have some work
synesthete ???????

Heres a webpage that lists 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, they seem to be reasonably accurate but who can say for sure, obviously not an end-all resource for comparing.

0-60 & 1/4 Mile times

Some clips

1986 Mazda RX-7 GXL 8.5 16.5
1987 Mazda RX-7 Turbo 6.6 15.2
2001 Honda Accord LX V-6 8.3 16.6
2003 Honda Accord EX V-6 Coupe 6.2 14.5
2004 Honda Accord EX Sedan V-6 5 Speed 7.0 15.5
2004 Honda Accord EX Coupe V-6 6 Speed 5.9 14.5
2002 Honda Civic Si 7.6 15.8 (R&T July '02)

Im not sure about other years but now the Accord LX only comes with auto transmission according to honda.com. That right there would make them not nearly as fast.

Amen