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

With a near perfect launch i got 15.6 with nothing but exaust and clutch upgraded a drop in racing beat air filter, and premix. I have no doubt that getting to the 14s would be more difficult but c'mon 15.5 that must not of had much in the way of tuning or none at all. With a SAFC or standalone i would expect high 14s which is faster than stock tII. I want a tII though but N/A is no slouch with just a little work and assuming you have good compression.

Was a 2005 Mazda MPV. So yes it had balls. I'm not the best driver but I don't "suck".

I have one of those 'Pussy' 2003 accords with the I-4. And a manual transmission. Basically, the accord has 160 hp and 164 ft/lb of torque. The weight is right at 3000#, or about 150# less than the V6. My recollection of 0-60 for the I-4 is around 8.0 for the auto and 7.2 for my version with the 5sp manual. FWIW, the I-4 5speed manual is much better handling than the V6 due to the better weight distribution and just a tick slower than the V6 w/auto tran.

I can also tell you that in the I-4 accord you start getting all that torque very early due to the IVTECH and the torque curve is flat like a plateau. My accord will simply blow the doors off my 1990 vert. Don't know about naturally aspirated S4 or S5 coupe, but unless you have some mods, don't get your hopes up too much.

That all being said, I seldom drive the Accord anymore. It has a roof and a boinger. It just cannot deliver the same experience as the RX7 Vert.

In an RX7 vert, everyday is a Holiday...

[QUOTE=synesthete]With a SAFC or standalone i would expect high 14s which is faster than stock tII.QUOTE]

1st off, who has a stock TII??

2nd, Please never compare N/A to the TII.

3rd, Stand alones and SAFC's are for fine tuning and you may more or less gain a marginal amount of HP, but not enought to gain over 1/2 a second on the quarter mile.

Do you have the time slip on that 15.6? That's pretty good for just an exhaust and clutch. :)

bring him over my way ;) good luck its not a big deal anyway.

The only experience I have with a V6 Accord is in my Celica, so that's how I'll compare the two. N/A RX7's are fairly slow when stock, so if you are then you'll definitely lose. Celica GTS's are capable of high 14's stock and the couple times I've run V6 Accords it was somewhat close, with me always pulling in the top end. I'm not saying I was getting perfect times when I raced, but with my mods and seeing as how V6 Accords can land mid 14's you probably don't stand a chance.

Why does everyone have to hate on the NA? NAs can be quick esp with spray. My 89 gtu with full exhaust, cold air, ignition, etc and a 60 shot has pulled an 04 Mustang GT on the freeway and taken numerous ricers.

I don't hate the N/A.. They are great for peeling out around town, doing donuts, and burnouts.

i have an s2000 and i love the instant power versus my t2s turbo lag.. but i love my t2s brute power and noises. if i could get 250hp out of an N/A and keep my eardrums id be al over it.

I do believe most of us said stock NAs are slow. Cuz they are.

And don't be thinking I have a biased opinion cuz I have 2 NAs. One is a bone stock S5 GXL in mint condition; it flies around corners and is very nimble, yes, but it is NOT fast! The other one... well... it's not stock so it doesn't count.

exactly. i never said i hated the n/a. in fact a n/a s4 is probably my favorite rx-7 hands down.

i said it's slow, which it is. that doesn't mean its shitty.

well, ive raced the v6 accord, he was manual, like me, and for me it was all the driver. then again, we started at a rolling start, was kinda spontaneous really, didnt know the guy, he got the jump on me, took me a second to compose myself, but i caught up quickly and pulled a car length on him before letting off. now when we went down a local twisty road full of curves and swooping chicanes i slaughtered his ass. frankly he was just as impressed as i was. honestly, i couldnt care less what car does what in the quarter. i know my car is made to handle, not go in a straight line ;) besides, quarter is no fun, takes very little talent to shift fast, skill maybe, but very little talent. ever race around the turns, sliding through the apex like a hot knife in butter, and when its all over you remind yourself to breathe? thats what i enjoy, thats what i live for. so i guess, if you guys go in a straight line, whos to say, if youre stock you'll lose it, hands down, but if you know how to drive, take him down a twisty road, and breathe...

I am assuming we are still talking bout the 4cylinder accord and not the exV6?

i out handled a 1991 honda accord once lol

AMEN!!!

Im wanting an N/A 3Rotor for myself!!! less turbo lag... lol hahahaha

I used to own an '03 I-4 Accord...till my younger brother totalled it :(. And yes...it would rape a TII. The car actually has around 180-190hp, but is rated at 160. It's actually a really fun car around the turns too. I beat an older GTO around the twisties...not that it was hard. I actually put out the back. The back seems to kick out when pushing the tires to the limit around a turn. A lot of the race depends on the driver also. Me & my elder brother have raced many cars & won...that we believed were out of our league. For Example: BMW M Coupe (Hwy), V8 Trans AM (friend's rebuilt...POS), Impala SS(Hwy), and a Cuda, Lexus ES300...among many others. The car actually shines on the highway more than from light to light. We now have a 3.2TL, which is really strong down low, but we believe the accord would beat it on the highway. Even the reviews for the I-4 5-spd were amazing, because everyone who drove it thought it had a V6. BTW...speaking of minivans, our '03 Odyssey ran just about equal with the accord...so there are minivans out there that will take the N/A RX-7s.

I love the rotary like everyone here, but the n/a Fc's just arent that fast. The RX8 could probabily take him no problem, but it also has 20 years of research into it that makes it put out that much more while still being N/A.

S4 verts stock arent that fast. lol. i pulled on one about a car and a half and kept going in my S5 automatic (coupe). which is pretty damn slow.

Stock NA RX-7 is weak like clock radio speakers.

The accord is going to win.

Unless the drivers interfere with the numbers. The 3.0L accord will laugh at your stock NA.

Seriously, NAs are slow as balls when compared to other cars. They have just enough power to have fun with, but not to drag race other cars espeically new ones. Shit my friend's stock 06 4 door focus ATX beater hangs within a fender with my car haha.

Tell him you want to race, go to a twisty road and wax his ass :stick:

so did you lose?

I'm going to have to agree and say that N/A's arent quarter mile dragsters. However, they are not slow. Before I got my vert, i had a stock S5 N/A coupe and that car would destroy anything in my school parking lot through a back country road. Stopping power was insane and it saw a top speed on a track of 145 mph. For a car that was 16 yrs old at the time, it does pretty damn well.
BTW, the car was all original and had 130k miles on it.

I own an N/A and love it to death. However, even with a auxilliary streetport, the car isn't "fast". I'm probably running ~150hp. Compared to modern cars, even including the weight difference, that's nothing.

Now, that's for straight line speed (which we're discussing here). If you want to talk about the twisites... that's another story.

I drive an 04' 4 cyl AT Accord right now as my daily driver. A non-turbo FC revved on me at a light a few nights ago and we went at it. From a stop we got up to about 70 mph. I probably took him by about 2-2.5 cars. The 6 cylinder Accords would have no problem taking a NA FC. Now if it's a turbo FC, that would be a much better matchup.

N/A Fc's are handicapped by design flaws. the Renesis puts out more than a Turbo II and it's Naturally Aspirated. Twenty years of research pays off I guess lol.