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

1987 RX7 VS 2003 Accord?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-08-06, 01:00 PM
  #1  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
hoffman211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
Old 03-08-06, 01:03 PM
  #2  
Senior Member

 
pr0digy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 03-08-06, 01:07 PM
  #3  
Porsche-Hunter

iTrader: (4)
 
DriftingB26RX7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 90041
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah bro thoes accords a kinda fast for what they are...and we are talking about the v6 also not the ***** 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
Old 03-08-06, 01:07 PM
  #4  
(_8(|)

 
88t2romad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
go slash your tire soyou dont get embarresed......
Old 03-08-06, 01:10 PM
  #5  
sar
Doin a rebuild.

iTrader: (1)
 
sar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Roswell (atl ) Georgia
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?).
Old 03-08-06, 01:10 PM
  #6  
The end of an era

iTrader: (4)
 
Andrew.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,717
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
I kept up with a s4 vert no prob with my moms 03 accord (I4, 160hp)
Old 03-08-06, 01:11 PM
  #7  
knowledge junkie

 
vaughnc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 5,595
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
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.

Last edited by vaughnc; 03-08-06 at 01:14 PM.
Old 03-08-06, 01:12 PM
  #8  
mosul suck's

 
86silvrx-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: bay area, ca
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
why does everone think a na rx-7 isn't fast makes me wonder some times
Old 03-08-06, 01:31 PM
  #9  
Mac Attack

iTrader: (5)
 
MaczPayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,668
Received 20 Likes on 10 Posts
Vtech is a phone. It's V-tec heh
Old 03-08-06, 01:31 PM
  #10  
I can't stop boosting!!

 
elnots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Because my 99% stock S4 GTU got spanked by a minivan.
Old 03-08-06, 01:45 PM
  #11  
ROTARD FOR LIFE!!!

 
MrFC3S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 03-08-06, 01:59 PM
  #12  
My Car Makes Me Smile

 
Anti-Rice-Cannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
https://www.rx7club.com/racing-kills-lounge-10/mr2-turbo-vs-modded-90-n-514228/

N/A can be semi-fast.. like mine
Old 03-08-06, 02:22 PM
  #13  
strike up the paean

 
aznpoopy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: fort lee, nj
Posts: 2,495
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by 86silvrx-7
why does everone think a na rx-7 isn't fast makes me wonder some times
because a stock na rx-7 simply isn't fast, at least when you're talking about quarter mile runs from a dead stop.
Old 03-08-06, 02:28 PM
  #14  
Senior Member

 
rotary downshift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Performance Improvements
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 *** .... 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 ....
Old 03-08-06, 02:35 PM
  #15  
Senior Member

 
synesthete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland. OR
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 *****.
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.

Last edited by synesthete; 03-08-06 at 02:44 PM.
Old 03-08-06, 03:09 PM
  #16  
Junior Member

 
mrtasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ****** 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
Old 03-08-06, 03:11 PM
  #17  
Junior Member

 
mrtasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
even though i respect the NSX
Old 03-08-06, 03:11 PM
  #18  
Rotary Enthusiast

 
Dom_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Freeport, Maine
Posts: 1,225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 03-08-06, 03:12 PM
  #19  
I'm back Bishes

 
rotorforce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Old 03-08-06, 03:20 PM
  #20  
Keep Your Stinky Pistons

 
SuperRotorMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Old 03-08-06, 04:02 PM
  #21  
Senior Member

 
synesthete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland. OR
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotorforce
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

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!!

Last edited by synesthete; 03-08-06 at 04:13 PM.
Old 03-08-06, 04:18 PM
  #22  
I'm back Bishes

 
rotorforce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
Old 03-08-06, 04:35 PM
  #23  
Junior Member

 
mrtasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ???????
Old 03-08-06, 04:38 PM
  #24  
Senior Member

 
synesthete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland. OR
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by synesthete; 03-08-06 at 04:47 PM.
Old 03-08-06, 04:45 PM
  #25  
I'm back Bishes

 
rotorforce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrtasty
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 ???????
Amen


Quick Reply: 1987 RX7 VS 2003 Accord?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.