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

I found 1 OF 100!! Should I buy it??

Old Dec 29, 2007 | 04:45 PM
  #51  
Jaiyurai's Avatar
Endure Persevere Succeed
Tenured Member: 20 Years
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 37
From: Berkeley, CA
0-60 S4 TurboII was ~6.7 seconds
0-60 S5 GTUs was ~8.1 seconds

Sure, the time may vary from driver to driver but no matter what, there will be a huge difference between the two cars from 60-100+.

Yes, Mazda quoted that a GTUs was a turbo model without the turbo, but anyone would know that isn't true. They are as different as night and day. Especially if you compare a GTUs to an S5 TII.

4.30 gears don't make up for a 22hp difference when you're talking about stock trim.
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 05:34 PM
  #52  
NZConvertible's Avatar
I'm a boost creep...
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 8
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Originally Posted by eriksseven
That's not true. The GTUs's also came with no sunroof and (from the Yamaguchi book) was equipped with RPM-sensing power-steering as opposed to speed-sensing... Then again, I've also heard other s5's had the RPM-sensing PS, but I've never really cared to look into it--that's just from the "RX-7 book".
He said the 4.3:1 diff was the only thing special about the GTUs, not the only thing different. Plenty of other S5's had no sunroof or rpm-sensing poser steering, but none had that diff (except for the Infini). Other than the diff the GTUs was just a combination of things other models had. A true parts-bin special...

Originally Posted by RRTEC
Well splitting hairs is fun, 22 hp difference (s5 n/a /\ S4 T2)...
A 15% difference is splitting hairs?

...but due to the difference in the rearend ratio, the GTUs would hit 60mph in the same 7.7 seconds (or 8.6 according to R&T) as the 87-88 Turbo 2 models... ref. (color sportscar history, motorbooks international)
Is it 7.7 or 8.6? That's a massive difference. I'd at least be comparing claims from the same source before making any bold statements.

So the car was "as fast" as a S4 turbo but in N/A trim...
Put them side-by-side and you'll find the story will be quite different. You can't overcome a significant power-to-weight advantage with something as minor as a 5% shorter diff.

...I maintain the car is basically a turbo without the turbo....
It's not. This is one of those silly myths that keeps getting repeated. The only Turbo-specific parts they had were the wheels.
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 07:12 PM
  #53  
eriksseven's Avatar
Make Money.
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,137
Likes: 9
From: Seattle
Originally Posted by NZConvertible
He said the 4.3:1 diff was the only thing special about the GTUs, not the only thing different.
Heh...

BTW, RRTEC sucks about the mixup... Would've been sweet if it were real.
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 07:44 PM
  #54  
NZConvertible's Avatar
I'm a boost creep...
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 8
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Ooh, the sensitive type...
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 07:48 PM
  #55  
RRTEC's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotartist
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 2
From: Spring Hill TN 37174
Does suck.... I still may get it.. but I was really excited about it for a minute there.
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 07:58 PM
  #56  
1st7's Avatar
no more 7
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,194
Likes: 0
From: Orange County,Ca.
Originally Posted by RRTEC
I should be able to grab it for Around $550.
What are you waiting for .......Even a base model is worth that!!~~~~
And are you going to restore it or at least keep it original???
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 09:39 PM
  #57  
MmSadda's Avatar
Rotary Freak
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 2
From: Columbus, OH
Originally Posted by cptpain
S4 turbo power levels? never knew that.

dont forget they had the TurboII suspension and drivetrain with short final drive
There's a reason you didn't know that, and that's because it's bullshit.
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 10:11 PM
  #58  
RRTEC's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotartist
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 2
From: Spring Hill TN 37174
^^ This has already been established..

GTUs- T2 suspension, T2 wheels, T2 brakes, different Diff, different 5th gear, no sunroof, no power options.

Everyone shut the hell up about this, go flex your "e-muscles" elsewhere, I could give a damn, I have driven both S4 t2's and s5 N/A's, including one GTUs and the gtus felt the same.

Go read another Wikipedia article on the Rx-7..
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 10:17 PM
  #59  
NZConvertible's Avatar
I'm a boost creep...
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 8
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Originally Posted by cptpain
dont forget they had the TurboII suspension and drivetrain with short final drive
No, they did not have the turbo drivetrain because they did not have a Turbo engine. There is no such thing as "Turbo II suspension", they had heavy duty suspension that was available on other NA models.

Originally Posted by RRTEC
GTUs- T2 suspension, T2 wheels, T2 brakes...
As well as the suspension, there's not such thing as "TII brakes". The swqame brakes were availalbe on other NA models.

Everyone shut the hell up about this, go flex your "e-muscles" elsewhere, I could give a damn, I have driven both S4 t2's and s5 N/A's, including one GTUs and the gtus felt the same.
I don't get why people get all pissy and defensive when they post incorrect info and get corrected. Making sure the forum is full of correct info is far more important that protecting delicate egos...

Last edited by NZConvertible; Dec 29, 2007 at 10:24 PM.
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 10:27 PM
  #60  
RRTEC's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotartist
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 2
From: Spring Hill TN 37174
Well hell NZ why don't you write a book to correct all the wrongs that are spread thoughout the land regarding the FC???

How many of the 15K posts were just tag along snippy remarks in the Tech section..lol..

As much as I hate it you are almost always right... Cheers.
Reply
Old Dec 29, 2007 | 10:32 PM
  #61  
Turbo II's Avatar
It's only Rock and Roll
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
From: In a house...
OK, I read the first post and the last one.

Buy it man.

*edit* ok so i did read some of the stuff on this page...
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2007 | 03:58 AM
  #62  
NZConvertible's Avatar
I'm a boost creep...
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 8
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Originally Posted by RRTEC
Well hell NZ why don't you write a book to correct all the wrongs that are spread thoughout the land regarding the FC???
Because I already have a full-time job. I just deal with them as I see 'em. Don't ever take it personally, that'd be silly.

How many of the 15K posts were just tag along snippy remarks in the Tech section..lol..
Very few, just enough to keep me smiling...
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2007 | 07:58 AM
  #63  
Evil Aviator's Avatar
Rotorhead
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 39
From: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Originally Posted by RRTEC
Everyone shut the hell up about this, go flex your "e-muscles" elsewhere, I could give a damn, I have driven both S4 t2's and s5 N/A's, including one GTUs and the gtus felt the same.

Go read another Wikipedia article on the Rx-7..
Hahaha, that is really funny coming from the person who originated the flexing of e-muscles in this thread. Lesson for the future: Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Anyway, either the cars you drove were not in stock condition, or your butt dyno needs major recalibration. Mazda advertised the performance of the RX-7 in the brochures. Example:
http://www.aaroncake.net/RX-7/brochu...e.asp?Number=4

Originally Posted by NZConvertible
As well as the suspension, there's not such thing as "TII brakes".
I noticed differences in casting marks between the S4 NA and TII components, but dimensionally they were the same. However, I guess it could have been differences in sub-contractors rather than models.

Originally Posted by NZConvertible
I don't get why people get all pissy and defensive when they post incorrect info and get corrected. Making sure the forum is full of correct info is far more important that protecting delicate egos...
I only correct people's posts in order to get my post count higher.
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2007 | 09:19 AM
  #64  
RRTEC's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotartist
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 2
From: Spring Hill TN 37174
LOL! No offense taken, I always admit when I am wrong, and I was called out on my "mis-information".. Damn SPORTSCAR COLOR HISTORY....

Seriously direct quote from the book

" The GTUs was ALMOST, but not quite the Turbo wiithout the Turbo. The GTUs shared the suspension and brakes with the turbo, but not that models ABS......

You can see how one could get confused about the TURBO SUSPENSION thicker swaybars ect, and the Brakes huh??

I should write John Matras (author) and let him know his innacuracies.
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2007 | 09:52 AM
  #65  
Houpty GT's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 317
Likes: 2
From: Rock Hill, South Carolina?
Some of this article may have mistakes in it but it is still alright all and all.

"Major changes came in 1989 with the introduction of another new model and some technical changes. The GTU became the base model, while the new GTUs became essentially a turbo version without the turbo. This no-nonsense machine had the suspension and all the performance goodies without all the luxuries that added weight. It even had a 4.30:1 rear end (compared tot he standard 4.10:1 unit). Apparently not many people (other than us) thought this was cool idea, as only about 100 were built."

From: Grassroots Motorsports http://www.grmotorsports.com/backiss...ration-rx7.php
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2007 | 09:56 AM
  #66  
87 t-66's Avatar
not a drifter
Tenured Member: 20 Years
iTrader: (133)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,337
Likes: 6
From: Columbus, Ohio
Originally Posted by Tofuman FC3S
Go for it, looks nice! no idea they were that rare... See it like this: Only 1 out of 60.000.000 people in this world get to own one!

Riz.
did you not read that its a fake?
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2007 | 10:12 AM
  #67  
MmSadda's Avatar
Rotary Freak
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 2
From: Columbus, OH
^no. no, he didn't.
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2007 | 01:21 PM
  #68  
jdunmyer's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: crealsprings ill
i'm not sure the car your looking at is a GTUs, it has the rear wiper and as far as i know the GTUs did not have that option. they were a bare bones car without cruise control , a/c (dealer option),moon roof, they had manual windows and less sound deadener. I have one.
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2007 | 05:03 PM
  #69  
NZConvertible's Avatar
I'm a boost creep...
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 8
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Originally Posted by RRTEC
"The GTUs was ALMOST, but not quite the Turbo wiithout the Turbo."
Originally Posted by Houpty GT
"...the new GTUs became essentially a turbo version without the turbo."
People just need to realise that these are editorial opinions, not statements of fact. Mazda certainly never said such a thing.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
trickster
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
25
Jul 1, 2023 04:40 PM
Th0m4s
Build Threads
25
Feb 26, 2019 02:04 AM
astrum
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
24
Nov 15, 2017 08:44 AM
Jeff20B
1st Generation Specific (1979-1985)
4
Jun 26, 2016 10:21 AM
ChrisRX8PR
Single Turbo RX-7's
18
Aug 21, 2015 01:56 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 PM.