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

Reliability differences between NA-FC, T2-FC, and FD?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-23-05, 05:46 PM
  #1  
Junior Member

Thread Starter
 
JMaddness234512's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reliability differences between NA-FC, T2-FC, and FD?

I've been researching FD's for a while now, as they're one of my favorite cars of all time. But as you're all well aware, their reliability is nothing to brag about. In the end I just realized it wasn't a wise choice for right now, seeing as whatever I get will be heavily driven (daily driver with frequent track driving), and I have no rotary experience as far as mechanics. So for the last few weeks I've considered and looked at everything from Corollas, to 240SX's, to SW20's. But then I realized "Hey...why not just buy an FC to practice with? It's cheap, supposedly more reliable than an FD, and I can gain rotary repair knowledge in preparation for the FD I'll have in the future." So here I am.

So my question is, is the reliability better for FCs than FDs? Is the NA more reliable than the T2? Sorry if this is beaten to death. I looked in the FAQ's, but didn't really see much as far as comparisons. Both engines would stay reasonably stock, especially if I were to buy a T2 (I'm more concerned with learning rear-wheel handling than having a street beast). Is the 13B in the T2 as much of a heat builder as the REW in the FD?

Thanks
Old 07-23-05, 06:27 PM
  #2  
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
 
Icemark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Rohnert Park CA
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 19 Posts
Non turbos will generally be about twice the longevity and reliabilty, than Turbos

BUT

The previous owners ability to take care of the car will weigh even more heavily. If regular oil changes were not performed, if all the standard maintence was not done, or if the car has a lot of miles, or very few miles (as in seldom driven) the reliabilty will plummet.

also remember even the youngest FC's are nearing 15 years old and some of the earlier versions, 20 years old the car. This means that since the average car is designed to last 10-15 years, you will need to budget money for repairs. Things will be worn out after 15 years and need replacing, if not this week, then next.
Old 07-23-05, 07:24 PM
  #3  
Sharp Claws

iTrader: (30)
 
RotaryEvolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
Received 41 Likes on 40 Posts
the higher the performance from the same engine generally reliability suffers, that said you should be able to figure out how each of them rates on the reliability scale. that all assumes they were all maintained properly and regularly.
Old 07-24-05, 12:42 PM
  #4  
REST IN PEACE DAVE!!!!!!

iTrader: (7)
 
prjct87rx7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: las vegas.nevada.
Posts: 1,673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
definatley the n/a fc ive had one n/a and two t2's the n/a is the only one i ended up selling over time and it still ran fine...my turbos are another story we wont get into,but needless to say 1 got parted ut one got a rebuild...
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HalifaxFD
Canadian Forum
126
05-09-16 07:06 PM
Engine stand ready
New Member RX-7 Technical
11
09-11-15 08:12 AM
t-von
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
9
09-10-15 01:56 PM
Ian_D
New Member RX-7 Technical
6
09-06-15 10:38 PM



Quick Reply: Reliability differences between NA-FC, T2-FC, and FD?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 PM.