well I was looking online to see how fast my rx7 goes stock straight from the factory and was a little disapointed, I was just wondering if they are true or not

0-60 8.1 sec
0-100 23.3 sec
1/4@85 mph 15.5 sec


please make me happy and tell me that these stats are full of CRAP, and tell me the real stats, thanks!

 

15.5 in the 1/4 sounds 'optimistic' for a pure stock S4 NA...

 

yeah those numbers are pretty good from what I've seen.

 

15.5 more sounds like a stock s4 turbo ii with a heat soaked intercooler.

 

dissappointed???????? what the hell are you talking about. Are you forgeting your car was designed in the 80's

 

and that the stock s4 n/a makes what, 140bhp?

 

Just don't say they're slow, because people will get pissed.

 

n/a's are slow. i have a right to say that. i drive an n/a.

 

name another car in that era that is faster

 

hey wait a minute......they are kinda slow. I hate to say it cause I drive one but, I have been beaten by things that I should have NEVER gotten beaten by. That will all change though.....muahahahaha

 

Theres no way those stats are for an n/a, they are too fast. A know a few S4 bases with no options can run high 15s stock, but there is no way any ran a 15.5, so yes they are full of crap, they are slower.

If youre talking about a TII then yes that could be TII times with a bad driver, but an 85mph trap speed is pretty weak.

 

You might want to rephrase that, since there are lots of 80's cars faster than an 80's RX-7 stock for stock.

Maybe you meant Japanese cars of that era...?

 

double post

 

turbo II, wow, that was easy

 

hahaha N/A import turd

 

you didn't say that! you said another car in the era, lol

 

even the FB has the record for all motor 9 sec 1/4 mile. Speed comes at a price

 

 

In 1986 there were few cars that were faster than the RX-7 that were available without spending alot more (porsche, ferrari, corvette, etc.). And even fewer that had the potential the RX7 had. And none that looked as good.

 

hmmmmm. notice how you picked top of the line cars. Your saying that the ferrari is not a lot more than a 7. HUH.

 

OK you have to look at cars in the same class as the RX-7, like an posrse 924 (a POS may I mention) and a 924 had no reliability compared to the RX-7, nor would it our run it stock, and it was also ment to compete with the MKIII supra. Which an NA RX-7 will beat an NA Supra, and a TII RX-7 will beat a Turbo Supra. You can't go comparing it to a ferrari, or a 911 turbo porsche.

 

a stock 1987 924S will outhandle and outrun a stock 1987 GXL. Probably outbrake it too. I'd be willing to bet it's more reliable, as there are many MANY 924/944 series cars pushing 300,000 miles on their first engine. I bet there's less than 5 rx-7s that have seen 300,000 miles on their first, unrebuilt engine. They don't have any weird electrical issues, either.

and a TII faster than an MKIII Supra Turbo? The supra has 70 ftlb of torque on the TII, and 50 HP. I think it would be a close race, but I dont' think that the TII would win in the end.

N/a Supras have almost 200HP. N/a rx-7s have 140. I don't think that race would be very close, and I certainly dont' think that the rx-7 would be ahead in the end.

I have a TII, and boy, do I love it... but think realistically here.

 

No, he's saying you need to read slower and pay attention.

Translation:
In 1986, there where NOT too many cars out there faster than the RX-7, unless you dished out serious $$$$$$.

 

MKIII turbo? Man... I love the looks of those things. Seems I go for the 80's "boxy" look... Deloreans, MKIIIs, Rx7s...

 

SILENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!