For those who are wondering on the weight issue of the FC...
#1
13B N/A POWA!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Everywhere, WRLD
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who are wondering on the weight issue of the FC...
Here are the EXACT weights of the '86 cars...(sorry I don't have the rest of them, but it's pretty much the same for '86-88, sorry S5 guys).
2 Seater MT=1190.5/2625
2+2 MT=1190.5/2625
2 Seater AT=1225/2695
2+2 AT=1232/2715
These were taken at the introduction of the car. They're from the RX7 book written in 1985 (just before the car became available, the testing of the production model). It's got a billion other stats in there too, but those seem to be what everyone really asks so much about.
2 Seater MT=1190.5/2625
2+2 MT=1190.5/2625
2 Seater AT=1225/2695
2+2 AT=1232/2715
These were taken at the introduction of the car. They're from the RX7 book written in 1985 (just before the car became available, the testing of the production model). It's got a billion other stats in there too, but those seem to be what everyone really asks so much about.
#3
Best of both worlds
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: For those who are wondering on the weight issue of the FC...
Originally posted by KiyoKix
Here are the EXACT weights of the '86 cars...(sorry I don't have the rest of them, but it's pretty much the same for '86-88, sorry S5 guys).
2 Seater MT=1190.5/2625
2+2 MT=1190.5/2625
2 Seater AT=1225/2695
2+2 AT=1232/2715
Here are the EXACT weights of the '86 cars...(sorry I don't have the rest of them, but it's pretty much the same for '86-88, sorry S5 guys).
2 Seater MT=1190.5/2625
2+2 MT=1190.5/2625
2 Seater AT=1225/2695
2+2 AT=1232/2715
so how come the "2+2 AT" has added weight for a back seat....but the "2+2 MT" doesn't have added weight for a back seat...
#4
Do a barrel roll!
iTrader: (4)
Yea, those are about right, but remember that there will be slight weight differences between models. GXLs had 15" wheels, bigger brakes, LSD, steel hood (some of them), power windows.....all which add more weight. The difference isnt drastic, maybe as much as 100lbs though. Not exactly sure.
#5
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,805
Received 2,578 Likes
on
1,831 Posts
Originally posted by 1FastT2
87 - 88 year turbo cars weigh 2845. Im not sure if the later model turbos are the same though.
87 - 88 year turbo cars weigh 2845. Im not sure if the later model turbos are the same though.
my 20b fc (88 car) wieghs 2860lbs with a full tank of gas
mike
#6
13B N/A POWA!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Everywhere, WRLD
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't remember where to get the article, but the 2 MT's weigh the same because something in the car was different to maintain the weight of the lighter car. Which is why they weigh the same no matter which way you get it. It's not in the book that I remember but I'll check tonight. It's a seperate article.
Trending Topics
#9
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Elk Grove, Cali
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an 87 base with 14 in phone rims, sunroof, 5 speed, storage bins, power mirrors, aluminum spare + jack and steel hood.
The shipping weight on the invoice is listed at 2640 lbs.
It's a feather
The shipping weight on the invoice is listed at 2640 lbs.
It's a feather
#10
Displacement > Boost
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RouNdaBouT
do you have numbers for the base, SE, Sport, and GTU?
do you have numbers for the base, SE, Sport, and GTU?
In the book, "Sports car color history Mazda RX-7" it has stats of all models in a table in the back. The GTU is considered a base model for weights, I guess:
86 base MT: 2625 lbs.
88 base MT (SE): 2625
87 Turbo: 2845
88 convertible: 3003
89 base MT: 2800
89 base AT: 2844
89 convertible MT: 3045
89 convertible AT: 3105
91 coupe MT: 2787
91 coupe AT: 2831
91 conv. MT: 3071
91 conv. AT: 3115
Makes me glad I chose a cheaper, older 87 base mdl. over the S5's that I was wanting . . .
Ricers
#12
Shelby Tuner & FC badass
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Seminole, Florida
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not saying any of this info is incorrect.
But the weight of my car, before anything was removed was exactly 2524lbs. My car is a SE 88 with LSD and with a lightweight package that included the hood and smaller wheels and brakes. No power anything.
Just something to consider.
But the weight of my car, before anything was removed was exactly 2524lbs. My car is a SE 88 with LSD and with a lightweight package that included the hood and smaller wheels and brakes. No power anything.
Just something to consider.
#13
this field is to small
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have a completly stock 88 vert and its right at 3000 so thats right, i have a 88 SE with only a drivers seat and a guage cluster taped to teh stearing column in it, ill have to weigh it when i get a chance
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
roondawg
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
6
08-24-15 04:43 PM