Well I know WHY but how? Is it something simple as different cat's and exhaust ore more complex? Can a N/A RX-7 be bumped up to around 160-170hp? (early FC)?

Thanks.

 

Compression, weight of components, ECU, and intake design all helped get the increased HP and marginal Torque increase.

So yeah if you rebuilt a S4 motor with S5 parts, and when with a standalone computer, you could easy hit that HP.

 

Also
Also how rare are the 2+2s? One of the biggest set backs for the RX-7 (for me) is the lack of a rear seat and the horrific fuel economy. Can a rear-seat be swapped in a coupe? Are the US and JDM interiors identical?

 

Better off paying the extra to get a +'89 or a Turbo then? Turbo's scare me.

 

Well, First the FC gets decent fuel mileage (I average around 17 MPG in my vert with very mixed driving) so I am not sure what you are saying about horrific fuel ecomomy... and thats with 170 RWHP (and simular to the stock S5 Turbos). Bad is what my X5 gets with around 14 MPG.

And no the interiors are not the same. JDM interiors are right hand drive, while North American Interiors are Left hand drive.

The rear seat on a FC was an option on some models. It is however designed for 4 foot midgets and anyone else sitting there for more than 15 minutes will probably complain.

It sounds like you don't get what RX-7s are about. You may wish to go buy a 240Sx or Celica or Supra instead.

 

turbo engines normally dont have the mileage (life), but they have much more power... the back seats can be put into any rx-7, but they are kiddy seats, not suitable for anything above a small child...

- chris

 

Well if you want the extra weight... The marginal HP increase was mostly used up with the extra weight of the S5 models.

If you still want a FC, then you should drive a S4 and a S5 and figure it out for yourself, as they have slight different personalities.

 

you want a back seat? ive got one, stuffed in the trunk of my civic that i dont drive. that was the first thing i did to my FC. take dat bish out.

and you could have a back seat, but its worse than a 1st gen eclipse rear seat. ill put it this way, you NEED a sunroof to have legroom in the back seat, and that putting it lightly. unless of course you, the driver, are 3 feet tall, in which case, then there MIGHT be some legroom in the back.

 

i have both an s4gxl and s5 coupe, i like my s4 better, its alot more fun to drive but i guess thats kinda biased b/c it has a good suspension setup and the s5 is stock.

 

i'll say the fc rear seat is suitable for me. I am like 5' 10" and I put a rear seat in my GXL, and my stepdad's first gen(actually just removed the storage bins for the fb). I felt it was suitable for transportation. Sometimes it's better to get in an RX-7's rear seat than to walk. All the mounting holes should already be in place on the fc bodies.

 

You consider 17mpg "decent"? Get with the 21st Century, my 115hp Golf Slushy gets 23mpg (which I consider crap), my 210hp Talon manages a lovely 26mpg premium wiht me revving away. My buddies ~200hp Monte Carlo tank gets around 22mpg... on and on. Anything averaging below 20mpg city is crap, even more so when its sub 200hp.

Who'd a Thunk it? I was talking about materials used and style of seats. I live in Northern Indiana, an RX-7 is hardly a common sight and to have experenced every model and year is going to be impossible for me.

As for the back seat, it would be nice to have something to toss my junk on, and I do sometimes have a thrid party with me, I'm sure my G/F and/or her friends are more then able to rough it out back thier for a few miniutes, no complaints from the Talon yet ('95).

 

then get a ******* monte carl, god i hate, people.
its a SPORTS CAR, ITS FAST, ITS NOT MENT TO BE YOUR CAR IF YOU CANT DEAL WITH THAT!

 

IMO...an RX with a back seat is the dumbest idea ever. The RX-7 is a sports car. 'Nuff said...

Sports cars shouldn't come with back seats...It's unnecessary....the stock storage compartments do fine for exactly that...STORAGE. If you really have to drive multiple people around...don't drive the 7. Use the compact car for that....

 

17 MPG is DECENT for a sports car! Have you ever taken a look at a Nissan Z280? It gets something like 12 MPG. Nuff said...

 

MmmmHmmm...NUFF said....

 

- Completely different breeds.
- Rotary wont get the mpg of a piston engine.
- Compare the gas mileage to a similar year-range v6 (3 faces x 2 rotors) and it wont look so bad. (Don't compare the mpg to another sub 2.0L engine, it's not the same thing at all)
- Sports cars weren't made to get mpg... so 17 is decent. Some people on the boards claim to get 20-30 on highway.

-Mike

 

I agree you dont need a backseat in a sports car. My G/f is 5"1 and she wouldnt even fit comfortably in the backseat of one of the cars. If i need storage more then the 2 compartments behind my seats offer i just throw it in the front seat or let it bounce around in the back(i have a fc33).

 

FC33? you mean FC3C?

Nuff said...

 

yes i agree the back seats are a waste of space, i personaly think the bins would be a better option, to sit in as well as storing things at the same time. i'd like to do a s5 drivetrain swap in my s4 i like the s4's for better for some reason, maybe its the ~200lb wieght difference that does it for me.

 

[QUOTE=sc0rp7 the back seats can be put into any rx-7, but they are kiddy seats, not suitable for anything above a small child...[/QUOTE]

Well, for some people, that's all you need...

I'll say it flat out to the original poster: Don't get an FC. You've already decided you want more space & better fuel economy. You won't be happy with it.

Yes, you can get close to 30mpg highway out of an FC, but it involves no cats, a standalone fuel computer, a tightly build motor with S5 NA rotors, and exhaust gas temperatures that would make a normal exhaust system cry.

-=Russ=-

 

Audi Coupe: 164hp ~160tq, 18/26mpg Average 21.3mpg (1990)
S13: 140hp 152tq, 20/27mpg Average 23.5mpg (1989)
S13: 155hp 160tq, 22/28mpg Average 24.8mpg (1991)
ITR: 195hp 130tq, 25/31mpg Average 25.7mpg (1997)
DSM1-T: 205hp 214tq, 23/31mpg Average 22.7mpg (1990)
Audi TT : 225hp 207tq, 20/28mpg Average 24mpg (2000)
Miata: 133hp 114tq, 23/29mpg Average 22.9mpg

I call the 240sx as one of the most comprable cars. I'm sure you guys will sight Corvettes and what not as "sports cars" and list thier fuel economy, ~18-21, however those are also sporting +300hp V8s and would smoke a RX-7 in every sense.

I have no clue to why I'm getting all this @!#%king Flack, however, judging from the warmth in here, not many of you have friends, and thus would never need to transport an extra person to a movie or something on a friday night.

 

well man....don't get all butthurt because we speak the truth. none of us are trying to flame you for this gas mileage thing or the backseat thing. We are just offering a guiding light to your apparent confusion over the difference betwen a sports car and a sport compact...

All the vehicles you listed above except for the Miata, have back seats....and guess what....none of em are sports cars...except for the Miata...

So...my point is...True sports cars have no rear seats...so...don't get sand in your vagina....

 

well, all I can say (without any doubts) Corbic is that I do not think a RX-7 is a good choice for you. Again I would suggest you look at some of the other RWD sporty cars out there with more room, and better gas mileage instead of a real sports car. A 240sx or Celica or Supra might be a considerably better choice for you, since they are a major step up from the economy cars you have mentioned that you own or have owned.

 

since we're on the topic of back seats. is it difficult to take them out? cause i never use mine they just stay folded down and never come up. and i'm guessing they would be heavier than just the storage bins....right?

 

It shouldn't be hard to remove them at all...I think it just a couple of bolts for the bracketry and seatbelts....should take you maybe 15-20 mins max...