Check the prices here...up and up and up they go year by year

https://www.car.gr/classifieds/cars/...n-from=%3E1992

 

Excellent looking single owner '93 with 73k on the clock. Very interested to see where this one will go.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-113/

 

Another one for your end-of-summer bidding enjoyment!

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-116/

 

Ah, that clean VR/TAN combo is beautiful.
The last one went for $42,500. I will enjoy watching this one as well.

 

I wanted to let people know that I was the one who picked up the 34k mile CW touring from Rob (who has been great to deal with!) in from the thread below for $45k. I believe that this would count as one of the higher priced cars sold of recent memory so I wanted to give my rationale for the car and share thoughts with everyone that is carefully tracking the price of these cars. Sorry in advance for the long winded note.

I currently own a 132k mile 93 BB R1. A bit of history with this car is that it is FDnewbie's old car that I bought from him back in 2006-2007 with ~105k miles. At the moment, it needs a new motor and paint, but outside of that, I have spent probably $45k on keeping up with aging plastics, floor mats, suspension, bushings, brakes, power steering pump, ABS leaking, motors, clutch, door handles, map pockets, paint, turbos, transmission, window trim, 99 spec parts, etc. Did I mention INTERIOR PARTS !? I literally have a stock pile of odds and ends just to keep up with the car as it ages. It certainly doesn't help that I am extremely OCD about scratches and wear on the interior that any little thing makes me want to replace it. BTW if anyone wants a higher mileage BB R1 project car needing motor and paint as a great starting point for a driver's car (99 spec front end, Ohlin's, Stoptech BBK, CE28's, Power FC, rebuilt transmission, chassis, 7/10 interior, 6/10 paint), let me know. I just found myself constantly unsatisfied with the condition of my car, because let's be honest these cars are amazing but are not super robustly built. The interior plastics are wafer thin so are by far the hardest thing to keep up for me.

To get my BB R1 to the point at which I would be satisfied given my OCD, it would have costed easily an additional $20k for paint and motor. At that point, I was thinking it might be easier to start with a more cherry vehicle that would capture more of what I was looking for. I've always had a soft spot for CW FD's, and although the car is not perfect (a dent here, a scratch there, sunroof), I felt like it was a great opportunity to jump into a car that was super well taken care of with original paint, etc. The car will need a new motor at some point, but that doesn't scare me at all.

To me, cars will never be designed the way the FD was designed and it is obviously truly a special piece of automotive history. The 90's JDM cars will always hold a special place in many of our hearts, the lightweight, unique engine, beautiful design - the FD just sets itself up to be a car that will always be regarded fondly for many years, especially as we transition to EV's. I think we know that they will not design a car like this again and even though I love more modern cars (I own a Tesla Model 3 and 991.1 GT3 as well), I never get sick of driving or seeing my FD. If the FD was more robustly built (motor, interior), I think it would hold it's value with the NSX's and Supra's of the same era, and in my opinion will continually rise in price as fewer and fewer good condition LHD FD's remain in existence. I believe we are seeing that now.

There was a recent CW base model FD on BaT that sold for ~$43k, and I think Rob's car is a better example. To me, car value +/- $5k is not too much of concern as I'd rather choose the right car as so few good condition vehicles come up for sale now with the car approaching 30 years old. As all of you know, $5k comes and goes with these cars as quickly as an apex seal or a tank of gas. To me, the price was high, but fair, and what I have been looking for in my heart for several years now. There also seem to be other low mileage touring models breaking the $40k+ mark easily, and to me it was too hard for me to pass up on a low mileage, black interior CW FD. I personally think that these cars are currently undervalued and think that anyone serious about getting a great condition FD should be jumping on the few opportunities that come up as soon as possible.

-Kevin

https://www.rx7club.com/3rd-generati.../#post12433692

 

Congrats on the purchase, that is a rare combination and '94/5 cars are becoming VERY hard to find.

I remember Ramy's car from when I was in highschool, it was the coolest FD around and probably the first I experienced in person. My friend even did a photoshoot for him!

 

$37,750

 

So basically in a time span of less than 2 weeks: A 73K mile 93 RED touring fetched $1,750 less than a 73k mile 93 BLACK R1. In other words, A 4% percent variation that could be attributed to the color difference of the vehicles in addition to who is bidding at the time. Therefore noting that red FD's are less desirable than black ones, it makes a strong argument that R packaged FDs are not really coveted outside the forum aka mass public.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-113/
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-108/

 

I would say that the condition and presentation of the red car were an order of magnitude above the black r1. All things considered I am impressed the black car did as well as it did.

 

There will never be two identical auctions as there will always be cars that are better presented than others. Some would say that the non stock wing and wheels on the red one hurt it (other than it being red of course). But my point is we still have yet to see a tangible price difference between R package cars and non R cars. We have definitely seen it with colors and cars equipped with non stock components, just not package type.

 

The BB has rust, that’s pretty big deal I think, but still sold for nearly $2k more. As far as being less desirable, it would be true if the VR has tan interior, but that one has black interior so not necessary true. But I do think further down the road when supply is low people will take whatever trim is available.

 

How about a silver '94 with a lot of history and a replacement motor?

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1994-mazda-rx-7-42/

 

Anyone think prices will cool down after summer? I seem to remember reading somewhere that that typically happens.

 

Actually $1750 is a marginal 4%. If we were seeing a consistent 25% price difference then I would agree but that is not the case. I have tabulated prices in the past for R car vs non R cars. And sometimes the R cars fetch more other times they don't. It's about 50/50 that's why I say there no clear indication anywhere that justifies the notion that people outside of the forum see any value in an extra oil cooler and a strut bar.

The cars that command the most cash are stock, low mileage, 94-95 cars, white, and CYMs. Followed by black and silver cars. Red and Montego 93's bring in the least $ independent of a tan interior. However, tan 93 interior cars are the least desirable of them all.

 

25% is a lot, I don't know if an R model bring that much premium. All else equal tho I think they bring maybe $5k more, 93 vs R1 and 94/95 vs R2. So the rust spot knock off $3k, I think that's about right.

 

Quick question: Do you have any data to back up your reasoning? Because the data that I have shows that R trims do not consistently bring in more money than the other trims. I have have posted it in the past in addition to how classic insurance companies do not make that distinction either. Yet those same companies do offer distinctions for other types of cars that have models that are deemed more desirable, such as the turbo coupe supra, S2000 CR, Ford fastback, ect..

 

I think R1/R2 is starting to matter more, I remember a few years ago when half the sellers not on this website didn't even seem to know their cars were R1s. To me the R1/R2s are way more desirable than the other trims.

 

People in the forum have always touted the R package over anything else and I've been here since before the forum crashed circa February 2001.

 

I want to clarify when I said R1 I meant all hard top so including base model, the hard top is where I see the differences not so much on the rest of the R1 stuff.

It's going to be hard to get an apple to apple comparison, but this is going to be as close as you can get. So these two are both VR, 1 owner vs 2 owners, sold around the same time, and almost identical mileage. They are $5,250 apart with fees, the differences are hard top vs sunroof, tan vs black, and the base had water damage so a little history. In the end it comes down to how you look at it, I think part of that premium is because of the hardtop.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-111/
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-105/

 

"I remember a few years ago when half the sellers not on this website didn't even seem to know their cars were R1s."

 

If anything that comparison is reinforcing what I said earlier that tan interiors are less desirable. Because we have a much CLOSER comparison to that Red Base model that you just listed which sold for $33,000. And that is the Red Touring that just sold for $37,750. Note that they are BOTH:

• Red Cars
• Black interiors
• Similar Mileage (Base at 64K vs touring at 73K)
• One owner
• Sold with 3 weeks of each other (same time frame)

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-111/
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-113/

Touring sold for $5,000 more. So where's this premium?

And this is why we can't use one data point. As I mentioned that in the past, I've tabulated the prices of these cars and the result is that fixed roof FD's are not consistently being bought for more money. Like I said the prices are all over the place and sometimes the Touring/PEP gets sold for more and sometimes the Base/R sell for more. Funny that I can prove in a heart beat that white FD's, or low mileage, or stick shift, or 94/95, or stock cars (use any of those categories by themselves) definitely sell for a premium but can't prove it when it comes to fixed roofed FD's. So why so much contradictory information when it comes to R/Base vs Touring/PEP? That's easy to answer: For the mass public, that distinction doesn't matter.

Sorry my bad but even better. So in other words, many owners couldn't tell the difference between R/Base and Touring/PEP and yet people in here say that R/Base is so drastically different that it commands people outside of the forum pay a premium. Let's just take this for what it is: Many people prefer fixed roofed FD's and also many people prefer sunroofs. I'm one of those by the way, the sunroof on an FD is an absolute must as the cabin gets really hot during the summer. To be honest, the first thing I do after starting the car is to pop open that thing and I couldn't do without it.

 

Miles and condition (in that order) are the dominant determinants of price for an FD. Everything else is noise, IMHO.

Low mile FDs are relatively rare and genuinely good condition FDs are even rarer. Most 25-year-old cars have boatloads of paint and interior imperfections - even when owners say that they are mint. Cars that are genuinely in good condition will command a serious premium. (I have not been in the market for an FD since 2003 - but when I looked then the cosmetic condition of most of the cars I looked at was atrocious. 17 years later it can't be good.)

Yup - if I found a super clean R1 with 30k miles I'd probably pay slightly more than for a super clean non-R1 with the same miles - but it is so hard to find really clean, low mile FDs that you will buy the first one you find irrespective of its R1 status.

 

First we need to answer why the two GT are also $10k apart, two almost equal GT but one with 10k miles more sold for more money? Possible because the market has moved up? Maybe same reason why the price of the BB R1 with rust is higher than the Base by $6.5k? Maybe the price would be closer to that $10k difference you see between the GT if the BB has no rust?

As moconnor mentioned above, mileage and condition are the biggest price driving force. That's why I put the two 60k cars together, and the two 70k cars together, because when a 70k VR GT sold for more than a 60k VR GT by $10k on a later date, the market has changed, at least that's how I see it. Something else could definitely cause the price to be different, but I didn't really spend much time look at each auction other than the outline on the right lol. We are in an interesting time, people are putting their investment in physical assets like metal and classic car which drive their price up.

Maybe.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1994-mazda-rx-7-39/
https://www.rx7club.com/3rd-generati...miles-1146873/

Fixed roofed CW with 12k extra miles sold for $937.5 more after fees, 5 months ago. Imagine what 12k miles less could bring, plus inflation of physical assets in the last 5 months.

In the end I don't think anyone know other than the buy him/herself, and every buyer probably different, we are all just guessing here but it's fun to exercise our brain

 

I would have probably paid ~2-3k more for a non sunroof model, but ultimately it's not a big driver for me as more of a moderate preference.

 

A lot of speculation but we have to go by the facts: Red with tan interior sold 27K, Red base with black interior sold for 5K more, red touring with black interior sold 5K more that the red base, and the BB R with black interior sold for 2K more than the red touring. The market moving in three weeks? Anything is possible but let's be honest that not very likely. Interesting that the biggest difference in all of those 4 cars is the color and especially interesting when the general consensus is that black FDs are more desirable than red ones (and it is obviously showing up here).

Or maybe outside of the forum the general population just don't care about R/Base cars. I mean the data available backs that up. But I get it, the forum as whole loves fixed roofed FD's and to many people on here they just can't fathom people not having that preference.


and yet we have two similar red cars with a much closer mileage that contradict that sentiment (the red touring had 9k more miles) hence the reason we have to use the data that shows what these cars are selling as a whole. But also let's note that 12K miles is not an outlandish difference when looking at cars with 30-50K miles on them. For cars that have less than 30K miles, definitely. But never mind all of that, are we really splitting hairs about a measly $937 that could easily be attributed to a better sale? That's the premium were discussing here, a 2% price difference? Also let's not forget that private sales will always vary from one to the next. So unless there is a real and consistent marketable differences between two similar products no one can claim there's a premium for one vs the other.

Agreed 100%