One owner 71K mile Montego just sold on BAT for $33,750. Crazy

 

wow.. this was a base model slicktop tho.

but yeah, the all original cars are skyrocketing in value

 

From what I seen that makes no difference, except here in the RX-7 forum.

 

NOPE...........keep watching BAT and you'll see what's what.

Base/r1/r2 models are worth a lot more all things equal.

 

Agree that this was another great BaT price for an FD. Even more astonishing, take a look at the 2 300ZX's that sold today. One really nice black 1990, 30K miles for $9,700. This was the generation that fixed the embarrassment of the preceding gen. And then there's the embarrassment - a 1984 with 22K miles that sold for $14,250! Check the interior on that '84! Sorry for the non-FD content but I just don't understand people's taste or common sense. This is just laughable to me....

 

someone must have really liked that z31 to pay that much. even the z32 was high considering its a 2+2 base. for the fd sold today wow, i figured somewhere north of 25k but didn't expect 33,750 plus fees lol.

 

Yep

The market is continuing to move higher for nice cars.

 

My thoughts on the day: Really impressed on the final price on that MB Base car. That was a surprise! Also, in case you missed it, nearly $11k for an 82 GSL. The rising tide is lifting all RX-7s.

And the auctions keep coming...

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-52/

93 re-build, re-paint SS Touring with 48k miles. Already bid up to $15k!!

 

A lot more? I disagree that it brings even slightly more.

I've been watching BaT and I've compiled a list of FDs that were sold since 1/17 and the prices do not support that theory. I will note that it is not an easy comparison due to having a limited number of samples. It would be ideal to have cars with similar mileage, be the same color, and be sold within a few months of each other but that is not what is available. So for my comparison at the very least I tried to match mileage and date sold. Color took a back seat, beggars can't be choosers

For each Base/R cars sold I tried to find a comparable Touring (for all intents and purposes Touring = PEP in this exercise) and left out cars that had body mods, were rhd, had engine transplants, ect. I didn't dig deep enough to remove cars with mods. Again, note that I'm only comparing the available base/R cars with comparable touring cars. I also included cars that did not meet reserve as it shows how much the public willing to pay for it.

Anyway, I found that our best indicator is the sale of those three similar extremely low mileage FD's that sold last year:

Date Year Trim Mileage Color Price
18-Nov 93 Touring 2800 Silver $47,000
18-Sep 94 Base 9500 Red $47,250
18-Jul 93 Touring 9000 Red $49,000

In this case the 93 Touring took the win over a 94 Base. Noting that's even with the base being a 94.

************************************************** **********************
Date Year Trim Mileage Color Price
18-Sep 94 Touring 29000 White $40,001
18-Oct 93 R1 38000 CYM $37,300

This is a tough comparison but it's the hand we are dealt. The 94 is white and has 9k less miles but then again it is up against a 93 R1 CYM. Two desirable colors but ultimately the Touring took the win over the R model

************************************************** **********************
Date Year Trim Mileage Color Price
17-Jun 93 R1 85292 Red $24,000
17-Sep 93 Touring 51000 Montego $21,500
17-Aug 93 Base 67000 Red $20,000

Here the R1 took the win.. A thing to note is the Red R1 has more miles than the Montego Touring. Solid win for the R

************************************************** **********************
Date Year Trim Mileage Color Price
17-Apr 93 Touring 113000 Montego $17,250
17-Aug 93 R1 85292 Red $17,010
17-Nov 93 R1 75505 Red $16,388

Here the Montego Touring took the win even though it has more miles than the two Red R1's. So technically this cancels out the previous comparison (see what I mean?).

************************************************** **********************
Notable comparisons of high mileage cars
Date Year Trim Mileage Color Price
18-Aug 93 Base 136000 Red $18,000
19-Mar 93 Touring 138000 Red $17,500

only a $500 dollar difference

Notable exceptions:
Date Year Trim Mileage Color Price
19-Apr 94 Base 71000 Montego $33,750
18-Oct 93 Touring 180000 Silver $26,750
17-Sep 93 Base 74000 Red $12,250

• The recently sold 94 base. Sold really good but the season has just begun and therefore it is too early to make a determination. Maybe it's a trend or maybe its just an outlier. Time will tell.
• And who can forget the infamous 180k touring lol. The fact is there was a bidding war that generated that high price. IMO the reason the sale unraveled (according to facebook) is because all the comments that came afterwards. Technically it is listed as sale on BaT but this is definitely an outlier.
• The 93 base had really bad faded paint and nothing to compare it to. No surprise why it went so low.

************************************************** ********************
In conclusion, there is no data to backup the claim that Base or R1s command any more money than Touring/PEP cars. As I said earlier, outside of the forum people don't care if the car is an R/base/Touring/PEP. However, all things being equal color as expected makes the biggest difference.

M-

 

Regardless of what the BaT data says, it basically comes down to supply and demand. The production numbers show that only ~40% of FD's made were slicktops. From looking at classified ads over the past 6 months, it feels like the ratio of slicktops is even less on the current used market.

The FD actually had a decent supply of slicktops compared to other cars like the MKIV Supra, where the majority of them were built with targa tops. The majority of SW20 MR2 turbo's and Z32's were built with T-tops. Slicktop versions of these cars are very rare.

 

In other words, forget about the only measurable data available since it doesn't support your belief. BaT gives us a clear picture of what the public is paying for these cars. As private sales tend to be, well private.

FYI - the law of supply and demand is not an absolute. If you disagree then care to explain why the 95 auto isn't the most desirable given that it has the lowest production numbers?

 

My point was that the BaT isn't absolute either. I think you're forgetting about the demand portion of supply and demand with the 95 auto.

In any case, BaT markets slicktop cars in their ads as a premium feature. They understand their target audience. I talk to a lot of fellow car enthusiasts at meets and at the track. While the data is anecdotal, majority are willing to pay extra for slicktop cars because they feel the cars would be more marketable later on.

 

I never said that it was but it is the best tool we have. Now unless you call up every past owner and inquire what their car actually sold for, this is what you get to live with. I know you don't like it but it is what it is.

lol that was my point. Just because there is a small supply doesn't make it a demand. From the only data available, there is no "premium demand" for the non sunroof model.

FYI- slicktop isn't an RX-7 term, more of a bimmer forums term.

So let me get this straight: You are claiming that BaT markets nonsunroof cars as a premium and yet they fail to net fetch more money. I guess the people have spoken then... The fact is you are dead wrong that BaT actually markets non-sunroof cars as a premium. Don't believe me look below:

Original-Owner 1994 Mazda RX-7
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1994-mazda-rx-7-25/

9,500-Mile 1994 Mazda RX-7
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1994-mazda-rx-7-16/

1993 Mazda RX-7
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-18/

1993 Mazda RX-7
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-11/

1993 Mazda RX-7
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-13/

So where is this big marketing push? So yeah, they do know their audience and market accordingly.

Really guy? I compiled data and you come back with you spoke to a bunch of dudes... Does that really sound like a solid stance to you? BTW Track guys and car enthusiasts are what car forums are comprised of and are actually a small percentage of the car population and thus have no real impact on the market.

 

Thank you! I was wondering where that came from - never heard it before.

 

Hard top slick top, whatever. Look at most collector cars, collectors value no sunroof on sports cars. I love a Supra with a targa, but people pay more for the hard top. Same goes for many other cars.

It's not an rx7 thing, it's a collector car thing.

It's pointless to base anything off BAT other than directional info, it's not where the majority of cars change hands, it's just a popular auction website.

 

I first heard slicktop on 300zx forums

I personally pay more for no sunroof but I've met just as many people that like to have a sunroof open. It's hard to say since I am heavily biased towards hardtop cars. Seems to be a toss up.

 

Here's a novel idea, how about you post up something to back up your claims? Otherwise you are just trying to pass your personal opinion as a fact and that ain't flying.


Two mistakes...

• You compared the targa on a supra to a sunroof on an FD. That comparison is completely flawed. The targa actually has an effect on rigidity because it cuts the connecting support beams between the A and B pillars (which isn't the best thing to do). Now, the sunroof on an FD does no such thing. As it actually sits neatly tucked in the center of all support beams and thus has zero effect on the rigidity of the structure.
• You brought up the supra and that brings me to how I will now prove you wrong about the FD.

Hagerty... you know Hagerty the classic car insurance for collectors and classic cars. Yeah them... Well take a look at how they value the 94 Supra MKIV Turbo

• 1994 Toyota Supra Mk IV Turbo 2dr Sport Roof 6-cyl. 2997cc/320hp FI Turbo (Tier 1 valued at $93,900)

And the

• 1994 Toyota Supra Mk IV Turbo 2dr Coupe 6-cyl. 2997cc/320hp FI Turbo (Tier 1 valued at $105,000)

They clearly make a distinction between the targa and coupe cars and that agrees with what you say. Coupes are valued higher than Targa tops.


Ok with that out of the way, let's now let's take a look at the 94 Third Generation RX-7: https://www.hagerty.com/apps/valuati...uto/Mazda/RX~7

Funny ALL FDs are listed under BASE. So Hagerty makes NO DISTINCTION between sunroof and nonsunroof cars. Well ain't that a bitch... You know why, because the collector world doesn't make a distinction either. I will note that sentiment also aligns with BaT sales

• 1994 Mazda RX-7 2dr Coupe 2-cyl. 1308cc/255hp Rotary MPFI (tier 1 valued at $49,400) -BTW this is called backing up your claims

The reality is the FD only came in one model. The Base/Touring/PEP/R are merely differences in trims but we erroneously refer to them as different models.

Care to retract that statement now?

It is only pointless to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. However that doesn't change the fact that BaT sales do in fact coincide with what collectors are paying premiums for. But so what if the collector world doesn't view your car any more valuable than sunroofed cars? It just means that in the eyes of the world all third gen RX-7's kick ***! If its money your after, just sell the car here where it will actually net you more cash over the rest of the other trims.

 

After 20 years of FD ownership, I actually prefer metal sunroof models. They keep the roof shape and styling of the non sunroof models, and and are great at keeping the driver comfortable. FDs let a ton of heat through the tran tunnel... a cracked sunroof works very well at keeping the cabin cool. Especially for a car that doesn't run so great with AC on. My R1 models always felt hot in the cabin...

 

Wow. Montego knows how to multi-quote haha. Anyway. I could care less, I stand by my point that if you look at a broad range of collector cars, no-sunroof is a thing for collectors.

And I stand by my point that BAT is an extremely small volume of rx7 sales (which is a small pool to start with) and can only be used for directional info, not hard facts about sunroof/non-sunroof value. Once 20 of each color have been sold within the same year, then I will pay attention.

And no, I will not waste my time digging up data to try to convince anyone. I could really care less. I have both an r2 (no sunroof) and a touring (sunroof). I like them both and am not planning to sell either of them or buy another.

 

Supply and demand is an absolute. There is no demand for auto FDs.

95 PEP with 41k miles sells for 26,500

94 base with 70k miles sells for 33,750

Both MB cars sold in the last month.

We can both play that game. There isn't enough info available on BAT at this time to clearly make a point of supply and demand as it relates to hardtops. However we are slowly finding that 93 MB/tan and VR/tan are possibly the least valuable.

As we move along I believe that hardtops will be worth more on BAT which is similar to what I've experienced.

I think we can agree that if your car was a hardtop you could sell it for more or it would be worth more especially being a CW?

 

I’m sure you couldn’t care less, but the expression is: couldn’t care less. As in, my current level of interest is zero, therefore it is impossible for me to care any less than I already do.

Thank you for your attention. We now return you to the sunroof debate.

- The Grammar Police

 

Yep, I sure do and it comes really handy when making a point. You should try it sometime.

Your inability to back up your claim shows that your point does not have a leg to stand on and only went by your skewed personal belief. I on the other hand, provided proof that even Hagerty (aka the company whose business model is insurance of collector cars) does not agree with you either.

BTW I am not trying to convince you. I am proving you wrong so when others read this they can see what's up and understand that this fabricated fixed roof premium emanated on the forum "because of race car" and no other reason.

so yeah thank you, come again

Nope, sorry it is a good rule of thumb but it is not an absolute. But forget that because that's neither here nor there, where we really disagree is that there is an additional demand for nonsunroof cars outside of the forum/track folk.

Yes and by the mere fact that we both can find examples that contradict each other shows that the non-sunroof cars are not clearly commanding a higher premium outside of the forum. Also thanks to TwinCharged, I now have my strongest argument: Even Hagerty doesn't make a distinction when it comes to pricing these cars. Nope they all fall under one category unlike the Turbo Supra where they have two distinct pricing categories for coupe and sport models.

Only time will tell.

I'm not discounting your experience in selling these cars, I am 100% percent sure you sell fixed roofed FD's at a higher price tag and people pay it. What I am saying is that there is a much larger world out there that does not include forum/track people. A world full of car guys that aren't all about the "race car" and that large group is what sets the pricing.

 

In a free market system please give me an example where supply and demand doesn't dictate the price?

At this time we'll agree to disagree regarding hardtop value vs sunroof and as time moves along we'll discover if there's a price difference. It's not worth arguing over though

 

Yeah. I now see why DJ bags on montego so much haha.

I'm with Fritz, hardtops worth more, all else equal.

 

Diamond industry.

https://www.businessinsider.com/infl...-supply-2014-6

With that said, the reason the law of supply and demand is not an absolute is because it can be manipulated:
https://www.quicksprout.com/how-to-m...ot-more-money/

I would argue (notice I said I) that here in the forum there's an unintended manipulated demand as it has been widely published the solid roof FDs are the thing to have. Which has led to a manufactured demand for those types of cars (Lesson #3).

I say it is manipulated because of the BS reasoning people say the solid roof is better:

• Saves weight - Really? So what does a sunroof assembly weigh in at 20 lbs? That equates to 0.699% of the cars total weight. In other words, a negligible difference
• The car is more rigid - Sounds plausible to those that do not understand that the center part of the roof does not hold any load bearing properties. The reality is that there's only a thin piece of metal where the sunroof usually sits and it is useless in terms of load.
• Because race car - Now that's just dumb.

Now there are a legitimate reasons too such as headroom and leaks (rare but they can occur), and quite simply the person just doesn't want one.

I agree 100%.

If anyone else wants to debate: I think I've said all I have to say. So take note that I'll just point you to my prior points.


You're just pissed because I owned your ***. So yeah, you can join the club of hurt feelings.