BLKTOPTRVL

Does anyone have the definitive word on the difference between the 0-60 time originally advertised by Mazda of 4.9 seconds verses the generally accepted(?) 5.4 seconds as tested by car magazines?

Was Mazda overstating the power of the car? Or was it the issue with the pre-cat? Or something else altogether?

rynberg

The car magazines mostly experienced wheel-hop, and for official testing, they do not powershift, they use the stock tire pressures, etc. Mazda could have powershifted, lowered the rear tire pressures, etc. Who knows? Maybe Mazda had a test driver who knew how to avoid the wheel hop issue.

lopedl

iTrader: (1)

A lot of people have to say it's about the driver. And say because not everyone is an expert driver they tend associate that with the slower time. But in my opinion when someone reports a 0-60 time of a vehicle it has nothing to do with the driver. If the best driver in the world was the one who tested the car and it only got 4.9, 0-60 once ever, then in my opinion that is what the car is capable of. If you as a driver can't hit that time than in my opinion you aren't taking full advantage of the performance. So with all this in mind I do think that a really great driver did probably hit 4.9 in a stock rx-7.

Sonny

I believe the 4.9 sec time came from the Car and Driver test. The C&D times are always a touch faster than the other mags...not sure if it is their equipment, technique, or a combo of the two.

Sonny

coolingmist

All I know is that i'd be pissed if I bought a car that was advertised at 4.9 and all I could get was a 5.4.

technonovice

Most of the times are in the low to mid 5 secs. Car and Drivers 5-60 mph test was 6 secs...not bad. These cars are faster than what their drag times reveal.

BoostFrenzy

not to be a dick, but really these cars certainly aren't all that fast stock... they're fun from a roll from the high revs and gearing, but 0-60 is no thrill due to lack of torque and relatively low horsepower

i'd buy 5.5, 4.9? prolly not

jimlab

Wow, now there's a profound statement...

coolingmist

There are actual tests that got 4.9, 5.2 and 5.3. So buy it or not, the 4.9 has been done and documented. Granted the average Joe will not be able to get 4.9 without tearing up the car unless hes a great driver, that goes for test #'s from other cars too.

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

Mainly b/c of traction issues, I think 0 to 100 is a better indicator. What did the FD do 0 to 100 stock, 13 or so seconds (basically a 1/4 mile)?

1sicsol

*I think* it was a reported 13.5 quater mile, but this would be hard to achieve on a stock car/tires etc.

technonovice

Ouch Jim. Get up on the wrong side of your FD/LS conversion or is this just some payback for me ribbing you on your post count?

jimlab

Nope, just responding to your ridiculous statement. Sorry, did you think your opinion actually meant something to me?

jimlab

14 seconds or so... average 13.9-14.1 @ 100-101 mph.

unixpilot

I'm gonna take the high road on this one......Karma +20

potatochobit

iTrader: (1)

stock RX7 is not too fast. it lacks top end power. this is comparing it to vehs in the same class of course.

technonovice

I'm not sure if I should recommend a charm school or a therapist for you. Your FD/V8 perversion...err... conversion seems to have you misdirecting anger. While I poke a little fun at your project, I do commend you on your workmanship. I'm a bit bemused over your...less than neighborly demeanor. If you have a bone to pick with me, please PM me.

What part of the fact that FD's do not reflect their power in their 0-60 times & 1/4 results is unclear? These cars haul higher up in the revs. My car pulls away from most anything on the track in 3rd and 4th gears: E46 M3s, Vettes...etc.

Perhaps if I posted a spread sheet of results from various cars, that would illustrate what I evidently have failed to make clear.

jimlab

A quarter mile pass includes 3rd and 4th gear, and "higher up in the revs".

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

Such as? 1993 Corvette, 1993 NSX, 1993 Supra, 911, 300xz? There is a mag article out there where the FD finished first around the streets of willow against these cars and more.....

POS7

I could be wrong, but I always thought that the 0-60 times posted for most cars are generous in the manufacurer's favor. So, the estimate of 4.9s is optimistic, while the 5.4s may be more realistic.

For example, a f1 mclaren has a 0-60 of 3.1s (i believe). How many drivers can achieve this? I'm guessing an average driver may only be able to achieve high 3s to low 4s. Whereas, an economy car's "official" 0-60 time of maybe 7s is probably very close to the actual time the average driver is able to achieve because it is not a high performance car subject to variables that will have a greater influence on the car's performance.

I think the whole 0-60 thing is somewhat overrated. Gearing favorable to this "performance test" is probably more important than overall performance capabilities of the vehicle.

BoostFrenzy

wether you're a rotard or not, you just can't deny that an ls1 in a fd is rediculously fast no matter how stock or modified the engine is :/

potatochobit

iTrader: (1)

hmm i was more implying drag racing since that is what this thread is about. and i was definately thinking more of push rods not an overpriced $67k NSX. i read an article in car and driver i think where the stock automatic firebird can pull 5 second times. i think thats a LSW engine?

technonovice

...and the wheel hop and relatively low power rpms at launch before the turbos wake up. Not as much time is spent in 4th gear for a 1/4 mi pass. What are you trying to get at?

Take an STi and 05 GTO both which have a 1/4 mi test avg of 13.3 secs vs the 13.7 secs to 14.1 secs range for the FD. If you study the numbers more you find that the FD tested faster in fact rolling from:

FD3S
20-40 mph 1.7
40-60 mph 2.1
60-80 mph 2.6

STi
20-40 mph 2
40-60 mph 2.3
60-80 mph 3.1

05 GTO
20-40 mph 1.7
40-60 mph 2.1
60-80 mph 3

Even though both cars trim well over 1/2 second over the RX-7, while already in motion the FD performs splendidly. I was surprised how easily I reeled in a 405 HP Vette at an HPDE thiis spring. I know I was making better time in the turns, but I never would have guessed I'd have the power to reel him in on the straight too.

Hopefully this makes more sense. Sorry if I did a **** poor explanation earlier. While these acceleration times can be useful benchmarks. They do not always tell the whole story especially on the track.

BTW these are the 0-60 results from each mag: AutoWeek 5.3 MotorTrend 5.3 R&T 5.5 C&D 5.0

BoostFrenzy

I'm not a GTO guy I Can't comment on those, but I do know a stock STi puts down 230-240whp stock and it's 13.0-13.2 realworld ET's it pulls aren't because of power, it's because of the 1.6/1.7 60 foot... any AWD car is a turd off a roll (drag/driveline loss/curb weight), you just can't verify your claim of the FD being fast vs. an AWD, i know my modified wrx will ASSRAPE my rx7 from a stop but off a roll at certain mphs/rpms, the rx7 might get a second or two of gratification...

And well, for what I do know the GTO is what, 3800lbs? i see them running 13.8-15.0 frequently, both 2004 and "more power" 2005 models at the strip locally, they suck altogether

bottom line, the FD shines in power to weight with it's gearing whilst on a roll, but it sure would be a thing of beauty with twice the power or more that an ls1 could offer it

and uh, you better be pretty heavily modded to go pulling on ~3150lb Z06's with 405hp :/

sure it wasn't a lowly stock automatic c5 ?! i can pull those on a 10 speed drinking a beer

Riccardo

iTrader: (1)

1. All times by car manufactures, all numbers as a matter of fact have to be repeatable and an average based on many runs and many different conditions
2. I'd say about 90% is on the driver
3. Car manufacturer figures are reliable...or RX8 HP story
4. European 241PS FD made 0-62 in 5.3 by Mazda
5. Car mags tested this and ranged from 5.1-5.5

Hence a 255PS US FD should be able to do 0-60 in 4.9 no prob