anyone know more about this RE-amemiya rear end?? Pic inside
#52
Originally posted by ArchangelX
I do believe the RX-7 had the design before the Taurus.
I do believe the RX-7 had the design before the Taurus.
Originally posted by wptrx7
nope, ford taurus.
luigi
nope, ford taurus.
luigi
The Mazda RX7 had the rear end first(1993 in the US).
The Ford Taurus did not come out with the "similar" rear end until the 1996 model year.
#53
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
i agree with joe d on the first page, this kit makes a cool looking car, but it's NOT an rx-7. if someone really likes the kit so much, i'd rather see them rig it on to a fiero or something and leave the FD alone. having said that, it is your car, and i don't have the right to tell you what to do with it. i just like my car and how it looks and i'm a little protective of it that's all. and btw the front is part of this same AC kit from amemiya, not a porsche conversion, although the resemblance is striking.
#55
Ghost Ride the Whip
I personally like the RE-amemiya car. It looks really really nice no matter what people say plus it pushes out over 400rwhp. Then again, I wouldn't have gone with pink though, maybe bright white or porsche super white
#56
John
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kahren
if u really hate how teh FD looks why nto get a diffrent car? also applies to teh engien that it comes with. i am gonna put my flame suit on now.
if u really hate how teh FD looks why nto get a diffrent car? also applies to teh engien that it comes with. i am gonna put my flame suit on now.
BTW, I didn't buy that rearend. I'm staying with my Cwest rear. Looking at the RE rear from the side makes the car look too long in the back and I don't really care for that.
#57
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by ptrhahn
Can I borrow your V8 to find out? :-)
Can I borrow your V8 to find out? :-)
http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/m..._Beat_flip.avi
Their black FD has noticeably changed aerodynamics, part of which, I believe, is full belly pan... sort of like the C5 Corvette...
#58
Newb Photog
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: new jersey
Posts: 2,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you guys don't really think because someonwants to add a bodykit to there car they hate thier car? some people go single some stay stock, some use the reason that it is prventative maintance and som just wnat more rwhp. this is a change and is not what mazda put in the car from factory, does it mean you don't like the car. not everyone will like the kit, its expeted, but for those who do and have the money to spend on it they will purchase it. its to eaches own.
luigi
i like this argument that whay i keep replying. mr.stock i know the taurus was out later. its nice to see that ford likes the design and put it on a family car.
luigi
i like this argument that whay i keep replying. mr.stock i know the taurus was out later. its nice to see that ford likes the design and put it on a family car.
#59
Hi sir
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Modesto/Rancho Cordova CA
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally posted by jimlab
It'd be quicker to just watch the video showing Racing Beat flipping their white FD on the salt flats...
Their black FD has noticeably changed aerodynamics, part of which, I believe, is full belly pan... sort of like the C5 Corvette...
It'd be quicker to just watch the video showing Racing Beat flipping their white FD on the salt flats...
Their black FD has noticeably changed aerodynamics, part of which, I believe, is full belly pan... sort of like the C5 Corvette...
Jim, I know you know what you are talking about and you know more than most, but I have to step in here.
It seems that you are always putting down the RX7 and pointing out it's weak points, and how much of a POS it is, and how crappy this or that design is. Why do you have one? Every one ( Well I do) realizes that it is not a perfect car and has it's problems but Christ man! You never seem to say anything good. To those uf us who love their car anyway it kind of feels like a repeated personal put down.
Now this is NOT a personal attack.
#60
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by Donovan
Jim, I know you know what you are talking about and you know more than most, but I have to step in here. It seems that you are always putting down the RX7 and pointing out it's weak points, and how much of a POS it is, and how crappy this or that design is.
Jim, I know you know what you are talking about and you know more than most, but I have to step in here. It seems that you are always putting down the RX7 and pointing out it's weak points, and how much of a POS it is, and how crappy this or that design is.
There's a specific reason for the final design of the rear of the C5 Corvette. GM found that their original, more aesthetically pleasing design broke up airflow at high speeds, and instead of issuing a car that was pretty but unstable at high speeds, they changed the design. The result is the "huge ***" that everyone seems to hate... but the car is stable to over 200 mph. Function over form in its purest sense.
If I seemingly "downgrade" the RX-7 often, it's to really bring home my point to the uninformed that the RX-7 isn't the perfect piece of engineering that everyone wants to believe it is, and that other cars, including domestics, do have their own merits. The 3rd gen. RX-7 is an incredible car, but all cars have limits.
Why do you have one? Every one ( Well I do) realizes that it is not a perfect car and has it's problems but Christ man! You never seem to say anything good. To those of us who love their car anyway it kind of feels like a repeated personal put down. Now this is NOT a personal attack.
I have an RX-7 because I liked the looks of the car and the speed. Simple as that.
Back to the subject of top speed... I've been to 180 mph in my RX-7, and to give credit where credit is due, I've never driven a street car that would hit 150-160 mph so quickly. But even though it felt stable at higher speeds, there's no way of knowing how close I was to being airborn. In sort of a side effect of the original goal, my RX-7 will be capable of 200+ mph, but I'm realistic enough and intelligent enough to know that Mazda installed a 155 mph speed limiter for a reason (the Corvette is unlimited, by the way...) and that anything over 155-160 mph is A) ridiculous on public roads, and B) is probably pretty close to writing a check your butt can't cash. All it takes is just one unexpected dip in the road to unsettle the car. Salt flats are what the name implies... flat. And salty.
Unless you've done wind tunnel testing after modifying the car to create more downforce, you're probably insane to try 160+ mph in an FD. In fact, you're insane if you bolt on a bunch of body kit parts and then push 130+ mph without any knowledge whatsoever of what you've done to the aerodynamics of the car, in my opinion.
With all the top speed threads that get started, I figured it was probably in everyone's best interests if someone was "realistic" about the limitations of the 3rd gen. design, and someone commenting on the meat cleaver rear of Corvette was a good enough place to start.
#61
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by jimlab
In sort of a side effect of the original goal, my RX-7 will be capable of 200+ mph, but I'm realistic enough and intelligent enough to know that Mazda installed a 155 mph speed limiter for a reason......
In sort of a side effect of the original goal, my RX-7 will be capable of 200+ mph, but I'm realistic enough and intelligent enough to know that Mazda installed a 155 mph speed limiter for a reason......
Originally posted by jimlab
Unless you've done wind tunnel testing after modifying the car to create more downforce, you're probably insane to try 160+ mph in an FD. In fact, you're insane if you bolt on a bunch of body kit parts and then push 130+ mph without any knowledge whatsoever of what you've done to the aerodynamics of the car, in my opinion.
Unless you've done wind tunnel testing after modifying the car to create more downforce, you're probably insane to try 160+ mph in an FD. In fact, you're insane if you bolt on a bunch of body kit parts and then push 130+ mph without any knowledge whatsoever of what you've done to the aerodynamics of the car, in my opinion.
#62
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by rynberg
Jim, I think you are thinking of your Supra, the FD (US version anyway) never had a speed limiter of any kind.
Jim, I think you are thinking of your Supra, the FD (US version anyway) never had a speed limiter of any kind.
I completely agree. If I ever change the front end, it will be the 99+ front end for the simple reason that it has been wind tunnel tested. In fact, I seem to remember somebody with a Veilside kit ( ) posting that their body add-ons threatened to come off the car above 120+. Sounds stable to me.....
If circumstances permit, I'd like to put my car (R1 front spoiler, no rear spoiler) in a wind tunnel and video tape the results of 160+ mph air flow for people to watch. I think the results would be very, very interesting.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post