rynberg

I would jump all over that 95 unless it has not been well maintained. Hell, I did jump on my 95, even though the previous owner had not done a very good job....

At this point in age and mileage, either of the cars may require lots of TLC at this point. I think the 93 is overpriced, unless it is immaculate.

hondasr4kids: Please read the newbie stickie. That is a very basic model difference. No R-models "officially" came with sunroofs. Apparently a few buyers did special order R-models with sunroofs but those would be very rare.

REDLINE

Here's the dilema I'm in....the '93 is immaculate and is closer to me...the is quite a bit further away. The '95 is definetly more desirable, but with that many miles on it (more than twice of '93), I'm pretty sure I'd have to start replacing parts on it before the '93, right? I also read that they changed the turbos in the '94....makes them more durable.....how about the ecu? Didn't the '93 also have the 3k hesitation and not the '94? (easy fix, but everything counts)....

rynberg

I think you need to spend a little more time researching yourself......but I'll throw you a few more bones.

I doubt you will notice much of a difference between parts durability, for the most part, between the cars.

They didn't change the turbos for 94 (where did you read that?). The only change related to that would be that there are no longer pre-control and wastegate pill restrictions in those vacuum lines. Later 94s and 95s have the restriction built into the nipples on the turbos.

The 3k hesitation has no logic. It affects all years and models of cars. I have it on my 95.

Seriously, if you are that worried about reliability issues, this car is not for you. With either car, you will be replacing a lot of items. These cars, if PROPERLY maintained, cost a lot of money each year in upkeep (if you are actually driving them, anyway).

REDLINE

Thanks for all the info. Ryan! I'm not too worried about reliability because I used to own a '93...at around 90K, things just started falling apart, interior was peeling....the usual....I just wasn't too sure whether mazda decided to replace some of the common defects (door handles, squeaky hatch-hood etc...). It was also my only car, but now that I have a daily beater, a great job and more knowledge of the 7, I'm ready own another one. Regarding the turbos, I read here on the forum, that they changed the seals or bearings to make the turbos more dependable....I see so many '93 with replaced turbos at 30k....kind of shocking. I would love to have a '94-'95 with low miles, but I can't seem to find the ones I'm looking for. Also with the low mile '93 I'm looking at, the first thing I"m going to do as soon as I get it, is: AST, Koyo Radiator, Fan mod, oil, coolant, dp, diff, and hosejob...pretty much everything I did to my previous 7 only after 80K (bought at that mileage from previous owner). I'm not really interested in performance mods, just reliability mods....performance will come later

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

You mentioned the pealing interior of your old '93. If you get this '93, you'll eventually have the same problem. The interior panels of the '94-95s were changed to get rid of that problem. Also, there were paint chipping problems with some of the '93s so you could possbily inherit that problem.

As rynberg said, the turbos are the same so the '95 won't have an advantage there. '95s are rare since so few of them were brough to the states which is why even at a higher mileage they are still worth quite a bit as compared to '93s.