juicyjosh

iTrader: (29)

Agreed, 99% of us already know what it's like to NOT have 500 hp.

Also a couple people need to practice hitting the "Edit" button instead of replying to their own posts. And a boxer engine dyno chart sourced from the internet is better placed in the lounge section. They have no relevance to this thread, or this forum. Gracias.

Thanks GoodfellasFD3S and Fritz for sharing your experiences with 500 hp RX-7s.

Wade

iTrader: (1)

I haven't driven a 500hp FD, but over the years I've detuned my FD to make it more enjoyable at the cost of less ultimate power. 500hp would be fun for sure... but the noise, difficulty driving, etc. can suck a lot of the fun out of it. I've come to the conclusion that I want to stay with stock based twins for the long run. I have enough trouble keeping 350 hp effectively to the pavement in the miles around my house, which are a thousand feet of elevation change and dozens of "15 mph" turns. I RARELY get to full boost as it is. I would only use more power on the extremely rare highway drive.

Wade

no_more_rice

I've said this before, but I think your car is a perfect example of what Mazda should have done: 20b n/a, nice, flat, broad spread of power, very street and track friendly, dead simple - would have gone 150k+ miles without a hiccup and the rotary would not be nearly as maligned as it is now

A 500 rwhp 13b is all well and good at the dragstrip or freeway rolls in TX but it's not all that practical anywhere else

arghx

iTrader: (3)

Supposedly Mazda was testing an n/a 20B for the 2nd gen 1989 "GTUs" model, before the Cosmo 20B came out. They had a lot of cooling and fuel economy problems at that time so they scrapped it. The GTUs instead was given a shorter final drive ratio and marketed as a sort-of R1 for that generation.

kensin

iTrader: (22)

good thread keep it up peeps

now its making me think should i go 500R or bnr3 hmmmm

ALPSTA

iTrader: (3)

^^^ We can't ignore reliability issues when talking rotary engine, we can't just talk turbo sizes like we're talking piston engines imo.

-------------------

The video I posted before was to demonstrate regardless of hp figure as long as the set-up is powerful and responsive at the same time FD will stay enjoyable to drive. Of course there is a happy medium and it must be something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr2WP...eature=related

93rx74lyfe

iTrader: (1)

Any more opinions from people who have been on both sides of the fence?

Zero R

iTrader: (1)

Not sure I'm following you.


~S~

ALPSTA

iTrader: (3)

It wasn't directed at you but I was saying I agree with you reliability is another factor when picking turbos (twins vs. single) on a rotary engine. Many people seem to be problemfree with twin turbo set-up but from their posts in other threads it sounds like they are amateur mechanic or hobby mechanic kind of people. For other revheads single seems to be the way to go.

Captain_Panic

iTrader: (15)

+1 I would agree with the above...

Of course it may be part of the journey of being a 3rd gen owner. You get a car with Twins, learn about the car and the turbo system. You solve a few issues on your own, but invariably you want more power and reliability and get sick of dealing with vacuum hoses, solenoids and forget about the beauty of the properly functioning sequential twin setup. You go single and love the power and would probably NEVER go back, yet something about you wishes low end response was better. The idea pops up from time to time in your mind, but then you mash the pedal and all is forgotten.

Then you ride in another owner's 3rd gen with seq twins who has yet to feel the crazy power of the 450+HP single and you suddenly realize why you miss the low end response... You tell the owner, man keep the twins as long as you can... of course this guy/gal thinks you are nuts because they wish they could have the neck snapping power of your single and thus their journey begins.

Now I am not saying this is something everyone goes through, but a similar sequence has seemed to occur with many of the 3rd gen hobby mechanic guys I know of. I guess you don't truly appreciate something until you have moved on and no longer have it. I am definitely in the middle of this journey myself as well.

ALPSTA

iTrader: (3)

Grass is always greener on the other side

no_more_rice

Ha. Yeah, you can quite literally snap your neck with a 500 rwhp FD, just ask Bryan at Rotorsports Racing. He lost control of his three rotor and just about killed himself

you want the good life, you break your back....you snap your fingers, you snap your neck

no_more_rice

How can you get worse gas mileage than an FD with any n/a motor?

bewtew

iTrader: (7)

anything under 450 whp its boooooring!!

it all depends where you use/drive your car the most. at a roadcourse track i don't like anything over 450-500 and on the streets/highway/drag i would not want anything under 600whp.

i think it's all personal preference..

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Personally I don't think it makes since to compare it to today's standards. For what Mazda did 20 yrs ago was a great achievement. Also Rx7 doesn't need higher torque figures down low to feel faster because it's 600lbs lighter than both the subarus and 1000lbs lighter than the turbo Bimmers. It's kinda of a wash if you ask me. Anyways that's a comparison for another thread!

XLR8

iTrader: (52)

This is my goal with my 35R & why I chose this turbo on a Vmount with meth setup. I swear my intercooler piping is 3' total...lol

I should be able to make close to 480whp at around 21-23psi, but still retain fast spool times for street driving.

We shall see....

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Exactly!

Dcashdollar

iTrader: (8)

I've driven a supra with around 500hp, if its anything like a 500hp fd then I say it's worth it. It was definitely a high point in my life.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

I can vouch for this but not as an owner but as a rider. My own fd was stock with perfectly working stock twins. My car felt fast but I always new it could be better. I once drove a NON seq and completely hated it. It was a complete slug around town. I'm not one to drive the hell out of my car to get decent performance out of it. I knew then that I would NEVER build up an Rx7 that drove like that.

A little while later I drove a nicely modified seq twin fd that was making around 330rwhp. To feel the way the primary turbo kicked in that low was very v8 like. Then to have the second rush of power later on was icing on the cake. To me, this is the only way to modify a 13b without over doing it. This engine is still running and has over 100k on it with 3mm apex seals. I know this because the owner told me he had it rebuilt when the car had 97K. Vehicle now has over 200K!

The only other superior experience I had "rotary wise" was in Derrick's " Rxman720b" red Fd back at Sevenstock 7 2004. I already had my engine back at home but, he gave me a ride to give me an idea of what I was getting myself into. The power delivery was phenomenal at only 5lbs of boost. I mean all over the power band there was power (low, mid, high, you name it). To compare, earlier this year I got a ride in my friends 600 rwhp Fd. He's running a 74mm turbo and only running 8lbs at the time. It was fast but felt nothing like that 20b. The lag really sucked liked the non seq. By the way, the 20b I rode in was running the same sized turbo. The saying is true...there is no replacement for displacement!!!

Now in this 500+ category, I feel the only way to get the best of both worlds is to go the 20b route. You need the displacement for the bottom end. I still haven't driven my NA 20b yet so it will be really interesting to see how it compares to my previous experiences.

TRWeiss1

iTrader: (20)

Does 500RWHP make an FD more enjoyable to drive? Yes...yes it does. Does it make it a hell of a lot scarier? Indeed.

Beast From The East

Gordon and I have been around a loooong time and run with congruent standards. I do recall jumping back into a more stock FD many moons ago with the stock rear diff and stock rear mounts and was amazed at how smooth the car was....I'd forgotten just how smooth the power and ride was with those liquid filled bushings, left that scene a long time ago with nylon bushings and Kaaz rear end and once I got the track bug, I went off the deep end, losing any interest in having a fast street car because you really can't enjoy it (responsibly) on the steet, and it's boring. God intended fast driving on a track, not the street. Too many uncontrollable factors, along with legal issues.

A fast car on the street is like going to the strip club - you get to feel it a bit, see it a bit, but the experience isn't quite fulfilling 'cause you can't grab it with both hands and fully enjoy it.

But a fast track car actually ON the track is like the best sex you've ever had with the hottest women in the world. Fulfilling, and it leaves you spent at the end.

It's really hard to compare my car now to what it was like in the street, being gutted and caged and straight piped and no AC, etc. I love the noises, even for long durations, but I know they would drive most people bonkers as a street ride.

The driveablity of twins with mods in the 330 rwhp range was really enjoybable on the street. And as you get past that in power, if you don't have the sticky tires to control it, it goes from fun to dangerous.

I think that's the biggest thing - a set of R compounds is huge difference from a set of z rated street tires.....if you can't harness it, the power isn't enjoyable.

and yes, the front strut towers are also just spot welded and THAT is where the chassis begins to suffer, as Gordon mentioned, esp as you use aero and tires and swaybars to get the front end to plant. The stresses just go up by magnitudes vs. the stress you put on the car on the street. You don't drive 120mph through highly banked sweepers on the street, for 20 minutes, or 30, or 25 hours, and the Mazda engineers didn't take that into their design considerations for our cars.....nor should they have.

Wargasm

My FD clocks in somewhere over 400 rwhp. Been driving it at this power level for about 8(?) years or so.

I also have had a few other cars as daily drivers in this time:

2000 Honda S2000
2007 Honda S2000
2006 Lotus Exige

Those three cars are all slower than the FD (by a LOT) in a straight line but they are actually more fun in some ways to drive.

The reason is that I can drive them to 100% pretty easily even while cornering and braking. My FD is a real handful on the street and sometimes that is actually less fun.

I do agree that having a lot of HP on tap can be fun at times, but not always as much as you think.

Another thing to think about is this. Which car would you rather have:

350 rwhp FD that runs for 50k miles and never has any issues
450 rwhp FD that runs for 6k miles and then blows

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Never knew this. You got any links to threads showing where the improvements can be made?

NguyenRX7

My rx7 has 460rwhp on a gt35r and a freshly built motor, pump gas. I's say its a fun track and highway car, but for city/daily driving, I miss my 450awhp Evolution IX on stock turbo, with meth injected. X_X

TRWeiss1

iTrader: (20)

I couldn't possibly agree more. A good set of R compounds was one of the best investments I've made.

Also, to the individual posting about the low end of the 20B, that comes from the additional torque generated from a heavier rotating assembly. Of course I suppose it could be argued that the more displacement you have, the more mass your rotating assembly is going to have.