I'm gonna go on his word for now. But I would like to see the time slip, or a video........video would be better as I love watching it. But I still believe him.......wait I think I contradicted myself!

 

i have not taken it to the track im still in the process of getting it through inspection, but yanni, the previous owner, does have the sheets and slips.

Quote:

Oh, and anything higher than 10.0 and lower than 11.0 qualifies as "running a 10 second pass" last time I checked.

yeah it does doesnt it, technically... but if the best my car could do is a borderline time, i wouldnt call it something that would make it sound almost a second faster, but thats just me.

wow you are so cool... i dont even know what i did wrong. your acting like i get hp from stickers or something. some people need to relax a bit and stop being so antagonizing and condescending. maybe my alias makes doing that easier?

edit: almost feels like a newsgroup sometimes...

 

Did you not see the link to the video that is posted on the first page of this thread?

 

im not say its not possible but i was telling somebody about it they said noway! i think its realy possible but im tring to prove to my friend that its possible and people are agreeing with me, so no harm intended and i do congrat him on his run. not trying to start a war between 2rd gens and 3rd gens just a poll

 

Well, instead of potentially insulting people who have been putting hard work into doing what it is you want to know, how about coming over here and doing a search?

Or, if you don't like searching, then how about ASKING instead of starting a poll that looks a little bit like an accusation?

 

Exactly. If you run a 10.999 or better you need a roll cage. So a thousandth of a second qualifies for that, why wouldn't that be considered a 10 second pass?

Take my first timeslip for example, it was a 13.000. Following your logic, since it's sooo close to 12's, would I call it a 12 second pass? No. It's still only 1 smallest unit of measure off, just like the above example.

EDIT: This isn't directed at you, Goodfella.

 

It's a lot different when your the driver....I wouldn't go around claiming how fast my car is without having the experience to back it up...

 

His R/T is off but what a launch; that car hunkered down and did it. Amazing. I didn't think stock twins could support that.

 

The guy ran a 10, there's no BS about it! He has the hp to get it there and he's a great driver.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know he's capable of it.

A 10.999999 is a 10 second run and will require a 6 point cage.

 

i agree with u guys 100% about it be possible, alot of it has to do with driver,why do u think i told my friend it is possible to run 10 or 11s et on twins but not every body is a beleiver,ive showed people video of people going down the track and ive had people say the tape was alterded. i tell them whatever its right there in front of you. I think people are just jeolous or are haters so my thing is **** em! keep up the fast times

 

While I generally agree that the majority of second gen owners are kids who lack any amount of detailed knowledge, this:
just cracks me up.
I find it funny to call the second gen's junk when comparing the reliability and longevity averages of a stock TII against a stock FD. I define junk as that of which lacks reliability from either poor engineering or over-engineering, and the FD seems to have that in abundance over the FC.

 

second gens are great cars for high school chicks.


lol

 

Man oh man you are coming out swinging !

Just for the record, I happen to like 2nd gens. Especially bridgeported convertibles

 

now thats some funny **** about sec gens because im sure that 3rd gens are known to blow more engines than sec gens, sec gens are just as relieable than 3gens, dont get me wrong there are lot of young kids that buy them because they find them cheap, don't put all 2 gen owners in the same group because there are alot of third gen owners that are just the same. oh one more thing, there are not as many third gens that hit 100k before replacing engines.

 

the second gen with the v8 conversion at sevenstock two years ago was cool.

lol

j

ok ok...Im only joking about second gens...I actually nearly purchased one back in college. they are fun cars.

 

Of course it was a generalization, a grouping of comments based on fact that applies to the average. You can never state anything about anyone that applies to EVERY individual (to quote the cliche, "There is an exception to every rule." would be appropriate.), but I stand fast that my above comments were generally factual to the majority. This is the reasoning behind why I stated "the MAJORITY of second gen owners"
in my original post and not "ALL second gen owners".

To reiterate:
-The majority of second gen owners lack any large degree of knowledge about their cars, mostly due to their tendency towards being teenagers. I am a second gen owner (several of them). While I don't tend to think I suffer from the level of rotary nescience my FC3 comrades do, I am aware of the general lack of knowledge they present.
-FD3 owners are generally more knowledgable. This is mostly due to the fact that the FD3 is so unreliable; you have to be a hardcore enthusiast to keep the things running. They are cars for the educated, and any level of ignorance leads to catastrophic damage to the engine.
-The FC in stock form is well known to be more reliable and less prone to severe engine failure than the FD. Thus, calling the second gens junk is hardly a fair call from a 3rd gen owner.

 

Well then I am one ugly HS girl that must have been held back a few years

I wouldn't poke too much fun... second gens are the only series of RX-7 that were available as sports cars from the factory (as only second gens were available as convertibles).

 

well said

 

Say again, over

Perhaps you mean 'roadster'......

 

i have owned both a TII and now a FD...and i would love to own another TII...to go along with my FD....they are apples and oranges....(but with a similar core)...lol...i love them both and one cannot replace the other.....

 

I am pretty sure that one of the mane reasons behind FD blowing up before FC is that our boost comes on line at a lot lower rpm then yours thus putting more stress on the engine a lot sooner and over time it leads to our early engine failure.

 

no if u read up on both cars, mazda put richer maps in the fc because they were worried of engine failure,the fd had a leaner map put in it to make more horse power.thats why fd's blow up engines sooner than fc. then you get SOME fd owners that put down pipes, intake,and test pipes and dont ad any fuel or power fc and then they run realy lean. thats why they blow up more offen than fc. don't get me wrong fc blow up to if mods are done without adding fuel. but i was speaking for 2 stock rx7 one being a fc and the other being a fd.

 

and if you read up I told you that it was one of the reasons not the only reason...

 

Uh, no. I sincerely doubt the FC runs a richer fuel map, considering that the FD runs below 10:1 from 4500rpm up, even with a few airflow mods.

The most common failure of non-modded FDs is coolant seals, not broken apex seals. The coolant seal failure is due to both the extreme heat generated by the twin-turbo set-up and the inadequate cooling system.

In any case, I haven't seen too many Turbo IIs make it past 150k miles on their original engine, so they aren't that much more reliable than FD motors and make a lot less power.

 

I must have missed the "This is not a sports car" disclaimer on my FD