my question is how much g-foce should stock or modified rx7 pull on acceleration ?
any one know?

 

I think it's a hard question but maybe someone can answer it

 

are you talking about lateral g's? cause i think its .99, someone correct me if im wrong..

 

Well, using 0-60 in 5s, suggests this crude approximation:

60miles/hour * 5280ft/mile * 1hour/3600s = 88ft/s.

88ft/s * 1/5.0s = 17.6 ft/s². 17.6 / 32.2 = .547g's.

 

Close enough.

 

so he was talking about lateral g's right? yeah i know it was like in the high 90s, .98 for the supra, damn!

and yes, what happened to the posts? some recent post would be put in the past, that happened to me a couple of times in the lounge..

 

wellmaybe this guy wasn't clear, but I will be.

What does this car pull on the skid pad? Guy 2 above says .99

That's High. I'll be amazed if thats true.

 

And yes, I do have the power to travel backwards in time... be afraid. Be very afraid.

Oops, looks like they fixed it.

 

I'd suppose G's under braking would be the highest forces on the car.

 

That is the most bs list of stats I have ever seen.

 

Actually, I don't think he was talking lateral, I think he was talking G's from acceleration force. Like those stories you hear about the certain cars, where the driver can tape a 100$ bill to the dash and tell the passenger he can have it, if he can get it under full acceleration.

As to the skipad/lateral Gs stats, I honestly think they are a little low. 10 years of tire development tell me that those aren't as accurate as if you tested today with top notch tires.

 

Reasoning?

 

Wait a minute. Then wouldn't Supras hand Rx-7's their *** in any test of performance?

We knock supras, yet apparantly they out accelerate, out brake, and out handle the rx-7. I'm kinda confused.

 

The results didn't agree with his bias. That seems to happen a lot around here.

How about these test results?

 

Hahaha - an oldy but a goody. Nice repost Jim. But we all know the 7 will "get 'em in the twisties"

 

Those test results are kind of strange. Are the tests done to stock setups or "tuned" setups? I'm kind of confused on how a heavier car (Supra) with less favorable weight distribution can out perform the 7 in all the performance categories?

 

Bone stock.

More horsepower, wider tires, bigger brakes.

 

Low weight isn't the end-all-be-all determining factor in performance. More power, more torque, different gearing, wider tires, better suspension geometry and a host of other factors come together to determine the way a car performs.

I wish some of the not-so-educated on this forum could comprehend that.

A viper weighs more than an FD, so does a 911TT, hell - so does just about every other sports car in mass-production .... why is it nobody is suprised when an FD loses to a Viper or a 911TT... but freaks when it loses to a Supra? hmmmmm

 

was that the r1 tested? id be suprised if it was.

 

People... Supra's are no joke.. I owned a 94 TT. Bone stock they will out perform a 7 that is also stock. First of all there have 50 more horse power than a 7, and more torque. The supra also traps much higher than the 7. Also they cost more, when they were in production they stickered around 50k to 55k. When you pay more you will get more. Im not down talking the FD, as I sold the supra because I want an fd, they are by far more fun to drive, and no one can take that away from the 7!!!

 

Yep, there's no mistaking that rare competition yellow touring model...



Wow, both articles... imagine that.

 

The funniest part is that people still act like I pulled a rabbit out of a hat, but these articles have been available on Steve Cirian's web site for years.

http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/m...les/index.html

The sale price of my '94 Supra Turbo sport roof automatic was $41,900. My '95 PEP RX-7 was $37,500, with a $41,750 sticker...

 

LOL. Good post Jim. I have both those articles on my hard drive. A good read, everyone should read them.


For the record, these articles are from back in '93, and there weren't many "tuners" as there are today (at least it wasn't anywhere near as popular as it is today). The cars are all stock in those articles.

 

I laugh everytime Jim posts this ****. The die-hard FD fan's panties get all twisted and they claim somehow the tests were fixed.

 

having a higher skidpad rating doesnt always mean that the car handles better than another. the supra had a higher lateral g by .01 , but the FD could beat the supra on sharp corners because of its lightness and better weight distribution.