speedy41

You must wake up every morning wondering if today is the day you explode. Do you see wafts of blue smoke behind your car? At 17/18 pounds of boost the stock twins are WAY out of their efficiency range anyways. The air would be so hot that making good numbers would be almost impossible.

360 to the wheels on stock turbo's is a riskier proposition than I would be willing to endure unless I had an unlimited budget.

We are talking about a STOCK Z06 (with warranty) against a heavily modded rx-7 after all.

BTW, showing me an article that is 14 years old just proves the rx-7 was an excellent roadrace car 14 years ago.

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

Yes they are out of their efficiency range but they still make great power. They don't smoke and they run great.

The air is about ~5 degrees hotter than 14 psi is according to my intake sensor.

Well that's because you don't know much about the cars. There are 6 of us around here that have run 360 plus for YEARS without any problems.

We are talking about a bolt-ons on a 13 year old car vs a 4 year old car.

The RX-7 was a great road race car 14 years ago and still is. Is a Ferrari F-40 not a good road race car? The RX-7 has a 50/50 balance, 2700 lbs and had a 1.01 G rating on the old tires made 14 years ago.

speedy41

The RX-7 was a great road race car 14 years ago and still is. Is a Ferrari F-40 not a good road race car? The RX-7 has a 50/50 balance, 2700 lbs and had a 1.01 G rating on the old tires made 14 years ago.[/QUOTE]

I have never seen 1.01 published anywhere, and I have read virtually every north american publication on the FD. The best R1 skidpad rating I have ever seen is .98, and most I have seen are around .94. Unfortunately, the R1's suspension was so stiff that it can hardly even be tolerated for daily driving duties. The Z06 is at home on the track or the street.

I do agree that the Z06 tires are probably better than the stock rx-7 tires, but not by a significant margin.

The Z06 has a 51/49 weight balance (the tranny is in the rear of the car). 2700lbs is a pretty low number for the FD weight, they weigh more than 2800lbs stock. That is only 300 pounds different than the Z06.

I have driven both cars (although I have only driven an FD twice for about 20 miles each time). They are both excellent cars. I own a Z06 now, and one day I will own an FD. At that point in time, my life will be complete

TT_Rex_7

Where's Jim when ya need him!

-Alex

Improved FD

the corner speeds are closer than you might think

and the bike, in the hands of a capable rider, always turns better lap times....this has been proven over and over again (I'm talking about heavier street cars like the vette, not talking ultralight "street cars" like the Atom)

Improved FD

http://www.sportbikes.net/forums/sho...tty+cool+turbo

TT_Rex_7

Have you bumped your ******* head or something!?

The R1 is just fine for daily driving. You're the first that I've ever heard/seen say that the R1 can hardly be tolerated for DD.

Your kidding right? It's been a while since I've had stock tires, but I'm almost 100% sure the 7 came stock with 225's. I'd say the tires on a Z06 are FAR better than the ones that came stock on the 7.

So you've driven an FD for ~ a total of 40 miles, but you come here trying to say the R1 is hardly tolerated for DD, and things the FD arn't capable of?! Just about everyone that has posted in this thread have had their FD's for YEARS, and know exactly what they're capable of, and how they drive!

-Alex

Improved FD

take it easy on ol speedy, he's a nice noob

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

Just for you...

http://swvrscca.org/forums/viewtopic...5b5bc2d708f305

3rd Bill Gammon
Rx7
Bridgestone RE71 street tires (7 years old)
9.387 seconds
1.04g

http://www.fd3s.net/magazine_article...article02.html

Read the lap times and the g load... "Nearly 1.2 G"

There is a big difference between 1993 tires and 2002-2006 tires.

Kevin T. Wyum

speedy41 you haven't a clue what you're talking about and apparently know next to nothing about outside of what you've read in a few magazines. The warranty statement is retarded. You could buy 5 RX7's that would compete well against a new vette for the price of one with a warranty. The corvette's are nice cars but they aren't purpose built cars like the 3rd gen was. The fact that you actually have to debate which is better when one is 14 years old says a whole lot for the RX7. How many people were debating about how a 78 vette with a few bolt ons would compare to a 3rd gen on a road race course in 92 or 93?
For $90k you could build a 3rd gen that would clean the clock of a C6 Zo6 in every respect and be every bit as reliable. Last time I checked consumer reports Chevy wasn't so hot on reliability so I wouldn't open my mouth about it too much. After all it is just a Chevy.

In fact I just went and looked it up on consumer reports and it lists the 05 corvette as "much worse than average" for new car reliability. Woohoo. Not that the Rx7 is any better, but nobody bragged about how reliable the RX7 is. Here's a snippet of what they had to say, "Performance is impressive. The ride is comfortable, and handling is capable, though less agile than other sports cars, mostly due to very light steering."

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Some of you guys keep spouting off about rwhp figures as if that's the only thing that matters. Unless you have a CVT (continuously variable transmission) rwhp numbers are pointless. All that is showing is max power. I would love to see (but seriously doubt) some of you guys be able to keep your engine in it's max power range to make your best acceleration. In the end that's what matters and how you win races. There's a lot more to it than max power. In the end it's the engine that's going to give you the most hp/torque throughout the entire rpm range. This is exactly why peaky engines aren't that fast on the street/strip unless you are able to keep the engine in the meat of it's power band.

bheiman

How are they useless. Usually engines dont go from minimal hp to peak hp in a short amount of time.
Maybe with improper tuning and driving, but all cars have a powerband to use. The only vehicle that soley matters on rwhp is a cvt vehicle.

thats why i was impressed with my rx7 when i first had it dynoed.
I was at 200+ ft lbs of torque from 3000k-nearly 7000k rpms. and at 200 whp + from 5-8100 rpms I peaked at 220 ft lbs. and 250 hp with not much and a stock ecu.
I think the powerbands are quite good on the rx7. Its got a pretty fair amount ov lower end torque and awesome high end hp.

matty

thats bs. i have been runnin 15psi for 3 yrs now.


anyways...the only thing that fustrates me is that theses guys or ay big v8 can go out and buy a shot for cheap!!! We need to go single and have one serious tune to keep up at that point!

additionally Speedy..let me give you alittle advice. I have learned the hard way thats its best not to argue with Mr rx7tt when it comes to the performance of the rx7. He has been around for quite some time and doesnt believe alot of the heresy we all read about on this forum about safe boost levels, fuel requirements, power output, etc. Why? b/c he has done the opposite and it has worked for a long time.

ehos

And the truth finally comes about. You said you were a FD lover, but you don't even own one? Come on.

All your info seems to come from reading posts on forums and magazines. Where did you buy your Z06 in Kelowna? What was the sticker price? (Don't want to throw the bullshit flag on you owning a Z06, but it's close...)

I'm not even going to make comment on things like your absurd tire comparisons (the FD has 225's, do you even know the tire size on the Z06??). Monsters.

You can afford a Z06, but not a FD? Hmm.