Hi, i would like to know, what time is suppose to take to a stock R1 or R2 for 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile vs stock touring.

Thanks

 

they are the same in accerlation but the touring with no wings has a higher top end by about 3 mph.

 

The r1/r2 package was mostly suspension and cosmetic work from my understanding.

someone correct me if I am wrong please.

 

Other major addition was a second oil cooler. The oil coolers are located behind each of the small openings of the facia.

 

No the R1/R2 is not about cosmetics. The standard R1/R2 options are there for a reason. The R models are aimed at the weekend road racers. R stands for "race", and that's what you get, a race-ready Rx7.

Tire and Suspension upgrades--firmer Bilstein shocks, front strut brace (with cool "Rx7" logo--which everyone wants), Z-rated Expedia S-07 or P-Zero Asimmetrics (Touring/PEP/Base models got V-rated tires only).

Reliability aids--extra oil cooler, dedicated front brake ducts to keep the pads/rotors cool,

Aerodynamic aids--front air damn and rear spoiler to aid in high speed stability (the rear spoiler works very well through 160 mph sweepers!)

Equipment deletions for weight savings--cruise, sunroof, Bose Acoustiwave subwoofer, fog lamps, leather seats, CD player. The deletions yield an R1/R2 that weighs 2750 lbs, 50 lbs less than the Touring/PEP models.

No, no, there's nothing cosmetic on the R1/R2. The car is setup that way for a reason...

 

Why does everyone make a big deal about 0-60 and 1/4 times? Our cars are more than just straight-line dragsters! Get thee to a road racing circuit, and you'll see what I mean. There are very few cars that can run with our FDs out on the high speed twisty stuff!!

 

Acceleration is a large part of that equation or we'd all be in the Miata Forum.

 

You can pretty much option out any of the models to be like any of the other models, and its especially easy to option a base model to be like an R1/R2 model. The main things that would be difficult to change is removal of the rear wiper from a touring/PEP, and removal of the sound deadening material (does anyone even know exactly what the difference is in this respect?). CWR offers a 2nd oil cooler addon (which is the biggest improvement the R1/R2 offers, IMHO), and of course you could always get the f/r spoiler, seats, strut brace, and stiffer shocks. Removing the bose system and cruise control is pretty common too.

 

I know that 3rd gen have much more abilities than just the acceleration, but i think acceleration (1/4 mile) is a good base to compare sport cars. It's just to give an idea of which range is a car. The 1/4 mile time is a way to give the net power of a car. It's incredible to see a car that has 500 hp but if it has 2000 lbs more than a car that have just 200 hp, it's means nothing. On skidpad i know that FD are better than a lots of car. So i would like to have all the spec, and performance test result of a stock R1/R2 vs stock touring.

thanks

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was there not a factory option for the R1/R2 for a sunroof? I seem to recall having seen a few previously? Same with the cruise control.

 

Understood. My point is, there are other cars with 0-60 of 5 seconds or less, and with quarter miles times of 14 seconds or less, but can any of those cars handle the road course the way our FD Rx7 does?

 

In terms of acceleration, the differences are very negligible. Whether or not a car was made with a 'strong' engine or not makes a bigger difference. On paper, a base model would be the fastest since its the lightest of all and doesn't have any additional drag from the front spoiler(0.29 CD v. 0.31)

SleepR1: the rear wing has been well documented to provide NO benefit whatsoever and is completely for cosmetic reasons. It provides no addtl downforce even at 160+ mph since its too low and out of the airstream.

R1's weigh 2800 lbs and the '94 R2's got even heavier at 2816 lbs compared to 2862 for a '93 touring. If you believe in the 1/4 mile calculators, the weight difference would make a 0.05 second difference.

I'd also reiterate Nathan's comments. Plus, the R models got softer with each year . For instrance, a '94 R2 is comparable to a '93 touring but still stiffer than a '94 touring.

 

Ah...the beauty of...REAR wheel drive.

 

Sorry, I don't believe this one. My car's rear end felt absolutely planted while negotiating a sweeper at 160 mph. The car was drifting ever so slightly, and I had to to use both lanes of the interestate...more a function of tire stick (or lack of) than the lack of aerodynamics...I don't think I would have felt all the comfortable through a 160 mph sweeping turn driving a non-bewinged FD...

But if it IS True the stock wing has no benefit, then I'll tell my wife so I can upgrade to one of those "Fast and Furious" Veilside jobs

 

if you took that turn at 160 in a non spoiler'd FD,
it'd probly the same result.
Maybe the spoiler would give you a SLIGHT advantage
but i'm guessing it's not very noticeable.

Also i'm guessing the R1/2's suspension updgrades help a bit?

 

What you've described is called the "placebo effect" since you have no empirical data and only talk about how you 'feel' (which is irrelevent). Its still a proven fact even if you don't believe it. I suggest consulting "The Mazda RX-7: Mazda's Legendary Sports Car." for some of the published wind tunnel testing. Even Mazda itself admitted how that original wing produced no downforce

On the plus side it doesn't add any significant drag so it works well as a cosmetic piece.

 

Well, I'm glad you DIDN'T tell me that BEFORE I took a turn at 160 mph. I might have thought to myself, "hey, the rear wing doesn't really work...I'm going to crash!"

Since the rear wing doesn't work, and is merely cosmetic, I'll attribute my surviving a turn at 160 mph to my awesome driving skill, and huge cajones...

BTW, I have that Yamaguchi book. Give me the reference where it reads, that the rear wing doesn't work, and I'll back down. Otherwise, my feelings regarding the car's high speed handling with the R1 wing, WILL remain relevant to the discussion.

 

Ok, I found something in the "Aerodynamics" section...bottom of page 70 continuing to the top of page 71. I'll type the text here verbatim:

"The Rx7's low road-hugging stance and its low smoothly contoured and integrated body design were natural elements in achieving this goal. The basic shape was further refined with:

--a 3-dimensional compound curved windshield
--compound curved , flush door glass
--opimized rear deck height and contour
--"Aero-wave" roof
--front air dam
--flat underfloor and tray with "venturi" effect to reduce drag and lift
--aerodynamic rear view mirrors extended-mount arms
--a "floating" rear wing/spoiler that further reduces lift for maximum stability at high vehicle speeds at a slight increase in drag coefficient."

So it WAS NOT a "placebo effect" (as you put it). The Mazda engineers were trying to reduce rear end lift at high speeds WITHOUT significantly increasing the drag coefficient.

Based on my actual experience, I'd say they succeeded!

BTW, I'm a pharmacueutical scientist, so I do know something about "placebos". I'll give it to you in laymen's terms. During an efficacy clinical trial (usually blinded or double blinded), patients are broken down into to treatment groups. Usually those groups are high, mid, low dose, and control groups. The control group gets nothing, but the patient is kept from knowing this by taking a placebo. This is usually a sugar pill, or many times, the vehicle the drug is dissolved in (no drug, just filler).

My point is, when it comes to car performance though (not drug research), numbers (specs) only tell you part of the story. Just because the drag coefficient isn't much different (with or without the wing), DOESN'T mean the rear R1/R2 wing DOESN'T work!

 

i thought the R1/R2 came with a CD player, just not the BOSE system.

someone correct me if i am wrong.

 

That book has some errors in it.
While the 93r1 is great, I REALLY wish that I had a R2.
Probably the biggest reason is because of the redesigned front suspension on 94 models.
94's can get more camber AND caster which is important to me.
I wish I could figure out which part they changed(probably the spindle).
94's also have the black turbo ducting(we paint electric motors black at work and get a 10% reduction in running temps).
They also had "better" paint and "better" interior coatings.
My 93 is now retired from racing so I can turn it back into a street car.
What does everyone think of Bridgestone S-03's?
Just my $.02.
FM

 

Oh, now the book is wrong? Geez, guys (and gals). Give me a break! First someone posts that it's well documented the R1/R2 wing doesn't work,and that my feelings are "irrelevant". He cites a reference. I quote the reference that reads to the contrary, and now the reference is wrong because the book is wrong?

 

The CD player was available as an option (mine does not have one, I plan to use the hole for gauges). The R models didn't come with the player as standard equipment. It really doesn't make sense to have the CD player in an R1/R2 anyway. The suspension is so stiff, that the player would probably skip. (unless you have an aftermarket job equipped with a buffer memory).

 

Tell you what. You go out and try a 160 mph sweeper in a Touring/PEP WITHOUT a rear "floating" wing. If you live through it, post your experience.

 

wait, did you say "160 mph sweeper"? funny, I don't remeber seeing that in your other posts... oh wait... yes I did... (we get the point, already)

... and, in your placebo explanation, you should finish it out. -- by each of the patients thinking they've injested the same thing, psychological effects don't alter results during post-test patient comparisons. key word: "comparisons" ... seeing as how you made no comparison, you point is moot.

that's being said, you're probably right. Although, I'd be willing to bet that the amount of downforce generated by that wing in that position is proportional to the amount of drag it creates. Personally, I just think they look better - that alone, in my mind, justifies their existence.

 

I doubt any numbers but lap times would show the difference between the R models and the Touring models. You will FEEL a sigificant difference in the transient response of the car when driving, though, that would give a measureable difference on the AutoX course or road course. On a big flat skidpad, the dampers don't matter so the lateral grip numbers will be equivalent. The Touring cars feel heavier, even though it is just 50 lbs or so. Perhaps it is just that they are quieter. Personally, I prefer the base or R models because the cloth or suede-cloth seats hold you better than the leather from the Touring models.


Reposted from Steve Cirian's site (originally written by Trey Cobb):

Here's some data for everyone on the 3rd gen. This data is out of 'Race Car Aerodynamics' by Joseph Katz on page 18.

Aerodynamic Coefficients of (1993-)1995 Mazda RX-7

Baseline RX-7 RX-7 R2(R1)
Cd, drag coeff. 0.29 0.31
Clf, lift coeff FRONT 0.16 0.10
Clf, lift coeff REAR 0.08 0.08


So, the front spoiler appears to work, but not the rear. It is doubtful, but perhaps they work together to simply reduce front lift.

-Max