which year is best?
 

I've admired the 3rd generation RX7 for years, and now I'm finally going to start seriously looking for one.

So I have a whole bunch of questions for your guys. I've been trying to find a FAQ page but haven't found anything that answer all my questions.

First of all, I'm aware of the huge number of problems with '93 RX7's. Should I avoid these and look for a '94 or '95?

What does a very clean, low-mileage (i.e. 50K miles) RX7 go for? (I'm in California.)

What are the total costs for the following things:
1) engine rebuild
2) turbos
3) transmission

I plan on doing many track days with my car. What modifications will I need to make the car safe for track use. I understand that I need to upgrade the cooling system. How much will this cost? Do the brakes fade during track use?

When a rotary engine is rebuilt, are the rotors actually replaced? I'm just curious--don't know anything about rotary engines.

What other things should I consider before purchasing an RX7?

Thanks!

i havent had problems with my 93 ? :p: (saying that something will prob. happen now !)

best to get a rx7 which has already had the rebuild done on the car, i am not aware of the prices in the us for a rebuild but over here in the uk it is about +_$6000us, when engines a rebuilt usually rotor tips are replaced also rotor housing is cleaned numerous other things too.

for track use only you will prob. have to strip the interior sound deading ect. bigger brakes, exhaust, filters ecu...
list goes on really depends how far you want to go.

also being in cali i hear the laws are really tight out there emissions and stuff??




shaQ

Like most Japanese cars, the last of a series is often the best.

Thats why I have a series-8 (99-02) as they are a huge improvement over the series-6 (92-95)

Think about it, the 92 models are 12 years old now & really getting on.

Its not the engine thats iffy, there often rebuilt several times over by now. Its the interior bits that are breaking, the suspension parts creaking. You know what I'm saying.

Accellerated more as its a sports car that gets stressed out more than a boring old camry ever would

DMRH

do you of any good websites in auz for performance parts for a rx7? i know there are quite a few just wondring if you could recommend any? i know of horsepowerinabox.com

any others ?



thanks


shaQ

Re: which year is best?
 

There were 3 recalls for the '93s which should have already been performed. The only other main difference between the 93's and the 94-95s is the interior panels. The 93's had a coat over them that would chip over time. It's not a huge deal as most guys repaint their interior panels to something better:

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...hreadid=168938

DMRH, is correct that as the model gets older, the later years are typically better. However, you won't be getting anything over a '95 here in the states. The difference between the 93, 94 & 95's are almost next to nothing. Find whatever year car you can in the best condition.

Prices will vary. If an owner is not in a hurry to sell his car, he's going to hold a higer price and stick to it. If an owner is in debt and needs to get rid of his car, he's going to sell it for a lower price. It's really up to you. If you find someone selling a car and you think the price should be lower, it won't matter. Unless the seller thinks the price should be lower he's not going to lower it. The most important thing is condition of the car, not mileage. Someone can tear up a car in 10k miles or someone car really care for a car well for over 90k miles.

These things all vary on parts. The more damaged parts, the more expensive the rebuild. As a reference, you can use these figures:

1. Rebuild $3500 or a Remanufactured engine for $2000
2. Turbos new $3000 good standar rebuild $1000
3. Transmission from Mazda $2300

Yes, stock brakes will fade if you have a decent sized track. Running some upgraded pads will take care of that for most tracks. Read the following threads for other modifications for track use:

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...hreadid=136678

When the engine is rebuild, it depends on what damage has occured. Whatever is not within spec is replaced.

Your wallet. The parts for these cars can get to be expensive and you can't just run down to PepBoys when you need something.

DMRH, i have a 93 and granted, it would be nice to have a newer one just for peace of mind, but my car has none of those squeaks, creaks, rebuilds, nothing. interior is in great shape. its just a matter of how it was taken care of. i've seen 99 porsches in worse condition than my 93 FD

Re: which year is best?
 

Some of your answers can't be generalized, and the best way to find them is by searching this forum and reading through the discussions. For example, how much a paintjob costs (it's much more in CA)

Quote:

---

First of all, I'm aware of the huge number of problems with '93 RX7's. Should I avoid these and look for a '94 or '95?

---

There were 3 recalls, and a few nuisance issues in the 93s not present in 94s and 95s. In 94 they added a pass side airbag, 95 they flipped to new A/C refrigerant (r134a). The 94s and 95s are more valued, but mostly the maintenance of this car revolves around it being 10yo. Most of these owners are plenty happy with their 93s.

Quote:

---

What does a very clean, low-mileage (i.e. 50K miles) RX7 go for? (I'm in California.)

---

I'd expect asking prices around 18k if the condition is excellent, but you're in Cali where there are thousands of sports cars and the prices are a little lower. This sounds odd, but IMO the interior and exterior are the most important things to look for. They're hardest to replace and they indicate how well the car's been handled overall. The price depends how you shop - some people buy a cherry car off an old person for just under blue book value (and I'm jealous of those f**kers b/c I looked for my 94R2 for a long time and couldn't strike any kind of decent price for mine).

IMO, a 10yo track car shouldn't be the really sexy low mileage pristine one, and you may be better off buying a lightly modified higher mileage car and keeping some extra cash. Even the 50k car with a new engine will have maintenance a responsible owner can't ignore. Age is really beginning to outweigh mileage on these cars, so a well-cared for car with 80k, a fresh engine, and lots of replaced parts, etc. will probably run much better than the typical 50k stocker. Also, I expect an original engine at 50k will be close to the average rebuild time.

Quote:

---

What are the total costs for the following things:
1) engine rebuild
2) turbos
3) transmission

---

Are you doing any work yourself? 1st price is with labor, 2nd is I would estimate doing the install myself.

1) 3k-7k. 3k for a reman swap, $1500 for a rebuild (depends on the damage)
2) 2k-3k. $500-1000 for a set of stock turbos with low mileage. Most owners can't resist an upgrade and usually put in BNRs or a single turbo, and then the prices go up.
3) dunno, really, these transmissions are pretty solid. Original synchros can crack though, and thats $500+ worth of labor for $20 pieces. I've seen low mileage trannys for $500.

Quote:

---

I plan on doing many track days with my car. What modifications will I need to make the car safe for track use. I understand that I need to upgrade the cooling system. How much will this cost? Do the brakes fade during track use?

---

I'd estimate $2k for reliability mod parts $2k labor, and another $1.5k for a PFC aftermarket ECU (stock ECU isn't known for running glassy smooth).

The brakes fade depending on the track, of course. If you increase engine power then a big brake kit is a necessity. At stock power, it takes some pretty hefty track braking to get them soaked - so I'm told. (I only wish I could claim to have done that).

Quote:

---

When a rotary engine is rebuilt, are the rotors actually replaced? I'm just curious--don't know anything about rotary engines.

What other things should I consider before purchasing an RX7?

---

Rotors are reused when possible, and 'old' rotors generally perform as well as new rotors if they are completely within spec. A rebuild is basically 1) replacing all the seals and 2) replacing any hard parts that were damaged. Broken Apex seals are the worst since they are made of brittle steel that will chip/shatter/crack and scratch the housings, rotors, or turbos.

Suggestions:

1) Decide whether you're willing to work on it yourself. You will learn a tremendous amount about the car and it's very frustrating when you can't understand what the mechanics are telling you is broken, and why. It is possible to learn mechanic work on this car if you have good mechanical sense, patience, and are willing to buy sufficient tools and documentation as you go. You will still save $$ over having a garage do it, but time will be the tradeoff. This forum is full of folks who do this.

2) PM lleone about buying a modified RX-7 for road racing - he bought Barry Jaminet's car last year and took it right to the track. This car can be a frustrating choice for plug-and-play drivers.

Good luck. The information is out there, it will require some searching, surfing, and lots of reading.

Dave

I disagree 94s and 95s are much better overall quality than 93s in all departments. Interior, exterior and motorwise. Im not sure where everyone gets the idea that they are all the same if they were taken care of. They probably havent owned both years. Ask anyone that has experienced a 94 its a different car. Yeah you can repaint the panels get a new paint job and a rebuild and try to fix everything but its not the same as having it done well from the factory.

The interior sucks on 93s, the paint sucks, and also the engines blow at around 65k water seals fail where the 94s seem to last well over 100k consistently.

True, but the major exterior paint issues were supposedly only on the early 93s.

This is the first time I've heard of a difference in motor durability. It also doesn't matter much since a 50k car will either be rebuilt or getting close anyway.

Perhaps your idea is because the 94 owners were given more explicit instructions on how to not thrash it after Mazda was doing warrantied rebuilds all through 93.

It would help if you substantiated or explained this claim.

I agree.

SurgeMonster, unless you were the original owner for those cars then you can't really be sure the previous owner didn't cause the problems that you encountered.

Aside from the EGR and recalls, the engines are the same.

we should start a poll....perhaps mazda put in some better coolant seals in 94s

2002 Spirit R!
Okay I'll shut up now.

Better coolant seals? :rolleyes:

There was a coolant related recall for the 93's which was standard in the 94-95's.

you also have to realize that you really cant get a newer rx7 seeing that they were never legalized over here after 95. i have a 93 and have had almost everything replaced and it still runs really strong. But then again I have replaced almost ever stock part already.

PS: the reason I suggest PM'ing lleone is because he did what you're suggesting, and if it met his expectations. Barry's car was a well-set up car with plenty of replaced parts under the hood. I don't mean to suggest that Barry's car was questionable or that lleone had a bad experience - I honestly don't know how it turned out.

Dave

94-95 dual air bags

and 95 r134 AC, which I think is a VERY big deal.

There are a few reasons I prefer a 94-95 over a 93 (interior panels, gauge markings, lighter smaller ABS), but in the end, pick the car in the best condition.

I don't believe this to be true. Granted, what I'll say about 3rd gen. RX-7s is based on anecdotal proof, but all the 100K+ examples that I've read about and one that I know of personally (150K on the original engine) have been 1) mostly stock 2) very well cared for, and 3) never beat on, which seems to be a very small minority of all of the cars out there.

Hello-

The '93 paint problem was only for certain colors, not all of them. The Mazda factory made a special system to put an extra-thick coat of paint for some colors to make them look really nice, and those chipped. I did this research awhile ago, and I know for a FACT that Montego Blue is just fine - zero risk. There were two colors that were bad, and IIRC, they are red and silver... but I could be mistaken on that part.

The '93 interior panel "problem" really isn't a problem. IMHO, the '93 panels look SOOO much higher-end. They look and feel better and more expensive. However, they aren't very resilient to scratching! If you are just careful with them, they'll last just about forever. If you are rough with them (bang long fingernails and keys into them at bad angles all the time), they will die soon. The '94 and later ones are a hard plastic that, IMHO, looks much uglier than the '93 stuff.

Take care,
Shad

You guys all mentioned important things so far that tell the person why 94s are better and Ill add more....the glovebox is actually a real glovebox not a shitbox...all the panels even on tan interior are black. Some came with moonroofs, I noticed the inside of my door panels were packed with material much better, there are no creaks or sounds from the interior, and ive also noticed that 94s seem to have a higher stance and a tighter suspension. OH also it comes with fucking rims that dont crack!! I had a rim on my 93 where the spoke cracked all the way through for no reason I noticed it while washing the car and thought it was a little oil but it was a broken rim...not safe at 150mph or autocross

basically all the things that annoy you on the 93s that you guys have were fixed on the 94 and 95 models. Yes its a much better overall car. And yes you can make your 93 like that if you have the time money and patience to practically rebuild a car after 80k miles....

I meant to say the average FD at 50k is close to a rebuild. 100k+ cars are exceptions are that are noted after the car makes it 100k, not something you can reliably predict at 50k.

It is not reasonable IMO to try to 'limit' one's search to cherry original engines when there is no point. There are plenty of 50k cars with new engines and also 50k cars needing an engine which can be bought at a discount.

Dave

Hello-

It's all a matter of taste... I thought that having black door panels on a tan interior looked ugly. But, that's just a personal choice... IMHO the tan panels look higher end, too.

Adding insulation is easy if you want to.

Acutally, the '94-up suspension is WEAKER. This is simple fact... the '93 suspension was so stiff that customers complained and they weakened it the following year. If you like tight suspensions, get a '93. If you prefer a smoother ride and don't care for handling as much, get a '94-up.

Early '93's did have this problem. It's well-documented and easy to fix... just get 93.5-up rims :-). They are easy to pick out from pics on this forum.

See, I totally disagree. The only points that have been made that is truly cut-and-dry is that _early_ '93 cars have rims that can crack and some colors of paint chip easily. Everything else is a matter of personal preference...

For example, I prefer the rock-hard '93 suspension and the tan door panels with the coated interior panels. I like the way it looks better and like the stiffer springs. But, that's just my opinion... most of the people on this forum don't like tan much, and that's fine :-).

Take care,
Shad

The suspension was only harder on the R1. That is why they introduced a new model called the R2. The other models have the same suspension throughout the years.

What about the 5th gear synchro issue? BTW, new paint, transmission work, and new wheels are NOT inexpensive options.