which year is best?
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: santa monica, california
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
#2
Full Member
i havent had problems with my 93 ? (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
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
#3
Senior Member
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
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
#4
Full Member
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
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
#5
Mr. Links
iTrader: (1)
Re: which year is best?
Originally posted by kdm_usa
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?
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?
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.
Originally posted by kdm_usa
What does a very clean, low-mileage (i.e. 50K miles) RX7 go for? (I'm in California.)
What does a very clean, low-mileage (i.e. 50K miles) RX7 go for? (I'm in California.)
Originally posted by kdm_usa
What are the total costs for the following things:
1) engine rebuild
2) turbos
3) transmission
What are the total costs for the following things:
1) engine rebuild
2) turbos
3) transmission
1. Rebuild $3500 or a Remanufactured engine for $2000
2. Turbos new $3000 good standar rebuild $1000
3. Transmission from Mazda $2300
Originally posted by kdm_usa
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 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?
https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...hreadid=136678
Originally posted by kdm_usa
When a rotary engine is rebuilt, are the rotors actually replaced? I'm just curious--don't know anything about rotary engines.
When a rotary engine is rebuilt, are the rotors actually replaced? I'm just curious--don't know anything about rotary engines.
Originally posted by kdm_usa
What other things should I consider before purchasing an RX7?
What other things should I consider before purchasing an RX7?
#6
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
#7
Moderator
iTrader: (7)
Re: which year is best?
Originally posted by kdm_usa
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.
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.)
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.
What are the total costs for the following things:
1) engine rebuild
2) turbos
3) transmission
1) engine rebuild
2) turbos
3) transmission
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.
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?
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).
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?
What other things should I consider before purchasing an RX7?
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
Last edited by dgeesaman; 02-17-04 at 07:54 AM.
Trending Topics
#8
Tony Stewart Killer.
iTrader: (12)
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.
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.
#9
Moderator
iTrader: (7)
Originally posted by SurgeMonster
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,
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,
Originally posted by SurgeMonster
and also the engines blow at around 65k water seals fail where the 94s seem to last well over 100k consistently.
and also the engines blow at around 65k water seals fail where the 94s seem to last well over 100k consistently.
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.
#10
Mr. Links
iTrader: (1)
Originally posted by dgeesaman
It would help if you substantiated or explained this claim.
It would help if you substantiated or explained this claim.
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.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#15
Moderator
iTrader: (7)
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
Dave
#19
Power Trippin'
iTrader: (4)
Originally posted by dgeesaman
It also doesn't matter much since a 50k car will either be rebuilt or getting close anyway.
It also doesn't matter much since a 50k car will either be rebuilt or getting close anyway.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
#21
Tony Stewart Killer.
iTrader: (12)
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 ******* 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....
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....
#22
Moderator
iTrader: (7)
Originally posted by SpeedKing
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.
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.
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
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Originally posted by SurgeMonster
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.
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.
Originally posted by SurgeMonster
Some came with moonroofs, I noticed the inside of my door panels were packed with material much better,
Some came with moonroofs, I noticed the inside of my door panels were packed with material much better,
Originally posted by SurgeMonster
here are no creaks or sounds from the interior, and ive also noticed that 94s seem to have a higher stance and a tighter suspension.
here are no creaks or sounds from the interior, and ive also noticed that 94s seem to have a higher stance and a tighter suspension.
Originally posted by SurgeMonster
OH also it comes with ******* 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
OH also it comes with ******* 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
Originally posted by SurgeMonster
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....
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....
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
#25
Power Trippin'
iTrader: (4)
Originally posted by Shad Laws
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.
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.