RX2 or RX3
 

I am looking for a clean rx2 or rx3 in California. I have the cash so please leave your information if interested.

There's been a few on ebay recently, but didn't find any right now in cali. Just check Often.

Where is Socal are you located? I'm in Torrance.

Welcome to the forums, check out the west section and http://www.socal7s.org for club events.

Info on next weekend's event: http://www.socal7s.org/calendar_details.aspx?id=80

Good luck on your car search.

rx2s are so much better>) i am very partial to them. I had a pretty nice one but its sold now and of course i am in oregon.they always come up for sale though, just hold onto your cash and pounce at the first car you find.

RX-3s are more common and typically seen as more sporty. They also were available as a wagon. I personally like the 2s, but I'd have bought a 3 if I'd found one first. The RX-3 is a little heavier, though.

how do you think they compare in term of performance with equal engine power and suspension?

thanks for all the info - i'll keep my eyes open. i'm in Burbank so if any of you find something good please leave their information.

Than what..!!

good luck finding one.. i have been searching all over the place..even checked out a couple.. price are always high.. I like the 3 better.. for style..

The RX-3 is documented to weigh 500lbs less than an RX-2 FYI

really? how much do both cars weigh stock?

my rx2 weighs in at 2200lbs i find it hard to believe that the rx3 is 1700lbs.
matt

I am partial to to the rx2 being my frist car but from what i understand the rx3
had a better wheel base or something that made it handle better then the rx2
matt

i think it was a little bit shorter wheel base. and it might be a little bit wider?
is that correct?

the plate on the inner door jam of my RX-3SP says 3055 lbs. Now I was told that was with passengers and everything(told to me by 13brx3). And frim looking at a duece and a tre. the 3 "looks" to have a little wider stance looking from the front back.But as far as the actual wheelbase I dunno!?!?

I'd take the 2 over the 3. The 2 is smaller and honestly it cant way that much( Story Time) One day a long long time ago i had just finished putting my 2 back together working all night and all morning to finish her right before a battle of the imports in sac. Well I thought I got everything back together sleep depravation ya know well about 50 miles up the road we stoped for some breakfast, well upon leaving my car started making a funny noice kind of a clunk clunk that I noticed right as I was getting on the freeway, well sure enough as soon as I got to about 60 mph boom rear wheel falls off, luckily I had just lowered the rear so the car fell onto the wheel and traped it in the wheel well. Well now pulled over scared as hell realizing I almost just hurt my 2, forget my life lol had to think of something quick... no jack... freinds running accross the freeway trying to find lug nuts... no jack... fuck it lets just pick it up. Me and one other of my freinds grabbed the back bumper and picked up the car while my other friend put the wheel back on! Now mind you picking up the back of the car is one thing but you got to understand we did it by the bumper whick is only attatched to the car in two spots with only eight bolts. It was light enough to not ever stress at the two points where it was connected. Anyways made it to sac ran a 14 flat with noooo traction at all i mean getting sideways in third no traction with like 2.7 60ft. Motor was a 13b (6 port) running like shit. One other pluss is the 2 has a four link rear suspenion which is way better then the leaf springs in the back or the 3.

^^^that was one long sentence

rx2?
 

sorry but the rx3 is alot better than the 2..in my opinion,and yes the 3 is lighter,also why most events from back in the day the rx3 was used,alot more than the 2..rx3s handle wayyy better than the 2..but if ur talkin weight go with the r100

Great story. and good point about the 4 link kinda advanced for a Mazda at the time. Matt22

really it just matters what ou are trying to do. If you want to drag race go with the 2 youll get a lot more out of the suspension. If you wnat to autocross I guess if it handles better go with the 3 thats what you want. But all in all the 2 and 3 both have there ups and downs. It all comes down to your own taste. I personally think the front of the 3 is hidious. I am happy with my 2 and i see the potential it has in not only being fun but looking good. Its come a long way since sitting in my granpas orchard in 4 inches of dirt and 20 years of sitting.

I've read in Mazda RX history books that one of the main reasons they chose the RX-3 over the RX-2 for the SP was the 500lb weight difference. In Puerto Rico that is another reason why the RX-3 is popular over the 2.

The front end of the RX3 is a work of art :)

:bowdown: RX3

Is there really a 500 lb. difference? I thought it was more like 50-100. Mike

RX3 (1973):
1808 lb's (820kg)
Wheel base 90.9 inches (231cm)
Front track 51.2 inches (130cm)
Rear track 50.8 inches (129cm)

I think that they put on weight later in life.

RX2:
Overweight, narrow wheel base and not as good around corners :)

Nothing wrong with leaf springs with some fine tuning.

This is what I found on AusRotary (and Spac, the author, knows his stuff):


RX-2s handle badly. Short of MAJOR re-fabrication, they will always handle badly, and all you can do is minimise their evilness.
They can be made tolerable for a moderately powered, sensibly driven road car, but don't kid yourself that they can "handle well" when compared to most other cars made since 1970.

Among the rally guys, RX-2s have a universally accepted reputation for being evil, dangerous pigs of things - stories abound about RX-2s being dragged out of the forest in box trailers, guys driving less than 2kms before destroying thier new RX-2 rally car, etc etc.
Almost every rally story that starts "The worst crash I ever saw..." involves an RX-2.
And their total unpopularity among the IPRA guys says something...
In fact, about the only circuit guys that o near RX-2s are the Nc Historic guys - because they're the only rotary that is definitely eligible, and they have more grunt than the 10A R100s.


I've detailled most of this previously, and searching should reveal it, but simply put:

1. The rear suspension is awful. I know lots of people are now screaming, spluttering "But, but, it's got coils!" - no matter, the geometry is badly flawed and there is a reason why Mazda went back to leaves for the RX-3 and RX-4.

2. The front end is very flexy, due to small diameter strut bodies, flexy strut towers and (more importantly) the shitty pin-type cross-member.
The Capella type x-mem is far better.

3. The wheel-base:track ratio is shitty. I've mentioned this in the past, and I over-stated its importance, but it does matter. The simple version is that (in very broad terms) the closer the ratio is to 1.6:1*, the better it will handle. The RX-7s are all around 1.6:1, for example. In the RWD Mazdas, if you list them in order of WB:T, you also end up with a list that's in order of how well the cars handle.
RX-2s are last on the list.

4. The track is narrow, relative to the width of the body. This means that (comparatively) a lot of the car's weight is carried outboard of the wheels, meaning that it is more prone to body roll for any given cornering force.
This body roll then screws up the geometry, and makes the wheels do 'not cool' things, and then the car handles badly.

5. The whole bodyshell is flexy. All of the old Mazdas suffer from it, but the RX-2s are worse than the later cars (with the possible exception of RX-4/929 oupes, but I'm reserving judgement until I've been in more of them), particularly in the chassis rails in the engine bay.

6. The panhard rod is too short, so the diff swings in an arc as the rear suspension travel is used. Simply lengthening the panhard rod helps significantly, but it also raises the rear roll centre, which is not so good...



The general improvements should be pretty obvious, but unless you've got the skillz and confidence to design and build a better rear end, it will alsways be the limiting factor.


*1.6:1 is not nessaccarly the perfect ratio, but it's as close to 1:1 that I've seen in a production car.
It is also worth mentioning that the "Track" measurement is not strictly the corrent term in this context - if your tyres were rock solid in the sidewalls, then you'd be actually use the measurement from the outside edge of each tyre to the outside edge of the other tyre. Realtiy is somewhere between this measurement and the true track measurement.

rx2 coupe
weight 2265 lbs
Wheel base 97 inches
Front track 51 inches
Rear track 51 inches
stop from 60mph 158'
ground clearance 6"
height 55"
overall lengh 163"
overall width 62"

matt