Hey guys, I read in another thread (can't remember which one) that said that fb's pull harder (or as hard) as the fc's. I haven't really pushed my fb, in fact i've only driven it once (very illegally) from my friends house to my house after i bought it from him. I also have a base 87 2+2 n/a. I now have an 84 gsl-se and was wondering if, once I get it running well, will it accelerate or pull as hard as my fc did? my fc probably had pretty poor compression since it had 210,000 miles on it, and my fb has 95,000 miles. Just curious and am getting ancy cause I'll have my fb on the road next week!

 

Most likely yes.

FC's are pig-heavy and they have taller gears. It more than negates the power advantage.

 

sweet

 

well betwen the gsse and the FC the SE will pull harder that a FC even that they have 10 HP more but they are 150 pounds heavier and the tires are much taller that the FB not the gears, the gears are almost the same.

 

The tires are part of the gearing...

My little mostly stock 12A was pulling away from mostly stock FC on the on-ramp... and we were dead even at the dragstrip a couple weeks later. (Only mods to the FC were a Super-AFC which made a *HUUUGE* difference in power, FCs run pig-rich over 3800rpm!) My car has since dropped 5 tenths with no major changes except different driving. His car is now parted out and mostly lying under a tarp in someone else's backyard, which is the moral of the story: 1st-gens rule.

 

hm... as far as the tires being taller, the overall diamater (14" stock wheels on the 87) is 24". On my 15" stock wheels for the 84, it is 23". Is that one inch what you meant by "taller"?.

Also, I will be putting 16's onto the 84. The tire size I was thinking is 205/40's. Will these rims/tires slow me down considerably?

 

Harder then a 86-88 sure but my 84 didnt pull as hard as my 89 until I did a bunch of work to it.
89 only has an SAFC

 

v8kilr, was your 84 a gsl-se, as most of the web pages i've found with stats say that the -se is considerably faster than all the other 1st gens. Also, what trim level was the 89 (just out of curiosity, i'm not trying to argue)?

on a side note, I mainly wanted to see if my 84 was faster than my 87... cause I LOVE going for joy rides... and scaring the passengers in my car. I swear I need to reinforce the door grips (or maybe put in a bar like roller coasters have)

after the joy rides, that's when i feel truly blessed for having such an awesome car (keep in mind this is all with my 87) people were always like "man, i didn't know they made cars that good that long ago" ...morons

 

well the 89-91s I believe were givin a 10% more horsepower or something like that I read it somewhere.

 

stock for stock (12A or 13B) it's a hard call ... in terms of hard acceleration/pull, the Gen I (to me) always "felt" faster though, even if it wasn't.

 

89 is a GTU, basically no extras, so its pretty light weight.
The motor has around 85k on it so its still peppy as ****.
I also sent the injectors off to have them cleaned and balanced, and all new intake manifold gaskets etc...

other then that and the SAFC its pretty much stock.

I also didnt know we where talking about an SE vs. a 2nd gen, I thought it was just 1st vs. 2nd NA.


And dont get me wrong, im not cheering on the NA 2nd gens, I know my 84 with all se upgrades plus a ton more would kill the 89 on a track or auto x any day of the week.
The 84 ride 90 degree corners like its on rails, I fell 100% confident in taking turns 20 -50 mph faster then I would ever dare in the 89.

Also remember my 89 is a GTU which is lighter but the GXL came with alot of the same equipment at the turbo II (shocks, springs, bigger rotors, bigger calipers, etc...) which means it would handle alot better on the track.


but 1/4 mile the 84 would get smoked.
Maybe after all these upgrades ( about 1.5 yrs now since last time I drove the 84) it will beat the 89?

 

thx v8kilr for the info!

I'll let you guys know how i feel about the difference between my se and my 87 base next week!

 

Gsl-se has a 1/4mile of 15.9 factory and an accel 0-60mph in 7.8sec.

"1984 Mazda RX-7 GSL-SE 7.8 15.9"

Second gen fc's were 16.7

"1990 Mazda RX-7 GTU 8.6 16.7"

Kinda sad for an rx7

 

****** sad if you ask me.. I like T2's MOSTLY because of the engine... they really didnt improve ANYTHING else upon the GSL-SE's. (IMO) a modded T2 into a very clean SE with modernized interior, all new suspension, etc etc, would be my Ultimate budget NEW car. FB's ****** rule guys

 

These are the figures I found for a stock 1st gen

1/4 mile
non-se 17 - 18 secs/80 - 83 mph
se 16 - 17 secs/84 - 85 mph


As published by motor trend magazine

 

BTW S5 GTU was closer to 15.7 not 16.7

 

Actually I just found them here they are for you


1st gen ET 1/4 mile
79-85 12a average ET 17.1
84-85 13b average ET 16.2
as tested car & driver feb. 1984 GSL-SE ET 16.06 sec @ 85.1 mph


2nd gen ET 1/4 mile
Average S4 ET 16.2
Average S5 non TII ET 15.7
Average S5 TII ET 14.9


Here are some interesting figures I was able to dig up

1st gen 0 - 60
79-85 9-10 (varies with engine/trans)
84-85 8- 9 average 8.2



2nd gen 0 - 60
1986 5-speed 7.8
1986 5-speed Sport 7.8
1987 5-speed NA 8.0
1987 5-speed Sport 8.0
1987-88 Turbo II 6.7
1988 5-speed 8.1 24.5
1988 5-speed Conv. 8.9
1989 GTUs 7.4
1989-91 5-speed NA 7.6
1989-91 Turbo II 6.5
1989-91 5-speed Conv. 8.7



All Stock

Heres some more info on the 1st and 2nd gens


year-engine-hp-torque-compression ratio-weight
1979-1980 - 12a - 100@6000 - 105@4000 - 9.4 - 2350
1981-1985 - 12a - 101@6000 - 107@4000 - 9.4 - 2450
1984-1985 - 13b - 135@6000 - 133@2750 - 9.4 - 2512





year-engine-hp-torque-compression ratio-weight
1986-1988 - 13B - 146@6500 - 138@3500 - 9.4 - 2625-2750
1987-1988 - 13BT - 182@6500 - 183@3500 - 8.5 - 2850
1989-1991 - 13B - 160@7000 - 140@4000 - 9.8 - 2725-2857
1989-1991 - 13BT - 200@6500 - 196@3500 - 9.0 - 2987




Theres some food for thought

 

wow, great post!

*adds to favorites*

 

Weren't the 89-91s equipped with lighter rotors and had a redline of 8k?

Thought I read that somewhere in the past....

Possibly the best rotary ever built??

 

i just traded my fc for a gsl-se and it seems like the fc pulled harder

 

Yes, you are correct. The S5 engines had lightweight rotors and could rev to 8000 rpm from the factory. IMO, all FC engines are the best rotaries ever built. They have major potential compared to past ones. My dream is to put a S5 TII engine in my 82, if not a TII, then a S5 NA engine. Probably cheapest bang for your buck, since you can get a fairly good S4 or S5 engine for under $500.

 

I am in the middle of a 86 13b swap into an 85 gs..should be fun.

 

Somewhere i read that the best engine NA's,, is a 1991
13b to drop into a 1st gen

 

Thanks Mark. I haven't researched it fully yet, but I would really love to put a S5 engine in my car. IMO, they are superior to lots of the earlier rotaries. They were the first to make an 8000 rpm redline, make more hp/l than any other rotary (in NA form, besides renesis), and just an overall great engine. I want to go with FI because I'm just plain fed up with carbs. I understand them, but they are just too problem prone for me, especially with me going into college.

 

The biggest problem isnt the carbs its the age of the carbs.

If we could just buy brand new nikki carbs and bolt them on im sure it solve a ton of our problems, but since we cant I'm gonna have to point the finger over at Sterling.


I do hear you though, I always have this huge fear of going to a girls house, or somewhere that theirs alot of people and what do you know , the rx7 wont start or who knows what else

never had that fear while driving my 89