Jaiyurai

iTrader: (30)

0-60 S4 TurboII was ~6.7 seconds
0-60 S5 GTUs was ~8.1 seconds

Sure, the time may vary from driver to driver but no matter what, there will be a huge difference between the two cars from 60-100+.

Yes, Mazda quoted that a GTUs was a turbo model without the turbo, but anyone would know that isn't true. They are as different as night and day. Especially if you compare a GTUs to an S5 TII.

4.30 gears don't make up for a 22hp difference when you're talking about stock trim.

NZConvertible

He said the 4.3:1 diff was the only thing special about the GTUs, not the only thing different. Plenty of other S5's had no sunroof or rpm-sensing poser steering, but none had that diff (except for the Infini). Other than the diff the GTUs was just a combination of things other models had. A true parts-bin special...

A 15% difference is splitting hairs?

Is it 7.7 or 8.6? That's a massive difference. I'd at least be comparing claims from the same source before making any bold statements.

Put them side-by-side and you'll find the story will be quite different. You can't overcome a significant power-to-weight advantage with something as minor as a 5% shorter diff.

It's not. This is one of those silly myths that keeps getting repeated. The only Turbo-specific parts they had were the wheels.

eriksseven

iTrader: (6)

Heh...

BTW, RRTEC sucks about the mixup... Would've been sweet if it were real.

NZConvertible

Ooh, the sensitive type...

RRTEC

iTrader: (13)

Does suck.... I still may get it.. but I was really excited about it for a minute there.

1st7

iTrader: (1)

What are you waiting for .......Even a base model is worth that!!~~~~
And are you going to restore it or at least keep it original???

MmSadda

iTrader: (2)

There's a reason you didn't know that, and that's because it's bullshit.

RRTEC

iTrader: (13)

^^ This has already been established..

GTUs- T2 suspension, T2 wheels, T2 brakes, different Diff, different 5th gear, no sunroof, no power options.

Everyone shut the hell up about this, go flex your "e-muscles" elsewhere, I could give a damn, I have driven both S4 t2's and s5 N/A's, including one GTUs and the gtus felt the same.

Go read another Wikipedia article on the Rx-7..

NZConvertible

No, they did not have the turbo drivetrain because they did not have a Turbo engine. There is no such thing as "Turbo II suspension", they had heavy duty suspension that was available on other NA models.

As well as the suspension, there's not such thing as "TII brakes". The swqame brakes were availalbe on other NA models.

I don't get why people get all pissy and defensive when they post incorrect info and get corrected. Making sure the forum is full of correct info is far more important that protecting delicate egos...

RRTEC

iTrader: (13)

Well hell NZ why don't you write a book to correct all the wrongs that are spread thoughout the land regarding the FC???

How many of the 15K posts were just tag along snippy remarks in the Tech section..lol..

As much as I hate it you are almost always right... Cheers.

Turbo II

iTrader: (1)

OK, I read the first post and the last one.

Buy it man.

*edit* ok so i did read some of the stuff on this page...

NZConvertible

Because I already have a full-time job. I just deal with them as I see 'em. Don't ever take it personally, that'd be silly.

Very few, just enough to keep me smiling...

Evil Aviator

Hahaha, that is really funny coming from the person who originated the flexing of e-muscles in this thread. Lesson for the future: Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Anyway, either the cars you drove were not in stock condition, or your butt dyno needs major recalibration. Mazda advertised the performance of the RX-7 in the brochures. Example:
http://www.aaroncake.net/RX-7/brochu...e.asp?Number=4

I noticed differences in casting marks between the S4 NA and TII components, but dimensionally they were the same. However, I guess it could have been differences in sub-contractors rather than models.

I only correct people's posts in order to get my post count higher.

RRTEC

iTrader: (13)

LOL! No offense taken, I always admit when I am wrong, and I was called out on my "mis-information".. Damn SPORTSCAR COLOR HISTORY....

Seriously direct quote from the book

" The GTUs was ALMOST, but not quite the Turbo wiithout the Turbo. The GTUs shared the suspension and brakes with the turbo, but not that models ABS......

You can see how one could get confused about the TURBO SUSPENSION thicker swaybars ect, and the Brakes huh??

I should write John Matras (author) and let him know his innacuracies.

Houpty GT

Some of this article may have mistakes in it but it is still alright all and all.

"Major changes came in 1989 with the introduction of another new model and some technical changes. The GTU became the base model, while the new GTUs became essentially a turbo version without the turbo. This no-nonsense machine had the suspension and all the performance goodies without all the luxuries that added weight. It even had a 4.30:1 rear end (compared tot he standard 4.10:1 unit). Apparently not many people (other than us) thought this was cool idea, as only about 100 were built."

From: Grassroots Motorsports http://www.grmotorsports.com/backiss...ration-rx7.php

87 t-66

iTrader: (133)

did you not read that its a fake?

MmSadda

iTrader: (2)

^no. no, he didn't.

jdunmyer

i'm not sure the car your looking at is a GTUs, it has the rear wiper and as far as i know the GTUs did not have that option. they were a bare bones car without cruise control , a/c (dealer option),moon roof, they had manual windows and less sound deadener. I have one.

NZConvertible

People just need to realise that these are editorial opinions, not statements of fact. Mazda certainly never said such a thing.