What current technology not on 2nd gen RX7
12-17-04, 09:30 PM
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What current technology not on 2nd gen RX7
What current technology not on 2nd gen RX7 except following:
1. Wishbone suspension
2. Rigid frame
3. all wheel drive
4. ABS brakes
5. Stability control
1. Wishbone suspension
2. Rigid frame
3. all wheel drive
4. ABS brakes
5. Stability control
Last edited by gbowers; 12-17-04 at 09:34 PM.
hehe
12-17-04, 09:59 PM
#4
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I test drove a new 2005 Mustang and found it inferior to my 1988 RX7 NA due to following:
1. Mustang too heavy at 3500 lbs.
2. Not as nimble as RX7 due to long wheel base and taller car.
3. RX7 handled better due to better balance, less weight and better suspension - Mustang has solid rear axle.
Anyone have more feedback.
1. Mustang too heavy at 3500 lbs.
2. Not as nimble as RX7 due to long wheel base and taller car.
3. RX7 handled better due to better balance, less weight and better suspension - Mustang has solid rear axle.
Anyone have more feedback.
12-17-04, 10:15 PM
#6
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally Posted by gbowers
What current technology not on 2nd gen RX7 except following:
1. Wishbone suspension
1. Wishbone suspension
No reason for a wishbone suspension...not many cars have it and (like the FC) handle just fine or in some cases better than cars with it.
2. Rigid frame
3. all wheel drive
Maybe if there was 400 HP or it was a truck
4. ABS brakes
5. Stability control
Trending Topics
12-17-04, 10:27 PM
#9
Senior Member
Side curtain airbags
HID headlights
Traction Control
Telescoping Sterring wheel
Auto dimming rear view mirrors
The list goes on and on. Most of our cars are approaching 14-17 years old. That is a lifetime in automotive technology. My wife's Mazda 6 handles, brakes and acclerates better than my daily driver 7. Even if my car was in "new" condition the 6 would be superior.
A few years ago one of the automotive magazines (R&T?) did an aggressive compariason between what they considered the best pre-'70 sports car vs. a modern day mini-van. If I remember correctly their car of choice was a mid 60's Porsche and their compariason vehicle was a late 90's Dodge minivan.
They tested both vehicles with and without race tires and the minivan came out on top on an autocross course!
As long as the enviromentalist don't start restricting hp levels and we still have internal combustion engines (electric) we may have family vehicles in 30 years that out preform FD's and TT Supras of today.
HID headlights
Traction Control
Telescoping Sterring wheel
Auto dimming rear view mirrors
The list goes on and on. Most of our cars are approaching 14-17 years old. That is a lifetime in automotive technology. My wife's Mazda 6 handles, brakes and acclerates better than my daily driver 7. Even if my car was in "new" condition the 6 would be superior.
A few years ago one of the automotive magazines (R&T?) did an aggressive compariason between what they considered the best pre-'70 sports car vs. a modern day mini-van. If I remember correctly their car of choice was a mid 60's Porsche and their compariason vehicle was a late 90's Dodge minivan.
They tested both vehicles with and without race tires and the minivan came out on top on an autocross course!
As long as the enviromentalist don't start restricting hp levels and we still have internal combustion engines (electric) we may have family vehicles in 30 years that out preform FD's and TT Supras of today.
12-17-04, 10:38 PM
#10
King of the Loop
Ive beaten a manual integra with my auto mercury villager minivan. i cannot eb sure if we was a good driver, shift right ect, btu when he flew passed me, i caught up , then he passd me again, then it took off for kicks and he kept half a car length behidn be and looked irate till the next exit where he got off.
12-17-04, 10:39 PM
#11
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
The amount of automotive technology introduced in the 20 odd years since the FC was designed is staggering. Trying to list it all would require more knowledge than anyone here has.
12-17-04, 10:42 PM
#12
Best of both worlds
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sleejay
erik...
that ruled because a) its funny, and b) i live like 20 minutes from you
HACKETTSTOWN BABY you probly seen my crusty 3 color 2nd gen!
that ruled because a) its funny, and b) i live like 20 minutes from you
HACKETTSTOWN BABY you probly seen my crusty 3 color 2nd gen!haha...yeah I know Hackettstown...usually got to the Taco Bell there!
We should meet up sometime...although my T2 is hibernating for winter
12-17-04, 10:43 PM
#13
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1988 RX7 performance specs equal or better than several current sportscars
Originally Posted by CarmonColvin
Side curtain airbags
HID headlights
Traction Control
Telescoping Sterring wheel
Auto dimming rear view mirrors
The list goes on and on. Most of our cars are approaching 14-17 years old. That is a lifetime in automotive technology. My wife's Mazda 6 handles, brakes and acclerates better than my daily driver 7. Even if my car was in "new" condition the 6 would be superior.
A few years ago one of the automotive magazines (R&T?) did an aggressive compariason between what they considered the best pre-'70 sports car vs. a modern day mini-van. If I remember correctly their car of choice was a mid 60's Porsche and their compariason vehicle was a late 90's Dodge minivan.
They tested both vehicles with and without race tires and the minivan came out on top on an autocross course!
As long as the enviromentalist don't start restricting hp levels and we still have internal combustion engines (electric) we may have family vehicles in 30 years that out preform FD's and TT Supras of today.
HID headlights
Traction Control
Telescoping Sterring wheel
Auto dimming rear view mirrors
The list goes on and on. Most of our cars are approaching 14-17 years old. That is a lifetime in automotive technology. My wife's Mazda 6 handles, brakes and acclerates better than my daily driver 7. Even if my car was in "new" condition the 6 would be superior.
A few years ago one of the automotive magazines (R&T?) did an aggressive compariason between what they considered the best pre-'70 sports car vs. a modern day mini-van. If I remember correctly their car of choice was a mid 60's Porsche and their compariason vehicle was a late 90's Dodge minivan.
They tested both vehicles with and without race tires and the minivan came out on top on an autocross course!
As long as the enviromentalist don't start restricting hp levels and we still have internal combustion engines (electric) we may have family vehicles in 30 years that out preform FD's and TT Supras of today.
12-17-04, 11:44 PM
#14
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furthermore, please refer to following link for RX7 specs.:
http://rx7.voodoobox.net/infofaq/rx7specs.html
There are only a few current sports cars that are equal or better than 2nd gen RX7 specs shown on this link.
Even the new RX8 has same skid path and sallom specs.
Finally, most new auto tech items mentioned above (side curtain airbags, traction control, telescoping steering wheel, etc.) do not affect performance specs.
I challange anyone to mention a current sports sedan that handles better than 2nd gen RX7.
http://rx7.voodoobox.net/infofaq/rx7specs.html
There are only a few current sports cars that are equal or better than 2nd gen RX7 specs shown on this link.
Even the new RX8 has same skid path and sallom specs.
Finally, most new auto tech items mentioned above (side curtain airbags, traction control, telescoping steering wheel, etc.) do not affect performance specs.
I challange anyone to mention a current sports sedan that handles better than 2nd gen RX7.
12-18-04, 12:00 AM
#16
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've driven a lot of cars in my day, and think that almost everything stated above is opinion.
I think that ABS is asinine. So is traction control. Both systems promote laziness in drivers. I know several of my friends who have gotten into accidents because "I thought that's what traction control was for!"
I've never hit anyone, and never hit anything. Call me arrogant, but I've done it without any fancy equipment. My wife's ABS makes me nervous, and I've always disabled the traction/stability control equipment because it acts wierd on ice. It's all what you're used to. When I'm sliding sideways, I react a certain way. Trac systems make all of that work wrong.
I guess what I'm getting at: Technology doesn't make the ride, Driver experience with certain equipments make all the difference.
I test drove a WRX (cuz I used to think they were the shizzznit) and was fairly disappointed at the lack of what I call "handling"... IMHO very few cars can handle themselves like my 7.
~Brave Blue Mice.
86 GXL - Home Depot Speed Shop
I think that ABS is asinine. So is traction control. Both systems promote laziness in drivers. I know several of my friends who have gotten into accidents because "I thought that's what traction control was for!"
I've never hit anyone, and never hit anything. Call me arrogant, but I've done it without any fancy equipment. My wife's ABS makes me nervous, and I've always disabled the traction/stability control equipment because it acts wierd on ice. It's all what you're used to. When I'm sliding sideways, I react a certain way. Trac systems make all of that work wrong.
I guess what I'm getting at: Technology doesn't make the ride, Driver experience with certain equipments make all the difference.
I test drove a WRX (cuz I used to think they were the shizzznit) and was fairly disappointed at the lack of what I call "handling"... IMHO very few cars can handle themselves like my 7.
~Brave Blue Mice.
86 GXL - Home Depot Speed Shop
12-18-04, 12:14 AM
#17
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Icemark
Overated.
No reason for a wishbone suspension...not many cars have it and (like the FC) handle just fine or in some cases better than cars with it.
do you mean a Powerplant frame??? Hardly current tech.
All wheel drive??? yeah like I woul dwant all that extra weight and crap on a sports car.
Maybe if there was 400 HP or it was a truck
ABS was optional on 87-88 Turbos and GXL models and Standard on 89+ Turbo models. Again though.. hardly current Tech
Yuck... requires the ABS to activate the brakes as well as limits engine output. I guess if your driving skills were average or less than average, and you were in some sort of Sedan you might want it.
No reason for a wishbone suspension...not many cars have it and (like the FC) handle just fine or in some cases better than cars with it.
do you mean a Powerplant frame??? Hardly current tech.
All wheel drive??? yeah like I woul dwant all that extra weight and crap on a sports car.
Maybe if there was 400 HP or it was a truck
ABS was optional on 87-88 Turbos and GXL models and Standard on 89+ Turbo models. Again though.. hardly current Tech
Yuck... requires the ABS to activate the brakes as well as limits engine output. I guess if your driving skills were average or less than average, and you were in some sort of Sedan you might want it.
12-18-04, 12:15 AM
#18
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2nd gen RX7
Originally Posted by BraveBlueMice
I've driven a lot of cars in my day, and think that almost everything stated above is opinion.
I think that ABS is asinine. So is traction control. Both systems promote laziness in drivers. I know several of my friends who have gotten into accidents because "I thought that's what traction control was for!"
I've never hit anyone, and never hit anything. Call me arrogant, but I've done it without any fancy equipment. My wife's ABS makes me nervous, and I've always disabled the traction/stability control equipment because it acts wierd on ice. It's all what you're used to. When I'm sliding sideways, I react a certain way. Trac systems make all of that work wrong.
I guess what I'm getting at: Technology doesn't make the ride, Driver experience with certain equipments make all the difference.
I test drove a WRX (cuz I used to think they were the shizzznit) and was fairly disappointed at the lack of what I call "handling"... IMHO very few cars can handle themselves like my 7.
~Brave Blue Mice.
86 GXL - Home Depot Speed Shop
I think that ABS is asinine. So is traction control. Both systems promote laziness in drivers. I know several of my friends who have gotten into accidents because "I thought that's what traction control was for!"
I've never hit anyone, and never hit anything. Call me arrogant, but I've done it without any fancy equipment. My wife's ABS makes me nervous, and I've always disabled the traction/stability control equipment because it acts wierd on ice. It's all what you're used to. When I'm sliding sideways, I react a certain way. Trac systems make all of that work wrong.
I guess what I'm getting at: Technology doesn't make the ride, Driver experience with certain equipments make all the difference.
I test drove a WRX (cuz I used to think they were the shizzznit) and was fairly disappointed at the lack of what I call "handling"... IMHO very few cars can handle themselves like my 7.
~Brave Blue Mice.
86 GXL - Home Depot Speed Shop
I concur with your great input.
Traction control is for bad drivers and most front-wheel drive sedans and coupes.
I have retained my 1988 RX7 in excellent condition because I cannot find an equal or better handling sports car for under $30K with following amenities:
1. Sunroof
2. Hatchback with plenty of room for hauling stuff - most new sports cars including 300Z have less room and you feel like you are in a cave.
3. Smooth acceleration
4. Excellent balanced handling
5. Great braking with all wheel disk brakes
6. Under 3000 lbs. unlike new 2005 Mustang at 3500 lbs. - it is a real hog on road.
7. Great clean streamline lines and shape which is still current, contemporary and good looking.
I still challange anyone to suggest a better handling current car for under $30K.
12-18-04, 12:20 AM
#19
you looking for a RWD sports car?
i can think of some but not many that are RWD any longer, there is some FWD that are fairly well balanced like the SRT4 that are decently fast from the factory and can be modified to be quite fast, not cramped but not exactly roomy either. the RSX is also pretty quick and feels a bit sporty like the FC but is also FWD...
RWD seems like a luxury these days, only seen on the RX8, corvette, viper, kompressor and CTS-V cadillac, etc, etc, etc..
i can think of some but not many that are RWD any longer, there is some FWD that are fairly well balanced like the SRT4 that are decently fast from the factory and can be modified to be quite fast, not cramped but not exactly roomy either. the RSX is also pretty quick and feels a bit sporty like the FC but is also FWD...
RWD seems like a luxury these days, only seen on the RX8, corvette, viper, kompressor and CTS-V cadillac, etc, etc, etc..
Last edited by RotaryEvolution; 12-18-04 at 12:23 AM.
12-18-04, 12:24 AM
#20
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OC
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you gotta remember that cars now are being designed for people who dont know how to drive. its why toyotas entire car line is now FWD , people dont want to think about driving, they feel cool when their car is strapped down with traction control and ABS and crap like that.
i know I dont want that. i want a car that when i push the gas, i know the throttle is just opening up, and id honestly rather have a carb on my car so i could rev higher. the more technology that they put in these cars, the more things that can go wrong is my take on it.
i know I dont want that. i want a car that when i push the gas, i know the throttle is just opening up, and id honestly rather have a carb on my car so i could rev higher. the more technology that they put in these cars, the more things that can go wrong is my take on it.
12-18-04, 12:28 AM
#21
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Karack
you looking for a RWD sports car?
i can think of some but not many that are RWD any longer, there is some FWD that are fairly well balanced like the SRT4 that are decently fast from the factory and can be modified to be quite fast, not cramped but not exactly roomy either. the RSX is also pretty quick and feels a bit sporty like the FC but is also FWD...
RWD seems like a luxury these days, only seen on the RX8, corvette, viper, kompressor and CTS-V cadillac, etc, etc, etc..
i can think of some but not many that are RWD any longer, there is some FWD that are fairly well balanced like the SRT4 that are decently fast from the factory and can be modified to be quite fast, not cramped but not exactly roomy either. the RSX is also pretty quick and feels a bit sporty like the FC but is also FWD...
RWD seems like a luxury these days, only seen on the RX8, corvette, viper, kompressor and CTS-V cadillac, etc, etc, etc..
What is a SRT4? Is this a Honda?
All of the RWD cars you mentioned above cost over $30K.
Get this, the Nissan 300Z and 2005 Mustang which are both too heavy do not offer a sunroof due to sloping roof.
12-18-04, 12:31 AM
#22
i was just discussing this issue with one of our other techs, i agree 100%. the more technology advances the more they force it down our throats, it is nothing more than a way for them to add **** to the cars and the government to say it is required and charge more for the vehicle. i like to make my own choices so i choose not to buy a new car because of all the required bs options on them or the ones that the factory decided to add to their cars as base options, a true sports car shouldn't have or need a/c because who drives a real sports car in that kind of heat? p/s? i drive just fine with manual steering...
funny thing is these option kill people, seat heaters shorting out and catching seats on fire killing people... who the hell needs a seat heater aside from some fat lazy bastard? sure may be nice but when your seat catches on fire don't look at me like i'm to blame..
funny thing is these option kill people, seat heaters shorting out and catching seats on fire killing people... who the hell needs a seat heater aside from some fat lazy bastard? sure may be nice but when your seat catches on fire don't look at me like i'm to blame..
12-18-04, 12:41 AM
#23
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rs_1101
you gotta remember that cars now are being designed for people who dont know how to drive. its why toyotas entire car line is now FWD , people dont want to think about driving, they feel cool when their car is strapped down with traction control and ABS and crap like that.
i know I dont want that. i want a car that when i push the gas, i know the throttle is just opening up, and id honestly rather have a carb on my car so i could rev higher. the more technology that they put in these cars, the more things that can go wrong is my take on it.
i know I dont want that. i want a car that when i push the gas, i know the throttle is just opening up, and id honestly rather have a carb on my car so i could rev higher. the more technology that they put in these cars, the more things that can go wrong is my take on it.
FWD pulls you through a corner whereas RWD pushes you through corner with better control. I would rather push than be pulled.
Most performance cars are RWD or AWD: Jaquar, BMW, Ferrari, porsch, aston martin, infiniti coupe, corvette, etc.
My 1988 RX7 has following specs:
Lat. Acc. 86 g
Slalom 67 mph
Braking 0 to 60: 120 feet.
Not many performance or sport cars can better these specs for under $30K and still have balanced handling, smooth acceleration and good looks.
Due to stiff suspension on my car, there is no body roll - car rides like on rails. I can toss this car around and it always lands true and straight, espcially in twistees.
12-18-04, 12:56 AM
#24
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Karack
i was just discussing this issue with one of our other techs, i agree 100%. the more technology advances the more they force it down our throats, it is nothing more than a way for them to add **** to the cars and the government to say it is required and charge more for the vehicle. i like to make my own choices so i choose not to buy a new car because of all the required bs options on them or the ones that the factory decided to add to their cars as base options, a true sports car shouldn't have or need a/c because who drives a real sports car in that kind of heat? p/s? i drive just fine with manual steering...
funny thing is these option kill people, seat heaters shorting out and catching seats on fire killing people... who the hell needs a seat heater aside from some fat lazy bastard? sure may be nice but when your seat catches on fire don't look at me like i'm to blame..
funny thing is these option kill people, seat heaters shorting out and catching seats on fire killing people... who the hell needs a seat heater aside from some fat lazy bastard? sure may be nice but when your seat catches on fire don't look at me like i'm to blame..
Guess what, the Mazda Miata is RWD and handles great and is under $30K - however, it is a small car compared to 2nd gen RX7.