red rex

is it worth it to take them out? would there be that much of a difference in weight?

Syonyk

Because if we don't give you this flak now, you'll buy an RX-7, run a few tanks of gas through it, and come in here bitching and moaning about the OMG HORRIBLE FUEL ECONOMY, and won't ever shut up about it.

*shrug* Most of my friends drive, and if I'm going somewhere where I need to drive a bunch of people around, I take my Subaru.

If I baby it in the Subaru, running 65-70mph, I can see slightly over 30mpg. If I run it hard (80-85, where I normally cruise), I see 25-27 mpg. In the '7, cruising comfortably at 80-85mph, I get around 22-23mpg. So... really, there's not a huge difference for me.

Yes, a newer car can get 30-40mpg at the same speed, but... I sure don't want to have to maintain one myself. And right now, I can afford my fleet because I don't pay labor on anything. :-)

-=Russ=-

Funkspectrum

iTrader: (5)

not too much of a difference...if you're not going to replace the seats with the storage bins, i'd recommend just leaving em. semi gutted fc's are a ghastly sight....i know...cause I drive one.

KompressorLOgic

iTrader: (6)

all of the FC's( 6 counting parts cars...) ive owned in the past have had FC33 as the vin digits....

so its ok to call a US model an FC33 as thats what the vins read... JM1FC33.........
NUFF SAID!

Icemark

actually the 2nd 3 is only the subtype designation.

For example FC35 is found on verts.

Corbic

That made no damn sense. Seriously I know what the fuel economy is, I said, gee-gosh it sucks, and you guys are atempting to tell me that it does not.

Also, is a Porshe 944 a sports car? It has back seats, if the Mazda was a "True Sports Car" then Why the @!#% did it come with backseats? What about a 300zx, isn't that a "Sports Car", are you trying to tell me a FC is more "sporty" then a god damn ITR? What the hell about a Porshe 911?

Oh what the hell, Porsche 928, Mustang GT, Skyline, Rx-8, G35, M3 Coupe, GTO, 3000GT et al.

Corbic

What truth, I see a bunch of crap, a claim that all sport cars must only have two seats and its idiotic to have 2+2, yet the RX-7 could come with 2+2, along with the 300zx, Skyline and even the new RX-8 is a full 4 seater.

See my point above then.



Miata is a roadster genious, as I mentioned any "true sports car" is going to crush the FC. 240SX is dirrect competition. RWD, 2+2, same horse power offerings basicly, orginaly 140hp and 180hp, then 150hp and 205hp, similiar costs in Japan as well.

run_rabbit_run

actually guys. by true definition a coupe rx7 isn't a sports car either.

true sports cars are soft top (and are two seaters)...eg. the miata. (triumph's, spitfires etc)

other criteria i would include are: rwd, low displacment, low weight (good handling)

the rx. 300zx etc are Grand Touring Cars.

there are few if any true sports car left because everyone wants something practical / versitile.

Funkspectrum

iTrader: (5)

FC is a sports car...FB is a sports car....FD is a sports car...and nissan rates the 240SX at the crank not the wheels...SR20 s13's only make 165 to the wheels.
The 240SX is NOT a sports car...

Miata...roadster....sports car.

same as the Porsches, S2K, BMW Z series...

So what if they don't put out much power compared to the others....just like the RX, handling is where it's at...

That's why 1st gen RXes spanked the old 240Z's....both sports cars, one boasted a larger, torquier engine, the other, a piddly 100 hp engine...

All said and done, my point about the back seats was that it was a dumb move for any car company to put back seats in a sports car.

So, again, don't get sand in your vagina...

Tournapart

iTrader: (4)

the real point is, is how much you love your RX going to out weight an extra hit in fuel economy? I SAY YES, but thats just my personal opinion. I'd much rather daily drive my 91 Vert pigmonster with its 15-19mpg than drive anything else i could think of....and thats the truth.....i think after awhile, we just get used to the fact that our cars eat gas, and when i get 17mpg out of a tank instead of 12-14mpg when i do nothing but push it, kinda makes me feel better.....lol

Tournapart

iTrader: (4)

PWNED!!!

got_boost

iTrader: (16)

280z are sooooooo niiicce !!!
and so damn quick on the highway for a 1978 car !!

got_boost

iTrader: (16)

ehh actually the 1st generations of s13 the fastbacks (180sx , had a CA18det , 1.8L turbo) and u had the coupe with the normal headlights (not pop-ups)

CA18-DET

Type: 1809cc EFI DOHC 16 valve 4cyl turbo
Power: 175hp @ 6400rpm (195hp @ 6400rpm 87-88)
Torque: 165ft-lbs @ 4000rpm (148ft-lbs @ 4000rpm 87-88)
Gearboxes: FWD 5-speed and RWD 5-speed and 4-speed auto
Source: RWD intercooled examples come from 89-91 180SX and Silvia turbo. Non-intercooled RWD were 87-88 Gazelle engines. FWD examples come from 1988 Auster 1800Xtt (also not intercooled)



then the 2nd gen of s13 had a sr20det :

SR20-DET

Type: 1998cc EFI DOHC 16 valve 4cyl turbo
Power: 205hp @ 6000rpm (180SX), 220hp @ 6000rpm (Silvia), 230hp @ 6400rpm (Pulsar GTi-R)
Torque: 201ft-lbs @ 4000rpm (180SX), 201ft-lbs @ 4800rpm (Silvia), 209ft-lbs @ 4800rpm (Pulsar GTi-R)
Gearboxes: RWD 5-Speed and 4-Speed Auto (1993-on Silvia and 180SX) 4WD east-west 5-Speed (GTi-R)
Source: Silvia K's and 180SX after 1993, 1991-92 Pulsar GTi-R 4WD

then the s14 with the 2nd gen sr20det of 215hp

and after the s15 with a 6 speed sr20det that pushes 250hp .


those are JAPANESE ENGINES


NORTH AMERICAN ENGINES are:

155 hp with 165 lbs-tq , and maybe like +/-10 hp difference with the s14 , but the car is more heavy :p !!!



http://sr20det.nismo.org/nissanengines.htm



but if u ask me, i know from trying out ,that a FC TurboII mildly modified ( intake, intercooler,complete exhaust and weight reduction) will pass all of these 240sx's engine mildly midifed too. on acceleration, driveability, cornering, and especially on top speed for highway races !!!

even after owning a car that was skyline-powered ... i am MORE THEN HAPPY to have tryed a RX7, because driving one .... tells more then what 7 millions words couldnt describe !! you try one, you have to buy one because no other car feels the same.

Syonyk

Actually, I believe the point was, "Yes, we know it 'sucks' compared to other things, we get used to it, and we don't really care because the cars are so much fun to drive."

-=Russ=-

Icemark

Actually no, the 91+ 911, 928, 300zx, G35/350Z, GTO, M3, and 3000GT are not sports cars... They are GT's (well the Stealth/3000GT is really more an FWD based sporty economy car, but that is an other issue)

And the Mustang is about as far from a sports car as you can get and still have 2 doors. It is simply a pony/muscle car.

And toss in that it appears that 17 MPG city and 24 highway (which is pretty mid pack for sports car gas mileage) is radically low for you, and sounds like a major concern.

The fact that you do not understand these things; really suggests that you will not be happy with a RX-7. I can not suggest more strongly that you do not get one.

beamer242

you know i think the only reason car companies even put back seats in any of their sports cars is for the insurance break. you say you have a two seater and it knocks off a bit on your monthly.

gxlbiscuit

ok here is where i chime in...... Corbic what the hell is the point of your posting.... i dont think you even know.. do you want an rx-7 or not? dont sit and debate with owners on rx-7s when you obviously know very little about the car.. anyone who can put a mustang gt in the sports car class over a seven should clearly be schooled... i get the same gas mileage with my car-17-19mpg but with 300hp on tap. yes i eat through the gas when i boost but i can lay off it. handing most mustangs their ***.... dont argue with the pros about their cars... why are you getting so much flak? cuz you need to shut up and stop talking out your *** about things you know nothing about.. its one thing to ask for help but to start acting like you know more than us is foolish. you are bitching about seats .... hmm ever wonder why the seats are soo small? MAYBE CUZ THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.. hence it being an available OPTION and being so small an oompaloo cramps up. please do judge cars by how many seats they have sevens were obviously meant for 2 and myabe 4 if you have a small japanese ***...i think your problem is you cant afford the gas of a sports car.... dont bitch about it get a civic then youll fit right into the mold of all the other fast know it alls with bling and wings. what a jerk.. BAN this man(im sooo unreasonable)waste of forum time.. he wont listen to feedback and hell argue with the teachers..the forums purpose is wasted

Corbic

Somebody didn't get their 360's.

The point I am posting? Two simple god damn questions.

First, why the hell does the '89+ make more power, simple exhuast, ECU ext. Normally there is a reason, just like how in a +91 240SX gets a 15hp jump, because it became DOHC.

Second, how rare are back seats, can I buy back seats and put them in a coupe. I know with a 300zx a Coupe is shorter then a 2+2 and weights quite a bit more. Having a small "pet seat" is highly desirble, personal @#$king opinion live with it.

Some how you guys decided right off the bat to ignore the fact that while the RX-7 maybe be the only "true sports car" in the world, it did in fact come with back seats, and in Japan back seats make up like 60% of the cars sold.

What the hell is this "Nissan does the cank, but Mazda does the wheels" show me some stock dino-charts, everything I have read says the ratings given, are from the crank.

Then I get this whole argument over the "diffinition" of a sports car, I could give a ****, and it seems to me most people in here don't remember the RX-7 came with rear-seats, nor the fact that many, many cars pawn the RX-7, despite not being sports cars cause they have rear seats. STFU on it already.

Lastly, I'm now have someone compare a FB to a 240z? Um, why? 1971 vs 1978? 240z only has 100hp!?!? Well guess what, RX-7 FB only had 105hp or whatever, OMFG 5HP!

Also being base on the 944, I would make it safe to say the RX-7 dirrect competition is the 944, which has back seats and is a SCCA queen. Additionally I still see the 240sx as a fare comparison, close in date, close in preformance, close in cost (today).

adrock3217

Wow. I just read the whole thread, and dude, thread starter, you're a moron.

This was answered already? LIGHTER ROTORS - can spin into the higher RPM's, 1000 higher then 86-88! With the newly designed intake manifolds and VDI, they make POWER up there, obviously -- MORE!!

A new ECU - notice, if you put a piggyback ECU on a stock ECU, you will see massive gains? OMFG? Is that hard to understand?

Back seats are not rare. In the late 80's and early 90's many companies actually MADE aftermarket seats for those who didn't have them. They bolt right in, as was ALREADY ANSWERED. YOU DECIDED TO IGNORE THE HELPING ANSWERS.

The RX7 back seats are for tiny Japanese business men, and because 4-seater insurance is about 2/3 of 2 seater insurance. UNDERSTAND?

If you don't understand, or care about the deffinition of a real sports car, stray away from RX7's, please.

And, as a note, in you're fuel comparison - Uh, you listed a LOT of 4 cylinders! Please note the RX7 has an engine most equivalent to a 2.6 liter SIX cylinder. A comparison between piston engines will never be fair nonetheless, as this is NOT a piston engine.

I would like you to go bolt a full 3" exhaust system to some "other" turbocharged car. Do you think you will realize the same gains as an RX7? 45-50 HP more at the WHEELS? Hm?

Crawl into a deep, dark, moist hole. Never ever come out, and if you do, stay away from RX7's.

As an edit: If you seriously consider the Mustang GT a sports car, seriously...maybe you shouldn't even buy a car.

Dinnercoat

http://www.sleepy-fish.com/sleepy/To...s_924_1985.avi

Corbic

No, that was not mentioned, only thing mentioned was "rebuild your S4 with S5 bits and it will have the same power out-put".

I also asked, then would it be more reasonable to just purchase a S5 or a Turbo, kinda like with most cars, its normally cheaper to buy the higher preformance model then bring the other one up to spec.



Wait, so your telling me, not only did Mazda sell back seats in a Sports-Car, which around here should not have back seats, but that also third-party companies made back seats because people wanted to install them? Jesus, what where they thinking, don't they know this is a "sports car" guess they don't get it either.

More elitest crap. Does it make you feel better that you are a" true enthusist" who drives a "true sports car"?

Like OMG, I had no idea the seats where tinny and small, guess a back pack, baby-seat would never fit back there. I'm sure a 5'1, 97lb girl could never rough it out for 15 miniutes either.

Kinda hard to compare it to a V6 sports car when most have more power, 300zx sported 200hp N/A and 300hpTT. I draw the 240 and 955 as dirrect competition, both offering comprable power-out put.

Yes, I'll be sure to bring by ear-plugs as well.

Corbic

Good video, though the price difference between a 944 and a RX-7 today is minimal, both are excellent cars.

Fumi

if you need to carry around a baby then get a freaking family car, like a van or a station wagon.
be responsible.
not saying you drive like a jackass but other people on the road do.
put more metal around a child, keep them safe.

Jager

iTrader: (10)

**** kids, just answer his question:

1) Refer to Icemark's first port, higher compression rotors, different ECU, different intake manifolds, and so on lead to the 14HP improvement to the flywheel.

2) Yes you can put them in pretty easily. If Mazda didn't want rear seats they wouldn't of made them. I haven't seen them in person, but I'm sure if you picked some up you can make it work. I commonly see them going for $50-$200. Like noticed above they are small. I just don't see where ones little legs would go: I'm 6'0".

Jager

iTrader: (10)

3" exhaust on a turbo rotary is uber quiet to me .