Imad has the right idea...I wouldn't say the Camaro's are dramitacally heavy...more like the FD's are dramitaclly light.

 

A stock LS1 will kill a stock FD.
I have seen stock LS1's kill stock Skyline GT-R R34's.

A LS1 will not kill a single turbo FD.

 

id like to see both of them in the corners.

P.S. i dont really think fd's were made for dragracing.

 

Most cars from the other half of the world weren't made for drag racing. It's not even a concept when designing the car. American cars own drag racing, European and Japanese automakers are more concerned with road racing and being fast through the turns.

 

Well if your talking the same year 93-95 RX-7 vs. 93-95 Z28, then the RX-7 is faster. How can you compare a ten year old car with a brand new one? If you take in account that the FD is still available and able to run 12 second quarters stock in Japan. Then the RX-7 still wins. But if you really need to compare the older ones with the newer F-Bodys, then its close, I would between the better driver. Get a downpipe, intake and catback and that would leave you more room for error.

 

i raced a 2000 SS and but its wasnt all stock, you could see his gauges on the side of his dash, plus he had borla exhaust we tried all the way up to 120mph and it was time to stop... so yeah i think i could of beat him off the line... new GT's arent a thing either! 3 cars lengths on a stang.. 2001 GT

 

It would be a good race. I think that the Camaro may take it though. They aren't built for a road course. But they have enough torque to get off the line very well. It would be close.

 

glassman has a point - we are comparing a 9 year old car to a new LS1 or even a 98 LS1 is 5 years newer. Comparing the new RX7s with the new LS1s in a straight line is more even. Both run consistent low 13s. The 93 RX7 vs. 93 LT1 the FD wins everything since the LT1 only had 275 bhp then. I'm not sure how a LS1 is geared but I read over on the 40-70 mph 3rd gears tests that a 2000 LS1 only pulled it in 4.7 seconds. Most stock FDs do it in around 5.0 to 5.5 but with a few mods can be low to mid 4s.

 

I have one that is worse then that. I beat a 2002 auto vette in my bone stock RX7 touring. Later I raced a "stock" 2001 GT mustang, when I had a DP and some exhaust work, and lost He got me out of the whole and we stayed there until about 120mph, he didn't pull anymore I didn't pull anymore. It just comes down to the driver.

 

Damn you guys have no faith in your FD's, maybe they need tune-ups or something?? I know for fact I could run a stock SS down.

 

You guys cant go by magazine times. What a SS runs up north in 40F crisp weather wont be the same as one in sounth FL when its 100F and humid. You dont know what the conditions were in the mag so they really cant be trusted as a good gauge for cars in your area, and especially on the street. The same goes for the 7. You just need to visit you local track and see what the local SS and RX7 guys can do.

Personally if I had a bone stock 7 and was going to race a SS for a full 1/4 I'd expect to loose by 2-3 cars. If you race from a kick your dead. If you race from a dead stop and only run the 1/8 you'll have a chance. The SS has a ton of torgue which is good at the track but all it does on the street is create tire spin. I can launch my 7 way harder than any SS on the street because I dont have all the torque spinning my tires forever.

You'd have to get him on the launch and hope he doesnt pass you by the 1/8.....if you run the 1/4 he'll have plenty of run to run you down and pass.

Add intake, full exhaust, upgraded ecu and its a whole new world. With that set up a 7 is capable of low 12's and can spank a Vette by 4 cars (or more).

Later,
STEPHEN

 

Not if it's a 2002 Z06...

 

Optimism is good, but it's no match for physics.

We all know (or should know) by now that *many* SS and Z-28 Camaros are dyno'ing nearly their flywheel rated horsepower. Consider that the car weighs about 3,500 lbs. give or take, and they're pretty much equal to a very, very strong stock Supra. Low 13s and possibly high 12s on drag radials are not out of the question, at about 106-107 mph.

I've never seen or heard of a stock 3rd gen. RX-7 trapping over 103 mph, and the quickest ones I've ever heard of ran 13.2 and were complete factory freaks. 13.5 is quick for a stock RX-7, and with most drivers you're looking at high 13s or low 14s. I've even seen inexperienced drivers run high 13s in 300-320 RWHP FDs.

It could go either way depending on the state of tune of the cars, the drivers, climate conditions, or any of a number of factors. But to assume that you can run down an SS in the quarter mile is a bold presumption indeed. I think you'll also find that they're not that easy to shake on the high end either, for that matter...

Yeah, yeah, I know. "Just take 'em in the twisties". Give me a friggin' break.

 

Alot of domestic muscle car owners don't seem to understand that, alot of my relatives seem to dislike my Rx-7 because its Japanese and because it dosen't run 8's in the 1/4, so to them its not a good performing car, after they witnessed me spanking my mother's 2001 SS around corners they got real quiet i pratically embarassed the car, but the rednecks that they are they still don't appreciate my car.....hard-headed bastards

 

Easy, they're both still on the road.

If you want to seal the RX-7 in a vacuum and only compare it to the sports cars of its day, then that's fine, but it still has to compete against every new one that comes out also. Saying it beat the '93-'95 Z-28 is a cop-out. I don't see anyone making excuses for the '93-'95 Supra Turbo despite the fact that they're aging just as rapidly... of course they were a bit faster to begin with.

With no serious emissions control, no 5 mph bumper reinforcements, upgraded turbos and an upgraded ECU...

Let's compare apples to apples. Stock US production cars to stock US production cars. If we start with the quickest cars worldwide, then that opens the door for Abel Ibarra (very loosely an RX-7) vs. the quickest of the Camaros, which includes Pat Musi, running 6.60s @ 210+ mph, and the new 2,200 horsepower quad turbo car built by Mike Moran, and it all goes downhill from there.

You're right, a lightly modded RX-7 and a stock LS1 Z-28 or SS could possibly come down to the driver, or any other number of variables.

You can't stop time for the RX-7, unfortunately. It has to hold its own against whatever comes its way. The fact that it can still compete with an average driver in a new Z-28 or SS says a lot, I think. However many Z-28s and SS Camaros put a lot of power to the ground, and in the hands of an experienced drag racer, you're going to take a beating. After all, many of them are pushing 345-350 horsepower bone stock, no matter what the ratings claim.

Even the '93-'95 Z-28s with "only" 275hp weren't slouches. 0-60 in 5.4 and 14.1 @ 99 mph in the quarter was more than respectable enough "back in the day" to put away a Mustang GT. The average performance of the stock 3rd gen. is roughly equivalent; low 5-second 0-60, 14.0-14.1 @ 100-101 mph. The 1992 Firehawk Formula, however, did 0-60 in 4.6 and 13.2 @ 107 mph in the quarter, (350 bhp, 390 ft. lbs.) so even earlier F-body cars can be very competitive. Not to mention the fact that it pulled 0.92g on the skidpad...

It *can* come down to the driver, but even the '93-'95 Z-28s can give you a run in the quarter, and it's not necessarily a sure thing. Besides, they're so cheap to modify, what are the chances that a '93-'95 Z-28 doesn't have at least a couple bolt-ons? Don't assume anything.

 

If you think that domestic cars are designed for quarter mile performance, think again. They perform well in the quarter mile because of the engine displacement (read: torque), not because they were designed as drag racers from day one. If they were, we'd see more 4-link solid axle designs straight from the factory. In fact, I'd be embarassed to say that the RX-7's arguably superior suspension didn't transfer power to the ground as well as a "primitive' live axle setup in a Camaro...

The independent rear suspension and weight give the RX-7 an advantage in cornering, pure and simple, but that doesn't mean that the suspension isn't suited for drag racing. The suspension of the Supra is roughly equivalent, and Ben Blaylock's Supra ran a high 8-second pass on the stock IRS. Are you going to tell me that Toyota designed the Supra for quarter mile performance?

Seems like everyone needs an excuse for why their car doesn't do this or doesn't do that. If they get beat in straight line, the common excuse is "well, just take 'em in the twisties". If they get beat in the curves, it's something else. Never the driver, of course. We couldn't have that.

Saying that Japanese cars aren't designed for quarter mile just because you don't WANT them to be designed for quarter mile is a cop-out. I mean seriously... the common thinking is that "I'm above that", since it's just for red-necks with Camaros, right? The RX-7 was designed for "skilled competition", not just flooring it in a straight line, right? That's elitist mentality bullshit. Just because you want your car to somehow be above the blue collar competition. "It was designed for road course driving or auto-crossing". "It's a thinly-veiled race car". Anything to excuse it for what it lacks, which is quarter mile performance because of a horsepower and more importantly torque deficit. I don't see anyone making excuses for the McLaren F1 in the quarter because it was designed as a top-end sprinter. 11.1 @ 133 mph despite a 2.37:1 differential? Guess they must have designed it for drag racing too.

The point is, you can make all the excuses you want, but the fact remains that a car should be able to perform in ANY situation. If it does well, that doesn't necessarily mean it was designed for that application. If it does poorly, comparatively, that doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't designed for that application. The most common fundamental rules of performance still apply. Horsepower. Weight. Grip. Build any car, whether it's got a live axle under the back or IRS, with enough *useable* horsepower, light enough weight, and with enough tire surface to grip the ground well and it's going to perform pretty damn well no matter what the competition. It's as simple as that.

A Camaro can cheaply be made to corner, and an RX-7 can successfully be used for drag racing. Saying that either wasn't designed for it is just a load of bullshit, pure and simple. Rise above it.

If the "red-necks" don't like the RX-7 because it's Japanese, there's nothing you can do about that. But we all know that the RX-7 can drag race with the best of the imports and even with many domestic cars, and we all know that it's very competitive in autocross and road course driving. That it can compete well in all three right out of the box says a lot about the design, and that's something to be proud of. Who cares if people don't realize it can drag race?

 

I don't put my car a vacuum, I was just stating its really unfair to compare 10 year old cars to new ones.
I think that you should compare apples, with apples.
How can you compare a car thats 10 years older to a brand new one?
Its more of an evolution (do American cars do that? ) Than a revolution.
The fact that I was comparing the age is no more of an excuse than the one you gave about the Japense laws and the 5 MPH bumbers.
You may not believe it, but my Mom's Escort Wagon is faster than the model T of only a few decades ago.

 

Possibly, but if you say that it only does really well against the cars from 10 years ago, then that's locking it in a vacuum. Or a cop-out, take your pick.

Easy, they both share the same pavement. Better get a bumper sticker that says "I'll only race cars that were built in 1995 or earlier" if you want exclusion from competition with newer cars.

Then you missed the point. Less weight, less exhaust restriction = quicker car. Even the Japanese-only cars from '93-'95 were quicker than their American counterparts for those same reasons. Compare cars which have to comply by the same laws. The Japanese RX-7 is not subject to the same restrictions as an American Camaro, therefore the comparison is unjust. If you pull the catalytic converters off the Z-28, you'd see a marked improvement in performance too.

Since my dad has a 1929 Model A, I'm well aware of how fast they are. If you want to play in the same sandbox as the newer cars, then you'd better be prepared to be compared to them. They may have newer technology and more horsepower, but the fact remains that until your car is dead or demolished, it may have to run against the newer, better, faster cars of today. Comparison is inevitable and unavoidable, as is evolution and improvement of the species.

I don't see anyone whining about beating an '01 Cobra with their '93 RX-7, do you? Why whine when the RX-7 stands a chance of getting beat? Just concede that the RX-7 is out of its league or suffers in comparison to a newer car in some respect, but don't make excuses.

 

I never said anything in regards to my car, it keeps up just fine. :P
Maybe you should tell the Yellow Z06 I beat on the highway that I don't race cars unless they are 10 years old.
Laws change and are different from state to state, and vary even more so from country to country, I don't think they should even be in the equation.
When the US Spec FD was new, there was a different set of laws and regulations,from pollution control to airbags.
If you want to make excuses for the SS thats fine as well, but you shouldn't compare something old with something new. My old TRS computer was really something in the day, but you can't compare it with my Dual Gig Power Mac. Times change, cars change.
I think the fact that a 10 year old car can still keep up with the best is offered now is a great achievement, but I still don't see how it is fair to compare the two.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm simply tired of hearing excuses for why the RX-7 doesn't measure up to car "X".

 

I don't agree or disagree. I just stated a fact. Here we going again with the variables. I never gave any excuses for anything, if you wan't to compare the 7 to something X, may I suggest that you join me at the local **** store, they have XXX features and a neat lil booth you can put money in. Kind of like a toll booth, just don't touch the door **** on the way out.
Oh and I only race cars that are newer than me, every half friday when the moon is full and I have less than a 1/2 of gas for weight reasons. The conditions must be cool so my Turbo car can get the advantage and the other driver must blindfold himself so he can not see whats going on.
Then I will show him my bumper sticker, and my "Powered By Uncle Ben" sticker and explain the reason I lost is because my headlights weigh too much because you haven't finished the sleek lights yet.

 

\-/ONDA FOREVER!!! BOYIEEEE

 

Jim, why didnt you buy a Camaro instead of an RX-7??

guys...who cares which one is faster?? is the faster car automatically better?? should everyone that owns an FD go out and buy a Camaro and sell their RX-7, because its faster??

all cars have their weak points and strong ones. the Camaro's strong point is that it is fast in a straight line, but that is the only positive i can think of about the car.

 

I'm not sure what trying to get people to recognize the facts about a Camaro vs. RX-7 comparison has to do with me buying an RX-7, Joe. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Because I choose to stick up for a car and enforce reality instead of just nodding my head and saying "yeah, yeah the RX-7 would win", I should have bought a Camaro instead?

I can appreciate ANY car which has impressive performance numbers in ANY area. It's called being an enthusiast.

 

no, but since you like V8s and American cars so much, why did you choose a 95 RX-7 over a Camaroback when you were looking for a car. i just wanted to know your reasoning as to why you chose one car over another, thats all