Hey,

I'm thinking of purchasing a 3rd gen rx7 and I'm aware of all the problems and so on, but I just wanted to make the process a little simpler and I was wondering if the '95 model had some of the TSB's and recalls already fixed before they released the model?? Like the 5th gear synchro and so on.

Also if anyone has any info or can help me out on what to look for I'd appreciate it. (I already researched this, but the more insight the better)

Thanks,

Mike

 

I always heard that 94, was the best year..but i could be mistaken..

 

One of the main advantages of buying a '95 is that it has the R134a A/C system, so you don't have to worry about converting it sometime down the road, and you'll always be able to get refrigerant for it.

 

Yeah you deff have R12 in the 94.... or lack there of in my case. Damn crap is worth gold these days.

 

but this problem is easily overcome with a $30 conversion kit from your local auto store.

 

Is this really the case? I had read that if the old oil isn’t purged out of the system that it can cause issues down the road. Something about the original oil and the r13 not being compatible causing the oil to become corrosive. I also recall someone mentioning that the dryer needed to be replaced also.

 

you can just goto a shop and have them evacuate your a/c system, then the kit coems with new oil and freon. I thik getting the sytem evacuted at a shop only cost ~$30 or something like that.

 

My 93 is converted when I bought it over 2 years ago. I havent had a single problem

 

If you can find a late model 95, there are numerous small changes because it's actually a 96. One example would be the ABS. With that said, there are only 500 95's and the chances of finding a low-mileage one are pretty nil. Generally, I'd look for a 94 and avoid early 93's. I made the "mistake" of purchasing a REALLY low mileage 95. I was afraid to do anything to it that couldn't be undone because it was so rare. 20/20 hindsight, I would have found a 94/5 with a blown engine and good everything else. But for a first-time buyer, that may be a bit much in terms of a learning curve and work :-)

 

Another thing about the 95's is that there were so few built I always felt they were able to take a little more time in putting them together. My car was built in April 95 and the factory had built less than 130 of them at that point, so they weren't exactly being rushed to churn them out. My car came without a single assemblyline flaw or defect.

 

I'd go with 95 for resale value because people are suckers.

94 if you've got a touring for the glass moonroof instead of the steel.

 

93's may not be the best, but I love them.

 

93's have stiffer bushings and springs and therefore handle better. Check out a new product called Duracool. It has been in Europe and australia for 10 years plus. It is ozone friendly and you can add it yourself to old and new systems. duracool.com , it works as i have use it myself on an old r12 and a r134a. It claims to cool better than r134a and lubricate the system.

 

Ah and so did my 93. I don't think that it really matters in Japan, when they say, "hey this is the last one going to America." "Lets take our time and do it right." Because they are still built even to this day, though not for much longer. And Europe and the Land Down Under had them imported for longer then we did.

If you find a nice 7, it doesn't matter what year it is.
Its already a 10 year old car anyway, and all the recalls and stuff should have been done by now.

 

Seems to me like they would take their time equally on 93's b/c it was their first shipments to America (right?) They should have wanted to make a great impression with the first wave.

Obviously they corrected a few problems over the years, but most 93's being re-sold already have those problems corrected (at least from RX-7-savvy dealers like mine).

 

C'mon guys, we all know there were a number of quality control problems on the 93's, who are we trying to kid here? The hi-reflex paint chipped all over the place, there were ill-fitting wheel center caps, and of course there's the infamous flaking interior panels. And that's not to mention some of the mechanical problems. (Like the 5th gear synchro mentioned in the first post.) Owners should have taken care of these problems by now, but not all have. I just saw a thread here the other day in which a new owner was asking if he could get money from Mazda for the chipping paint on his car. Of course the overall quality of the car matters more than the specific year (in other words, a 93 in good condition is better than a 95 in bad condition), but when someone stops me on the street and asks me about buying an FD, I tell them buy the best 94 or 95 you can find.

 

I have to agree, all else being equal, '95 is the best year, then '94, then '93. The main exception being if you're really hardcore and want the stiffer anti-roll bars and shocks of the '93s. For example, AutoXers competing in the SS class generally seek out '93s because of the stiffer rear anti-roll bar, since they can't change them out due to the rule restrictions. Otherwise, if you can find a nice '95, go for it, all the TSBs are already fixed, which there were quite a few. Oh, btw, Jconn, I think you confused the high reflex paint with the regular paint. AFAIK it was the standard paint that had the chipping problem. I have the high-reflex paint in VR and it is a 3-stage paint with a clearcoat, it is still very very glossy and NO chipping whatsoever. This is on an early '93 when the problem was still around. High reflex paint was a pretty rare option, only available on tourings. In fact, I don't even know of anyone who has it besides me, I'd like to hear other experiences if anyone else has the option.

 

93s are truly the best you won't find a CYM in 94 or 95 anyway if you mod your 7 the recalls are worthless you'll be canceling them out.

 

How exactly do you know if you have high reflex paint??

 

I know about 10 rx7s 5 are 94 and 5 are 93s every 94 had at least 85k on orig engine,before blowing up or needing a rebuild,none of the 93s made it to 50k. i know this is a small sample, but it was enough to push me to a 94.

 

Freaky,
I have the original invoice that lists the options the car has. One way you can tell if you car has a clearcoat is a buffing wheel will have red left on it for no clearcoat and nothing on it with a clearcoat.

 

In all honesty, the differences are so sublte, most of us forget about them the very next day after buying.

But a few things,

93 - R1's have an adjustable front and rear strut brace
94/95 - R2 only rear strut brace is adjustable
R2's - not as stiff ride compared to R1, but stiff indeed.
the A/C system as someone mentioned.
94/95 Interior is made in different slightly higher quality material, but still is poor quality compared to an interior of a miata in terms of creeking and cracking.

 

Didn't the newer ones also have pasenger side airbags while the '93s did not. That actually makes me prefer the 93s because I'm kind of parinoid of airbags(friend got a broken nose) (plus no airbag = lighter)

 

No, it appears it was the optional paint which had the problem. Maybe you were lucky, or your car has been repainted.
Here is what I know about the high-reflex paint fiasco.
You be the judge.

On page 41 of the '93 RX-7 sales brochure, it lists "High-reflex paint" as a feature of the Touring Package. It makes no distinction as to color.

Sept.'92 Consumer Reports tested a Vintage Red touring model and listed "special paint" as one of the optional features on the car.

Car and Driver in June '93 published a long term test of a silver touring model. It said, "We notice Mazda's "High-Reflex" paint does not flex enough. The name suggests it has added resistance to the elements, but our "Silver Stone" finish has been stoned in the Biblical sense. The once exquisite finish is sadly chipped around the wheel arches and the nose. Mazda now says Hi-Reflex is no longer used on RX-7s."

Automobile Magazine also published a long term test of a red touring model in its Oct. '93 issue and also noticed the chipping problem. It said,"What happened, we are told, is that the Touring model's high-gloss paint dried harder than expected and was thus more likely to chip.
The good news: The problem has already been solved. All RX-7s now receive a conventional paint treatment."

The online mystery chapters of the "RX-7 Performance Handbook" reports this:

A Chip Off the Old Block

One of the earliest complaints with the third gen RX-7 was that of the paint chipping easily. This never resulted in an official TSB, however, was handled on a case-by-case basis. The problem was caused by a poor primer bond and many of the owners who complained received a new paint job at their dealer, courtesy of Mazda. But it wasn’t until numerous complaints stacked up that got Mazda’s attention. Several owners had even contacted legal representation when told (at first) by Mazda that it was a result of their driving habits. The poor primer was used up until late ’93 (94 models). It’s too late to get this problem rectified for free, however, you can tell if you have the defective primer (remedies by early ’94) by examining any paint chips you have, checking for a white primer. The corrected primer has a medium gray color and adheres the paint to the body rather well.