Post #53 is not a copy of your picture; rather, it is a scan I made of the Mazda flyer which I own. Obviously your post #40 is from the same flyer. The point is, that is clearly a "7," NOT a "1." The acute angle between the top horizontal line of the number and its lower section makes it a "7." If that is a "1," I don't know how you would make a "7." It is NOT a "1" missing a baseline.

Another source: From "The Mazda RX-7: Mazda's Legendary Sports Car," by Jack K. Yamaguchi and John Dinkel, page 234: "Bridgestone's ZR-rated RE71-derived Expedia S-07 with expensive jointless carcass was chosen for the R1 model. VR-rated tires from Bridgestone and Yokohama were also approved." [bold print mine]

 

^ Well, then you inverted the photo the same way I did mine (which was the earlier post.) And there's nothing clear about either photo posted in this thread.

Mine didn't come from a "flyer" but from pages 18 - 19 of the full size 1993 RX-7 sales brochure. It may look like a "7" on the sidewall to you, but it's not. The photo is of a 93 base model. The tire on this car is the same V-rated SO-1 tire that came from the factory on my 95 model. My tire had the same SO-1 script I can see in the brochure that I have in front of my right now, which is why I posted the photo in the first place. This is the source of the confusion which continues to this day. (See previous posts about SO-1 / SO-7 on the Tire Rack website.)

It's indisputable that V-rated SO-1 tires came on some 93-95 RX-7's. That leaves you with some questions you have been unable to answer.

Did Mazda put both SO-1 and SO-7 tires on FD's in 93? If you say yes, why didn't they just make them all SO-7's? Why the distinction between the two?

If you claim the SO-7 was a special Z rated tire, what's it doing on a base car?

Why did the alleged "SO-7" suddenly die out but the SO-1 continued on to this day?

Where is the official Bridgestone literature / catalog that shows the existence of an SO-7 model tire? (I have produce a link to the Bridgestone website showing the SO-1.)

 

Really? So what's this Z rated "SO-7" tire doing on a base model car?

No my friend, this is part of the confusion. You'll find these secondary sources referring at various times to an SO-7 or an SO-1, but there was no SO-7 in the Bridgestone catalog. There were two versions of the SO-1, one V-rated for the base and Touring cars, and a Z-rated version for the R model. 94 and 95 R models got the Pirelli P-Zero.

 

I don't get you, trickshot. You are wrong, plain and simple. You have been proven wrong by at least 17 people in these threads, but you persist with not-so-admirable determination.
I suppose you would argue that grass is not green nor water clear? Why the ignorance of fact?

Strange. You have lost all credibility already, long ago, yet...you persist.

 

You know, this perspective interests me. Do you allow truth to be determined by a popular vote? If most people say something, do you go along with the crowd?
Does "consensus" determine truth? Could 10 people contend one thing, and one person contend another and the one be right?

A fact is a fact. It's not determined by popular opinion.

In this case a crucial and decisive piece of evidence is missing. Where is the official Bridgestone catalog / documentation showing the existence of an SO-7 tire? I have provided it for the S0-1 and shown it came on FD's.

In addition, you and others have failed to answer or resolve the questions and contradictions I've posted above.

 

The other thing that's interesting is the instead of trying to answer or counter the questions I've posed you and some other have taken to personal attacks. That's not a signal of confidence on your part. You haven't even taken a stab at answering how this allegedly specially designed "SO-7" tire ended up on a base car?
Or why long after the alleged SO-7 specially designed for the RX-7 has disappeared to this day an SO-7 notation appears on the Tire Rack website for a model of tire that is indisputably an SO-1. An analytical mind, one who doesn't automatically follow the flock, would at least think, "Hmmmm...that is curious. Why is that? I thought the "SO-7" disappeared from the marketplace 15 years ago."

Or, why hasn't someone come up with a Bridgestone catalog or other official Bridgestone literature showing the SO-1 and SO-7 being listed as separate models of tires?

 

First of all, the tires are S-07 and S-01. It's a "zero" and not the letter "O". Second, the way they're stamped on sidewalls is as above. Not with the dash after the first two characters. Which, if you've been scouring the 'net using quotes around those characters you ain't liable to find much.

Once again, this whole topic is because, in your mind, numbers have to be chronological; when in fact, they don't. Here's a page that lists current production : http://www.bridgestonetire.com/Index...gestone_Photos
click on the S-01 and download the views. Look at how the "1" is straight up and down and not diagonal like a "7" (like the "7" shown in some of the pictures here in this thread). And how the horizontal line on the "1" doesn't extend very far left of where the vertical line meets it.

Once again, in your mind, because there's no S-07 listed, well, it must not have ever existed. That's not the case, however. Just as I posted last month about there being a RE-71 made for years and years (here's a reference : https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...68&postcount=3) it's now succeeded by....no, not a RE72, but instead an RE70. Go figure. Are you finally seeing the light, and seeing that your argument has no logic to it?!

 

It's not determined by one opinion, either. Why do you insist on seeing Bridgestone catalogs of the tire? There wouldn't be much reason to advertise an OEM tire.


Uncle Sam, on the other hand, documents everything. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiles the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards of every tire sold. The NHTSA web site lists the Bridgestone Expedia S-07 tire as being a radial tire with Traction Rating A, Temperature Rating A, and Treadwear Rating 140. Enough??????????????

http://www.safercar.gov/Tires/pages/Tires2.cfm

Back on topic, mine came with the Yokohama A-022A's. Others I drove had Dunlop D40's. (This was in mid-92) btw, at work I still have the '94 Pirelli ad of the white (Chaste White?) FD.

 

How about the link in the above post? Is the government file "official" enough for you?

Magazine tests, photos, Yamaguchi book, testimony from owners that indeed have/had the S-07 on their car, Bridgestone documentation, NHTSA, etc.

Holy ****...what more do you want? Someone get the Japanese engineers who designed the Expedia line on the blower to put an end to one person's delusions.

 

?

 

Just because I'm having so much fun (and because no one has been able to resolve the questions and contradictions I've posed, or even attempted to) I'll throw this into the mix.

In post #40 I put up a photo of a 93 RX-7 showing the tire sidewall. This was a V-rated SO1 tire on a base model. The tires on my 95 RX-7 PEP looked exactly the same when I bought the car brand new. That's why I posted the pic.

At a certain point in 1999 I needed to buy a replacement tire. (2 of them in fact, first one that got a nail, then later, another to match it.) I'm a stickler about having matching tires on my cars. I wanted to put the exact same tire on the car as a replacement. Note the receipt I've attached. It says SO1. This is the same tire that some others are looking at in post #40 and swearing they see a "7".
When the new tires were put on they matched exactly the other tires that came on the car from the factory. All 4 of them looked exactly like the tire in the 1993
RX-7 that I posted in #40 of this thread. The tire store had to put in an order to its wholesaler for the replacement tire. They ordered an SO1.

Some people are easily swayed by something they've read along the way. They get it into their minds that this is the absolute, unalterable truth despite having no first hand experience in the matter. There aren't many original owners left here. I'm sure even fewer that bought replacement tires that matched the originals. I happen to be one of them.

 

trickshot,

1) There is no "alleged SO-7." The literature, and post #53 from my 1994 brochure (sorry I called it a "flyer") identifies the tire as S-07. The dash follows the "S" and not the zero, which you have written as an "O."

2) My picture is evidently of a different car than yours in post #40; it is a 1994 model (hopefully; this is a 1994 brochure), black, license # HJS 604, shown on pages 22 and 23. It might be a base car; I have no idea. But the brochure indicates that the S-07 was continued at least into 1994, so it did not "only last one year."

 

What in the flying ***** does you buying a S-01 (once again, nobody ever claimed this model tire didn't exist) in post #86 have ANYTHING to do with proving that a S-07 does not exist?

PROVE there was no such tire as the Expedia S-07!

Prove it.... when there's stacks upon stacks EVERYWHERE that shows it was a tire Bridgestone made in only one size - 225/50/16....specifically for the RX-7.

If you're agreeable I'd like to increase the bet by ten-fold.

Anybody know this guy or had the pleasure of arguing with him in person?

 

First of all, you need to switch to decaf. LOL.

Here's what it has to do with the heart of the matter.

See the photo of the sidewall in post #40? It's the one some people are swearing up and down shows an S07 tire. If you had that exact same car and that alleged "S07" tire, and you drove into a tire store and said, "Replace this tire" (as happened to me) the tire the store would have had to have ordered an S01 tire to replace it. It's exactly what happened to me. My tires looked exactly like that pictured in post #40. I replaced two of them. The store ordered S01's. They matched the factory tires exactly. The reason? Despite people swearing the tire sidewall reads "S07" the tire as ordered from Bridgestone is in fact an S01.

 

Point 1: It's the same pic. It was used in the 93, 94, and 95 sales brochures.
( I have all 3. ) They repeated the 93 pic in the subsequent years.

Point 2: What do you mean the brochure "identifies the tire as S-07"? There is no text stating that. I assume you mean that's how you read the sidewall pic. I'll say it again, this is what's at the heart of the confusion. BTW, have you ever seen one of these tires in person? I have. My tires matched exactly the tires pictured in the brochures on the black car. Please read my post regarding my replacement of these tires and how the tire store ordered S01 tires, put them on my FD and they matched exactly.

Point 3: No "might be" about it. It's definitely a base car. No rear wing, no sunroof. It's a base.

 

I know you won't believe anything anyone but you says, but as I posted earlier, my base '93 came with the S07's.
That's a fact, not conjecture.

 

I didn't write that. I wrote: "The literature, and post #53 from my 1994 brochure (sorry I called it a "flyer") identifies the tire as S-07." By "the literature" I was referring to Yamaguchi's/Dinkel's book on page 234, and in general to quite a few postings on the Net by people who owned that tire type, and by "post #53" I was referring to the picture I posted.

Yep, our car was supplied with the Bridgestone Expedia S-07. That IS a "7." If not, how would YOU have written a "7" on that tire, in that font?

 

You have hit the nail on the head here. This tool won't believe ANYTHING unless HE said it. Further debate is pointless. It just never ceases to amaze me that some people would rather argue an incorrect 'point' than admit they are wrong. Wrong as trickshot is. He reminds me of this dude I work with, who steadfastedly maintained that his 1977 TransAm would run 195 mph. He claimed it had a 500 hp 455, it did not..it had a 6.6 liter engine in it that was anemic as hell. Yet this fool would point to this OBVIOUSLY stock engine and try to convince everyone that it was a high output "NASCAR" 455. No amount of logic or reasoning worked on him. Several people said, "Okay...show me 195 mph." One guy even said, "I'll pay you $500 if this car will even run 140". It did not, no one ever rode in it and got above about 125 mph. But rather than admit he was wrong, and had been lying all along, as trickshot is, he would say, "Oh...I just didn't 'kick the 4 barrel in..." or some lame-*** **** like that. This guy was comical and pathetic in his failure. But it NEVER bothered him. He could not be shamed or embarrassed or proven wrong. And now with trickshot, I have seen another person just like him.

Hey trickshot, your name isn't Michael Wilcox, by any chance?

 

And here is a link to the Bridgestone website showing the S-07:

http://tireselector.bridgestone.co.j...D=277&S_FLAG=S

 

Bridgestone Reference cited above:

 

Thank you!

I should have said this in my previous post. Maybe this will end this strange debate.

Dave

 

DaveW, you're welcome. "Strange", yes. "Debate", I dunno... I pulled out that brochure last night & it's clearly an S-07. (Funny how it's the only photo where they didn't airbrush out the tire markings.)

Google found nothing on bridgestone.com so I tried the corporate (.jp) site. Google gave me exactly 2 hits: 16" and 17" versions of the tire, both specific to the FD.

I linked to the wrong one in my previous post: here is our 16" tire and a translated shot of it:
http://tireselector.bridgestone.co.j...D=277&S_FLAG=S

 

225-50-16.......

:d

 

225/50vr16......225/50zr16

 

Whoever gave this guy the Inter-web needs to take it back....SUCH A TOOL.
But it's ok because rather than look like a stubborn child to one or two people you looked like one to a few thousand! Congratulations trickshot you win a banana and a some reading glasses!
-J