I think the point that's being missed is that the majority of FDs do not have the engine they left the factory with, therefore the "matching numbers" concern is pointless, even if the engine numbers are associated with the VIN number by Mazda after the original sale. "Third reman" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it that "original engine" does.

In fact, most FD buyers are actually happy to get a freshly replaced engine with their purchase because they hope it means that it will be awhile before it needs to be replaced again.

 

Especially when Hayes Rotary builds your 13B-REW with an eccentric shaft from an '89 and a pair of rotors from '85 because they didn't want to go to the trouble of having a pair of FD rotors machined for your 3mm ceramic apex seals?

 

You know, with only 3 major internal moving components, you'd think it be cheaper to have the little sum-bish overhauled (old school terminoligy for: Rebuilt), than have it replaced with a Reman.

 

I'd rather have an original motor so I don't have to deal with all the *** clown repairs, mods, "fixes", etc that morons do to these cars. So many people think they know what they are doing and screw more up than they help when trying to wrench on a FD. I can't begin to describe what I see when I work on them.

areXseven,

Yeah there are only 3 major moving internal parts, the e-shaft never needs to be replaced, rotors need to be replaced more often than the e-shaft but still they are fairly hardy. The major problem is the 1 MILLION seals and springs along with the crappy coolant o-ring seals and rotor housings. That is where the money is.

 

Mother bitch, are you serious?

I rebuilt one of their motors a few months back. IT was an 89 NA. It had one 86-88 9.4:1 10.5lb rotor, and one 89-91 9.7:1 9.5lb rotor. Both had bad bearings. I believe it had one series 4 and one series 5 rotorhousing, too. Let's just say I didn't reuse much at all from that motor. I think the front cover and that's about it

 

Yes. The only way we found out about it before running the engine was because another 3mm ceramic seal engine built at the same time bound up and cracked two of the seals after only 500 miles. Hayes apparently assumed that the 3mm slots in the '85 13B rotors would be sufficient for the new seals and save them the machining costs, but they're too tight for the ceramic seals. I don't know what they thought we'd think about the change in compression ratio and rotor weight.

After we found that out, we pulled apart my engine (it had been sold to a friend before even being run) and found all of the above and then some. I paid for a "Stage III" street port and the exhaust ports were completely stock and the side plates had been mangled. The grinding tool had been allowed to skip across the surface of the side plates in several places, and they'd been lapped so many times that there wasn't enough groove left for the silicone O-rings. In fact, they had split and spooled out of the channels in a couple places when the bolts were torqued down. The engine would have immediately begun to consume coolant if run, and my friend would have been stuck trying to prove it was their fault.

Don agreed to rebuild the engine for free in exchange for the owner keeping quiet. Of course Don didn't know that the owner wasn't the only one who knew what had happened. The other engine owner had provided brand new housings and rotors bought from Mazdacomp, neither of which made it into his engine as far as anyone could tell. He eventually had to have the engine examined and rebuilt by Tri-Point when Hayes wouldn't honor their warranty on workmanship. They claimed that he'd blown the engine by driving it over the pass back to Eastern Washington without breaking it in first. Tri-Point said that the side plates were junk (like mine) and that it was the worst porting job they'd ever seen.

The thing that pisses me off the most, though, was that I gave them my original ~6,000 mile 1995 engine as a core, assuming that they'd reuse most of the parts. They only gave me a $250 credit for it, and NOT ONE PART of that engine was used in the one they built for me. All it needed was a housing and a rotor. I damn sure would not have given it to them for only $250 if I'd known they were just going to pocket the parts.

Since the engine was no longer mine, and I wanted my friend to get his money's worth, we kept quiet until after Hayes had rebuilt the engine for him and it had been proven to run reliably.

Sounds about par for the course.

 

95 models did not hit the US shores till late 1995. I know, I ordered an R2 in the spring of '95 and had to wait for shipment from Japan. At the time the factory was still undecided about a US Spec '95 model and did not run off a few till fall of '95.

On the subject of Orginal engines, I am proud of still running my orginal engines (unopened) with full compression in both my 1st IT car and 3rd Gen and after hundreds of autocrosses, timetrials, lap sessions; its like I know where she's been and who touched her. Hell, my wife can take care of herself, but my babies need watching over.

 

Just curious,..but why does your Sig state that you own a 94, while you state in your post above that it's a 95??

 

because I have a 1994 R2 shipped from Japan in the spring of 95. I could not wait for the 95 release 6 months later.

 

Good for you.

The rest of the 1995 models hit U.S. dealerships in the fall of 1994, as usual. 2005 models will be available this fall, in 2004. 2006 in fall of 2005, and so on. Typically, a car released late becomes a half year (1964.5 Mustang, for example), or if they miss almost an entire year of production, they skip a year and the car becomes the next model year. The 1984 Corvette is one example. There was no 1983 Corvette because technical and production problems delayed the release of the C4 for so long. The 1993 RX-7 is another. There was no 1992 model year RX-7 in the U.S because Mazda was ramping up production, or so we've been told.

Whether Mazda didn't release the 1995 RX-7 until late 1995 doesn't matter. It's still a 1995 model year car based on the VIN, and as such, is dated by when the rest of the 1995s were available. Chronologically, an individual '95 may not be 10 years old, but taken as a whole, the entire production run of 1995 RX-7s can be considered to be 10 years old like the rest of the 1995 model year vehicles sold in the U.S., and that's how their value is calculated. They don't go on the build date or the date of sale.

Is my '95 only 8 years old because it was bought new and first licensed in April of 1997? You'd have a hell of a time getting someone to believe that based on the VIN and the information in a NADA blue book.

 

Just FYI, they were all shipped from Japan at one time or another...

 

Get your facts straight would you please?

1. PFS is NOT out of the RX7 business! We are opening a new facility in Frederick, Maryland.

2. You are also confused about what motor went were in the Monsen issue.

FWIW:
The chassis VIN can be matched to the original front housing that the car was built with by Mazda. The engine number is punched into the front housing, so it can be mixed with other components during a rebuild and effectively become a totally different engine except for the original front housing.

 

Hey Peter,

1. I did state you were out of business, I guess your not but you should be.

2. I really doubt I'm confused about which motor went where but just for the record. For the record this is what I've heard via Gordon Monson, Ed Taylors 93 RX-7 left your shop with Gordon Monson's motor and Gordon Monson's car left your shop with Ed Taylors motor. At least the front iron with the numbers told that story.

FWIW:
I stated that the VIN could be matched to the original front iron, that is what got your silly butt in trouble.

Now clarify my confusion.