Aight Ive been trying to figure out what exact type mine is. Its a 95. I dont have the rear wiper of the touring, but I also dont have the air dam or rear spoiler. Its got the leather seats no sunroof, and also no soundguide in the back for the bose system tho I do have all bose speakers and cruise control. Just wondering what kind it was as it seems to have some of all types tho not all of one. Oh and its an auto. Of course the stock times are moot so i have no ntk, Just wondering. oh and the symbol is the wierd circley thing looks kinda like a deformed I

 

I suspect the Mazda engineers designed the front air damn and the "floating" rear wing to work together to reduce lift AND to increase high speed stability. Perhaps that's why I don't see the wing without the air damn?

I do agree with you regarding the road racing circuits. The R1/R2 rear wing probably does nothing to plant the rear end at 90 mph. I've drifted the car at an extreme yaw angle at that speed through Putnam Park's Turn 1. A "real" wing should give enough downforce at 90 mph to prevent that. Porsche's 993 and 996 wings apparently work at 70 mph?

I'm with in your preference for the R1. Might I add that the R1/R2 model is a minimalist's approach to a performance. No bells and whistles to distract from the task at hand..."haulin' the mail"!

 

It's probably the popular equipment package (PEP for short). Mazda ditched the "Touring" models for the '94-'95 production runs. The PEPs aren't as "loaded" as the '93 Tourings, but the PEPs have enough options to make most non driving enthusiasts happy.

BTW the R models were NOT available as an automatic. That should tell you what Mazda's engineer's were aiming the R models for--RACING'!

The Mazda emblem was that "wierd circly thing..." Mazda changed the emblem after 1995 to the "flying bird that looks like an M". I opted to swap the original emblems with Efini badges. When I repaint the car, it will be completely devoid of emblems.

 

Sounds like you aren't familiar with the 96-98 RX-7's. The air dam was a standard feature and the wing wasn't so MOST RX-7's had the wing and no air dam. In fact, for those models that came with a wing, Mazda redesigned it.

Sleeper: If you have no sunroof then what you have is a base model w/leather. Otherwise its a PEP.


Mazda'a 'real' race models have always been the RZ models. The R1's are poor substitutes by comparison in virtually every way.

 

Nope, the '96-'98s are Japan-only models, so I wouldn't have any familiarity with those FDs. Let me guess Mazda redesigned the wing with more downforce so you specs-only guys would be convinced that the wing really works without trying it out 160 mph, right? Again the Type RZ is a Japan-only model, and isn't relevant to the discussion.

Base models did not come with leather. The '95s did not come with a Base model at all. There were only 2 types of FDs for model year '95, R2 or PEP.

BTW, I'm still waiting for those Yamaguchi book references where you say it's well-documented that the R1/R2 wing doesn't work???

 

You make way too many erroneous assumptions so yes you're wrong again. The RZ as well as the SP are very relevent as they demonstrate what Mazda has done for a 'race' RX-7. You should research the wing on the SP as well as RX-7's in general instead of being so misinformed.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. There were lots of base models that had leather as it was ~$1100 option just like an auto was an option at ~$800 as well as several other options. Mazda made 108 '95 Base models for the US according to their published figures. In fact, more '95 base models were made than '95 R2's.


Don't care. You're not worth my time to bother if you're going to be so closed-minded about everything. As I also mentioned, there's several places its been documented some of which include documentation by Mazda themselves after they made changes. Its so foolish of you to think that you're right and Mazda's wrong. Try doing the research for once.

Its your choice to be uneducated and closed-minded about so many things. There's so much you don't know and realizing that is step one. For a quick lesson, just do a quick post to the RX-7 List and ask how much downforce the old batwing produces. You'll quickly find that noone agrees with your flawed and unproven logic.

Last post since the discussion has degraded so much and its no fun spoonfeeding certain people.

 

Spoon feeding people? Wow, you're really coming off like someone special now!

I stand corrected. The 95s did come as a Base or R2. I remember this now because I was considering buying a brand new FD back in 1995 before I decided to buy my '93 R1. Chalk one up for you! You did your homework!

It is you who is degrading this topic. I have tried to keep this impersonal, but you've made several comments that have been aimed at me, and my so-called, flawd logic. You don't know who I am, so how can you fire off such flaming posts, and say that I'm not worth your time? The truth of the matter is, you don't have any references from the Yamaguchi book. You saw drag coefficient numbers that weren't much different (wing vs no wing), you read a bunch of other specs-only computer people agreeing that the wing doesn't work (without having actually tried because you're all so busy posting), and so you (in your infinite FD Rx7 wisdom) hath concluded that the R1/R2 wing doesn't work--experience be damned. I'm here to tell you that it DOES WORK. LOGIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I'm talking from personal experience. What is so damned insulting, is that you DISCOUNT my peronal experience merely because it doesn't agree with what you've read!

I don't mind being corrected, so long as it's done with tact. I'll be the first to admit, that I don't know all the trivia about the FD. You must be the person that does. Kudos and congratulations! What I DO KNOW is from my actual experience with the car. If that means nothing to you then WE ARE WASTING EACH OTHER'S TIME.

What we have here is a fundamental difference in philosophy. I'm a driver first, and an FD Rx7 nut second. I feel the car through my "butt". On track, my passengers say that I can really make the car dance! It's because I know the car so damned well. I can predict how it will behave through a corner, and make the adjustment BEFORE it happens. You can know all the FD trivia there is to know, but if you haven't actually experienced your car in this way--the way it was engineered to be driven, then what's the point--REALLY??

I don't need to post on the the Rx7 list, because I know all that I need to know about this car. I've had it for 6 years and 89,000 miles. It's my daily driver as well as track car (as mentioned above). During this time and hard use, I've managed to keep the car running like a "top", despite the fact all my other fellow FD Rx7 aquaintances have already gone through their first motor (some going through their second or third!). Why don't you post a question about me on the Rx7 big list? Someone will reply backing up my reputation. To illustrate my knowledge. I had a young man who just picked up his '93 R1 2 days ago. He had me drive it on track (Putnam Park Road Course) just yesterday, to test its mettle on the track, and to feed back to him what needs to be done to the car. His name is Slava, and I'm sure he's posted plenty of questions on the Rx7 big list. Go ahead and verify this, please!

As for the Australian Rx7 SP, it was a homolagation special. Mazda Australia made enough cars (25--I think) so Triple M Mazda could run competitively with the Porsche 993 RSCSes. The white No. 7 Triple M Mazda did eventually beat the Porsches at Eastern Creek; I have the video called "The Duel, The Real Story of the 12 Hour at Eastern Creek". It's fantastic, and I encourage you all to find a copy! Mentioning the SP car is irrelevant because it (just like the Type RZ and the 96'-'98 FD Rx7s) was never available in the United States. My points were regarding US-only FD Rx7 R1s/R2s not OUS models...OK?

This is also my last post on this topic, not because I like to have the last word, but because I'm standing firm in my position on the wing. In case you didn't get it the first time, I'll make my point very clear--the R1/R2 wing works as Mazda intended it to, based on MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THROUGH A 160-MPH SWEEPING TURN! BTW the top speed spec for the FD Rx7 is 159 mph (you'll correct me if I'm wrong, surely!). As the owner of this car, I always get the quesiton, "what have you had it up to?". I found out last year--my speedometer indicated "170+ mph and climbing"...I had to get out of the gas because of upcoming traffic. How do you explain that one? Let me guess speedometer error--right?

You need to get out and DRIVE YOUR CAR! Experience it the way the ingenious Mazda engineers designed for you to drive it! It's a fantastic car. At yesterday's track event, I had my own duel going with a fully track prepped, Speed Yellow, '98 Porsche 993 Carrera S (I call it Yellow Bird, not to be mistaken for the Ruf Yellow Bird, OK!). We were within 0.5 seconds of each other. The only difference is my car is 1/4th the price of his. All the Porsche owner could do is scratch his and say "what the f***?"

With that we'll have to agree that we have one of fastest sports car ever made regardless of price.

So let's stand in unity with each other as owners of this magnificent car!

Best regards!

 

Ive heard 4.9 for the R1 vs about 5.3 for the touring which seems reasonable considering the difference in weight and traction (r1s had stickier tires) but I cant make any promises

 

I agree with you. I think it DOES make a differance. Mazda wouldn't have spent countless hours in a wind tunnel just to install a non-funtional rear wing.

Besides, is everyone ready for the question of the year?
How can you reduce lift with a wing without creating downforce? If it is PREVENTING the rear of the car from lifting, then it is OBVIOUSLY creating downforce! It may not be creating enough downforce to push the car down, but it's creating just enough to prevent the rear from lifting up.

And don't tell me it's preventing the rear from lifting up because of it's weight

 

Published Data (Drag Coefficient, Front Lift Coefficient, Rear Lift Coefficient)

93 Base:0.29, 0.16, 0.08 no air dam, no wing (Ref: 'Race Car Aerodynamics')
94 R2 0.31, 0.10, 0.08 air dam, batwing ( " ")
96 RB: 0.31, 0.10, 0.08 air dam, no wing (Ref: '96 Efini RX-7 Catalog)
96 RB-S: 0.32, 0.10, 0.06 air dam, lift-wing ( " ")
99 RS: 0.32 0.045 0.00 new front+rwing@1 deg. (Ref'99 Efini RX-7Catalog)
99 RS: 0.331 0.051 -0.058 new front+rear wing @10 deg. ( " ")

From the $$$millions$$$ Mazda spent on wind-tunnel testing, its obvious the batwing does not change Clr. Your experience is MEANINGLESS since you have no baseline reference. Thinking that your 'feelings' are better than windtunnel tests is ludicrous and only proves your ignorance.

You seem to have some insecurity issues from your 'need to assume' about how I drive. Again, your grossly inaccurate but its also irrelevent. As a final point of fact, here's an excerpt from the RX-7 list from Stephen J Lee(he gets paid to do aerodynamic work for a NASCAR team):


"R1 rear spoiler is there for looks. Front spoiler does work. It reduces the amount of air under the car, decreasing lift."


'Nuf said.
Continued closed-mindedness is your choice

 

I've got a '93 VRBase and have added the following exterior mods:

 

I've got a '93 VR Base with the following exterior mods:

Racing Beat Type 1 rear spoiler
R1 Chin spoiler
OEM fog lights from a wrecked 94

Since the RB Type 1 is both higher and wider than the R1 spoiler, I should gain some effective use of the two spoilers used together.

Is this correct?

 

Yep.

 

STRAIGHT from the 1993 RX-7 Catalog..

"Aerodyanamic changes set the R1 appart immediately. These include a large front air dam and a floating rear wing. While adding a dramatic look, these parts are also highly functional. By increasing the downforce on the car, they further improve the RX-7's already excellent stability at high speeds"

Ok, someWHERE someone is lying. The truth is out there.... :p

 

flybye to the rescue

 

Cuz I'm a super Fly

 

What this thread needs is more cowbell.

Also, no one has mentioned doing ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY MILES AN HOUR in a while. I'll go ahead and do it.

THIS ONE TIME I WAS DRIVING ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY MILES AN HOUR AND LIGHTNING HIT ME AND IT HAD 1.6 GIGAWATTS OF POWER AND I WENT BACK IN TIME AND MY MOM HIT ON ME AND THIS WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED IF I DIDNT HAVE THAT STUPID WING ON THE RX7 IT MUST HAVE DRAWN LIGHTNING TO IT AT 160 MILES PER HOUR IN A SWEEPING CORNER SO I GUESS THAT WING DOES WORK EH? I WAS READING A BOOK ABOUT IT AT 160 MILES PER HOUR.

Also, I'd like to say that I aspire to be a good enough driver that my "skill" makes the car exceed it's mechanical top speed. Things like gearing, aerodyamics, and power are all irrelevant if you're a good enough driver. The best way to practice? DRIVE THROUGH CORNERS AT 160 MILES PER HOUR.

I'd like to note that Formula 1 cars are pretty much the only ones that can do 160 MILES PER HOUR in corners on road courses. Clearly the spoiler takes the 93 RX-7 into Michael Schumacher territory.

Alex.

 

I've taken banked curves at 140mph on the hwy.

It just all depends how deel the curve is , but don't expect me to try an on-ramp at 140mph

 

I've gone 173mph~175mph on my touring with and without rear wing and, with it or not it want scary nor unstable. same shiet

 

^^ ive been to 170ish in my touring as well. didnt get light on me at all.

 

The follow the links at the top of this page to scuderiaciriani, and goto the article archives.

 

Wow, this thread is old. I see that people are bringing back the dead today.

 

Could someone tell me what this R1 and R2 stuff is? My knowledge is very limited on this. I know the 94 came either stock or with a touring package. What did the touring package even offer? Thanks.

 

You'll find the answer here.

 

160mph sweeper... on the freeway... I assumed you were talking about the track. Sounds like you have an interesting commute!

The FD has nice dynamics at high speed without a spoiler. The stock rear spoiler makes little or no difference. To begin with, a rear spoiler that made significant downforce would reduce the top speed more than the couple of MPH that the stock spoiler does. You can't really say the stock spoiler made a difference if you havn't also driven without the spoiler.

For future testing may I suggest a high speed oval rather than the freeway? Just a concerned commuter.