I'm 6'4" and have the same trouble. One of the FD's I drove had a sunroof and I got about two blocks away before turning around and coming back. The owner wanted to know what the matter was and I explained that while at the stop sign I realized I had my head leaning over so I could fit

 

I believe that's a myth. I've seen an R-model gutted and there is no extra insulation in my PEP.

 

Another myth...

All models have the same spring rates. The only difference is the valving of the shocks.

 

^^ Agreed. Back when I still had the R1, it rode around just fine on Jacksonville's roads, and we have more potholes than people (overpopulated crap city).

That and with the FD market getting smaller and smaller by the day, its best as someone stated above, get a great starting car and just go from there.

 

Just don't go crazy on the model they are all basically the same just few minor differences here and there. You should be worried abotu finidng a 95' because we all know 95's own everyone else lol...jk

 

Yes, the springs rates are the same but as you stated the R1 model shocks are valved much stiffer. This does result in a ride that feels a bit more harsh than with the softer valved shocks on the touring model.

In regards to the sound insulation I think this actually does exist.... but I could be wrong. It's really very minor and just consists of some foam around the rear strut tower area on the non R models. It couldn't weight more than 2 pounds if that. It's not really the sticky tar like kind of insulation found on some vehicles like BMWs. A stripped down R and non R chassis are exactly the same (except sunroof).

- John

 

I think the one thing that you definitely want to keep in mind, as stated earlier, is the head clearance issue. If you have any intention on tracking the car at some HPDE event, you might have trouble fitting if you're taller and have to wear a helmet. I'm 5'10" with a touring, and although the sunroof is definitely nice, I really wish I could have had that extra inch or so of headroom...tried messing with seats a little, but the stock seats are actually already pretty close to the floor...

Other than that, get the cleanest one you can find, and go from there.

 

that deserves a repost

 

I believe the springs were slightly softer, and longer, for the 94/95 models. This was to soften the ride slightly from the 93 model. If you would like to look it up, you will find that they are a different part number.

 

True, but R-models had the same springs as Base and Touring models for each year. There were no separate "hard suspension" and "normal suspension" springs. I should have specified that I was talking about each specific year.

1993 Fiche
Front spring - FD03-34-011

Front shock - FD01-34-700B (normal suspension, right)
FD03-34-700C (hard suspension, right)
FD01-34-900B (normal suspension, left)
FD03-34-900C (hard suspension, left)

Rear spring - FD03-28-011

Rear shock - FD01-28-700E (normal suspension)
FD03-28-700E (hard suspension)

1994 Fiche
Front spring - FD01-34-011 - MT W/GLASS SUN ROOF
FD17-34-011 - AT, MT W/STEEL SUN ROOF

Front shock - FD15-34-700A (normal suspension, right)
FD16-34-700A (hard suspension, right)
FD15-34-900A (normal suspension, left)
FD16-34-900A (hard suspension, left)

Rear spring - FD15-28-011B

Rear shock - FD15-28-700A (normal suspension)
FD16-2B-700A (hard suspension)

1995 Fiche
Front spring - FD01-34-011 - MT w/GLASS SUN ROOF
FD17-34-011 - AT, MT W/STEEL SUN ROOF

Front shock - F123-34-700A (normal suspension, right)
FD16-34-700A (hard suspension, right)
F123-34-900A (normal suspension, left)
FD16-34-900A (hard suspension, left)

Rear spring - FD15-28-011B

Rear shock - FD15-28-700A (normal suspension)
FD16-28-700A (hard suspension)

 

I got a myth for I own a 93 R1 and it has cruise, figure that out! My only guess is because I'm in Canada. Any other sugesstions? Agreed buy what you like.

 

All bets are off if the car is from Canada. Canadian cars have square wheels too. I saw it on South Park...

 

And the drivers have flapping heads

Uh oh ....... Now I am going to get MY eyes poked out

 

That's true, we get all kinds of funky options. When I drove a mustang 91 (BOOO!) those cars had cobra stickers from the factory. I don't get it, but it must be a incentive to buy here. And remember blame Canada!

 

I recently compared the spare tire well of a 94 Touring to a spare tire well of a 93 R1. The 93 had no sound deadening IN the spare tire well, the 94 Touring did have factory tar type mat in there.

I'm not sure if this holds true to a 93 R1 to 93 Touring or if it is a 93 vs 94 thing.

I'm sure someone here with a 93 Touring and someone else with a 94 R2 could help us out.

 

hell ya, this man is a god. re-engineering one of the best cars ever built, dropping 30k on essentially a streetable NASCAR motor, AND he watches South Park. Jim, coming from another Jim, you KICK ***.

 

quite helpful and knowledgable too

 

wow.....thanks guys for all the advice...im new to the group so i didn't know i'd get all that response....seems like a great group of RX7 guys to know....I'm taking all this advice from you, no doubt....I am open to R1/R2, base or touring now....

From these last posts though, I guess I have a new concern...I'm 6'1"....will the touring be uncomfortable?? Obviously I will just have to drive one for myself (I was in one years ago, but wasn't paying too much attention to headroom at the time).....Im thinking this one looks tastefully/smartly modified?....but I'm reading up on the non-sequential conversion...trying to decide if I want that or not...

the ad:


http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...93&cardist=254


absolutely very nice and very rare low miles 94 touring. bought two years ago completely stock at 52k miles. iam the third owner. a father and son owned it and took really good care of it. no history of any problems at all. garaged its whole life. original engine(compression still good) and turbos. 8k invested in performance and reliability mods. modified for driving not racing. most of the work and tuning was done by a-spec tuning. 1k miles ago. NON-Sequential conversion (original set up is very difficult to work on.) new battery, act s/s clutch and streetlite flywheel, koyo radiator, microtech ecu, 1200 secondary inj., 20b fuel pump, mazda speed short shifter, column mount boost gauge(pfs), m2 medium stock mount intercooler, m2 carbon fiber airbox, full 3inch exhaust w/ pettit resonated mid pipe and racing beat dual tip. engine torque brace, greddy pulleys, hks bov, turbo xs dual stage boost controller set at 11 and 13psi. makes about 305 to 325rwhp respectively. car runs very strong and very fast. has never been on a race track or raced on the street. please only serious interests with serious offers. car is very clean in and out with normal wear and flaws, but nothing that really stands out at all. I looked for 6 months to find a stock white 94' in this condition and drove 800 miles to north carolina before ever seeing the car. i was not disappointed. unfortunately i am selling due to finances. this car has been given tons of love and maintenance. car is worth 17k stock. only a couple hundred 94' white touring models like this one and very few in this condition and low miles. non-sequential is MUCH more reliable and comes on strong at around 3200rpm to 3500rpm. these cars are amazing and unique. i am very confident in the work that has been done to the car and can answer any questions at all about this car.

 

If anyone is interested in the sequential, non-sequentil issue:

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...6&page=1&pp=15

I think from the comments I'm reading, I'd be fine in nonsequential. It's kinda funny reading about dealing with low torque because the two cars me and my wife have are: 2000 Civic SiR (in Canada it's SiR...vtec 160 hp) and an Acura RSX Type S...six speed 200hp....both are revving monsters,...I bounce my Civic off it's 8700 rpm rev-limiter quite regularly... so I'm quite used to almost NO torque especially in the Civic...the power doesn't even come on until 5500 rpm....so I think a slight torque loss and a higer-revving situation won't even phase me...I think I'll even prefer it....

 

Hello-

At least in 93, there are two different part numbers for the carpet. The touring carpet is heavier and thicker - it has more insulating layers attached to it. The base/R1 carpet does not.

I believe that the weight savings is something like 15 lb (I haven't weighed this myself... trying to recollect from when someone else did, so I could be corrected).

IMHO, I'll take the 15 lb hit and make my ears happier :-).

Take care,
Shad

 

wow...NICE honduhs you got. i didn't know they imported SiR's to canada

also with non seq you'll get the high end power if thats what your looking for