RX-7 fans.....check this....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kelvrick

Lifer
Feb 14, 2001
18,422
5
81
Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm guessing 11.21 is your 1/4 mile time? I have a hard time believing your almost stock 7 did that. I'm a huge fan and support it over the mustang but thats just a stretch.
 

Vortex22

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2000
4,976
1
81
Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

Uhh crack is bad.
Are those 1/8 mile times or something? heh
 

warcrow

Lifer
Jan 12, 2004
11,078
11
81
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow

Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm sorry, did you just tell me your totally stock 225HP car ran 11.21 in the 1/4 mile?

No. I didnt. I said my stock 255HP, twin turbo (sequental) rx-7 did.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
My '88 Mustang GT was by far the WORST car I've ever owned. The bone head designers used two different metals on parts held together with gaskets, meaning two different expansion rates. The result? Having to change head gaskets every 10000 miles after the 45000 mark, water leaks, oil leaks, overheating....what a piece of crap!
 

RagingBITCH

Lifer
Sep 27, 2003
17,618
2
76
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow

Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm sorry, did you just tell me your totally stock 225HP car ran 11.21 in the 1/4 mile?

No. I didnt. I said my stock 255HP, twin turbo (sequental) rx-7 did.

Um, no car with that weight could run a 11.21 in the 1/4
rolleye.gif
what bs
 

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow

Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm sorry, did you just tell me your totally stock 225HP car ran 11.21 in the 1/4 mile?

No. I didnt. I said my stock 255HP, twin turbo (sequental) rx-7 did.

It was a typo, I still don't believe that for a second.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow

Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm sorry, did you just tell me your totally stock 225HP car ran 11.21 in the 1/4 mile?

No. I didnt. I said my stock 255HP, twin turbo (sequental) rx-7 did.
U sure that wasn't a badly done 1/8? You're almost into the 10s and with a car that generally takes GOBS of horsepower.

 

warcrow

Lifer
Jan 12, 2004
11,078
11
81
Originally posted by: Fritzo
My '88 Mustang GT was by far the WORST car I've ever owned. The bone head designers used two different metals on parts held together with gaskets, meaning two different expansion rates. The result? Having to change head gaskets every 10000 miles after the 45000 mark, water leaks, oil leaks, overheating....what a piece of crap!

Ouch.
 

warcrow

Lifer
Jan 12, 2004
11,078
11
81
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow

Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm sorry, did you just tell me your totally stock 225HP car ran 11.21 in the 1/4 mile?

No. I didnt. I said my stock 255HP, twin turbo (sequental) rx-7 did.

It was a typo, I still don't believe that for a second.

Ok cool. Doesnt matter to me :)

Can we get back to the thread topic now? You can tell the chop is done b/c in the background the cars are of different shades of white
 

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
Originally posted by: Fritzo
My '88 Mustang GT was by far the WORST car I've ever owned. The bone head designers used two different metals on parts held together with gaskets, meaning two different expansion rates. The result? Having to change head gaskets every 10000 miles after the 45000 mark, water leaks, oil leaks, overheating....what a piece of crap!

The ONLY place on that motor where there are dis-similar metals joined by a gasket is the timing cover. The timing cover is aluminum, and the block is iron. And the seal there is hardly the most critical seal on the car.

The heads are iron, same as the block. You're telling me the two different iron parts caused you to have head gasket problems because they expand at different rates?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow

Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm sorry, did you just tell me your totally stock 225HP car ran 11.21 in the 1/4 mile?

No. I didnt. I said my stock 255HP, twin turbo (sequental) rx-7 did.

It was a typo, I still don't believe that for a second.

Ok cool. Doesnt matter to me :)

Can we get back to the thread topic now? You can tell the chop is done b/c in the background the cars are of different shades of white
It's going to be hard to get back on topic with you claiming that your car is neck and neck with an Enzo at the drag strip, and smokes a murcielago and porsche 911 turbo, don't you think? :p
 

warcrow

Lifer
Jan 12, 2004
11,078
11
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow

Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm sorry, did you just tell me your totally stock 225HP car ran 11.21 in the 1/4 mile?

No. I didnt. I said my stock 255HP, twin turbo (sequental) rx-7 did.

It was a typo, I still don't believe that for a second.

Ok cool. Doesnt matter to me :)

Can we get back to the thread topic now? You can tell the chop is done b/c in the background the cars are of different shades of white
It's going to be hard to get back on topic with you claiming that your car is neck and neck with an Enzo at the drag strip, and smokes a murcielago and porsche 911 turbo, don't you think? :p

11.21 quarter is not as fast a 911 or enzo.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow

Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm sorry, did you just tell me your totally stock 225HP car ran 11.21 in the 1/4 mile?

No. I didnt. I said my stock 255HP, twin turbo (sequental) rx-7 did.

It was a typo, I still don't believe that for a second.

Ok cool. Doesnt matter to me :)

Can we get back to the thread topic now? You can tell the chop is done b/c in the background the cars are of different shades of white
It's going to be hard to get back on topic with you claiming that your car is neck and neck with an Enzo at the drag strip, and smokes a murcielago and porsche 911 turbo, don't you think? :p

11.21 quarter is not as fast a 911 or enzo.
Car and driver said the enzo does it in 11.2 and the porsche 911 does 12.3

 

warcrow

Lifer
Jan 12, 2004
11,078
11
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: warcrow

Obviously the stats I've already provided to you displays the HP rating (255) a weight (2,797lbs). Personally, with my rebuild (engine, no mods except a bigger all aluminum radiator) is 11.21. I've only taken it to the track 3 times, and that was my best, another RX-7 down there on the same day bested me with 9.6 (i think).

I'm sorry, did you just tell me your totally stock 225HP car ran 11.21 in the 1/4 mile?

No. I didnt. I said my stock 255HP, twin turbo (sequental) rx-7 did.

It was a typo, I still don't believe that for a second.

Ok cool. Doesnt matter to me :)

Can we get back to the thread topic now? You can tell the chop is done b/c in the background the cars are of different shades of white
It's going to be hard to get back on topic with you claiming that your car is neck and neck with an Enzo at the drag strip, and smokes a murcielago and porsche 911 turbo, don't you think? :p

11.21 quarter is not as fast a 911 or enzo.
Car and driver said the enzo does it in 11.2 and the porsche 911 does 12.3

Crap, you're right I jut saw that.

0-60 in 3.3
1/4 in 11.2


Hrm, driver? Maybe I did do a 1/8 LOL. This was 3 years ago. I have my stats from the race track somewhere around here. If thats a 1/8 then I'm a horrible driver and my car is S-L-O-W
 

boyRacer

Lifer
Oct 1, 2001
18,569
0
0
wow... nothing makes a car look played out more than by seeing a bunch of them in one picture... :p

11.21 is faaaaast... :Q

360 challenge :heart: stradale does it in 12.2 ... not that id take a ferrari drag racing... :D
 

warcrow

Lifer
Jan 12, 2004
11,078
11
81
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Skoorb
13.9 according to this for a 1993 rx-7

Anyway I don't think you're deliberately making it up, you're just mistaken. And that guy who did it in 9.6 would have had more mods to his car than you shake a freaking stick at.

he's just pushing your buttons guys. Just another attention whore, that's all.

We're having a discussion here. If you have nothing to constructive to contribute, then maybe you should fine something better to do with your time.
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Originally posted by: warcrow
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Skoorb
13.9 according to this for a 1993 rx-7

Anyway I don't think you're deliberately making it up, you're just mistaken. And that guy who did it in 9.6 would have had more mods to his car than you shake a freaking stick at.

he's just pushing your buttons guys. Just another attention whore, that's all.

We're having a discussion here. If you have nothing to constructive to contribute, then maybe you should fine something better to do with your time.

and you say you don't have any mods on your car, right?
 

BigPoppa

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,930
0
0
Info on 2nd gen rx7

Towards the bottom of the site it lists Mazda's estimate of a 14.9 1/4 mile time on a 2nd gen TT Rx7 stock. I doubt the 3rd gen magically knocked off 3.7 seconds. You have some serious crediblity issues, Warcrow.
 

Kelvrick

Lifer
Feb 14, 2001
18,422
5
81
Originally posted by: BigPoppa
Info on 2nd gen rx7

Towards the bottom of the site it lists Mazda's estimate of a 14.9 1/4 mile time on a 2nd gen TT Rx7 stock. I doubt the 3rd gen magically knocked off 3.7 seconds. You have some serious crediblity issues, Warcrow.

Its already been established that he mistook his 1/8 time for his 1/4 time. I've only seen modded 3rd gens down in the upper 12,s maybe 12.6 (in person). Here are some nice faster rx7 times for you doubters though. I'd take a 7 over a mustang any day though. Even though its japanese, it does ahve its damn rotory reliability problems but the interior, design, handling will bust up a mustang any day, stock for stock.

EDIT: You gotta love the sound. Almost up there with the ferrari's in my opinion.
 

warcrow

Lifer
Jan 12, 2004
11,078
11
81
Crap, that was my 1/8 time!! I got dug up my time sheet. Now I really feel like an ass, LOL!

Ok, well, with a better driver (obviously, thats not me) this car is much faster!


*edit* corrected spelling error
 

maziwanka

Lifer
Jul 4, 2000
10,415
1
0
dont mean to bust on you war, but 11.21 stock is ridiculous. putting all the magazine stats aside, take a look at some of the numbers performance cars are putting out:

the e55 amg, 2002+ vette z06, and the 911 turbos are low-mid 12 second cars. i dont even know of a stock 11 second car thats in a reasonable price bracket (i just read above about the enzo, but i didnt even think of that). i wouldnt have problem believing that number if the car was HEAVILY modified, but even then i dont know what the rx-7 is capable of once modified.

mid-high 13s sound much better for the 1/4 in that car.

edit: just read your concession that it was the 1/8th mile.