91gta_tpi

I was just wondering if I raced a mid 80's model RX7 what would happen, the race would be in a 1991 GTA let's say with no mods and a 305 tpi. The reason I am asking is because I raced one last night in my girlfriend's focus from a 50 mph roll, and I beat him up until about 90 by a 1/4 of a car, then we shut down, just wondering if he couldn't drive, or those cars really are pretty slow.

GASGZLR

Based on the new focus->If the TPI car is auto then it will lose, that is, if your girl's focus was a ZETEC motor+5sp. Those are pretty quick. My friend got beat by one in his 305 TBI with mods. The focus only had an intake and it was a 5 sp. The 5 sp TPI would take the mazda easy though.

anymethod

Depends on the Rx7. The one you raced in the Focus must have been N/A because any turbo one in decent shape would have recked you. And also, depending on the year and the engine, different things could happen. I raced an 89 Turbo II RX7 at the track and with only exhaust and intake (5spd) it went 14.3

~Matt

91gta_tpi

well, i think it was n/a, because i checked the specs on it and it the n/a only had only 100 hp, and only a little bit more torque, so my g/f's focus has 110 hp auto, w/ 125 tq, so I think it was n/a and it looked like it was in pretty rough shape. So it doesn't surprise me now.

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (3)

The early-mid 80s RX-7 were a total joke. They did absolutely nothing well. They made no power, they can't handle, they got horrid gas mileage, and they polluted worse than your car without cats. Not to mention they are *** awful ugly. And the later (pre-93) turbo cars were only about on par with a good running 305TPI.

rx7speed

hey man that isn't a nice comment


early 80's where not the greatest
mid 90's where ok for what they where


and even if the pre 93 turbo cars are only on part with a 305tpi they can be made faster a lot easier then a 305 so shoce that up your fuel injector



but no N/A rx7 from 79-85 I have no clue

if it looks like the one in my sig that is from 86-91 and N/A they should be good for anywhere from a 16.4 down to a high 15 (where I should be GGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR)

then you have the turbo's
should be around high 14's or so to a low 15
but then again I have two friends here one was pulling 12.8 with 280rwhp and 1.9 60 (don't understand since he spins through first and the rx7 is a pain to launch decent.. well my peg leg is)
then have another friend who is running not 280 but 380hp and he has ran a 15 a 14 and a 13... oh yeah then a 40

but sorry just rambling

acid Burn

a buddy of mine has a late 80 n/a rx7 and that car is slow....period.

rx7speed

my friend has a early 90's camaro
it is slow.... period

del91_305

So you are saying that your friends 305 TBI with mods got beat by a focus? If so thats kind of hard to believe. I raced a focus that had a cold air intake and exhaust and 5 speed in a bone stock sunfire w/5 speed and totally owned him, and i know my 305 TBI could beat it on 87 octane fuel with 2 plugs missing. Just my 2 cents.

Wi$h

My first car was an 85' RX7 and ya they are pretty slow, a V6 camaro could prolly beat it. i never raced mine cuz i was only 15 but, i tested it out on an open road a couple of times and it was pretty slow. and i'm pretty sure from 79-85 they didn't make a turbo model.

Flash

one of the ugliest cars ive seen. gives cars from the 80's a bad name. not to mention SLOW[/U]

Drastius

You might want to watch out for those ugly early 80's RX7. There is a kit to swap in small block fords/ small block chevys and 3.8 turbos.
That kind of power with the ~2300 pounds that they weigh can be scary.

rx7speed

guys which 80's rx7 are you talking about?
there are two different generations running around

then comes performance

for one stock doesn't mean that is what you are limited to
turbo rx7's while only being around 305tpi range stock are EASILY modded

and to those of you that want to talk giving cars a bad name


um LU5

now that is a motor to be proud of

gives 80's cars a great name

menas real performance

shortofstable

Just my slightly educated two cents on early rx7s here. A couple guys called them ugly and slow-but i wouldn't exactly consider an early 80s berlinetta sexy either-personally i don't mind how the rx7s look-and the fact they weigh 2350 pounds. My friend owns a 1980 white with black leather interior-not a shabby looking little car. Also the 12A motor (early 80s n/a) with just a header and a nice carb will have 165 horsepower and run high 14s to low 15s. Peripheral ported with the same setup they can have 225, which with that weight will break into the 13s. All this i came across after my friend bought his car with a weber carb and racing beat header and a few little tweaks by his cousin and offered to race. I did it just for the fun of it, figuring it wouldnt be close, but to my surprise he stayed on my bumper up until 60 or so, when i finally left him behind. Then my tranny popped. But anyways, I'm just saying don't count them out, cuz especially in a stockish older 3rd gen if theyve put the $1000 in they just might be the ones laughing in the end.

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (3)

Just because the Berlinetta wasn't pleasing to the eye doesn't mean that the early RX-7's weren't. They're ugly, just like the Datsun 240/280 cars. And they're slow too. To the tune of 17 second quarter mile times...

And a 12A with a carb and header WILL NOT run high 14s LOL! I know, I tried it. A coworker of mine who owns a 84 GSL wanted to do the carb swap. He is quite knowledgable with the rotaries, as he owns that 84, an 85 GSL-SE, a 91 n/a, and a 93 single T66 conversion. In fact, he buys them with blown engines, rebuilds them, and sells them for a nice profit. Anyway we put on the Holley intake, with a 600CFM Holley carb - 4160 maybe?... can't remember exactly which carb. Regardless it was the one Holley recommended. That along with the RB header and full exhaust and a fuel system upgrade. Stock whatever gears and trans the car ran faster than with the injection, but surely was no high 14 second car!

But as a side note - we rebuilt an n/a 87, and that thing flew! With no mods it went consistent 15.0-15.1 Surprised quite a few local 4.6 Stangs with that one. We never could figure out why it ran so well...

rx7speed

no ofence man but a 12a isn't oing to have 165 hp with just header and filter
those things only put out 110hp I think at the best years
and while a rotary motor oes respond better to exhuat mods then a piston motor
that is a little much

also the peripheral port motors for teh 12a have been known to hit 280 to 300hp N/A


marc I don't mean to offend you here but I find it hard to believe that a stock rx7 N/A will run 15 flat

only thing I could think is aftermarket port job which would make a decent difference
that time though is near the same range as wha the turbo motors would pull



and to my comments about looks on the rx7 you guys seem to blanket them up
there where two different generations and 3-4 diffeent series of rx7's during the 80's

it would be like me saying I know of a trans am made during the 80's that came with a turbo was slow
and this I honestly mean not just trying to give you crap

rx7speed

another thing I wanted to add is a grand national made during the 80's was about the slowest piece of dung out there also that I have seen


slow slow slow v6 motors don't rule

91gta_tpi

I have to agree with you that v6 motors don't exactly rule, BUT those engines were a turbocharged v6, and THEY did rule. Just my opinion though.

rx7speed

who said anything about turbo 6 cyl

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (3)

You did

rx7speed

I don't follow you
yeah I said something about a grand national
but where did I say anything about a turbo 6?

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (3)

You referred to Grand Nationals and 6 cylinders in the same post. The Grand National has a turbo V6...

Kinda like referring to an RX-7 and its engine, and then wondering why someone is asking about a rotary?

rx7speed

alsot noticed you said those and is plural refering about my post on the trans am
what does the boosted trans am have anything to do with a v6 also?

could have sworn they made a 301 version v8 boosted trans am that was slow as hell

then with the grand nation I to this day still don't see what a N/A 4.1L have in common with a boosted 3.8
or even how a N/A 4.1L means it has a boosted motor when it is not boosted

posbird87

i dont think any GN was made without a turbo, save for a few rare ones back in like, 82-84... but the rest were all black, all turbo, all sex on wheels id like a wankel and all, but GN>RX7

Edit - i didnt see your post when i typing. some GNs DID have the 4.1L in the rarer 82-84ish versions, someone can correct me on that, but the production ones had the 3.8L turbo... and yes there was a trans am made with a turboed 301 that is only useful as a boat anchor

rx7speed

you are right
there was a grand nation that was with the 4.1
not a very fast beast if I remember right


and the 301 trans am was a slow beast as well


marc I knew what I was talking about
so grand nation does NOT mean turbo v6
just making the same blanket statements that others have made

rx7speed

you are right
there was a grand nation that was with the 4.1
not a very fast beast if I remember right


and the 301 trans am was a slow beast as well


marc I knew what I was talking about
so grand nation does NOT mean turbo v6
just making the same blanket statements that others have made

and with the grand national being better then the rx7
matter of opinion there based on wants/needs
for me the GN isn't better

faster by all means in the straights
but I wanted something cheap that can turn
gn doesn't fit my wants

but still one hella nice car none the less

still remember the low 12 second run on a car so quite I heard the wind comming off the car and almost no exhuast sound

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (3)

Who thinks of the old 4.1L buicks when the name Grand National is mentioned? Or even the hot air cars for that matter? When you say Grand National, 99% of car enthusiasts think of the 86-87 cars. Definately not the 83 and earlier "before black" cars - which a small handful came with the 4.1L.

And only the old school guys think of the 2nd gen TA when they hear Turbo Trans Am. Most people, especially on a 3rd gen board, think of the 89 Turbo Trans Am, with the warmed over turbo 3.8L V6 Grand National engine.

And while the turbo 301 Trans Am's were slow, they'd still demolish any rotary offering of the age.

rx7speed

first thing just because you didn't think about them doesn't mean they don't exist or that other don't talk about them
second you don't seem to get the point I was trying to make

third what is the point of making the comment
about the 301 being better then a rotary of the day?
is it one of those ok i was proved wrong on what I Was saying so lets lash out now comments?

lets see
the car is boosted
has much more displacement
cost more
it should be able to out accelerate the rx7

kinda like the lambo of the day could out do the 301 turbo


and though I'm not sure of the times you might want to look into the turbo 12a motors
think they where able to pull decent times around the same as the 301 turbo I think

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (3)

Yeah but seriously, who thinks of the 4.1L cars when they hear Grand National? That's similar to talking about the Fox body Mustang V8. Nearly everyone would think of the 5.0L right? Who in the world would think of the early 80's 4.2L V8? WHO?

Grand National = slow 4.1L to rx7speed
Grand National = fast turbo V6 to the rest of the world

What was the point about the 301 being quicker than the rotary? You were knocking both Grand Nationals and Turbo Trans Ams on a board that many here have a respect for those cars. I just got a little upset that a rotary owner was knocking a known slow car - kind of like the pot calling the kettle black... So I knocked the RX-7.

Displacement goes out the window when the cars you're comparing have a 1500lb weight difference

And finally, what was the point you were trying to make?

IROCZEKE

Uhh i've never met anyone who doesnt refer to Grand nationals as a turbo 6 IN THE RACING WORLD. Impressive cars in the day. Would i not love to have a GNX.

rx7speed

blanket statements was the point of my post
grand national doesn't mean slow in my book
more often then not i would think 3.8 just like you
only reason I brought it up was to make a blanket statement
kinda like the trans am turbo
or even the lu5

displacement still doesn't go out the window with a weight difference

all parts work to make a car faster


please though before you start nocking me or making fun of the type of car I drive FIRST try to see if I have a point
more often then not I don't just sit there and bash a car unless there is some reason behind it

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (3)

I stated my opinion on the early RX-7's. You have an 87 correct? 2nd gen? That's a very different car...12A vs 13B. If you've read any of my other posts on RX-7 discussions I have respect for these cars. Do a search on any of those topics and quote me where I said anything negative about the 2nd or 3rd gens. I don't particularly care for the 1st gens for obvious reasons. You can say whatever you like about the late 2nd gen F-Bodies, because I don't particularly care for them either.

Weight vs displacement DOES matter. That's why race sanctioning bodies impose weight penaties for more cubes. Smaller engine cars are allowed to weigh less.

mtx28

too bad we don't live closer together, or i could show you how slow my 80s piece of dung buick is.

rx7speed

my g0d ppl do you think I am just sitting here trying to insult ppls cars with no reason at all


READ WHAT I AM SAYING BEFORE YOU POST IN REPLY

but mtx since you have this early 4.1L buick how fast does it run in stock form

though I am going to assume you don't have that 4.1L buick which should mean to me that you are posting your comments with no reason at then to play the hey I'm big and bad game here

kinda like some lineman wrestling timmy the geek

wow I'm impressed in that

go ahead come to idaho
if it really makes you proud that you can waste my slow car then spend your gas

wouldn't bother me one bit


and it's not like I would have anything to lear from the experience other then you for
one don't listen to what ppl are talking about
two beating cars slower then you gives you a woody

mtx28

it's a 3.8, and what's your reason? i don't feel big and bad, but if you really think buicks are slow, you're sadly mistaken. if not, ignore my post.

rx7speed

I have already read your post
you seemed to fail to read mine once again
I'm not tryig to be a ***** here
but its like anytime something is aid here by anyoe to make a point nobody wants to listen to the point but rather sit here and pound their chest

HOW ABOUT YOU READ MY POST
things to take note of while you are reading
first which buick am I talking of
what year of buick am I talking about
what motor of buick am I talking about
what was the point of bringing up this post


those are just some pointers for ANYONE who wishes to post further on this subject

READ


and mtx yes I still stand by what I said with this buick being slow
if you still wish to pound your chest though about how fast your buick is go somewhere else it's hopeless since you fail to read a simple little post that I made above MANY times

again not trying to be an ***
just get tired of this

rx7speed

just wanted to put a wow into here


didn't notice how many views this post has

and now for the wow



wow

prOject-IrOc

reading this post felt like the biggest waste of 30 minutes. oh well, least i go home in like an hour now. plz time flyyyy byyy faster....

ThirdGenFire

I beat a Focus ZX3 in my 01 Ram with the 5.2(no mods). There is no reason that you could not beat the Focus in your car.
Second the RX7 is fast but it was not driven properly or was a non turbo car it should have wasted that Focus.

ThirdGenFire

The Turbo Trans Am of 81 was not even remotly fast. I mean 0-60 in almost 10 seconds? Damn that sucked(but the body was ohh so sexy!!!). 1/4 were in the high 17's. People talk about the 305 and 307 as the biggest p.o.s. but the 301 ruled that one.