ZCar Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 126 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
NORM! Ha that's funny.

I did too. In '84, I drove a '74 RX4. I wish I never sold it! I've always wanted to put a 20B (3 rotor) in a 240Z.


RX-7 TT, that's one nice car. Actually, I think that body style is one of the best looking production cars ever made. Certainly the only "newer" car I ever considered buying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,976 Posts
I've always liked those and they handle so well. I've considered for years grafting the suspension and brakes onto a Z chassis.

I know of 2 people in town that have them with LS1's in them, one started life as an R1.

It's hard to compare a NA rotary to a turbo rotary. The turbo's have torque, most anything with a turbo is gonna have torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
That RX-7 car has BEAUTIFUL CURVES !!! Nicely shaped.

Definitely one of the nicest drawing/design from an artist.

I always thought the '90 RX-7 and the corvette have beautiful lines, just like a woman's body.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
That is one clean 7!!! I had a 94 Touring Montego for a few years in the 90s. One of my coworkers and I would drag race on Fridays in front of work. He had a 94 Mustang Cobra with mild mods. I usually kicked his azz. The basement of the parking garage was slick so we could go drifting. Good times.

Like you said, service the car and upgrade some cheap plastic parts and it's very reliable. I miss my 7..

78 P79
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
Love it.

But rotary reliability *is* well below piston-engine reliability, it's no myth. Those who track with rotaries do well to only require one engine a year.

On the road, a well-maintained rotary above 100k rpm is on borrowed time. Sure there are examples that survive beyond 200k, but then there are piston-engine examples that survive to 500k and beyond.

I love rotaries for power/weight and power/size. But there are downsides. Namely, fuel mileage (ABYSMAL!) and reliability/longevity (merely poor).

If I could find a good low-mileage example of an FD RX-7, I would still buy one. Probably my second-favorite Japanese car ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,127 Posts
I sense a bunch of traders, (saying this in a nice way,) ') Looks like a Ford probe and not as good looking as the first 2 generation Z's at all. I'm a Z nut and those are my enemy. They got beat in Car and Driver by the Z in 81 and they will always be beat. Of course the 350z is not helping me here as far as looks go. As the Mazda goes alone, it's not a bad car, pretty good actually, but doesn't interest me at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
1-i-Z, though I will agree with you that the early Z's are sexier than the early RX-7's, the RX-7 has won far more awards, titles, and race-victories (this is not my biased opinion, just automotive-history). Mazda directly competed with Datsun in the early days, and Datsun never stood a chance.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
I've never heard of the Ford Probe comparison before either. That's funny. I don't see any resemblance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,127 Posts
I Know that, I was talking stock. What's it take 2 people to pick up one of those old RX-7's, they had a good power to weight ratio that's why. Back when I was young and dumb, no RX-7 ever beat my 81T which was stock, even the turbo RX-7. Plus I had a friend who had one and he was always fixing it while I was out driving my Z. Stock, they don't even copmare to a Z.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
I wasn't just refering to race-variants. When the RX-7 was first launched it was dubbed "Car of the Year", and the following year is was dubbed "Car of the Decade" (not the Z), and again after that it made Car & Driver's 10-Best list (a title it would continue to earn throughout it's existence, often for several consecutive years). Nothing against the Z, but the 7 was never considered inferior by the major automotive-press.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,127 Posts
You'll have to show me proof on that, I don't believe that one iota. Read Car and Driver from 81, Z car on the front, the RX-7 flopped out big time. While the Z beat the Ferrari 308 and came very close to the Porshe, but did beat the Porshe in comfort. I've driven them also and one time gave one a beating to see if it would pass my test and I busted the clutch componets into many pieces, never happened to a Z car when I gave it the test from ****. It's in the top 10 of pieces of junk in my book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
You can look it up.

So far you've only mentioned one magazine article to support your claim of the Z's superiority (I can list several in support of the RX-7, from several sources).

Also, your "one-time" "test from ****" is irrelevant (who knows what the condition of that one car was). The fact is, despite your opinion and limited experience with the car, professional automotive-critics and motorsport-history reveal that the RX-7 outclassed and outperformed the Z.

And although the Z may have gotten a good review in '81, that same year the RX-7 scored it's historical victory at the Belguim Francorchamps 24-hour endurance-race, and conquered the Australian Touring-Car Championships, and won Mazda its 2nd consecutive Manufacturer's Title (it would continue to win 4 more in the following 4 years, to break Porsche's IMSA record).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,127 Posts
It was a brand new RX-7, I was test driving it from a dealership. I don't need to look it up, I already know, the RX-7 is inferior to the Z. Are you sure you're in the right FORUM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
Hey bro, I admire and appreciate the early Z-cars (which is why I'd like to purchase one).

I was simply correcting you when you said that the "RX-7 doesn't even compare to a Z-car" because reviews and critiques by the major automotive-press proves otherwise. Also, you made another mistake by saying that the "RX-7 will always be beat by the Z" because motorsport-history reveals that statement to be false.

Furthermore, you claimed that the RX-7 was outperformed by the Z in a comparison-test by Car & Driver magazine in 1981.... I just googled the issue you speak of and the RX-7 wasn't even included.

I understand that you are a Z-enthusiast, and so you believe the Z is the greatest thing on 4 wheels, but the facts show that you're simply being biased.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
In 1979, the loss of the S30 Z was partially made up for by the introduction of the RX-7. Throughout the 80's, the RX-7 was much more of a spiritual successor to the 240Z than the S130 or the Z31, IMO.

In SCCA ITS competition, the 2nd gen RX-7 is a much more competitive car than the S130 or Z31, and has replaced the 240Z as the car to run in that class.

And the 3rd gen RX-7, at 2800 lb., was much more of a pure performance car than the excellent (but grossly overweight) Z32. Both cars were (are) beautiful, but the RX-7's sinuous curves and taut form get the nod as far as I'm concerned. Probe?! Get your eyes checked!

Rotaries rule!



(except for the fuel mileage and life expectancy...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,300 Posts
Now that we're talking about rotaries and Z's, how about a twin turbo rotary in an S30? I'm sure it's been done before....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,127 Posts
My one eye is a perfect 20/20 And I was refering to the picture posted in the thread. Of course the older ones didn't look like a probe. As far as the Car and Driver test in 81, (which I used to have the edition, with the Z on the front,) you need to recheck, It was the 81turbo versus the Ferrari 308, the Porshe 911, the Corvette, the DeLorean and last and least the Mazda RX-7. AND, how long did it take to get the Wankle engine to work correctly without leaking and other problems, A LONG time. It's a nice engine for Ski-Doos, haha. Actully I do think it's a neat thing and I do give it alot of credit and it has come a long way. I'm just not into driving something that sounds like a blender. I did some searching myself online and so far have not found anything about how great it was in racing. Not saying it wasn't, and if you can show me something impressive, I'm open minded to it. Also keep in mind, I'm talking STOCK. S T O C K and racing are 2 different ball games. Just to keep the flame down a little here, I don't totally hate the car, I do think it's a neat little thing, and that's it, when your 6 foot and 220 it's too small for me the Z fits me like a glove, and the Z will always rule in my book. That's why I have 4 not counting the 4 parts cars. Sorry just no interest and the new RX-8 is uglier than ****, worse than the new 350z, I'm old school, 83 and back, even though the Z32 was sports car of the year for all 6 years of production.
 
21 - 40 of 126 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top