ARROGANT RX-7 Owners

[camaro_speedemon]

Originally posted by misterjuice:
For what they are (size wise) they're very impressive..........I testdrove the RX8 before I settled on the SRT4...........very nice vehicle.....drove well, nice power band.....smooth.

From my research......it shows that they gobbles up oil.....even when they're new, and they aren't the most reliable thing on the road (ok here comes the MOPAR jokes). The brand new one I testdrove, with like 10 miles on the odometer, was burning oil already.....heavy blue smoke on start up...and puffs of blue smoke when gas is applied.

Burning oil with a rotary is inherent to the design of the oiling system. They don't burn any more oil then your average LS1 though. Maybe a 1/2 a qt to a qt every 3k miles.

To the person who wanted to know how rotarys work
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

[i_love_my_maro]

I had an 86 and it was a great little car (when it was running) wasn't that quick in a straight line but i loved canyons at 100+ mph that was fun.

[1DangerousV6]

my best kill story i have was against one of these (when i had my blower on..and not because i beat a fast car..just because it was funny)...some middle aged guy in a suit bet me $100 at a red light on rt. 9&20...i said "you're on" [img]smile.gif[/img] ..only aftermarket thing i could see from the outside was a fart muffler...it turned green and i smoked him..stopping at the next light which was red waiting to collect my dough...he came from behind and FLEW right through the light and kept on going lol...it was only $100 and it was city streets so i wasnt about to go chase him down...it was so funny just because he was such a cocky looking middle aged crisis kind of guy [img]smile.gif[/img]

[majeskyb]

Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 98Silver6:
actually its a very impressive engine, my brother used to own 1 88' i think, all i know it used to burn a lot of gas i think there was something wrong with his rotors or something but it was quick he used to keep up with 98 down mustang GT's.
I wonder how good is the new motor in the new ones?

They aren't very gas efficient at all... From what I've heard they're down right horrible on gas milage. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, quite horrible little engine, that get's horrible gas milage.
Wards report on the Renesis
It gets 23.5 mpg city, and 30 mpg highway. Also, if it's so bad, how did it become one of Ward's 10 best engines this year?

10 best engines

[ABH]

The rotary engine is far more reliable tha it used to be. I don't know anyone who owned a RX-7 who wasn't happy with it. Oil consumption was a problem, but no worse than many a GM motor.

Now if you want to talk bad rotary engines, I give you the NSU Ro80. Won car of the year in 1967 and later hailed by many as Car of the Decade. 10 years ahead of its time, it had front wheel drive, disc brakes and a semiautomatic clutchless 3spd gearbox.

The problem was that the two rotor unit suffered acute rotor tip wear. And the engine would die between 15-20,000 miles. NSU honored the warranty until they went belly up.

[camaro_speedemon]

Originally posted by majeskyb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 98Silver6:
actually its a very impressive engine, my brother used to own 1 88' i think, all i know it used to burn a lot of gas i think there was something wrong with his rotors or something but it was quick he used to keep up with 98 down mustang GT's.
I wonder how good is the new motor in the new ones?

They aren't very gas efficient at all... From what I've heard they're down right horrible on gas milage. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, quite horrible little engine, that get's horrible gas milage.
Wards report on the Renesis
It gets 23.5 mpg city, and 30 mpg highway. Also, if it's so bad, how did it become one of Ward's 10 best engines this year?

10 best engines </font>[/QUOTE]I never said the they were horrible engines, maybe you should read more. I've been defending them the entire thread. :rolleyes:

The Renesis is horribly underpowered for the kind of car it is. Mazda realizes this and they are finally making a turbo version of the motor.

[majeskyb]

Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by majeskyb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 98Silver6:
actually its a very impressive engine, my brother used to own 1 88' i think, all i know it used to burn a lot of gas i think there was something wrong with his rotors or something but it was quick he used to keep up with 98 down mustang GT's.
I wonder how good is the new motor in the new ones?

They aren't very gas efficient at all... From what I've heard they're down right horrible on gas milage. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, quite horrible little engine, that get's horrible gas milage.
Wards report on the Renesis
It gets 23.5 mpg city, and 30 mpg highway. Also, if it's so bad, how did it become one of Ward's 10 best engines this year?

10 best engines </font>[/QUOTE]I never said the they were horrible engines, maybe you should read more. I've been defending them the entire thread. :rolleyes:

The Renesis is horribly underpowered for the kind of car it is. Mazda realizes this and they are finally making a turbo version of the motor. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry about that. I thought you said
"They aren't very gas efficient at all... From what I've heard they're down right horrible on gas milage. "

If I was wrong, I appologize for that.

[Camarorulz]

From the diagrams I've seen rotary engines don't seem complex at all compared to piston-driven motors. I don't know why it would be so expensive for a mechanic to work on one..There are less moving parts for sure.

majeskyb: how is your RX-7 on gas mileage?

[majeskyb]

Originally posted by Camarorulz:
From the diagrams I've seen rotary engines don't seem complex at all compared to piston-driven motors. I don't know why it would be so expensive for a mechanic to work on one..There are less moving parts for sure.

majeskyb: how is your RX-7 on gas mileage?

Well, it has a slightly larger lank than the camaro, IIRC, and I use it strictly for travel between home and work (about 5-7 miles each way), and I make a round trip twice a day. As long as I'm not aggressive on the throttle, a tank of gas will last me about two weeks. I rarely do that though, so a tank usually lasts about a week. Now, when I get back home, I'm going to have to do a tune-up...

[BirdOfPrey01]

Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by speedracer95v6:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
Maybe you should do a little research before bashing Rx7's

They are quite possibly one of the best handeling cars ever made. Not to mention an LS1 Swap RX7 will do pretty much low 11's.

While Camaros are overall good cars, a stock RX7 will hand an Fbody its *** on a road course.

Yeah if you can keep it in it's power band at a gazillion RPM.

The look sweet (like a C5 vette), but if I wanted a car that looked like a C5 vette, I would get a C5 vette. However, their little wankel is nifty as ****. </font>[/QUOTE]You realize the 3rd gens were out about 4 years before C5's were right?

A stock RX-7 will make an Fbody it's ***** on a road course, as well as a regular C5 (non-Z06).

Originally posted by BirdOfPrey01:
N/A RX-7's do not run 14's

They run high 17's mid 18's

2nd gen turbo rx7's bearly break 14's

3rd gen turbo rx7's bearly break 13's unless they are twin turbo which generally make a consistant mid to high 13 second pass.

The rotary engine is over rated, the only thing that makes it so great is the fact you can build them up cheaply blow them up and build another cheaply.

Other than that, its not that great of an engine without a turbocharger.

You really don't know wtf you are talking about. All 3rd gens are TTs.

NA RX7s are slow as piss.

2nd gen Turbo II's are mid 14's stock. What's so over rated about a 1.3L engine pushing 250HP stock?

Cheaply build a rotary [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] Rotory's are very expensive. The mechanics that know how to work on them are few and far between. </font>[/QUOTE]http://www.mazdarotaryengines.com/

Wow, very expensive, geez I could have 3 of them for one LS1 Crate. And if I rebuilt myself i'd guess id have over $2500 saved.

Talk about expensive, jesus christ lets take out a second mortgage for just 1.

Mid 14's, woo woo, no really on an average they make 15 second passes.

The only RX7s worth buying are the R1 3rd gens. You can find them for a good price usually, but beware of idiots trying to sell a 100 thousand mile Rx7 for over 12,000 dollars. Or maybe the idiot is the one paying 12,000+ for a 100k mile RX7. Even if it is the R1 edition, I see R1's with high miles go as low as 8,000 in garage condition.

In the end, you are better off just buying a DSM or F-body. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[camaro_speedemon]

Originally posted by BirdOfPrey01:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by speedracer95v6:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
Maybe you should do a little research before bashing Rx7's

They are quite possibly one of the best handeling cars ever made. Not to mention an LS1 Swap RX7 will do pretty much low 11's.

While Camaros are overall good cars, a stock RX7 will hand an Fbody its *** on a road course.

Yeah if you can keep it in it's power band at a gazillion RPM.

The look sweet (like a C5 vette), but if I wanted a car that looked like a C5 vette, I would get a C5 vette. However, their little wankel is nifty as ****. </font>[/QUOTE]You realize the 3rd gens were out about 4 years before C5's were right?

A stock RX-7 will make an Fbody it's ***** on a road course, as well as a regular C5 (non-Z06).

Originally posted by BirdOfPrey01:
N/A RX-7's do not run 14's

They run high 17's mid 18's

2nd gen turbo rx7's bearly break 14's

3rd gen turbo rx7's bearly break 13's unless they are twin turbo which generally make a consistant mid to high 13 second pass.

The rotary engine is over rated, the only thing that makes it so great is the fact you can build them up cheaply blow them up and build another cheaply.

Other than that, its not that great of an engine without a turbocharger.

You really don't know wtf you are talking about. All 3rd gens are TTs.

NA RX7s are slow as piss.

2nd gen Turbo II's are mid 14's stock. What's so over rated about a 1.3L engine pushing 250HP stock?

Cheaply build a rotary [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] Rotory's are very expensive. The mechanics that know how to work on them are few and far between. </font>[/QUOTE]http://www.mazdarotaryengines.com/

Wow, very expensive, geez I could have 3 of them for one LS1 Crate. And if I rebuilt myself i'd guess id have over $2500 saved.

Talk about expensive, jesus christ lets take out a second mortgage for just 1.

Mid 14's, woo woo, no really on an average they make 15 second passes.

The only RX7s worth buying are the R1 3rd gens. You can find them for a good price usually, but beware of idiots trying to sell a 100 thousand mile Rx7 for over 12,000 dollars. Or maybe the idiot is the one paying 12,000+ for a 100k mile RX7. Even if it is the R1 edition, I see R1's with high miles go as low as 8,000 in garage condition.

In the end, you are better off just buying a DSM or F-body. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Those look like they're running the same cost as a used LS1 runs. $2500 is a lot of money to consider a motor 'disposable'

Dude, the RX7 is NOT a drag car, for the millionth time. The RX7 is a road course car. I would love to see an fbody that can handle as good as an RX7, because you would have to some serious suspension/weight reduction mods to even come close to a stock RX7. Then, pray to God that the RX7 doesnt have suspension mods, because it's going to get the ever living **** spanked out of it around the track.

[camaro_speedemon]

Originally posted by majeskyb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by majeskyb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 98Silver6:
actually its a very impressive engine, my brother used to own 1 88' i think, all i know it used to burn a lot of gas i think there was something wrong with his rotors or something but it was quick he used to keep up with 98 down mustang GT's.
I wonder how good is the new motor in the new ones?

They aren't very gas efficient at all... From what I've heard they're down right horrible on gas milage. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, quite horrible little engine, that get's horrible gas milage.
Wards report on the Renesis
It gets 23.5 mpg city, and 30 mpg highway. Also, if it's so bad, how did it become one of Ward's 10 best engines this year?

10 best engines </font>[/QUOTE]I never said the they were horrible engines, maybe you should read more. I've been defending them the entire thread. :rolleyes:

The Renesis is horribly underpowered for the kind of car it is. Mazda realizes this and they are finally making a turbo version of the motor. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry about that. I thought you said
"They aren't very gas efficient at all... From what I've heard they're down right horrible on gas milage. "

If I was wrong, I appologize for that. </font>[/QUOTE]I was refering to the 13b not being very fuel efficient. But I see the confusion in the post I quoted [img]redface.gif[/img]

[majeskyb]

Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by majeskyb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by majeskyb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 98Silver6:
actually its a very impressive engine, my brother used to own 1 88' i think, all i know it used to burn a lot of gas i think there was something wrong with his rotors or something but it was quick he used to keep up with 98 down mustang GT's.
I wonder how good is the new motor in the new ones?

They aren't very gas efficient at all... From what I've heard they're down right horrible on gas milage. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, quite horrible little engine, that get's horrible gas milage.
Wards report on the Renesis
It gets 23.5 mpg city, and 30 mpg highway. Also, if it's so bad, how did it become one of Ward's 10 best engines this year?

10 best engines </font>[/QUOTE]I never said the they were horrible engines, maybe you should read more. I've been defending them the entire thread. :rolleyes:

The Renesis is horribly underpowered for the kind of car it is. Mazda realizes this and they are finally making a turbo version of the motor. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry about that. I thought you said
"They aren't very gas efficient at all... From what I've heard they're down right horrible on gas milage. "

If I was wrong, I appologize for that. </font>[/QUOTE]I was refering to the 13b not being very fuel efficient. But I see the confusion in the post I quoted [img]redface.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Alright man, my bad. No hard feelings? :D

[Camarorulz]

Damn, look at all those quotes, there's some controversy over the rotary engine lol.