RX7 vs. MSP

[MikeyK 5]

Just a personal curiosity question. I know there are some 3rd Gen RX7 + MSP owners around here. Which car felt, to you, to be faster off the line/ handle better: a 3rd Gen non-turbo RX7 or the MSP? Just wonderin'
:D
-Thanks

[Black Majik MSP]

Maybe I'm being unfair, but if it's not turbo, I don't really consider it an RX-7...the only place a NA rotary belongs is in the RX-8.

[SoniCraze]

ive never even seen a 3rd gen rx7 NA.

[mp5jeff]

no such thing as a 3rd gen n/a, they all come with twin turbos...off the line a 3rd gen will spank an msp, and they handle really good, i havent been in a msp so i cant say anything about the handling...

[flat_black]

Yeah, I was going to say... There is no such thing as a 3rd gen N/A... There's a 2nd gen N/A, and 1st gen's were ONLY N/A, featuring either the 12A or 13B engine... The 2nd and 3rd gen turbo's would kill a Mazdaspeed Protege in any catagory... Handling, speed... You name it. =)

The 3rd gen RX-7 is a true monster of the roads, if a tad unstable in the engine department, generally. =)

[charles]

3rd gen RX-7 is far superior, IMO, you just gotta pay a bunch to keep it going (some will argue, but they know they FDs are a pain ;) ). It's a true sportscar, not an economy car with a turbo and suspension kit. And what's wrong with N/A rotaries? :rolleyes:

[spacemonkey]

3rd Gen RX-7 all the way. 50/50 weight distrabution, twin turbo, about the same weight, low stance...and no challenge (MSP vs RX-7). Not to mention it still looks really good for a 1993 design, The 2nd and 3rd gen are still beautiful. Yup its a true sports car! The only down part is turboing a rotary...apex seal problems (FDs). But I'm sure if you take care of the rex it will be fine! Last month issue of Turbo Magazine had an aritcle on which seals are the best for high boost. Oh, it might be hard to find a mechanic that actually know what he is doing on rotary engines...but should be better since rotary is making a come back. I also heard rotary engines are cheap too...ebay had a 20b (3 rotor engine) going for about $1600!

If I had money...MSP would be my daily driver, cuz its more practical for everyday use, and 3rd gen RX-7 will be my race/project/weekend car! Doesn't take much to make that 1.3 liter fly!

[Matthew]

thats like comparing a supra to a msp.

i had a 2nd gen turbo that would spank a msp.

[spacemonkey]

2nd Gen supra? Wasn't that called the Supra Celica? lol Supras are nice but way too over price They probally range from $16,000 for automatic to $40,000 for maual and nicely moded. I checked Ebay and all the low priced supras are all automatics. Seriously...If I bought a manual supra back in the day it would have paid off by now. You can definately find a nice 3rd gen RX-7 for around $10,000- $19,000. Invest some $$ and you got a nice looking/fast car. I don't see alot of 3rd gen RX-7 around Orlando but I see alot of Supras.

[Matthew]

2nd Gen supra?

no 2nd gen rx7 turbo, sorry i shortned my sentance

[StuttersC]

Originally posted by flat_black
Yeah, I was going to say... There is no such thing as a 3rd gen N/A... There's a 2nd gen N/A, and 1st gen's were ONLY N/A, featuring either the 12A or 13B engine... The 2nd and 3rd gen turbo's would kill a Mazdaspeed Protege in any catagory... Handling, speed... You name it. =)

The 3rd gen RX-7 is a true monster of the roads, if a tad unstable in the engine department, generally. =)

The first gen RX-7 was available turbo'd over in Japan...Just an FYI.

Why they didn't send it here is beyond me, a first gen turbo RX-7 would be a screamer...

First gen is my personal favorite for RX-7's...

[charles]

Originally posted by StuttersC
The first gen RX-7 was available turbo'd over in Japan...Just an FYI.

Why they didn't send it here is beyond me, a first gen turbo RX-7 would be a screamer...

First gen is my personal favorite for RX-7's...

First gens are god damn sexy. Guess what my next project car will be? ;) BTW, weren't we the only country to get N/A 2nd gens?

[Matthew]

i loved my turbod 2nd gen...sexy red, hood scoop, leather, *shudders*

[charles]

Hehe, I rode in a race-car Turbo II when I was at Buttonwillow Raceway. I had this big stupid grin on my face, I felt like I was gonna just giggle

[Matthew]

i cant believe i wasnt into tuning then.

[mazdaowner123]

I raced my friend's second gen convertable (heavier + n/a) on the highway and spanked him. I used to have a first gen, also. They're fun cars. A lot of people turbo the first gens, and they can be really quick. I love rotaries.

~brian

[JDuncan]

I wouldn't be happy without both in the garage....

[charles]

Originally posted by Matthew
i cant believe i wasnt into tuning then.

I think the car I rode in was in Grassroots Motorsports. (ricer)

btw I'm totally new to this! I didn't even have the car registered a year and a half ago. Hehe :D

[03MSPRO]

1.- Comparing and RX-7 to MSP is like comparing apples and oranges.
2.- All 3rd gen are turbo charged.
3.- They run mid 14's stock
4.- The MSP is SLOW stock

[richelesro]

I have both. The third gen doesn't come without the turbos. Compare the 0-to-60 times: RX-7 4.9s; MSP 7.0s. No comparison.

[DSM29PSI]

The 3rd Gen is an amazing car. I had a 93. The only real problems that you have to watch for are heat and the apex seals. Mine was blowing smoke when I bought it. I guess thats why I got it for $10,000. The first thing I did was replace the apex seals with 3mm ones. Now to take care of the heat I installed a larger radiator with twin spal fans. Also upgrading the hoses to the silicon hoses is a great idea. There are those few things that are simple to fix that can cause major headaches if they go wrong. As for the twin turbo. It's great if you are not looking for some major power or numbers. I myself installed a larger single turbo like a T-77. Now with a system like that you can really fly down the track.

[chrisjw85]

Originally posted by 03MSPRO
1.- Comparing and RX-7 to MSP is like comparing apples and oranges.
2.- All 3rd gen are turbo charged.
3.- They run mid 14's stock
4.- The MSP is SLOW stock

I saw that they run mid 13's stock.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Flat Black
You are such a fucking moron. The rotary started as an N/A engine back in the 60's, thats what gave it life. Now you're gonna come on here and talk shit about a vehicle and engine you know nothing about. STFU.

its obvious youre just a troll.

you go around looking for places to bitch (hence, trolling around, or troll...get it?)

[chrisjw85]

Originally posted by Flat Black
You are such a fucking moron. The rotary started as an N/A engine back in the 60's, thats what gave it life. Now you're gonna come on here and talk shit about a vehicle and engine you know nothing about. STFU.

Jesus some of you guys are so hostile. Immediate to take offense. He wasn't saying that as a fact. He was saying it as his own opinion. I fully agree with him. I researched rx-7's for close to a year before I realized insurance was too much for me. I was only interested in the 3rd gen rx-7's. I would say the twin turbos is what makes the 3rd gen rx-7 aside from it's sexy curves and evil look IMO.

[MikeyK 5]

thanks for all the responses, guys
I love the RX-7 (sexiest car ever!), but never knew they only came turboed for the 3rd Gen. I knew the turboed ones were fast, i was just wondering how the N/A's compared. I had been looking at a 91 N/A a year before I got my Speed, and I was just guessing that I grabbed the betetr car. I couldn't afford a 3rd Gen, tho.

[Matthew]

what you could do, is do what my friend did. he got a N/A supra that was in excellant shape, but cheap because everyone wants the turbo. when he had the money (he couldnt afford the TT) he bought an aftermarket turbo and made it just as fast. the main benefit is that hes paying insurance on a N/A supra instead of a TT

[chrisjw85]

Originally posted by Matthew
what you could do, is do what my friend did. he got a N/A supra that was in excellant shape, but cheap because everyone wants the turbo. when he had the money (he couldnt afford the TT) he bought an aftermarket turbo and made it just as fast. the main benefit is that hes paying insurance on a N/A supra instead of a TT

That is a good idea. You'd probably go up to the price you could have bought a tt one for but still your getting better reliability and a brand new turbo instead of old ones from the factory.

[Pkay]

The clutch and flywheel on the 3rd gen rx7 goes to shit really quickly so its not lightning fast off the line.... but once it hits 3rd that car if absolutely fucking insane. I'd venture to say if I raced my rx7 vs my MSP my MSP would definately have a jump but it'd be very shortlived. By the time both turbos hit in third an rx7 would have about 6 car lengths on our car.


Also downshifting in an rx7 is like warpspeed in star trek. When you downshift you literally can feel your head get jerked back. It's a powerfull fucking turbo.

And for anyone who thinks the rx7 has no torque (common argument) you're simply wrong. We've dyno'd at 207hp with 354tq and then 227hp with 397tq. Once you get through first and second this car grips something fierce.


The downside is 3rd gens are NOT daily drivers. However they arent broken down 9 months out of the year like some imply. Our rx7 has spent a month in the shop this year total and that was to rebuild the turbo and replace a few seals. Outside that, it's been fine.

[mp5jeff]

my brothers 94' is a daily driver and nothing wrong with it so far, you just have to maintanince it when needed, although his cluth is slipping now but is gettin replaced monday but thats no big deal

[StuttersC]

N/A rotaries are not torque monsters...

Turbo rotaries are. That is a common arguement because it is true.

:)

[Pkay]

NA rotaries arent really fast cars

and belive me I get tons of people talking shit about my 3rd gen not having torque right before they get their ass kicked by a few bus lengths.


Originally posted by StuttersC
N/A rotaries are not torque monsters...

Turbo rotaries are. That is a common arguement because it is true.

:)

[N1XRR]

Originally posted by Black Majik MSP
Maybe I'm being unfair, but if it's not turbo, I don't really consider it an RX-7...the only place a NA rotary belongs is in the RX-8.

I take offense to that. N/A rotary is the ORIGINAL RX7. Technically the 2nd and 3rd gen's weren't RX7's at all. They were RX8 and RX9...but Mazda decided to use the RX7 name again. RX2,3 and 4 were all just changes from the previous model.

Now, back on topic. I have a FC turbo and a 12A FB. The FC turbo is better handling and faster in the straight then the MSP. FB's are not as fast in the straights, but faster in the turns.

[N1XRR]

Originally posted by Pkay
The clutch and flywheel on the 3rd gen rx7 goes to shit really quickly so its not lightning fast off the line.... but once it hits 3rd that car if absolutely fucking insane. I'd venture to say if I raced my rx7 vs my MSP my MSP would definately have a jump but it'd be very shortlived. By the time both turbos hit in third an rx7 would have about 6 car lengths on our car.

And for anyone who thinks the rx7 has no torque (common argument) you're simply wrong. We've dyno'd at 207hp with 354tq and then 227hp with 397tq. Once you get through first and second this car grips something fierce.


Usually I'm not one to jump all over people about horsepower/torque numbers, I like to give people the benafit of the doubt. But either your car is REALLY messed up or your flat out lying. I'd really like to see that dyno sheet. Unless you have a LOT of stuff done that is not in your signature, then your car is NOT putting down 354 and 397lb/ft of torque. Sorry, its NOT possible with the stock computer. Espically seeing those HP numbers...RX7's ALWAYS put down equal amounts of torque/hp or lots more hp than torque(depending on setup). I see your on stock twins, so your numbers are 50% false(HP numbers maybe be accurate).

Also, a good driver in an RX7 can ALWAYS pull off faster than an equal driver in an FWD car, unless the FWD car is running drag slicks or something. It all has to do with weight shifting. With a RWD car it takes a LOT more to make the tires spin. On launch, the weight shifts to the back of the car, loading the rear tires, taking weight off the front. A FWD will spin MUCH easier.

Sorry, like I said, I don't usually do this, but this is a lot of very made-up information. If you have dyno sheets to prove this I will gladly retract my statement...but I have dyno'd quite a few cars and watched many many many more being dyno'd. I know what is accurate and what is not, these numbers just don't make ANY sense.

[flat_black]

I dunno... My FC handles a lot better than my old FB did, at speed or in the tight twisties. =)

[Dexter]

i might get an 86 FC in a couple months. depends if ive been saving my money like a good boy or not.

[N1XRR]

Originally posted by flat_black
I dunno... My FC handles a lot better than my old FB did, at speed or in the tight twisties. =)

Stock FB's take a tiny bit of work to get handling correctly. Here's one trick(gets them to handle GREAT)... turn the struts 90 degree's in the front. As they come from the factory they have almost no negative camber in the front as to preserve the tires. 90 degree's so the strut "Lobe" faces the inside gives the car about 1-1/2 to 2 degree's of negative camber and the car handles GREAT.

Here's the results from yesterday's autocross:
http://www.clemson.edu/cscc/results/nov012003.txt

Our club car(83 RX7) got 7th place. That is without a LSD and the car was running crappy still(work-in-process). With an LSD that car would be AT LEAST 5th place, if not better. Granted, this car was on race tires, but its still better than most other cars out there.

We are getting rid of the watt's linkage in the back and changing to a panhard bar, as well as fooling around with sway-bars. That combined with some good springs and shocks and this car can be a top 5 finisher and possibly top 3. Our last car consistantly had people in top 5 and even had a really warn out motor.

[JDuncan]

This is truly a worthless debate...

Both cars are unique in their own way and trying to debate which one is better is a waste of bandwidth and my precious oxygen, so quit wasting everyones time.


I vote for RX-7 AND MSP, as I have already stated. You can't be a well rounded person without both. As far as the debate between NA and turbo RX-7's, I'll take both of those as well. It depends on the car AND the driver, and I am suprised everytime I autocross how many nicer, faster, and better cars my little stockport 12a manages to beat. It feels much better on an autocross course than my TII ever has. Nowhere near as fast on a straightline, but definitely more nailed down in the turns.

[Pkay]

Originally posted by N1XRR
Usually I'm not one to jump all over people about horsepower/torque numbers, I like to give people the benafit of the doubt. But either your car is REALLY messed up or your flat out lying. I'd really like to see that dyno sheet. Unless you have a LOT of stuff done that is not in your signature, then your car is NOT putting down 354 and 397lb/ft of torque. Sorry, its NOT possible with the stock computer. Espically seeing those HP numbers...RX7's ALWAYS put down equal amounts of torque/hp or lots more hp than torque(depending on setup). I see your on stock twins, so your numbers are 50% false(HP numbers maybe be accurate).

Also, a good driver in an RX7 can ALWAYS pull off faster than an equal driver in an FWD car, unless the FWD car is running drag slicks or something. It all has to do with weight shifting. With a RWD car it takes a LOT more to make the tires spin. On launch, the weight shifts to the back of the car, loading the rear tires, taking weight off the front. A FWD will spin MUCH easier.

Sorry, like I said, I don't usually do this, but this is a lot of very made-up information. If you have dyno sheets to prove this I will gladly retract my statement...but I have dyno'd quite a few cars and watched many many many more being dyno'd. I know what is accurate and what is not, these numbers just don't make ANY sense.

1) your claim "rx7s always put down equal amounts of torque/hp" is fucking hillarious.

2) I have the dyno sheet somewhere and will gladly post it when it gets found

3) Like I said cluthches and flywheels on rx7's with over 75k miles on them are usually worn to shit.


Funny thing is I own both a 3rd gen rx7 and an MSP. Unless you have a 3rd gen sitting in your driveway you can't account for the majority of the RX7 unique issues, perks, and otherwise.

[Pkay]

and here you go

http://www.msprotege.com/vbb225/attachment.php?s=&postid=500842

[mazdaowner123]

That's one weird dyno chart. Have you repeated it to make sure it wasn't a fluke? I thought all dyno charts were supposed to have equal hp and torque at 5250 or around there. Not calling bs, just wondering. Third gen and MSP...my two favorite cars. You lucky bastard, hehe.

~brian

[N1XRR]

What I was going to say: "Like I said I would, I retract my statement. But just to let you know, I've worked on about 8 FD's and countless FC's, I've dealt with every minor and major issue they've had and helped several people tune their cars. I've, almost always, seen the hp/torque numbers withen about 5% or each other, except on a few FC's(including mine) where the HP is about 14% greater then the torque numbers.

I'd almost be willing to say that you've got a problem with your 2nd turbo. That HP number should be WAYYY higher, even stock.

Like I said, the stock computer is NOT capable of that unless you already have a piggy-back or Power FC...something your not telling us?"

Now what I'm going to say: That dyno chart is REALLY fucked up and it is A)Either not for your car or B) Someone is fucking with the data.

First, thing that sticks out is that your hp/torque lines DO NOT CROSS at 5252rpms. That is the laws of physics, YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT. Here's why: horsepower is a deriviative of torque. Here the equation "HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252". At 5252, horsepower will ALWAYS be the same as torque...ALWAYS. I don't care what anyone told you, that is messed up. It is possible the torque reading on that graph is exactly double what it is suposed to be.

If that torque curve was accurate then at 6400rpms you'd be making 426hp. At 4400rpms you'd be making 330hp. If you half those numbers then at 4400rpms you'd be making 165...which is EXACTLY what the HP curve says. At 6400rpms you'd be making 213hp...again EXACTLY HALF of what your HP measurment reads.

Second, you would have blown your engine on that run. No two ways about it. At 6000rpms you would have blown at least one or two apex seals. There is NO way around that. Even if you didn't blow your engine, ignoring the fact that you'd have detonation, you torque curve would severly change at that point. It would NOT be that flat with that signifigant of a change.

Also, just to let you know, turbo FC's are just as fickle as FD's. They have most of the same problems. No, there's arn't as many vaccuum lines, but the ones that are there break just as often, as well as many other things on the car. They're just not as expensive to fix when the time comes.

One more thing: This proves my point. With the torque being halved the hp and torque peak numbers are almost the same. Withen a few percent. I AM correct on this one.

[Matthew]

yea isnt the stock TT like 325 crank hp?

[N1XRR]

Originally posted by Matthew
yea isnt the stock TT like 325 crank hp?

255 BHP on FD's.

[Matthew]

what the hell was i thinkin of? oh, a supra i think.

what is bhp compared to hp anyhow? sorry for the newb q but i never bothered to find out.

[StuttersC]

Originally posted by Matthew
what the hell was i thinkin of? oh, a supra i think.

what is bhp compared to hp anyhow? sorry for the newb q but i never bothered to find out.


BHP refers to "brake horsepower", or the horsepower at the crank. This is the same as SAE net horsepower now-a-days, I think.

SAE net horsepower is at the crank with all accesories on the motor. BHP I think might not have the accesories on the motor. I forget but that's pretty much it.

HP is just horsepower in general and can refer to any one of the many more specific "horsepower" terms.

[Matthew]

thanks, learn something new everyday.

[StuttersC]

Originally posted by Matthew
thanks, learn something new everyday.

No worries...

[FC3s Boy]

Originally posted by Black Majik MSP
Maybe I'm being unfair, but if it's not turbo, I don't really consider it an RX-7...the only place a NA rotary belongs is in the RX-8.
A N/A is'nt a rotary that is silly, my 86 N/A FC is the best car i have ever owned It run's a 14.8 in the 1/4 and tears it up on a road corse. And it runs every single day, i love it.

[mazdaowner123]

Originally posted by conekiller
I thought all dyno charts were supposed to have equal hp and torque at 5250 or around there.

~brian


I said something smart :o

[mazdaowner123]

Originally posted by Flat Black
Its not called an FB its called an SA.

Not exactly.. SA's (coming from the starting vin characters, SA22C) are 79-80 first generation RX-7s. The FBs are 81-85 first generation RX-7s. So, his club car, being an 83, is an FB. Most people say FB and mean all first gen rx-7s.

~brian

[N1XRR]

Originally posted by conekiller
Not exactly.. SA's (coming from the starting vin characters, SA22C) are 79-80 first generation RX-7s. The FBs are 81-85 first generation RX-7s. So, his club car, being an 83, is an FB. Most people say FB and mean all first gen rx-7s.

~brian
Thank you for explaining...and Yes, I do know the difference. Both of our clubs RX7's where FB's and my 1st gen is an FB(81, 83 and 85 being mine)

The reason why I said FB instead of SA22C in general is because they have many differences in design. Most parts are not interchangable between the SA's and FB's.

[mazdaowner123]

Do you have a V8 conversion? My friend goes to clemson and has a second gen vert. He said something about most of the first gens are V8'd down there. He might join the car club. If I come down and visit him we should all meet up and go for a drive. Gotta love states that allow radar detectors :)

~brian

[JDuncan]

You guys crack me up!:p I have been told that I get a prize when I buy a 3rd gen due to my having alphabet soup. SA, FB, FC... Been there, done that.:D


JDuncan <---- Thinking that the RX-8 was very undeserving of the FE designation...

[N1XRR]

Originally posted by conekiller
Do you have a V8 conversion? My friend goes to clemson and has a second gen vert. He said something about most of the first gens are V8'd down there. He might join the car club. If I come down and visit him we should all meet up and go for a drive. Gotta love states that allow radar detectors :)

~brian

HAHA! That would be Rob Summers. No, I concider a V8 in a RX7 blaphemy...but accept it as I do free speech. There are 2 or 3 V8 '7s around...not all that many, but they do seem rather common.


JDuncan <---- Thinking that the RX-8 was very undeserving of the FE designation...

Have you drove an RX8 yet? Quite an amazing machine. I enjoyed the hour or so I had in the car and would buy one straight up if I had the money.

[JDuncan]

I have driven a couple of RX-8's. I truly like them, but I would have preferred something more along the lines of the car they took away from us. The least they could have done was save the FE designation for the next 2 seater and gave the RX-8 its own vin code.

I just can't make myself fall in love with the rear pillar. That and the "minivan" window pops on the rear windows.

Not bashing it... Just not loving it...

[mazdaowner123]

I agree, FE should have been the 4th gen rx-7.

[StuttersC]

Oh, but just think, that'll make the next gen RX-7 the "FF" just like the "Fast and the Furious"!!


HAHA!!

[N1XRR]

Just to let you know, the "FB", "FC" and "FD" terms we've all come to know and love are chassis designations, not models. Example: FC3S is the chassis, not the model. In other words the new RX7 will be on the FE chassis.

[mazdaowner123]

Actually I'm pretty sure they come from the vin numbers.... That's why there was the change from SA22C to JM1FB, the govt made vin numbers standardized or something like that.

[JDuncan]

Originally posted by JDuncan
You guys crack me up!:p :D