wildside50

I was just curious -- what does the manual say on a 3rd gen Rx-7 break in period. It seems like so many people on these forums guffaw at the mazda recommended break-in period of 600 miles, and instead say Racing Beat's plan is right just becacuse it is more conservative. I'm not saying Racing Beat isn't a brilliant company, but doesn't Mazda have a vested interest in the thing? If they say the break-in is 600 miles, and 600 mile break-in's lead to a lot of problems with the powertrain, that costs Mazda. Granted, if you're thinking about your engine running at 100,000 miles, that doesn't affect Mazda too much. But I don't think they'd stear there customers that wrong...

So I was just wondering what the Rx-7 suggested for break-in. If it's similarly low, knowing that rotory tech has evolved since 1993, I'll just assume they're being optomistic.

8 Maniac

iTrader: (1)

the way I see it is that the mazda method will suffice. But the RB method is recommended and is most likely better (I havnt done the research on it myself so havnt actually seen physical evidence aside from many recommendations of using it). It's kinda like how software for computers often have "minimal requirements" and "recommended" set up. One works, the other is better.

wildside50

What would interest me is to see 5 "Mazda broken in" cars on a dyno or at the strip vs 5 "RB broken in cars". And even that might not be the point of the RB break in, the point of it being longevity not HP. It's all just meant as an open dialog, not me starting some ****. I'm sorry if it came off that way Swoope (or anyone else). Just chit chattin' at 3 am.

8 Maniac

iTrader: (1)

I see where you're coming from... it would be quite interesting to see how well the different methods work when compared to one another... it'd have to be 5 cars that match exactly though... so if one gets modded, the other side needs one modded similarly. If it was stock vs stock that would work very well.

wildside50

And of course such an objective test will never be done for any car (save maybe race cars). That's why the issue of break in period is still a debate, not a set and fast rule. Ah well.

Senna

Wildside,

To suggest the FD is overrated is pathetic. The FD is legendary!! Ask most people who have one or better yet legitimate racers who have tracked/tuned the car and I think the respect for the car would be quite evident. Remember, at stock, as a 10 + year old car it still out performs most sports cars today in it's price range including my 30+K 2006 8. With a few modifications it'll run not too far off the pace of cars many K more in price.

Oh and as for the comparison between the Corvette and Rx8. I've had both the C6 and 8 on the track and outside of the +- 250 extra hps in the vette (which is a significant advantage) I probably had more fun in my 8. I can only imagine how much fun it would be to run a 20B 8 on the track!!

swoope

iTrader: (5)

did not take it that way..

check pm...


the whole rx7 break in just caught me as odd..

beers

wildside50

Obviously, the idea of an "over rated car" is completely subjective. Trust me -- I own a Dodge SRT-4, and it has to be called overrated more times on every board I've ever been on than any other car in existance. Personally, I find it fun as hell to drive.

And yes, if the RX-7 3rd gen was a 30-40k car, it'd be exceptional (as a track car). But with a starting price of 32,500 in 1993 (about 45,000 today with inflation) before any options were added, and you're talking about a VERY expensive car. My point (as off topic as it has become...) is simply that for 45k, you have a lot of cars to chose from. The RX-7 is punishing to drive on the road, from all accounts. Compare that to the RX-8 which is a better car than the 350Z in most opinions not because it's faster at the track (which it certainly isn't) but because it is the better car overall.

I think the same logic should be applied to the Rx-7. Is it a fantastic track car? Yes. So was the vette and other super cars of the time. (Keep in mind, I've driven none of them, and only ridden in a 3rd gen once). I just don't think as an everyday car it is that great. MHO.

Edit: In reading my own post, I realized I countered my own point. The Corvette is equally legendary, equally expensive at the time, and equally as un-utilitarian. Guess I should just shut up. Still would rather have a more comfortable (read: RX-8) car for everyday is all.

swoope

iTrader: (5)

i am more confused now.

as the 3rd gen. was really ok on the road... in the got it from the dealer form..

as to the rx8 vs z on the track.. well i think you would be surprised there same day same driver different car..

got to say the rx8 will win.. unless it is 4 turns with 4 long straights..

beers

wildside50

The one RX-7 I rode in was modded, yes, and hurt my butt. But from all of the magazine articles I've read, it was punishing no matter. (Then again, most mags said the same thing about the SRT-4 and after years, I still find that ride satisfactory)

Guess it depends on the track and driver's preference. When Top Gear tested the RX-8, it got an absolutely identical time (down to the 1/10th of a second) as the 350Z, and just a few ticks below the M3 (E46). But when most American mags test the cars at a track, the 350z usually wins by a second or three.

liam

You're either really naive or something worse. Anybody can slap a big turbo onto an econo-box and obtain some mighty impressive straight line figure. If you think FD is all about straight line speed, in lieu of its total overall package, then there's no point with you. In the annals of automotive history, your Srt is a speck compare to the FD.

Btw, I followed the Racing Beat's recommendation.

wildside50

It's not naive to have an opinion. For some people the Corvette doesn't float their boat -- no point in arguing it with them. It just doesn't. The FD doesn't float my boat. I like the FC a lot more. Of course it's not about straight line speed. Stock, the FD was slower than a 350Z in a straight line. My point was fun to drive. For super-car price, there's lots of fun to be had. There's a reason most people who've driven both will say that the RX-8 is the better car. It's certainly not faster. Not the better race car, just the better car.

SayNoToPistons

iTrader: (8)

Um.... The FD should be equal (if not faster) especially with modern tires.

Mugatu

iTrader: (1)

this thread is friggin hysterical.

we have an SRT Neon owner asking about the break-in period of a 3rd Gen RX7 on an RX8 forum.

Subscribing....

bsteimel

iTrader: (5)

He does own a rotary, an rx8, or at least his wife does

wildside50

You know, this started out as such a simple thread...

I asked about the Rx-7 breakin period on an Rx-8 message board (mind you, the Gerneral automotive section, not the RX-8 specific section) because, as a new 8 owner, I presumed a lot of people who own an RX-8 have also owned (or do own) and Rx-7, and my question would then expand to relate to the RX-8. If I'd asked it on an Rx-7 board, got an answer, then tried to tie it into the Rx-8, I guess I'd have gotten made fun of there for asking about the 8 on a 7 forum. Ah well.

I'm sorry this thing got so off topic. Twas an honest question, I assure you. I'll just try my luck on the 7 forums for my own edification and leave it alone.

Ajax

Most of the guys here who rebuild engines run 1000 miles unboosted. I have no idea what the manual says.
As for this thread... well.. it's time to clean it up.