playdoh43

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

Hornet

I know there probably are no complete lists but I think this one is missing something. I did notice that there is no '93-'95 RX-7 on that list. I thought they ran in the 13s stock. Anybody know for a fact what kinds of numbers the magazines got?

playdoh43

they werent that fast stock i believe.. 14s cars, the 300ZX twin turbo also didnt make it. But the supra TT did. 3000GT VR4 did because it was AWD, they have huge advantage in straight line accleration vs RWD. I have a feeling this is not a mistake because 14s quartermile back in those days was considered really good.

playdoh43

im not too familiar with RX7, but i think the fastest stock RX7 was the R2. The 1995 RX7 R2 was 14.1s in quartermile. I could be wrong though, maybe theres an even faster version of RX7. You guys are the RX7/8 experts, someone should know..

Hornet

These guys show it as doing the 1/4 mile in 13.5sec. I'm not sure what their sources are but they have been around for a while now.

http://www.supercars.net/cars/1995@$Mazda@$RX-7g.html

shelleys_man_06

I hope no one thinks these numbers account for all production cars. For example, the 2003 Mustang Cobra was raced both b MM&FF and SCC, and they both had different results. Go figure. MM&FF clocked a flat 12, and SCC had a 13.4. 1.4 seconds makes a difference! I smell bias, but that's not the point. Not all cars are going to get these times .

Also, I too am surprised the FD3S wasn't present. I wish they had accounted for the Type RZ, Spirit-R, or the SP .

policyvote

The difference is that SCC does not use correction factors. Most magazines use complicated formulas to account for disparities in temperature, barometric pressure, humidity, elevation, etc. The problem is that these formulas are not very reliable and are total crap when it comes to F/I cars. SCC prints what they got on the timeslip, and only what they got on the timeslip. As a result, they are often ridiculed for having the slowest times in the industry . . . even though they are the most truthful.

Lawerence

Yes FDs were capable of 13s stock with a good driver.

13.7-14.2 were common magazine times.


Here are some good ones:

http://www.aus300zxclub.com/magazine/comparisons.htm


*edit* this just one times page...

http://www.aus300zxclub.com/magazine/a4p5.jpg

rx-7~rx-8

RX-7 runs 13's... all day... 13.5 is what i saw in a OLD road and track shotout...

Supra Turbo runs like 13.5 also... it tied with RX-7.. oh well... They probably forgot.. its all good

playdoh43

are those austrailian spec or US spec rx7? either way, if ne one can find sub 14s times for US spec rx7 from a MAJOR US publication, you should submit it to their site, maybe they'll give rx7 some love and add it on their list.

VikingDJ

This chart is very subjective. I'd like to know how the lancer runs a 13.2 at 99mph, and the sti runs a 13.23 at 104. I don't recall ever seeing those stats on the 04 evo. Maybe this just comes from a pile of different road tests, and whoever created it decided to be a little bias and pick best one vs worst one, to create a chart to his liking. Or they could have simply not been given enough road tests. The rx7 probably ran a 14.1 in one road test with a jack *** driver, but I know that car was in the high 13s stock. So was the twin turbo 300z. No way the 350z is faster then the tt 300z was. It just is not happening. Cars are left out, and others are given their best recored times, so this list is not completely accurate. Still, it's neat to look at and review.

Lawerence

lol
this is from car and driver magazine...all US spec cars.
its right there http://www.aus300zxclub.com/magazine/a4p5.jpg
and they are even better times in other mags if you actually LOOK.

Lawerence

or how about this...
RX7 vs. 3000GT VR4 vs. Corvette (C4) vs. NSX
Track: Willow Springs Raceway
Laptimes............avg speed
NSX- 139.9 ... 90.1mph
300ZX- 140.9 ... 89.2
LT1- 139.5 ... 90.5
VR4- 140.3 ... 89.7
RX7 - 138.3 ... 91.5

http://www.aus300zxclub.com/magazine/a12p6.jpg

the RX7 is an R1 I believe

pmacwill

I found this article after looking at that list...

http://www.vetteweb.com/features/vet_0311_badness

*drool*

MTLbroker

My favorite on that list:
1987 Buick GNX 3.8L V6 T/C 300 13.26 104 CI
I have no idea what that is. But a Buick in the mix can't be all bad. LOL.

Boozehound

The GNX is a baaaad machine... It had a big ceramic turbo on a V-6 and that car would tear it up. I recall seeing an article about adding a new BOV and yanking the cat to get the car into the mid-low 12s. Same story with the Regal T-type and Grand Nationals. They even made the buicks look mean too... :D

Hornet

There was a video posted somewhere in here where a Grand National put down something like 1000whp

Senseny

I would love a GNX one day.
BTW, I just emailed them pointing out that the FD3S should be on their list. They did ask for people to point out omissions. Maybe it will get added.