RX7 vs RX8
 

This is just some info on the 7 verses the 8. It seems that the stock RX7 fd
model's peak rwhp is 210 per Rotary Performance. This is with twin turbo's.
Stage 1 is about 240whp.

Stage 2 is about 260whp. With fuel pump.

This is pretty close to the Greddy kit on a stock 8.

Who says the renesis can not make power?

http://www.rx7.com/store/rx7/fdpower.html

I think that we will see great numbers in another year or so. There are a number of things to figure out. I can be patient.

Of course the FD also had about 200 pounds less weight.

On the other hand, it was priced in Corvette territory (about $50k today, adjusted for inflation!) and was known for developing serious engine problems.

i dont think the rx7 would be inflated THAT much.

i think its the corvette that just became alot more expensive... the rx7 would still be in the 30's i believe... and a slightly modded rx7 will RAPE a turbo'd rx8 IMO

those things are fast

werent the rx7s in the low 40s even back then?

i know when the 2nd gens were out, in like 87 they were 20k so i think the fd's were going for at least 35 back then. i think if they were to inflate the price they would be pushing the 50k mark today.

yea they were pricy and as such didn't sell too wel here the last year which is why it was discontinued in the us.

rx-7 in 95 it did about 13.9 or so in the 1/4...and modded could get a lot ofpower with simple bolt ones (mid pipe down pipe intake..etc.). but i liek my 8 ... it has one extra number...must mean it's better :p

but then again 9 is scared of 7......hehehehehe (fill inthe rest)

um, you dont know a whole lot about these cars do you?
a slightly modded RX-7 wont RAPE a turbo RX8, if anything the rx8 would be faster, or it would be close. the rx7 will outcorner it though. the rx7 has more long term type of potential(big work, not just bolt ons)

Disagree with first sentence. Stock to stock rx-7 chassis is too soft, but most RX-7 I see has suspension mod :(

2nd sentence. Yes. Bolt on is bolt on and 10:1 combustion ratio is too high for serious turbo. But I am hopeful some decent conversion (major conversion) will happen.

Amen!! :rolleyes:

To dispell a little misinformation:

The 1993 Mazda RX-7 MSRP started at $32,900 in 1993 and was up to $37,800 in 1995. Adjust for inflation as you will.

My all stock 93 RX-7 with a 118,000 miles on the chassis and a stock rebuilt motor and turbos at 76,000 miles dynoed 219whp on a Dynojet.

Redynoed with a 3" mandrel downpipe and APEXi intake it was 253whp. Adding a APEXi GT Spec catback it was 267whp. Added a 3" midpipe and a Power FC ECU and got 300whp at the stock 10PSI boost, was reaching max fuel flow, added a high flow fuel pump, custom intercooler, better spark plugs and wires and got it to 332whp @ 14psi before turning, 348whp @ 14.6psi after tuning. All figures are from a Dynojet. This was all on a stock port stock turbo motor. Total cost for modifications $2500 plus $400 for the dyno tuning. This numbers are by no means a rare occurence and have been pretty well duplicated with many other 3rd gen RX-7s.

As far as suspension goes, the RX-8 has great handling with a comfortable ride because of greatly increased structural rigidity and a well developed suspension geometry. This allows the car to have good handling with soft springs and shocks. The 3rd gen RX-7 has been shown by many autocrossers to have the edge in cornering stock vs stock against an RX-8. The RX-7 has very stiff suspension, especially for the time it was first sold, for a stock car and is very capable. I think it is a great feat that the RX-8 can nearly match those characteristics and excel in some with an excellent comfortable ride. However many racers will tell you the RX-8 has a lot of body roll especially compared to the 3rd gen RX-7. In addition it is my opinion that the RX-8 is easier to feel the limits of the car than the 3rd gen rx-7 making it faster and more forgiving for a beginner to drive fast compared to the 3rd gen RX-7s.

Changing the compression ratio in a rotary means changing the rotors, which requires a whole engine rebuild, this is not a simple thing to accomplish, pretty much anybody driving their RX-8's on the street are going to be sticking with the stock compression ratio.

As mentioned above by my modification path, it depends on what your perception of lightly modded is, I spent about $2500. The Greddy kit costs more than that. So compare a lighter weight car making 348rwhp compared to the greddy turbo RX-8 at 240rwhp, maybe 270 with some modifications and improvements. Just adding an intake and downpipe made my 93 RX-7 have as much HP as people are getting with making improvements to the greddy kit. I ran a 12.6 on street tires and a 11.7 on mickey thompsons at 14.6psi btw.

9

you've GOT to be kidding me dude.

first of all the rx8 has a soft un-sporty suspension to increase ride quality and to appeal to the masses

second of all the RX-7(even the touring models) have a suspension so hard stock that when you run over a piece of gum it will report back to you whether its a doublemint or juicyfruit.

yeah the renesis setup already has a good intake and exhaust system so mods dont do so much. the RENESIS is made for N/A therefore setup for it so thats why its hard to put a big turbo, once you make it more suitable for boost, it can be just as good as the REW, for example, lighter rotors with lower compression(RE-Amemiya is experimenting with 13b-REW rotors) as well as reinforced apex seals before going over 11psi.

Good post! Q/Icemastr:cool:
In summary, yes a lightly modded FD will rape a turbo RX-8. :)

Goodbye!
Edgardo

I am a little tired of seeing this rather uninformed statement stridently repeated over and over again.

Static compression ratios have nothing to do with how "serious" the forced induction will be.
All a higher static compression ratio does is make it possible to make more power on less boost which equals better drivability.
12 PSI on a 8.9:1 engine is roughly equivalent to 9 PSI on a 10:1 engine, all other things being equal.

Generally, an 11 PSI MSP is going to make about as much power as a 14 PSI REW. Whether you will accomplish this with one turbo kit or another is irrelevant. It is all in the tuning.

FYI, I was playing around with the inflation calculator. $37,800 in 1995 = $47,030 in 2005. For about $14,000 (47000-33000 (price of a nicely loaded new RX8), I could do a lot of fixing up.

Maybe, but when I was looking at new FDs in early '95 (I ended up buying a used one) they had brand new '94s on the lot they couldn't move for $26K. List price in this case was irrelevant, which was a big part of why they vanished from the US.

jds

That would have been more in line with what I would have paid for the car ($26K). $38K for the car was outrageous. No wonder it died on the vine. Even these days, you can get the RX8 for a substantial discount. I think the high $20K-very low $30K is about the limit for these cars.

I agree and that's one reason why I'm just taking it slow, my goal is to gain between 70-100HP without hurting the 8's lifespan or at least being insignificant to me. So...I"ll wait and see...

Flywheel
Pullies
Midpipe
Intake
Exhuast
Lighter rims
ECU upgrade/piggyback

...and taking off 100lbs should see some NICE improvements but I admit that reaching 70HP will take a turbo or SC.

Well, I got my 2005 base 6spd for $21,500+3,000+trade in (worth $500 MAX no matter what the dealer told me) so you can get an 8 for $25,000 (w/TTT) for a base 6spd which is not bad at all.

If you find a dealer that refuses to move on their price...drive off and find one willing to work with you. The 8's are doing OK in sales from what I've seen (during 2003-2004 (2005 is scary)) but they are not selling enough of them to be stubborn with their prices.

My thoughts...

yeah we got one for 32k, but that included GT, 2,000 dollars worth of accesories, and the 2,500 dollar "polishing" of the 4 wheels(looks a bit more like chrome to me)

There's a Mazda dealership down here that has a dark green 95 RX7 with 5500 miles on it. Yes...an RX7 with no mileage. Only problem is that it's automatic. The real problem is that they want over 35,000 for it. It will be there for a long time.

So if the FD did not have twinturbo's it would be close to a na 8 in hp. minus
300 lbs of weight.

We do rev to 9k!

Just a thought :confused:

Now you're getting in the "what if" statement. The FD came with twins so it's a moot question. The 7 and 8 are two different car with different purpose. The similarity would just be that the engine is a rotary. I would think if you want to compare the 7 to the 8's engine performance. You would have to compare it to the second gen - na.

Your right, no more what ifs!

This is Rotary Performance's test numbers for the 2nd gen 7 and
the renesis. Almost a 50hp difference.

This engine will run but it may be some time before we see the fd7
max hp #'s. It still is a new engine!






http://rx7.com/techarticles_rx8power.html

man you guys are making me start to miss my FD . . . . . .

then I remember all the problems and say fuckit.