90 f22A1 VS FD3S SAVANNA

[Akira_kj]

Basicly I was driving home, got to a stop light taking a left to a 3 lane. A fd3s pulls up. He oviously just couldnt wait for the light to change so I sit and bide my time. The light changes and I beat him around the corner no problem. Then I think he realized I was actualy giving my car some gas (wot actualy) and then he spanked me bad. realy bad. like i was standing still. I totaly got a kick outta it tho. I love the fd3s and to see such a great looking specimen was a treat. This was the first time I had ever seen a FD and It made my day watching it fnckin toast my car like I wasnt even trying lol. I dont think a h series or even a well built F will ever fully fill my need for speed. I might end up buying a FC3s if they are even in the same league as that FD. That car was god-like.

[F20A CB7]

[Djmoua]

man you actually went up against an Rx-7? wow you had guts. I wouldn't have even try.

[kouzie]

man you actually went up against an Rx-7? wow you had guts. I wouldn't have even try.

[whitejdmcb7]

my friends got a fc n/a and i pull on him in 1st but a b16 crx toasts him all day long

[rickyduckworth]

ok, savanna was the FC (wimpy versions before 1992) and the word associated with the FD would be efini (none exist in the USA).

from 92-95, there were the base models, touring models, then the R1, R2 and PEG models. they were all mostly the same, 250hp engines and same fragile trannies, but the last 3 had better suspensions. they really weren't that fast stock. i had a 94 and it would barely run a 14 flat stock, and although the turbo was hurting a bit, most people would only get a very high 13 out of them and my goldish/brown accord would run a 14.1 on shitty tires, so ehh..... i did get a 12.9 out of my FD on the stock sized tires though, with a few bolt ons, tuningn and a big single turbo.

and if you want an FD, getting an FC won't make you feel better. they're just too different. getting a fast miata would literally be better.

a stock 2000 camaro ss would outrun a stock FD though, and the top end on the camaros is just as good......i got my FD up to 162mph once

[deevergote]

A stock 2000 Camaro SS would get better gas mileage as well... Rotaries SUCK when it comes to fuel consumption! I'd love a rotary to play with... pretty much any year RX-7, since they all have their own charm... but I'd never make it anything but a toy.

[rickyduckworth]

A stock 2000 Camaro SS would get better gas mileage as well... Rotaries SUCK when it comes to fuel consumption! I'd love a rotary to play with... pretty much any year RX-7, since they all have their own charm... but I'd never make it anything but a toy.

mine was a daily driver lol. actually in 99-2000, i spent less on gas for it than i do now for about anything, thanks to the price. i'd spend just under $100 a week then, and now, $100 a week is a minimum

[deevergote]

Yeah, in 99, gas was under a dollar around here!

I've put 19,000 miles on my GTP since March... and with the driving I do, it gets less than 20mpg. I've had 16mpg days (according to that dash display it has). I should've just gotten an F body... more power, better handling, and the same gas mileage (with the power going to the correct wheels... wtf was GM thinking... 280ft/lbs stock on a FWD car!)



But back to the rotaries... if gas was still $1.50 a gallon or less... hell $2.00 or less... I'd consider one as a daily. They're hard to find in good shape for a reasonable price these days though... they're hard to find in good shape period! They're great cars, and the engines are solid... but a rotary is different from a piston engine, and the owners fail to realize that. I'm sure the salesmen didn't bother informing the new owners, and not many people read their manuals! One kid that doesn't change the oil regularly (they burn oil naturally, so it's worse to be irregular with a rotary), or beats on the transmission, and you have a piece of junk.

[HondaB18]

from 92-95, there were the base models, touring models, then the R1, R2 and PEG models. they were all mostly the same, 250hp engines and same fragile trannies, but the last 3 had better suspensions. they really weren't that fast stock. i had a 94 and it would barely run a 14 flat stock, and although the turbo was hurting a bit, most people would only get a very high 13 out of them and my goldish/brown accord would run a 14.1 on shitty tires, so ehh..... i did get a 12.9 out of my FD on the stock sized tires though, with a few bolt ons, tuningn and a big single turbo.

255hp

Fragile transmission and inadequate cooling system could be improved upon.

The RX-7 was fast for its days but its getting outdated.

[whitejdmcb7]

yeah they are quick but they look faster than they are they arent meant to be daily drivers either rotarys on average only last between 100,000 to 150,000 miles before completly shiting on u my friends had another one and it was a litlle low on oil and it died so they arent the best cars if u dont have the money to back it up

[rickyduckworth]

255hp

Fragile transmission and inadequate cooling system could be improved upon.

The RX-7 was fast for its days but its getting outdated.

actually, they only PUT OUT about 250 (248-252) crank hp. they were slightly overrated. the same thing happened with the rx8 except it was overrated by about 20hp, give or take. stock, mine only dyno'd at about 204hp to the wheels.

the transmissions really weren't fragile, it was just the synchros. if you ever drive one, pay attention to the 2-3 shift.....you feel like you're shifting straight back up to first and when trying to speed shift, you'll usually miss it until you get used to it and literally 10 misses could mess up the synchro. as far as the whole thing, i don't recall any problems with it. they used a smaller radiator too, but with a better radiator and silicone hoses where the rat's nest is (under the intake manifold) it's really a reliable car. mine had over 100,000 miles on it and ran a high 12 (dyno'd at just over 300hp to the wheels) and was my daily driver for a year or so. got about 17mpg which wasn't bad really.

they weren't mean to be dragsters though. i loved the way it handled. there are a lot of curvy roads around here and it was a blast with the stock suspension. people actually bitched about the r1/r2 so the PEG had a softer suspension and wasn't much better than the base model.

the biturbo (not twins) setups sucked too. the valve that swapped between little and bigger turbos would go bad and then you'd get a loud, whining puppy sound lol. it was horrible. i had to wire mine open and use the bigger turbo all the time for about a week.

[rickyduckworth]

yeah they are quick but they look faster than they are they arent meant to be daily drivers either rotarys on average only last between 100,000 to 150,000 miles before completly shiting on u my friends had another one and it was a litlle low on oil and it died so they arent the best cars if u dont have the money to back it up

only a moron lets a turbo car get a little low of oil anyway. they're cars you have to care for. a civic can go 2 quarts low on oil for 5000 miles an be ok.

morons can't drive 92-95 rx7's and expect them to last.

and they actually had troubles around 80,000 miles. not many made it to 100-150000 because guys like your friend owned them and simply drove them.

[rickyduckworth]

Yeah, in 99, gas was under a dollar around here!

I've put 19,000 miles on my GTP since March... and with the driving I do, it gets less than 20mpg. I've had 16mpg days (according to that dash display it has). I should've just gotten an F body... more power, better handling, and the same gas mileage (with the power going to the correct wheels... wtf was GM thinking... 280ft/lbs stock on a FWD car!)



But back to the rotaries... if gas was still $1.50 a gallon or less... hell $2.00 or less... I'd consider one as a daily. They're hard to find in good shape for a reasonable price these days though... they're hard to find in good shape period! They're great cars, and the engines are solid... but a rotary is different from a piston engine, and the owners fail to realize that. I'm sure the salesmen didn't bother informing the new owners, and not many people read their manuals! One kid that doesn't change the oil regularly (they burn oil naturally, so it's worse to be irregular with a rotary), or beats on the transmission, and you have a piece of junk.

actually, mazda didn't properly train the techs, so for the first 5 years of the FD's existence, the dealer had no clue. they officially admitted this and give a lot of people some money back. they completely fucked up the FD compared to what it could have been. i almost bought one locally a year ago for $9000, but it was in rough shape and was a worn out base model. it was really a $4000 car IF THAT, so i had to pass. i'd have paid him $7000 but he wouldn't take anything less than $9000. some dude bought it, spent $10,000 on getting back in good shape then sold it for $12,000. fucking idiot.

[deevergote]

yeah they are quick but they look faster than they are they arent meant to be daily drivers either rotarys on average only last between 100,000 to 150,000 miles before completly shiting on u my friends had another one and it was a litlle low on oil and it died so they arent the best cars if u dont have the money to back it up

The rotary is supposed to burn a bit of oil. Adding a quart between oil changes isn't uncommon. Some burn more oil than others, as seals wear out, but they are built to burn some.

I came close to buying an FC convertible a few months ago, so I did some research on everything. The rotary engines still fascinate me, and I love the looks and handling of the RX-7s. It's just a shame that the majority of them are poorly maintained. Finding a good rotary mechanic is difficult, and when you do find one, they usually aren't cheap. If I ever get one, I'll learn to work on it myself (there are at least two good videos online that show you how to rebuild a rotary... looks like fun)