Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette. 2

Discussion in '2002 Mazda RX-7 Spirit R' started by robert2420, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    look, Chevman, technology comes in many places, Japan is one of them. Using the laws of physics you cannot get incredbly large hp and tq from small disp engines, it doesnt happen, so that is why they use forced induction (to try and imitate displacement) by cramming more air and gas into the same space. That does not make a car better or worse, jsut different. I am not personally a big jap car fan, i think that too many of those cars are designed for one purpose and then pretend to be used for another (aka civic) and i think tht too many of those cars have been over hyped and over rated (aka skyline) and i think that too many are jusk ugly (aka supra) but just because they are from a different continent doesnt mean that they are bad. Yes HP/L is retarded, no japan can not seem to make a large disp engine worth a shit compared to american ones. And dont you ever imply or say that a porsche is a bad car because it is turboed ever again (you sound dumber than the peopel you are trying to insult when you say that). But other than all that, you have a couple of good points.


    p.s. chevman, dont insult others intelligence until you know the facts yourself, the NSX and porsche 911 are both NA. the 911 is only turboed, wen it is the 911 TURBO, or carrera 4 TURBO, or GT2, or several other variants. The base 911 is not turbo
     
  2. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    "Ther you go, cold hard facts, that cant really be disputed. I do love the rx7 however, in fact it is one of the only japanese cars that i do like, but it does get beat in this test. The hp difference really doesnt make too much of a differenc in this race due to the rx7's much smaller weight. As for handling, even being an american car entusiast iw ill have to honestly bow out to the rx7, but just slightly, due to its lighter weight and smaller size i do believe that the mazda will beat the incredibly nimble vette through the curvies (although i have no facts to back that up like i do the acceleration)"


    Except, that there is disputing your "facts" when they are incorect. First off, several times the 94+ FD RX7 were tested doing 0-60 in 5.0 seconds, and the 1/4 mile in 13.5.....And that is the US spec FD RX7! Sure, it was tested doing slower than that, but then again, so has the vette, which has also been tested doing much slower.

    Also, even the 265HP versian in Japan has been tested MUCH faster than that. There are many test by Japanese magazines with the FD running 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, and 13.2 in the 1/4 mile. So...what does that say....That in terms of acceleration, even those lower HP versians compete in terms of acceleration.

    And, even Best Motoring has tested a bone stock(inclduing stock tires) FD RX7 with the factory 276HP doing an amzing 12.9 1/4 mile....soooo, there you go.
    And this one has 280HP, and lighter weight....so sorry to tell you, but this car could absolutly compete with a 2002 Vette.

    Even when it was brand new, the US spec FD had handling numbers as good or better than other supercars out there. It was tested pulling skipad numbers of .98-1.0 G!! Also, it being a small car and wonderfully balanced, it had amazing slolam runs, sometimes doing up to 70MPH through the standard slalom!! Also, even in 93, the FD had 60-0 distances of 107ft...that is world class.

    So, it absolutly DOES compete in terms of acceleration and other atributes.

    Oh, and one more thing,...please tell me of who you know who paid $45K for a new FD RX7. I worked at an RX7 specialty shop for years, with my boss owning 7 FDs, and having countless original owner cars in there, and the price ranged for new FDs was $33K-$40K when they bought them....so, that again is not exactly true.

    Is the FD a better car than a 2002 vette? Well, that is hard to say. It isnt faster. They both are as sexy as anything. The advantage the vette has is reliablity and logevity, and the advantage of the RX7 is size and nimbleness. If I was getting them both new, i would take the FD...also note that I have driven and worked on both for years. If i was getting one used I would definately get the vette.
     
  3. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    this rx-7 will take out a regular corvette, no doubt about that. but im not quite sure on the z06, im willing to bet that itll give it a run for its money, but not quite sure if itll beat it. itll probably come down to the driver in either car at the end.<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from bigrob</i>
    <b>look, Chevman, technology comes in many places, Japan is one of them. Using the laws of physics you cannot get incredbly large hp and tq from small disp engines, it doesnt happen, so that is why they use forced induction (to try and imitate displacement) by cramming more air and gas into the same space. That does not make a car better or worse, jsut different. I am not personally a big jap car fan, i think that too many of those cars are designed for one purpose and then pretend to be used for another (aka civic) and i think tht too many of those cars have been over hyped and over rated (aka skyline) and i think that too many are jusk ugly (aka supra) but just because they are from a different continent doesnt mean that they are bad. Yes HP/L is retarded, no japan can not seem to make a large disp engine worth a shit compared to american ones. And dont you ever imply or say that a porsche is a bad car because it is turboed ever again (you sound dumber than the peopel you are trying to insult when you say that). But other than all that, you have a couple of good points.


    p.s. chevman, dont insult others intelligence until you know the facts yourself, the NSX and porsche 911 are both NA. the 911 is only turboed, wen it is the 911 TURBO, or carrera 4 TURBO, or GT2, or several other variants. The base 911 is not turbo</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I agree with you rob. Japan cars are definatly over rated. I can't wait till the new C6 comes out. There might be a optional V12 engine option. Just to show all you idiots that American's do rule cars. The corvette has had an option for a DOHC engine for years but it is more expensive and would probably be able to kill anything will a smaller engine.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    Really both are cool cars, i'd hope for the RX-7 but u never know, could come down to driver, but the odds are the Z06 will pick it off as much as i hate to say it, BUT i might be surprised and see a great car the, RX-7 whoop out some real speeeeed.>>>>
    Later<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    Well....i can't say that this lambo dude has brains, compare the horsepower and displacement before the whole cars, if mazda would make a rotary engine that has the same displacement or even same hp that any vette, it would kick this americans dreamcar ass. Just facts, no more. and the current values are: hp 280(japan laws...) torque: 314Nm
    and i would estimate the 0-60mph time to somewhere around 4.5 secs, and in the track....this RX-7 would win even with these values.<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    You try to build a 5.7 litre rotary and it will last about 2 seconds under any type of load, ar anything but idle. The seals are the key weakness of this engine, and they can only hold if they are precision made and have a relativly low stres role. Also, the rotational torque on a 5.7 litre rotary would absolutly wreck the cars handling. Facts.

    But As is, this car can definitly compete. I'm not going to say beat a Z06, because I don't think it can, but the C5, maybe. The Z06's added power and traction controll just give it the edge. <!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    There is no way this rx7 could get under 13.5 in the 1/4 stock. With a good driver in a base vette you might pull a 12.9, but that would be the best it could do stock. Besides if I had the choice of buying this or the vette i would get the vette because in three years every 16 year old is gonna have an rx7.<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    Ok...I know for sure that Price-to-Performance ratio is very important. And yes domestic cars cost less than exotic cars for the performance ratio.

    I guess that the general public dosen't look at the numbers... they just step on the gas and the car moves...that is all that counts. I am not even going to get into handling...but it isn't like they built cars for that...

    well understand this.....Euro and Japanese cars all make alot of HP out of small engines...why?..becuase in history they were not as wealthy as Americans so they have to use smaller displacement engines...so they developed them WITH ALOT OF TECHNOLOGY and made them powerful. Americans have always been more wealthy and could afford alot of gas so they made huge displacement engines to make HP.
    Euro cars handle great because they have tight twisty roads and not as much highways. Here in America they have plenty open highway so handling wasn't an issue..

    It isn't bias or anything just kinda the history of why cars are the way they are...I dont hate any car...just like technology alot...

    I say that pushrod are bad because they are very old technology... Yes they produce alot of HP (i.e. Nascar) because well they are so old that they have been developed over a long period of time....If you build upon something for 50 years ..Yes you are going to get alot out of it.
     
  10. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    JanDaMan you really are the man...thank you for saying that.


    Rod Millen Pikes Peak Open Class winning Celica= 1000HP 2.1L turbo No NOS

    HKS supra 4.7L BiTurbo 2000+ HP no NOS

    It isn't like the Japanese and Euro companies didn't want big engines it is just that they couldn't afford it ..

    you know that in japan like over 2.0L or 2.5L displacement you have to pay more tax or something like that.....They just had to make power with what they had...and all they had was small engines.

    Ohh man at Summer Slam (Englishtown NJ.) last year Ari Yallen brought his 20B 3 rotor RX7......single turbo with NOS 1300+ HP

     
  11. #61 Ferrari4ever123, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    Please dont compare technical people to those people who "hook up" their civics...they are just for show.....

    Well actually the RX7 is probably the best handling road car in the world....Trust me it is known for its handling..

    http://www.supercars.net/cars/1999@$Mitsubishi@$Lancer%20Evo%20VI%20GSR.html

    this says that the Evo6 did the quarter in 12.6 but the road test in the magazine said 12.4.....

    I read C&D R&T and motortrend....and I dont know if I can always count on them....becuase they all say differnt things...

    For example MotorTrend says that the Z06 beat the Porsche GT2 in a few tests (I think it was handling and acceleration) ....now you and I both know that there is no possible way...

    Then MotorTrend said that the Z06 bulled 1.04g onthe skidpad and the GT2 only did like .99
    and that the Z06 has a lower drag coefficiency..yeah right

    Ummm........maybe the magazine should be called "American MotorTrend"

    but then R&T said that the Z06 did .98 and the GT1 did 1.02!

    What is with that?....I will see if I can find the magazines...they are here somewhere...
     
  12. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    I am going to have to defend the vette[ I'm named after it's tires]. First off, The vette's handling[Z06] is 1.01g, Is alot better than this, The tires are wider[P295/30ZR20 rear, P265/35ZR18 front] which mean added grip, There is more power as well. Plus, after the firestone debacle I wouldn't want to riding on them. As for the C5, I don't know. We will just have to see. This, Being tuned, would probably beat the C5. I would buy this car if it was still avalible, I would just change the tires, and put more power in. This car makes the best use of it's power, and it looks great. <!-- Signature -->
     
  13. i vote for the r x7

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from bigrob</i>
    <b>Ok here it goes, real specs from mazda and from motor trend (they are what i could find)

    rx7 (1999 turbo, same as this car, different seats)

    250 hp
    5.4 0-60
    158 top speed
    13.8 1/4

    vette (1999 coupe, before hp increase)

    345 hp
    375 tq
    4.8 0-60
    173 top speed
    13.2 1/4

    Ther you go, cold hard facts, that cant really be disputed. I do love the rx7 however, in fact it is one of the only japanese cars that i do like, but it does get beat in this test. The hp difference really doesnt make too much of a differenc in this race due to the rx7's much smaller weight. As for handling, even being an american car entusiast iw ill have to honestly bow out to the rx7, but just slightly, due to its lighter weight and smaller size i do believe that the mazda will beat the incredibly nimble vette through the curvies (although i have no facts to back that up like i do the acceleration)

    As for these two cars being non comparable, get your head out of your ass and wake up, the two countries build cars differently and thusly their cars will have different engine types but can be built for the sme purpose. Think about it man, countries seperated by oceans and with differenc economical and cultural differeces will develop different types of sprts cars, both will be fast, both will handle well, and both will be built differently. Don't spout HP/Liter, because as someone said that topic has been discussed at naseum and has been proven retarded. The only time that hp/L means anything is when you enter your car into a displacemnet limited race, thats it.

    Why is it so hard for some people to realize that displacement does not neccisarily determinie class, but purpose and performance does? </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->


    That is a bunch of crap. For this car mazda reworked this thing. it probley running with bigger turbos and better suspention. Diffent seats? does that make any sence? your going to make a car and make it a special edition and just add stupid seats? give me a break find some real stats on this car then you can talk
     
  14. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    : "The Z06 is naturally aspirated and the Porsche and NSX are both turboed and have more air rammed down there intakes then would fit between the gap the Vette wins by on the race track....

    um the nsx is n/a

    dumb ass.....
     
  15. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from bigrob</i>
    <b>look, Chevman, technology comes in many places, Japan is one of them. Using the laws of physics you cannot get incredbly large hp and tq from small disp engines, it doesnt happen, so that is why they use forced induction (to try and imitate displacement) by cramming more air and gas into the same space. That does not make a car better or worse, jsut different. I am not personally a big jap car fan, i think that too many of those cars are designed for one purpose and then pretend to be used for another (aka civic) and i think tht too many of those cars have been over hyped and over rated (aka skyline) and i think that too many are jusk ugly (aka supra) but just because they are from a different continent doesnt mean that they are bad. Yes HP/L is retarded, no japan can not seem to make a large disp engine worth a shit compared to american ones. And dont you ever imply or say that a porsche is a bad car because it is turboed ever again (you sound dumber than the peopel you are trying to insult when you say that). But other than all that, you have a couple of good points.


    p.s. chevman, dont insult others intelligence until you know the facts yourself, the NSX and porsche 911 are both NA. the 911 is only turboed, wen it is the 911 TURBO, or carrera 4 TURBO, or GT2, or several other variants. The base 911 is not turbo</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Hey, sorry I came off like that. I love and respect the Porches. I still don't get how they can make so much power from an engine like that. And I understand that technology comes from other places, the Ferrari's drivetrain alone is more complicated then the whole LS6. But I'm sick of hearing all this raggin on our big engines and having all these people say that the only reason they are powerful is because they are big. I mean, everytime some Vette or Viper wins a race or is prefered more in a magazine article, you always hear, "well it has such a big engine, of course it should be more powerful", when they only thing they can come up with that makes nearly as much raw power is spinnin some T3 turbos or something. But when some Porsche (and I'm not saying they are bad, cause they are most defineately some of the best cars out there, they are just, as you said, different, and used to make a comparision in this case) wins a race, all the same people that were dissin on the big cubes kinda keeps quiet and ignores that fact that whatever just got wasted was naturally aspirated. If they are going to say that we have a disadvantage because of our big cubes, they need to recoginize that they have just as much of a disadvantage due to the forced induction. And as for the 911 and NSX thing, sorry. I was still thinking about the GT2 he was defending earlier. And about the NSX, sorry, I was just being retarded, it's been a long week already, thank you for pointing it out.<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    First and foremost...I am sorry...I didn't mean to offend anyonee (obviously I did..) but look at the names of the people who replied.... Chevman....Vette....I know you like american cars.

    this has nothing to do with beauty or racism or anything like that or patriotism...I like american cars...I think some look great...and yes there are plenty of bad forign cars....I am not a racist..

    but look who pushes the lines of power output...not American Manufacturers.

    and for Chev.....not all forign cars have forced induction....
    there are no turbo hondas ... not stock anyways...but they manage
    100 HP\L...

    For example...the higest level of motorsports....Formula 1 3.0L 800-850 HP.....that is like 280 HP\l or so....the viper in ALMS....say...700 HP that is less than 100 HP\L...I like vipers...but that isn't technology...it is just brute displacement that makes that HP....



    ok so the specific HP output has been disgussed before...but why must there be (in almost every racing series and magazine) always giving a displacement advantage to pushrod cars....Like you say "who cares" well the general public dosen't care...they just step on the pedal and the car takes off....but

    Technology pushes the world....why not use some of it....
    you know why I brought this up....look at Honda for example...they use F1 technology in their cars and they sqeueeze out as much HP as possible....(1.6L 160 HP honda civic Si) .....look at the 2003 viper...they had a 8.0L for 2001 and now they are using a 8.3L to make 50 more HP?....why it seems like they aren't trying....they just do what is easy......

    dam there were 14 posts yesturday ,......damm

    By the way....I wanted this to be more a discussion not a war...
    I am sorry if I pissed anyone off...
     
  17. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    This is for Chevman348 ....

    1.) chill out....I dont hate anyone..I am trying to put anything down or anything like that...I OWN AMERICAN CARS!!!!!!!!!!

    2.) You talk about forced induction...You are right...there are forign cars with forced induction but not all....now I am not talking about money or anything like that....just stats...
    Ferrari 550 ....5.5L 485 HP
    Corvette Z06....5.7L 405 HP

    Dodge Neon R\T ...2.0L 135 HP
    Honda Civic 2002..2.0L 200 HP

    I am mearly trying to say that it seems like they arent trying....
    And Chevman348...I love Vetts...I think they are great all around performers...I hope you understand my point...

    And whoever said that Corvette has more history than Porsche...I dont even know what to tell you....but simply you are wrong....

    peace
     
  18. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    This isn't a cursing war please...you all make it sound like I hate Americans and American cars....please it isn't like that...

    Words come out different than when you hear someone speak...

    Personally I think that a Z06 would probably beat the crap out of this RX7 (pending the RX7 isn't a twin turbo)...

    About the "throw some more cubes on the engine to make some power" well....I dont wanna say that that quote is discribing American manufacturers....but it seems that way....

    I mean....when Say The integra came out...and the successors to their cars came years after that...they used the same displacement and kept getting more and more HP....but the New Viper comes out and the want more HP so they bore and stroke it ....the engine was already 8.0L how much more do you need.. ?

    Stop with the hostility please...I am not cursing at any of you ...!
     
  19. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    Both of these are great cars. I hope you all relize that. It does not matter how you get your power(unless its NOS), as long as you get it. The numbers can be argued and what not, but they are both amazing autos. Only way to see which is better on the track and the strip is TO TAKE THEM TO THE TRACK OR STRIP AND RACE THEM!! Everything else is pure theory. As for Corvette having more history than Porsche.....only in America my friend. Everywhere else, Porsche takes it.<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    As for how bigger an engine do you need- well Ferrari4ever, as much as it takes, as much as it takes. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  21. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    <!-- QUOTE -->"That is a bunch of crap. For this car mazda reworked this thing. it probley running with bigger turbos and better suspention. Diffent seats? does that make any sence? your going to make a car and make it a special edition and just add stupid seats? give me a break find some real stats on this car then you can talk"<!-- END QUOTE -->

    Iceman this is from the intro to this car on this site

    "The Type-A Spirit R is a two-seater model fitted with the Recaro-made exclusive red full bucket seats. These lightweight seats reduce the overall chassis weight of the vehicle by approximately 10 kg. Braking performance is enhanced through the use of large drilled type ventilated disk brakes for all four wheels and high rigid stainless mesh brake hoses. The Type-A Spirit R model is the ultimate RX-7, boasting the most outstanding driving performance in its history."

    As 4agze pointed out, what i said was not entirely acurate. This is ot the top of the line American Spec Rx7 like i thought, this is the top of the line Jap Spec which is about 280 hp. It was pointed out earlier that it does about a 4.5 0-60 and a 13.5 1/4 or something to that nature (you can look it up earlier on this thread). But i was correct to a point, this car has new seats to save weight and new brakes, that is the only difference between this car and the normal jap spec "Spirit R"
     
  22. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    This RX7 by the way,kicks ass, i just wish that it would be possible to make a reliable wenkel motor, and maybe a larger one. i know that both of those are tall orders, but the way that this motor works even 100 cc's extra could cause HUGE gains, but.......................... THE VETTE IS FASTER! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
     
  23. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    ok first of all, big rob u seem to be one of the few people on ehre that look at all aspects of each side of the car industry. thank god there are some of you out there. second of all whoever said every 16 year old will have one is a dumbass. i really wish i would see more RX-7's on the road. but hell i cant get out of my neighborhood without seeing 3 C5's and one Z06. #$%#in vette's r everywhere! it would be very pleasing to my eye to see more RX-7's/ Supra's/ Skyline's soon to come.
     
  24. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    RX-7 will win, coz it could beat a skyline GT-R, WRX STI and sometimes Evo6 with no doubt, i think the Z06 can't beat the Evo6 for sure. beside this car is wayyy lighter then the vette
     
  25. Re: 2002 RX-7 Vs. 2002 Corvette.

    Hi there!!! First, u shouldn't take number so seriously as u take, except for really big differences. HP, torque, 0-60, topspeed, all of those are very relative for a really car lover. U can't say u have as much fun driving a MB S600 Brabus limo (a one that makes over 300km/h and has really good acceleration) than u hould have driving a peugeot 106 gti, or something like that. They are tottaly different experiences. It all deppends on what u like to do.
    And this stars my next point. I hear most of u Americans talk about drag-racing between cars, as for here in europe, we have more preference for really circuit-racing, thats a fact, thought I do not intent to generalyse ( so don't feel offended). That makes a huge difference between american ane european cars. Even your roads are different form ours. So I think this makes the discussion pointless. A vette (and a viper, and a mustang, and...), though being a good sportscar, is more for fast cruising, and the mazda (as for all european sportscars) is made for "the corners".
    Tecnollogy? Yes, off course most euro. cars have a lot more tech, but, as u say, u must consider the price, and the propose.
    In my oppinion, it gets really difficult to compare american VS european cars because they are built for different purposes.
    To finish, I guess the vette hould (off couse...) win a drag-race, and the mazda would beat him on a circuit.
     

Share This Page