Re: supra vs rx7

Discussion in '2000 Mazda RX-7 Type RZ' started by Cobra R Stinger, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. Wow. OK, stock they are roughly the same speed but supras are often faster in comparisons (scanned below). <!-- Signature -->
     
  2. its all up to the driver if you race these cars stock but both cars have there advantages stock and upgraded. but i like them equally and they are both great cars.
     
  3. The RX7 is lighter and doesn't have as much turbo lag as the supra. I love the Supra but all it's power is in it's higher gears. Like somebody also said, that dammn rotary engine has mad power throughout its power band. by the time the supra reached 4th, that RX7 would be long gone. Anybody for a skyline bash-down? I hate that ugly-toaster lookin bastard!
     
  4. Heh. don't turn this into a skyline vs rx-7 forum. Skyline is really really fast. And I love rx-7's. But when I went to hong kong I saw some really crazy skylines that would own rx-7's.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. how are the two when it comes to handling?<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. RX-7 rated best handling car of 92 by Road and Track magazine, beating out porsche 911 turbo on the track. Supras weren't around then but from mechanical experience, toyota does not make great sports cars. Neither does mazda but the RX-7 has always been an exception. Rotaries have the advantage of having only about 6 distinct moving internal parts, while piston engines have over 100. Rotaries follow one circular path while pistons move up and down.

    both cars stock and turbocharged, SUPRA would win on the straight.
    On a race track, the RX-7 would murder because of its lightweight, 48 front/52 rear weight ratio and incredible suspension.

    I've owned both a supra and RX-7. RX-7 is the most fun to drive. Only downside to rotaries, terrible on effeciency, but who cares when you're racing. I visit the race tracks a lot and very few race supras but the RX is very common... people put v8s in'em and they still out handle anything out there.
     
  7. rotaries if well taken care off (oil change every 2k miles , redlines runs everyday) will last 4ever ...and any car with a twin turbo has a crappy efficiency.. I mean everytime you hit 3.3 k revs or so..the psi boost makes that engine just open wide and swallow every ounce of gas on the tank.. but if you drive withoutt crankin up the revs to high your mileage should last you an awfull lot.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  8. I'd back the Supra, and the RX-7, it would be a very close race my heart says supra but my brain thinks perhaps a RX-7. But in real life i would expect the 0-100km/h in 5sec RZ supra to win. and NORMAL RX-7's don't have twin turbos, only single. but very close race indeed.
    LAter<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from NinjaAssaultSquadElite</i>
    <b>Wow. OK, stock they are roughly the same speed but supras are often faster in comparisons (scanned below). </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->your info is wrong. Look at every other magazine or video and they will say that the Rx-7 outhandles and outperforms the surpa. The 7 is a much more technologically advanced car than the supra. Its far more superior. and that styling is to die for.<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. yeah I agree...
    they r both crazy fastasscars..
     
  11. if it was a long distant drag race i would have to say a supra... rx7 would most likely start off quick but eventually giv up mid way to the supra
     
  12. rx7 n e day
     
  13. rx7 n e day
     
  14. RX-7 hands down. the supra is overbuilt, oversexed, and overrated. good car, but 3500lbs? come on. When Mazda took the hp ratings for this RX, they rated it 276hp at the wheels. the 320hp in the supra is at the crank. subtract about 15-20% of that and you're getting about 272-ish RWHP. besides...the supra is like a fat chick...you'd ride in one, but you wouldn't tell your friends.
     
  15. Dudez the Toyota Supra is the best 90's car and even if it didn't have the capacity to smoke a rx-7, it would still be better than the mazda. Don't get me wrong, the rx-7 is one of my favorite cars but the Skyline and the Supra are better.
     
  16. Just because an engine has less moving parts doesn't mean that it is capable of more hp. Friction can be decreased by getting your engine balanced, but the 182.9 ci displacement of the Supra easily has more potential hp of the 79.8 ci Rx-7. The only reson the Rx-7 is so light is mainly because Mazda took off weight from putting a smaller intercooler, radiator, oil cooler, and other vital engine parts. For that reason the Rx-7 has many cooling issues, and to have big hp with no flaws you need to have a cool motor. (High hp + Hot engine = Parts fail.)People will say to get bigger intercoolers, radiators, and oil coolers, but that would add weight, which is the only thing that the Rx-7 has over the Supra. In conclusion, the Supra is capable of more hp because it has more potential hp, and the cost of it obtaining that hp is very much lower than that of a Rx-7.

    Less parts = less friction = less power wasted is true, but
    Better cooling = more reliable = more hp, and
    Bigger engine = more potential hp = Supra beats Rx-7
     
  17. How do you know if Mazda's motor has little intercoolers etc..? 5kg from a bigger intercooler or radiator wouldnt affect the performance at all only as much if you would get some weight to your stomach<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>Rotary is a bit like 2-stroke vs 4-stroke piston engines<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A> they can get over 700hp from mazda's 1,3L engine and if supra can have about 1200. It's alot more hp/l in rx-7 than supra.. just like those 2-stroke engines that are easier to tune than 4-stroke and have more hp/l but they are not so reliable also rotarys are not so reliable as 4-stroke but i think that it goes like this in reliability:4stroke diesel engine, 4-stroke gasoline engine, rotary engine and then 2-stroke in reliability. They make some 2-stroke diesel engines but i dont know about them...
     
  18. On Car and Driver TV there was a feture on the RX-7. They talked about how it was good in races and then they were explaining why people started not to liek them for long races. One reson being that they had small intercoolers and radiators to reduce weight.
    Point 1 Made.

    Radiators and Intercoolers would help performance over a long period of time because it would keep the engine cooler and running at lower tempatures which could help keep the stress on the engine less.
    Point 2 made.

    Who cares about hp per liter (except in races that limit hp)because the only thing that matters in the end is final hp and the more hp and torque you have the faster you will accelerate.
    Point 3 made.

    I dont quite understand what you are saying about rotary equals 2 stroke and 4 stroke equals 4 stroke or whatever ,but piston engines are normally more reliable than a mazda rx-7 put under the same demands as a piston engine.
    Even though the physics say that rotary is more reliable (with less moving parts and all that stuff) most people will say it doesnt come up to that expectation.

    And 2 stroke diesels do last a long time we still have an old work truck that runs fine.
     
  19. I dont really like 2 stroke diesels
     
  20. Lots of old Desiels in cars -1970 and Still today in Tractors use 2-stroke deisels.
     
  21. In some pick ups too
     

Share This Page