[trdmkii]

*Disclamer*this but its just my opinion.*

Ok i've seen a few of you all talk about how you've owned an rx-7 and driven one....how did you like it compared to our supras. I mean I have had my supras for over 5 years now and my best friend has had a second generation rx-7.

I tell you the supra feels like a solid powerful car, but driving his car feels like riding on a golf cart...it feels weak. In a race between both our cars stock, i won but not by much meaning the cars can compare......

I don't know i like the rotary engine, but as for the second gen, mazda should have made a better car....

To sum this up CELICASUPRAS ARE THE BEST CARS EVER!!!!!!!

 

[Supra Bob]

My bro had a little buzz bomb with a 13B in it a while back. While it had nothing resembling torque, it made up for it in the top end. They are light and handle nicely stock as well, which is an added plus... Tho I have to agree...driving it felt more like driving a Kart than a car. I'll stick with my cylinders and leave the apex seals/wankel soup for someone else..

 

[3000cc MK2]

I am a big RWD fan and I have both driven the RC FD even the turbo II and the twin turbo model and they are fun to drive once you get up to the power band by there is nothing better than a MK2 supra that you can those anytime youwant from stand still... the rotary engines got no torque just my 0.02 cent

 

[Malibyte]

They are a lot of fun to drive...but the maintenance on them is a pain in the @$$ and the wallet. I know someone who has a '91 in beautiful condition which recently spit an apex seal out the tailpipe in chunks, and before that had electrical problems - some $400 part which controls the tach, and, oh by the way, did something nasty to the charging system when it went south, so he had to hook his car up to a trickle charger every night...!!! I had thought before that those Wankels were more reliable that piston engines, but it turns out that you have to rebuild them every 100K miles or so. Nah. I'll take my Soops.

 

[SilverMk2]

The engines in the early 80s RX7s were extremely reliable, pretty gutless though. Those ones make great racecars. Its pretty much impossible to overrev the motor and pop it from missed shifts. Plus they handle good. As an everyday car the MkII creams it though. I loved the FDs when they were new, little did I know they'd turn out to be such a timebomb.

 

[Phil G.]

I'm a fan of the first and second generation ones (MK1? MK2?). In fact, wayt back when - when my then 1982 Supra called it quits I was this close to buying a used 1987 Turbo II RX-7 with only 12k miles. It was all black and very fast for its time (182 hp). The insurance hike and reliability problems of the early turbos kept me away at the time (damn I wish I had bought it).

Phil G.

 

[artm]

I have one of each, a 1985 Mk2 and a 83 Rex. On a direct driving comparision the Mk2 wins hands down but remember the !st and 2nd Rex are economy sports cars built from the Mazda parts bin- in 83 it still had recirculating ball steering and a carbed engine. The Mk2 on the other hand is a luxury sports coupe. It feels more solid and by seat of pants actually feels faster. You are also comparing a 2000 lb car with a 3000. On the engine side it depends if you like revs or torque - on a 4000 rpm lauch with clutch slipping to avoid total burnout my Rex leaves the Mk2 in the dust and with (I estimate as my tach only goes to 8000) a 9000+ redline I am at peak hp for longer than a Mk2 (remember the 1000lb difference. Turboed theres no comparison - the fasted streetable Mk2 I've seen on these pages is an 11 sec. RX7 forum members have faster cars.

RX7 parts are also way easier to find.

 

[CJSREDPRA]

I test drove either a 84 or 85 1st Gen GSL-SE several years ago. Just to see how it compared to my MKII. Powerwise, it was okay, but obviously not as fast. I was hoping that w/ the high end model, it would have just as many "toys" as the MKII, but I was kinda dissappointed. Given the choice of either a Celica or a 1st Gen RX7, I'd go w/ the Celica.

About 12 years ago, one of my former skiing buddies had a 87 2nd Gen Turbo. Definitely much nicer.

 

[rsdeo]

Apex seals fail all the time and it is true about engine rebuilds every 160K kms. If I remember correctly they also had a warning light in the gauge cluster warning the driver the engine RPM was too high. Rust is also a common problem.

That said, I still like them. I would love to get a first or third gen and drop in a 20B (or is that 20A) from a Cosmo.

RWD, two seats, small and light all spell fun.

 

[dogstar]

theyre fun... a good third car, but i dont like them, i know too many friends that have spent way too much money on those rotarys to seriously consider one for myself.

i must admit the turboIIs were pretty damn peppy, but they still suffered some serious apex seal issues.

 

[batmobile]

How about those RX-8s? :lol:

 

[onephatcrackaII]

the rx-8's are ok..... i'd rather have the second gen rx7 .....that reminds me... my friend might be getting an 81 rxy...... what gen is that?... i think it's first.

it only has 12a rotary 100 hp.... and like 104lbs torque...but only weighs 2500 lbs curb.

 

[BillyM]

How about those posts 7 months ago? :roll:

--BillyM

 

[dogstar]

rx8... isnt that the car that mazda over rated so badly they bought back most of the first production run.... :roll:

 

[trdmkii]

rx8... isnt that the car that mazda over rated so badly they bought back most of the first production run.... :roll:

lol hilarious...exactly....how retarded....

 

[Crocket]

I have one of each, a 1985 Mk2 and a 83 Rex. On a direct driving comparision the Mk2 wins hands down but remember the !st and 2nd Rex are economy sports cars built from the Mazda parts bin- in 83 it still had recirculating ball steering and a carbed engine. The Mk2 on the other hand is a luxury sports coupe. It feels more solid and by seat of pants actually feels faster. You are also comparing a 2000 lb car with a 3000. On the engine side it depends if you like revs or torque - on a 4000 rpm lauch with clutch slipping to avoid total burnout my Rex leaves the Mk2 in the dust and with (I estimate as my tach only goes to 8000) a 9000+ redline I am at peak hp for longer than a Mk2 (remember the 1000lb difference. Turboed theres no comparison - the fasted streetable Mk2 I've seen on these pages is an 11 sec. RX7 forum members have faster cars.

RX7 parts are also way easier to find.

Unless you've lightened your RX-7 significantly, there's no way it weighs 2000lb. Hell even a Tercel weighs more than that (just). I "think" the actual weight of the first gen RX-7 was closer to 2400lb.

Sonny

 

[artm]

83 rx7 "S" model comes in factory stock at under 2300 the SE was 2400 and GSL a piggy at 2700 mine is an "S". Remove all sound deading and insulation all power assists and unnecessary interior stuff including rear amp and speakers , all rats nest, air pump, omp and vaccum controls, hot and cold start assists, modify carb to remover lbs of pollution and choke stuff, lighter engine components, remove cat convertor, add lighter wheels, lighter exhaust etc and car comes out at a bit over 2000. Performance mods include a full street port, diffidus, carb, fuel and air delivery and exhaust mods. You could have also noted I understated the factory stock Supra weight by over 200lbs.

 

[Donn29]

a supra 5 speed is 29 something autos are 30 something

 

[Tanya]

I didn't realise until recently the huge difference in weighst between the W58 and A43DE...holy cow!
it says in the parts weights that the W58 is 89lbs. dry (I don't believe that, the tranny w/ fluid in it is relatively lite to me) and the auto tranny is 120lbs (w/ fluid) add an extra 32lbs. for the torque converter.
:shock:
click here for Deans parts weight sheet