NSX vs RX7

[NSSEX91]

I agree with MoreRPM's infact, The Renesis is a new improved design in every way including more oil seals, lighter rotors and less oil consumption which = less carbon build up and longer engine life.

The 3rd gens are the junkers they make to much heat and break and have to much a complicated boost and vacum setup. Ofcourse I will take one any day

If you have not driven the 8 I suggest you do. The magazines would agree compared to the cars of it's class, the 350z, STI and mustang the 8 was funner to drive. Me and a friend took one out during a Mazda fest couple years ago and if I had to would choose the 8 over all cars in it's class.

Can't wait for the 4th Gen 7 I think it will blow everything else away even the new GTR.

 

[JeffShoots]

Haha 1.3L of Hell

 

[polar]

Can't wait for the 4th Gen 7 I think it will blow everything else away even the new GTR.

Right.... maybe for its first 30k miles and then ka-boom :tongue:

 

[Immanuel]

Right.... maybe for its first 30k miles and then ka-boom :tongue:

Can't let you say that. When the car is tuned right and boostin right. I will run long and strong. 3rd gen Rx7's (like the one in the in the vid) can be scary fast, for cheaper that the NSX. The HP per dollar is more in the RX7. But you need to tune the car right. Alot of people do the mods and never tune the car right. The way the rotary engine works is you just can not get way with no engine computer tuning. The 3rd-gen Rx-7 gets a bad rap because sometimes people just getting into a RX7 just don't tune the car properly. The Rotary engine only has three moving parts. so techincally the rotary engine should run more effective than a piston engine. But if the Rotary engine is not tune righht , the Ampex seals are the weak link.
Now the RX8 is junk!!!!!!!!!

 

[BATMANs]

I'm a RX7 (FD) owner with an undisputed world record miles of 250k+ on the chassis.

Last weekend I just bought a 93 NSX blk/blk with mid 30 thousand miles on it, no accidents from a friend.

Price for the car $24,000 (a deal I couldn't turn down). Aftermarket wheels/tires and suspension, tint brought the price to $29k.

Here is a link of my thoughts between the 2 cars from a couple of days of owning the NSX:

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showthread.php?p=130859#post130859

 

[95rtturbo]

Stock for stock, the FD and the earlier model NSX's are close in performance (acceleration wise). The later model NSX's are much faster than the FD's stock for stock.

 

[OneRedNSX]

Here is a link of my thoughts between the 2 cars from a couple of days of owning the NSX:

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showthread.php?p=130859#post130859

check your steering bushings if you think the nsx is sloppier than the FD. there is no play in mine... look at the wheel and it will turn almost... hella better than any FD i've driven or even my own rx7...

 

[sahtt]

I don't want to really post here but I guess I'm doing it anyways..

The FD and NSX take very different routes to accomplish the same goals.

Both have an excellent chassis and great handling, but for different reasons and by different means.

They accomplish similar power:weight ratios but in about as different ways as possible.

Honestly the only thing these cars have in common is a legendary status, very low production numbers, and origins from Japan. All other significant similarities stop there.

The real problem with the FD is it was rushed into production and it used a lot of unconventional ideas that didn't have all the 'kinks' worked out. This caused dealer unfamiliarity, crucial recalls that if not done=fires, and systems that the average 'tuner' blew up experiementing with.

The tuning and delicate nature of the rotary engine doesn't have NEAR the margin of error compared to a conventional piston engine. If you ad full exhaust and a test pipe on a stock RX-7, the engine will destroy itself sooner than later if you don't adjust the tune accordingly with some care. This isn't the case on any piston engine.

I don't want to get into more details because I'll end up writing a book, but *if* you do the cooling mods, get rid of the extremely suffocating stock downpipe, etc., the car can be "fairly" reliable, relatively speaking.

To those who think it can be "as" reliable as a piston engine, it's simply not the case for the 13B. No one in their right mind would expect to get more than 100k out of a 13B regardless of how the drive/maintain it. That means if you modify it, you might only get a year or two, [or month or two if the tuning isn't done to a science] out of it.

That being said, a guy on clubrx7 has a LS1 with about 550hp, that car is an absolute monster in every which way. You can get a stock FD to 2400lbs with the same work getting a stock na1 NSX to 2900lbs.

The NSX is a refined machine with every detail closely analyzed, adjusted, tested, and selected for every application with few costs spared. The FD is a wild machine with tons of heart and great ideas thrown together producing a one of kind machine that "always keeps you guessing" both performance and reliabiltiy wise.

I plan on buying a single turbo 94 within the next 4-6 years. With the appropriate mods, a single turbo FD can be 50% as reliable overall compared to a NSX type car in just about every situation. I could live with that, at least for a few years.

 

[OneRedNSX]

No one in their right mind would expect to get more than 100k out of a 13B regardless of how the drive/maintain it.

My 13B had 240k on it when it finally popped (and even then, it didn't pop... it had electrical problems and I pulled the entire motor rather than play with it.)

just playin devils advocate but i'd have to say that my car is the rarest of rare examples here...

 

[comtec]

I don't understand why this keeps coming up. The 2 cars don't have anything in common. It's like comparing a RL to a mazda6. Could it be that you rx7club guys are over here starting crap like last year?

 

[BATMANs]

Stock for stock, the FD and the earlier model NSX's are close in performance (acceleration wise). The later model NSX's are much faster than the FD's stock for stock.

Compared to the 2 years US models FD? Yes, but not that much faster. The FD R1's best time was 4.89secs from 0-60 and 13.5 qtr.

Much faster is defined as about 4 secs even on 0-60 and in the 12's on qtr.

I would consider a Z06 as much faster, not even a regular C5 is what I would consider much faster than a FD.

If u get a FD made on a Weds vs. a Friday or Monday C5 or later NSX, then it could be a different story.

Later model NSX is suppose to be slower then later model FDs that were never sold in the states. The power to weight ratio, improved braking, suspension and larger tires made the Efini, Bathurst FDs a force to be reckoned with.

As a matter of fact, I saw a video of a Bathurst FD against almost all the makes of the NSX (including the Type R) and the FD was better accelerating and handling.

The NSX did better in breaking when the FD started to have brake fade.

It's one of those japanese videos from a few years ago where they had these "pro-racers" compare and contrast the different years and editions of the NSX. For shit's and giggles they happen to have a Bathurst FD and threw it in the mix.

 

[BATMANs]

check your steering bushings if you think the nsx is sloppier than the FD. there is no play in mine... look at the wheel and it will turn almost... hella better than any FD i've driven or even my own rx7...

Back then I drove a new 2000 NSX prior to procuring my current 93 NSX.

Exact same feel of a slight slop. The interesting part is that one is with power steering and the other is not.

The only car that would be equal or better in steering (that I have driven) is the S2000.

 

[BATMANs]

I don't understand why this keeps coming up. The 2 cars don't have anything in common. It's like comparing a RL to a mazda6. Could it be that you rx7club guys are over here starting crap like last year?

Who's starting up shit?

I happen to have both cars.

Both cars are similar, but yet different.

Ur analogy with the RL to the Mazda 6 isn't very accurate. It should be a TL or TSX vs. Mazda 6.

I would never compare a S class to a 5 or 3 series and get away with it.

 

[95rtturbo]

Compared to the 2 years US models FD? Yes, but not that much faster. The FD R1's best time was 4.89secs from 0-60 and 13.5 qtr.

Yes, compared to the US spec models. The best time I have heard for the later model NSX's, was in the high 12's (most are in the low 13's). Most of the FD's are in the high 13's stock. So about a half second faster in the 1/4 (and 4-6MPH trap speed diffference).

 

[BATMANs]

Yes, compared to the US spec models. The best time I have heard for the later model NSX's, was in the high 12's (most are in the low 13's). Most of the FD's are in the high 13's stock. So about a half second faster in the 1/4 (and 4-6MPH trap speed diffference).

High 12's on stock tires?

 

[ediddynsx]

I don't understand why this keeps coming up. The 2 cars don't have anything in common. It's like comparing a RL to a mazda6. Could it be that you rx7club guys are over here starting crap like last year?

Haha Mike :biggrin:

Both cars are nice but one is mid engine and one is not.....one is rotary and one is piston.......please compare apples to apples.........

I know a guy here who spent a ton of money on his rx7 1994.......the car is built for show, speed, etc......probably spent over 100k on his rx7 in mods, paint, wheels, system, suspension, engine, etc etc........problem is the car doesn't want to start sometimes.....

I like both cars though............I like how it looks on the outside
(RX7)......but the interior is cramped and no to my taste.......its like the Supra to me....looks good on the outside and has a bad ass motor......but the interior sucks.......oh wells glad I have a NSX :biggrin:

 

[brahtw8]

High 12's on stock tires?

Yes. This is the infamous Car & Driver test of a bone-stock NA2.

I believe it was the July 1998 issue. The NSX ran a 4.5 0-60 and a 12.9 quarter @ 110 MPH.

It may have been the C&D TV special in 2001. I get conflicting info. when I search for the answer.

 

[BATMANs]

Haha Mike :biggrin:

Both cars are nice but one is mid engine and one is not.....one is rotary and one is piston.......please compare apples to apples.........

I know a guy here who spent a ton of money on his rx7 1994.......the car is built for show, speed, etc......probably spent over 100k on his rx7 in mods, paint, wheels, system, suspension, engine, etc etc........problem is the car doesn't want to start sometimes.....

I like both cars though............I like how it looks on the outside
(RX7)......but the interior is cramped and no to my taste.......its like the Supra to me....looks good on the outside and has a bad ass motor......but the interior sucks.......oh wells glad I have a NSX :biggrin:

FD are actually front mid-engine like a 550 Ferrari.

NSX is a rear mid.

Enzo was interviewed prior to his death what he thought the perfect car was in terms of engine placement and he said a front mid is the best due to the fact that it's easier to recover if u start losing it. In otherwords, it's more forgiving...... hence why the 550 are front mid...

 

[comtec]

Who's starting up xxxx?

First off most of us would like to keep this site as clean as possible so there is no need for profanity. It may be ok on the rx7 site but try to respect the people here please. Some of the kids at the rx7 site think it is funny to come over here and make trouble, that is why i asked.

I happen to have both cars.

Who cares. If you want to talk about how much better YOU think the rx7 is than it would be better posted on the rx7 site. People here love the NSX and i don't think you are going to talk them into selling their NSX for a rx7.

Both cars are similar, but yet different.

Ur analogy with the RL to the Mazda 6 isn't very accurate. It should be a TL or TSX vs. Mazda 6.

I think it is very accurate. One car cost at least twice the other. One has outstanding build quality and the other is just mainstream. And once again you are talking down the NSX. You may be an owner but you don't seem to be a very good one.

 

[BATMANs]

Who cares. If you want to talk about how much better YOU think the rx7 is than it would be better posted on the rx7 site. People here love the NSX and i don't think you are going to talk them into selling their NSX for a rx7.





I think it is very accurate. One car cost at least twice the other. One has outstanding build quality and the other is just mainstream. And once again you are talking down the NSX. You may be an owner but you don't seem to be a very good one.

I doubt that I am talking the NSX down as much as injecting some reality into the alleged internet "facts" that I have seen in this post and others over time.

I've criticized folks on the RX7 boards for making false claims and puffery about the prowess of the FD (and trust me there is alot).

The NSX is no exception when it comes to questionable and apparent subjective claims about it and (in this case) the FD, and vice versa.

Let's see the plain facts that are not skewed and some more objective information.

If you regard yourselves so highly over another car, then step up with proper information.

I'm sure you don't want this site to turn into some mkiv.com from back in the days. The folks that made a bold claim that the SupraTT is the "BEST SPORTS CAR THAT MONEY CAN BUY."

 

[BATMANs]

I don't want to really post here but I guess I'm doing it anyways..

The FD and NSX take very different routes to accomplish the same goals.

Both have an excellent chassis and great handling, but for different reasons and by different means.

They accomplish similar power:weight ratios but in about as different ways as possible.

Honestly the only thing these cars have in common is a legendary status, very low production numbers, and origins from Japan. All other significant similarities stop there.

The real problem with the FD is it was rushed into production and it used a lot of unconventional ideas that didn't have all the 'kinks' worked out. This caused dealer unfamiliarity, crucial recalls that if not done=fires, and systems that the average 'tuner' blew up experiementing with.

The tuning and delicate nature of the rotary engine doesn't have NEAR the margin of error compared to a conventional piston engine. If you ad full exhaust and a test pipe on a stock RX-7, the engine will destroy itself sooner than later if you don't adjust the tune accordingly with some care. This isn't the case on any piston engine.

I don't want to get into more details because I'll end up writing a book, but *if* you do the cooling mods, get rid of the extremely suffocating stock downpipe, etc., the car can be "fairly" reliable, relatively speaking.

To those who think it can be "as" reliable as a piston engine, it's simply not the case for the 13B. No one in their right mind would expect to get more than 100k out of a 13B regardless of how the drive/maintain it. That means if you modify it, you might only get a year or two, [or month or two if the tuning isn't done to a science] out of it.

That being said, a guy on clubrx7 has a LS1 with about 550hp, that car is an absolute monster in every which way. You can get a stock FD to 2400lbs with the same work getting a stock na1 NSX to 2900lbs.

The NSX is a refined machine with every detail closely analyzed, adjusted, tested, and selected for every application with few costs spared. The FD is a wild machine with tons of heart and great ideas thrown together producing a one of kind machine that "always keeps you guessing" both performance and reliabiltiy wise.

I plan on buying a single turbo 94 within the next 4-6 years. With the appropriate mods, a single turbo FD can be 50% as reliable overall compared to a NSX type car in just about every situation. I could live with that, at least for a few years.

Good post.

I suspect that if the FD came with a solid powerplant like a LS1 from the factory, NSX sales would be even softer.

 

[brahtw8]

I suspect that if the FD came with a solid powerplant like a LS1 from the factory, NSX sales would be even softer.

Everyone likes a good discussion on the merits of various cars, but comments like these are not necessary and don't really add anything to the discussion.

Yes, there are some NSX owners who have a hard time recognizing the merits of the FD, but comments like these are not likely to increase their willingness to learn about the FD.

I have never driven a stock FD, but I have driven a modified FD making 380+ at the wheels and trapping at 117+ in the quarter. The boost came on like a sledgehammer. I would slay him in the 1/8 mile and then he would gain traction and blow by me.

He sold the FD and bought an F355, as NSXs are 'too common' in our local enthusiast group. We also have an LS1 FD conversion that is local, but I haven't driven that one.

You can guess which I prefer, but that doesn't mean the FD is crap.

 

[WingZ]

Yes. This is the infamous Car & Driver test of a bone-stock NA2.

I believe it was the July 1998 issue. The NSX ran a 4.5 0-60 and a 12.9 quarter @ 110 MPH.

It may have been the C&D TV special in 2001. I get conflicting info. when I search for the answer.

It was both. The second time they got those times was with a NSX-T. NSX doesn't have a lot of wheelspin of line and in turn take off hard.

Funny how this comparo comes up so much. The RX7 is great performing car ,but it was poorly designed. Of all the 90's Japanese supercars the RX7 is the most prone to problems. The suspension was so stiff it would pound itself apart. The body panels were also very prone to damage. I believe the 93's high flex paint had to be discontinued as it didn't flex and the cars had terrible paint chip damage. The first batch of RX7's sent to the U.S had bad fuel programming so they would stall whenever the car stopped. Whenever you look up RX7's for sale they almost all are on their second engine and turbos w/o being high mileage. I would say it was basically set up for track ,but unfortunately every time ( and yes I mean everytime ) I saw them at the track they would leave blowing black smoke and making funny sounds.

I still have an old C&D mag with a 30K test of the RX7 and I couldn't believe how much trouble they had with the car. I know people who lust after them with a passion ,but once they bought the car they had egg on their face ,because of problems. Mazda made the car to outperform the NA1 NSX and it did ,but at the expense of reliability and durability. NA2 takes the RX7's lunch and the higher performing FD versions don't seem to be able to match the NSX-R at the track.

I'll sum all this up with the quote that seems to suit the RX7 best " A great car...when it runs"

 

[BATMANs]

Everyone likes a good discussion on the merits of various cars, but comments like these are not necessary and don't really add anything to the discussion........

Comments were based on the merits of a few NSX owners that mentioned that if the FD was reliable they would have gone with the FD instead.

That adds IMHO.

 

[BATMANs]

It was both. The second time they got those times was with a NSX-T. NSX doesn't have a lot of wheelspin of line and in turn take off hard.

Funny how this comparo comes up so much. The RX7 is great performing car ,but it was poorly designed. Of all the 90's Japanese supercars the RX7 is the most prone to problems. The suspension was so stiff it would pound itself apart. The body panels were also very prone to damage. I believe the 93's high flex paint had to be discontinued as it didn't flex and the cars had terrible paint chip damage. The first batch of RX7's sent to the U.S had bad fuel programming so they would stall whenever the car stopped. Whenever you look up RX7's for sale they almost all are on their second engine and turbos w/o being high mileage. I would say it was basically set up for track ,but unfortunately every time ( and yes I mean everytime ) I saw them at the track they would leave blowing black smoke and making funny sounds.

I still have an old C&D mag with a 30K test of the RX7 and I couldn't believe how much trouble they had with the car. I know people who lust after them with a passion ,but once they bought the car they had egg on their face ,because of problems. Mazda made the car to outperform the NA1 NSX and it did ,but at the expense of reliability and durability. NA2 takes the RX7's lunch and the higher performing FD versions don't seem to be able to match the NSX-R at the track.

I'll sum all this up with the quote that seems to suit the RX7 best " A great car...when it runs"

Is this the one?