2nd Generation Specific 1986-1992 Discussion

Test drove a NA 88

Old Oct 31, 2005 | 03:30 PM
  #11  
rowtareh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,748
From: Columbia IL/St. Louis MO
Default

Originally Posted by RONIN FC' post='774270' date='Oct 31 2005, 02:37 PM

You could spend $500 and "break" 200HP with a bottle of N.O.S. Pretty safely too. It just depends on what your goals and needs are and how hard a road you wanna take. And 200 hp doesnt sound like much when you see 450+ HP turbo rx7s. But thats 200 rwhp in a car that weighs about the same as a Honda Civic.


Prove it to me. I know somebody that had a 75 shot on his 88 N/A. The engine had 121k on the motor with compression at 90psi front rotor, and 60psi rear rotor. Again, not a good idea.



I do agree with the lightness of the car, and the fact you can make it lighter. Still, 200whp on a N/A would be a nice thing to have.
Old Oct 31, 2005 | 03:57 PM
  #12  
spaceman Spiff's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 504
From: ummm, Oregon
Default

what was ito's vert doing again?
Old Oct 31, 2005 | 06:12 PM
  #13  
bushy's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 10
Default

Yes it was a 5 speed. I wasnt expecting it to be uber duber fast, I just expected it to have a high rpm rotary rush. I'm used to fast cars, but I was just wondering about the rush. We couldnt test it on a curvey road becuase the brakes mysteriously went out before we arrived.
Old Oct 31, 2005 | 10:22 PM
  #14  
rowtareh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,748
From: Columbia IL/St. Louis MO
Default

Originally Posted by bushy' post='774331' date='Oct 31 2005, 07:12 PM

Yes it was a 5 speed. I wasnt expecting it to be uber duber fast, I just expected it to have a high rpm rotary rush. I'm used to fast cars, but I was just wondering about the rush. We couldnt test it on a curvey road becuase the brakes mysteriously went out before we arrived.


Haha, I would leave that pig to the junkyard if the brakes "MYSTERIOUSLY" went out before the drive. There must have been something wrong, because when I had my N/A it was a fun car. It is no FD or TII, but still alot of fun.
Old Oct 31, 2005 | 11:05 PM
  #15  
RONIN FC's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,420
From: Boston Ma.
Default

Originally Posted by rowtareh' post='774296' date='Oct 31 2005, 04:30 PM



Prove it to me. I know somebody that had a 75 shot on his 88 N/A. The engine had 121k on the motor with compression at 90psi front rotor, and 60psi rear rotor. Again, not a good idea.



I do agree with the lightness of the car, and the fact you can make it lighter. Still, 200whp on a N/A would be a nice thing to have.
Im runnin about a 60 shot, my motor has about 170-180k and still running fine. Ive got a running S5 block on standby, but remarkably the stocker is still holding in there. So that throws the whole "NOS is not a good idea on a rotary" theory out the door. Its just like anything else, tuning is key. And I dont go through a 10lb bottle in a day like some folks.



Just take a glance in the Dyno Charts section and you will find ported N/As with only an exhaust and an AFC making almost 200whp. You really think that injecting nitrous oxide and fuel you cant be in that area, if not a little more?
Old Nov 1, 2005 | 05:21 AM
  #16  
bushy's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 10
Default

The guy wanted 2295 for it.



He was out of his mind.
Old Nov 1, 2005 | 08:15 AM
  #17  
sweet7's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,430
From: Stacked outside you're trailer door
Default

Originally Posted by bushy' post='774447' date='Nov 1 2005, 03:21 AM

The guy wanted 2295 for it.



He was out of his mind.


Yes he was, if you look around you can find a running, half-way decent TII for that. I almost bought one while I was home with brand-new motor+tranny, and paint for $2900
Old Nov 1, 2005 | 11:11 AM
  #18  
rowtareh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,748
From: Columbia IL/St. Louis MO
Default

Originally Posted by RONIN FC' post='774411' date='Nov 1 2005, 12:05 AM

Im runnin about a 60 shot, my motor has about 170-180k and still running fine. Ive got a running S5 block on standby, but remarkably the stocker is still holding in there. So that throws the whole "NOS is not a good idea on a rotary" theory out the door. Its just like anything else, tuning is key. And I dont go through a 10lb bottle in a day like some folks.



Just take a glance in the Dyno Charts section and you will find ported N/As with only an exhaust and an AFC making almost 200whp. You really think that injecting nitrous oxide and fuel you cant be in that area, if not a little more?


Then you have proved me wrong my friend.



And 2295 is quite expensive just for an N/A. Only thing that catches that type of price is an S5, or a really clean FB.
Old Nov 1, 2005 | 01:38 PM
  #19  
NoeVuh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 218
Default

Originally Posted by rowtareh' post='774487' date='Nov 1 2005, 11:11 AM

Then you have proved me wrong my friend.



And 2295 is quite expensive just for an N/A. Only thing that catches that type of price is an S5, or a really clean FB.


I bought my N/A for 2,750. A little high but fairly clean and had like 110000 miles. Thats when i was first getting into rx-7. Now i would have just gotten a TII but o well.
Old Nov 2, 2005 | 09:01 PM
  #20  
CrypticApathy's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 34
From: Tampa, FL
Default

Originally Posted by NoeVuh' post='774533' date='Nov 1 2005, 11:38 AM

I bought my N/A for 2,750. A little high but fairly clean and had like 110000 miles. Thats when i was first getting into rx-7. Now i would have just gotten a TII but o well.




I got mine for 1k, It needed minor work but its great.



If i drop a TII in to my s4 and keep the s4 N/A tranny will it break the tranny? Is a TII tranny a must have? Im already getting a 88 GTU rearend put on so i can have LSD. I also heard of using a Ford F150 tranny would be ok too?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.