View Poll Results: What should I do?
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll
What Would You Do?
08-04-2003, 08:46 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Close enough to annoy you.
Posts: 1,381
Mid engine cars are not harder to drive. The car should be balanced better which makes it easier to control the car in any sort of cornering. About the only "bad" aspect of it I can think of is if the rear suspension is weak the car will want to whip the rear end around on you, but even that's manageable if you've ever driven a porsche.
I honestly doubt that the MR2 can outhandle and RX-7. I've ridden in one that was VERY fast even with a cylinder that was not at peak performance but again I've got some doubts about the handling. This is just off the cuff of course I didn't get to drive the car. It was certainly faster then UniqueTII's TII but then it had more money in mods then I have in total cars.
I have however had my RX-7 into corners that I wouldn't have felt safe in while driving a 944, 914 or an 86 911 turbo.
I honestly doubt that the MR2 can outhandle and RX-7. I've ridden in one that was VERY fast even with a cylinder that was not at peak performance but again I've got some doubts about the handling. This is just off the cuff of course I didn't get to drive the car. It was certainly faster then UniqueTII's TII but then it had more money in mods then I have in total cars.
I have however had my RX-7 into corners that I wouldn't have felt safe in while driving a 944, 914 or an 86 911 turbo.
08-04-2003, 12:37 PM
#22
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18
Data points that some of you may not want to hear:
In SCCA autocrossing, the second generation RX-7 Turbo is classed in B Stock with the second generation MR2 Turbo. Until a few years ago the MR2 Turbo was a serious contender in the class, whereas as long as I can remember (and the archived Nationals results on the SCCA website go back to '98), the RX-7 Turbo wasn't. Both have long since been eclipsed by the S2000 and the Porsche Boxster, although an MR2 came in third in 2000 and another trophied last year.
Also in SCCA autocrossing, the second generation non-turbo RX-7 is classed in E Stock with the second generation non-turbo MR2. E Stock is thoroughly dominated by the MR2; it was a huge class at Nationals last year, so trophies went down to fifteenth place, yet only one of those cars wasn't an MR2. The RX-7, conversely, is not considered competitive in class at the national level.
Both cars are cool, and both should do you well in stock form in local autocrosses, but the pretty clear conclusion is that at national-level autocross speeds (which, at 40-70 mph, map well to the speeds at which most people corner on the street), both the turbo and non-turbo second generation MR2s are notably faster than their second generation RX-7 equivalents.
The third generation RX-7, on the other hand...
Steve
In SCCA autocrossing, the second generation RX-7 Turbo is classed in B Stock with the second generation MR2 Turbo. Until a few years ago the MR2 Turbo was a serious contender in the class, whereas as long as I can remember (and the archived Nationals results on the SCCA website go back to '98), the RX-7 Turbo wasn't. Both have long since been eclipsed by the S2000 and the Porsche Boxster, although an MR2 came in third in 2000 and another trophied last year.
Also in SCCA autocrossing, the second generation non-turbo RX-7 is classed in E Stock with the second generation non-turbo MR2. E Stock is thoroughly dominated by the MR2; it was a huge class at Nationals last year, so trophies went down to fifteenth place, yet only one of those cars wasn't an MR2. The RX-7, conversely, is not considered competitive in class at the national level.
Both cars are cool, and both should do you well in stock form in local autocrosses, but the pretty clear conclusion is that at national-level autocross speeds (which, at 40-70 mph, map well to the speeds at which most people corner on the street), both the turbo and non-turbo second generation MR2s are notably faster than their second generation RX-7 equivalents.
The third generation RX-7, on the other hand...
Steve
08-04-2003, 02:27 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 260
Originally Posted by PedalFaster' date='Aug 4 2003, 09:37 AM
Data points that some of you may not want to hear:
In SCCA autocrossing, the second generation RX-7 Turbo is classed in B Stock with the second generation MR2 Turbo. Until a few years ago the MR2 Turbo was a serious contender in the class, whereas as long as I can remember (and the archived Nationals results on the SCCA website go back to '98), the RX-7 Turbo wasn't. Both have long since been eclipsed by the S2000 and the Porsche Boxster, although an MR2 came in third in 2000 and another trophied last year.
Also in SCCA autocrossing, the second generation non-turbo RX-7 is classed in E Stock with the second generation non-turbo MR2. E Stock is thoroughly dominated by the MR2; it was a huge class at Nationals last year, so trophies went down to fifteenth place, yet only one of those cars wasn't an MR2. The RX-7, conversely, is not considered competitive in class at the national level.
Both cars are cool, and both should do you well in stock form in local autocrosses, but the pretty clear conclusion is that at national-level autocross speeds (which, at 40-70 mph, map well to the speeds at which most people corner on the street), both the turbo and non-turbo second generation MR2s are notably faster than their second generation RX-7 equivalents.
The third generation RX-7, on the other hand...
Steve
In SCCA autocrossing, the second generation RX-7 Turbo is classed in B Stock with the second generation MR2 Turbo. Until a few years ago the MR2 Turbo was a serious contender in the class, whereas as long as I can remember (and the archived Nationals results on the SCCA website go back to '98), the RX-7 Turbo wasn't. Both have long since been eclipsed by the S2000 and the Porsche Boxster, although an MR2 came in third in 2000 and another trophied last year.
Also in SCCA autocrossing, the second generation non-turbo RX-7 is classed in E Stock with the second generation non-turbo MR2. E Stock is thoroughly dominated by the MR2; it was a huge class at Nationals last year, so trophies went down to fifteenth place, yet only one of those cars wasn't an MR2. The RX-7, conversely, is not considered competitive in class at the national level.
Both cars are cool, and both should do you well in stock form in local autocrosses, but the pretty clear conclusion is that at national-level autocross speeds (which, at 40-70 mph, map well to the speeds at which most people corner on the street), both the turbo and non-turbo second generation MR2s are notably faster than their second generation RX-7 equivalents.
The third generation RX-7, on the other hand...
Steve
08-04-2003, 07:55 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Jensen Beach, FL / Sylva, NC
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by PedalFaster' date='Aug 4 2003, 12:37 PM
Data points that some of you may not want to hear:
In SCCA autocrossing, the second generation RX-7 Turbo is classed in B Stock with the second generation MR2 Turbo. Until a few years ago the MR2 Turbo was a serious contender in the class, whereas as long as I can remember (and the archived Nationals results on the SCCA website go back to '98), the RX-7 Turbo wasn't. Both have long since been eclipsed by the S2000 and the Porsche Boxster, although an MR2 came in third in 2000 and another trophied last year.
Also in SCCA autocrossing, the second generation non-turbo RX-7 is classed in E Stock with the second generation non-turbo MR2. E Stock is thoroughly dominated by the MR2; it was a huge class at Nationals last year, so trophies went down to fifteenth place, yet only one of those cars wasn't an MR2. The RX-7, conversely, is not considered competitive in class at the national level.
Both cars are cool, and both should do you well in stock form in local autocrosses, but the pretty clear conclusion is that at national-level autocross speeds (which, at 40-70 mph, map well to the speeds at which most people corner on the street), both the turbo and non-turbo second generation MR2s are notably faster than their second generation RX-7 equivalents.
The third generation RX-7, on the other hand...
Steve
In SCCA autocrossing, the second generation RX-7 Turbo is classed in B Stock with the second generation MR2 Turbo. Until a few years ago the MR2 Turbo was a serious contender in the class, whereas as long as I can remember (and the archived Nationals results on the SCCA website go back to '98), the RX-7 Turbo wasn't. Both have long since been eclipsed by the S2000 and the Porsche Boxster, although an MR2 came in third in 2000 and another trophied last year.
Also in SCCA autocrossing, the second generation non-turbo RX-7 is classed in E Stock with the second generation non-turbo MR2. E Stock is thoroughly dominated by the MR2; it was a huge class at Nationals last year, so trophies went down to fifteenth place, yet only one of those cars wasn't an MR2. The RX-7, conversely, is not considered competitive in class at the national level.
Both cars are cool, and both should do you well in stock form in local autocrosses, but the pretty clear conclusion is that at national-level autocross speeds (which, at 40-70 mph, map well to the speeds at which most people corner on the street), both the turbo and non-turbo second generation MR2s are notably faster than their second generation RX-7 equivalents.
The third generation RX-7, on the other hand...
Steve
TII love to be modded and I have yet to see a FD beat me - sorry
My suspension mods for Rotory>piston:
-GC Coil overs
-KYB AGX Shox
- RB Front sway - w/ adjustible end links for preloading
- Stock rear sway (we found the RB to be too stiff) - adj. end links too
- Rear Toe eliminators
- Front Camber plates
- rear camber link
- urathane bushings everywhere
The car was dialed in with the help of a veteren IT7 and ITS race car builder.
We spent about 6 months dialing this car in to where I like it.
I have 290 RWHP and the MR-2 has 350RWHP - he has a full suspension in his car too he runs in Street Modified 2.
Driver skill?? Possibly you be the judge. I have now been Autocrossing for 1 year.
MR-2 has been autocrossing for 4 years.
We wre both at the Mazda rev-it-up in Miami and he came in 14th with a score of 646 I came in 3rd with a score of 702. Thats 10's of a second apart. We are very even as far as skill.
08-04-2003, 08:04 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Jensen Beach, FL / Sylva, NC
Posts: 2,934
BTW - I forgot to say this. THe MR-2 is an awesome car and as a street car you will love it. I totally have nothing against your decision. I was just defending the misconception (sp? I murdered that one!) that FC's cannot handle well. With a good suspension they are mean.
08-05-2003, 08:43 PM
#26
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18
I don't know if you can really make the assumption that "MR2s are faster since they win more". There it mostly depends on driver's skill, and that driver's preference.
Don't get me wrong -- no disrespect intended towards the RX-7. I agree that they're monsters once prepared; B Prepared at Nationals was won by a second generation RX-7 from SoCal. Streetrally, you should go to the San Diego National Tour and check him (Steve O'Blenes) out. It's worth the trip.
Steve
08-05-2003, 09:10 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Jensen Beach, FL / Sylva, NC
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by PedalFaster' date='Aug 5 2003, 08:43 PM
At Nationals you can -- the pool of talent is infinitely deeper than at local events. The best guys at Nationals are incredibly fast and consistent, and have often spent large amounts of money testing the best tires, shocks, and yes, even cars.
Don't get me wrong -- no disrespect intended towards the RX-7. I agree that they're monsters once prepared; B Prepared at Nationals was won by a second generation RX-7 from SoCal. Streetrally, you should go to the San Diego National Tour and check him (Steve O'Blenes) out. It's worth the trip.
Steve
Don't get me wrong -- no disrespect intended towards the RX-7. I agree that they're monsters once prepared; B Prepared at Nationals was won by a second generation RX-7 from SoCal. Streetrally, you should go to the San Diego National Tour and check him (Steve O'Blenes) out. It's worth the trip.
Steve
I have seen "National Champions" at the local level and I hope they are not bringing their best game because if they are it is poor.
I cannot believe to lack of car control these guys have. Dont get me wrong I have seen some amazing drivers and I have seen some that I wonder how the hell they won a trophy at the nationals.
I got to ride along with Steve Brollier one of the winningest drivers in SCCA history. He drove my TII and freaked me out!! He has been retired for years now. He walked into the Miami Mazda rev-it-up and whipped everyones asses including current multi-national champs. I had the honer of getting instruction from him at my last driving school and can honestly say he has helped me a lot.
O'bleans is so good the SCCA is now changing the rules to slow him down. If you have a chance to see him I recomend it. He is an awesome driver and a welcome site at the National level. He is more of a wake up call. He obviously has spent as much time on the driver as he has the car. Something a lot of people overlook getting into Autocrossing. The car is nothing if the driver cannot take it to it potential.
The reason the RX-7's are not competative in any other class is due to 2 reasons
1. Poor classing by the SCCA
2. Rediculas rules on them in prepared classes to keep them slow.
If the Fc was put in a lower class other than BStock it would do a lot better. Look at the other cars in B-stock a 260 HP 2800 lb S2000 Vs. a 200 HP 2900 lb FC??? Fair have you driven a S2000 I have and they are built to race. It is unfair to pit a 15 y/o car against a brand new car utilizing modern advances and having capability to dial in 2° of negative camber to the FC's 0.5° of negative camber.
A stock S2000 rivals a Prepared car in handling. Its no wonder they are winning.They are beating Z-06's.
A- Street Prepared with the rules we cannot attain over 260HP if we are lucky to even get that much. So now we have to race 450+ HP Z-06's. I bolted from that class fast.
I am very curious how things will play out when the new B-Prepared rules come into affect. The vettes will be at 2600 lbs loosing 100 lbs and the FC will be at 2500 lbs 300 lbs more according to the rule change.
Again the MR-2 is an awesome car I love them I love my friends and if I didn't have my tII would own one in a minute.
08-05-2003, 10:27 PM
#28
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 282
Originally Posted by Streetrally' date='Aug 4 2003, 11:27 AM
I don't know if you can really make the assumption that "MR2s are faster since they win more". There it mostly depends on driver's skill, and that driver's preference. I think both cars are bad ***, I've never ridden in an MR2, so I can't really judge one way or another. Maybe stock for stock the MR2 is faster, but the 7 has more potential once its modded.
With stock internals, the MR2 can be pushed over 500 rwhp (or so I've heard).
If the mr2 is winning consistantly in national autocross events, where the cars are not stock, then I'd say they've got some damn good potential for handling.
Don't feel bad, the FC is an old car, the MR2 is newer. It's bound to be better.
Plus, this is just my opinion, but Toyota is a far better company than Mazda.
The way I think of it, the MR2 is between the FC and FD in terms of performance. It's better than the FC, but not as good as the FD. So I'm just moving up the ladder. I still have yet to drive (or ride in for that matter) an FD, but I think it'll be hard to beat my MR2 in the "fun to drive" category.
08-06-2003, 11:36 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Close enough to annoy you.
Posts: 1,381
Keep in mind your comparing an N/A to a Turbocharged car. I may annoy some people by saying it but N/A Second Gens are reaaalllllyyyy pokey. Fun to drive but they're simply not fast. I own two I should know.
Mazda vs Toyota..... hard to say. Toyota massivley overbuilds everything is why they last so long. Mazda likes to tinker with techology like the rotary and miller cycle.
Mazda vs Toyota..... hard to say. Toyota massivley overbuilds everything is why they last so long. Mazda likes to tinker with techology like the rotary and miller cycle.
08-06-2003, 08:01 PM
#30
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18
(Serious autocross-specific thread hijack here -- if you're not interested in SCCA autocross, keep on scrolling...)
Jims5543:
Keep in mind that the proposed B Prepared rule changes are currently up for member comment, and have not yet been finalized. One being accepted does not necessarily imply that the other will be as well. If you disagree with either proposal, then write the SEB to express your opinion.
I've never seen a national champion in any Stock or Street Prepared class drive in a manner that could be remotely described as "poor"; it's extremely difficult to win a national championship in any Stock or SP class. (I'm sure it's pretty damn hard in Prepared and Modified too, but I don't follow those classes so I can't say for sure.) I'm guessing either that whoever you saw wasn't really a national champion, or you're a really good driver yourself. Either way, I'd recommend going to Nationals, where you'll get to see and race against over a thousand guys bringing their best game. Registration's still open.
Steve
Jims5543:
I am very curious how things will play out when the new B-Prepared rules come into affect.
I have seen "National Champions" at the local level and I hope they are not bringing their best game because if they are it is poor.
Steve