And anouther one bites the dust...

[Slayn Cloak]

Well, at about eleven thirty pm yesterday, another 13bruu exploded. At 89k miles on the odometer and an unexplained boost spike of 18psi Jehova's 1994 rx-7 FD3s(popular equipment package) detonated, resulting in his engine blowing.

I've enjoyed that car in all ways possible, except that it wasn't mine. I was there when he got it, have driven it, and worked on it; it feels right that I was there when it went.

For what it's worth, there was a Pontiac WS8 with at lease an exhaust as the only mod I can verify, revving it's clunky piston engine at the FD. As Adrian sat at the light he remarked that he was so annoyed by people not knowing what there cars could do; as the light went green the Pontiac floored it and was off. This urged Adrian to pass the guy, breezing buy him with little effort, but to add insult to injury he pressed on and all of a sudden I head a scared "whoah!" accompanied by the tel tel sound of pop corn; the sound of a blown rotary. The ws8 is the "fastest" model of that car as far as I know, v8 and all... blah. Waste of time.

On a lighter note, he recently acquired a 1983 ( i think ) gls-se FB. I think this is the model Marcus has but have no real idea, it was the fist, first gen to have a fule injected 13b-re. The motor just had a rebuild but the body is a POS. The FD will sit for awhile during the restoration of the new FB and rebuild find for the FD.

[Droo]

Did you write that post with the purpose of deliberately bewildering the reader in mind?

[Slayn Cloak]

No... is that what happened? I wrote it cuase I'm sad, and at work beeing bored.

[Droo]

Yes but that's all technobabble to us mere mortals.

[Slayn Cloak]

no, the numbers are just the exact engine number, the FD3s is the serial number, and first for alphanumeric designation for all third generation rx-7 vin numbers; it should actually be jfd3s or something to that point. So most peole call rx-7's by the chasis designation. ummm, a ws8 is somekind of loser american pos v8 car. 18psi is the psi being sent into the engine by the turbo... is this helping?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Actually Slayn, only Americans refer to the chassis by number. Most places refer to the series. FD's are Series 6 and 7, FC is Series IV and V , FB is Series I, II and III. The FB you refer to is a Series III, the one that's presently on jack stands getting the guts ripped out of it in my garage is a 1981 Series II 12A. My brother wants to use it in a motorkhana, so we're installing a 4.9 Mazspeed race LSD, hydralic handbrake and power steering.

Sounds like you got boost creep. Aftermarket boost controller or std? What type of recirc value? If your using a external BOV with a MAF, you can get those type of problems. Fuel pumps okay? running surge tanks? Was the wastegate working properly too?

Sounds odd, cause 18 psi briefly isnt going to break a seal. Leaning out isnt as bad in a rotary as in a piston motor, although it's possible.

[Crystal]

The hell with you car guys. You speak gibberish and repel me as much as football fans!

I was excited and thought this was a leaving thread :mad

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Crystal
The hell with you car guys. You speak gibberish and repel me as much as football fans!

I was excited and thought this was a leaving thread :mad

The hell with you non car people! Stop fagging our car thread!

:p

[Slayn Cloak]

All the"jap" people I know are the ones who introduced me to the sevens and to call cars ( not just sevens) by the chasis number, but that doesn't matter in the least.

I was mistaken on the motor in the first gen also,It's actually a 13b "regi" maybe? I can't remember, 1stgens are fun to drive, I like the overstreer but they just don't do "it" for me.

Also the waste gate got stuck shut... and the engine had over 89k miles on it, the detonation blew it up. Last compretion test we did it was only holding like 85psi to each rotar face.

[Khendon Sevon]

I understood about 10... no, make it 5% of that... of course, whenever an RX7 is mentioned I must say, "I HAVE AN RX8! WEEEEE!" :) But, I understand how the destruction of a fine piece of equipment can be a sad moment. For instance, when my Marshall 100wt JCM 900 2600 (I think it's 2600... might be wrong) Lead Series head blew a transformer I nearly cried... not to mention the bill for fixing it (had to fly in parts from England) made me equally sad.

Of course, my Jackson RR1 (Randy Rhoads Model 1) Custom Shop also had wiring problems with its pickup switch (got it new from Sam Ash, Jackson must not have great quality control--though the body is killer and paintjob amazing. Dave Mustaine switched over to ESP, I think it might have had to do with Jackson’s lack of creativity—they’ve made 7 models of RR’s, I believe, and about 5 of the King series, not to mention the Dinkies and Soloist—which suck).

Guitar mumbo-jumbo isn't as cryptic as car-talk, but I hope I confused someone.

[Slayn Cloak]

I'm not confuses, and that head... yeah, nice; But I hate the 8. Maybe not hate but, I don't like that they made a "sedan" when they could have made a much needed in the car world "good sports car": Something light, two doored, two seated, and rear wheel drive. There are all kids of rumors going around that there will be a new seven... but I'll belive that whenI see it. I just can't make any sense of Mazda making a good car, or um seven again.

Now, I do enjoy the rx-8, one of my close friends purchased one for his wife, and as a family wagon, I think it's a great car. As a car to have as a daily driver, to hang out with, or transport your family or friends, then it's great. When people begin to make it fast it seems like a waste,but can compete against most cars; unfortunately it's not a sports car, and can't compete with an FD.

I'm glad to hear that another person on the boards has a proper engine though.

For my next rant:
WTF is a sports sedan? When did the car people just make up a class of cars? for that matter why? Sports sedans don't existence! they're just sedans that are worth a drive, and possibly fun to drive. If you own a "sports sedan" you should shoot yourself, unless you don't call it that, and instead refer to it as:

" My huge car that has a moderate,or at least respectable amount of hoursepower, is always useful, or at least fun to drive and filled with newfangled tech."

Cause this more accurately describes most "sports sedans". Marcus what do you call the forester? big fast thing, crazy thing, or sports sedan? I refer to it as your racing SUV, but I know you don't.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Sports sedans have been around for over 50 years. They are normally defined as 4 door cars with more sports tuned suspension, brakes, and engines. Often get called Grand Tourers.

Cars such as the Phase III GTHO, HSV GTS, M5, AMG C55 want a word with you. They are very much sports sedans and all senses of the words

The Forester is a station wagon. No one has really come up with a term describing a station wagon that will flay just about all cars yet., apart from "You got to be kidding me!"

[Slayn Cloak]

well I'm all for more cars being driveable, but size scares me. I like yougot to be kidding me, and will now applythat to all those big cars.

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Slayn Cloak
Well, at about eleven thirty pm yesterday, another 13bruu exploded. At 89k miles on the odometer and an unexplained boost spike of 18psi Jehova's 1994 rx-7 FD3s(popular equipment package) detonated, resulting in his engine blowing. That sucks.


The ws8 is the "fastest" model of that car as far as I know, v8 and all... blah. Waste of time. Pontiac Firebird WS6 (F-body). LS1 V8 mated to a Tremec T-56 manual transmission. They get a decent, 30ish HP gain from a good exhaust setup. They're a bit heavy at 3500 pounds, but with an underrated 325hp stock... eh, they pull anyway. If you "blew" by a WS6, they either weren't trying or were lousy drivers.

Please don't knock on cars you don't know anything about. I would give up my 240SX in a heartbeat if I had enough money for insurance on a WS6. <3 late model F-Body V8 manuals.


The Forester is a station wagon. No one has really come up with a term describing a station wagon that will flay just about all cars yet., apart from "You got to be kidding me!" Audi RS6 Avant? :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Audi RS6 Avant?

http://www.audirs6.ch/tuning/bilder/sportec_rs6_avant_1.jpg

Yes Please.

[Slayn Cloak]

then that guys car was running like junk chris, adrian blew by it... it took off though, got two cars on him then his primary kicked in and passed the ws6. Maybe it was a lower class modle that had the body parts put on it?

[Khendon Sevon]

The RX-8 is rear wheel drive and I wouldn’t really consider the two suicide doors full doors. It’s not a sedan but it’s not a coupe… and that’s one of the reasons I love it.

Not to mention it handles like a dream. I’ve driven a few “sports” sedans (Cadillac CTS, Audi A4, BMW 5 series) and they don’t drive like an RX-8--and I don’t mean towards the Cadillac Seville spectrum. Of course, the RX-8 is “small” compared to the other cars. It’s actually almost the size of a 911—my cousin has parked his 911 S next to it and they’re nearly the same size.

When it comes down to it the RX-8 is a car for someone who wants something different. It isn’t pure sports but it’s close enough that I—and my insurance company—consider it a sports car. It has the heart (the rotary engine) the soul (all the crazy technology that I won’t list here) and the spirit (Mazda) of a sports car. If you get technical it’s only around 238hp (197 auto-manual), it only has about 159 torque (164 auto-manual) but remember: it’s a 1.3 liter engine! It’s light, it has a low center of gravity, and it’s all Mazda Speed!

Anyway, that’s the end of my limited knowledge/opinion. Hope I gave some incite as to what an owner feels for the RX-8.

[AmazonBabe]

...(F-body)...

Mmmmmm... F-body. Love those cars. :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Wadda mean, the RX-8 isnt a pure sports car? POPPY....... grrrr, the censor can really suck. It deos exactly what a real sports car is supposed to do - create a connection betweent he driver and the road, so both the driver and the car combine to become a weapon that creates a true experience. That's whyt he MX-5 is so damn good, even if it lacks real power. Yeah, well maybe the RX-8 doesnt have the turbo, but it's a road weapon, one very much more in the mold of the MX-5.

It'll still be great to drive in 20 years, just like the Series II and III RX-7's. Even though the poor RX-7 in the garage is really looking sad these days, it still a joy to drive. Maybe the super Suby blows the hell outta V-8's and other turbos, it's no where near the precise and accurate blade the 7 is around courners. Even with far less power, the RX-7 is still the mountain road weapon of choice.

[Khendon Sevon]

*Shrug* I was relating it to the post I was arguing. According to his definition a sports car requires only two doors and two seats. Thus, it doesn’t achieve his definition. Notice I said that I consider it a sports car :) (As does my insurance, those evil overlords really know how to make a kid pay for his fun... they don't understand that my car has greater accidence avoidance potential than an SUV! Fools)

*EDIT* Just noticed he said "good" sports car... oh... that makes my entire arguement change. In that case, right, it's not a good sports car... it's a great one! ;)

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Khendon Sevon
Not to mention it handles like a dream. I’ve driven a few “sports” sedans (Cadillac CTS, Audi A4, BMW 5 series) and they don’t drive like an RX-8--and I don’t mean towards the Cadillac Seville spectrum. Apples to apples, man. The RX-8 weighs a lot less than what you listed. The 5 series is too big to compare. 3 series would be more fair, but still too heavy. Fact of the matter is that the closest competitor to the RX8 is the G35 coupe... which weighs about 500 pounds more.


Maybe the super Suby blows the hell outta V-8's and other turbos, it's no where near the precise and accurate blade the 7 is around courners. A triumph of grip and torque versus light weight and grace.

[Slayn Cloak]

Actually, your opinion on the rx-8 is great. I wish that everyone who had an 8 felt that way about his car. Personally I feel that the 8 has a lot of understear, and this annoyes me, but it's much more comfetable to ride in when there's a group. Having people sit in the hatch of your seven, or the fabled rear seats, is never fun.

The miata is probubly the best handling car in the world, next to the seven. In fact, i often call the miata a baby seven. I once saw a newer miata that had a 1.3bret from a turbo two, thrid gen c-doors and hatch, it was amazing.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Actually, your opinion on the rx-8 is great. I wish that everyone who had an 8 felt that way about his car. Personally I feel that the 8 has a lot of understear, and this annoyes me, but it's much more comfetable to ride in when there's a group. Having people sit in the hatch of your seven, or the fabled rear seats, is never fun.

The RX-8 has a lot of understeer??????????

WTF?

That's the last thing I'd accuse the 8 of.


The miata is probubly the best handling car in the world, next to the seven. In fact, i often call the miata a baby seven. I once saw a newer miata that had a 1.3bret from a turbo two, thrid gen c-doors and hatch, it was amazing.

http://www.caterham.co.uk/

End thread.

[Slayn Cloak]

Right, and even with its amazing 50/50 balance, it has understeer IMO. I'm sure you've driven one, and if you haven't then maybe your opinion will change. I hate understeer so even a little feels huge to me, would you feel better if I said mild understeer?


EDIT** I just read my post and saying it has a lot of understeer is very wrong. It has to much understeer for me, so do most cars. I'm a big fan of oversteer, it's the only reason I even like the first gen rx-7's, they had great oversteer. Also the early 90's SW-20 (MR2) is a great car for oversteer. Even cars prefered for auto cross like the silvia seires cars have to much understeer for my taste.

[Morgan Evanar]

You mean they're perfectly neutral handlers. You like cars that oversteer.

[Slayn Cloak]

I duno man, 180's like the one you have, do understeer quite a bit in my experiance. Ispecially the s13's, the s14's not as bad, but nothing that a good suspention can't fix. You might not have understeer becuase of your kyb set.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The RX-7 Series I, II, and III SUCKED with oversteer. I've rallied and raced and abused the Series II almost beyond imagining, iknow how bad that car can be.

The rear end has a nasty geometry problem, where the roll centre abrupty moves upwards because the rear suspension binds under cornering load. At this point, all hell breaks loose and it oversteers almost uncontrollably. The first correction the binding is to either equalise the lengths of the upper and lower control arms - or simply remove the rear sway bar completely. My lap times decreased by 3 secs ariound Oran Park directly by the removal. Std, the 7 did 99 secs. After only handling mods, it did 91. The oversteer was simply murdering traction and wasting time. Other mods included bending the front stuts to give -2 neg, Nolathane bushings all round, 30% up springs, 2 cm lower, +4 caster, Bilsteins. Tyres were Toyo G600 I think, 195/60 front, 205/60 rear. It was set up to very mild understeer initial to a smooth oversteer transition.

On dirt however, the roll centre never goes above the diff so the rear sway bar can return and rebalances the handling, which on dirt was too much understeer.

The other evidence that the RX-7 is much better after the snap oversteer is removed and the chassis rebalanced, is that we've picked that for the aust Motorkhana championships, over the RX-2. And the RX-2 is at least 100 hp up with a race LSD and hydralic handbrake. The 2 may be able to pull test long oversteer drifts, but the 7 is always quicker because of it's balance and handling prowess.

Understeer, moreover, isnt actually a bad thing. It's the first thing a car tires to do when you turn the wheel - the amount and the transitions is what markes if it's good or bad. The MX-5 has a small amount initially, but it can be driven through or used to great effect - the transition to a slight oversteer state is natural, progressive and easily controlled. That, in a bad short summary is why it's a driver's dream.

[Slayn Cloak]

lmao, man... Do you have a website? You need to just run a car forum and yell at people. That would make me very happy. Also, I'm making a note of those adjustments for the first gen; they may come in handy. Don't you think that your overlooking the consept of driving style? From the way you talk, I would have to assume that our styles for example are almost compleatly oposite. I rely on quick steering corections, and trottle control, in a car that has a great deal of oversteer. My pedal work, as far as persise braking and clut manouvers, are ameture at best; I have to leave a good deal of work to the car itself, compinsating with my steering. You I assume, since you're way more experioanced, use all those other skills, such as "foot work" and probubly have a much broder range of cars you like to drive.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://carsguide.news.com.au/news/story_page/0,8269,11069558%255E21822,00.html

uNF!

[Slayn Cloak]

Mazda will never turbo the 8, not for america anyway. They haven't made the numbers, and I don't really think they want to complicate the car; there biggest claim to fame right now is reliability. I'm all for it personally, but why did that guy use a garrette turbo? YUK! How do you feel about them marc as you would have more exp? How did he lower the compression in that thing for turbo? I wouldn't imagine you could just swap out rotars from an older modle, wouldn't the overlap differance matter?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Alan Horsley knows more about turboing and modifying Mazdas than just about anyone on the planet. He created the far superior over the factory version turbo MX-5 SP, he also created the now worshiipped RX-7 Series VI SP, THE best factory RX-7. He also ran the famed Bathurst Mazda's in the early 80's. Whatever he chooses to do, you know it'll be all good.

You decompress with special rotors and believe me, there's nothing wrong with Garrets. T04 should be a type your familiar with. A good Garret ball bearing turbo is a thing of beauty and I wish the Galant possessed one.

[Slayn Cloak]

I'm famillier with the t-04-R, but isn't that a greddy turbo?

[Marcus Telcontar]

I thought Greddy made exhaust systems. The T04 is definantly a Garrett. A mate has one on a Series II RX-7 13B Monster bridge with fuel injection.

[Slayn Cloak]

Ports are unnesesary, they just move the power band up higher, and the t04 I'm talking about doesn't build huge boost, it's a medium size turbo. Greddy makes everything ispecially for the fd. There's this jackhole here in the states named alex lopez, out of miami; He puts huge turbos on huge ports and pings everywhere... everyone thinks hes amazing. little do they know that their engines are freaking blown. He has a brother carlos who's just as bad. A friend of mine just sent his car ovewr to rotary extream ( RE, I would assume you've heard of them, but maybe it's a U.S. thing) in texas to get up in the ( reliable/ safe) 400hp range. He's going single turbo ( apexi rx-6 ) some haltech ecu ( I think the power fc ) v- mount intercooler, other various things( fule management ect I belive he's going to use a profec B) and a lot of conservative tuning. He should be making 380 to the wheel at I belive ten pounds on pump, and well over four on race gas and higher boost.

And I was confuesed with the to4-r, as you stated; I was thinking of a kit that HKS has for that specific turbo. not the turbo itself. I don't know where the freak I got greddy from.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Ports are unnesesary, they just move the power band up higher

When I get back, I'll school you all on ports. Believe me, they are much more important - no one would port if it just moved the revband up

School's in.

Standard Port

The standard port is common to Australian RX-2s, 3s and 4s. In 12A form, it is good for around 130hp. With intake and exhaust mods they can produce up to 180hp with excellent driveability and fuel efficiency with outright air-flow being the limiting factor. These standard housings form the basis for mild, extend and bridge porting.


PRO'S: Standard drivability and fuel efficiency
CON'S: Limited scope for power





Mild Port

A mild port is the first step to rotary porting. This version has been "shaped" slightly with a metal porting tool towards the upper area of the port, increasing air-flow and top-end power without creating any significant drawbacks. The port design is suitable for the standard induction with around 200hp being achievable. A mild port is a popular choice for those wanting slightly improved performance without changing the standard engine’s characteristics.



PRO'S: Smooth driving, good for daily street use
CON'S: Slight fuel consumption increase





Extend Port

The extend port is a larger version of the mild port and works best with improved intake and exhaust systems. Typically with these modifications, the engine will start to exhibit the rotary’s signature rough idle, although the extend port’s is very slight. There is also a slight but noticeable loss of low-down torque below 4,000rpm. Importantly the increase in air-flow ability translates to the potential for around 220hp providing the best compromise for regularly-used street cars. This is the popular choice for those who don’t want the numerous drawbacks of a bridge-port.



PRO'S: Good power increase while retaining drivability.
CON'S: Increase of fuel consumption and noise and the need for modified intake and exhaust systems to maximise power.





Bridge Port

The Bridge port uses an additional "eyebrow" opening alongside the original "modified" port and introduces the characteristic lumpy idling. The bridge that now exists between the 2 ports primary purpose is to ensure the rotors corner seals – which pass indirectly over the bridge – don’t fall out. The improved air-flow increases top-end power dramatically with a noticeable power-band peaking around 8,000rpm while drivability, smoothness and fuel efficiency is reduced. Maximum power of around 260-280hp is largely dependent on the choice of intake and exhaust systems. Unfortunately for street cars, faster normally means louder.



PRO'S: Very good potential for power, increased rev-range
CON'S: Poor drivability, fuel consumption and excessive noise





J or Monster Port

The J ported engine (also known as monster port) is as big as conventional side-plate porting can go. It is the same as the bridge port in design, but the bridged port is now fatter and extends past the face of the rotor and into the housing’s water seal / O-ring requiring the need for the seal to be cut back and filled with a metal type sealant such as "Devcon", plus, depending on the side plate used, the water gallery requires blocking off and filling on the side plate and the rotor matching.

Cutting into the rotor housing is also needed for port matching. The main problem with this design of port is a short life-span as water does and will seep through the seals. The main field where a J-port is likely to be seen is on the track where restrictions don't allow peripheral porting, or a slightly wider power band is desired. Typically around 300hp can be expected.



PRO'S: Slightly better power than a bridge port (5 to 10%) without the expense of a PP
CON'S: Short life-span, 6-12 months / 5,000-10,000km, narrow power band, need for free-flowing/loud exhaust system, poor drivability





Peripheral Port

The peripheral port is the ultimate form of porting for a rotary engine without turning to forced induction. Instead of conventional metal shaping with a grinder, the side ports are actually filled and completely new circular - peripheral - intake ports are fitted directly through the rotor housing and is easily identified on an engine by its tubular intake manifold. This modification has potential for over 300hp but as it is developed for racing, results in very poor drivability, fuel consumption and needs an exhaust system designed to produce excessive noise. Like the bridge port, the PP produces its maximum power past 8,000rpm creating increased stress and wear on components.

And instead of idling at around 1,000 – 1,500rpm for the previous porting methods, the PP engine will not idle much below 2,000rpm and is impractical and virtually unusable on the street.

PRO'S: The ultimate form of rotary porting for maximum power
CON'S: Excessive noise, extensive intake mods, very poor drivability and fuel consumption, relatively short engine life, very expensive, narrow power band

From http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm

Okay, there's also a rare Secondry Bridge, where the inner two ports are bridged and the outer two are extended. This gives more midrange and also has the top end of a Bridge. My brother's new motor has this, with the custom fuel injection system, it's just dynoed at 265 hp at 7600 rpm. it's secondry bride is a smallish J-Port.

Supercharging works on a PP, I havent seen a turbo PP, tho I suppose they exist. The big power ones do hower ger J ported. The ports change not just rev range, but intake flow - you can shove more air down into the housings. Injection also makes a hugely ported rotary able to idle, my brother's motor would be virually undrivable at low speeds if it was carbyed. It's also got an unusal amount of low down torque. Prolly could kick the living crap outta the Forester now and there's not much that can do that. Except the aforementioned monster port 13B with T04 turbo. That thing is scary as all hell on 17psi.

Oh, the brap brap brap of a well ported rotary is because the intake port timing begins to over lap too much with the exhaust port. timing. Despite the lack of values and camshafts, concepts such as 'lift' and ' timing' are still applicable. Timing of a port refers to the length and positioning, lift is sort of like depth and size.

[Slayn Cloak]

Wow... thanks, I really only new about PP and bridge porting. I hate the idle on a bringe port lol, brap ... brap... brap. lmao

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Slayn Cloak
Wow... thanks, I really only new about PP and bridge porting. I hate the idle on a bringe port lol, brap ... brap... brap. lmao

You like rotaries and you dont like the brap brap?

What the.......? That's the best part!

[Slayn Cloak]

lol I don't like it on the street!! that could break windows at 4k!

[Marcus Telcontar]

That's one of good parts :D Much anti-social!

[Slayn Cloak]

Well on an unrelated note, though not entirely I guess; I’m getting a new car. My dad told me today that he’s finally going to get his “back” pay from the government. They owe him nearly two years of disability. (He messed up his back really badly.) He was going to buy me a motorcycle for being in school, and having no money, but has recently decided that I’ll kill myself on it, and that I should get a car. :: shrugs :: So as he told me this I started thinking about how I could get a turbo II, or at least a gtu, second gens aren’t rare by any means, but then I heard that terrible freaking word- Reliability. He then said something about no rotaries…Then I went on to say NA second gens ARE reliable dad!! He wouldn’t budge though.

So right now it looks like I’m getting an SW22, hopefully a turbo. I’m supposed to be looking for something between 3-5k, but no more then five. Any suggestions?

[Marcus Telcontar]

WTF. Rotaries ARE dead reliable. It's only truly abused do they have problems.

Seond WTF - SW22? What the hell is that? Even Google doesnt really give a hint apart from MR-2.

[Morgan Evanar]

MK2 MR2.

I've never heard anyone call an MR2 by the chassis code, ever. It doesn't make sense. Only one car was made on that chassis. F-Body? Firebird/Camaro. B-Body? Impala/various other GM boats. S1x? 180sx/200sx/240sx/Silvia. Chassis codes only really makes sense for cars that had chassis shared.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Ahhh. Confusion cleared.

I'm not sure I'd get a MR-2. While AUD 7500 for a MR-2 is waaaaaay too low, I'd get a MX-5 in a shot first, if I could find one at that price. But, I can fix the problems a low cost example would have. early Z car before they became lard would also work, Datsun 1600 if one could be found. As you dont have a VL Commodore, Sliva would be the correct answer to a nice RWD, if rotary is removed from options.

Oh wait,....... cant a 91 VR-4's be gotten for under 5K in the USA?

:D

Just DO NOT EVEN THINK about one if the gearbox is sad. Chris can tell anyone who wants to know how bastard they are to remove. Least he can tell it without dropping a whole load of choice words as I would.

[Slayn Cloak]

I don't think we got the vr4 here in the U.S, and yeah, my dad's against sevens all together. He likes those four thousand rpm red line american cars. ( ok fine 5k ) He's even kind of giving me a hard time about the SW22, which BTW does share chasis numbers through the series ispecially in the world market where they where produced long after there last days in the U.S. ( 1996? ) At any rate, I want to stay away from nissans unless I have to, but anouther datsun would be fun... and I'd have some money left over for some bolt ons... mmmm

I'm sorry that I have this habbit of calling cars by their chasis numbers, it's just what I'm used to.

[Marcus Telcontar]

3000 VR-4's were sold in the USA. the gvr4.org (?) forums are a good place to go looking and you might even get car histories there too.

[Slayn Cloak]

I thought you ment the gallant, sorry lol. No, the 3000's not for me, not in the least.

[Morgan Evanar]

No, he does mean the Galant VR4. The Evolution precursor.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Slayn Cloak
I thought you ment the gallant, sorry lol. No, the 3000's not for me, not in the least.

I am talking about the Galant.... wait.... that's right, Mitsubitsi called the 3000GT the 3000 VR-4 in the USA.

What you should have read (:p) was that 3000 (in number) Galant VR-4's were sold in the USA.

Edit : Damn, beaten by Morgan

[Slayn Cloak]

lol, sorry... The 3000gt, as with all imports in the U.S, was given to us in the slowest form possible; they then released the vr4 model as an improvement. All in all, a pig IMO, something that heavy needs to just stay put. It's only fit to compete with... um, mustangs and things of that nature. Really even rhino's are fast, but I wouldn't have them race and emu or something.

And to better clarify the SW22 thing, not all mkII's where an SW22. Some where the SW21, and even further the distinction of model is made by the following N or M; I want an SW22N, but will most likely end up with a 21M. :p

[Marcus Telcontar]

0_o

Mind not talking codes? Even I dont know WTF your saying.

[Slayn Cloak]

I was saying that the older MR2s, the ones more influenced by lottus(prototype for the x100 and the esprit)used the numbers SW20, and that there was nearly no difference in between models; these are known as mark one models (MKI). Also know as an MKI is the SW21, they were the transition car between the hideous shoe box and the elegant monster that is the MKII(91-96??). Honestly I know squat about those earlier cars as they are way to ugly, and I don't fit in them; or have at least never tried.
The MKIIs used SW21 and 22, also carrying the distinction between engines by either following with an N or an M. There are slight differences in the body between the 21 and 22, the 22 being the later model...