3rd Generation RX-7 vs 951
 

In the next couple of years, I'm thinking of getting either a 3rd gen. RX-7 or a 951. I really love the body on the RX-7. The twin-turbo Wankel is just as fast (if not faster) than a stock 951. The handling and road adhesion is supposed to be incredible. I know I'd be shelling out a lot more money, but I'd also be getting a newer car. I know most people on this site aren't big fans of the rice cars, but certainly this car is the equal of almost anything Porsche has produced. Any thoughts or advice?

Well, I usually hate japanese cars, but certain sports cars, among which (and by far my favorite, of the japanese group) is the RX-7. I believe you can get a lot of power from an RX-7, and hp/$ shouldn't be far off a 951...

However, the RX-7 twin turbos are NOT reliable. From what I've seen, (specifically the rotor seals, and exaust manifolds) modified RX-7 twin turbos are NOT durable. The cars aren't as overbuilt as the Porsches. They can beat 944 turbos in stock form though, and yes they definately look pretty sweet.

I used to get my car aligned at an RX-7 shop, the place would be full of broken RX-7s, in for major repairs. Just one time I saw 3 RX-7 tts with cracked manifolds, a MAJOR repair, something to think about.

The car feels pretty sharp, and even though it has the reliability issues, it's still a very good car. Doesn't feel disconnected at all, very good feedback through the wheel. It also doesn't eat it's tires the way a 944 does when driven hard, but most of that's due to mushy stock bushings on the 951, and the susp. deflection that's caused.

"But certainly this car is the equal of almost anything Porsche has produced." WHAT??? What do you mean? (I don't think so!).

Again, as good as the RX-7 is, as easy as it is to modify one, and get it to outperform a 951 (for more dough though!), as good as they look, and as focused, and hardcore as the RX-7 tt is, it's no 951!

If you disagree with me, I welcome the discussion... (always on the lookout to find out more).
Ahmet

------------------
It's all the driver...

as a previous owner of BOTH of those cars, i can speak from experience.

the rx-7 is noticably quicker than the 951. the twin turbos deliver immediate power, while the 951 has to work up to around 3500-4000 rpm before the boost comes on. stock vs. stock, the 951 won't win any street races against a 3rd gen (a turbo s would be about an even match). however, the 951 accelerates a little faster at higher speeds, like 80-110 mph. the 3rd gen will still be ahead, but not by much. the 3rd gen looks better (imho) and turns more heads (not what i'm into), costs more to own, and is more fragile than the 951. the 3rd gen is more nible, and has a much more precise steering feel, although total handling is about equal.

when people turn up the boost in a 3rd gen without enriching the fuel to air ratio, detonation can and will occur, will take out the apex seals, which in turn take out the rotors and you now have to spend $4500 to rebuild the engine. however, with careful engine management by an experienced rx-7 shop, the 1.3 litre rotary engine can withstand enourmous hp output. a 3rd gen also costs roughly twice the cost of a 951, so in some ways it's like comparing apples to oranges. good luck.

i forgot to add since the 951 costs so much less for nearly the same performance, it is a good value. i would pocket the additional $6000 or so the 3rd gen costs and get a 951. just my humble opinion.

http://www.geocities.com/nirky/black7.jpg http://www.geocities.com/nirky/951ex.jpg

Hmmm. I guess I should have known better. Suggesting that a Porsche car might actually have an equal is like treason around here! HA, HA! Actually, what I meant was, imho, the RX-7tt is a very capable car which can reasonably challenge most production street cars. Of course, this doesn't take into account a myriad of variables such as: driver skill/experience, car setup, tire quality, etc. I didn't mean to suggest the RX-7 was a BETTER car than a Porsche. As someone who has driven NEITHER a 951 nor an RX-7tt, I'm certainly not an expert and am willing to listen to other peoples' opinions on the subject. As we all know, each car has its own strengths and weaknesses. It's helpful to hear from someone who has actually owned BOTH cars. I'm a bit surprised to hear that the RX-7 is not as reliable as the 951. However, I don't drive my cars hard, (fast, on occasion, but not hard), so I would expect either car to be relatively safe from abuse. Anyway, I'll probably end up sticking with the 951 idea, I just can't see myself paying almost twice the cost of a well maintained 951. Also, the Mazda tt is very hard to find compared to the 951. Man, those RX-7's sure look sweet though!

if you're suggesting i'm biased towards porsche, that's funny because a few semi brain-dead teens from another now-defunct 944 board rejected my unbiased findings that the 3rd gen was faster than the 951. since it was 'porsche', the 951 just had to be faster was their reasoning. it was amusing, but unltimately their ignorance got to be just too much and ended up being a burden.

i suggest you drive both, and since you have several years before you make any purchase, you can come to our own conclusions in plenty of time.

Look at the back issues from Sport Compact Car for modifications to the RX 7 tt. They have done a good deal of stuff to their car to make it really hook up. Me personally, I'd stay far away from a tt as just about everyone of them seems to have a rebuilt engine. I think that tells you something.

Erick

Calm down blackfoot, we all know the RX-7 tt was a faster car than a 944 turbo, both being stock...

It ain't a 944 though.

Here at Porsche "We only build sports cars"...

A phrase repeated in 1992, for the 968's launch, but we see how true that is today. (


Asking this question, on this board will get you a biased answer, that should be no surprise, but I tried to be objective.

I haven't owned either, but driven a few examples of both. I've also been to shops who work on them! I have yet to see a broken turbo on a 944, not so with the RX-7. The RX-7 shop owner tells me (he's got one too! he likes the 944s, he's also got an M z3 convertible if I remember right) that they're VERY unreliable. He says he used to have two RX-7s, one being for the street, but then got tired of all the problems, and just decided to get another car for the street. (McNeil Performance, in Raleigh NC).

The discussions at excite were NOT about acceleration of the two cars, they were about the handling, and braking of both. As far as I know, the 3rd gen RX-7s were never offered with bigger/better brakes, wider/stickier tires, or harder susp. (feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong). Don't forget, when you say a 944 turbo, you include the stripped out 88 turbo Ses, and the optional suspension/brakes that were offered, however now you admit (or rather state), that an 89 turbo is about the same as an RX-7 as far as performance goes.

Too bad we can't pull out the posts, but not once have I argued about the acceleration of the 944 turbo vs the RX-7 tt. All were about handling (which by definition means how well the compromise of the set-up works for intended purposes, and the braking of both cars).

Again, I welcome ANYthing you may have to say about your ex car, if you're still mad about it.

So hold your horses, nobody is bashing on the RX-7, just sharing what I've seen, and been led to believe.

btw, happy new year to everybody!
Ahmet

------------------
It's all the driver...

IMO a dead stock 3rd gen RX7 (regular or R1A) will outhandle a dead stock 951, or 951 S. It is simple physics, the REX is lighter, has a lower polar moment of ineretia and a similar center of gravity. Also since it is lighter AS A STREET CAR it doesn't need bigger brakes.

Now if you were to build a full blown track car the 951 would clean house (and do it with stock brakes) With a fully sorted suspension the higher polar moment of intertia in the 951 becomes an asset to stability and the slightly better weight distribution aids corner exit traction.

In the final analysis you really can't go wrong with either car, the things I would consider in your case are cargo space (the 951 has a lot more) and driver passenger comfort (also superior in the 951), drivability, the 3rd gen REX is probably easier to drive in traffic, and repair costs.

------------------
The shortest distance between two points is in my car.

If he's not, I am, they are cheaper to fix than any porsche. A friend of mine had a 94 turbo that blew an engine and got it rebuilt for around 2000.00. I remember other parts were way cheaper than any porsche.

A rx7 might not be as reliable as a porsche, but certinaly not MORE expensive to fix.

[This message has been edited by david944 (edited 01-01-2001).]

even though it's 5-7 years newer, a 3rd gen rx-7 will cost more to own than a 951 in the long run.

and unless you rebuild it yourself or have a mechanic who owes you lots o favors, no way you can rebuild a rotary correctly for $2000. for new side housings, eccentric shaft, stationary gears, rotors, seals, etc. will set you back min. $4000.

for a $2000 "rebuild", disreputable shops machine the old engine parts, install new seals/gaskets, and then in a year or less you need to do it all over again.

The 3rd gen is a sweet car. My friend's dad let me drive his. There's no feeling like having boost right away from the first turbo. When the second turbo kicks in, the car really pulls. It handles very well also. However, I still like my 951 more. It handles pretty equally, and the power is there. Also, I feel as though my car is more reliable. I guess a vacuum hose came disconnected in the rx-7 and the thing pretty much blew itself up. Luckily, my friend's dad has the money to not worry about such a 'small thing' http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/smile.gif Keep in mind, my rx-7 experience is only from this one car. I would say to drive both, try to get on an rx-7 board and find out more from people who own them. Also, since these cars are similar in many ways, a lot of people who were looking for one will have also tried the other. My granddad used to own a car shop and I remember his telling me before I got my porsche, "It's nice to have someone with a mercedes because they don't mind paying a little extra." This is just something you have to live with I guess if don't do your own work. Owning a car of an expensive marque will usually bring a higher bill. This is wrong, but since people pay for it, shops get away with it.

Dave
Have fun testing. They're both great cars!

I actually have no idea what the repair costs would be on a 3rd Gen RX7. I only know what it costs to fix and hop up 951's and it ain't pretty.

I think the biggest thing with either car (besides which one you like better) is to locate an EXCEPTIONABLE shop to have the car cared for when the job gets more than you can handle yourself.

------------------
The shortest distance between two points is in my car.

Why mess with perfection...
Porsche there is no substitute!

I had one of the 1st RX-7 tt's (an R1). I was great to look, a blast to drive (when it wasn't in the shop), and it was the fastest and best handling car I ever drove. But... It was a piece of crap as far as reliability. The engine failed (one of the rotor tips deteriated) at 36,000 miles. The clutch was gone at 36,000 miles (I've never had to replace a clutch in my life and I'm 50 years old). Best life I got from brakes/tires was 19,000 miles and they aint cheap. Interior pieces broke, the power antenna broke, etc. However, the ugliest problem of all was the $5,000 worth of bodywork that was caused when I was stupid enough to park under an Oak tree when the nuts were falling. The wind blew, the nuts fell and I had over 40 dents in the roor, hatch, hood and all 4 quarter panels. I now have a '78 924 and a '88 Rx7 for my 2 sons. Both are great cars in spite of their age - 3rd gen RX-7's will never live long enough to say that...

Thanks to everyone for all the advice. I think I'll stick with the 951 idea. It's probably a lot easier on the wallet. I've been surfing various RX-7tt websites, and reliability problems seem to be the Achilles heel of the RX-7tt. IMO, the 951 isn't as visually stunning as the RX-7tt, but its other attributes seem to more than compensate for this shortcoming.

good call...

good call...

I am adding a few points here because I have owned a 94 Rx-7TT and recently bought an 89 951 (or 951S). Some info here has been incorrect.

The Rx-7 DID have a racing model or R1 offered in 1993. In 1994, they upped the ante to the R2. These cars included stiffer suspensions and fewer creature comforts. Manual transmission was the only trans for the R.

The Rx-7 costs I had were: front brake calipers (not rotors) $1200 and cruise control module $1000. (I had a full warranty.) The previous owner had a new engine put in. The car only had 30k miles...

Driving the car easy does not spare the engine. In fact, easy driving still promotes the excessive heat of a twin turbo rotary and actually builds up carbon deposits on the apex seals. When the apex seals fail, the engine loses compression. I don't believe the Rx-7 had a system for cooling the turbos after shutdown, like the 951s has. Turbo replacement and engine replacement together is $10k.

Insurance costs are probably higher in the Rx-7 since it is a 2 seater and has a higher book value.

Both cars are great performers, but I am sticking with the 89 951.

[This message has been edited by Flight 951 (edited 08-02-2001).]

Excuse me.. did you say the front brake rotors were $1200?

I went through the same debate a couple months ago and you're all making me feel good about my decision http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/smile.gif

------------------
'86 951 Graphite Metallic/Tan

[This message has been edited by Macabre (edited 08-01-2001).]

The R2 actually had a softer suspension than the R1.

I would really love to get a gen III rx-7, and I was really thinking about it at the time I was shopping for another car to replace the turbo II rx-7 that my friend blew up on the way home from denny's by spinning the engine to 10000+ rpm's and there by destroying the turbo. Reliability seems to be one of the biggest problems with these cars though. I have a friend who had a 93' (all though for some reason he claims it was a 94'...I don't know why...I knew it was a 93') touring model fd3s, and in the 1 year he had it, it caught on fire after getting two brand new greddy (I think) turbos installed (the shop doing the work didn't secure one of the fuel lines, he hit a speed bump, the car caught on fire), causing $11000 worth of damage (somehow he got his insurance company to pay for it), then he got a used 95' engine with 18K miles on it, then came the strange boost problems, not to mentioned the racing clutch he put in went wild and cracked the bell housing, and another $2500 later, all 70 or so vaccuum lines under the intake manifold and the 20 or so others elsewhere were replaced with silicone lines and somehow fixed in place by peter farrell supercars, his bell housing replaced, and the clutch replaced with a street/strip unit instead of a full blown racing clutch. He sold the car for the same 18.5K he payed for it, with a nice set of polished 17" wheels, exhaust, intake, and more than $15000 in repairs in a years time.

That said, I think the TT rx-7 is one of the prettiest cars ever made...definitely better looking than any porsche (this is just my opinion...don't flame) and in the same neck snapping league as ferrari styling, but a bit more subdued.

I just wish they put a simpler motor in it. The 13Bt (rx-7 turbo II motor) was infinitely more reliable than the 13B-REW (twin turbo motor), and could have been developed to make as much horsepower as the REW motor with a simpler single turbo system, albeit with some lag (this is where a lot of problems stem from...one of the wrong vaccuum lines, and there are a LOT of vaccuum lines in fragile places, for the twin turbo system come off and you are overboosting the motor causing an extreme lean condition, causing detonation which will pit the rotor housing, causing lost compression, pit the apex seal, which will cause lost compression, and will flash burn the oil coating the apex seal, causing total apex seal failure, meaning a blown engine). A properly set up rotary engine will be extremely reliable. My first car, an 81' gsl-se rx-7, had an 89' 13B motor in it, and the motor had over 200000 miles on it IIRC (the car only had 135000 on it), and my dad was driving it and the lower radiator hose got disconnected, and before he knew what happened, the engine overheated and died...but if the car was properly maintained, that would have never happened.

The renesis engine (13B-MSRPE I think) would make an excellent swap for a twin turbo rx-7 (or 1st or 2nd gen) when they finally become available, because they have 280+ HP (all though the torque is about the same as the 89-91 n/a 13B), spin to 10000 RPM's, are smaller and lighter, all though they will bolt up the same, as the twin turbo rx-7 engine, are a much simpler design with no forced induction, and supposed to be as reliable as the previous n/a engines.

Another way mazda could have done the 3rd gen rx-7 with better results was to put something simpler and more reliable than twin turbos on as forced induction, like a roots type supercharger. The overall cost would have been similar, but there would have been several less instances where a lean condition would have occured, and you would probably see a lot less rx-7's with rebuilt engines and reliability problems being sold, and a lot more "money" rx-7's. But that is just my opinion.

As far as comparing the rx-7 to the 951, the parallels are all there. It is obvious to me that mazda had their eyes set dead on to the 951/968 when designing/marketing the 3rd gen rx-7, and in some ways one upped porsche. The weight distribution, size, weight, power, etc. are all very similar when comparing the two. You can also stuff about the same sized tires under the stock bodywork in both cars (285/30 18's in the back and 255/35 18's in the front on both cars, all though you will have to roll the fenders on the porsche, but I am not sure on the rx-7)The rx-7's suspension design is much newer than 1977 when the overall geometry for all 924/44/51/68's were decided, so I wouldn't be suprised if you could set up an rx-7 as good or better than a 944 series car for racing conditons.

The rx-7's would be as close to a perfect car as I could imagine if they could have gotten around reliability issues. Thats my opinion...but I sure do like my 951, and 107,000 miles on the original engine, still running strong.

------------------
ribs, 86' 951

my neighbor has a gorgeous black one, his is on blocks in his garage working on engine job #3, first time I met him he was working on engine job #1, and that was 4 yrs ago.

he has a mazda rx7tt

[The shortest distance between two points is in my car.] snip


that's hilarious!!!!

I hate to chime in, but, as far as the rx being faster stock= a friend of mine just bought a bone stock 86 951 with 150,000 miles,
he only owned it for 2 weeks when he raced another friend with a slightly modified rx7tt,90,000 miles with new engine, (downpipe and centerforce clutch) and they ran neck and neck. It cant be chalked up to driver experience as the rx7 owner has owned his car for 5 years vs. 2 weeks for the 951 owner. They raced from a rolling start. The rx7 is faster on paper, but in the real world it just isn't there.It does feel fast when you drive it though due to the 2 turbos and gearing. Just a little fact to mix in with the fiction,hahahahaha j/k!

have fun getting parts for a rx-7.....those engines are a pain to find when you toast em.....
http://www.members.aol.com:/fty9999/...ftypelican.jpg



------------------
"Faster,Than,You"
"Wish I had a 951....."

http://www.members.aol.com:/fty9999/944land/944land.htm

Is your friend with the 951 sure it isn't chipped? If it has been through multiple owners, one of the previous owners may have chipped it and not told him. The only way to tell is to pull out the DME and peek at the chips, but even then not all the different aftermarket chips are marked. The chip alone will make the car neck and neck with the rx-7. My 951 would pull at speed on my friends lightly modded (intake, exhaust, downpipe, ignition) rx-7 TT, but if it was from a dead stop, he would kill me off the line because they hook up a lot better at low speeds, but I would eventually catch up.

Also, I know a few people who have had performance cars for several years and have no idea how to drive them fast, in a straight line, around a curve, or at all, as this story will illustrate.

My old roommate had a 90' supra turbo and was very drunk, driving it home from the bar (which was less than a quarter mile from our apartment...why didn't the dumb F walk?), decided to show off for the people in the car, gunned it leaving the bar, forgot to turn and went over the concrete hump in the center of the road (a major road mind you), popping all four tires, braking the front fascia, destroying some of his suspension, and bending all of his wheels, went into oncoming traffic (which thankfully there wasn't any because they were all at a stop light) and landed in the parking lot of popeye's. A cop was sitting at the stoplight and saw the whole thing happen. I had to pick him up from jail at 2 in the morning, and he lost his driving job at fed-ex...now he is stuck throwing boxes. This kid doesn't know how to drive a performance car, nor did he have any respect for it (or the safety of his passengers and other drivers).

Not to go off topic (like this isn't off topic already) but I think that there should be a requirement that you have to pass some sort of performance driving test (like an autocross course maybe...you would have to take a class, too) to drive a car with a certain level of HP to weight ratio, or a honda civic. This would keep a lot of the obnoxiously bad, weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating, speeding through traffic 40 MPH faster than everyone else is going, "because my car is fast" people from being able to drive cars that they don't understand or respect the abilities of. Keep these people in the K-cars (not the turbo ones, either), the 89' nissan sentras, the 83' cadillac fleetwoods, and the kia spectras, please, and let the people who know and respect their cars abilities in their sports cars. That is all. And I like rx-7's...I want to buy a convertable with a blown motor, put a rebuilt turbo II motor in it with all the goodies and make that sucker fly...but I have no money, no where to work on the car, and no mechanical skills, so I may be SOL.

------------------
ribs, 86' 951

If you are looking for pure performance the rx7 wins hands down. Take a look at SCCA autocrossing. The rx7 isn't even in the same class and the 951 isn't all that competitive in it's class. The mr2 turbo and honda s2000 whip the 951. The 3rd gen RX7 has been the dominant force from it's introduction until now. The Z06 Corvette has finally ended it's dominance.
Reliability is a problem. 70k is a pretty long life for the RX7tt engine. That is why I don't own one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a definate Porsche nut. I've got a '72 911T and a '74 2.0 914. Currently I've been looking at 85.5 and up 944's and 924S's. But the results speak for themselves as far as 3rd gen RX7's go.

------------------
Jeff Parker
72t

His car is definitely NOT chipped. I have had his DME and KLR boxes open and know what chips look like:^) I beat rx7tt's at auto-x's regularly. In fact i have beaten the aforementioned one also. They are cheaply built jap pieces of crap, IMHO of course.

Carter
85 944
86 951
87 944
88 951

hi, just wondering if sum1 could post a pic of a 3rd Generation RX-7. Just interested to see wot thy look like cos we've had 6 incarnations of RX-7s down here, the 6th being the latest http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/smile.gif

Here's a pic of one.. this is an R1, I believe (yes, it's beautiful).. http://gallery.rx7club.com/images/3rd/3-gallery-22.jpg

Comparing autocross results will generally not be too favorable. Compare on a race track. Turbo lag hurts the 951 on ultra-short tracks a lot more than it does the RX-7 even if the 951 is chipped..

------------------
'86 951 Graphite Metallic/Tan

[This message has been edited by Macabre (edited 08-02-2001).]

Although i would rather have a Turbo S the 3rd Gen is an awesome car...its a mini viper http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/smile.gif

------------------
85.5 Porsche 944

How can you guys compare a modern third generation RX-7 to an 80's 944 Turbo? They are completely different classes. I would think a minimum Porsche competitor would be a 968 or the 968 Turbo S. But its obvious the 951 will lose out to a later RX-7. That car is in the same class as the stock 993 Carrera. Which, the Rx-7 loses to.

http://eurospecporsche944.homestead.com/files/sig2.jpg

------------------
Porsche. Es gibt keinen Ersatz.

um, you usually hate japanese cars?

I don't get it...u were talking about hondas and defending em a lot...

Anyway, does anyone here know about the costs of maintance of a rotory engine anyway?

DO things break in that engine or anything, do they require rebuilds?? Anyone had experience with em>?


[This message has been edited by AMCPorsche924Powerhaus! (edited 08-02-2001).]

3rd gens are a total PITA because of what has to be the most complicated forced induction system on any production car. Peter farrell supercars, right around the way from me (about 60 miles or so) is a shop that does nothing but 3rd gen rx-7s (well...they do is300's now...500 HP turbo kit...impressive), and they do service, repair, 3 rotor conversions, any upgrade imaginable...the works. When they rebuild a rotary engine, they replace all of the rubber vaccuum lines with silicone and secure them, because there is a lot of them on this car (70+ under the intake manifold, and an assortment in other places too). This saves half of the headaches, and the wrong line coming off will explode the engine by letting one of the turbos overboost, lean out the engine, and kabloowee.


There really is no maintainance with the rotary engine. It runs until it blows something...plain and simple. There is regular car maintainance (oil changes, fluids, radiator hoses, etc.), but the engines are designed so if you are going to service the engine, you should (and most definitely would unless your a chump) do a basic rebuild. There are very few things that can go wrong with the engine since there are no cams, valves, lifters, pistons, cranks, rod bearings, etc.

The few things that can go wrong, that in order to fix would require removal, disassembly, hopefully a rebuild (replace gaskets and bearings), reassembly, and installation are the following:

blown/cracked/pitted apex seal (the equivalent of severely scoring a piston, but not necessarily the cylinder wall)

grooved/cracked/pitted rotor housing (the equivalent of severely scoring a cylinder wall, but not necessarily a piston)

destroyed output shaft (almost never happens...it is the equivalent of snapping a crank)

rotor seals leaking oil (not a big deal...better to just deal with it and wait until the motor blows)

a few other things. This is just for the engine, and not the turbo system found on the twin turbo. The turbo system on the 2nd gen rx-7 is a lot more reliable and simple, and since the motor is identical, can take the same abuse that a 3rd gen motor can.

Check this link to learn how a rotary engine works: http://www.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

gotta go to the bar. Later.

------------------
ribs, 86' 951

ribs, where do you live? i am not very far from peter farrel either. Isn't he a *****!

He's in manassas, VA. I am in crofton, MD, which is near annapolis, but closer to bowie. He is a business man...thats all I will say...but not the nicest guy I have ever met. Next friday I am going to take a 2 or 3 hour lunch, drive down to manassas (its about 40 minutes from where I work in gaithersburg) and go down to PFS and test drive a FD3S or 2. That will be an intertaining lunch break. I will let you all know what I think as far as a comparison goes since I haven't driven a TT rx-7 since I have had my 951, which has been a year and a half.

------------------
ribs, 86' 951

edit: intertaining=entertaining...I went out tonite...that is my excuse.

------------------
ribs, 86' 951

You might find this article very relevant:
http://www.realride.com/racing/news17.html

You might find this article very relevant:
http://www.realride.com/racing/news17.html