3rd Generation RX-7 vs 951

[944Driver]

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?

[1.2gees]

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...

[Blackfoot]

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.

[Blackfoot]

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.

[944Driver]

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!

[Blackfoot]

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.

[wolfrpi]

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

[1.2gees]

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...

[Pilot_951S]

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.

[david944]

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).]

[Blackfoot]

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.

[Blackfoot]

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.

[Dave951]

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' 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!

[Pilot_951S]

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.

[porscheboi928s/c944t/n]

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

[palaxdad]

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...

[944Driver]

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.

[palaxdad]

good call...

[palaxdad]

good call...

[Flight 951]

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).]