Which is better (MR2, RX-7, Eclipse)

Hello,
I've been researching these three cars and wondering which engine 3SGTE, 13B, or 4G63 has the most potential for the stock internals? I'm aiming at least getting 400hp to the crank. Thanks

What generation 13B? If it's the 3rd generation 400 is reachable, as well as on the 2nd gen 13B's.

Both second and third gen RX7 will make 350+ RWHP without having to rebuild or port the engine.

4g63t -wit 4g63t can withstand 22psi of boost wit stock pistons and internals but be warned 97+ eclipse has crank walk also 2 run 22psi u will have 2 upgrade turbo, fule,egnition system.but 400 hp is eaisly made with these motors

3sgte- good motor but abitch 2 work on, mu boy has 1 wit 140,000 miles the car is fallin apart the motor doesnt like being abused. yo can run safely on 14psi with stock internals. 1 problem wit da mr2 is the uneven weight distrubtion its like 30\70 so it sucks.

13b- rotorys are amazing creations. 400 hp can be made easily,
but u have to get 2mm seals and also plz upgrade ur coolin systems cause a rx-7 13b has major cooling problems. also u should get a upgaded fuel system like a haltec or motec. also u should get msd and upgrade ur turbo to a t-78 and get a front mounted intercooler and u can easiely make 400hp no probs.

also

consider the sr20det motor its is a great motor. it can take 14psi stock amd very workable and reliable and u can put it into a lot of cars. 400hp is eaisly made with minor upgrades suck as fuel system, intercooler,exaust,intake,and boost controller

crap on a 3rd gen intake and exaust puts you around 350 alone because of the air restrictions. a couple more mods on you got way of 400 rwhp

Unless you have a lot of time and money to burn you don't want to mod a 3rd gen RX-7. The rotary engine is stressed beyond any sane limits bone stock. Modified it's just a matter of time before the engine lets go.

If you like to pay for regular engine rebuilds go ahead with the RX-7.

Personally I'd opt for an RX-7 and install an engine that was designed with horsepower in mind. Namely a buick turbo 6 or N/A v-8. These cars look like they were almost designed to be powered by v-8s.

RX07 times ten!!!! :flipa:

Originally posted by Devilbat
Unless you have a lot of time and money to burn you don't want to mod a 3rd gen RX-7. The rotary engine is stressed beyond any sane limits bone stock. Modified it's just a matter of time before the engine lets go.

If you like to pay for regular engine rebuilds go ahead with the RX-7.

Personally I'd opt for an RX-7 and install an engine that was designed with horsepower in mind. Namely a buick turbo 6 or N/A v-8. These cars look like they were almost designed to be powered by v-8s.

Looks like you've never owned an RX-7.

Or if you have, you didn't know how to take care of it.

well, the FD's do tend to burn out quick, but can make mad horsepower, while with the FC's they dont quite make as much (easily, and streetibly) but the FC's engine's are pretty bulletproof. Stick with 3mm seals too if you get an FD, they can take it a bit better than 2mm, especially if you run into detonation and are lucky enough not to kill your engine. I wouldn't recommend putting a pisst-on engine in an RX-7 unless you LIKE to be ridiculed. It won't matter if you're making a billion horsepower and run the 1/4 in 2.3 seconds, you still won't get respect from a LOT of passionate 7 owners if you put a boinger in there.

I'd have to say the Toyota and the Mazda are the funnest cars, and have a high HP potential, but if you not willing to put the money and blood, sweat and mutherfuckin tears in them, then stay away.

This is the freakin second time I saw someone suggest 2 put a pisst- on engine to an rx7, I know its a lot cheaper to buy a v8 than to upgrade a rotary.... well u have to deal with a diff car... Rx7 is made for a rotary engine and driven by class drivers...

Cheers to the owners of 7's:flipa:

well with a 13b-rew with just bolt on mods and a power fc you can make over 400 RWHP.
stock twin sequential turbos and stock ports on the motor.
you can run 11's with just BOLT ONS!

http://www.nopistons.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=63&t=12062

great forum for the rx7 and lots of knowledgable drivers and tuners.

The RX7 has the best starting point and responds very well to mods...but has reliability issues out the ying yang...car looks the best bar none

The 4G63 has probably the best bang for the buck and will run 12's w/not too much invested...but has drivetrain issues you have to watch out for...Eclipse/Talon/Laser has the sleeper look if you like that

By far I think the 3SGTE is the best w/a combination of reliability, able to hold 400HP easily and being in a nice car like the MR2 Turbo! (Looks like a baby Ferrari)



:bandit:

Go for the RX7. However, be forewarned the rotorys aren't ascactly reliable...:(

Originally posted by sr20det2nr

3sgte- good motor but abitch 2 work on, mu boy has 1 wit 140,000 miles the car is fallin apart the motor doesnt like being abused. yo can run safely on 14psi with stock internals. 1 problem wit da mr2 is the uneven weight distrubtion its like 30\70 so it sucks.


Let's not bullshit the guy. Weight distribution isn't 30/70, its closer to 45/55. Yea, they can be a bitch to work on if you don't know what you're doing. And, your boy must not be taking care of his car/running it into the ground because these engine are good for much more than 140,000 miles. I have 202,000 miles and mine still runs like new. Starts up instantly and never a problem. Even if you can't make 400 hp in a 2nd gen MR2 you don't need that much to have a fast car. If you were to buy a first gen and put in a 3sgte and push it to close to 300 hp you can run low 11's in it. One thing I will say is that you can spend a matter of hundreds $ to make a second gen MR2 sexy, or a matter or 100's to make a first gen fast, but you'll spend more making a first gen sexy then you would want to spend.

Here are my thoughts.

MR2: If it is a new MR2, don't waste your money unless you plan to do an engine swap or waste money on building the internals. If it is one of the older All Trac turbo MR2s, then I would say go for it.

RX-7: Don't bother unless you like spending a lot of money for gas and repair bills and like smelly exhaust. The RX-7s engine has too much port overlap allowing exhaust to be in the combustion chamber when the rotor comes around to fire. This caused the car to stall at idle so they compensated by using more fuel at idle. This also makes for bad air in the combustion area, never good. It also makes for stinky exhaust fumes. I also hear that the RX-7 is a handful to work on and you have to work on them a lot, namely seals I hear.

Eclipse: The 4G63 is a GREAT engine to work with namely the first gen engines and third gen engines from 1998 - 1999. They can take a good amount of boost on the stock internals and they have a huge amount of aftermarket. They are also reliable engines as well. The 4G63 is nothing to laugh at. Also check out the build up guide in this months Sport Compact Car. It is a great guide on how to build up and tune your 4G63, VERY informative. Also that info can be related to other engines and applications.

My choice is the 4G63 without a shadow of a doubt!

Its not that the rotors are not reliable its just that you have to put more money into changing them if you have bought one with over 70000-80000 miles on it. I dont know what the eclipse guy is talking about but he is right to get the eclipse if you do not have the money to change this car up to its regular standard

well, i say RX7 is the best of the three... but i might be biased because i own an FC. the gas mileage isn't really that bad, and my engine just turned 146,000 miles (still runs great), the biggest drawback with this car is that NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO WORK ON THEM! so... you have to find those few rare mechanics that will show you how to. and a new engine will cost half or more than you spend on the car (if you get a second gen)

just my .02
this is a bit of an old thread, did you reach your 400 hp goal?

I say go the Gen III or IV 3SGTE...reliable and cheap and easy to get heaps of power off. The only car I know with the 4G63 is the VR4 Galant...god engine BUT Iv'e seen to many blow after increased boost. Not a big fan of rotarys...hate the sound of the old skool ones but I like the batmobile's...I know there good for 13"s in stock trim but I here bad things when there going for BIG power.

Cheers
KiwiMR2

Originally posted by Sleepy_D


Let's not bullshit the guy. Weight distribution isn't 30/70, its closer to 45/55. Yea, they can be a bitch to work on if you don't know what you're doing. And, your boy must not be taking care of his car/running it into the ground because these engine are good for much more than 140,000 miles. I have 202,000 miles and mine still runs like new. Starts up instantly and never a problem. Even if you can't make 400 hp in a 2nd gen MR2 you don't need that much to have a fast car. If you were to buy a first gen and put in a 3sgte and push it to close to 300 hp you can run low 11's in it. One thing I will say is that you can spend a matter of hundreds $ to make a second gen MR2 sexy, or a matter or 100's to make a first gen fast, but you'll spend more making a first gen sexy then you would want to spend.

Couldn't have said it better myself... :)

CHris
ST185 Celica GT-Four (3SGTE)
AW11 MR2 (4AGE)
PA

Originally posted by Polygon
Here are my thoughts.

MR2: If it is a new MR2, don't waste your money unless you plan to do an engine swap or waste money on building the internals. If it is one of the older All Trac turbo MR2s, then I would say go for it.

umm.... an awd MR2 huh... that should be interesting...
Never heard of an All Trac MR2... makes you think...
I feel bad for the thread starter. Some of these responses smell horrible.

CHris

MR2 Turbo = good 400-500 HP without rebuilding internals
Eclipse GST/GSX = 450-550 wihout rebuilding internals
(my guy has a 97 GSX that runs in low 12's ...could be high 11's now @ 24 psi and no internals rebuild yet. That means he has at least 500-600 HP..maybe more)

RX-7 turbo = Don't know much about it
RX-7 TT = Can take a lot..perhaps more than those listed above, but the heating problem will kill ya


Outta all those cars, i would go with an eclipse if speed is what i'm looking for.

Originally posted by sr20det2nr
3sgte- good motor but abitch 2 work on, mu boy has 1 wit 140,000 miles the car is fallin apart the motor doesnt like being abused. yo can run safely on 14psi with stock internals. 1 problem wit da mr2 is the uneven weight distrubtion its like 30\70 so it sucks.

I really dont think you know anything about these engines... 18 psi is capable without any problem what-so-ever on the stock engine with stock wastegate and BOV. There is a guy that goes by the nickname "Jekly and Hyde", those are the names of his two MR2s, and he is pushing 500+hp on his Mr2 with stock internals and the car has 185k on it. There are several guys that have MR2s with 200k plus miles and their cars are modded and have no problems except for regular maintenance.

Okay, this is the first time I've ever posted a message but...
I have a na 86 toyota mr2 and I'm into street races, but I don't want to bother with the 4age that it has in it so I'm looking into putting a turbocharged eclipse motor(4g63t) into the mr2. It'll be a project but the rewards will be well worth it. Does anyone have any comment on this idea?

Originally posted by illGT4


umm.... an awd MR2 huh... that should be interesting...
Never heard of an All Trac MR2... makes you think...
I feel bad for the thread starter. Some of these responses smell horrible.

CHris

I noticed my mistake after I made that post. It was the Celica that came in the All-Trac Turbo model. I could swear that they made an AWD Turbo MR2 since I have been reamed by the Toyota brigade, from a different forum, for stating my distaste for the new Celica. One or two of them claimed to have AWD Turbo MR2s since they wanted to race me and supposedly kick my ass. I might be misinformed, but I still stand by my statement that the new MR2 is worthless, get an older turbo model or do an engine swap.

You don't have to come in here and try to make me look bad. What, are you another one of the people from the Toyota brigade?

the 13b is a very, very reliable engine in itself - only 3 moving parts. so all of you who think the rx-7 is trouble, just get the facts before you talk. imo, the 13b has, by far, the most potential. as long as you know what you're doing, the 13b will last at least 60,000 miles before it needs new apex seals. a 13b only causes problems when it is neglected. so that is why you hear the horror stories of rotaries - because of lack of support for the engine. (mazda dealerships suck).

Originally posted by rxtacy
the 13b is a very, very reliable engine in itself - only 3 moving parts. so all of you who think the rx-7 is trouble, just get the facts before you talk. imo, the 13b has, by far, the most potential. as long as you know what you're doing, the 13b will last at least 60,000 miles before it needs new apex seals. a 13b only causes problems when it is neglected. so that is why you hear the horror stories of rotaries - because of lack of support for the engine. (mazda dealerships suck).

That is unacceptable to me, and not reliable. 60,000 is not a very long time for a seal to last. The 13B has other problems as well. Is has some bad port overlap allowing exhaust gases to get into the combustion chamber. This makes for VERY bad emissions and power loss. It also contributes to the apex seal problem because it causes the engine to run hotter than it should. Also the engine had trouble stalling while idling. Engineers at Mazda fixed this by adding more fuel at idle causing bad emissions and bad gas mileage. Also, rotaries don’t have a whole hell of a lot of torque. Give me the Renesis in the RX-7 body and you would have a done deal.

Originally posted by Polygon


That is unacceptable to me, and not reliable. 60,000 is not a very long time for a seal to last. The 13B has other problems as well. Is has some bad port overlap allowing exhaust gases to get into the combustion chamber. This makes for VERY bad emissions and power loss. It also contributes to the apex seal problem because it causes the engine to run hotter than it should. Also the engine had trouble stalling while idling. Engineers at Mazda fixed this by adding more fuel at idle causing bad emissions and bad gas mileage. Also, rotaries don’t have a whole hell of a lot of torque. Give me the Renesis in the RX-7 body and you would have a done deal.
i dont know why you would think a twin turbo rotary has power loss. and the idle problem is common when you leave the engine cold for a while. after it warms up, it runs very smoothly. the only other way that would happen is if the engine needed rebuilt. and doesn't adding fuel at idle only make the problem worse. i think leaning it out a bit is better at idle. and about the mileage thing, my fd gets 17 mpg in the city and a renesis gets 19 so i don't know what you're talkin about. and last, why would you want a renesis in an rx-7 when you could just improve upon your 13b - the renesis only has 159 ft. lbs. of torque. my 13b makes over 200.

Originally posted by rxtacy

i dont know why you would think a twin turbo rotary has power loss. and the idle problem is common when you leave the engine cold for a while. after it warms up, it runs very smoothly. the only other way that would happen is if the engine needed rebuilt. and doesn't adding fuel at idle only make the problem worse. i think leaning it out a bit is better at idle. and about the mileage thing, my fd gets 17 mpg in the city and a renesis gets 19 so i don't know what you're talkin about. and last, why would you want a renesis in an rx-7 when you could just improve upon your 13b - the renesis only has 159 ft. lbs. of torque. my 13b makes over 200.


your 13B is TT not duh is makes more TQ. How can you say that your rotary is better than the new one when all the mazda engineers and everybody else are saying that the renesis is better...if ther is one complain about the new RX8 is that it doesn not come with a TT setup

Originally posted by Neutrino



your 13B is TT not duh is makes more TQ. How can you say that your rotary is better than the new one when all the mazda engineers and everybody else are saying that the renesis is better...if ther is one complain about the new RX8 is that it doesn not come with a TT setup
yes, my 13b is a tt, that's why i would take it over a renesis right now. i have no need whatsoever for a renesis. my engine has 4600 original miles onit and is just as healthy as any renesis. why are you trying to convince me that my engine is inferior? the engineers and whoever may say it's better, but who's to say that it's life will be any longer than an n/a 13b when the engine has not even come out yet? i will not just take mazda's word for it. i'll wait until they have been out for a few years, then i will look into the possibility that a renesis would be a good replacement based on it's existing record. i like to see results before i make a conclusion but that's just me.

Originally posted by rxtacy

yes, my 13b is a tt, that's why i would take it over a renesis right now. i have no need whatsoever for a renesis. my engine has 4600 original miles onit and is just as healthy as any renesis. why are you trying to convince me that my engine is inferior? the engineers and whoever may say it's better, but who's to say that it's life will be any longer than an n/a 13b when the engine has not even come out yet? i will not just take mazda's word for it. i'll wait until they have been out for a few years, then i will look into the possibility that a renesis would be a good replacement based on it's existing record. i like to see results before i make a conclusion but that's just me.


wel i agree with you threre there is not factual evidence of the renesis being more reliable only the engineer's word....i guess will have to waint and see how it performs when it comes out

alrite lets cut the flaming and get down to it, the 13b motor does have reliability issues, i got a buddy with a rx-7 and he blew his apex seals at 75k and he's also melted a couple of his hoses, granted they are capable of making big horse power, but on the down side he also only get 15mpg, personally i have a mr2 and it's moderatly modified, i'm making 300 at the crank with almost no upgrades i'm running stock internals and stock fuel rails and wut not i have the boost controller tuned for 15 psi on a gen3 motor and i'm spraying a 50 shot of nitrous without any problems and i have a friend who's got a similar setup minus the nos and he's got over 200k miles on it and it's still running strong, as for the eclipse engine i have no personal experience with it so i won't say much beside that i've heard mixed reviews

There is a guy that goes by the nickname "Jekly and Hyde", those are the names of his two MR2s, and he is pushing 500+hp on his Mr2 with stock internals and the car has 185k on it.
I am tuned at 308 RWHP... around 350BHP.
... I am at 195,000 miles.

Just clearing up the facts ;)

#1 Why do you care about HP, when there is Hondas running 12's at he 1/4 with less than 250 hp?

#2 Thnik more to the reliability rather than ass kicking. I know my FD can whop the shit out of a DSM, but for how long?

DSM all the way! Low-budget, reliable, daily driven... what else do you want? BTW, this is a FD owner who used to own a 2G GS-T. Go DSM... you won't regret it... I do regret goin the rotary way.

#1 Why do you care about HP, when there is Hondas running 12's at he 1/4 with less than 250 hp?
It only takes 250 hp to get an MR2 into the 12s as well ... if you do not care about hp, why make it part of your argument?


#2 Thnik more to the reliability rather than ass kicking. I know my FD can whop the shit out of a DSM, but for how long?Are you really using a DSM as an example of a relaible car? That is funny.
My MR2 has over 77 1/4 mile passes, over 308 rwhp and has 195,500 miles on the original unopened engined. I did break an axle once.

DSMs... reliable .... oh man. Both of parents have AWD turbo talons, please call them and explain that their cars are suppose to be reliable. There is another fellow her locall y that races a low 11 sec Talon and his car has broken 5 times this year alone.

It only takes 250 hp to get an MR2 into the 12s as well ... if you do not care about hp, why make it part of your argument?


Are you really using a DSM as an example of a relaible car? That is funny.
My MR2 has over 77 1/4 mile passes, over 308 rwhp and has 195,500 miles on the original unopened engined. I did break an axle once.

DSMs... reliable .... oh man. Both of parents have AWD turbo talons, please call them and explain that their cars are suppose to be reliable. There is another fellow her locall y that races a low 11 sec Talon and his car has broken 5 times this year alone.
I cannot talk about MR2's because I have no experience with them. But I will tell you this: My FWD DSM ran 13's constantly. I had the pedal to metal disease, and wherever I could step on the gas I would. People talked mad poop about 7-bolts, and I had never had a single problem with my DSM for a year, except a broken clutch fork because of a 2,600lbs ACT Pressure Plate. I beat the living dog out of this car.

I have seen many DSM's I can tell you about: 1 Galant VR4 in the 10's, only problem is breaking axles every once in a while(and I'm sure you can understand why). 1 2G FWD in the 11's daily driven with absolutely no mechanical problems. 2 daily driven low 12's with no reliability issues at all.

Now FD's... :grinno: Just stop by http://www.rx7club.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=16. You will read many reliability issues these puppies have. These cars can really go. You can easily put one of these suckers in the high 10's with just bolt-ons, but you better have a huge pocket.

I hear you about FD's ...

I guess I am going off what I have seen and heard locally about DSMs.
There is just a lot of guys around with fast DSMs that are not running ... and I hear that ugly term "crank walk" A LOT with DSM, never hear it in the Toyota circles.

Again, I am not dissing the DSMs... they are friggen fast and relatively easy to get into the 11s ... I am just arguing that they are reliable -- of course compared to a FD, what isn't? :D