|
Went from 1995 RX-7 to M3.....
I had a 1995 RX-7 that I traded for a 1995 M3. The RX-7 was a great handling car with great performance. However, the maintenance/reliability thing bummed me out. On top of that, I'd seen way too many RX-7s with "new motors" at 50 to 60k. So after a few years of ownership, and 30k miles on the car, I sold it. Sold it before dealing with the huge depreciation I'd expect to see with the replaced motor, etc..... That was painful because I think the RX-7 is about the best looking car out there -- a truly timeless design. No regrets now though. The M3 has been a great car. I just drove a 2000 M Roadster last weekend for comparison as well. Both M cars have very similar performance characteristics, but in different packaging. They felt almost identical. The biggest difference I noticed in the M from the 7 was the torque. The M motors have a much better torque response than the Mazda. For that matter, much better than the slew of new cars out there right now. I test drove the 350, the RX-8, and the Evo -- none of those engines had that satisfying torque response. I also drove a Vette -- lots of torque, but not really usable around town. The NSX is about the closest thing to that feel. With the 7, I recall having to really wind it up to get it to move. With the M, you can be cruising at a normal gear, push the accelerator, and get it to pull hard. It's a really satisfying engine. The M3 is a great car, but has a conservative look. To me the M Roadster is basically the same car, but in a slicker roadster package. Still doesn't stand out like the RX-7 unfortunately!
The new M motor (315hp) came out on the 2001 Roadster. Road & Track gave it 0-60/qtr mile of 5.1/13.6. The previous 2000 Roadster (240hp) was 5.4/14.0. Not a huge difference, but significant.
Hope this helps......
|