1973 240Z vs. 1979 RX-7

[Jay!]

I love both, but currently couldn't own either. Not without more time, more money and a well-equipped garage.

240Z
1970-1973
2.4L inline-6
150 hp @ 6,000rpm
148 lb-ft @ 4,500rpm
Curb weight 2,355 lbs


For more of the Z lineage: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~beadles/

RX-7
1978-1985
Twin Rotor 12A (1.14L)
100bhp @ 6000 rpm
105lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Curb weight 2,420 lbs



If I was choosing between the two, I'd actually go against my rotary-lust and get the Z. What about you?

[Jimster]

Without a doubt the 240Z

[Twist]

I'd go for the Z. My Japanese friend's brother owns too. He just installed shocks and a body kit and that looks niiiiiiice. I don't start liking the RX-7 until the FC3S and FD3S. Basically the '80s.

[Viper 10]

I used to race a '72 240Z. Just to let you know, I don't think that Datsun made a 240 in '74. That was the first year of the 260Z and it was a POS (in terms of reliability). If I remember correctly, they had some big problems with the carburators. My '72 was a pain because I built everything up on it from suspension, tranny, rearend and 6 different engines. Webers were a real pain in the ass because they went out of synch so easily.

The Mazda had its share of problems with the water seals on the rotary. Until the 13B engione came out, they were all irratic (in terms of reliability). The Gen 1 RX-7's were real lightweight and rockets if you knew whatto do to them. All you had to do was add a great foam air cleaner and a set of headers/exhaust and that car would go like a real rocket.

A shop in West Los Angeles used to import 13B engines from Japan to transplant into US Mazda's. There was a pretty big difference between the older rotary and the 13B.

Both of these were fun cars at the track. The Z car tended to be nose heavy and plow when the ground got wet. The 510's actually handled much better than the Z cars. The Mazda was pretty balanced in it's handling (especially after you swapped out the shocks, springs and sway bars.

Just my $.02.

Brad

[Jay!]

Originally posted by Viper 10
Just to let you know, I don't think that Datsun made a 240 in '74. That was the first year of the 260Z...

Crap, I did know that! I changed the first post header, then the poll... then got confused and changed the poll again to match the thread title. 1973 is the correct year for this comparison. Thanks.

(so did you pick the Z, then?)

[Viper 10]

Note that every year after 1972, that the Z cars got heavier and cushier (until they evolved completely away from being a sports car to a GT car). HP went up, and performance went down (probably because of emissions). IMHO that's what killed the Z car off. I also think that Nissan did a very bad job of connecting the ca's identity to its racing heritage.

I hope that they do better with the new Z that is coming out next year. I think that they missed the boat on the new styling. It looks like a car that will be marketed to women, and not to guys who want to take it to thhe racetrack.

Brad

[blakscorpion21]

i like the z better.

[Andydg]

Wow...nearly 5 years old.

[BP2K2Max]

^ i didn't even notice that. i was like who the hell is fubaz?

[blakscorpion21]

shit, my bad i didnt notice either, someone voted it back to the top and i assumed it was new.