get an RX-7 or a 3000 GT

[rated-R]

hey guys i got a question........whitch would be beter to get, performance, and looks wise.......a RX-7 twin turbo, or a 3000 GT twin turbo, im lookin for a car w/ alot a power, but want to fix it up, quickly, thanx for the help--------rated-R

[arthur1704]

hey-

i would go for a 92-94 rx-7 , but stock you may need to change a few parts bcause it has problems overheating.

[dayna240sx]

dont get the 3000gt unless you live in alaska. They are overbloated pigs.

[Steel]

Originally posted by dayna240sx
dont get the 3000gt unless you live in alaska. They are overbloated pigs.

make sure yogs doesnt see that

But i agree. And their trannies break more than the 7's engine does!

plus the 7 is sexier and faster.

[dayna240sx]

Originally posted by Steel


make sure yogs doesnt see that

yeah but he lives in the upper part of michigan which is almost worse than alaska. I lived in Michigan for 11 years so I know how shitty the winters are.

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by Steel


make sure yogs doesnt see that

But i agree. And their trannies break more than the 7's engine does!

plus the 7 is sexier and faster.

Fat chance man! they may have a tranny problem now and then, but their trannies are nothing compared to what u gatta deal with in the 7's dude! as far as modding up for speed, with just a few well placed hundred dollars u can have a 450-500+hp VR-4!! that'll take pleasure in using her force to kill other cars, on a daily basis. now if ur just wanting a weekend ride, that u can have all fixed up (assuming u got plenty of $$ that is, and it'll prolly see plenty of shop time) then the RX-7 is perfect! she was meant to be the "weekend/ impress chicks" car! now on the same token the VR-4 will do that well too, its mainly just preference, as is the "sexier" thing. now i think that the RX-7's look badass! but at the same time i think the VR-4 does too! personaly i prefer the looks on the 3/S a lil better... but thats just me, so the whole "sexier" thing.... beauty is in the eye of the beholder! so thats subjective... but i do know that stock for stock the VR-4 will outperform a 7. so... but it realy all depends on what u have the cash to support ,and what u would personaly prefer!!

[dayna240sx]

Originally posted by Trogdor


...but i do know that stock for stock the VR-4 will outperform a 7....

in what aspect?
be careful or prepare to be

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by dayna240sx


in what aspect?
be careful or prepare to be

what aspect? name one... its got a faster 1/4 time, and it has AWD/AWS, so handling is taken care of... dont get me wrong, im not just sitting in a rx-7 forum to talk trash, but... as much as i like the rx-7, im just bein honest, and the VR-4 stock on stock outperforms it... but hell... thats half the fun of moding up right! take something that someone would be expecting to beat and show something they werent expecting ! haha... speaking of which, anyone got any beef on those TT audi's???

[dayna240sx]

There is alot more to handling than AWD & AWS.. like Weight, and braking ability. By the way, all 86+ RX-7's have AWS

Did some quick research on the net..

Both from 1993 model years:
RX-7 0-60 (5.1) 1/4 mile (13.9) Skid-pad (.91-1.02.. depending on model).. but since the VR4 is the top 3KGT model, i guess the 1.02 would be the number for comparison)

3KGT VR4 0-60 (5.3) 1/4 mile (14.00... .01 slower) Skidpad. .90


Both from 1997 model years:
RX-7 0-60 (4.8) 1/4 mile 13.5 Skid pad .99
VR4 0-60 (4.8..same) 1/4 mile 13.6 (still slower) skid pad .90

So, can you come up with any other spec you would like to see numbers proving RX-7 superiourity.

I am not being offensive, just setting the facts straight, numbers don't lie.

[Steel]

Originally posted by dayna240sx
There is alot more to handling than AWD & AWS.. like Weight, and braking ability. By the way, all 86+ RX-7's have AWS

Did some quick research on the net..

Both from 1993 model years:
RX-7 0-60 (5.1) 1/4 mile (13.9) Skid-pad (.91-1.02.. depending on model).. but since the VR4 is the top 3KGT model, i guess the 1.02 would be the number for comparison)

3KGT VR4 0-60 (5.3) 1/4 mile (14.00... .01 slower) Skidpad. .90


Both from 1997 model years:
RX-7 0-60 (4.8) 1/4 mile 13.5 Skid pad .99
VR4 0-60 (4.8..same) 1/4 mile 13.6 (still slower) skid pad .90

So, can you come up with any other spec you would like to see numbers proving RX-7 superiourity.

I am not being offensive, just setting the facts straight, numbers don't lie.

[Barwick]

Originally posted by Trogdor


what aspect? name one... its got a faster 1/4 time, and it has AWD/AWS, so handling is taken care of... dont get me wrong, im not just sitting in a rx-7 forum to talk trash, but... as much as i like the rx-7, im just bein honest, and the VR-4 stock on stock outperforms it... but hell... thats half the fun of moding up right! take something that someone would be expecting to beat and show something they werent expecting ! haha... speaking of which, anyone got any beef on those TT audi's???

The VR-4 will not outperform an FD stock vs stock. What crack have you been smoking?

The FD runs mid-low 13's stock. Heck, my TurboII beats up on VR-4's on the highway all the time, and I only put 193 to the rear wheels and run 13.75 @ 104.8. The FD is one THOUSAND pounds lighter than the VR-4, how is the VR-4 going to outhandle the FD again?

Sorry man, but stock vs stock, the FD is WAY faster.

[Trogdor]

man no offence, but i have no idea where u got ur facts, but their COMPLETELY diff. on the VR-4's part than mine... and mine are actual road tests.... they have the VR-4 (granted with nitto radial tires) running a 13.3 in the 1/4!!! ur 0-60 times are the same as mine, but ur 1/4s are totaly diff. dude... but u know what... there will ALWAYS be stat controversies... and so the only sure way to find out, is on the race! so to each his own, and personlay i'd take the VR-4, because the stats i have show it quicker, and more importantly, personaly i just like it a lil better... and thats all there is to cars! personal preference... thats why people mod up their cars in the first place... they like their car, they just want it to outperform others.... soo... there u have it PEACE!!

[cableguykj]

Originally posted by dayna240sx
There is alot more to handling than AWD & AWS.. like Weight, and braking ability. By the way, all 86+ RX-7's have AWS

Did some quick research on the net..

Both from 1993 model years:
RX-7 0-60 (5.1) 1/4 mile (13.9) Skid-pad (.91-1.02.. depending on model).. but since the VR4 is the top 3KGT model, i guess the 1.02 would be the number for comparison)

3KGT VR4 0-60 (5.3) 1/4 mile (14.00... .01 slower) Skidpad. .90


Both from 1997 model years:
RX-7 0-60 (4.8) 1/4 mile 13.5 Skid pad .99
VR4 0-60 (4.8..same) 1/4 mile 13.6 (still slower) skid pad .90

So, can you come up with any other spec you would like to see numbers proving RX-7 superiourity.

I am not being offensive, just setting the facts straight, numbers don't lie.

FIrst off numbers really mean nothing...... $ for HP RX-7 has the car beat. Just look up the basic mods on any rx7 or 3kgt enthusist site. the 3k GT is going to be a little more to mod especially the exhaust. As far as weight and handling, ive driven both cars moderatley modded and the RX-7 felt allot tighter. The 3kgts have the tranny welded on the bottom of the car and allot of work requires this to be unwelded and rewelded on there both pricey cars to maintain and are both awsome so whatever you choose you have good taste in cars my friend

[Trogdor]

[cornykorn21]

Doesn't the Rotary engine need to be replaced every 100000+ miles or something like that. Hopefully I'm wrong, and if so I'm going to go shoot myself for getting my 98 240SX instead of the RX-7 I found. Hence if you are looking to not get a new engine every 100000 miles I'd say go with the 3000GT. If you think the 3000GT is to heavy... take some shit out like the back seats. Who needs back seats in a sports car?