gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Why is a 1995 RX7 $6,500 less in value than a 1995 Supra according to KBB...and ebay?

b_drift

iTrader: (12)

i can't teach, but i would guess.

the associated problems with the rotary turned off many potential buyers for the rx7 in general(like myself) vs the supposed bullet proof motor of the supra that affects the demand for cars that in turn affects the values.

i think the rx7 is way nicer looking and would prefer one to a supra, but only if it had a normal engine. am i scared of what i don't know/understand? hell yeah, and so is mazda here as they rather replace a motor than work on it. (info from a friend that used to be a mech there) i guess the die hard rx7 enthusiasts who are rotary for life are "lucky" that the cars are cheaper due to less demand.

b

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

I'm thinking that it may be worth some research.

It can't be all that different? I think I understand generally how a rotary works. I'd imagine that due to the design that the proper CR would be vastly different as well as maybe AFRs.

gdogg

iTrader: (38)

i remember back in a day- mazda was hoping that this would boost them to the top of the performance arena(beating toyota, nissan...and maybe chevrolet)- but if i remember correctly the sales were not like they had hoped- as a matter of fact they were very dissapointing- (i remember freshly as my 1st car sales job was in '95)

now as far as the supra goes i remember seeing an ad stating the quarter mile at something like 13.4(or8)- that was waaay back then.

i think brand new the supra turbo was like 35 g's while the RX-7 was like 30 g's.
along with some 8-10k recalls that could be one reason why the RX-7 seems lower (along with what barry stated) <---that and probably that there is not a wealth of mechanics who enjoy working on a rotary.




aloha from the summit of *-^-Mauna Kea-^-*

keirnna

iTrader: (8)

The thing is that the rotary engine is awesome for racing. Can you imagine what a 2 litre rotary would put out if they made a WRC car. That is as long as it isn't some poopy renesis engine. The RX-7 is a great car, and if I can fit into an FC I would like to get one. I've driven one, and there is no way I could comfortably drive it. Maybe an FD! I think it is amazing they are pully so much HP out of such a small displacement engine. I for one subscribe to the school of thought that different at least has the potential to be better.

The reason they are cheaper is because they have problems and very few people know how to fix them. Jorge is eventually going to get an RX-7.

IS2Scooby

iTrader: (3)

Comparing a rotary engine with a reciprocating assembly engine is like comparing a jet airplane to a helicopter. They do the same thing essentially, but in a mostly different way and one with a lot more historical reliability.

I fly on United, but I don't take helicopter tours.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

b_drift

iTrader: (12)

nice.

b

keirnna

iTrader: (8)

I yeild to Richard and Barry, they know more than me on this. I still like rx-7's and rotary engines in general.

scsi

iTrader: (5)

would you guys consider the 300ZX twin turbo to be of the same class as the RX-7 and Supra?

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Personally, I wouldn't. I'm not on the level as the guru's above (hence asking the question) but I believe that the weight of the ZX puts it out of their class.

I know nothing about it's engine, neither; I don't even know the engine code, but it does beg the question in my mind. I remember more or less when the 300ZX came out. It was about the time of the most kickass Skylines, right? (early to mid/late 90's) Why, once again, did Nissan keep the best Nissan's out of America and marketed the 300zx instead?

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

I thought you HATED the RX7.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

I follow your analogy, I think. You're using it to point out that the Supra motor is more advanced (jet airplane) than the rotary (helicopter).

My question still sort of remains, though. A price difference of $6500 either points to true value (ie. it's a no-brainer that a brand new Tiburon has a lower true value than a brand new STi), high supply or low demand.

All things the same, lets just say that supply and demand are the same for both cars. That would mean that there are obviously the same amount of them in the US and that the market for each car felt the same about them (sexiness, reliability, capability to withstand high horsepower...) That would mean that the RX7 has a true value that's $6500 lower than the Supra. If that's true, I'd like to know what the major differences are.

All things the same again, let's say that they have the same true value and that there is the same amount of supply for them. That would mean that the buying public's opinion of the RX7 is $6500 lower than that for the Supra.

Lower opinion (lower demand) I know can be hard to quantify or even put a finger on, but I believe that the sexiness quotient for both cars is very high. I can understand reliability, but I'm curious what constitutes the Mazda being labeled as such. Are they less resistant to detonation, high boost, or high horsepower? Are they poorly engineered? Do they have a plastic, 2nd-rate interior or exterior that deteriorates quickly?

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Last post in this series.

I'll get off my fat *** and do some research.

Mach5WRX

iTrader: (9)

This sounds like a job for....

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

That got a hearty LOL!

That rocks.