Conference terri::cars_uk

Took one of the Turbo II Convertibles out for a spin on Saturday, it's definitely
a very fast motor car, certainly feels on a par to the TVR, but totally devoid
of any character. Extremely comfortable for Jane to drive (at 5'2"), not quite
so for me, but still very good. With the roof down, the heater keeps it very 
warm inside, and the 'wind-blocker' that goes behind the seats helps a bit, but
is not totally effective. With the roof up, it's very noisy, with a lot of road/
tyre noise, I'd like to try it on a long run to see if that really got to me,
but then I suppose I'm used to worse ;-) It really is _very_ easy to drive, and
they say it will stay a reasonably rare car, so shouldn't depreciate too badly
either. Only real problem is the cost to lease/buy, and petrol!! 
When compared to something like the 944 Cabrio, (the car they've got to be 
aiming it at), it looks cheap, but then the 944 won't cost that much to actually
_own_, as it's unlikely to depreciate at all. Servicing might be a bit of a pain
as it needs an oil change every 3000 miles, and service every 6000, which for us
means it needs to go in every month ;-(
The car seemed to be able to cope perfectly well with being thrown about, but
there isn't the side support to the seats that I'd like, so you don't feel as
nicely secure as you do in mine, but then I'd rather be in an accident in the
RX than the TVR, something about the way fibreglass just shatters is kind of 
off-putting ... Oh well, that's my thoughts on it for now, Jane would like
one, but they _are_ expensive cars now, price has just gone up last week to 
(I think) #25600!!

Peter

We went and bought the ex-demonstrator the weekend after test-driving it, one 
more person drove in to the back of the TVR, and that convinced me that it was
jinxed, and I ought to get rid of it.
After 2 weeks and 2000 miles of owning it ... well it's taken me that long to 
find the right seating position, so I don't get back-ache, but Jane has no 
problems with that ... we're doing about 20 mpg, so no different to the Tivver,
the road noise isn't really a problem once you're settled in, and have some 
music playing ... the power of it ... well it certainly pulls extremely quickly, 
and if you accelerate reasonably hard in 4th or 5th, you can find yourself  
doing excessive speeds without really realising it, there is very little wind 
noise for any car let alone a soft-top. 
Seems to handle reasonably predictably, but because when the power hits at 
around 3000 revs, it hits quite hard, the back end can break away a bit at times,
especially now with the roads being fairly wet and greasy. It hasn't go the 
low-down "grunt" of the Tivver, but that's not too surprising, and I miss the
exhaust note of that big V-8, the RX sounds more like a small Alfa, but has been
nicknamed "the hoover", you'd have to hear it startup from cold to really
appreciate that:-) 
One minor irritations is that you lose the rear parcel (briefcase) shelf when
you put the roof down, as it has a glass rear window that goes flat into that
space, and the shelf is not flat anyway, so is of limited use as things tend to
fall off it easily. 
With the roof down, you can happily hold a conversation without resorting to
shouting at any speed we've taken it up to so far (which is quite high:-) and
with the wind-blocker thing in place you don't lose any loose pieces of paper
or anything in the cockpit area either.
So far we're both very impressed with it, and Jane wants to trade her car in for
one too ... Ho hum ...

    Has anyone had experience running a Mazda RX7 (mk II shape) or 
    Nissan 300ZX (fisrt shape) ?

    Having had the fun of running a Fiesta turbo and now lumbered with
    a very reliable, economical but very boring cavalier diesel on the
    car scheme, I was thinking of opting out the scheme and running an
    older sports car thats a bit different from the crowd. 

    The car scheme is loosing its appeal particularly as I do zero business
    miles these days. I'm paying a fortune in tax.

    I'd like comments from anyone running such cars or any suggestions
    for other models like this. 

    I was looking in the price range of �4k - �5k and have seen several
    low milage '88 examples for sale.

    Thanks

    Royston

    
    Am i right in thinking that the RX7 is now a 2 seater, and that the 
    mkII was a 2+2 ?  
    
    I notice that the latest RX7 shape was only 2 years ago according to
    Top Gear.  That sounds to recent.  Is it right ?
    
    
    Nigel
     

    If I'm not mistake, the RX7 is now in its 3rd generation.
    
    First was the (rather ugly) squary one.
    Second was smoother, better, and in various roof options.
    Third (new) one has an extra 2(?) rotors on the engine, more power,
    very sexy looks, very light and has been raved about since its release.
    
    Does this help?

    Have you got more info on the 2nd generation RX7 as this is the
    one that interests me. What engine size is it (i assume it is a rotary
    engine) ? Is it a 2 seater or 2 + 2 ? Is it a 3dr ?
    
    thanks
    
    Royston

    Okay, this is not definite but from what I know/remember from a
    friends:
    
    It was in all effect just a two seater, though I think it is loosely
    defined as a 2+2. It has a rotary engine, this one has twin turbos
    though you might be able to get a non-turboed version if I remember
    rightly. Body options come with soft-top or hard-top with removeable
    roof sections (T-bar). I don't know about a complete hard-top.
    
    The engine's equivalent capacity (what insurance rates it on) is
    something like 2.2 litres, although the actual capacity of a rotory
    engine is minute in comparison to equivalent 4-strokes (actual physical
    size is something like 1.2 lites in the RX-7 !?!).
    
    Rear wheel drive, 5-speed manual, rather nippy (!!), look very nice.
    Petrol consumption relatively high, but not daft. Engine smooth and
    sweet (has a fancy little buzzer when you hit the redline, to remind
    you!), handles well, expensive to service.
    
    No major niggles. My friend was very happy with it. And most of us were
    jealous as .....!
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Dan

re The fuel economy...My Dad had one of these (non-turboed version) for a while.
The fuel consumption floundered around the 19-23 mpg.  Consequently (along with
a distressingly high bill for a new exhaust looming) he sold it!


Bought a 944S instead, the swine.

Mark

    
    I remember when Top gear reviewed the new shape version, the average
    petrol consumption was very low (under 20 mpg I think?), and I don't
    think the older version is much better.
    
    Steve.
    

    Whilst I wouldn't expect any guise of the RX7 to be very economical,
    I place very little faith in the mpg reported by TG or the motoring
    press. This is usually achieved with a very heavy driving style.
    
    For example Autocar did a road test on my old Fiesta RS turbo (weep,
    weep) when it first came out and reported 19mpg under test and 23 mpg
    touring. Hoever, I averaged between 35 and 37 mpg.
    
    Royston

I thought the RX-7 was a 1.4 litre wankel. Very expensive
to maintain. I seem to recall reading something about them 
a while ago. 

Have a look at the car mags in the cupbaord behind Trevor 
Parry's desk. I think he may have something on them - unless
he's thrown them out.


	Ian

    Thnx for the pointer Ian. I had a quick flick thru the mags that were
    there. I found a snippet on the '88 RX7. It mentioned a figure of 
    16 mpg !
    
    There have been a couple of comments that it is expensive to maintain.
    Is this a reference the short service intervals (3000 miles I believe)
    or that these rotary engines are not reliable. 
    I was under the impression that whilst not very fuel efficient the
    engines were quite long lasting.
    
    Royston

    I've owned two RX7's, one of the first version and one of the second. 
    They were both very reliable and seemed to be high in quality.  The
    fuel economy wasn't very good - a reciprocal engine with comparable
    performance would be more efficient.  
    
    There have been, as has been noted, three generations, all basically
    two-seaters, although some of the mod 2's had an optional rear seat
    large enough for a four-year-old.  The mod 2 also offered a
    convertible.  Mod 1 and mod 2 were 1308 cc's and mod 3 is either the
    same or not much more.  Mod 2 offered an optional single stage turbo
    at about 200 hp and mod 3 comes only with a two stage turbo at about
    255 hp.  0 to 60 in about 5 seconds.  They all handle very well.  I
    would not be afraid of maintenance problems with any RX7 that seems to
    have had reasonably good care.  But then, I like 'em.
    
    grins,
    bob

    How about an MX-6 Roy?

    What, one of those under-torqued sports-wannabe's !

    Thanks Greg for the suggestion but I'm looking at a purchase
    cost of <�5000.
    
    The MX6 is still well pricy. It has only been out two years so you'd
    have to look at upwards of 10k. 
    
    Royston

Wouldn't a two seater be a little impractical for you
Royston? How about a Volvo 240 Estate - there's one going
at a garage in Kingsclere for 4k (D reg)

    re Ian, you are confusing the MX6 with the MX5. The '6 is a similar
    size to the calibra.
    
    Royston

Actually, I was referring to an earlier reply which stated that 
the RX-7 was a two seater.

    My apologies. The RX7 I'm interested in is a 2+2 with a fold down rear
    seat. I agree that its not too roomy though.
    
    Royston

    What are opinions out there on the longevity of the engine in the 
    new shape RX-7? This is the 2 rotor twin turbo version. I'm toying with
    the idea of buying a second hand model, approximately 30,000 miles but
    I don't want it to self-destruct at 60,000 miles.
    
    I'm particularly interested in the life of the ceramic tips on the
    corners of the rotors. What happens when the tips wear out? Do you have
    to replace the rotors or just the tips?
    
    By the way, Mazda have a rather bizarre strategy of marketing this
    model. You can buy one new (approx. 34k) but you must put down a 5k
    deposit and then wait 6 months while they "build one to order"!
    (salesman's words not mine). No wonder you don't see many of these
    on the roads.
    
    Thanks,
    Barry.

    I thought the new-shape RX7 was a 3-rotor engine?
    
    (Basically the previous models engine with another rotor bolted on the
    end - the joy of the Wankel design!)
    
    Cheers,
    Dan

    
    I thought the older RX-7 engines were all 3 rotor?!!
    
    (sorry to confuse the issue)
    
    Chris.

    Well, I drove this thing on Sunday.
    
    Lasting impressions were :-
    
        Lovely shape.
        Hardly any boot space.
        Incredible performance (but not from very low in the rev range).
            - you have to be very hard on the brakes (which are good) as
              the rotary engine does not slow you down when you lift your
              foot off the accelerator.
        Very plasticky inside (hard plastics that scratch easily).
        Pedals offset to the right.
        Several rattles from the interior trim that you don't expect from
          an expensive car.
        Power steering! This is variable with your speed and I didn't like
          it. It robbed all feel of the road. It was also susceptible to
          very bad tram-lining. So bad that you daren't take your hands off
          the steering wheel! What causes this? I was most surprised.
        Interior noise - not as quiet as I expected. Lots of road noise.
        Very heavy clutch but nice short gearchange.
    
    Did I like it? Yes, but I was disappointed with the power steering -
    I like to battle with the road surface!
    
    I'm still thinking about buying it - if it didn't have power steering
    I'd have it already.
    
    Cheers,
    Barry.

    
    I'm envious.  I've wanted one of these ever since I saw it on the stand
    at the NEC.
    
    C.

    re.Tramlining
    
    Wide, low-profile rubber doesn't help matters much but straight-line
    stability is usually always traded off against cornering ability. I
    should know... my car's a tramlining wonder on bad road surfaces!
    
    Cheers,
    Dan

    Thanks Dan....I was wondering if there was a problem with the car as
    opposed to a design "attribute".

    No, it's probably a design "attribute" - if the road was particularly
    worn. There's sections on the A34 which are really bad for my car.
    Sometimes I move into the right hand lane simply because it's an easier
    place to drive!
    
    Cheers,
    Dan

RE:        <<< Note 375.52 by FORTY2::HOWELL "Just get to the point ..." >>>
    
�    Sometimes I move into the right hand lane simply because it's an easier
�    place to drive!
    
    Oh yeah... That old excuse. 8^)
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    Hahahaha!
    
    ;-)