1997 Mazda RX7 from UK and Ireland - Comments

Nothing so far!

Gorgeous to look at - even better to drive.

RX7s only come with a 1.3L.

Yes, but they have TWO of them. 1.3+1.3=2.6!

When they say you have a 2.0 engine do you say. Well I have 4 pistons. It must be a 8.0 liter. Come on now guys.

They are common sense. No rocket science.

The Third Gen RX7 is a Twin Turbo Rotary not Twin Rotary Twin Turbo, there is only one engine in any stock RX7 out there. A 2.6 litre rotary engine would be so inefficient on fuel that nobody would even want to own one. Not only that but the engine would be so large the front end of the car would need to be extended a full foot or more just to accommodate it.

Do your research before you just assume.

This is what I'm guessing... here in Australia rotary engines are classified as double piston motors therefore a 12a = 2.4 or a 13 = 2.6

You get it?

Who cares about the number of pistons your car has as long as it halls ass. What's a top speed for one of these, all suped up? I topped out at 158 mph. Can I go faster?

C'mon, don't make Aussies sound stupid!

In Australia, as everywhere else, they are simply classed as a Rotary Engine. All this means is that to classify them for any form of motorsport you multiply their cubic capacity by 1.8. All 13b engines (like the one that has been fitted in all Aussie RX-7's since 1984) is a 1300 cc engine as the capacity of each of the two combustion chambers totals approx 630 cc.

Using the multiplication factor of 1.8 against the capacity of a 13b will give you 2340 cc, which is close enough to 2.4 litres.

But that is only for motorsport... they are still a 1300 cc engine.

OK, let me put this to rest. EVERY RX-7 that carries a 13B rotary engine displaces 1.3 liters, or 1308 cc's. The only rotary engine that was 2.6 liters was the 1991 Le Mans winner 787B race car. The 26B, 4 rotor engine in it could never be used in a production car because of gas mileage, size, and extreme performance. There is no such thing as (1.3 + 1.3 = 2.6), that's just stupid. Also, as far as pistons vs. rotors... The reason that Mazda still carries the Rotary is not because they're too proud to drop it, its because they were the only ones to keep faith in it. If it weren't for the 1970's gas crisis, then most cars would probably carry rotaries. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and many other companies were experimenting with Rotaries before the gas crisis hit, then they axed them after the money got tight and found that rotaries were not as gas efficient. You can down on efficiency and gas milage all you want, but once you hear the high pitched buzz and a flash go by you that says "RX-7" on the back, we'll see who's laughing then.

I do agree with you as I have once owned a rx7 the first generation with a 12a engine. Performance of the can is excellence however, maintanance was on the high side with regular change of spark plugs. This I belive is mainly due to the fact that the first generation rx7's were carburetor driven and I believe that the later models with fuel injection have cured this issue. It is always the issue of fuel consumption which I personally feel sorry for the rotary engines, but have we ever compare apple with apple, meaning engines with the same horse power against the amount of fuel consumed.

There is a 20b which came in a cosmo and is a 2.0 rotary.

Rotary engines are so good, they have a high red line produce a lot of power and have the best horsepower per liter. all of mazda's rotors are 654cc (not 630cc)

That's 654 cc per rotor housing, and there are two rotors.

So if you simply add the two together you 1308cc...

Wow looks like a 1.3 liter to me!

Come on guys, stop it already. the 13b is 1.3 liters!

What do you folks say about the Renesis, enough HP without turbocharging. Seems like Mazda solved another reliability problem of its rotary engines.

I am an RX-7 lover I have a dream to own one someday. I was wondering what I should expect to pay for one and what kind of preformance to look for.