Purple_sky

Yes I have, a very modded one at that. Yes, it handled great, but didn't feel any tighter or better than my S. Maybe it did handle better than my S but it wasn't that big of a difference to have noticed. Now, have YOU ever driven a single-turbo RX7 (and owned by a girl)?

wantnone

I have both at the moment and let me tell you, My RX-7 pulled a noticeable margin harder than the s2000. Handling, the RX-7 was also Superior. My RX7 was stock as well. Like said above...The S feels like you are a part of the car but with the Rx7...you become it. Theres so much feedback. I absolutely adore that car for that particular reason. The s2000 is fun but the feeling is different.

pierceman

ttt

ttb

maybe somebody from japan/australia can chime in on a 2002 RX-7 vs a 2002 S2000

that said, the steering on my 2003 S2000 is 100% more responsive than my 94 FD.

The RX-7 is a classic. When it debut...bye bye Corvette, bye bye NSX, bye bye Porsche...The best sports car of its era. period.

it had everything

* Power
* Handling
* Looks
* Rotary Powered
* No Cup Holders
* Pop-up Lights

I do have to say the S2000 feels a little more tossable though, although both weigh about the same.

I do like the NA better than the turbo though. But the FD was also the first mass produced car with sequential turbo system, so the lag isnt as noticeable.

Warren J. Dew

No.

Based on reviews, I don't think a single turbo would give the same experience, though, because the single turbos, while they got more power, had noticeable turbo lag. The point of having sequential twin turbos in the stock car was to remove that lag, so that the power response felt like a normally aspirated car. I think that was part of the experience.

Purple_sky

Eh, but the single turbo wouldn't change the way the car handles, and I've already stated the handling experience based on driving a single-turbo RX7. It handled magnificently, but I still liked the tightness of my S more.

rcarson

Okay, I have driven both a 93 R1 yellow mica and now a silver 2002 S2k all I can say is the S2K is a hell of a lot of fun, but I would take the Rexy over it any day if, and this is a big if the Rexy could run for 100K without issues. I drive ahighly modded R1 but still the amount of work and time I put into that car is crasy. It really is a love hate relationship, but as a sports car a runnig RX7 R1 compared to a running S2K give me the RX7. MOre looks, a feeling of one with the road, and more power than you can handle and I raced the damn thing. Love em both, but an S2K everyday and a Rexy for teh race suits me just fine.

skittzomaniac

i asked cuz i almost bought one instead of the S2K. never raced them, but the RX-7 seemed substanially faster to me. and the sequential turbos had nearly N/A-like response. 4 piston calipers up front and 2 pistons in the back... closest thing to a race car on the street for us mortals.

they do have that tendancy to blow up tho.

lyndon_h

I loved the RX-7, but the talk of reliability woes ran me away.

djbrkb

hey guys,

thought i'd chime in.

i like this topic because i had a '95 rx7 which i had bought new and sold about 5 years ago when we were expecting our first daughter. (typical sob story, right??). i bought my s last year to fill the nearly four year void i had in my life (no sports car).

getting to the point. as much as i love my s - the rx7 was a much better sports car on all fronts! - i really miss it to this day!. when i was searching for a new sports car i, 1) couldn't find a nice, unmolested rx7 and 2) i really wanted a conv this time around.

yeah, i heard about the reliability issues with the rx7 but i never had one problem in the 5yrs / 50k miles i put on it. i think maybe that car didn't take well to all the aftermarket go-fast stuff (which i thought the car didn't need anyway) and i'd bet those guys that modded had more trouble than stockers.

i do love my s, it really is a great car - but am already looking down the road in two years at an m3 conv or 911 conv.