Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Are just as reliable as a piston engine when stock or modded correctly. They are an old car so if restored/rebuilt or looked after should be fine.

I wouldnt want one as a daily, too good. Maybe a rx7 series 3

Edited by pos513
basically i would really like a mazda rx 2 3 or 4.

how reliable would they be as a daily driver?

Same as any other car.

So long as it has been serviced regularly and doesn't have an obscene amount of ks it should be fine.

Have you considered how much fuel a little 1.3ltr rotary guzzles? They're not the cheapest daily.

Quick fun little machines, But have you had a look at the sort of money people are asking for them these days ?? If getting a rotary is a must then I would be going for an earlier RX7 . even the series 6 are not that expensive anymore. As for fuel economy an old friend I had used to own one. We are talking V8 like fuel consumption here.... Are you sure you want a Rotor as a daily ? They really are more of a weekend fun machine

Have owned a couple of RX-7's. They are thirsty (but frankly I couldn't care after owning several stroked V8's) plus all the other things that people generally associate with rotarys i.e. smooth, revvy etc.

I will say this though: a good, well maintained rotary is reliable. Poorly maintained or owned by someone who is not an enthusiast will result in a short engine life, more so than a piston powered car. For instance treat a rotary like a VN and boy oh boy is it not going to last long.

However that said between all of the rebuilds I have done rebuilding a rotary was the cheapest (compared to just about all the piston engines I have had aanyway) and for that rebuild I paid someone to do it (not having dealt with rotaries before).

I love them its just a love hate relationship and sometimes the hate wins out.

my old s4 rx7 averaged about 22o-250k to a 60lt tank not the most frugal thing as a dailey driver.

woah, hahah that thirsty. still be worth it, i won't it to be reliable as a daily driver but not primarily as one.

any of the rx series are shit hot

9yrs ago i used to own a ser2 rx7 running a ser4 13bt. Bought it for $5500, sold for $4500. wasnt a bunky by any means. Price 2day for them has skyrocketed as there getting harder to come by. wish i had kept it.

Awesome lightweight and addictive to drive machine. with 209rwhp (stock turbo @ 12psi, 3" TBE, old school wolf 2d) i ran a best of 13.9 @ 173km/hr (note traction was a problem but good top end). Reliable if properly setup and VERY easy to work on. Definetly weekend only car IMHO. rebuilds are cheap/easy as pointed out above. My advice would be a later model car for a daily as pointed out above.

check out www.perthrotary.com

The cars themselves are fine, reality is there a typical old capella or 808. Ususal old car stuff to worry about like rust and wear and tear, wouldnt be a problem on a good one if you spent the coin on it.. Theft and parts availability is the real drama, have a look what front and rear rx-3 parts sell for on ebay.

I drove my mates b1600 around for 6 months, made 400+hp at the tyres with a later model 13b, dowelled big throttle body, microtech and a tv51 truck turbo, the thing turned tyres in top gear as it came on boost and kept turning them past 200kph, it had a 80 Litre tank and used to average around 450km's to tank, that said we rebuilt it 3 times in a 2 year period and it probably got such great economy cause it was just to fast on the street...

Edited by NA_R33

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...