Re: '94 Q45 / '89 200q comparison...

[Chris Maresca <ckm@eainet.com>]

At 10:39 AM -0700 3/18/98, Harry R Glesner III wrote:
>Chris:
>   The 3rd gen Rx-7 is a wonderful car...when it runs.
>Take a little time out and lurk on the rx-7 list, oh boy
>is that an under engineered car. A good freind of mine in
>a adjuster for GE warrenty underwriters and he can tell
>you some really hair rasing stories about turbo charger
>failure, apex seal failure. Now it seams that the body
>are flexing and streching so badly that the door handles
>are not working right. Great idea poorly executed. I've
>at this very moment have a '83 Rx-7 Limited Edition that
>I'm turning into a spec racer for SCCA and a '82 911 SC.
>I'll take Porsches engineering enviroment over Japans any
>day. The only thing the Rx has over the 911 is to race it
>its cheap cheap cheap, and I will not cry when some ITC
>Honda decides to Schmacher me.

Totally agree.  I subscribe to two RX7 lists, can you say new engine at
130k-180k miles??? That's why in the end, I did not even consider buying
one.

Performance, etc. are great, but these cars, like most cars aside from
Audi's, BMW's, Mercedes & Volvo, do not last.  It's also why I'm selling
mine.  No apex seal problems, but I don't want to findout in +/- 30k
miles...

Chris.


'90 CQ (looking for a dark '91 w/low miles)
'87 RX7 Tii (for sale soon)