1979, low miles, a little crusty.
1979, higher miles, needs interior.
1982, higher miles. body kit
Or, do you punt and buy THIS because you've always wanted a 13BT swapped FC convertible?
Slippery said:hobiercr said:Ack, title was supposed to say FA.
I think those are FBs ...
Except the first two which are SAs...
I would also choose the second one.
Technically, the 79 is an SA and not an FB.
I'm not a fan of 1st generation as much as 2nd gens for some reason.
Either way, parts are getting harder to find. I would NOT get a rusty one under any circumstance
The interior of the 2nd one is just a couple of seats and flocked dash away from being pretty good. That would be my pic out of those.
My FB's 12A made it to 278,000 miles before popping as a 24 Hours of Lemons race car. I would go #2 all day every day.
In reply to hobiercr :
IMO the 79 and 80 models are the best looking of the 1st gens. With that said, the last couple of years of the FB (84 and 85) had larger hubs and axles and probably feel a bit more substantial than the early cars if that means anything to you. I've had my '84 since 2006. Also the SA was a 4 speed manual, FB is 5 speed with overdrive. My choice of the cars you listed would be the orange '79, mostly for aesthetic purposes. I have an FC convertible too, it's approximately 700 lbs heavier than my FB, but it doesn't feel overly heavy or large while driving windy roads. It does feel substantially more "put together" than the FB and is more solid/comfortable. It's a lot of fun to drive especially with the top down, but it's hard to beat a 1st gen RX-7 for driving enjoyment. Honestly, it's just hard to go wrong with an RX-7 unless you're buying someone's ill-informed project car.
You'll need to log in to post.