RX-7 'vert vs V6 Mustang 'vert?

As happens to alot of us, I've seen a few cars locally that have had me thinking of summer, and top down driving...even tho it's still very cold outside (maybe I'm trying to push Mother Nature for an early spring?). One car that keeps appearing on Craigs every now and then has just popped up again: a '91 RX-7 convertible. As a possible alternative, there are several dealers with V6 Mustang convertibles at mid-winter clearance prices. The RX has under 100K miles and is selling for about $2600 while the least expensive Mustang I've found is a 2000 with about 77K.

Both are automatics (how reliable are the autos in each?) and I imagine in around town, or even hiway driving would/should? get comparable fuel mileage? I'm leaning towards the newer car (Mustang), but I've always thought the "targa-topped" RX convertible to be good looking, too.

Thoughts? Recommendations?

I say RX7, but that's mostly due to my opinion of V6 convertible stangs. My buddy used to have a 2000ish V6 vert and I have to say, besides top down driving, that car was useless in my eyes. It was a terrible sports car, pretty much failed in all categories - slow, flexible, and handling was a joke. It was inefficient and for all the sucked-ness you'd hope it could at least be comfortable, but nope. Just my 2cent though. Maybe there are nice ones out there?

Oh yeah, and what did he get for having such an awesome car? He got carjacked with a sawed-off shotgun in his own apartment complex. I'm just glad he didn't get shot.

STAY AWAY FROM AUTO RX-7....they are pointless

The auto in the mustang will be dead nuts reliable, but deadly boring.

I guess I should have pointed out that because I was considering auto trannys in both cases (manuals are very hard to find, used, anymore) that REALLY sporty driving wasn't the #1 priority.

I've also found 2 low mileage Camaro 'verts locally, for about the same price as the Mustang (a '95 triple black and a '97 purple), again, both auto. I would imagine the '95 Camaro is a 3.4 Chevy (boo...) and the '97 is a 3.8 Buick....somewhat better. I had put them at the bottom of my mental list, for the moment, because of the Chevy's being more theft-prone. I guess of the 4, the '97 Camaro would be the best deal?

I average 21mpg highway with my manual FC RX-7, and I can only image it would be about the same or worse with the heavier autotragic convertible. The auto tranny itself seems reliable enough, but it saps a lot of the rotary's power. You'll want to do a manual swap, trust me.

The SN95 Mustang's chassis is even more al dente than the tin-top's. I've never driven a RX-7 'vert but I know the 89-91 (S5) chassis is stiffer than the 86-88 (S4) chassis and that Mazda at least installed a beefier subframe to compensate. Both cars are within .2 seconds of each other in 0-60 and quarter mile times. The Mazda will handle far better than the Mustang. The RX-7 will be much more maintenance-heavy than the 'Stang. Fun fact- The second-gen RX-7 convertible was the first convertible to be equipped with wind blockers.

Verdict: RX-7 with a manual swap, if not a turbo rotary or V-8 swap. Neither of these cars stock is a winner.

The FC convertible is rather heavy compared to the coupe so I'd want more poke than the N/A engine you got in the US (disclaimer: I used own an FC Turbo II convertible). It's a nice car but more of a long distance cruiser than a sports car.

So yes, if you want one, stick a manual in and bolt a turbo to the engine.

If I were looking for a comfy cruiser, I'd do the Mustang. If I wanted something more sporty, I'd do the RX, but not with an auto. The auto will sap the life force from the rotary.

If you're going to mess with swaps, you could swap an LS_ or 5.0 Ford (my preference) into the RX. Even with an automatic (a different one, I suspect), that would be the bee's knees.

Full Disclosure: Despite being a rotard, I've always had a strange attraction to 5.0 RX-V8s.

In reply to RexSeven:

After hearing this, I am confident that my car would beat my street racing co-workers 88(S4) RX7 auto vert once comes out in the spring

integraguy said: because of the Chevy's being more theft-prone.

I don't think that this has ever crossed my mind when purchasing a car.

then again, looking at the cars I purchase, nobody would want to steal them.

My mom used to have a 94 v6 auto mustang convert and I drove it a fair bit (even took my drivers license test in it)

Headgasket failure is what killed ours, the 3.8 dosent like to hold its headgaskets. it failed at 89k.

Mustangs can handle, but it costs more then you probably want to throw at a V6. (at minimum, SFC's, springs, shocks, CCplates, and perhaps swaybars)

It was a fun car to drive in that it was a convertible and it wasn't too involving. I was all of 16-17 when I was driving it, but it was loads of fun, it was a convertible, it was predictable (in normal 16-17 street hoonage sense)... I have a fond memory of driving along a curvy road (104 south of C-bus Ohio for those familiar) being chased by thunder and lightening with the top down and no rain, radio blaring.

For a daily driver convertible type of car you dont have to worry about too much its a good option. For a sports car, its a poor option. (cant really justify a pony car without the V8)

In reply to neon4891:

From http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-quarter-mile-times.htm : Car, 0-60 time, 1/4 mile time -1988 Mazda RX-7 Conv. 9.7 17.5
-1991 Mazda RX-7 Conv. 8.8 16.7
-1999 Ford Mustang Convertible V6 8.6 16.5
-1998 Dodge Neon R/T 7.5 15.9

Unless he did something with his 'vert, it looks like you've got him beat on paper!

Cake dude. The Escort eats those things for snacks.

the 3.8 Camaro would be the best bang-for-the-buck. Yes, the RX-7 is the best handler, but the Camaro isn't bad and can be very cheaply upgraded with Z28 parts if you want. 40hp more than the Mustang and an engine that will never die unless you murder it on purpose. (run it with no oil or coolant). close to 30mpg hi-way and cheap maint parts to boot.

I can't even imagine the misery that it would be to drive a rotary saddled with an automatic.

Of the two original choices, I'd go Mustang every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.

Add the Camaro in, and it's a more interesting question. Really depends on what year V6 Mustang. Early SN95s ('94-'98) are gonna be GUTLESS, 160hp at the crank new; later SN95s (New Edges, '99-'04) are better, 195 at the crank. A windstar intake manifold supposedly does a world of good.

I dunno. I'd probably take the Camaro, but that's because I already own a few 'vert Mustangs.

I raced an automatic FC hardtop in my dodge dynasty and beat it.. dodge dynasty was stock, this was ~'05? Did i mention i beat it BADLY? Because Auto Rotary= AutoFAIL.

I think the rx7 is the best platform by far, but when its stock all it will be good for is leisurely cruising until you start changing major parts like the tranny swap and modding the motor and/or going turbo.

I would avoid the 3.8 mustang at all costs.. Did i mention i have beat NUMEROUS early 3.8 mustangs in a stock dodge dynasty? I beat them BADLY. Even the later 00-04 v6 that everyone says runs 15s and has 200 hp has been beaten by my STOCK DODGE DYNASTY from 0-118 (my speed limiter). I mean, you have to hate yourself to WANT to get beaten in your sporty car by a stock dodge dynasty, and if you buy those cars you are asking for it. 'Sporty' car pwnt by this = LOL at you!

So anyway if you wont be doing major swaps and upgrades the camaro is the way to go because it will be FAR quicker than either alternative stock v. stock, and also get the best gas mileage.

In reply to Vigo:

I think I love you, In a car guy way

integraguy wrote: As happens to alot of us, I've seen a few cars locally that have had me thinking of summer, and top down driving...even tho it's still very cold outside (maybe I'm trying to push Mother Nature for an early spring?). One car that keeps appearing on Craigs every now and then has just popped up again: a '91 RX-7 convertible. As a possible alternative, there are several dealers with V6 Mustang convertibles at mid-winter clearance prices. The RX has under 100K miles and is selling for about $2600 while the least expensive Mustang I've found is a 2000 with about 77K. Both are automatics (how reliable are the autos in each?) and I imagine in around town, or even hiway driving would/should? get comparable fuel mileage? I'm leaning towards the newer car (Mustang), but I've always thought the "targa-topped" RX convertible to be good looking, too. Thoughts? Recommendations?

You're essentially asking "Do I want a slow, heavy, unreliable car; or do I want a slow, heavy, boring car?"

You tell me.

The auto rotarys are slow. Slow slow slow. But so is a auto V6 Mustang.

The NA rotary should be pretty reliable. I have personally had three that have gone over 200k (and a modded one that had an unknown nut or something go through it at 10k).

My only experience with a V6 stang was my brothers ex GF that ate a head gasket with less than 30k then again around 80k.

I kind want a T2 vert though but have little love for a V6 stang.

I'm trying to think of two cars I would want to own less than a V6 auto mustang vert and a auto vert Rx7.

I'll edit my post if I come up with something...

I'd rather walk then be forced to drive an automatic-equipped rotary OR a V6 Vert Stang. Seriously, a Sebring will peppier than either of those.

Go for an M5 FC 'Vert (there's a zillion of them up here for under $3K) or a V8 GM F-Body 'Vert (think 93-97 CamaroBird's with LT1's). The 3800 V6 CamaroBird's are actually pretty damn stout as well. There's a guy in my local club with one that has a few bolt-ons and is in the mid-14's. Sounds good too.

Drive them both, if you can.

There's SO much personal taste in a car like this- you need to know the car is for YOU, not for all of us.

May even find neither is.

Eric

A V6 auto 'vert Mustang? Auto NA 'vert RX7? Thats like ordering a iceberg lettuce salad. "No, bacon bits or taste ranch dressing for me; just the iceberg." You'll never see me order a iceberg lettuce salad. Hell my last 4 door car had two turbos and a manual 6 speed....To each their own.

Yep, the autotragics are just plain boring to drive with either. But if you insist:

All the Fox Mustang 'vert's I ever drove flexed like they were made of chewing gum. Has disc front/drum rear brakes. Adequate but that's about it. The 3.8's were definitely hell on head gaskets. It got better in later years but still was a problem. There is some aftermarket for them and a pretty easy swap is the T Bird SuperCoupe SC V6 or even the truck 4.2. There is a good bit of aftermarket suspension stuff for the Fox chassis and some cheapo handling tricks too. It seats 4, which may or may not be important.

The FC starts out with much more sophisticated brakes and suspension, there are many upgrades available as well. The chassis is much more rigid than the Mustang. It seats two only; as noted this may or may not be important. The NA 13B is, as noted, very reliable if taken care of and decent power boosts are easy with bolt ons. If you want more snort than the bolt ons add, suddenly it gets very expensive.

So you drives them both and decides from there. If you are thinking eventually autocross, HPDEs etc I'd go for the FC mainly due to its more rigid chassis, better brakes and suspension.

Either one will steal your soul.

Just say no.