93 Rx7 twin turbo 5 spd vs Stock 2002 GT 5 spd??

[Mr 5 0]

Unit

In my experience, magazine performance tests are notorious for being inaccurate by either having factory-tweaked ringers that run better-than-normal et's or the drivers are guys who like cornering better than straight-line racing and don't get the maximum from the cars the they run down the 1320.

Most early (87 - 90) Mustang 5.0's were showing high 14's in the mags ("You can look it up") while I saw many doing very low 14's - bone stock - at the track (which is why I eventually bought one).

I've seen 13.5's from a bone-stock '94 RX-7 at Englishtown (friend of a friend) so I know it's not that big a deal but of course at 120,000 miles that may not be feasible anymore; I don't pretend to be any kind of authority on these cars.

Anyway, it's hardly worth debating because czstang isn't going to run the RX-7 any time soon and aside from the high miles, the Mazda driver isn't very good so the whole discussion becomes moot at this point.

I just wanted to point out that my et estimation of the RX-7 came from first-hand observation, not a magazine article or from my imagination.