<![CDATA[Ls1 Rx-7! Nice!]]>Heres a link to an LS1 RX7. Someone buy it up.
http://my.prostreetonline.com/t2829.htm

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/10556/ls1-rx-7-niceRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 09:04:28 GMTFri, 11 May 2007 14:48:03 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Sat, 12 May 2007 01:28:34 GMT]]>i got this from another site...

Effects On Weight, Balance, and Handling...
...This is where you probably expected there to be a downside. People have probably told you that your handling and perfect weight distribution will be ruined with the addition of that big, heavy, american V-8. Just ask yourself if any of those so-called experts you have been talking to have any actual experience with piston-powered RX-7s. We’ve got the numbers to prove all those bystanders and spectators are just that....bystanders and spectators.
Here are some real numbers from a typical 2nd gen RX-7 converted to Chevy power:
The example car is an ‘86, which was not lightened in any way. The car was converted using a ZZ-4 crate engine & T-5 transmission. It has a full stock interior, as well as the stock air conditioning and power steering. The stock RX-7 cooling system was re-located but retained, as was the stock RX-7’s engine oil cooler. The battery was relocated to rear area just in front of the tail lites. With a full tank of fuel, the balance is close to 50/50, 1535 lbs front / 1545 lbs rear, for a total of 3080 lbs (including the 200lb driver). Subtract the weight of the 200lb driver, and the total weight is 2880, 235lbs heavier than the RX-7's 2645 stock weight, and amazingly slightly less than the later Turbo II's stock weight of 3003lbs.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158843https://fargostreet.com/post/158843Sat, 12 May 2007 01:28:34 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Sat, 12 May 2007 01:18:36 GMT]]>

Jim;169078 wrote:
LS1 Reliability vs. Rotary reliability

/end
damn it... you beat me to it....

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158842https://fargostreet.com/post/158842Sat, 12 May 2007 01:18:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 20:27:04 GMT]]>LS1 Reliability vs. Rotary reliability

/end

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158823https://fargostreet.com/post/158823Fri, 11 May 2007 20:27:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 20:20:21 GMT]]>I would want it!!! Damn bubba quit pissing people off WTF!!! jk! LoL

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158820https://fargostreet.com/post/158820Fri, 11 May 2007 20:20:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 17:18:53 GMT]]>No, I never meant it in that way, the only comment on your post was u asked who wouldnt, and I just said I wouldnt. The rest of it was just my opinion and why i think that way, and didnt mean to offend you or anyone.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158803https://fargostreet.com/post/158803Fri, 11 May 2007 17:18:53 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 17:04:03 GMT]]>

bubba;169042 wrote:
I never would. If you want a rotary buy an RX-7, if you want an LS1 buy a camaro. The whole point to any of the RX series cars is they are the only mass produced car with rotary engines, it's what makes them unique from other cars.

do you think i am a n00b? The whole point of a honda is gas mileage not power........whats your point?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158799https://fargostreet.com/post/158799Fri, 11 May 2007 17:04:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 16:45:38 GMT]]>ya rotarys are pretty nice

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158789https://fargostreet.com/post/158789Fri, 11 May 2007 16:45:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 16:44:27 GMT]]>

SmitEvo;169034 wrote:
Who wouldnt do it....

I never would. If you want a rotary buy an RX-7, if you want an LS1 buy a camaro. The whole point to any of the RX series cars is they are the only mass produced car with rotary engines, it's what makes them unique from other cars.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158788https://fargostreet.com/post/158788Fri, 11 May 2007 16:44:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 16:25:23 GMT]]>

weshole;169032 wrote:
And it is as light if not lighter than the rotary.

Me likey.

not sure in the FC, but in the FD application they are.

only way I'd ever own a RX-7

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158785https://fargostreet.com/post/158785Fri, 11 May 2007 16:25:23 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 15:53:59 GMT]]>Who wouldnt do it....

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158780https://fargostreet.com/post/158780Fri, 11 May 2007 15:53:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 15:33:38 GMT]]>And it is as light if not lighter than the rotary.

Me likey.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158778https://fargostreet.com/post/158778Fri, 11 May 2007 15:33:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 15:28:33 GMT]]>because its a very common swap for rx7's

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158777https://fargostreet.com/post/158777Fri, 11 May 2007 15:28:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Ls1 Rx-7! Nice! on Fri, 11 May 2007 15:03:53 GMT]]>:icon_scratch: Not that thing doesn't look sick or anything, but why would someone swap in a Chevy LS1 for the turbo rotary that was in it orignally?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/158772https://fargostreet.com/post/158772Fri, 11 May 2007 15:03:53 GMT