I agree..
And yes I over exaggurated myself on my post....
Yes they are fun and all(turbo) but too much work to be done..
it's just like B18 turbo making 250 HP when K's make 250 raw...

 

i've seen a b18 buildup dropping 522whp @ 22psi, but they built that engine into a beast so it's definately worth it if u do it right....im planning on just rebuilding and boosting my lil F23A1 (the little engine that could) to make at least 400hp, that's my goal.... i just want jaws to drop when i start dusting mustangs in my 4 door family sedan...and that power will help out on the autocross course where i really do my damage

 

The B18 you talking about with 522 whp probably has more money into it then the actual car cost..how "fun" is that? love to pay $30+ dollers every time you fill up your gas tank with some 93 gasolines? ooh yeah..NOT ME..
F23A1 turbo is NOT WAY TO GO..can't handle it man..sorry
I said K's..not F's..
K's (RSX, Accord 03 up, TSX...)can handle the turbo..don't know much about F's with turbo(my car.. )

 

I'd have to say the RX7 would be a good choice. I have heard that there are some issues with the reliability of the rotary...but it's still better than an H22 Accord.

 

Had a 1st gen rx-7 and loved it. Great fun to drive. 2nd gen looks too much like a daytona :barf:

If u can deal with that definately go with the rx.

 

[QUOTE=hoyoung02]
F23A1 turbo is NOT WAY TO GO..can't handle it man..sorry
QUOTE]

the F23A1 can handle a turbo setup fine (if you have a manual transmission. Automatics can only handle 6psi of boost), especially since its a SOHC. Read up about it on Honda-Tech, there are many of them.

 

There is way too much crap in this thread I would love to reply to, I wish I was in town when this thread began.

A few points:
79-80, SA22C (first gen)
81-85, FB (first gen)
86-91, FC (second)
93-95 (-01 in Japan), FD (third)

The FC varies greatly in weights, unlike the Accord. I have my FC around 2450 pounds, stock N/A's are 2600-2850, Turbos are 2800-2950, and 'verts hover around 3000 pounds. In short, the 'verts are big fat cows and slow to match.

FC's aren't that unreliable, I just got back from Philly (400 mile round trip) and I didn't even think about it having problems. I work on it once or twice a week, by choice, not need. N/A FC engines (13B) can last anywhere between 100k and 250k, mine is turning 144k and purrs like a kitten. I've owned another that got to 146k before I sold it.

Between the two, the FC is a purebred RWD sportscar. The Accord is a FWD family commuto-box. It isn't a hard question, performance-wise.

 

I'm all about some sleeperage. I say the Accord for sleep factor, the rx7 for practicality when it comes to speed.


- Nathan

 

An RX-7 makes a great sleeper around bigger and better cars. A base model FC with a 13BT swap, a few tweeks and a flat black painted intercooler will suprise a lot of people... and be a lot faster then most "sleeper" Accords.

Remember, an N/A 86-91 RX-7 is a low 16 second car stock. For some reason, Honda guys think they are all crazy fast. It's nice though, because all the local ricers are too afraid to rev at me. Nothing annoys me more then people reving at me.

 

ive said this many times, but the po po impounded my friend and I's 1st gen rx-7. sigh, wish i had the car back