Friday 16th March 2007

SOTW: Mazda RX-7

1988 MAZDA RX7 FH 2+2 2dr Coupé

---

When it comes to cars, everyone wants a bargain. And with cars getting more reliable, more durable and more rot-free than ever they have been, paying pocket money for an older machine need not be a total restoration job.

In other words, old cars have never been such a good buy -- you get a lot of car for your money, and £1,000 is still throwaway money when it comes to cars.

So in the spirit of aiming for fun, low-cost motoring, here's our regular weekly slot following a trawl of Auto Trader's depths to find a drive-away bargain - sorry, we've busted the budget this week...

1988 MAZDA RX7 FH 2+2 2dr Coupé. Manual, 32,000 miles, Mazda RX7 EGI, 1988 (F), Red, MOT April 2007, Taxed until March 2007, only Done 33,000 miles, 3 owners. Turbo rear spoiler, Original alloy wheels, PAS, E/S/R, E/W, Blaupunkt CD Radio. New tyres and rear exhaust tail pipes. Car in Very Good condition. £1,695 ovno.

• www.autotrader.co.uk

[Pasthim]

Wow, 33,000m and nearly 20 years old! Impressive but the price isn't. That seems a lot for a twenty year old car.

[shouldbworking]

Yep. mine cost £400 in similar condition albeit with a lot more miles, but who cares about miles on a 20 year old car.

Not sure id buy another mind. 18.5 mpg average and what seems an excessively fragile fuel injection system has me good and frustrated with mine. Still, you get what you pay for and mine was definately on the cheaper end of things

Edit : mine

Edited by shouldbworking on Friday 16th March 11:48

[kieran2006]

Who cares if it's twenty years old, seems to be a decent, low milage example. Looks pretty ship shape in the pic. Wanna make sure it doesn't need an engine rebuilt as that rotary doesn't last that long, but at that milage it should be okay.

[boRED S2upid]

kieran2006 said:

Who cares if it's twenty years old, seems to be a decent, low milage example. Looks pretty ship shape in the pic. Wanna make sure it doesn't need an engine rebuilt as that rotary doesn't last that long, but at that milage it should be okay.

I am sure the current owner has the engine rebuild in the back of his mind. I see a deal being done wel below the asking price.Still wouldn't touch it though.

[Altrezia]

I dont see why old cars need to be cheap. I've spent a small fortune on my 1990 golf, but it's no bad thing really..

Like this mazda, looks good!

[RichBurley]

Altrezia said:

I dont see why old cars need to be cheap.

Because if they are not cheap, they won't sell????
Newer cars being more desirable, but even they depreciate, so old cars have to, to have a chance of selling in the open market.

[k50 del]

I always wanted one of these, ideally a Turbo 2 cabrio (I think PH'er Minimax has/had one as a trackcar?)

[domestos]

RichBurley said:

Altrezia said:

I dont see why old cars need to be cheap.

Because if they are not cheap, they won't sell????
Newer cars being more desirable, but even they depreciate, so old cars have to, to have a chance of selling in the open market.

I think an old car desirble car in good condition would be able to pull of a higher asking price, newer doesnt always mean its a better car

[Road_Terrorist]

No turbo, no care.

Much better to fork out the extra £300 for a decent turbo example for £2K, non turbo S4s are dog slow.

www.pistonheads.com/sales/128751.htm
www.pistonheads.com/sales/142543.htm

[core_four]

name said:

Newer cars being more desirable

I know theres nothing i desire asbout cheapy, run if the mill 'futuristic' plastic interiors! give me an old car any day!

[adammx-5]

Personally I'd be a bit concerned about the fact that the mileage is so very low. A car that's covered the average 12k a year is far more desirable than this one which has presumably only ever done short runs where the engine hasn't warmed up.

[ewenm]

adammx-5 said:

Personally I'd be a bit concerned about the fact that the mileage is so very low. A car that's covered the average 12k a year is far more desirable than this one which has presumably only ever done short runs where the engine hasn't warmed up.

[Mr E]

k50 del said:

I always wanted one of these, ideally a Turbo 2 cabrio (I think PH'er Minimax has/had one as a trackcar?)

I thought it was Vixpy with the rex?

[gruffgriff]

Road_Terrorist said:

Much better to fork out the extra £300 for a decent turbo example for £2K, non turbo S4s are dog slow.

I had the pleasure of both, unsurprisingly my EGi coupe handled much better than the TurboII convertible but the performance of the drop top more than made up for the less stable chassis. A simple induction upgrade, the right exhaust (still £700 odd for a full system!!) and a boost controller saw a dial indicated 150, top down, two up and with the boot full of camping gear and booze! Almost same mpg as `dog slow` EGi too!

If it`s been properly serviced, that engine should be good for another 30k, there are instances of them doing 100k before rebuilding. A compression test would be a wise precaution before buying. Rust and still expensive (even used) parts make running quite pricey - if it`s corrosion free (sills, callipers etc) and everything works (especially the sun roof), it could be a better long term buy than a cheaper one that`ll need more maintenance.

Just a shame it doesn`t have the oomph to justify the fuel economy!

[x332race]

I reckon that depreciation on a car costs me aroudn £2000 per year, before any other running costs. Thus there is some sense in buying a "shed" for £1000 and seeing how long it will last...do minimal maintenance and if it lasts a year, you are probably quids in compared to buying a newer car....problem is finding a reliable one!!

[skint_driver]

The Rotary Engine in the RX7 is a big reliability question. Will cost more than the car to fix it if the seals go.

[davy9449]

adammx-5 said:

Personally I'd be a bit concerned about the fact that the mileage is so very low. A car that's covered the average 12k a year is far more desirable than this one which has presumably only ever done short runs where the engine hasn't warmed up.

So on that basis you would rather opt for a car that has 240,000 miles on the clock as opposed to 32K. Sorry, there is no sense in that.

And besides without speaking to the owner we don't know the history of it's journeys, which is why I often think this 'thread' of the week is largely pointless.

[gf350]

adammx-5 said:

Personally I'd be a bit concerned about the fact that the mileage is so very low. A car that's covered the average 12k a year is far more desirable than this one which has presumably only ever done short runs where the engine hasn't warmed up.

Are you saying you'd prefer that car if it had 240K on it?

[Calorus]

core_four said:

name said:

Newer cars being more desirable

I know theres nothing i desire asbout cheapy, run if the mill 'futuristic' plastic interiors! give me an old car any day!

Good man!

[adammx-5]

OK, perhaps 240k is a bit extreme but surely it can be agreed that 32k in 18 years is a bit low and therefore worrying as to what effects that has had on the car.

If we're not talking about short trips then we're talking about standing around a lot.

Call me odd but I'm not sure there's anything the seller could tell me that would reassure me.