fluffysheap

Even in mint condition they sell for less than an RX-8... and there aren't many in mint condition. Sometimes they turn up but not very often!

By way of comparison, someone was advertising an otherwise mint RX-2 with a blown motor for $6K, and adding the cost of rebuild in would probably bring that up to $8K. I don't think they get $6K for it. Newness has a premium.

The RX-3 never came with the 10A in the United States but in other markets it did. In the US they all had 12As.

Raptor75

10 reasons why this may not be such a good move.

10. 30 year old technology.
9. Slow
8. Inferior performance in all aspects.
7. No warranty
6. Will rust with the morning dew.
5. No air bags
4. Less reliable
3. Poor cold starting
2. Looks like a pig compared to the RX-8
1. The same reason you'd go for a hot 20 year old rather then an old 50 year old.

j12tse

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha good one

3rdRXlover

sorry you didn't get what you wanted, I bought a used '04 w/ 21k miles maxed out for $20k a year ago and its worth near that today, some problems but great service and I love the car!!

StewyRX8

Nice!

fluffysheap

I think you might have misunderstood

Nice counter-list Raptor. It is slow, well, compared to an '8 anyway. Not compared to, like, a minivan, though. Still, just about any rotary engine car feels much faster than it really is. It's fast enough for what I use it for. I've still got an RX-7 to go fast in.

Reliability wise... it's the sort of car you can fix with a spool of wire and tape to get you home, you know. Not like a modern car where you have to have it towed if the gas cap comes loose. I'm actually sort of concerned about the viability of today's cars, a few years down the road. Cars from the late '80s to mid '90s will soldier on more or less indefinitely unless they get wrecked... but cars with today's complexity, once they get old and start to suffer from miscellaneous age-related gremlins, all the millions of gadgets and electronics and interlocking systems will make these vehicles very difficult to maintain. On "middle aged" cars if something breaks, unless it's safety related or keeps the engine from running/starting, you can pretty much just put up with it. You can't really do that on today's cars. And, as far as air bags go, I can't say I'm a fan. (Not really a fan of the pre-crumple-zone engineering of '70s and earlier cars either, of course).

And for your point #1... there are LOTS of "1976 model" hotties out there

Raptor75

I use to work on a lot of 70 era cars and have rebuilt a few engines in my time. There is absolutely no comparison in terms of reliability with those cars compared to today's cars. You maintenance is a fraction of what it use to be. Electronics are far more reliable then many of the older systems as for 2000 series vs 80 and 90s I would still go with the 2000. That fact that you can get many more electric gimmicks that can break down over time is true. That is one of the reasons I like the 8, not to many of them. On the other hand in another 10 years all these extras will be pretty bullet proof, it is evolution. When electronic fuel delivery system were becoming main stream in the 80s I heard the exact same concerns, everyone was saying a good old carburetor was more reliable. Now, these systems are bullet proof and deliver performance, economy and reliability that a carburetor can only dream of. The same could be said when power seat were introduced, AC, cruse control, power windows ect... all technologies which are readily accepted and pretty reliable. Technology builds a better mouse trap.

As for airbags and crumble zones, once you or a loved one is in a serious accident were yours or their life is saved by these systems you will change your tune.

Of course it is fun to have an old car to work on, it is a different beast from today's technology but can be a lot of fun, enjoy.