In a message dated 12/1/00 11:55:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, rase@istar.ca
writes:
> Hmmmm......at least that is how it happened for at least one car at your
> dealership - is that necessarily the case elsewhere? How do you know? Did
> some cars come over later from Japan already converted? And, yes, as far
> as I
> understand the car is the same otherwise (not stretched like the 300 ZX)
> but I'm
> not sure that the Turbo model was ever converted....although as you say it
> could
> be easily enough. In Japan they are ALL 4-seaters! Might the case not be
> made
> that really the 2-seaters are the exception then. ;^)
Even my '83 and '84 RX-7s had the scoring in the plastic panels to accept the
upper seat latches. 5 minutes with an exacto knife, and you were ready to
put the rear seats in. In Japan, CRX's have back seats, too. I'm a long
time rotorhead in addition to having worked in a Mazda dealership. Until
someone shows me a Monroney sticker indicating that the car came as a 4
seater, my understanding is that there has never been a 4 seat RX-7 actually
imported to the U.S. by Mazda. My belief is that it goes back to the rules
of Stock category unless there's an exception in the SM rules allowing it...
> Is this really important? ;^)
>
> Of course, the situation may be different here in Canada - they may have
> come
> across already converted as I suspect mine was.
>
> Furthermore, as an interesting technicality then, would that mean that the
> 4-seat
> cars are not "legal" in stock class in the US of A? ;^) They would have
> to be
>
It's important if it allows a car to compete that legally should not. In
Stock category, it meets the definition of a "comfort and convenience"
modification (13.2.A), on a car that is listed for its particular class. In
SM, it makes a sports car into an "eligible vehicle" (if we accept the
premise, which I personally don't) for the class. Two very different things.
CHD
|