You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
agreed...but I would think it would be easy to compete with a 3rd gen...the 1st gen is a hell of a-lot lighter...and since you can put a 13btt in a 1st gen you would have the same power as a 3rd gen...you would obviously need a different transmission, driveshaft, and rear end but still...very possible...
if i recall, and if that's the same car that i remember them building, it was just a streetport 13B with a Haltech system. it it would have been down by a couple dozen HP, plus the torque curve would have been wrong to go up against and FD. all in all, one should neither be suprised nor disappointed with the results.
yeah but if u read closely they said they wanted 220 and shooting for 250. well if they had the car at 1700 pds why couldnt they keep up with it around the twisties
Can a CSP prepared 1st gen beat a stock a 3rd Gen in autocross?
In the Detroit SCCA Region, 2004 season, a stock 3rd Gen (SS) would be around 2-3 seconds quicker over a 60 second course than a well sorted 1st Gen (CSP on Hoosiers). Both drivers were probably near equal perhaps the 3rd Gen driver had more experiance though.
Surely if you spent $10k on a first gen it could be quicker than a 3rd Gen?
it depends whos building it. how they go about it and what sort of guidelines they will have to contend with...
i plan to have my first gen faster than a 3rd gen for under 6000 canadian... with the drivetrain, turbo, wheels and suspension being the major money pitts.. everything else is home fabricated...
im sure theres a number of people on this site with cars that blow away 3rd gens with close to 10K $ spent in modifications.. even modified 3rd gens...
it depends whos building it. how they go about it and what sort of guidelines they will have to contend with...
exactly ... and i think they kinda made goals up as they went along with that car and by the time they got to running it against the FD they had already pigeon-holed themselves by having the car half-built already.
Also are you restricting the FB by SCCA rules or building it without regard for these restrictive regulations, if you have a sorted FB with sperical bearings throughout the suspension, coilovers all around, quality brake upgrades and decent power, it will hammer a stock FD with equal drivers and a well sorted set up.
Before I get jumped on, I said a sorted FB, meaning properly built suspension.
Also are you restricting the FB by SCCA rules or building it without regard for these restrictive regulations, if you have a sorted FB with sperical bearings throughout the suspension, coilovers all around, quality brake upgrades and decent power, it will hammer a stock FD with equal drivers and a well sorted set up.
Before I get jumped on, I said a sorted FB, meaning properly built suspension.
I didn't read the article yet, but it all boils down to what you want to beat the FD in. With enough time and money you can make just about any car better than a stock FD, regardless. It definitely wouldn't take much to make an FB faster than a stock FD. I mean, bridge porting a 12A should be able to render enough power to do that much.
If you want it to out handle an FD, well Steve, you'd be the first guy I'd be getting in contact with. It seems like you are the most knowledgeable guy around me when it comes to suspension.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfoothill
FC is the poor man's FD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fendamonky
FC owners are in denial about their vehicles and have ***** envy for FD
I was intrigued by the statement that "by turning the strut top" they were able to get 1 degree of negative camber....and it sounded like it was a stock strut top, as they didn't want to "use coilovers".
Hey guys, Greg with GRM here. See my sig, I'm not a troll.
Just wanted to comment a few things about the project car. This project car was before my time here at GRM, shoot I was only 10-12 years old myself. Here are a few things to keep in mind.
- This car was built about 15 years ago. Many of the after-market pieces that are available now were not around back then. I don't believe anyone made coil-overs at that time and suspension options were limited.
- In 93, 94 turbo swaps were just not as common. The Turbo 2 was still "newer" cars and therefore were not available in the junkyards or as JDM shipments.
- I know this following information from talking with the owners of the magazine (I.E. Tim and Margie Suddard) This car was a daily driver for Margie so they wanted to keep it streetable. They could have stripped it down, bridge ported it, put in some 4.88 gears and wider rubber and probably beat up on a stock 3rd gen but then it wouldn't be much of a comparison. What would you rather drive daily?
Their goal was to try to make a first gen beat a 3rd gen while keeping it realistic. In that regard the project failed. In other ways it was a success. It was one of the first street RX-7's to run ITB's and it got close to 3rd gen performance numbers. With modern rubber and coil-overs who knows what would happen today.
Thanks for listening.
-Greg
__________________
-84 GSL-SE Tender Blue 13B SP, 160 WHP *Sold 13B for LS1/T56 Swap*
-79 GS Spark Yellow 47k Miles
-79 & 83 5.0 Lemons/Chumpcar racers
-78 RX3 SP w/ S5 NA 13B
-54 Ford F-100 Flatbed Rat
-84 Volvo 240 Wagon, 5.0/T5
Last edited by HadaGSL-SE; 08-29-08 at 08:40 AM.
Reason: Spelling
I'd love to see someone try this project again. With newer aftermarket parts (coilovers, R&P Steering, TII Brake upgrade just to name a few for suspension/brakes) it would be easily possible to make a 1st gen compete with a 3rd gen in any ONE class for $10k.
Building a first gen with better suspension would be tough because of our solid rear axel but depending on your level of expertise or resources when it comes to metal work it might be possible to swap a 2nd gen rear subframe in and completely re-work the floor and mounts for it.
For pure power, a well built TII motor (which is common to find in junkyards or JDM importers nowadays) could easily best a 3rd gen considering the power/weight ratio. Of course by "well built" I mean that you'd have to upgrade the turbo as well as a ton of other things but..
I really think this project would be cool. Start by defining your goals/requirements (is the final competition on an autocross course, a track, or a 1/4 mile run?) then build the car to do that better than the FD while retaining "daily drivability". I think it's easily possible for $10k assuming that you had a mint 1st gen to start with and the $10k was all upgrades. As it is, I have a friend who just spent that much having the entire car stripped, blasted, body work, repainted and reassembled so $10k may not go that far if your starting point needs work.
Why would you do all that to put in an equally flawed second gen IRS, when a bit of skill and a welder can make the solid rear end at least as good if you do your research.
I am in the process of building a $2008 FB which would embarrass most built FDs, ie 550 hp, hand built four link and coil overs in the rear, mid mounted engine, full cage etc, but is NOT a DD....lol
It was good talking to you a few weeks ago Greg.
__________________
Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.
Steve, are you still working on a semi-mass produced version of this four link we used to talk about a couple years back? I'm still really interested in it, I just haven't gotten to talk to you in forever. I lost all my numbers as well, so I can't give you a call (hint: pm me your number)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfoothill
FC is the poor man's FD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fendamonky
FC owners are in denial about their vehicles and have ***** envy for FD
Linear Mode
