Am I that biased?
05-14-04, 06:44 PM
#28
7s bein a pain in the ass
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when i look at the late 90s firebirds, it looks like a bloated version of the FD. i see similar design cues present. just sharper front end, weird tail, higher stance, and the likes. the rear light design.
i don't have a firebird and i don't plan on getting one at all but im just stating my opinion that the car has alot of design cues that i think are similar to an FD.
i don't have a firebird and i don't plan on getting one at all but im just stating my opinion that the car has alot of design cues that i think are similar to an FD.
05-15-04, 12:03 AM
#30
Smile Like a Donut
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Don't you wish you knew....
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea man the trans ams do look like the fd's. Like America thinks and acts "bigger is always better" thats a load of B.S. if you ask me. Take a look at all the cars and tell me america didn't take the look from japanese cars and just incredibly make it bigger I don't know. Messed it all up though.
05-15-04, 05:05 PM
#31
I think FCs borrowed heavily from the Porsche 944, and I agree that they lost their identity. The FB is my first love -- really. I saw it in a dealership back in '79, and I had to have one.
The FBs are basic and elemental. They were the original two seat, lightweight, affordable, reliable rotary engined sports car. There will never be another, and it has cemented its place in history.
The only quibbles I have with the car are:
1) Rear Suspension -- geometry doesn't have a great design, which limits ultimate cornering power and is expensive to correct. I road race my car, so this defficiency shows up bigtime.
2) Front Brakes -- they work fine, but replacing them is a PITA because you have to swap the bearings, too.
3) Steering Box -- this thing gives good feel and precision when it's brand new, but requires continual adjustment. A rack would have been nicer.
For 16 years of marriage, I don't have many complaints.
The FBs are basic and elemental. They were the original two seat, lightweight, affordable, reliable rotary engined sports car. There will never be another, and it has cemented its place in history.
The only quibbles I have with the car are:
1) Rear Suspension -- geometry doesn't have a great design, which limits ultimate cornering power and is expensive to correct. I road race my car, so this defficiency shows up bigtime.
2) Front Brakes -- they work fine, but replacing them is a PITA because you have to swap the bearings, too.
3) Steering Box -- this thing gives good feel and precision when it's brand new, but requires continual adjustment. A rack would have been nicer.
For 16 years of marriage, I don't have many complaints.
that would be DAMN nice
05-15-04, 09:37 PM
#33
My wife bought me 2 RX-7s
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 2,328
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Just a correction on some of the misinformation floating around this thread...
The SE didn't pull .91g's in stock form, not by a long shot. Car and Driver has it rated at .82g's.
The SE is around 100 pounds lighter than a FC, but 200 pounds heavier than my SA.
In every objective test the FC outperformed the SA/FB's that came before it, acceleration, braking, slalom, skidpad, steering, etc.
All of this of course doesn't matter one whit to me because the FC is ugly, heavy and big.
I guess I'm biased too.
The SE didn't pull .91g's in stock form, not by a long shot. Car and Driver has it rated at .82g's.
The SE is around 100 pounds lighter than a FC, but 200 pounds heavier than my SA.
In every objective test the FC outperformed the SA/FB's that came before it, acceleration, braking, slalom, skidpad, steering, etc.
All of this of course doesn't matter one whit to me because the FC is ugly, heavy and big.
I guess I'm biased too.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post