thats why you get an in dash dvd/tv tuner.... then you can cuddle up with it and watch tv whenever you want lol

 

Damn, thanks for the handling analysis guys i knew nothing about that.

 

what the puck? srsly?

Why would the older FB have a stronger chassis? I thought a beefier chassis was one of the main reasons why FC's were heavier.

 

Kenn knows his facts. Check out his thread on the killer 1st gen he's built. There are few that can match it. The FC is heavier for many reasons, engine, suspension, more options, more 'plush', etc.. My 1st gen is stiff enough it tends to skip instead of flex at times. Can't say the same for my FC.

 

Absolutely right. Having owned both, the FC drives like a heavier car, but the SA/FB was one of the stiffest chassis ever made. Part of the reason the FC isnt as stiff is that the actually had to cut some corners to avoid the heavy car tax in the U.S. The original design would have made them a couple hundred pounds heavier! It is also one of the reasons the first gens are hard to bring below 2300 Lbs when stripped even though they are so small. Too damn much actuall iron!

 

true but not 100%. anything made after 85 were made out of recycled soda and beer cans.

 

Not really, the FC is pretty sturdy itself, especially when u compare to the modern cars. Now you are really talking tin cans!!! Can opener anyone?

 

I have owned both and out of the box and to me my FC is far superior in every way. It seems every one is comparing a stock FC with a modified FB. Keep in mind the cost involved to upgrade an FB just to stop and go like an FC turbo.

Mazda used IRS for traction not for comfort. Mazda engineered the short comings of the FB with the FC.

The FB with it's solid rear and RB steering is a sports car but not a pure sports car, much like the the FC with it's weight and creature comforts. The FC is a much more predictable, safer car to drive than a modified FB. We are talking road cars?

I'm a fan of all things rotary but please lets not kid ourselves, the FC is as much an improvement over the FB as the FD is over the FC.

Has anyone checked the weight of some the greatest sports cars ever produced? Most make the FC look like a light weight.

 

The SA/FB is a pure sports car. Base models were as basic as they come with manual everything. Like they've said much more of a drivers car. The FC has too many creature comforts for a pure sports car. Contrary to popular belief, a solid rear end will yield more traction on a flat surface than an indipendant rear suspension.

 

Pancake , thanks for starting this thread . Its been an interesting read so far.

I think you should just own both . My S5 vert and SA are different driving experiences but I love being able to go from one to the other. I never feel one is better than the other , but the differences are so enjoyable. I'm looking forward to the day I can throw an FD into the mix. To me , the FC vert ( which IS stiff if you haven't driven one), top down on a remote twisty road , in second gear at 5K + is a GREAT drive and I would never get rid of that car. But I really feel I have to drive the SA with more skill on the same kind of roads and that is a part of the appeal to me of that car. It is 10 years older and 10 years less advanced , no doubt about it.

 

OK, alot has been said, and now I think I should say something. An FB has more driver feedback then the FC. It gives a more "One with the car/road" feel to it. Factory vs. Factory a mint FB is about equal to a base model FC. AN S5 GTU FC however will kick the crap out of a mint FB. Even a GSL-Se would not match it (on paper).

Since the FB has a more connected feeling to it, the FB can be driven quite quickly. It gives that all out race feel when you start to push which alows one to push back.

Also modding an FB is way cheaper then an FC. For minimal work you can make an FB really damn fast. You put an S5 motor and RB suspension in an FB, and modded second gens probably wouldn't catch you on a race track. For the price of buying a mediocure FD you can make a way faster FB race car. Keep in mind the FB holds the world record for the greatest number of checkered flags in automotive history. That clearly says something about the car. It is born to be raced, and dervied from racing.

If you want a nice street car go Second gen. If you want a unique race car, you want an FB.

 

Lol, yes this has been an interesting read. By posting this on the 1st gen forum, I expect 3-4 posts telling me why the SA/FB is better, but not much more. The fact that there was such a mix in responses says a lot for both cars. I have to agree with guy the that mentioned the FC feeling heavier, but coming alive at freeway speed. That's where by <90 MPH comment at the beginning came from. After about 60, the FC feels great (other than my bad tires), but I'm coming from a background of running mountain roads in the 25-50 hairpin range, and frankley the normal FC isn't too good at that. Don't know about the GTUs though; I'll have to look into that.

Oh, and I'd love to own an FB and FC, but then I would have to get rid of my old Supra (I know, dirty word on this forum), and that isn't going to happen.

Again, thanks for all the responses.

 

The S5 GTU is a base model FC. If you mean the GTUs then yes by all means it is the epitome of what an FC should be in an enthusiast model. I think though a base model FB with no options, the SE 13B, LSD, and the SE tuned suspension and I think it could hold it's own against a GTUs

 

Couldnt agree more, the FB can handle very very well

 

+1 add some respeed parts and you'll feel good

 

Another reason the 1st gen chassis is stiffer is the far smaller hatch. With the rear fenders coming up and over the rear internal structure ot boxes it off better, and the smaller hole in the back for the hatch makes for a stiffer structure.

Having been in an accident that involved rolling an RX-7 off a mountain highway at speed, I can tell you first hand the SA/FB chassis is amazingly strong.