graffeedy5

So if I'm not going to be doing any serious competitive racing, the FC won't have much over the FB with coilovers and swaybars should be good for street use, and the occasional track day or autocross?

rxmadness

iTrader: (1)

you want stock spped advantages get an fc


you want stock handling get an fb


fc's are heavy and have scary body roll, a stock fb has hardly noticeable body roll, my fb with racing beat suspension has practically no body roll at all it just slides much much easier, so its up to you lose body roll or tight sliding, both ways can have advantages and disadvantages

BigBoss

What would i need to make the fb handle better?

anyone? i want to improve the handling of my 1st gen.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

the Rx8 is like the best chassis/suspension ever. even stock its excellent

GSLSE-YA

The problem with the FB is getting the suspension geometery correct if you lower the car more than 1-1.5". The stock 4 link and watts linkage is not good for this. The watts linkage can be relocated on the rear end though.

There is not much on my race car that is stock suspension. I have the trilink with panhard bar (all ends have heimjoints). My front has adjustable RB lower arms with camber plates up top and RB strut tower lowering kit. Threaded collars on all 4 corners with ground control 6" springs. Car handles great, but cost alot to get to this point.

Kentetsu

My car seems to do pretty good, even though it is extremely low. I think the reason it works in my case is a combination of the ride height, and heavy swaybars. My theory is that if you can reduce/eliminate the amount of movement the rear end has to go through in turns, then you can avoid the binding issues. I have almost no body roll.

I've got a trilink/panhard setup sitting on the shelf that I bought used a couple of years ago. I've just never had a reason to install it so far. However, I'm getting ready to swap in the 3rd member that came with it (already has the mounts welded on). I've got a mildly bent axle so rather than just swap the axle out, I figure I'll do the entire housing. That way, I'm 80% of the way down the road of installing the trilink. Lately I've been thinking I'd try it out, more out of curiousity than anything else.

Now I just have to get off the computer and get to work on it. lol.




.

Kentetsu

Check my signature. Feel free to PM me if you have specific questions...

Rotary Powah

iTrader: (1)

20% stiffer springs 1" drop, and new tockico hp shocks and struts all around, my 1st gen handles like a flea. That thing is quick in the corners because the car is so light. Oh and gettign wider tired pretty much got rid of the understeer completely

Jimbo II

Dunno how much I've dropped mine, but the chassis is around 120 mm off the ground. Used superlow king springs that have been compressed. Camber/castor plates dialed right out / \ and VTIR prelude slotted discs + series 5/6 calipers to pull it up. Goes hard around corners up to 160kph (100mph) gets a bit hairy above those speeds. Rear end is twitchy under braking though it likes to try and come around when braking from 180-200. This may be a brake bias issue I dunno. Haven't really driven a 2nd gen but I hear they're more of a power over steer car.

elwood

iTrader: (1)

For all of you who think your FB is a great handling car, the question is "Compared to what?" If you've driven an FC and FB back-to-back under high performance and/or racing conditions -- especially under racing conditions, then you have some sort of idea. Otherwise, you're just expressing admiration for your car . . . which every sportscar owner does.

Hell my cousin had a '79 Vette. He swore it handled like a dream. (I thought it was the worst, most understeering performance car I had ever driven.) He drove my FB and was impressed with the handling. He did concede that mine handles better, but he still thinks his car is a great handler.

peejay

All but one FC that I've experienced first-hand had horrible handling, mainly due to worn bushings in the rear suspension and crappy damping.

I won't claim that my FB is great handling - the polar inertia is way too low for that, so it's very easy to spin. However, I will claim that the best handling stock-form RX-7 that I've ever experienced was my '80. It just did everything right and was extremely predictable yet entertaining. It felt just like a 1.6 Miata.

FBs don't seem to handle anywhere near as nicely as SAs. It's also very easy to "improve" to the point of not being fun. IMO FBs should not be lowered without significant modification, as ANY lowering ruins the handling. The problem is, every FB on the road is lowered because the stock springs sag a lot over time.

The rear ride height should have the lower links with the front pivot a little higher than the rear. If you're using the Watts, the tires should not be larger than about 23" in diameter. Maaaaybe 24". Good luck finding decent tires that small. 205/60-13 is the perfect size for the car as regards handling, as it gets a decent width while still keeping the Watts low to the ground, but good luck finding decent street tires in that size.

For the record, I officially hate Heims. I only have two on the car, and I bought teflon-lined ones, and they clunk and rattle and squeak. Constantly.

Jimbo II

Good point here. Mate just bought an 03 types s rx8 with few mods. My sev will beat his around the local racetrack. I can sit on the *** of evo 4-5's around certain corners and beat them under brakes, but will loose on the drive out of the corner. I'm not claiming my sev is the fastest thing around, but its not bad when you can play with cars that are 20 + years newer I think 1st gens are just a well balanced light weight fun car that with the correct mods can be extremly fun and fast.

w33n

People who think FDs are ugly are wrong. Like, their opinions. Their opinions are wrong.
Hehe, kidding. I do strongly disagree though. FDs are the most beautiful thing God and Mazda have collaborated on and brought to this earth.

FWIW my FB (which, now, when I bought it from my friend, he had bought it from a guy who did a decent amount of suspension work) handles better than any other car I've ever driven. Not to say it handles better than any other car I will EVER DRIVE, but so far...

arghx

iTrader: (3)

You have to specify what FC you are comparing to. An s5 Turbo II vs an s4 non turbo sport model differ greatly in spring rates, weight, and power. There were also two different power steering systems available on the FC ("engine speed sensing" and "vehicle speed sensing"). There were 3 different suspension systems available on the FC (base, turbo "hard" suspension, and GXL auto adjust). You may like the stripper model s4 non turbo cars.

Or you may drive an s4 T2 and decide the massive increase in power, torque, and engine mod potential is worth the extra weight over an SA/FB. It all comes to preference. These days though it's not like you can just go to a dealer and test drive one that's running in decent condition.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

ok i'll play. i'm 1st gen light, but peepers should be out in august

my old black gsl-se with 400 treadware 205/60/14's, s4 na engine, RB SP exhaust, tokico illuminas, eibach springs. did 2:25 laptimes at thunderhill with alex pfeiffer driving.

christines s4 gxl with the 350/225 springs AGX's, and Ra1's from the old race car also does 2:25's, it cannot brake traction in any direction!

the FC race car, ITS prep, did 2:04 again with alex driving

jack's FC race car does 2:10's @buttonwillow, i followed him in a stock Rx8 and could keep up

our integra LS on slicks does 2:03's, it'll still do 2:09's after the wheel falls off.

rotarygod

iTrader: (1)

Having owned both about the only place an FB has an advantage is on a small slow autocross track. They are quite fun though! An FC is a more refined car. The FB has an interently flawed rear suspension design and I'm not even talking about the horrid live rear axle. G-Force engineering makes components to make it handle quite nicely even with the rear axle. Anywhere faster than an autocross track though and it's all FC. You've got to compare apples to apples though. You can't compare a beat up stock FC to a race prepped FB or vise versa. That's just not fair. The difference between an FB and FC is easily as great as that between an FC and FD but then again that's how it should be. Although in RX-7 terms the FC is heavy, at around 2700 lbs it is still quite light compared to most other cars out there except for the most absurdly stupid econoboxes. Keep in mind that comparing either car to one of the other type that has a tired worn out suspension is also not very fair or relevant. Most suspensions on each of these cars is worn out by now.

The FB is a tossable car that is heavy on oversteer. Don't be led into thinking this makes it a good handling driver's car. Just the opposite. That overstead is precisely the result of it's flawed suspension geometry. I'm not saying that you want understear. I'm just saying that just because oversteer is there doesn't make it good.

The FB is a fun car to play around in. It isn't as comfortable for everyday driving. It is simpler in many ways and yes is a little bit lighter. Due to their ages, it is emissions exempt in many states that do testing which opens up engine combinations that would otherwise be impossible such as bridgeporting. Not that you'd want it for street use but that's another topic. It is an easy car to mod to make quicker and handle better and they can be found quite cheaply. For all of it's faults it does have it's good qualities. It's a good little car but at the end of the day it's no FC just like it's no Ferrari.

thielepr

Very very good comment!!!

mazdaverx713b

iTrader: (91)

my heart beats FB through and through and seat of the pants feel is exceptionally important..but when i look at various articles through the years testing the 7's handling through a slalom, the numbers are as follows:

79 RX-7: 0.78 g

84 GSL-SE: 0.82 g

88 GTU: 0.80 g

88 TII: 0.83 g

89 TII: 0.89 g

i own an 80, and a couple of 85's and i can't tell much of a difference. the 88 10AE that i have handles noticibly better but feels disconnected with the road..just doesnt have that seat of the pants feel of my SA and FB's. my RX-8 is unbelieveably awesome in the handling depatrment. i have an 84 Corvette with a 4+3 that is a non Z51 car and that car is flawless in handling..but again, doesnt give the good spartan seat of the pants feel of the first gens.

peejay

g-force is not handling, it's your tires and nothing else.

Good tires on essentially ANYTHING will allow cornering the 1.5g range. Factory g-force limits are mainly a measure of how sticky a tire the factory installed.

For instance, the GSL-SE got a fairly sticky tire, as far as 1984 went, which is why it scored so contemporarily well.

I have owned cars that had phenomenal stick and you wouldn't in your right mind want to go near the limits because the handling was so atrociously BAD.

The '80 had mediocre stick (mind you, non-stock tires) but you could drive it or you could fling it and it never did anything stupid. Put gummy R-compounds on it and it didn't develop any bad habits, it just was able to corner a lot harder.

kleinke

no Ferrari, however is a good thing. Recall at the end of the day the FB beat the Ferrari to the finish line. Yet the FB is for everyday driving more comfortable than a Ferrari of equivalent vintage.

In the course of time since 1978 I have experience all generations of RX-7 and would say in balance the FB or FD are the choice for handling. The flawed suspension can be rectified. (In comparison recall Porsche suspension geometry is quite "flawed", and FC rear suspension also flawed.) Moreover, for street use there is no need to limit your Suspension modifications--as the G-force Engineering example was constrained by competition sanction-limits. In regard of engine potential, all RX-7 generations are equivalent, which makes comparison of handling and chassis the essential matter. Therein the light weight comes to advantage.

elwood

iTrader: (1)

I generally agree. The same is true of braking distances -- shorter ones are usually attributable to sticky tires (at least the first few times). Surprising that the automotive journalists tend to credit the brakes?!

orion84gsl

iTrader: (5)

My experience in an FC is limited to a couple free runs at an autocross. My FB I thrash all the time. Both suspensions were fairly similar, with just aftermarket springs, some street dampers and I think there were sway bars on the FC, my Fb has RB bars front and rear. It was a Turbo II, my FB had the Sterling and an RB exhaust for power adders. To be honest (and remember my limited time) the FC felt soft, slow to react and disconnected. It may be faster, but it felt slower and awkward. With more time I could probably adapt to what in my opinion are flaws, but I wouldn't really want to.

To me the feedback from the car is more important than if it truly is more capable, since if you aren't comfortable driving it you won't be able/willing to push it to it's full potential. Honestly, the only real way to make your decision is to find a couple of each in your area and go for a couple hard test drives. Buy the one you like more.

Willy92

I raced an '85 GSL-SE in SCCA Showroom Stock Endurance racing and an '86 with Sport Package the following year. The difference in handling on a race track was night and day difference in favor of the FC. I could beat EVERY FB. The car was way easier to drive as well...on a race track. However on an Autocross course, most of the time it is a different story.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

we dropped 3 seconds off our best laptime by switching tires.

or the car is faster with the sticky tires and 140hp than it was with the normal tires and 170hp

Kentetsu

I think the fc is better at being fast, while the fb is better at being quick.