View Poll Results: What was the vintage year for the FC?
1986
39
6.26%
1987
95
15.25%
1988
170
27.29%
1989
97
15.57%
1990
78
12.52%
1991
144
23.11%
Voters: 623. You may not vote on this poll
Best year for FC3S?
06-12-02, 02:56 PM
#26
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The S5 fails to recapture the essence of a sports car and instead went with a more luxury feel. Besides the obvious weight gain, it also got that rubbery feel to it where I can no longer sense the road anymore. I'm not sure if it's the rpm sensing PS, tie rod linkage, sway bar end links, or the LSD. It's almost like taking a shower with clothes on, or having plastic sex 
06-12-02, 03:55 PM
#27
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, people just vote for the S5 because it's "cooler" looking. I like the S4 cars because of the lower weight. While the motor's may have been slightly refined for the S5, the S4's usually are bulletproof.
06-12-02, 04:45 PM
#28
Driving RX7's since 1979
iTrader: (43)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: So Cal where the OC/LA/SB counties meet
Posts: 6,096
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
I don't see 20% anywhere there.
(After cleaning glasses) 
Marking this on my calender. I get to back up Ice Mark. (thank Gawd for the edit button)
200-182=18
18/182=.099
.099=9.9%. In other words, the S5 T2's HP rating is a 10% increase over the S4.
Throw in the extra weight, and you have an upside down relationship as to power to weight ratio (S4 better than S5). Bonus is that a gazillion more S4's were built than S5's, so wrecking yard parts much more available.
Desite this my vote, since I'm a Vert fan, is for the '89. The first year of a model change usually isn't the best year. But, the S5's cosmetics are improved (better speaker set up, fog lights, Black vs Grey interior, etc.) and the '89 Vert avoided the goofy looking air bag steering wheel. Drop in a S5 T2 drivetrane in that '89, that's best overall 2nd Gen situation IMHP.
And, I'm saying this even though I own a '88 & '91 Vert. (and a '85 GSL-SE).
Marking this on my calender. I get to back up Ice Mark. (thank Gawd for the edit button)
200-182=18
18/182=.099
.099=9.9%. In other words, the S5 T2's HP rating is a 10% increase over the S4.
Throw in the extra weight, and you have an upside down relationship as to power to weight ratio (S4 better than S5). Bonus is that a gazillion more S4's were built than S5's, so wrecking yard parts much more available.
Desite this my vote, since I'm a Vert fan, is for the '89. The first year of a model change usually isn't the best year. But, the S5's cosmetics are improved (better speaker set up, fog lights, Black vs Grey interior, etc.) and the '89 Vert avoided the goofy looking air bag steering wheel. Drop in a S5 T2 drivetrane in that '89, that's best overall 2nd Gen situation IMHP.
And, I'm saying this even though I own a '88 & '91 Vert. (and a '85 GSL-SE).
Last edited by HOZZMANRX7; 06-12-02 at 06:11 PM.
06-12-02, 04:54 PM
#29
infini guru
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Icemark
And I think its funny so many people are voting for the 91. The 91 was the weakest performace model out there.
Almost 0 production on the sport 4 piston brakes, and LSD on NA models. The N/As Had a mish mash of parts left over from production on other years. It is rare to even find a 91 'vert without a lame automatic.
I just don't know what you guys are thinking sometimes???
And I think its funny so many people are voting for the 91. The 91 was the weakest performace model out there.
Almost 0 production on the sport 4 piston brakes, and LSD on NA models. The N/As Had a mish mash of parts left over from production on other years. It is rare to even find a 91 'vert without a lame automatic.
I just don't know what you guys are thinking sometimes???
Steve
06-12-02, 05:03 PM
#30
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Re: I don't see 20% anywhere there.
Originally posted by HOZZMANRX7
Marking this on my calender. I get to correct Ice Mark.
Marking this on my calender. I get to correct Ice Mark.
160hp is what the Series 5 NA made, 200hp is what the Series5 Turbo made!
The NA increased 9.6% from 146hp to 160hp.
The Turbo increased 9.9% from 182hp to 200hp.
Last edited by NZConvertible; 06-12-02 at 05:06 PM.
06-12-02, 08:10 PM
#31
Super Newbie
***IMHO***
I do not care for the S5 cars much at all. I hate the pregnant steering wheel, the auto seatbelts, electric MOP, etc. I couldn't care less about stock power rating. I don't leave my cars stock.
The S5 bumpers are alright looking, but a 10th AE is by far the best looking to me. I'd just as soon have an 87 TII, since most of them came with manual steering, and they seem to be the lightest TII. Then put a S5 spoiler on it.
I couldn't be picky though, so I bought an 88. It will sort of be an AE clone once it gets painted.
I do not care for the S5 cars much at all. I hate the pregnant steering wheel, the auto seatbelts, electric MOP, etc. I couldn't care less about stock power rating. I don't leave my cars stock.
The S5 bumpers are alright looking, but a 10th AE is by far the best looking to me. I'd just as soon have an 87 TII, since most of them came with manual steering, and they seem to be the lightest TII. Then put a S5 spoiler on it.
I couldn't be picky though, so I bought an 88. It will sort of be an AE clone once it gets painted.
Last edited by Felix Wankel; 06-12-02 at 08:13 PM.
06-12-02, 09:38 PM
#32
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Re: Re: I don't see 20% anywhere there.
Originally posted by NZConvertible
Mark this on your calendar: you getting shot down in flames!
160hp is what the Series 5 NA made, 200hp is what the Series5 Turbo made!
The NA increased 9.6% from 146hp to 160hp.
The Turbo increased 9.9% from 182hp to 200hp.
Mark this on your calendar: you getting shot down in flames!
160hp is what the Series 5 NA made, 200hp is what the Series5 Turbo made!
The NA increased 9.6% from 146hp to 160hp.
The Turbo increased 9.9% from 182hp to 200hp.
06-13-02, 04:35 AM
#35
Greek Power
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greece
Posts: 2,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are all jealous, jealous, JEALOUS I SAY of my beautiful and fast as hell '92 TII....
[The Mask voice On]I'm glad, GLAD I TELL YA, for buying the S5 TII[The Mask voice Off]
well, if it didnt have any coolant leaks, and leaking oil lines, and bad rear rotors, and steady idle, and.....
[The Mask voice On]I'm glad, GLAD I TELL YA, for buying the S5 TII[The Mask voice Off]
well, if it didnt have any coolant leaks, and leaking oil lines, and bad rear rotors, and steady idle, and.....
06-13-02, 10:47 AM
#36
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally posted by The Ace
well, if it didnt have any coolant leaks, and leaking oil lines, and bad rear rotors, and steady idle, and
well, if it didnt have any coolant leaks, and leaking oil lines, and bad rear rotors, and steady idle, and
07-14-02, 09:41 AM
#39
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know i was parcial to the 89's infact thats what i voted for, but after reading on and listening to you guys posts i actually wanna take back my vote and vote for the 88. I own an 88N/A and i absoulutly love the car. The reasons i voted for the 89 is cuz of the refinement that the engine got for that year and plus the looks of the car, But you guys made me realize that theres more to stock hp numbers and looks...Thanks
07-14-02, 02:03 PM
#42
Curry Power
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry guys. I thought I read that the S5's have 20% more power but I was wrong. http://www.monito.com/wankel/rx-7-2ndgen.html sorry for being wrong guys . . . 
07-14-02, 02:19 PM
#43
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
if you look at consumer reports they also mention that the 89 and 91 models had the worst body assembly...(loose screws, body mechanical things that break, fit, etc).
07-14-02, 02:26 PM
#44
well, i actually voted for the 91, but listening to you guys tear it apart ... i think i want to take my vote back also ...
but seriously, i love the '91 Turbo for the cosmetics and power ... but i still love the '86 Turbo with the aero package equally! so that was a tough decision. never really cared for the T2 hood scoop, but at least it was functional ...
i think all the Gen II cars could have had more sturdy and "serious" interiors ... the ergonomics were okay, but the build materials were just too ... well ... 80s! (which i understand, because it was an "80s" car!)
however, yeah, my sister had an '88 N/A and i loved to drive it (still think my Gen I feels more serious). and my friend had an '88 T2 which i still remember vividly, and even when the changes came in '89 ... i could never bring myself to saying that they were ... ahem ... "better".
so based on what i've read ... i'd want an '88 T2!!!!
but seriously, i love the '91 Turbo for the cosmetics and power ... but i still love the '86 Turbo with the aero package equally! so that was a tough decision. never really cared for the T2 hood scoop, but at least it was functional ...
i think all the Gen II cars could have had more sturdy and "serious" interiors ... the ergonomics were okay, but the build materials were just too ... well ... 80s! (which i understand, because it was an "80s" car!)
however, yeah, my sister had an '88 N/A and i loved to drive it (still think my Gen I feels more serious). and my friend had an '88 T2 which i still remember vividly, and even when the changes came in '89 ... i could never bring myself to saying that they were ... ahem ... "better".
so based on what i've read ... i'd want an '88 T2!!!!
07-14-02, 03:44 PM
#46
Full Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems you all are voting for the S5 because its newer.
Newer doesn't =better (all the time)
Just as an example.
I would much rather have a 68' Camaro than a 98' Camaro.
Newer doesn't =better (all the time)
Just as an example.
I would much rather have a 68' Camaro than a 98' Camaro.
07-14-02, 03:49 PM
#47
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally posted by shawncarter
sorry guys i feel really embarrassed to ask but can someone explain the s4 and s5 designation ive never heard anything refered to like that before
sorry guys i feel really embarrassed to ask but can someone explain the s4 and s5 designation ive never heard anything refered to like that before
North American Series 5 RX-7 = 1989-1991 production.
Japanese Series 5 RX-7= 1989-1992 production.
07-14-02, 04:07 PM
#48
1JZ powered
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Where there's only two seasons, hot and wet! I love Okinawa
Posts: 4,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Icemark
Japanese Series 5 RX-7= 1989-1992 production.
Japanese Series 5 RX-7= 1989-1992 production.
07-14-02, 05:23 PM
#49
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by jspecracer7
Don't you mean 1989-1991 production...because my title says '92 FD3S
Don't you mean 1989-1991 production...because my title says '92 FD3S
