91_fc

yea i agree. they do look very similar. i'll check into the differences between them.

91_fc

the porche 944 came out around 1985 i think. it had 150 hp stock. it does look very similar.

91_fc

What about the weight distribution. The FC's is almost 50/50. How bout the FD?

Sideways7

iTrader: (7)

Im pretty sure the FD is about 50/50 also. The N/A 944 and FC where very, very similar. I dont know about thier handling, but they cant be much better than a properly tuned FC. As far as the turbos go, I think the 944's had more power, but Im not sure.

Rxmfn7

iTrader: (4)

The FC was about 51/49, whereas the FD is almost a perfect 50/50.

Go on, keep trying to find something wrong with the FD...cant do it The one major advantage to an FC is the ease of working on it. Maintenence on a FD is aweful, they are such a pain in the *** to work on. While the sequential turbo system may be a good idea...the mess it makes with all the vacuum lines and silinoids and actuators, etc... well it just sucks.

silverrotor

iTrader: (1)

I can vouch for the FD Alternators being far more superior to that of the FC, either series.

Also, If anything, we have better tolerance/built Cooling Systems than our counter part bros.

Sideways7

iTrader: (7)

Well, you kinda contradicted yourself there... Also, as stated earlier, FD's have pretty short engine life.

91_fc

I'll find something...

SpeedFreak03

I have this ~6 minute clip of this (magazine maybe) called Top Gear (in england), and they compare the 1986 Porsche 924S and RX7 N/A (not sure what exact model). The conclusion was that while the Porsche had a couple better things about it, the RX7 was much better as far as price/performance goes. Im not sure if the 924S is in america tho (I dont know too much about porsches lol ;D).

91_fc

EMISSIONS !!! the emsissions on the FC were better than those of the FC! (jk, im not really sure ) im trying to find out the difference but cant find much.

REFLUX

I don't know if this is a benefit but the inevitable fender-bender is going to hurt you WAY more (financially/emotionally/mentally/etc) if an FD is hit versus an FC

Sideways7

iTrader: (7)

I think Top Gear is a magazine in England, but they regularly do TV reviews of the latest cars, usually (always?) about sports cars. I'm not too sure what the differences were, but I think the 944 is a better/faster car than the 924.

How true, especially the emotional/mental part.

neptuneRX

insurance... paying 1300 a year for full. How much are most FD people paying?

Sesshoumaru

iTrader: (1)

the insurance depends on the driver

it was 300 dollars more for 6 mo for FD than FC with mine (50 buck more a month).

you get to know both cars and that "pain to work on" slowly goes away.

usmcjsy

iTrader: (1)

Who Cares? Like someone said earlier once you throw mods into it it does not really matter who was faster stock. Besides I paid $3k for my TII, thats about $7k I can put into mods to get me to the same price as your avg FD. So I guess performance per $ I am gonna have to say FC. $7k in mods and you should be screamin past a stock FD. So bang for buck FC gets my vote. If price is not a issue than ya I like the FDs better even with the short lived motors they come with.

JKM

Well here's one major difference: I can afford a FC, I can't afford a FD, so therefore, the FC is far superior in the fact that it is concievable that I could actually pay for it.

Madrx7racer

lol, well put JKM

Elysian

i was talking to my previous mechanic(yes a rotary specialist), and he was telling me about FD's, because i was wondering about them... he told me one of the issues he saw was the fuel lines run close to either the exhaust or the turbos i forget, and after about 80k of running next to that hot turbo they can get brittle and crack, and turn into a engine fire... dunno how true this is, or if the issue might have been fixed on most all the FD's, but if that is so true, then thats a significant issue

91_fc

I agree. Ha! so i guess the FC is better in that sense. i mean, money is a factor. i guess you could say money = speed. if it weren't ... we would be comparing FC's to Ferrari's.

RXTASY1

FC=Street car you can race
FD=Race car you can drive on the streets

The handling ability of the FD is far superior to the FC.

As far as beating one in a race with a modded FC..... that is easy unless the FD has been modded just as much.

jon88se

I like the FC chassis more than the FD (with proper coilovers and bushings, no DTSS) - I think the FC is always a bit more predictable than it's younger brother but the FD is much nicer looking FC's last longer and do pretty well as daily drivers aside from a couple of idle issues. There is a lot more to worry about with an FD, though once properly rebuilt and cared for they can be reliable long lasting cars - most stock examples are beaten on and though are likely cared for in terms of regular maintaining (oil changes, tires etc...) are usually in the hands of people that have no knowledge of the car. The FD was a bit overly complicated but that was a result of the times, it had to compete with the 300ZXTT, the SupraTT and the VR4TT -- the TT choice for the FD was a marketing solution, not an enginieering or reliability choice. They could have made the RX-8 back then, they knew how but the market wanted a very techy TT motor - thats what they got

91_fc

yeah. i read that mazda engineers already had the idea of the side intake/exhaust ports way back. the design just got put on hold because mazda invested thier money and time into the twin turbo's because everybody else was doing it. but, i don't think the lines on the fd are nicer than the ones on the fc. i think that the stock lines on the fc are too curvy. but that's just me.

Dan H

And then what happens when you put $7K in an FD? Bye bye FC.

91_fc

Syscrush

924S is mechanically the same as an NA 944. It's lighter though, so it handles a bit better and accelerates a bit harder. Aerodynamics of the 944 are better, though, so high-speed stability of the 944 is better than the 924S.

Note that the 924 is mechanically very different from the 924S or 944. The straight 924 is basically a chunk. VW and Audi drivetrain and suspension with a Porsche badge on it.

Handling of the 924S/944 is a bit sharper than an FC, but overall very similar. I found my S4 FC to be more stable at high speeds than my bro's 924S, and much more forgiving around bumpy sweepers. In an autox or on a race track, though, I think that the 924S/944's chassis would come out on top.

Power is similar in the FC & 944, but the 2.5L I4 motor in the Porsche has a stronger midrange, and the gearing isn't as ridiculously tall.

The 924S/944 has a trick rear-mounted transaxle which improves the handling, but the shifter feel really sucks *** compared to any RX-7. Overall, the ergos in the Porsche cars are terrible, but quality is high. Galvanized body panels are a great idea - and they look even better if you've shelled out to repair a rusted-to-hell FB.


Those Porsche cars are pretty cool. I like the 7's better and in performance per dollar there's no comparison. HOWEVER, you have to acknowledge that as beautiful as the FB is, its styling is really derivative of the 924. And as badass & funky as the FC is, its styling is really derivative of the 944.

Take it easy,