Ok, the thing about FC's is they have a lot of potential. The turbo as a lot of potential for power because, well, it’s a turbo. The N/A's on the other hand start to get expensive to get some power from.

Even though the suspension geometry is dated, there is some great handling in it with aftermarket shocks and springs. The ones from the factory are a joke. There have been some improvements in shock technology since the mid 80’s.

These cars are definitely something I would classify as an ‘advanced handler’ meaning that the car will bite you if your not ready for it. The stock suspension will understeer most of the time, but under trail breaking, or letting off the throttle quickly in a ‘at the limits’ turn will cause some pretty drastic oversteer. The stock suspension, being very soft and having huge body roll, doesn’t really have the beans to stand up to newer stuff.

 

stock for stock i'm sure newer cars will kill a FC. the FC is riding on 15+ year old suspension with outdated design.

on the other hand, buying a FC now and modding it is almost a given. stuff like suspension will probably need replacement and people are not going to buy brand new OEM suspension when superior aftermarket pieces are better and cheaper.

btw, with equal amounts of money into each car (28k rx8 vs. 28k FC3S), i bet the FC will demolish the rx8.

 

Oh wow you ****** think? You can say that about TONS of new vs. old cars... It's stupid to compare it like that, forget cost of the car initially, I wonder which car would be best with the same amount spent on suspension alone while everything else is stock.

 

 

why is it an idiotic comparison? you are looking at buying a car now, not a brand new car from 1986 vs. a 2004. so it's not unreasonable to compare performance at equal cost.

unless money is no object and ur fabulously rich.

 

Because it's a stupid comparison....

You could say that about so many cars its not even funny. Durrr a new car is gonna cost a lot more, but comparing which has more potential based on that price is idiotic.

If you have 28k to spend on an rx8 or some other car, why would you consider an FC? Sure there are some people out there that will say they love FC's bla bla bla, but I'd much rather have an FD, used WRX STi, and a list of others.

 

the reason is b/c the original poster was asking how the FC handles vs. newer cars, with the rx8 in particular. afaik it definitely seemed like he was very interested in getting into the driver seat of one or the other.

 

there nothing wrong with MacPhearson struts, that can be configured to do wonderful things. Look what Porsche did with them, BMW too!

I would like to know what tires your running on and wheel size. With my stock 15" 60 series wheels, turn in took forever! but with my 17" wheels with low profile 40 series tires on them, the turn in was so fast i could fling you out of the car if you didnt have a seat belt on.

 

Let's see, FC versus current sports (or sporty) cars...

vs. Z06... definitely goes to Vette
vs. Base C5... Vette again
vs. Viper... Yup, Viper wins...
vs. Evo 8... Yup, Mitsu..
vs. WRX... Rx7 might have this one...
vs. Mustang Cobra... might be close, but I think the Cobra probably has it.
vs. 3rd Gen 7.. FC loses again...
vs. GTO... Rx7 might have this one as well...

You DID say current sports cars... the FC handles well for a 20 year old car that can be had for 2-3K dollars. If you believe it outhandles those cars, wake up. Can it run with them when modded? Probably. If you mod them the same amount, nope.

"But it costs xx.xx to buy/mod the 7, and xx.xx more to buy/mod the new cars...." Yeah, but you didn't ask that, did you?

 

Gentlemen,

From the pocket book postion my question would be:
Given a stock RX-7, in my case a gxl 89, how much would I have to spend to bring it up to a comparable level to a RX-8?

This is a fair comparison since in my opinion, if I can upgrade my RX-7 for only a small slice of what it would cost to purchase a RX-8 it makes since to do the mods.

If I can bring the RX-7, I already own, up to a comparable level with a RX-8 for couple of thousand dollars then I am not going to spend 30K+ on a new RX-8.

By the way IMHO there are many cars from the RX-7 era that you could throw the money, equal to purchasing the new 2004/5 versions, and their performance would never come close to the new models. It says a lot to me that a 10+ year old car design can be brought up to a comparble level with a new models for only a few thousand dollars. If true it certainly tells me that the RX-7 was and is a great design and ahead of its time.

 

How can you guys compare a car that is at least 18 years old car versus a newer car?
Did we forget that not all lasts forever including shocks and bushings?? Are we comparing an FC with 18 years old shocks and bushings with another sports car? That would be stupid to even compare.
Someone on this forum wrote something really stupid awhile back. He was pissed that his 1987 FC did not handle as well as his friends new 2004 Eclipse.
No fricken DUH.

 

Well, FC's seemed to have handled surprisingly well in the 80s, GRM pulled 1.04G from a TII with just an alignment and adjusting the tire pressure.. How many new cars can you say that for?

 

I think that an FC with suspension work can handle its own against most new sport cars, even modded.

 

WTF? How do you determine what "handles" better? By skidpad numbers? By lap times? By slalom speeds? By feel?

You do have to understand almost all the reasons the designers built a certain car the way they did to be able to give a valid comparison between it and another car. Not all sports cars are aimed at the same specific target market. There are "sports cars" out there that are created to be "tossable" and give that sporty feel, as well as cars designed to go through the slalom quickly, as well as cars that are designed to get awesome skidpad numbers.

Also remember, a car that can pull an AWESOME slalom time and AWESOME skidpad numbers every once in awhile may not be as fast around a track as one that might not get such good numbers, but is more consistent, and provides the driver with what he/she finds vital to driving quickly.

A huge part of how well a car "handles" is dependent on how a person likes to drive. As you can see, it is near impossible to COMPARE how well a car "handles"........ But you can always PRAISE how well it handles

 

I dont feel that the chassis or suspension on an FC is dated at all. Hell, it seems kinda ahead of its time when you compare it to its competition of that era. And the point has been made that its not a dated suspension its wore out parts that make an FC perform poorly.
All I have suspension wise for my car is: Tokico HP struts, factory springs, and 17s sized 215/45 front and 255/45 rear. And I'd be willingly to put it up against any new sports car. It may not win against everything. But it sure as hell wouldnt lose badly when it lost. Just a little suspension and handling work and these cars really do come alive again.

 

I think alot of you are full of ****.

I would put the modified suspension in my FC up against damn near anything. I've driven the RX-8, and I hate it. I think it's an ugly piece of ****, and Mazda should get rid of it. This of course isn't from an economical standpoint.

Upgrade springs/struts, bushings, sway bars, brakes, wheels, tires, and you have a car that will handle corners with damn near anything.

 

stock fc only good for drifting... TEH BACK END IS ABITCH TO CONTROL OVERSTEER UP THE ***... **** it was hard as ***** to take it for an autox drive... until i got PERFORMANCE ENERGY SUSPENSION BUSHINGS FROM EBAY... btu it still wants to kick out good thing my bushings prevent it =)

 

i kinda like seeing my washerr fluid light go on and off when i take hard turns!

 

I've had a 94 Pontiac Firebird, my 7 has better control then it did. Granted is was the cheap base model, but still...

 

are you talking the suspension on a t2 or a NA. I think a t2 suspension is way better than a NA. Its actually a low buck upgrade for all you NA low ballers.

 

with eibach spings and kybs the 8 is much easier to handle that a 944/924S, i know, it my other car. but its also not a recent sports car. plus a N/A 7 doesnt have as much power as a 944/924S.

 

I think this guy was originally talking about STOCK cars.....

Also... Handling should not be confused with POWER... a car that does not handle quite as well, but make huge power numbers can easily beat a better handling but underpowered car. Lets take the 8 verses the 350Z The 8 gives up 50 HP to the Z.... but beats it on the track by a slim margin because it take the corners faster. But give the Z another 50 HP and it would be a blowout in favor of the Z, especially on a track with long straits.

an s4 TII handles good even by todays standards.... However, those damn 28 lb wheels really cut down on handling properties.

an s5 TII Handles a bit better due in part to lighter wheels.

An S5 GTU S handles better than the TII, if slightly, because of the lighter weight.

A stock third gen will kick all their asses.

A stock rx-8 will kill them all.

The stock RX-8 is one of the best handling cars I have ever driven. Some guys have posted lap times in comparison to other vehicles (posche 911 etc....) what you have to realize is that the RX-8 is giving major horsepower up to the 911 Turbo and still is very close to its lap times.. what this means is that the porche is blowing the 8 away on the straights, but the 8 doesn't have to slow down as much in the corners. the only true test of how a car handles versus another car would be to have each car have EXACTLY the same power and then do a few laps at the track with each.

In reality, the FC, in any form, will not stack up to a brand new rx-8, Porche, WRX, 'Vette, or other modern sports car. Its suspension components are just not capable, especially if you factor in that the FC's springs and sway bars are now at least 13 years old.

That being said... If you "modernize" the FC's suspension... it will run with the best of them. If you want to do a cost comparison the FC will blow them all away being that you can get a nice one for less than Five Grand and then dump three or four grand into the suspension and have a better handling car for 1/3 the price of an 8...

Now then.... the BEST HANDLING CAR I HAVE EVER DRIVEN...... A worked 1967 Mini-Cooper owned by a buddy of mine in Traben-Trarbach, GE. That car was like a go-kart on steroids. He had right around 120HP (his guess) from the motor, but i would put it up against damn near anything in a tight twisty track. I know for a fact it will blow a stock 911 away on Traben mountain in the Mosel river valley in GE. Did it many times!!

 

I fear you've never tried to go around a race track versus a more modern sports car (let's say Z06 for this example). Do some research, it's going to take a major rebuild of the RX7 suspension to compete with the Z06. Is it possible? Hell yes, look at Carl Byck's widebody. Yeah, that'll handle right along with 95% of the best stuff out there, and you're looking at 10-15K to do it. Throw that at the Z06 as well, and you're back in the same boat. I do suppose the power output has something to do without, beyond the sheer grip factor.

Don't get me wrong, for a 20 year old car, the RX7 handles great. I've driven right past 3000GTs, and a ton of other "faster" cars in mine. I love the car, and it's a blast to drive. Some people just forget, that it isn't faster then EVERYTHING.

 

Somewhat of a loungish thread, but I'll put in my 2C.

First, Comparing the FC to a C6 or something of that caliber is silly.
Second, why is the FC suspension outdated? It's not as sophisticated as a RX-8s, but McPherson front, semi-trailing rear is plenty good for a sports car and is still found in sports cars. As brought up earlier, I really think the FC performs best in a dynamic setting (eg. road course), rather than in other settings. The car is terrific to drive in those circumstances. I've run on the track with the 350Z and S2K with a power deficit on them and I'm convinced the FC has an advantage in dynamic handling.

As for static skidpad tests, which I don't like because they're misleading and inaccurate, Motortrend in '89 managed .89G. I realize some tests scored a little lower. Recall that tire technology had advanced massively since then. The 350Z with 140 treadwear tires scores lower than that. Tirerack has a test with ES100s (entry level performance tires, 280 treadwear) where they put them on a BMW 330 (stock .89G) and got .92 I *think*. Throw a set of modern tires comparable to those on a modern sports car and the FC will score quiet respectably. My point is that the FC is plenty comparable in handling to cars like the 350Z, S2K, WRX.

 

They asked how it handled compared to a current sports car... C5 is a current sports car...