Drakk0r

I'd say the Series 4 base model would be the ultimate for modding. They're the lightest of all FC's, and since they're base models, there's less **** to have to remove. Only part that sux is having to upgrade the car with select stock parts from higher versions..... Like 5 lug hubs and 4 piston brakes.

RarestRX

Yo,



It's a landslide! Don't mess with the GTUs!! *grin*

I voted for the GTUs, go fig. Why? What Wozzoom said. You get all the goodies, not the hit or miss with the Sports. Sometimes you got the LSD, sometimes ya didn't, sometimes the aluminum hood, etc. Better looks, better seats, better supsension, better wheels, better brakes, better engine. As a package, it just gels. You'd have to drive one.

The GTUs is just...cool. It's a TII stripped of fat, including the engine grenade: the turbo. Do some simple mods and you've got a scalpel for the street. Do some more serious mods, rollcage, lose the A/C, some coilovers, and the car becomes downright wicked.

Not to mention the rarity and mystique surrounding the car. It's an "s". That's all you really have to say. Those in the know will immediately go, "Oooh." when you roll up. It's rare, it's hardcore. It's...mine!! *grin*

Enough fawning...

KS
1989 GTUs "Not for sale."

Scott 89t2

you don't even have the top 2 listed!!!!!

1: S5 vert
2: GSL SE

peejay

The GTUs. It has everything you'd want (S5 engine, big brakes) and nothing you don't want (sunroof, rear wiper, and other extra-weight garbage).

HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

1: S5 vert
2: GSL SE

(Looking at my stable in my garage)

Couldn't agree more. While driving down PCH north of Santa Monica:

This is what a Hardtop Rex driver looks like when a Vert drives by>>>>>>

This is what the topless Vert driver looks like >>>>

peejay

GSL-SE? Come on this is the FC forum If you want to include 1st-gens then you have to include the '80. Simplest year to come with electronic ignition, and it had the unadulterated suspension in it - starting in '81, and then moreso in '84, Mazda tuned-out much of the oversteer that makes SA's so FUN. '79 and '80 have the wonderful Big Fat(tm) 18mm rear stabilizer and the original E-Z-Slide rear geometry... in '81 they went to a wussy 15mm bar andin '84 they retuned the rear geometry for "stability" reasons...

So let's keep the 1st-gens out of the FC poll eh?

rx_7_driver

the s5 verts r the best (i am only saying this cause i own one)

Roy James

86 Base, check the sig

GTUsGUY

I'll go with the GTUs

Dak

I'd guess the better brakes are worth the trade off in wieght.Besides if you went with a Volk or SSR wheel you could get a 17" that's as light as the 14" wheels.I'd pick the GTUs.I like the series5 better myself.

NZConvertible

That doesn’t necessary mean better handling. When talking handling and grip, wheel size is always a compromise between minimising unsprung weight with a smaller wheel, and selecting a wheel diameter that you can put a decent tire onto. Larger wheels mean lower profile (stiffer) sidewalls, plus larger wheels are generally wider, meaning wider (grippier) tires. 14” wheels and single-piston brakes may be lighter, but do you really think skinny high-profile tires and crappy brakes belong on a sports car?

peejay

In defense of skinny tall-profile tires... Wide, low-profile tires have wide, short contact patches, which is bad for directional stability. Taller sidewall, narrower tires have a longer contact patch, which has a greater "self aligning" ability, which means when you're zooming down the road the car will not be darting all over the place.

Also, low-profile tires have much peakier traction curves than tall-profile tires. What this means is, a low profile tire is less forgiving, whille a tall profile tire will let you get right up to maximum grip and beyond without you falling off the curve (resulting in a spin...) So basically if you're a driver like me who likes the feel of the car hanging on by its fingernails, and not just raw outright G's, then taller-profile tires are better because they are much more forgiving.

in short, low-profile tires may grip more, but they handle worse, both in a straight line and in cornering.

I'm of the midset that says the wheels need be large enough to fit over the brakes, and no more... any more than that makes the sidewalls too short, and even if the wheels are the same weight, the larger wheel will have larger polar inertia because its mass is further outboard.

NZConvertible

OK, maybe my statement was a bit too general, so I'll rephrase: 185/70 tires on 14" wheels have no place on a sports car!

peejay

Sure they do....

Come on, Ferraris used to have 165/80-15 equivalent tires on them, are you saying that an old Barchetta (thinking of a 125-166 car) isn't a sports car?

NZConvertible

No, I just said that wheel/tire combo has no place on a sports car. Perhaps I should have said modern sports car. They certainly have no place on an FC, not if you want decent cornering ability anyway.

BTW, these days a Korean econobox's handling would embaress that Ferrari. Ain't technology wonderful.

ultradef

S5 verts definitely! All the stock N/As are relatively slow anyway (compared to a TII) , so you might as well have a vert...

Icemark

Let’s clear up a couple of misconceptions that have been posted in this thread.

#1 the The 86-87 Sports were not option packages. They were considered individual models. As I have posted many times in the past, they are model numbers FB43 (solid roof) and model FB69 (Sunroof). They never had ABS, LSD, automatic transmissions or more than two seats from the factory. You may occasionally find some with an aluminum hood, but it is very rare and related production line supply issues.

The S4 Base model was the FB01 (no sunroof- manual tranny) and FB02 (no sunroof-auto tranny) and FB41 and FB42 (2+2 versions) just as a comparison.

#2 The T2 actually has the suspension from the Sport (FB43 or FB69) as did the 88 GTU (model #FB77 and FB78). But the HP thing is a mute point... yes it has 14 more HP but they only have 3 more Ft/lbs or torque, making the extra HP hardly noticeable. Top it off with an average of 200 lbs heavier than the comparable S4 car and it is wasted HP. To further prove my point, Car and Driver got 7.6 seconds 0-60 on a Sport, but never got better than 7.8 seconds on a GTUs.

#3That is incorrect, you have mixed the two up. The 4 lugs are almost 2 lbs (per corner) heavier that the 5 lugs. Remember that the 4 lug rear rotors are solid (not vented) and while the front rotor size is slightly larger on the 4 pot brakes (.20 inches- less than a 1/4 of an inch).

Remember that 2 lbs per wheel is the equivalent of robbing about 4HP from the cars potential.

88IntegraLS

I was thinking exactly the same thought. This is the lightest of the light second gens . . . and I've got one! No sunroof, no bins, soon to put an aluminum hood on before a repaint All it had was AC and I took that out, too. Those 14" rims and NA drivetrain components have the lowest amount of rotational mass . . . drop a lightweight flywheel, streetport and full exhaust in there and you got one quick NA!

Hey Whats up Isaac? Haven't seen your posts in a while, last time was the V8 flamewar.

2ndGen.rocket

if tall skinny tires are better on sports cars, then why do no modern sports cars have tall skinny tires?

Ill tell you what, my Ford Escort had tall skinny tires and handled like ****. I could barely keep the thing in a straight line.

I understand the concept of what you are saying about directional stability. But either way, they put 265/50's on new M3's. I don't think that car would handle better with 185's on it.

88IntegraLS

He he, very true. It is possible to put 205/60's on the stock 14x5.5 rims . . . that is what I am planning on doing. 205 is bare minimum width in my opinion for a sports car.

I agree with the argument supporting higher profile tires, how you can sidewind your car through a curve so fast the tires start to groan, "on the edge of their fingernails". I would much rather have 60 or 50 series tires in that situation than 40 or those hideous 30 series tires that are all the rage these days.

Sad thing is 205/60/14's are hard to find cheap on Ebay, but they are still under $300 for a complete set incl. mount / balance / road hazard if bought new . . . Bridgestone something or other, forgot the name when I got the quote.

turbojeff

iTrader: (30)

86-87 Sport didn't come with LSD, most aerodymanic FC.

88 GTU did come with LSD, different rear spoiler adds drag.

89-90 GTUs is cool but really overrated. Everyone always talks about the "turbo suspension and brakes" Yeah, it is actually on the Sport package too. Lightest NA, not even. Really the GTUs got all the attention merely because of the badging and #'s made.

I hate the Electro-matic seatbelts so much I'd rather go with the 86-87 Sport, otherwise it'd be a GTUs because of the nicer interior. I weighed a 86 Sport, all stock, no sunroof, no PS. All it had was AC, 2600lbs even.

It seems most 86 Sport packages came with fewer options and aluminum hoods. I've seen more 87s with sunroofs, PS, AC and cruise, my second one even had TII seats and carpet in it and a steel hood.

Jeff
Bought first FC in 1990, an '87 Sport.

turboren

GTUs, stock, but I love the almost 200 lb difference between my 90 GTUs and the 86 base that I had converted to sport suspension. I agree that the aerodynamics of the sport make it look sleeker (obviously, 0.29 Cd sport vs 0.31 GTUs), though at the speeds that would make a difference, you would need a TII engine to get there.

Ren

Icemark

The 86 Sports with aluminum hoods were a production line thing... they built 50,000+ FCs in 86, and had production shortages all through the run. When they ran out of Steel hoods they jammed on Aluminum ones to keep the line running.

PS was standard on all 86-87 FCs except the T2 and base models (4 lugs without alloy wheels).

AC was port installed on 95% of the FCs made for North America.

Cruise was a dealer or Port installed option on all S4 FCs.

turbojeff

iTrader: (30)

Icemark,

Sounds like you definetly know your stuff. But this 86 Sport Package I speak about without PS, came without it from the dealer. It was a one owner car, all original, and this was 8 yrs ago. I'm sure that it didn't come with PS. I still know where the car is, I could get the VIN.

Are you sure that only the base models and TIIs came without PS (optional)?

Thanks,
Jeff

Icemark

I just double checked... yes you are right, in 86 PS was not standard on any model except the GXL:



and 87: