What handles better: 2nd Gen or 1st Gen GSL-SE?
What handles better: 2nd Gen or 1st Gen GSL-SE?
Can anyone answer this question: What handles better: 2nd Gen or the 1st Gen GSL-SE? The SE has the better rear suspnsion, and weighs quite a bit less than the 2nd gen. I think the center-of-gravity is lower too.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Last edited by pjr; Jan 21, 2002 at 10:43 PM.
Rotary Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,402
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
Where, oh WHERE did you hear that the first-gen has a "better rear suspension"? A four-point with panhard rod is better than a fully-independent with passive rear steer? Nope.
Not to mention that the 2nd-gen has a better weight distribution, better front suspension, better steering geometry, and better brakes
The first-gen may be lighter, but not by much, and the 2nd-gen suspension is about as far ahead of the 1st as the 3rd is ahead of the 2nd...
Do some reasearch, my man.
Brandon
Not to mention that the 2nd-gen has a better weight distribution, better front suspension, better steering geometry, and better brakes
The first-gen may be lighter, but not by much, and the 2nd-gen suspension is about as far ahead of the 1st as the 3rd is ahead of the 2nd...Do some reasearch, my man.
Brandon
Originally posted by No7Yet
Where, oh WHERE did you hear that the first-gen has a "better rear suspension"? ....Do some reasearch, my man.
Brandon
Where, oh WHERE did you hear that the first-gen has a "better rear suspension"? ....Do some reasearch, my man.
Brandon
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 24
From: Rohnert Park CA
The only advantages the FB has over any FC is the live axle on flat surfaces, such as airport tracks and the weight.
On any other course even the basic FC, with the rack and pinion, IRS, additional power, etc is a better choice.
If the SA/FB were equal or better than the FC you would see them rated in the same race classes, rather than the SA/FB down on the scale a class or two (depending on sanactioning body).
On any other course even the basic FC, with the rack and pinion, IRS, additional power, etc is a better choice.
If the SA/FB were equal or better than the FC you would see them rated in the same race classes, rather than the SA/FB down on the scale a class or two (depending on sanactioning body).
Trending Topics
Information Regurgitator
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,995
Likes: 208
From: Sparta TN. United States
Originally posted by tmak26b
FC is in ITS, FB is in ITB
FC is in ITS, FB is in ITB
It's Back!
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 1
From: Cincinnati
Your automatically going to get biased opinions based on the fact you posted in the 2nd gen section.
I've owned both. The FC is more stable at speed and probably can hug the corners a little faster, but the FC has about 10x better feel and predictability (DTSS sucks)
I've owned both. The FC is more stable at speed and probably can hug the corners a little faster, but the FC has about 10x better feel and predictability (DTSS sucks)
Rotary Enthusiast
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
From: AL
Develope your driving skills and both cars will be almost equal in the handling department. If your going to autocross then decide what class you want to run in. If you pick CSP go with the 1st gen. Lighter weight is the way to go. If you are going to keep it on the street(no street racing, thats just plain stupid) go for the 2nd gen. Its easier to drive at the limit. The DTSS can be nerve racking so mine is disabled but I still overall prefer the 2nd gen car. My sig says it all.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
Originally posted by FPrep2ndGenRX7
If you pick CSP go with the 1st gen
If you pick CSP go with the 1st gen
Actually, I have seen a competative CSP 1st gen, but to get it there, it was no longer even remotely a street car. Very fast, but a trailer queen.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jeff20B
1st Generation Specific (1979-1985)
73
Sep 16, 2018 07:16 PM
