Andrew.

iTrader: (4)

my sport had ps/ac and a sunroof, base model with nothing is the lightest. Then do a 5 lug swap with the 4 pot brakes.
-Andrew

SonicRaT

iTrader: (6)

my sport has no sunroof, ps/ac was removed (easier than a 5lug swap), weighs in at about 2420.

Lodivigo

For a lightweight FC only look at the S4's. An '87 sport would be the best start, but you could take a GXL and rip all the extra crap out and get close to the same result, it all depends on how much work you want to do. An '88 GTU is a good canidate too, no AAS or rear wiper, some have PS and AC but you can take that out. It also comes with 5-lugs and 4-pot standard.

snub disphenoid

Yeah do what everyone else says. Find a sport with the good brakes, then change the hood, rip off the AC and hit the track. You'll actually be rear-weight biased at that point.

coldfire

iTrader: (1)

the lightest model was the S4 base (no options being the lightest).

why don't you just rip everything out?
no interior whatsover, except for driver seat and dash. completely gut the doors, removing glass, etc. get lighter parts such as aluminum hood, lightened flywheel. get FC convertible wheels (light and wider) and slap on some R-compounds. base will most likely not have much in the engine to begin with, but of course PS, AC, emissions, cold start, whatever will all go.

be sure to swap to 5-bolt (needed for the vert rims) and put TII brakes on there.

i really want to do this, but i don't have the luxury of having an FD as my other car

i'll bet you could get close to 2000 lbs...
but don't count on besting that Elise you were mentioning

BATMAN

what is the widest front and rear wheels/tires that u can install?

ddub

Depends on a lot of things, offset, whether you use spacers, etc. I've seen ppl run 255 front and rear with a lesser offset to space them out (wide fenders also), me I'm running 225 front and rear with a 2mm less offset than stock and lowered .8"

bingoboy

yeah you're right. my 89 GTU weighed 2868 when i shipped it. it was empty with 1/4 tank of gas. i highly doubt a GTUs would be 200lbs lighter than the same car without an LSD and smaller brake calipers/springs/swaybars etc.

flamin-roids

2,640 is what a '86 SE tipped the scales at. Completly stock with nothing removed at all. My fully loaded automatic GXL (S5) tipped the scales at 2,910 fully stock. My car wieghs 2,740 now after new lighter exhaust and a 5 speed (much lighter!). I'd imagine the '86 SE bare stock would be the lightest.

Rx7MPGUY84

my car must be one of the light ones. was a 87 base with no fun stuff and manual steering rack, and no ac. and i removed just about everything under the hood that said emmissions, and made my own ghetto light *** exhaust. and put lighter rims on it. aluminum hood, and most of the rear interior is gone. of course now i have the turbo motor in and the turbo 5 lug everything. once i get it running again ill tell you how much it weighs haha

tecknomage

i have a 88 vert and its suposto way 3003 lb well i put it on one of those grain way scaled and it was 3500 or so with a ratchet set in the trunk and me in the car when i only way 184 lb thik the scale might have ben messed up because it dident drop 184 lb it only droped 100 lb or so

coldfire

iTrader: (1)

look in the wheels/tires forum, there has been plenty of discussion on this...

i don't see why you are asking this if you want to go light weight? like i said, sport (or even better vert which are a little wider) rims are muchos light, and with some R-compounds you don't need any wider with an NA.

but since you are asking, you can usually fit an 8 inch wheel up front with good offset. i think some have tried 8.5 inch, but you have to be careful of tire size...
the back is a lot easier to work with. 9 inches fits easy...

TurboIIGuy

We just weghed our street driven race car acura integra. Its a 1994, has a gsr set up, a stock fuel tank, dash, no ventilation system, no interior other than the 2 front seats and rear strut bar, including front strut bar and spoon wheels, it weighs in with 230lb driver at 2189 pounds. It is running a 14 flat on the 1/4 mile as of last run. more tuning has since been done. so they are a little lighter than that in street/ race trim. Keep in mind this car only has a 6 point roll cage.

thevanillaninja6

The Elise pulls a 1.06 g's, 0-60 in 4.4, there's no way you could beat it with an FC, most especially in autox

SonicRaT

iTrader: (6)

He was talking about a forum member, 88IntegraLS, not the car.

BATMAN

Why not?

Weight isn't everything when ur a few hundred pounds off.

Sure the Elise is lighter, but the rx7 has a better weight distribution.

Dan H

The Elise benefits from having a more heavier rear end and a more advanced suspension.

50/50 is not always the ideal setup.

Icemark

Yep, I agree the 86-87 sport is what he wants, and a second choice a 88 GTU or third choice a 89-90 GTUs.

But the Sport is also the fastest non turbo, in stock trim. Car and Driver even got a stock one down to a 7.7 second 0-60 back in '87, making it only about a half second slower than a 87-88 Turbo.

The quickest a 88 GTU was 8.0 or 89-90 GTUs ever got in stock form was 7.83.

SonicRaT

iTrader: (6)

Not sure how much the aero package helps, but I did notice my '87 sport was always consistantly faster than any other N/a i've driven, by a considerable ammount.

BATMAN

50/50 is my ideal than other weight setups for all around driving experience.

Please elaborate what exact parts of the Elise is better suspension-wise than the FC?

The only suspension improvements are GM's magnetic micro-filaments that the Caddy and new Vettes have and Benz active suspension.

Elise's handling numbers are vastly attributed to it's low weight. Throw on another 1000lbs and it will eat **** following a RX7.

The fact that a car is newer doesn't mean that the sum of it's parts have improved much, if any.

Just look at poppet valves. Same old **** with a shitty Cd like that of a umbrella.

It's been around since the 1800's and the mighty Elise and 99% of cars still use it.

Big deal.

andrew lohaus

i thought the elise had double wishbones front and back. thats gota have a little edge on struts up front and the funky multi-linkness with the dtss fc's have in the rear.

Dan H

True, the Elise's weight has a lot to do with handling but c'mon, an FC being to hold its own against an Elise? With drivers being equal, not possible at all.

http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elis...ar/suspension/

Judging from the link, the Elise suspension is more advanced. But its redundant since we're comparing cars 15 years apart.

coldfire

iTrader: (1)

you are NOT going to beat an Elise unless you are prepping the car in full race trim. without going Turbo this means an agressive bridge port or PP engine. that then necessitates the use of stronger drivetrain components. since you don't want to go heavier though, this means getting expensive aftermarket components. sure, this will all still cost less than the price of an Elise, but you don't get a warranty and it's not street legal...

other reasons why an Elise would not "eat **** following a RX7":
- close ratio 6 speed w/ high final drive
- bonded and extruded aluminum chassis
- mid-mounted powertrain (the ideal engine position in a race car)

i'm sorry, but it is going to take a lot to beat a car that finished first in a C/D comparo of extreme sports cars. not saying it is possible, but you are going to need more than just weight reduction...

snub disphenoid

There's also that little bit about the Elise weighing less than 2000 lbs, going from 0-60 in 5 flat, and being shod in beefy R-compound rubber from the factory. Oh yeah and it gets good gas mileage.

coldfire

iTrader: (1)

yeah, but that stuff was pretty much already mentioned^

and actually the performance #s are:
4.4 seconds to 60 mph, 12.0 seconds to 100, 13.2 seconds at 104 in the quarter-mile

as tested by C/D