What makes the FC so heavy?
09-24-07, 08:44 PM
#51
This might actually be the dumbest thing that I have ever read. The Rx-7 was created by Mazda to be Japan's ultimate sports car. Name 1 Japanexe car in 1979 that was even close to it? The 280 ZX? Nissan added the X becasue the were trying to move away from the pure sports car market, while Mazda was trying to rule it. **** the 79 Vett was just a hair faster, and the 7 handled better. Mazda made the FB to concour the world. They set their sites on creating a better and cheaper car than the Porsche 924. Damn dude the FB was such a good car Porsche had to drop the 924 and replace it with the 944 just to compete. So saying that Mazda just threw together the FB is just plain ignorant.
09-25-07, 01:14 AM
#55
Material under the carpets to keep road noise down.
It's absolutly retarded to remove it on a street car.
It will only save you a couple of dozen pounds (which is nothing on a 2600+ pound car) in exchange for a much louder cabin. It's also not easy to remove since the carpets need to come out and the sound deadening material is glued to the chassis.
It's absolutly retarded to remove it on a street car.
It will only save you a couple of dozen pounds (which is nothing on a 2600+ pound car) in exchange for a much louder cabin. It's also not easy to remove since the carpets need to come out and the sound deadening material is glued to the chassis.
09-25-07, 08:40 AM
#56
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
If you look at the early 1st gens, they had much simpler interiors then the later 1st gens but were several hundred pounds heavier due to the emissions system (thermal reactor).
1st gens may be slower from the factory, but they are a hell of a lot easier to make quick then the NA FC. And generally more reliable as well on account of being a more simple car.
09-25-07, 08:46 AM
#57
meh
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our FC's ARE heavy
the GC WRX STi for example
is lighter than the FC AND FD... and it's a bloody awd 4 door saloon car!
i dropped the Rear subframe on my FC..
that THING IS MADE OF RECYCLED ANVILS...
rear sub complete with diff axles and brakes..
it takes 3 ppl to carry the damn thing.. and it still takes a ton of effort...
it was sooooo much heavier than my friends S13 rear end...
mine became impossible to put back on... I had to put the car on a Lift.. and Lower it onto the Subframe.. rather than raising the subframe on to the car..
it's rediculous
I wonder what you could get an FC's weight down to if u used CF hood, fenders, doors, and all lexan windows completely gutted.. one non recling bucket.. sheet metal Dashboard..
not much u can do about the underlying stuff tho..
the GC WRX STi for example
is lighter than the FC AND FD... and it's a bloody awd 4 door saloon car!
i dropped the Rear subframe on my FC..
that THING IS MADE OF RECYCLED ANVILS...
rear sub complete with diff axles and brakes..
it takes 3 ppl to carry the damn thing.. and it still takes a ton of effort...
it was sooooo much heavier than my friends S13 rear end...
mine became impossible to put back on... I had to put the car on a Lift.. and Lower it onto the Subframe.. rather than raising the subframe on to the car..
it's rediculous
I wonder what you could get an FC's weight down to if u used CF hood, fenders, doors, and all lexan windows completely gutted.. one non recling bucket.. sheet metal Dashboard..
not much u can do about the underlying stuff tho..
09-25-07, 01:01 PM
#60
How does the fact that a car is slower make it lighter? It doesn't. A lotus elise is faster and lighter. A camry is slower and heavier.
How does the fact that a car is less refined make it lighter? It doesn't. Less refined vehicles generally have poorly produced parts made from heavy metals like cast iron and steel as opposed to aluminum and other exotic metals. These less refined metal types and amounts add weight.
If you are unable to follow that logic, just stop posting about vehicle weight.
09-25-07, 01:23 PM
#61
less refined?? The SA/FB is more sports car than the FC will ever be!
Slow?? by today's standards!! but when they were new they flew off the dealer lots!
either keep this on topic with REAL answers (not your silly opinions as to why it's heavy) or close this thread.
Now the FC is lighter than other cars in it's class because they used aviation aluminum cast parts for the front and rear suspension components.
What are you guys c omparing the FC to?? why do you think it's heavy??
Of course as the car went through the updates in the later years it gained weight in order to make it more driver friendly but the FC that came out in 85 as a replacement for the first gen went through many phases in order to remove as much weight as posible.
EDIT: thank you alex, I thought I was the only one that was bothered by that failure of a post.
Slow?? by today's standards!! but when they were new they flew off the dealer lots!
either keep this on topic with REAL answers (not your silly opinions as to why it's heavy) or close this thread.
Now the FC is lighter than other cars in it's class because they used aviation aluminum cast parts for the front and rear suspension components.
What are you guys c omparing the FC to?? why do you think it's heavy??
Of course as the car went through the updates in the later years it gained weight in order to make it more driver friendly but the FC that came out in 85 as a replacement for the first gen went through many phases in order to remove as much weight as posible.
EDIT: thank you alex, I thought I was the only one that was bothered by that failure of a post.
09-25-07, 03:14 PM
#62
the FC is heavy because the mazda engineers in charge of the FC project could not remove anymore weight without compromising the integrity and driveability of the car.
I think the final project was called "ounce per head" where every mazda engineers disassembled a complete FC and were told to remove 1 oz. each from anywhere in the car.
And comparing an FC rear end with a 240 rear end is like comparing J-Lo's *** with Paris Hilton's ***.
I think the final project was called "ounce per head" where every mazda engineers disassembled a complete FC and were told to remove 1 oz. each from anywhere in the car.
And comparing an FC rear end with a 240 rear end is like comparing J-Lo's *** with Paris Hilton's ***.
Fail.
How does the fact that a car is slower make it lighter? It doesn't. A lotus elise is faster and lighter. A camry is slower and heavier.
How does the fact that a car is less refined make it lighter? It doesn't. Less refined vehicles generally have poorly produced parts made from heavy metals like cast iron and steel as opposed to aluminum and other exotic metals. These less refined metal types and amounts add weight.
If you are unable to follow that logic, just stop posting about vehicle weight.
How does the fact that a car is slower make it lighter? It doesn't. A lotus elise is faster and lighter. A camry is slower and heavier.
How does the fact that a car is less refined make it lighter? It doesn't. Less refined vehicles generally have poorly produced parts made from heavy metals like cast iron and steel as opposed to aluminum and other exotic metals. These less refined metal types and amounts add weight.
If you are unable to follow that logic, just stop posting about vehicle weight.
Oh, and I don't think the FC is heavy. I just wondered why it was heavier than the FB.
Last edited by ericgrau; 09-25-07 at 03:19 PM.
09-25-07, 03:24 PM
#63
GRAM PER HEAD, thanks for the correction. Well it's heavier due to the creature comforts that the SA/FB lacked and Americans desired, then the safety requirements needed to be met. The car is much bigger overall so that by itself means it's going to be heavier.
09-25-07, 03:54 PM
#64
Full Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the OP:
Everything in these cars is heavy...the way around this(if you don't like the car's performance stock) is to lighten it up, make it have more power, or both. That being said, the pre-cat(only the pre-cat, no other part of the stock exhaust) on my '88 TII weighed in at 12lbs. At the same time, I went ahead and weighed my spec 90 dp/mp bolted together...and much to my surprise...12lbs! This was on a bathroom scale, so it could be off but it gives you an idea of how much weight could be shed from this car easily, while making more power at the same time. The first little component of the stocker, weighs the same as half of my current exhaust setup. My comments aren't specific to the fc being heavy or not(although personally, I think there is a lot of weight to be saved), but maybe a reason people perceive it as being heavy.
Everything in these cars is heavy...the way around this(if you don't like the car's performance stock) is to lighten it up, make it have more power, or both. That being said, the pre-cat(only the pre-cat, no other part of the stock exhaust) on my '88 TII weighed in at 12lbs. At the same time, I went ahead and weighed my spec 90 dp/mp bolted together...and much to my surprise...12lbs! This was on a bathroom scale, so it could be off but it gives you an idea of how much weight could be shed from this car easily, while making more power at the same time. The first little component of the stocker, weighs the same as half of my current exhaust setup. My comments aren't specific to the fc being heavy or not(although personally, I think there is a lot of weight to be saved), but maybe a reason people perceive it as being heavy.
09-25-07, 06:37 PM
#65
Fail.
How does the fact that a car is slower make it lighter? It doesn't. A lotus elise is faster and lighter. A camry is slower and heavier.
How does the fact that a car is less refined make it lighter? It doesn't. Less refined vehicles generally have poorly produced parts made from heavy metals like cast iron and steel as opposed to aluminum and other exotic metals. These less refined metal types and amounts add weight.
If you are unable to follow that logic, just stop posting about vehicle weight.
How does the fact that a car is slower make it lighter? It doesn't. A lotus elise is faster and lighter. A camry is slower and heavier.
How does the fact that a car is less refined make it lighter? It doesn't. Less refined vehicles generally have poorly produced parts made from heavy metals like cast iron and steel as opposed to aluminum and other exotic metals. These less refined metal types and amounts add weight.
If you are unable to follow that logic, just stop posting about vehicle weight.
An FB is not a Lotus Elise and an FC is not a Toyota Camry.
To get back on track, the FB was a far less refined vehicle in comparison to the upmarket FC in fundamental areas such as build quality and creature comfort.
To put it plainly, the FBs were so much lighter than the FCs because they are "rust-buckets" by comparison.
09-25-07, 06:58 PM
#67
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pacifica
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh yeah, because ignorance is less harmful than intelligence. No the SA was not and still is not less of sports of car than the FC, but "Slower and less refined" are not even half way valid reasons for the difference. Triple post for the LOSE!
09-25-07, 07:12 PM
#69
no, my ego rarely becomes a problem. It's the fact that your claims have no basis on reality and you continue to post them as factual information that bugs me. Granted, i'm not all pissy and butthurt about it but it's still annoying when a stupid noob start spewing bullshit without any concrete info.
build quality?? You don't know a damn thing bro. If you knew anything regarding the history of the RX7 you wouldn't post the stupid **** you've posted today. Go read a book or two.
build quality?? You don't know a damn thing bro. If you knew anything regarding the history of the RX7 you wouldn't post the stupid **** you've posted today. Go read a book or two.
09-25-07, 07:24 PM
#70
no, my ego rarely becomes a problem. It's the fact that your claims have no basis on reality and you continue to post them as factual information that bugs me. Granted, i'm not all pissy and butthurt about it but it's still annoying when a stupid noob start spewing bullshit without any concrete info.
build quality?? You don't know a damn thing bro. If you knew anything regarding the history of the RX7 you wouldn't post the stupid **** you've posted today. Go read a book or two.
build quality?? You don't know a damn thing bro. If you knew anything regarding the history of the RX7 you wouldn't post the stupid **** you've posted today. Go read a book or two.
Which book are you referring to? I own more than a dozen concerning the history of the rotary engine and the RX-7. I am of the opinion that the FB was both poorly designed and poorly constructed, largely due to the budget constraints of such a small company. Sorry if my opinion hurts your dump-tunnel.
Cheers!
09-25-07, 08:00 PM
#71
hahaha, yeah cuz we both know how much post counts really are worth on this forum. I will continue to disagree on the "SA/FB" was poorly designed and constructed but it seems pointless to continue this with you. Until you provide concrete info on how you come to this conclusion you should let this thread get back to the original intended topic.
BTW fix the html under your name, it was fine before.
BTW fix the html under your name, it was fine before.
09-26-07, 10:33 PM
#72
FB's are slower, worse handling and get slightly worse fuel economy compared to the FC. They're also cheap, simple and reliable (and their speed and handling are still decent). They have their place.
To take a different tangent. Here's a weight reduction list I came up with a long time ago in another thread:
I got some more ideas:
- Ducting hot air from vents to the hatch, HID headlights, LED brakelights, and LED replacements for all small lamps would allow both a lighter battery and alternator underdrive pulleys without compromising anything.
- iPod in place of radio. Must rig up some kind of small amp or use headphones (possibly wireless ones; i got good wireless ones for $20).
- RX-8 engine parts
Anyone else care to add?
To take a different tangent. Here's a weight reduction list I came up with a long time ago in another thread:
Okay, here's the new no-compromise list, based on comments, in no particular order:
Aluminum hood: 41.85# TII steel, 29.20 TII Al (12.65# saved)
Lightweight rims (e.g., 11lb. vert rims are cheap; lincoln continental BBS rims are same / similar): 13.5# stock, 10# saved (but counts as ~20#)
Spare tire + jack removed, fix-a-flat in its place: 24.85# TII
Stainless single exhaust
Flywheel: 10.25# Al "MI", 27.5# TII
Replace sound deadening with more modern materials (remove w/ dry scraper and/or heat gun)
Lighter seats (Sparco 14lb.): 33.40#/32.20# stock, 37.60# saved
UNSCREW storage bins & support frame
Lighter hatch glass (in some later FC's): 10# saved
Fiber glass doors, $125 (carzy driver plz post site), mirrors, fenders
Lighter headlight units ("diamond glass"?)
Lighter steering wheel
Lighter suspension (it's not 100% aluminum, I checked)
Power steering (after car is light enough)
Frame modifications (chamfer cuts & stitch welding)
TOTAL: 105 lbs., plus weight saved in stainless exhaust, storage bins, steering wheel, suspension, frame chamfers (maybe another 20+lbs.?)
Maybe:
lighter/smaller battery
tire sump cut out
exhaust heat shielding: 10#
Other weight reduction, based on comments (compromises something):
Emissions equipment (air pump = 8.8#)
Power steering, A/C (compressor = 14.9#, core = 6.55#), A/C lines, cruise control, heater core, other power equipment (blower = 6.85#)
Washer fluid reservoir & pump
Carpet, upholstery, door panels, head liner, dash, plastic & storage bins, sound deadening
Hatch shocks & straps
Radio, stereo, speakers, speaker housing, antenna
Sunroof motor & harness
Cut off tire sump, door support bars
Lexan windows & hatch
Cold start assist
Carbon Fiber ($$$)
Passenger seat
Less bolts, clips
TOTAL: 51.1lbs. for items with listed weights (including 14lb. seat), ??? for the rest
Aluminum hood: 41.85# TII steel, 29.20 TII Al (12.65# saved)
Lightweight rims (e.g., 11lb. vert rims are cheap; lincoln continental BBS rims are same / similar): 13.5# stock, 10# saved (but counts as ~20#)
Spare tire + jack removed, fix-a-flat in its place: 24.85# TII
Stainless single exhaust
Flywheel: 10.25# Al "MI", 27.5# TII
Replace sound deadening with more modern materials (remove w/ dry scraper and/or heat gun)
Lighter seats (Sparco 14lb.): 33.40#/32.20# stock, 37.60# saved
UNSCREW storage bins & support frame
Lighter hatch glass (in some later FC's): 10# saved
Fiber glass doors, $125 (carzy driver plz post site), mirrors, fenders
Lighter headlight units ("diamond glass"?)
Lighter steering wheel
Lighter suspension (it's not 100% aluminum, I checked)
Power steering (after car is light enough)
Frame modifications (chamfer cuts & stitch welding)
TOTAL: 105 lbs., plus weight saved in stainless exhaust, storage bins, steering wheel, suspension, frame chamfers (maybe another 20+lbs.?)
Maybe:
lighter/smaller battery
tire sump cut out
exhaust heat shielding: 10#
Other weight reduction, based on comments (compromises something):
Emissions equipment (air pump = 8.8#)
Power steering, A/C (compressor = 14.9#, core = 6.55#), A/C lines, cruise control, heater core, other power equipment (blower = 6.85#)
Washer fluid reservoir & pump
Carpet, upholstery, door panels, head liner, dash, plastic & storage bins, sound deadening
Hatch shocks & straps
Radio, stereo, speakers, speaker housing, antenna
Sunroof motor & harness
Cut off tire sump, door support bars
Lexan windows & hatch
Cold start assist
Carbon Fiber ($$$)
Passenger seat
Less bolts, clips
TOTAL: 51.1lbs. for items with listed weights (including 14lb. seat), ??? for the rest
- Ducting hot air from vents to the hatch, HID headlights, LED brakelights, and LED replacements for all small lamps would allow both a lighter battery and alternator underdrive pulleys without compromising anything.
- iPod in place of radio. Must rig up some kind of small amp or use headphones (possibly wireless ones; i got good wireless ones for $20).
- RX-8 engine parts
Anyone else care to add?
09-27-07, 12:21 AM
#74
Lives on the Forum
Fiberglass doors should only ever be run with a full cage with supplimental door bars, and even then you're still compromising the cars crash worthyness.
They protect you in a side impact and provide a load path for head on collisions helpins to stiffen the passenger compartment, reducing the chance that it'll crumple and potentially trap or injure you.
Save weight other ways, like stripping extra weight out of the stock doors. I like living, so I'll be keeping my stock doors with the door bars thank you very much.
They protect you in a side impact and provide a load path for head on collisions helpins to stiffen the passenger compartment, reducing the chance that it'll crumple and potentially trap or injure you.
Save weight other ways, like stripping extra weight out of the stock doors. I like living, so I'll be keeping my stock doors with the door bars thank you very much.
