1993 vs 1994
09-20-07, 11:35 PM
#5
registered user
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
94-95
Biggest reason is the improvement to the interior plastics. May seem trivial but the 93 plastics scratched easily, too easily. But when the 93 plastics are mint, they truly are beautiful.
Couple other improvements were baffles in the gas tank to help fuel starvation in hard cornering, also "improvements" in suspension making it more compliant for everyday drivers in response to magazine articles printed at the time criticizing the 93's "harsh" ride.
Biggest reason is the improvement to the interior plastics. May seem trivial but the 93 plastics scratched easily, too easily. But when the 93 plastics are mint, they truly are beautiful.
Couple other improvements were baffles in the gas tank to help fuel starvation in hard cornering, also "improvements" in suspension making it more compliant for everyday drivers in response to magazine articles printed at the time criticizing the 93's "harsh" ride.
09-21-07, 12:30 AM
#7
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NV
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So performance was downgraded for 94-95 models? As far as I've read people don't like the look of the 94-95 plastics but they are more resistant to wear but honestly the best feature is the one touch roll down your window feature. Hehe.
Trending Topics
09-21-07, 01:09 AM
#9
2/4 wheel cornering fiend
09-21-07, 08:09 AM
#12
Magic Triangles no more!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They softened the anti-sway bars in the 94-95, but those can be swapped easily with most of the suspension and has probably already been changed since the cars are getting older.
Good buyers guide stating some differences:
http://www.rx7.voodoobox.net/infofaq.../bguide3g.html
94-95 are also quite a bit more rare than 93's.
ENTIRE 1993 YEAR TOTAL -----------------------------> 9,976
ENTIRE 1994 YEAR TOTAL -----------------------------> 3,403
ENTIRE 1995 YEAR TOTAL -------------------------------> 500
After sitting in a 93 compared to my 94... I am really glad I got a 94. If you spot an awesome 93 I'd get it, otherwise try and get a 94-95.
Good buyers guide stating some differences:
http://www.rx7.voodoobox.net/infofaq.../bguide3g.html
94-95 are also quite a bit more rare than 93's.
ENTIRE 1993 YEAR TOTAL -----------------------------> 9,976
ENTIRE 1994 YEAR TOTAL -----------------------------> 3,403
ENTIRE 1995 YEAR TOTAL -------------------------------> 500
After sitting in a 93 compared to my 94... I am really glad I got a 94. If you spot an awesome 93 I'd get it, otherwise try and get a 94-95.
09-21-07, 08:55 AM
#13
This is really the big difference.
Here's my 2+2 cents worth:
Interior Pieces - the 93's had a smooth but coated surface on the plastic pieces. The problem is that the coating would crack and flake off over time and look bad. In the 94-95's they replaced it with unfinished textured plastic. IMO, it looks like ***. Refinished 93 panels look a heck of a lot better than the unfinished plastic, but its all subjective. You can only purchase the 94+ interior pieces now so it makes it a mute point. However, Refinished 93 panels > 94-95 textured panels > cracked/peeling 93 panels.
Suspension - These cars are over 10 years old. The suspension changes would mean a lot more on a new car off the showroom floor but for a 10 year old car it's meaningless. Any car at this point still on its original suspension most likely needs new shocks. I would rather have a 93 with an updated suspension than a 94-95 with a 12-13 year old original suspension. This also makes the suspension differences a mute point.
Rear subframe - Who the hell cares? If it was that big of a change, you would see all the 93's owners swapping out their rear subframes for the 94-95 subframes. Yet you don't see that. So, another mute point.
Fuel tank - There was added baffling in the mid-94's and up. However, as tested, it made little difference on the track. This is why it's not a 'must have' mod for those who track their cars. If this is a concern, a better solution is a surge cover:
https://www.rx7club.com/group-buy-center-69/re-opened-fuel-surge-cover-gb-682991/
So, this becomes a mute point as well.
There are some other minor differences with the ABS system, dash displays, etc, but they are very minor. The major difference which cannot be necessarily retro fitted is the passenger side airbag. Keep in mind that these cars are came out before airbags were mandated. A lot of things which exist in today's cars do not exist in these cars. One of them is the ability to disable the passenger side airbag on the 94-95's. This can be a problem if you ever need to tote a small child in the car. I'm not advocating that people use their FD's to drive their small children around, but its possible to do so in the 93's because it does not have a passenger side airbag. This is the main thing to think about between the years. Other than that, just find one which has been well treated.
Here's my 2+2 cents worth:
Interior Pieces - the 93's had a smooth but coated surface on the plastic pieces. The problem is that the coating would crack and flake off over time and look bad. In the 94-95's they replaced it with unfinished textured plastic. IMO, it looks like ***. Refinished 93 panels look a heck of a lot better than the unfinished plastic, but its all subjective. You can only purchase the 94+ interior pieces now so it makes it a mute point. However, Refinished 93 panels > 94-95 textured panels > cracked/peeling 93 panels.
Suspension - These cars are over 10 years old. The suspension changes would mean a lot more on a new car off the showroom floor but for a 10 year old car it's meaningless. Any car at this point still on its original suspension most likely needs new shocks. I would rather have a 93 with an updated suspension than a 94-95 with a 12-13 year old original suspension. This also makes the suspension differences a mute point.
Rear subframe - Who the hell cares? If it was that big of a change, you would see all the 93's owners swapping out their rear subframes for the 94-95 subframes. Yet you don't see that. So, another mute point.
Fuel tank - There was added baffling in the mid-94's and up. However, as tested, it made little difference on the track. This is why it's not a 'must have' mod for those who track their cars. If this is a concern, a better solution is a surge cover:
https://www.rx7club.com/group-buy-center-69/re-opened-fuel-surge-cover-gb-682991/
So, this becomes a mute point as well.
There are some other minor differences with the ABS system, dash displays, etc, but they are very minor. The major difference which cannot be necessarily retro fitted is the passenger side airbag. Keep in mind that these cars are came out before airbags were mandated. A lot of things which exist in today's cars do not exist in these cars. One of them is the ability to disable the passenger side airbag on the 94-95's. This can be a problem if you ever need to tote a small child in the car. I'm not advocating that people use their FD's to drive their small children around, but its possible to do so in the 93's because it does not have a passenger side airbag. This is the main thing to think about between the years. Other than that, just find one which has been well treated.
09-21-07, 11:30 AM
#19
reliable performance
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the RX-7 Peformance Handbook this was the reason for the change:
"Early FDs were criticized for having excessive wheel hop during hard acceleration. It became such a big deal that Mazda started installing rear subframe connectors, which look like lengths of steel tubing connecting the subframe to the unibody. But wheel spin was still a problem for stock RX-7s because their twin-turbos made plenty of torque at the low end. Mazda then did away with the subframe connectors in favor or a redesigned rear subframe all together. Later RX-7s are said to have the best of both worlds, where the frame flexes just enough under hard acceleration to reduce wheel hop and minimize wheel spin."
Mahjik tries to downplay any advantage of the later cars. It should be noted that he owns a '93, and I detect more than a hint of defensiveness.
I own a '95. That's my bias. But I will say this about my bias. I had a choice. I was in the market to buy a new car when FD's were coming off the production line. I saw the bugs in the 93's and knew the old adage about being wary of buying the first year of a new model, so I decided to wait to buy the best car for the best deal.
That being said, if I were in the market for a used car, I'd take a well maintained '93 over a trashed '94 or '95. But all things being equal, go for the later car.
09-21-07, 12:13 PM
#21
Mazda just likes spending money for no good reason, is that it? They make production changes in order to make "mute" points? I don't think so. Engineers and corporations don't operate that way.
According to the RX-7 Peformance Handbook this was the reason for the change:
"Early FDs were criticized for having excessive wheel hop during hard acceleration. It became such a big deal that Mazda started installing rear subframe connectors, which look like lengths of steel tubing connecting the subframe to the unibody. But wheel spin was still a problem for stock RX-7s because their twin-turbos made plenty of torque at the low end. Mazda then did away with the subframe connectors in favor or a redesigned rear subframe all together. Later RX-7s are said to have the best of both worlds, where the frame flexes just enough under hard acceleration to reduce wheel hop and minimize wheel spin."
Mahjik tries to downplay any advantage of the later cars. It should be noted that he owns a '93, and I detect more than a hint of defensiveness.
I own a '95. That's my bias. But I will say this about my bias. I had a choice. I was in the market to buy a new car when FD's were coming off the production line. I saw the bugs in the 93's and knew the old adage about being wary of buying the first year of a new model, so I decided to wait to buy the best car for the best deal.
That being said, if I were in the market for a used car, I'd take a well maintained '93 over a trashed '94 or '95. But all things being equal, go for the later car.
According to the RX-7 Peformance Handbook this was the reason for the change:
"Early FDs were criticized for having excessive wheel hop during hard acceleration. It became such a big deal that Mazda started installing rear subframe connectors, which look like lengths of steel tubing connecting the subframe to the unibody. But wheel spin was still a problem for stock RX-7s because their twin-turbos made plenty of torque at the low end. Mazda then did away with the subframe connectors in favor or a redesigned rear subframe all together. Later RX-7s are said to have the best of both worlds, where the frame flexes just enough under hard acceleration to reduce wheel hop and minimize wheel spin."
Mahjik tries to downplay any advantage of the later cars. It should be noted that he owns a '93, and I detect more than a hint of defensiveness.
I own a '95. That's my bias. But I will say this about my bias. I had a choice. I was in the market to buy a new car when FD's were coming off the production line. I saw the bugs in the 93's and knew the old adage about being wary of buying the first year of a new model, so I decided to wait to buy the best car for the best deal.
That being said, if I were in the market for a used car, I'd take a well maintained '93 over a trashed '94 or '95. But all things being equal, go for the later car.
I do agree with Mahjik on the point that it does not matter which year you get, as long as the care is in good shape, and has been treated well. Since these are old cars, you'll most likely change out a lot of the parts that you have subjected a problem in them in favor of aftermarket pieces that either correct your problem, or atleast minimize it.
-Jeff
09-21-07, 12:15 PM
#22
2/4 wheel cornering fiend
Mazda just likes spending money for no good reason, is that it? They make production changes in order to make "mute" points? I don't think so. Engineers and corporations don't operate that way.
According to the RX-7 Peformance Handbook this was the reason for the change:
"Early FDs were criticized for having excessive wheel hop during hard acceleration. It became such a big deal that Mazda started installing rear subframe connectors, which look like lengths of steel tubing connecting the subframe to the unibody. But wheel spin was still a problem for stock RX-7s because their twin-turbos made plenty of torque at the low end. Mazda then did away with the subframe connectors in favor or a redesigned rear subframe all together. Later RX-7s are said to have the best of both worlds, where the frame flexes just enough under hard acceleration to reduce wheel hop and minimize wheel spin."
Mahjik tries to downplay any advantage of the later cars. It should be noted that he owns a '93, and I detect more than a hint of defensiveness.
According to the RX-7 Peformance Handbook this was the reason for the change:
"Early FDs were criticized for having excessive wheel hop during hard acceleration. It became such a big deal that Mazda started installing rear subframe connectors, which look like lengths of steel tubing connecting the subframe to the unibody. But wheel spin was still a problem for stock RX-7s because their twin-turbos made plenty of torque at the low end. Mazda then did away with the subframe connectors in favor or a redesigned rear subframe all together. Later RX-7s are said to have the best of both worlds, where the frame flexes just enough under hard acceleration to reduce wheel hop and minimize wheel spin."
Mahjik tries to downplay any advantage of the later cars. It should be noted that he owns a '93, and I detect more than a hint of defensiveness.
09-21-07, 12:27 PM
#23
I guess I don't need to elaborate as others have already done so. While I do think the Mazda improvements would be something to consider "all things being equal", unfortunately you aren't going to find 2 or 3 cars with "all things being equal" with a car like this (being age wise and a car people drive the hell out of).
If you search this forum, you'll find 93, 94 and 95 owners complaining about wheel hop. I'm sure the updated subframe helped a little, just like the fuel tank change; its enough of a fix for the level of which most people are purchasing this car for today. If the rear subframe was "the" fix for wheel hop, that would be what everyone would be using rather than the aftermarket launch kits they use today.
JConn2299, I'm glad you like your '95. I like my '93. Would I sell my '93 to get a '95? No. Why? Because of the reasons I stated above: there is no real advantage to do so. I'm suggesting that if someone is looking at buying a nice '93 model in front of them, there is no technical reason to hold out for a '95 model. There may be a personal preference, and that's up to each individual; but there is no real technical advantage between the two.
i.e. no one is going to say: Your car is faster because its a '95 and not a '93.
If you search this forum, you'll find 93, 94 and 95 owners complaining about wheel hop. I'm sure the updated subframe helped a little, just like the fuel tank change; its enough of a fix for the level of which most people are purchasing this car for today. If the rear subframe was "the" fix for wheel hop, that would be what everyone would be using rather than the aftermarket launch kits they use today.
JConn2299, I'm glad you like your '95. I like my '93. Would I sell my '93 to get a '95? No. Why? Because of the reasons I stated above: there is no real advantage to do so. I'm suggesting that if someone is looking at buying a nice '93 model in front of them, there is no technical reason to hold out for a '95 model. There may be a personal preference, and that's up to each individual; but there is no real technical advantage between the two.
i.e. no one is going to say: Your car is faster because its a '95 and not a '93.
09-21-07, 01:14 PM
#25
I have a 1994 FD with a near pristine interior. I just bought the only one available in my area at the time and was completely unfamiliar with the car. I just thought it was cool in the very first Need for Speed game on 3DO.
Like everyone else said, go for a 94-95 unless there isn't a choice. The interior plastics imo look great on 94-95 cars.
Mahjik, It's "moot" point. not "mute" point
Like everyone else said, go for a 94-95 unless there isn't a choice. The interior plastics imo look great on 94-95 cars.
Mahjik, It's "moot" point. not "mute" point