1993 vs 1994
09-21-07, 01:44 PM
#29
My biggest gripes with the 93's are:
1) No passenger side air bag
2) The models that have tan with black interior: Freaking ugly. Everything tan (roof, carpet, seats, side panels, rear bins, even that little plastic wall that seperates the rear hatch from the cabin) except the dash and rear hatch area. If it's bright outside the interior of the cabin get's amplified 10X. In the 94-95's everything is black except the seats and carpet in the cabin. Subtle and it's not an eye sore.
3) not really a big deal but the tach is too busy for my tastes in the 93's.
none of them are deal breakers IMO. But like someone else said all things being equal get the 94-95. Otherwise get the FD in the best possible condition.
1) No passenger side air bag
2) The models that have tan with black interior: Freaking ugly. Everything tan (roof, carpet, seats, side panels, rear bins, even that little plastic wall that seperates the rear hatch from the cabin) except the dash and rear hatch area. If it's bright outside the interior of the cabin get's amplified 10X. In the 94-95's everything is black except the seats and carpet in the cabin. Subtle and it's not an eye sore.
3) not really a big deal but the tach is too busy for my tastes in the 93's.
none of them are deal breakers IMO. But like someone else said all things being equal get the 94-95. Otherwise get the FD in the best possible condition.
unfortunately every time I hear the word "moot" I think of that..I don't even like Friends either...
09-22-07, 02:39 AM
#36
It probably has more to do with the fact that there were almost 4 times as many 93s as 94s, and only 500 95s.
I think the guys who say that they can really feel the difference in their 94/95 vs a 93 are a bit dillusional. I've driven 2 93s and a 94, and the all felt like FDs to me.
I think the guys who say that they can really feel the difference in their 94/95 vs a 93 are a bit dillusional. I've driven 2 93s and a 94, and the all felt like FDs to me.
09-22-07, 02:54 AM
#37
I have the black/tan interior and like it much better. Why does everyone on here feel they gotta bash what THEY don't like?
2) The models that have tan with black interior: Freaking ugly. Everything tan (roof, carpet, seats, side panels, rear bins, even that little plastic wall that seperates the rear hatch from the cabin) except the dash and rear hatch area. If it's bright outside the interior of the cabin get's amplified 10X. In the 94-95's everything is black except the seats and carpet in the cabin. Subtle and it's not an eye sore.
09-22-07, 12:35 PM
#38
Full Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver/Yokohama
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 91-93 interiors can be refreshed using s rubber spray called plastidip. The finish looks exactly the same as the oem one. I recently test sprayed a part of my door that was cracked (But came from a 96 RX-7, glossy shiny) and it looks just like OEM equipment.
09-23-07, 12:20 AM
#39
94 Single Turbo FD
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is the glass sunroof available in a 93?............alot of 93 owners seem to be always looking for one of those............i think the 94 interior panel looks badass........plus it is nice to have the more rare car......
rare=$$$
rare=$$$
09-23-07, 11:45 AM
#41
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that explains why you like the '93s so much better, even though everyone else seems to disagree.
The only advantages the '93's had was stiffer suspension/sways, and lack of an airbag (for whatever the weight savings/aesthetic appeal is worth to you). As has been said, the suspension is negligible, because it's likely either worn beyond making a difference anymore, or it's been replaced. However, with the '93 dash, instead of an airbag, you get a huge gap right above the glove box.
The difference in dash panel quality is night and day. The original panels on my '94 look excellent. A little Armor All makes them shine incredibly, and it looks fantastic. If you don't like the textured surface, it's actually fairly easy to do a plastic polishing process. It's similar to metal polishing, in that you can smooth the surface down safely and give it a shiny appearance. The difference is, this is much easier than metal polishing, and is much more DIY-friendly. This can also be done to refinish the '93s, but they are going to be more prone to cracking as always. The plastics in the '94 are just superior.
If you're considering swapping out for the '94 pieces, go ahead and search for the average prices on new dash panels. You won't like it. Also, the entire interior is different, not just the pop-in dash pieces.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the paint differences? There's a manufacturing defect which leads to the paint on the '93s chipping MUCH more easily. Many FAQ pages will tell you this is bad enough to almost be called a recall, in that people have been able to argue their way into a free repaint due to the flaw.
Try to find a paint chip on my original '94 bumper:
http://myweb.usf.edu/~cbmurphe/7/resized/10.JPG
I've also heard the front bumper plastic was improved, which reduces the deforming that leads to large gaps in front of the hood, though I still see some on the '94s.
The facts are there, and they make a good bit of difference in the prices between '93s and later models, so Mahjik's points all become MOOT.
The only advantages the '93's had was stiffer suspension/sways, and lack of an airbag (for whatever the weight savings/aesthetic appeal is worth to you). As has been said, the suspension is negligible, because it's likely either worn beyond making a difference anymore, or it's been replaced. However, with the '93 dash, instead of an airbag, you get a huge gap right above the glove box.
The difference in dash panel quality is night and day. The original panels on my '94 look excellent. A little Armor All makes them shine incredibly, and it looks fantastic. If you don't like the textured surface, it's actually fairly easy to do a plastic polishing process. It's similar to metal polishing, in that you can smooth the surface down safely and give it a shiny appearance. The difference is, this is much easier than metal polishing, and is much more DIY-friendly. This can also be done to refinish the '93s, but they are going to be more prone to cracking as always. The plastics in the '94 are just superior.
If you're considering swapping out for the '94 pieces, go ahead and search for the average prices on new dash panels. You won't like it. Also, the entire interior is different, not just the pop-in dash pieces.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the paint differences? There's a manufacturing defect which leads to the paint on the '93s chipping MUCH more easily. Many FAQ pages will tell you this is bad enough to almost be called a recall, in that people have been able to argue their way into a free repaint due to the flaw.
Try to find a paint chip on my original '94 bumper:
http://myweb.usf.edu/~cbmurphe/7/resized/10.JPG
I've also heard the front bumper plastic was improved, which reduces the deforming that leads to large gaps in front of the hood, though I still see some on the '94s.
The facts are there, and they make a good bit of difference in the prices between '93s and later models, so Mahjik's points all become MOOT.
09-23-07, 11:58 AM
#43
sheesh guys...all they gave us here in NA was a short stint between 93-95 and we bicker. As things go, every manufacturer embarks on 'continuous improvement' excercises and field and warranty data dictate what revisions engineers incorporate into the next production years. I happen to love my 94, but wouldn't have turned down a clean 93 in my search. There was nothing done between 94-95 that made substantial, night-and-day improvements over the 93 model year. We all have the same issues to deal with....or opportunities for more 'continuous improvement' depending on how you look at it. 
09-23-07, 05:24 PM
#45
Comp Yellow Mica
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: california
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i swapped in both doors and they are the same as 93's except for the inserts so they do match up to the original dash when closed.
if you want to get nit-picky the a/c graphics are different off a 94 and i have that swapped in also and it plugs right in.
the gauge graphics are different on a 94+ but i kept mine because at the time of the swap i didnt know how to swap the faces.
oh i also forgot.. the driver side has an automatic down feature on 94+ .
09-23-07, 05:26 PM
#46
Constant threat
Generally speaking the introductory year of ANYTHING new is not the most desireable.
Mazda did a great job with the FD, no doubt about it, but there were obvious improvements to the '94 and '95 models. Airbag for passenger is a biggie.
Mazda did a great job with the FD, no doubt about it, but there were obvious improvements to the '94 and '95 models. Airbag for passenger is a biggie.
09-23-07, 07:39 PM
#50
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLOASFK, I agree with Mahjik that what's most important is finding a clean starting car, but in my shopping experience, it seems there is a higher ratio of 'clean':total in '94+ cars than '93s, namely being due to interior and paint issues.
Personally, though, I would be more wary of the '93s just because I'd be very paranoid about their tendency to wear. I've heard of quite a few people complaining about the cheap plastic interior of FDs, when they've only been in the '93s. Interiorwise, I'd say the '94+ models are noticeably superior.
I also forgot to mention the '94+s had a different ECU which was supposedly more 'detuned.' I don't know the specifics on it, but it's supposedly less agressively mapped and hence less desireable.
Personally, though, I would be more wary of the '93s just because I'd be very paranoid about their tendency to wear. I've heard of quite a few people complaining about the cheap plastic interior of FDs, when they've only been in the '93s. Interiorwise, I'd say the '94+ models are noticeably superior.
I also forgot to mention the '94+s had a different ECU which was supposedly more 'detuned.' I don't know the specifics on it, but it's supposedly less agressively mapped and hence less desireable.