Classified List of changes from FC turbo to FD
#1
Classified List of changes from FC turbo to FD
Here is at least a partial list of important changes from the turbo FC's to the series 6 FD. FC turbos came in series 4 and 5, but they weren't that different. I classified the changes in the FD as either upgrades, downgrades, or mixed. I recognize that this classification may be more subjective.
Upgrades:
--Exhaust: except for the precat (which was only for USDM compliant cars), by switching to the single exit setup the FD exhaust system is lighter but still looks good IMO
--Suspension geometry: a more modern design on the FD, and I believe a lot of the same architecture is still used in the Rx-8.
--Wheels: wider than the FC turbo wheels but weigh less
--Idle control system: simpler than the FC, believe it or not; comparable to the Nissan systems of the day
--Emissions (does not include anything related to the turbos) the addition of an airpump clutch reduced drag on the engine, ACV was slightly simpler, Evaporative emissions system more precisely controlled
--Boost control system: stock-for-stock, the FD boost control is much more sophisticated than the FC (mostly by necessity)
--interior electrical: I'm barely putting this in the "upgrade" category. Both the FD and FC have a lot of interior electrical problems, but I think the FC has even more switches etc go bad. Both have the power window switch and click-click-start deal but it is more common on the FD.
--self diagnosis: much better on the FD. There were a lot more diagnostic codes for the 3rd generation cars, and smaller control modules also had self diagnosis capability.
--fuel system: despite the fuel filter location, overall the FD system is more reliable than the FC's. The injectors are less prone to clogging and pulsation dampener is less prone to leaking (although it still does). FD hardly ever floods compared to FC.
--Powerplant frame: the FC didn't even have one.
--Brakes: rotors were bigger, calipers were practically the same
--clutch: pull type clutch on the FD is more annoying to work on but it is a better design for minimizing pedal effort
Downgrades:
--Power steering. This is simply tragic. The turbo FC had one of the best steering systems I've ever experienced. It drives like a manual rack unless you are in a parking lot or at a stop sign, which is exactly what any enthusiast would want.
--Cooling system (heat exchangers and plumbing): This is a well-known flaw in the FD, partly due to Mazda cutting things down to meet space constraints. For example, the FC single oil cooler is equal or larger than both FD R1 oil coolers combined.
--intercooler: the location is probably equal or better than the top-mounted FC setup, but the actual core is noticeably smaller than the FC intercooler.
--interior space: The FD is a tight car compared to the FC. For some reason Mazda decided not to offer tilt steering at all on the FD, even though it was standard on the FC turbo. So that makes matters worse. The storage bins in the FD are a lot smaller than an FC--the FC bins can easily fit a car battery. On the other hand, smaller size does help keep weight down.
--transmission: FD tranny is a little more prone to 5th gear synchro problems I think, but they are close
--exhaust manifolds: the series 5 FC turbo had a very simple fully divided cast manifold, while the FD of course needed more complexity due to the sequential turbo design
--reliability: catch-all for anything I missed in the "downgrades" category as it probably is reliability related
Mixed
--Cooling fans: I've discussed this extensively in a dedicated thread. The main problem with the FD fans are the actual trigger temperatures. The stepped electric fans have multiple advantages over the old clutch fan design.
--differential: the general consensus here is that the FD Torsen diff is better for handling and the FC diff (mostly series 4) is better for straight line on a modified car.
--interior panels etc: the FC interior looks much more dated than the FD interior in terms of the layout and a number of other things. But the FC interior is of at least average build quality for its time while the FD is simply sub par. Mazda's efforts in reducing weight compromised longevity of the parts.
--intake manifolds: UIM equal or better than series 5 FC turbo, TB better, LIM probably worse due to unequal length runners on the FD
--ignition system: This is truly a mixed bag. The FD crank angle sensors are better than the FC in the sense that they don't require adjustment. The trailing ignition control is simpler. But the FC coilpacks are more powerful than the FD, partly because the FC had a very large spark plug gap from the factory.
any of you who know a lot about both generations, feel free to contribute
Upgrades:
--Exhaust: except for the precat (which was only for USDM compliant cars), by switching to the single exit setup the FD exhaust system is lighter but still looks good IMO
--Suspension geometry: a more modern design on the FD, and I believe a lot of the same architecture is still used in the Rx-8.
--Wheels: wider than the FC turbo wheels but weigh less
--Idle control system: simpler than the FC, believe it or not; comparable to the Nissan systems of the day
--Emissions (does not include anything related to the turbos) the addition of an airpump clutch reduced drag on the engine, ACV was slightly simpler, Evaporative emissions system more precisely controlled
--Boost control system: stock-for-stock, the FD boost control is much more sophisticated than the FC (mostly by necessity)
--interior electrical: I'm barely putting this in the "upgrade" category. Both the FD and FC have a lot of interior electrical problems, but I think the FC has even more switches etc go bad. Both have the power window switch and click-click-start deal but it is more common on the FD.
--self diagnosis: much better on the FD. There were a lot more diagnostic codes for the 3rd generation cars, and smaller control modules also had self diagnosis capability.
--fuel system: despite the fuel filter location, overall the FD system is more reliable than the FC's. The injectors are less prone to clogging and pulsation dampener is less prone to leaking (although it still does). FD hardly ever floods compared to FC.
--Powerplant frame: the FC didn't even have one.
--Brakes: rotors were bigger, calipers were practically the same
--clutch: pull type clutch on the FD is more annoying to work on but it is a better design for minimizing pedal effort
Downgrades:
--Power steering. This is simply tragic. The turbo FC had one of the best steering systems I've ever experienced. It drives like a manual rack unless you are in a parking lot or at a stop sign, which is exactly what any enthusiast would want.
--Cooling system (heat exchangers and plumbing): This is a well-known flaw in the FD, partly due to Mazda cutting things down to meet space constraints. For example, the FC single oil cooler is equal or larger than both FD R1 oil coolers combined.
--intercooler: the location is probably equal or better than the top-mounted FC setup, but the actual core is noticeably smaller than the FC intercooler.
--interior space: The FD is a tight car compared to the FC. For some reason Mazda decided not to offer tilt steering at all on the FD, even though it was standard on the FC turbo. So that makes matters worse. The storage bins in the FD are a lot smaller than an FC--the FC bins can easily fit a car battery. On the other hand, smaller size does help keep weight down.
--transmission: FD tranny is a little more prone to 5th gear synchro problems I think, but they are close
--exhaust manifolds: the series 5 FC turbo had a very simple fully divided cast manifold, while the FD of course needed more complexity due to the sequential turbo design
--reliability: catch-all for anything I missed in the "downgrades" category as it probably is reliability related
Mixed
--Cooling fans: I've discussed this extensively in a dedicated thread. The main problem with the FD fans are the actual trigger temperatures. The stepped electric fans have multiple advantages over the old clutch fan design.
--differential: the general consensus here is that the FD Torsen diff is better for handling and the FC diff (mostly series 4) is better for straight line on a modified car.
--interior panels etc: the FC interior looks much more dated than the FD interior in terms of the layout and a number of other things. But the FC interior is of at least average build quality for its time while the FD is simply sub par. Mazda's efforts in reducing weight compromised longevity of the parts.
--intake manifolds: UIM equal or better than series 5 FC turbo, TB better, LIM probably worse due to unequal length runners on the FD
--ignition system: This is truly a mixed bag. The FD crank angle sensors are better than the FC in the sense that they don't require adjustment. The trailing ignition control is simpler. But the FC coilpacks are more powerful than the FD, partly because the FC had a very large spark plug gap from the factory.
any of you who know a lot about both generations, feel free to contribute
#2
RX-7 Bad Ass
iTrader: (55)
The FC had a simpler ignition setup than the FD. It really was one step up from a distributor. The boost sensor on the FC worked like a vacuum advance on an old style distributor - it fed the info to the computer, which then looked up the vacuum advance for the spark.
BTW, some European FC's actually had traditional distributors.
Reason I'm mentioning this is the fixed crank angle sensors on the FD are a godsend. Almost every one who has done a lot of work on an FC has had to fight the crank angle sensor - it's very difficult to stab in properly. I've wrestled with it a number of times, especially on a new motor. FD is bolt on and forget it, FAR superior.
FC's also have longer spark plug wires, the shorter plug wires on the FD are more efficient. FC wires are crazy long.
On the FC electrical problems, it had a LOT of solder joint problems. The CPU, logicon, and idiot light cluster all get broken solder joints. Then, the headlight switch frequently burns up over time, only fix is finding a good used one which is rare. FC wiper switches also frequently fail, the relays inside fail. They can be swapped out, but it's a pain.
FC interiors are a mixed bag. The early interiors were worse - the radio surround almost always breaks, many of the AC vents get brittle and break. The '89-91 radio surrounds are damn near bulletproof, though. FC door panels are VERY hardy, but they do weigh more.
Oh, FD and FC trannies are functionally identical. Some changes were made to the shifter on the FD version, those changes made it easier to mis-shift into 5th from 2nd, which breaks the 5th gear synchro. I actually broke the 5th gear synchro in my old FC by running it through 2nd gear then going to 5th to cruise. But, the Type R tranny is a damn good one, we're really lucky to have a transmission that can take the punishment. There are many cars out there with poor factory transmissions with no way around it.
Dale
BTW, some European FC's actually had traditional distributors.
Reason I'm mentioning this is the fixed crank angle sensors on the FD are a godsend. Almost every one who has done a lot of work on an FC has had to fight the crank angle sensor - it's very difficult to stab in properly. I've wrestled with it a number of times, especially on a new motor. FD is bolt on and forget it, FAR superior.
FC's also have longer spark plug wires, the shorter plug wires on the FD are more efficient. FC wires are crazy long.
On the FC electrical problems, it had a LOT of solder joint problems. The CPU, logicon, and idiot light cluster all get broken solder joints. Then, the headlight switch frequently burns up over time, only fix is finding a good used one which is rare. FC wiper switches also frequently fail, the relays inside fail. They can be swapped out, but it's a pain.
FC interiors are a mixed bag. The early interiors were worse - the radio surround almost always breaks, many of the AC vents get brittle and break. The '89-91 radio surrounds are damn near bulletproof, though. FC door panels are VERY hardy, but they do weigh more.
Oh, FD and FC trannies are functionally identical. Some changes were made to the shifter on the FD version, those changes made it easier to mis-shift into 5th from 2nd, which breaks the 5th gear synchro. I actually broke the 5th gear synchro in my old FC by running it through 2nd gear then going to 5th to cruise. But, the Type R tranny is a damn good one, we're really lucky to have a transmission that can take the punishment. There are many cars out there with poor factory transmissions with no way around it.
Dale
#3
[QUOTE=DaleClark;9733060]The FC had a simpler ignition setup than the FD. It really was one step up from a distributor. The boost sensor on the FC worked like a vacuum advance on an old style distributor - it fed the info to the computer, which then looked up the vacuum advance for the spark.
There is no vacuum advance on a normal FC and there is no centrifugal advance--because there is no distributor on USDM and JDM models. Ignition timing is determined by a load calculation based on the volume airflow sensor signal, just like fuel. The pressure sensor does have some corrective effect on timing though.
The leading is waste-sparked just like the FD. The trailing is triggered by a 0 or 5v square wave "select" signal which fires either the front or rear rotor. The coils and ignitors are bolted together, while the FC has a separate ignitor box like the SR20DET.
The chief difference between the FC and FD is the way the CAS is mounted. Functionally speaking, the CAS signal is the same--which is why you can use an FD Power FC on a 2nd gen and the leading ignition will work fine. It's also the same because both the FD and FC are sequential fuel injection, which requires a G signal (TDC or -5 BTDC signal) and an Ne (engine speed) signal.
On the FC sensor it's two big teeth (G signal) and 24 little teeth (Ne) built into a drop-in sensor that fits into the front cover like a distributor.
On the FD it's a pin for the G signal and and 12 slots for the Ne signals. The actual waveform works out to be the same, but the G signal should always come right at -5 BTDC and thus the timing doesn't have to be set.
Yes. Those were just like the series 3 GSL-SE. They had a distributor and the ECU would cut the vacuum advance signal sometimes when ignition needed to be retarded. The fuel injectors were batch fired just like the GSL-SE.
Yes the FD is so much easier as it doesn't require a timing light and a bunch of other hassles with timing marks.
Yeah and the s4 FC originally had plugs with a center electrode and ring on the outside instead of four little channels like the BUR plugs. The gap was enormous at about .080" .
The BUR7EQ was introduced in series 5 and the BUR7EQP in series 6.
Agreed, for all the FD's body-related electrical problems the FC was worse. The FD does seem to cook engine harnesses much faster than the FC because of all the heat.
Yeah the interior got better over time. The 87 model steering wheel for example was 2 spoke and looked retardedly 80s. The improved steering surround in the 89 series 5 models came at a cost--new motorized seatbelts that always break.
training manual lists the FD as having dual cone synchros on the 2nd and 3rd gear, which I guess the turbo FC tranny didn't have. I will say that the FD stock shifter is less notchy than the FC. but a lot of FD trannies grind 5th or have broken a synchro
There is no vacuum advance on a normal FC and there is no centrifugal advance--because there is no distributor on USDM and JDM models. Ignition timing is determined by a load calculation based on the volume airflow sensor signal, just like fuel. The pressure sensor does have some corrective effect on timing though.
The leading is waste-sparked just like the FD. The trailing is triggered by a 0 or 5v square wave "select" signal which fires either the front or rear rotor. The coils and ignitors are bolted together, while the FC has a separate ignitor box like the SR20DET.
The chief difference between the FC and FD is the way the CAS is mounted. Functionally speaking, the CAS signal is the same--which is why you can use an FD Power FC on a 2nd gen and the leading ignition will work fine. It's also the same because both the FD and FC are sequential fuel injection, which requires a G signal (TDC or -5 BTDC signal) and an Ne (engine speed) signal.
On the FC sensor it's two big teeth (G signal) and 24 little teeth (Ne) built into a drop-in sensor that fits into the front cover like a distributor.
On the FD it's a pin for the G signal and and 12 slots for the Ne signals. The actual waveform works out to be the same, but the G signal should always come right at -5 BTDC and thus the timing doesn't have to be set.
BTW, some European FC's actually had traditional distributors.
Reason I'm mentioning this is the fixed crank angle sensors on the FD are a godsend. Almost every one who has done a lot of work on an FC has had to fight the crank angle sensor - it's very difficult to stab in properly. I've wrestled with it a number of times, especially on a new motor. FD is bolt on and forget it, FAR superior.
FC's also have longer spark plug wires, the shorter plug wires on the FD are more efficient. FC wires are crazy long.
The BUR7EQ was introduced in series 5 and the BUR7EQP in series 6.
On the FC electrical problems, it had a LOT of solder joint problems. The CPU, logicon, and idiot light cluster all get broken solder joints. Then, the headlight switch frequently burns up over time, only fix is finding a good used one which is rare. FC wiper switches also frequently fail, the relays inside fail. They can be swapped out, but it's a pain.
FC interiors are a mixed bag. The early interiors were worse - the radio surround almost always breaks, many of the AC vents get brittle and break. The '89-91 radio surrounds are damn near bulletproof, though. FC door panels are VERY hardy, but they do weigh more.
Oh, FD and FC trannies are functionally identical. Some changes were made to the shifter on the FD version, those changes made it easier to mis-shift into 5th from 2nd, which breaks the 5th gear synchro. I actually broke the 5th gear synchro in my old FC by running it through 2nd gear then going to 5th to cruise. But, the Type R tranny is a damn good one, we're really lucky to have a transmission that can take the punishment. There are many cars out there with poor factory transmissions with no way around it.
#5
dorito powered
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too was wondering about this, I was discussing oil cooling upgrades with a buddy of mine on his FC. He said his stock oil cooler would be plenty, and I always assumed (wrongly it seems) that the dual set-up on the FD was superior due to being located directly in the air stream.
#7
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,764
Received 2,559 Likes
on
1,820 Posts
the FD oil cooler is tall, the FC cooler is wide, but they actually have similar area.
the FD is also supposed to be lighter and more "sports car focused" than the FC was, so they ditched the PS system from the FC (in 86-87 the FC GXL was the most advanced car in the world) i do agree that the FC actually has better steering than the FD.
whats the difference in the idle control system s5 vs FD? they both have BAC/AWS/thermowax similar parts....
the FD interior is way more tolerant of being in the sun than the FC interior
the FD is also supposed to be lighter and more "sports car focused" than the FC was, so they ditched the PS system from the FC (in 86-87 the FC GXL was the most advanced car in the world) i do agree that the FC actually has better steering than the FD.
whats the difference in the idle control system s5 vs FD? they both have BAC/AWS/thermowax similar parts....
the FD interior is way more tolerant of being in the sun than the FC interior
Trending Topics
#8
the FD oil cooler is tall, the FC cooler is wide, but they actually have similar area.
whats the difference in the idle control system s5 vs FD? they both have BAC/AWS/thermowax similar parts....
The FD ISC valve also has an anti afterburn function. When the throttle is released, the ISC valve sends extra air to reduce backfiring. On the series 5 and earlier, the anti afterburn function was done by a separate valve in the ACV. If you look at the ACV area of the s4 and s5 intake manifolds, there are a couple small holes in the primary runners that are used for injecting airpump air as part of the anti afterburn function.
Also, the s5 and FD are closer in function than s4 and FD. S4 turbo had the additional complexity of an Air Supply Valve, which was a holdover from the series 3 GSL-SE. That's a separate solenoid valve that supplies additional air during power steering operation.
#9
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,764
Received 2,559 Likes
on
1,820 Posts
I'd like to see a comparison of total core volume between the FC oil cooler and both FD oil coolers combined. I don't have access to uninstalled versions of each right now.
The position, plumbing, and function of the ISC valve is a little different. The s5 ISC aka BAC valve is located on the primary runners of the UIM and is fed by its own separate air hose. It also has coolant lines running through the side of it. On USDM 2nd gen turbo models the air adjust screw is built into the ISC valve. The FD ISC valve is just like the Ford ISC valves on the 5.0 . It's fed directly by the TB and doesn't have its own separate hoses. The air adjust screw is built into the throttlebody instead of the ISC valve itself.
The FD ISC valve also has an anti afterburn function. When the throttle is released, the ISC valve sends extra air to reduce backfiring. On the series 5 and earlier, the anti afterburn function was done by a separate valve in the ACV. If you look at the ACV area of the s4 and s5 intake manifolds, there are a couple small holes in the primary runners that are used for injecting airpump air as part of the anti afterburn function.
Also, the s5 and FD are closer in function than s4 and FD. S4 turbo had the additional complexity of an Air Supply Valve, which was a holdover from the series 3 GSL-SE. That's a separate solenoid valve that supplies additional air during power steering operation.
The position, plumbing, and function of the ISC valve is a little different. The s5 ISC aka BAC valve is located on the primary runners of the UIM and is fed by its own separate air hose. It also has coolant lines running through the side of it. On USDM 2nd gen turbo models the air adjust screw is built into the ISC valve. The FD ISC valve is just like the Ford ISC valves on the 5.0 . It's fed directly by the TB and doesn't have its own separate hoses. The air adjust screw is built into the throttlebody instead of the ISC valve itself.
The FD ISC valve also has an anti afterburn function. When the throttle is released, the ISC valve sends extra air to reduce backfiring. On the series 5 and earlier, the anti afterburn function was done by a separate valve in the ACV. If you look at the ACV area of the s4 and s5 intake manifolds, there are a couple small holes in the primary runners that are used for injecting airpump air as part of the anti afterburn function.
Also, the s5 and FD are closer in function than s4 and FD. S4 turbo had the additional complexity of an Air Supply Valve, which was a holdover from the series 3 GSL-SE. That's a separate solenoid valve that supplies additional air during power steering operation.
my guess is that the FC cooler is bigger, in core volume but not by as much as you'd think. i don't have an FD one handy, TON's of FC ones though...
good points about the idle stuff too, detail improvements. FD is even better on the non us cars without the AWS
#10
Roxann7
iTrader: (9)
-Placement of spare tire is different
-No front or rear strut bar available from the factory except for the infini for the FC
-Shifter threading is different in the S4 as compared to the s5 and FD
-Steering wheel is only adjustable on the Turbo 2 (can someone verify this? I read this somewhere) whereas the FD is non-adjustable
-Moon/sunroof still sucks on both the FD and FC
-Interior door handle placement different on the FD and the FC
-Both radio systems were crap
-FD fuel pump much better than FC
Wiki info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-7):
-wheel base on the FD is slightly shorter than the FC
-FD is slightly wider than the FC
-FD height is slightly lower than the FC
Personal opinion:
-FD interior is f%&$ing cheap, where as FC S5 interior is slightly better
-FD engine bay is cramped as hell and less room as compared to the FC S5 (without emissions on both)
-FC and FD seats are really comfortable =D
-FC feels a lot more roomy than the FD
-Design of the rear hatch is stupid because if you have crappy struts it's hard to open it without damaging some of your rear hatch
-FD sucks at keeping water out of the trunk -.-
Those are my opinions =D
-No front or rear strut bar available from the factory except for the infini for the FC
-Shifter threading is different in the S4 as compared to the s5 and FD
-Steering wheel is only adjustable on the Turbo 2 (can someone verify this? I read this somewhere) whereas the FD is non-adjustable
-Moon/sunroof still sucks on both the FD and FC
-Interior door handle placement different on the FD and the FC
-Both radio systems were crap
-FD fuel pump much better than FC
Wiki info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-7):
-wheel base on the FD is slightly shorter than the FC
-FD is slightly wider than the FC
-FD height is slightly lower than the FC
Personal opinion:
-FD interior is f%&$ing cheap, where as FC S5 interior is slightly better
-FD engine bay is cramped as hell and less room as compared to the FC S5 (without emissions on both)
-FC and FD seats are really comfortable =D
-FC feels a lot more roomy than the FD
-Design of the rear hatch is stupid because if you have crappy struts it's hard to open it without damaging some of your rear hatch
-FD sucks at keeping water out of the trunk -.-
Those are my opinions =D
#11
I think the hatch seals and sunroof seals on the FD are worse than the FC. I am pretty sure tilt steering was available on GXL non turbo trim for the 2nd gen. I had a non turbo s4 GTU model which was basically the "hardcore" non turbo model for that year. It didn't have tilt steering.
The seats I think are equal between FC and FD, just different. They're both very sporty and supportive. FC turbo seats are nice but the non turbo ones were cheap and uncomfortable. FD leather seats I think hold up better than FC turbo leather seats.
The seats I think are equal between FC and FD, just different. They're both very sporty and supportive. FC turbo seats are nice but the non turbo ones were cheap and uncomfortable. FD leather seats I think hold up better than FC turbo leather seats.
#12
RX-7 Bad Ass
iTrader: (55)
On the ignition thing, a zillion years ago on the TeamFC3S forum Henrik reverse-engineered the FC's ROM. He found that the boost sensor is a primary input for ignition timing. Makes sense, the FC was one of the first cars with a computer controlled direct ignition setup instead of a distributor.
It makes sense - why even have a boost sensor on a MAF based car? Both non-turbo and turbo FC's have a pressure sensor.
Dale
It makes sense - why even have a boost sensor on a MAF based car? Both non-turbo and turbo FC's have a pressure sensor.
Dale
#17
Lives on the Forum
iTrader: (4)
Although many of the interior panels are prone to break or scratch, whatever (at least mainly in 93'), you gotta admit, the FD interior is amazing. I remember the first time I sat in one; I felt like I was sitting in a jet or something!
Driving the two... like two completely different cars... two different worlds. The feel of the FD is absolutely amazing.
Driving the two... like two completely different cars... two different worlds. The feel of the FD is absolutely amazing.
#19
R.I.P. Icemark
iTrader: (2)
I daily drove my 86' GXL for 4 years. Honestly I loved it even with everything electrical always ******* up. FD is a hug step up. Especially with my mods to make the interior better. About the sun comment. I believe that they're about equal. I live in Arizona. The heat and always sunny weather really didn't hurt me much in the FC. I've only seen A FEW cracked FC dashes. Mine was still very nice and soft. Same with the door panels, which are a world better in quality than the FD.
ALL S4 GXL's Turbo II's and GTU trim level cars had tilt steering column with with the progressive assist on the power steering. Once you got above (around?) 20mph all assist is removed and your connected directly to the road. FD feels numb in comparison. I'm personally thinking about doing a proper PS delete on my FD.
The differential case on the FC is WORLDS stronger, although the front mount is VERY prone to breaking, making driving quite unpleasant.
Engine mount placement was also worlds better, but this is due to the stupid turbo control system and sheer size of the FD turbo system. I still think they could have done better.
ALL S4 GXL's Turbo II's and GTU trim level cars had tilt steering column with with the progressive assist on the power steering. Once you got above (around?) 20mph all assist is removed and your connected directly to the road. FD feels numb in comparison. I'm personally thinking about doing a proper PS delete on my FD.
The differential case on the FC is WORLDS stronger, although the front mount is VERY prone to breaking, making driving quite unpleasant.
Engine mount placement was also worlds better, but this is due to the stupid turbo control system and sheer size of the FD turbo system. I still think they could have done better.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
streetlegal?
New Member RX-7 Technical
13
03-17-22 02:46 PM