Does anyone else think the 99 front end looks bad
05-17-05, 04:21 PM
#51
To Live Is To Die
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mansfield Ohio
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pianoprodigy
I like the way mine turned out. I was originally going to go with the Rotary Extreme polyurethane plateless 99 front, but I decided the "smile" effect was far too goofy looking.
What side skirts are those, they look nice!!!
05-17-05, 04:43 PM
#53
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think that the '99 spec front looks awesome. I really like the way that pianoprodigy and Mfanto's cars turned out.
BTW Mfanto I have SSR GT3s also. Are yours the satin finish?
BTW Mfanto I have SSR GT3s also. Are yours the satin finish?
05-17-05, 04:58 PM
#54
The Light is my strength.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ferndale, MI
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think that all of the '99 differences, besides the taillights, clash with the natural curvature and sexiness of the FD. The front doesn't clash as much as the '99 spoiler, but it still does. And the '99 lip spoiler looks way too gaudy and cheap, sticks out too far and is too "flat" (for lack of a better term) all the way around.
I know many people think the '92-'98 looks like a "Miata on steroids" but I honestly think there's a huge difference in appearance between the two front ends.
My 1994 front end with the addition of the stock 1994 lip spoiler = as sexy as it gets in my eyes. I do think '99 spec FD's look sweet as hell, but not as sweet as '94 spec.
Just MHO.
I know many people think the '92-'98 looks like a "Miata on steroids" but I honestly think there's a huge difference in appearance between the two front ends.
My 1994 front end with the addition of the stock 1994 lip spoiler = as sexy as it gets in my eyes. I do think '99 spec FD's look sweet as hell, but not as sweet as '94 spec.
Just MHO.
05-17-05, 06:14 PM
#55
Originally Posted by EdwardNorth
I personally think that all of the '99 differences, besides the taillights, clash with the natural curvature and sexiness of the FD. The front doesn't clash as much as the '99 spoiler, but it still does. And the '99 lip spoiler looks way too gaudy and cheap, sticks out too far and is too "flat" (for lack of a better term) all the way around.
I know many people think the '92-'98 looks like a "Miata on steroids" but I honestly think there's a huge difference in appearance between the two front ends.
My 1994 front end with the addition of the stock 1994 lip spoiler = as sexy as it gets in my eyes. I do think '99 spec FD's look sweet as hell, but not as sweet as '94 spec.
Just MHO.
I know many people think the '92-'98 looks like a "Miata on steroids" but I honestly think there's a huge difference in appearance between the two front ends.
My 1994 front end with the addition of the stock 1994 lip spoiler = as sexy as it gets in my eyes. I do think '99 spec FD's look sweet as hell, but not as sweet as '94 spec.
Just MHO.
you have hit the nail on the head AND saved me typing till 00.30am! thanks!!
05-17-05, 08:50 PM
#60
Wow...I'm surprised someone else thinks the same...esp w/ the hardcore 99spec fans we have on this forum. I think the 99spec front end is def. nice, but the "smile" effect gets to me too quickly. It would kirk me out too much to see it all the time on my car. Not for me.
Also, I agree w/ EdwardNorth, the 99spec spoiler (if he's referring to the rear spoiler in the first part of his post) clashes really badly w/ the curves of the FD IMO.
A 93 - 95 R front end (stock w/ R lip) simply takes the cake...unless of course we're considering non-OEM bumpers too...cuz I personally think (as played out as it is), the C-West front end is absolutely THE NICEST front end for the FD, no questions asked
Also, I agree w/ EdwardNorth, the 99spec spoiler (if he's referring to the rear spoiler in the first part of his post) clashes really badly w/ the curves of the FD IMO.
A 93 - 95 R front end (stock w/ R lip) simply takes the cake...unless of course we're considering non-OEM bumpers too...cuz I personally think (as played out as it is), the C-West front end is absolutely THE NICEST front end for the FD, no questions asked
05-17-05, 09:15 PM
#62
Resident Retard
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cockaigne
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ptrhahn
You guys are nutz. The plateless '99 is the best front end on the planet for this car. It's what Mazda should have done rather than tacking that brick on the front of it.... and the signal lights and larger openings are huge improvements. I just can't understand folks who say it looks "weird" without the plate brick. That's like saying a person looks weird without a horn coming out of their forehead... it's just completing the lines that SHOULD have been there before they tacked the box on. I guarantee you it was styled without it first, and then it was added later.... and it looks like it.
remember when the neon came out? every time I see the 99 spec without the plate I think "beep beep...HI!"
05-18-05, 08:06 AM
#63
I fail to see how the plate changes anything. The shape of the openings is exactly the same. The plate brick isn't a styling feature, it's an tacked-on addition. I could get an "L" bracket for my car and mount a plate right now... wouldn't be significantly different than the brick.
Most aftermarket noses have the top of the center opening as wider than the bottom. The PFS/knightsports is that way... as well as many others. The RX8 stock and Mazdaspeed aftermarket nose featured in the MAZPORT.NET banner ad at the top of this page is that way.
I'm a professional designer, I know what i'm talking about. You all are nutz, and asthetically challenged. End of story. :-)
Most aftermarket noses have the top of the center opening as wider than the bottom. The PFS/knightsports is that way... as well as many others. The RX8 stock and Mazdaspeed aftermarket nose featured in the MAZPORT.NET banner ad at the top of this page is that way.
I'm a professional designer, I know what i'm talking about. You all are nutz, and asthetically challenged. End of story. :-)
Originally Posted by weaklink
remember when the neon came out? every time I see the 99 spec without the plate I think "beep beep...HI!"
05-18-05, 08:50 AM
#64
development
Originally Posted by ptrhahn
I fail to see how the plate changes anything. The shape of the openings is exactly the same. The plate brick isn't a styling feature, it's an tacked-on addition. I could get an "L" bracket for my car and mount a plate right now... wouldn't be significantly different than the brick.
Most aftermarket noses have the top of the center opening as wider than the bottom. The PFS/knightsports is that way... as well as many others. The RX8 stock and Mazdaspeed aftermarket nose featured in the MAZPORT.NET banner ad at the top of this page is that way.
I'm a professional designer, I know what i'm talking about. You all are nutz, and asthetically challenged. End of story. :-)
Most aftermarket noses have the top of the center opening as wider than the bottom. The PFS/knightsports is that way... as well as many others. The RX8 stock and Mazdaspeed aftermarket nose featured in the MAZPORT.NET banner ad at the top of this page is that way.
I'm a professional designer, I know what i'm talking about. You all are nutz, and asthetically challenged. End of story. :-)
but I'm glad you're a professional designer and like your car.
05-18-05, 11:35 AM
#67
My 2 cents
If I can be so blunt....*form follows function*
The styling changes made in 1999 were not only to bring the "style" up to date but to increase the level of performance.
For example:
1) The '99 rear wing is functional and effective - the '93 wing is useless...but looks nice to some.
2) The '99 front lip spoiler is sharp edged and flat for a reason, it's a more effective *spoiler* vs the '93 spoiler with more rounded and contoured edges.
3) The '99 front bumper has larger cooling openings for a reason. To keep things cooler. Comparing the oil cooler openings on the '99 vs the '93 bumper makes the '93 bumper look almost laughable. The center radiator opening although only marginally larger than the '93 bumper opening is apparently more effective at ducting the air *into* the opening. The upper edge of the '99 bumper actually protrudes further forward and a has a sharper leading edge grabbing more to the airflow and directing it into the opening vs that of the smoother and rounder '93 bumper.
I have hard data taken from a Mazda promotional video indicating the aero improvements of the '99 body modifications over the '93-'98 body. Again, form follows function.
To me a totally built up racecar looks fantastic. Take that racecar and strip off the aero parts and to me it would look goofy and odd. The compromise for me, for a "street" driven car was the '99 fornt end.
As you can probably tell I'm one of the pro-'99 fornt bumper people (minus the abhorant molded in front plate holder). There were other aftermarket bumpers that "looked" better to me but I couldn't get past the impracticalities of some of them - too overdone, made of fiberglass, fitment issues, questionable performance gains, etc, so I decided on an RE urethane '99 knockoff bumper. Yeah it looks a bit like it's smiling at me each time I pass by but at least I know it's a happy car And I have the comfort knowing that it will effectively improve the overall performance of my car.
Then again all you guys that want to drive your car on a track instead of pimpin' down the boulevard...yo, I'll wait for your '93 body car to go airborne at 140mph on the backstraight
of track X. But you sure will look good doing it!
My 2 cents,
Crispy
Yes my car: http://www.negative-camber.org/crispyrx7/99bumper.htm
PS just kidding about the airborn thing but let me tell you that driving a stock bodied '93 car without any aero help on a stock ride height car at anything approaching 130mph is downright scary. There is a reason the steering feels so light at those speeds.
If I can be so blunt....*form follows function*
The styling changes made in 1999 were not only to bring the "style" up to date but to increase the level of performance.
For example:
1) The '99 rear wing is functional and effective - the '93 wing is useless...but looks nice to some.
2) The '99 front lip spoiler is sharp edged and flat for a reason, it's a more effective *spoiler* vs the '93 spoiler with more rounded and contoured edges.
3) The '99 front bumper has larger cooling openings for a reason. To keep things cooler. Comparing the oil cooler openings on the '99 vs the '93 bumper makes the '93 bumper look almost laughable. The center radiator opening although only marginally larger than the '93 bumper opening is apparently more effective at ducting the air *into* the opening. The upper edge of the '99 bumper actually protrudes further forward and a has a sharper leading edge grabbing more to the airflow and directing it into the opening vs that of the smoother and rounder '93 bumper.
I have hard data taken from a Mazda promotional video indicating the aero improvements of the '99 body modifications over the '93-'98 body. Again, form follows function.
To me a totally built up racecar looks fantastic. Take that racecar and strip off the aero parts and to me it would look goofy and odd. The compromise for me, for a "street" driven car was the '99 fornt end.
As you can probably tell I'm one of the pro-'99 fornt bumper people (minus the abhorant molded in front plate holder). There were other aftermarket bumpers that "looked" better to me but I couldn't get past the impracticalities of some of them - too overdone, made of fiberglass, fitment issues, questionable performance gains, etc, so I decided on an RE urethane '99 knockoff bumper. Yeah it looks a bit like it's smiling at me each time I pass by but at least I know it's a happy car
And I have the comfort knowing that it will effectively improve the overall performance of my car.Then again all you guys that want to drive your car on a track instead of pimpin' down the boulevard...yo, I'll wait for your '93 body car to go airborne at 140mph on the backstraight
of track X. But you sure will look good doing it!
My 2 cents,
Crispy
Yes my car: http://www.negative-camber.org/crispyrx7/99bumper.htm
PS just kidding about the airborn thing but let me tell you that driving a stock bodied '93 car without any aero help on a stock ride height car at anything approaching 130mph is downright scary. There is a reason the steering feels so light at those speeds.
05-18-05, 12:27 PM
#70
development
Originally Posted by CrispyRX7
Comparing the oil cooler openings on the '99 vs the '93 bumper makes the '93 bumper look almost laughable.
I've GOT IT!!! the bumper covers with no badges and no front plate look like snub nose sharks!!! <---of course my opinion means nothing
oh, and I've never gotten airborne at 140+mph
05-18-05, 01:14 PM
#71
Originally Posted by dubulup
can't agree with this statement...ducting works wonders
oh, and I've never gotten airborne at 140+mph
But just in case you are being serious (I was not in case you missed it):
"I've run 20psi of boost on my car on the stock ECU and my engine didn't blow up"
Just because you can doesn't mean it's good or right. "Man" has done many questionable things and survived to tell about it.
Crispy
Last edited by CrispyRX7; 05-18-05 at 01:18 PM.
05-18-05, 02:33 PM
#72
Originally Posted by DamonB
I hate Scoot hoods. They are not flattering to the FD at all; nothing on it compliments the car.
And when I had the 99 wheels to match my 99 stuff.. minus the fender..
05-18-05, 03:48 PM
#73
Rotary Enthusiast
Originally Posted by CrispyRX7
PS just kidding about the airborn thing but let me tell you that driving a stock bodied '93 car without any aero help on a stock ride height car at anything approaching 130mph is downright scary. There is a reason the steering feels so light at those speeds.
I have also had my non spoiler equipped stock bodied & stock ride height '93 up to 150mph on the track and it felt fine on the straights. Steering was not light. Crispy... maybe it was an alignment or tire issue? However that big banked turn at 140mph... me no likey... but I think that was due more to the size of my cajones (just not a Nascar boy I guess). I prefer tracks that are under 130mph anyway.
So since I have no problems with my '93 front end I'll keep it since I think it looks better (and I'm too cheap to buy the '99 conversion anyway)
Others results may vary!
-John
05-18-05, 04:48 PM
#74
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by John Magnuson
I'm sure the 99 spec front end is better from a cooling
Most people just cut their fiberglass bumper, bolt on the bumper and spoiler, and call it good. If you lose the stock oil cooler ducts as part of that process (the duct from the bumper to the front of the cooler(s) themselves), then you're probably doing more harm than good with the larger opening. A larger opening doesn't necessarily mean that the air is going where you want it to. The same goes for the revised radiator/intercooler duct.
and aero standpoint.
My main objection is mixing and matching ('99 spoiler on '93-'95 bumper), and the shape of the driving lights in the '99 bumper. They just don't look good with sleek lights, in my opinion. Don't even get me started on the Viperesque hood.
05-18-05, 04:53 PM
#75
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: US
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i love the 99 front end but im biased
without trawling through the post, i thought that the plate had a function on the 99 spec front?? im sure i saw some sort of diagram with air flowing through the plate area... anyhow, in places where you HAVE to have a front plate for me 99 spec front it the only way to go, 100x better than the black plastic tacky plate holders on the 93+ nose
without trawling through the post, i thought that the plate had a function on the 99 spec front?? im sure i saw some sort of diagram with air flowing through the plate area... anyhow, in places where you HAVE to have a front plate for me 99 spec front it the only way to go, 100x better than the black plastic tacky plate holders on the 93+ nose