I would go with the FD, it's just a better looking, nice performing car that handles and feels really good. It's more unique too, and is made more fun by the attention it gets. Since you know about FD's, I would go with one.

 

I had a 92 Stealth R/T twin-turbo and it was a fun car. Only problem is like the Supra, Stealth/3000GT, Eclipse, 300ZX - they all had a N/A counterpart. I hated when people would pull up to me and think my car was a base - those who don't know what they're looking for don't know the difference between N/A cars and TT cars - especially the Supra. ALL FDs are fast and don't have a stupid N/A slob for a cousin. Not making fun of n/a cars - just stating that when you see a FD - you know it's fast.....unless it has boost problems

 

I think you've answered your own question.

 

Which accounts for what, atleast 80% of FD's on the road?

 

I think you've answered your own question. We know you'll make the right choice.

 

get the FD... you'll need a lot of cash to keep it on the roads but, it's a wonderful car.

Max

 

Maybe you should put up a similar poll on 3Si.org?? I think if you're looking for equal opinions, you should ask people who are equally biased . There are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to "the other guy's car". People with no real experience like to offer their opinion based on what they've "heard from a friend".

The FD is an incredible car, but I'm sure you expected to hear that from a bunch of RX7 owners. I'm sure that you can find people on 3Si who will also tell you about FDs, all based on stuff they "heard from a guy who used to own one".

They are both incredible and have their pros and cons (trasfer cases vs. Apex seals). And just like the RX7 counterpart, VR4s have upgraded replacements that amazingly are close to equivelant when it comes to repair costs.

I think the main thing that would help you decide is the type of car you want. The FD (as I'm sure you're aware) is a true "Sports car". Very nimble and fast, but carrying with it some of the tempermental characteristics common to "true" sports cars.

The VR4 is a GT, or "Grand Touring" car. More comfortable and refined in it's ride and appointments, and typically a little more reliable. Don't let the weight fool you, though... these cars can be made very fast despite the weight. It's funny that the VR4 gets knocked for being a pig by people who don't realize that the Supra and LS1 cars are only about 250lbs lighter.

 

ahh, mcstealth, what's up man..993kgt here....i crossed over the RX7 world, and i'm not a VR-4 hater...i love those damn things

 

also, usually the LS1 owners g/f's are about 250lbs, so it evens out

 

Get the FD TpCpLaYa! I can't tell you anything else. My friend is leaving his 3000GT VR4 and going for the FD after seeing mine and how it performs. IMO, a comparison of an FD and a 3000GT= FD the best.

"Get the best so you can smoke the rest."

-RX187

 

What a bunch of sad and biased opinions. I cant remember seeing more false statements in one thread.

The notorious tranny issue on the 3000GT is just as true as the engine-breaking issue on the FD. Of course it's going to fall apart if you do repeated 7k RPM launches with AWD. Get a clue?

The issue of the 3k being "heavy" is made from people with other jap sport cars who want a reason to say their car is better without really having one. Those of you who've made the statement, have you ever driven a vr-4? Ive had two 3000's and friends with heavily mod'd cars say the 3k feels like it weighs MUCH less than it looks. There are drawbacks of having 4 seats, AWD and a TT V6, and that is weight and size. But whats the highest output from a FD and the highest output from a VR4/TT Stealth? ya...

VR-4s range from 23-30k for the '97-99s vr4s w/ low miles. if you cant afford 20k then maybe you should consider another car i dont keep up with the latest on supra prices but last time i looked it was 25-30k for a '95 w/ 70k miles or so.

looks is preferencial. i think '99 vr4s look better than FD's stock but FD's w/ kits look WAY better than any 3000 stock or kit'd. Its all about preference. All of these "car polls" are biased depending on what forum you post on. I think you should drive both before choosing. Reading on forums helps too. But do your own research, you'll always get dumbasses like DHall and Brentis posting when theyve probably only driven one....

some cars Ive owned (ALL were mod'd):
'95 Camaro
'95 Mod'd 5.0 Mustang GT
'97 Eclipse GS-T
'97 3000GT
'99 3000GT VR-4
'97 Corvette

currently mod'ing an '02 Corvette Z06.

my opinion? drive both and decide. Just cuz one dumbass thinks the FD is the "phattest" car on the road doesnt mean you'll like it. Anyway, who'd buy a car without test driving Gluck, man.

 

Hey Brian. You ever get your turbo mess sorted out?? Might as well take the opportunity to go single!

 

Speaking of false statements, looks like there is a few here.

Been there done that, when you take a car that has AWD and weighs TWO FREAKING TONS, it tends to be hard on other parts of the car, including the tranny and transfer case. You don't see anything about an engine recall on this board like you would on the 3si board for transfer cases/tranny issues.
Also Mitsubishi is the WORST company to deal with, if you buy anything from them, good luck getting service and replacement parts. Be it Turbo's, TV's, or cars.
You can say what you like, but the truth of the matter is the car is heavy. It doesn't matter what you think it feels like. The more weight, the less performance, the more wear on other parts (brakes, engine, tranny) the more horsepower you will need to make in order to keep up to the "other" cars.
Last time I checked the rear seats shouldn't be considered real seats, have you ever sat in them???
Please don't talk about the highest output from a 3S and compare it to a FD.
I don't ever remember seeing any high output VR-4's or Stealths, how many do you have in the 9's and 10's anyway?

Looks are always subjective, bottom line drive what you like.

 

Lets not forget the "650 awhp" VR-4 Spyder that ran a 14.6 for this years USCC in Sport Compact Car.

 

i wouldnt recommend you to get the FD, especially if youre gonna drive it daily...its not a very reliable car, i know cuz i have one, dont know much about the gt's but if i could go back in time i wouldnt buy the FD after all the problems ive had with it

 

I have put 26,000 miles on my 94 RX7 since march as my daily driver. I love it.

As a side note I was a passenger in my roommates G35 yesterday and as I sit in the passenger seat I glance 2 lanes over on the highway and see a BEAUTIFUL car. At first glance I didn't know what it was, All I can say is that it stood out from all the other dime a dozen cars. I looked at it again, it was a Red 93 RX7.


David

 

ive put 21k miles on mine since i bought it 4 years ago i agree its a beautiful car thats why i bought it..i just wished they made a more reliable engine for it...its a shame for a beautiful RX7 just to sit in the garage

 

Oh yeah, if it helps, My younger brother has a VR4. Heres a side by side comparison:
VR4 is heavy and feels heavy. FD is light and feels light.
VR4 cuts lanes very fast and steering is nimble around small turns but feels slow to react around larger turns and u turns. VR4 is hard to lose controll of but even harder to regain control(steering wise). FD is easy to lose control but easy to regain control. The ride in the VR4 is without a doubt better than the FD, but still far from riding like a Cadillac. The seats are wider an offer electric crap like lumbar support and power side bolsters and fully electric adjustable seat back and slide. Digital climate controll, 4 computers, AWS, AWD. FD has a steering wheel, a clutch, a brake (but who brakes anyways) and two seats that hold you tight. The acceleration in the VR4 feels sort of numb, but this could be cause by the smoother ride or me being used to my FD. They are both very nice cars, but ill stick to my FD because my brothers transfer case and transmition are being replaced right now, and like Glass Man said before, Mitsubishi is a bitch about customer service. On the NHTSA website, it stated that all 15000 VR4's made from 1991-1999 were eligable for the transfer case recall adn that mitsubishi recognized it but when i called mitsubishi to get information on where i can bring the car, they said they ran the vin number and told me that My brothers VR4 didnt have a transfer case. I fought on the phone with them for a good 2 weeks and nothing was happening. Then I heard that people were getting letters in the mail for every registered VR4 about the recall and one arrived at my house, after we put the car in the shop

 

My best friend had a similar dilema, but with a '98 VR4 and a '98 ZO6. What did he end up choosing? A 2002 S2000. IMO, probably the closest competitor to the FD in almost every aspect. Hmmm?

 

Nope. Well the two cars I relate to the rx7 the most are the supra and the s2000. The s2000 has the closest interms of handling, weight, tossability and good looks.

The supra is the car the rx7 is closest with interms of power, torque (the s2k doesn't have any), moddability, etc.

With the s2k is a cool car that I LOVE (and I drove my friends 2001 S2000 last month), its not in the same class.

 

Opinion.

For a good everyday driver, The VR4. You can take that thing ANYWHERE. Take it skiing or when it is raining. You will not have ANY probs. Back in the early 90's, a few pals owned the VR4's. I loved the way the AWD hooked up. The car actually felt REALLY planted. Again, the only prob (what everyone mentioned) was the transmission. The casings do not hold up. I have seen 3 fracture. Other then that, the engines are SOLID.

The FD on the other hand is a focused sports car. I WILL put a smile on your face evertime you drive it. Handling is not questionable, it is engine reliablity. In my 12 years of drive rotary engine cars, I have gone though a total of 5 engines. My mothers 5 series BMW, 225K miles, still has the same engine.

It will all depend on what you will be doing. If you do go for the FD, get an GOOD engine management system and a UEGO. If you do get a VR4, drive it, dont do anything to it....if you dont want to.

Good Luck!

 

I would really say it's all what you want out of the car. If you're into cruising, occasional highway blasts, comfortable and luxurious ride and a very fast car - especially at speeds less than 100 mph get a 94+ VR4/Stealth with a 6 speed and 320 hp - they are very fast even stock. They handle decent for a big car and they looks so much nicer than the 1st gen (91-93) I wasn't aware of the transfer case problem as I only had my 92 Stealth 1.5 years, was stock, and only had a problems with grinding 2nd gear.

The FD is definitely like driving a skateboard - I wouldn't recommend one unless you have a noteable rotary mechanic in your area. It responds incredible to mods if done correctly but the car WILL give you some headaches (boost issues, coolant problems, etc.) i don't think there is a more moddable, exciting sports car out there like the FD. I've driven all the Japanase sports cars and love them all - but the FD definitely feels like a supercar in handling and speed (especially with 400 rwhp)

 

LOL. How funny is that? Last time I checked they started making Z06s in 2001. Your friend shoulda bought that '98...

S2000 is the closest competitor to the FD? Do you mean most similar? In stock form the Z06 will spank the FD in almost every way possible but at twice the price. Just like a Porsche will spank the Z06 in most ways at over twice the price. Bottom line, he bought the S2000 because he liked it, not because it was the best. Do some actual research before you make retarded assumptions.

Ya, i have, Since I've owned two. Theyre best used as storage space but theyre better than nothing.

Then dont compare weight. FD's weigh less but at the sacrifice of amenities.

 

nghtmre, maybe you should take a reading class or two and pay attention to what I actually said. I stated that he was deciding between two similar cars. A VR4 and a corvette are both higher powered than an S2000, but they both weigh more and don't handle nearly as well. I never said anything negative about the VR4, just that he made the decision to go smaller, lighter, and nimbler. So, uh, maybe you should do some research before making retarded assumptions.

P.S. Maybe he should have chosen that '98... Corvette

 

my friend owns and i've driven his 93 stealth RT/turbo (quite a lot actually) and i have 93 FD R1.

i'm really into road racing and i take all my cars out for a good road run all the time. my friend let me try out his 3S after he got some new tires and brakes and i have to admit that in stock form it handled pretty good, it really surprised me. however, its handling is NOWHERE near as good as the FD's.

when it comes to terms of ride quality.. the FD has got absolutely NOTHING on the 3S. when we go to watch or compete in racing events or to hang out, we take his car unless i'm racing. there is no way in hell i would sit in my car for 2 hours if i could sit in his.. its like that plain and simple.

the 3S has a pretty good pull imo.. i dont know why people say its so slow. as long as your going slower than 100 you'll feel it. to tell you the truth, i think his car FEELS faster than my FD but we've raced and my FD killed him by a quite a few cars legnths (70-130). especially if your going from 0-60.. the 3S would probably pull on the FD.

at any rate.. those are my opinions and observations on the two cars.. i think they're both great but they were made with different intentions. personally, since i like to road race i like the FD better.. but if your really into picking up girls and ride quality and stuff the 3S would probably be better.. cause damn.. he gets all the girls.