I don't know about you, I just got my FD, and am selling my TurboII. I had a '90 (S5) TurboII, and just got a '93 FD.

Thing is, my TurboII was like in great shape, and so is this FD, except for a few random things. The center console (where my elbow would sit if it were a freaking MANUAL...) is cracked with a little hole in it, the flip storage bin on the left side (where my left arm would sit) is broken and cracked just a little, and a few other miscellaneous annoyances if you look closely. It just seems like it's built really really cheaply.

Thing is, my TurboII feels like a tank. Literally. It feels like I'm driving a tank compared to my 4-door Civic (ugh...) But on the other hand, the door doesn't make a drum-like sound (like a tin-can) when I tap it, like the FD does. I dunno.. it just seems like way way way less durable than the FC, and even les durable than the (real) Lotus Elise I've driven before.

Anyone else have this same observation or is it just me? I don't mean to start something, but it just really seems strange to me.

 

Nope, you're right unfortunately. The interior trim pieces on the FDs are very fragile. Actually, a lot of the car is that way. Check out the fuel filler door.....

Basically, Mazda sacrificed a lot to make the car as light as possible and still maintain a competetive price point (thousands less than a 300ZX TT or Supra TT).

 

yeah I guess so..

how about the "hard' mechanicals, like the suspension components, driveshaft, transmission, differential, half shafts, wheels, mounts, bushings, steering stuff, etc.. is that less durable too?

Basically, everyone swears the FD is better designed, better suspension, etc.. but I've also heard the FC has better aerodynamics than the FD, or at least less lift.

 

The mechanicals are actually pretty durable in my opinion -- except for suspension bushings, which go bad with amazing frequency if you drive the car hard.

The main mechanical weak points are the tranny synchros (mostly a 93 problem, mine are fine) and the rear end. The rear end only becomes a problem with high rpm drag launches with modded cars.

The Cd is the same on the FC and FD but I don't know about the lift...

BTW, you should begin to accept that the FD is NOT an FC and you WILL be replacing things with more frequency. For example, the radiator on my 79 RX-7 lasted 18 years and 160k miles. I replaced my stock rad earlier this year -- 8 years and 70k miles -- because the end tanks were failing. I've also replaced the alternator and oil metering pump....

But in the end, it's all worth it!

 

good Lord.. maybe I'll just buy a buddy's 10 second FC, and skip right past the FD and pick up the Ferrari in a few years..

as if that's going to be more reliable

 

FC is built way better, especially the 89'-91'. I have both FD and FC and I've replaced less interior pieces on the FC. The FC is working more often too.



-Jeff

 

You pay for the near 200 lbs weight savings from the FC to the FD. How do you think they saved the weight?

 

Exactly, the engineers went through every peice of the FD SIX times to make sure that every peice was as light and functional as possible. That is what needs be done to make a new version of a car that is more powerful and actually lighter...that doesnt happen much.