I've seen everything from 0.91G for a 94 Touring model to 0.99G for a 93 R1.

And for those mag racers, the Supra's frequently measured equal (or slightly higher) numbers don't mean squat. The FD was the dominant auto-x car from 93-01, not the Supra. Yes, the Supra isn't the sloppy-handling pig that many claim it to be, but it also doesn't handle as good as the FD on the track, magazine numbers notwithstanding.

Of course, maybe the Supra wasn't dominant in ANY form of racing because all of the owners were too busy running 1/4 miles of 13.3@130 mph....

 

Hmm... Never heard this claim before.

 

I'm not even sure I should respond to this....

Nah - I won't.

 

It's not worth it. Push them too far out of their comfort zone and they'll be dusting off the '91 Le Mans win again to prove the RX-7's superiority... as a 4-rotor, purpose-built race car...

Rynberg, check the One Lap of America results for 2002, since an RX-7 and a Supra both competed that year.

http://www.onelapofamerica.com/Histo...ts/results.htm

 

Are those cars in stock form? As they have the Supra in their GT1 class and the RX-7 in their GT2 class.

 

Here is another article, one I scanned and set to Steve. It might predate the Supra.
I am still wondering why Supras weren't so dominant in SCCA.

http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/m...article02.html

 

Those are the most BS results I've ever seen. Teh -7- can n3vEr lOozE.

 

I've got real numbers

My car has a stock motor and turbos. Downpipe, stock main cat and M2 dual tip catback. Rolls on 245/45/16 Kumho Victoracer tires, stock springs and Koni adjustables.

Highest recorded acceleration g I have seen is about .75g

Highest cornering is just over 1.3g

Highest braking just over 1g


Tires are everything when it comes to numbers like this...

All that said big numbers are useless unless they can be repeated easily without the car scaring the driver. Consistency and driver confidence is more important than big numbers IMO.

 

Exactly. Words from an experienced track person and not a magazine racer.

 

EXACTLY!!!

1 1 Dodge Viper ACR SSGT1 7380
Brian Smith, David Zelkowski
2 5 Chevy Corvette Vint Amer 7200
Michael Miller, Aaron Quine
3 30 Chevrolet Corvette SSGT2 7195
John Boos, Todd Cleasby
4 21 Toyota Supra Turbo SSGT1 6895
Andi Baritchi, Clint Pohler
5 7 Porsche 996 TT SSGT1 6740
Mark DaVia, Jeff Denmeade

6 31 Mazda RX-7 SSGT2 6730
Gregory Stasiowski, Dale Black

 

Do you understand the difference between comparing numbers from different magazines over the years and numbers from a single test done by one magazine, under the same conditions, using the same drivers? Just curious...

 

Yes I do. Apparently you don't understand that two cars can have essentially identical handling numbers, but one will be faster around a track. Jim, you may know a lot about cars, but you don't have any experience tracking the car, AFAIK. Until you do, you really don't have any basis for comparison.

As far as both Jim's comments regarding the One Lap race -- big ******* deal. Two different drivers, with two modified cars, hell, two different classifications. We are talking stock cars here, in which case, the FD was the dominant car in it's class for nearly a decade. I don't see the TT Supra in SuperStock.

 

Um, OK. The discussion was about the validity of the numbers in those tests.

Yeah, whatever. Remember that the next time someone hauls out the '91 Le Mans win as "proof" of rotary superiority...

You apparently missed the arrival of the C5, too.

 

hahahaha

 

I never doubted the validity of those numbers. I merely addressed the point that it doesn't matter what the numbers are, the FD handles better on a track than the Supra, given equal drivers.

Actually, you seem to be the only one who's bringing it up. Instead of digging out the One Lap info, try finding any national auto-x results or other contests that show Supras dominating over FDs. You won't find any.


What the hell does the C5 have to do with the discussion? In any case, the FD remained competitive until the Z06 came out. That's nearly a decade. And it's not like the Z06 stomps the FD in auto-x either, which says a lot for the FD given the older design, skinnier tires, and 150 hp/ft-lb disadvantage.

 

Hardly. Are you doing your best to sound like a teenager?

 

It doesn't matter what the numbers are? That's rich. You've just stared results that show differently square in the face and you're still making excuses for the RX-7.

To the best of my knowledge, no race results have ever been contested because the cars had different drivers. In fact, it's sort of expected that they'll have different drivers, so let's throw that straight out the window. Modified? Of course they're modified cars. It's the ******* One Lap.

In essence, what you're saying is that not only can't you deal with the fact that a Supra beat out an RX-7 in overall standings, but you can't even admit that the results show that a Supra CAN get around a track (several, in fact) just fine. Are you related to ZeroBanger by any chance?

We aren't talking about arbitrary courses set up in parking lots that favor ultralight cars. We're talking about actual race course results.

Your assertion that the FD dominated for 10 years, when in fact the FD's domination, as you put it, was over as soon as manufacturers starting making decent tires for the C5. In case you hadn't noticed, not all the SCCA cars are Z06s, but you'd like to believe that it took 385+ horsepower to unseat the FD, I suppose.

Do you even hear what you're saying? Excuse. Excuse. Wait, it dominated. Excuse. Excuse...

 

why, what's wrong with what i said? people have just stated it's all about how consistant a car is; and if u put some wider tires similar to the supra, then the FD would have a higher skidpad rating. if u put the same tires on an MKIV supra and an FD, which would handle better? unless we're only talking about numbers, then yah stock supra's have better ratings.

 

Jim, seriously, what the **** are you smoking? Are you even reading my posts? What I said was the fact that the Supra has equal (or slightly higher, depending on the magazine) handling numbers to the FD does not mean it is as fast around a track. In fact, Motortrend got quicker TRACK times with the FD than the Supra, in that same issue or in another comparison test. If you had open track and/or auto-x experience, you would realize this.

You are the one who brought up the One Lap, which had ZERO to do with the discussion on hand. Yes, a Supra beat an FD in a track event. That's certainly possible. On the other hand, I have bested "superior" cars than the FD at the track too, does that automatically mean that the FD is a better handling car? Not necessarily. It would be educational for you to take your FD, if it's ever finished, to an open track and discover that "lesser" cars can mop the track with you.....

Again, put down the crack pipe. I never said that a Supra can't get around the track, in fact, I said the opposite. Read back a few posts....BTW, your constant bashing of Zerobanger is pretty low class, Jim. It's hard to have any respect for anyone that acts like the recess bully.....

Again, the C5 wasn't part of the discussion in the first place, which was between the Supra and the FD. The FD completely dominated the Supra, which is why the FD is in a higher class. I know that all the top SCCA cars are not Z06s, but it's also plain to see that the rules favor the C5 slightly. That's not an excuse, it's the truth. I'm not taking anything away from the C5, it's a fantastic car, and I've never said different. Pointing out the fact that a C5 has nearly 100 more hp/tq and can run much wider tires is not making excuses, Jim, it's pointing out why the FD is not nationally competitive anymore.

I'm not one of the closed-minded "the FD is the best at everything" people, but you could take a page from your own book, Jim.

 

Apparently, not the same **** you are. Mine doesn't leave me delusional that my FD is the best sports car ever built.

Then you missed the point. A Supra more than held its own against a lot of very capable cars in one of the most competitive events around, despite the fact that most people on this forum think they don't handle for ****. In fact, the same miracle happened two years in a row. It's interesting that most people automatically get defensive about the RX-7 that placed sixth instead of focusing on the performance of the Supra relative to the field...

Why? I'm one of the few people on this forum who is actually aware of that, as far as I can tell.

Gee, thanks for the lesson on manners, I'll keep that in mind.

You see, I have the same problem with stupid people... go figure.

You could have fooled me.

 

Alrighty...guys....let's be cool about it.

We all have different opinion and experience, yet we love the same cars.....why keep picking on our own friends???

From what I know, you both LOVE FD and also have respects for other nice cars, in this case, Supra. So, would we leave it at that?

I'd hate to see both of my repected friends / members got into this little conflict.

POM HB

 

I just like pushing the buttons - the real teenager reactions come from those who get all red in the face and blatently ignore facts that are presented before them.


It goes something like this:

Mag articles are posted showing Supra makes better numbers than the FD.

You say that magazine numbers don't mean **** - "show me some race records" you say.

One lap of America results are posted (which is comprised of many different tracks) and yet again - you call Bullshit. It's obvious that no matter what "proof" is posted you will always call BS.

Yes these were both modded cars - I'm assuming both cars were built to compete - hence with all the FDs advantages it should have EASILY beaten every car in the field - no?

OK - I'll give you that the FD is superior in racing around orange cones in a parking lot - are you happy? But on the road courses of America - it didn't do as well.

Show me more direct comparisons between the FD and the Supra. I can be persuaded - but I've yet to see any proof showing the FD superior. I have seen proof showing the contrary however.

 

I'm wondering, do you have anything to show about the minds of the drivers of that particular supra and FD? Obviously since they were in One lap, they have to at least be half wits, but who knows exactly what approach they took to modding their cars? Are they reputable racers? I'm not doubting they are, I'm asking.Didn't we start with Stock vs stock and not modded vs modded? When you hit the latter of the two areas, there are way to many variables to say that one car is better then the other when you have no idea who modded what, how the car was setup, if any mistakes were made or anything. Jim you like to use a referance to a controlled environment in many of the threads I have seen you post in, specifically stuff like when Zerobanger achieved his higher Trap speed with his "ram air" intake. Why do you guys use somthing as uncontrolled as One lap as a referance?

The magazines were much more controlled then One lap, and the FD did pull faster trap speeds, isnt that referance enough? They are both great cars, its so pointless arguing over which is better unless you have people with biased opinions, and frankly, rynberg is entirely the opposite if you take a look at his posts.

 

What do you mean by reputable? You don't finish that high in the One Lap without at least one of the team members being one hell of a good driver.

The only place you're going to find a stock vs. stock match-up is in a magazine test. No one seemed to like the magazine test results very much.

Here's some information on the Supra.
http://www.onelapsupra.com/OneLap2002/OneLapSupra.htm

Track down Dale Black and ask him about the FD. He's on the forum, I believe.

Better get your eyes checked.

 

you are all a bunch of stupid losers. What a worthless thread.