Solomon

What no Honda’s! haha that is just a joke, and no I do not want to know who did what with theirs. =)

When I look at a FD I see a low sleek car that has curves placed in the right spots.
The miata nice but it is just to small of a car, needs like a foot more all the way around.

The C5 or like is killer but to plane and just like a arrow with no curves.

The 300z...kind of like someone sat on it.

The supra is a great car and I would say it is somewhat of a unknown car to me. I love the look, but just the opposite of the miata…just a little bit to big looking.

The late 60’s camero’s are just great timeless looking car. I just like something more modern.

The mr2, just to small, owned one, great fun just to small once again.

The BMW, well just to much money I think.

If I could ever get over the miata looks and the supra I would have to go with one of those over the FD. I really like the rx8, but for another topic, I just am not sure about front wheel drive in a sports car and will have to wait to see what bolt-ons are coming for the 8. =/
The supra is great due to the reliability, tha
t is worth a bit extra do we think, and what about the porches, or older Ferrari?

Fatman0203

Ya from my understanding this is speaking dollar for dollar in respects to what you get out of an FD. An FD is more a track car than anything else. And in the track car sense its tought to compete against an FD even with a buget under 20k hell even 25k.

TooMuch4You

Im not dissing T-II's (I do own one after all) but by the time you get a T-II up to the level of a stock FD you've payed an amount of money that could probably buy an FD

Fatman0203

hmmm well ya your right I never really considered bushings and crap like that, thats WAY older than an FD. True true =/, good point. HOT FC

Icemastr

iTrader: (2)

The RX-8 is FWD? Is that what your trying to say? MR2's can't compete dollar for dollar with the FD, the stock turbo is only good for about 260whp, and to go much past that you have to go standalone ECU, intercoolers are a huge pain, etc. But you can buy them for pretty cheap and they will handle 400-500whp without internal modifications. Running larger turbos on them though, they just can't spool em even close to as fast as a 2 rotor can.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Here you go....buy a used Miata and throw in a Renesis. Or you could buy a brand new MS Miata for 25k and install a larger turbo. Since the MS model is already built for FI, it will be alot easier to upgrade it's hp. In some cases, the Miata is even more fun to drive than the Fd because it's more go-kart like.

SpeedKing

iTrader: (4)

How about this? Buy a used Miata and throw in a supercharged Ford V8. 460 HP @ 2550 lbs.!

http://miata.cardomain.com/id/jb3452

prew

iTrader: (9)

an already build 67 AC Cobra Kit. my bro just picked one up for 30 somethin with a supercharged 302.

03 cobra. (brother has that too)

theres a v8 miata on ebay now for under 10K.

E30 M3 with a supercharged E36 m3 motor (my friend has one)

a dsm maybe.

idk theres not much. the only thing im willing to sell my fd for is a SL500. i cant figure out how to raise that extra 70k though

steve prew

diablone

iTrader: (2)

The RX-8 is RWD.

Solomon

**** I thought the rx8 was FWD like the 6. my bad. Still have to see what comes out for the 8

speeddemon7

id say the closest car next to the fd dollar for dollar is the twin turbo supra.I remember when I was in the market for a fast car about 2 years ago.To tell everyone the truth i was actually looking for a supra initially.At the time I found a really good deal on one for only 13 grand.It was a 5 speed twin turbo supra.But unfortunately my credit wasnt up to par.Then one day I was ridding along with my wife and saw a silver fd.I was hooked.I searched around and found a black auto fd for 11 grand.I wish I bought a 5 speed instead.Needles to say I was able to get the car.
I still dont know which car I like better.But then again Ive never had a ride in a twin turbo supra either or a 5 speed fd for that matter.I love the looks of both cars though.Im probably going to buy a supra next and see which one I like better.

speeddemon7

theres supposedly a supercharged version of the rx 8 coming out in 2005.Ive heard it has some *****.Maybe even more than the fd.I know the horsepower output is supposed to be in the 300's.

Fatman0203

The supra's suspension is not "up to par" with the FDs. Try to track a stock supra and the rotors and brake system will die trying to stop that weight.

WNEC98

iTrader: (2)

Porsche 944 Turbo. My friends car only has 220 stock. If it were an ’89 944 T it would come stock with 250. But it’s the same engine with larger turbo and different engine mapping. For a couple grand it can get around 330HP and for a couple more almost 400HP.

Icemastr

iTrader: (2)

Have you ever "tracked" a stock Supra Fatman? It stops from 60MPH in 120ft, nearly as good as the FD, it has large vented disc brakes, independent double wishbone suspension, goes 0-60 just as fast as the FD, has way more torque down low, and pulls a .98G on the skidpad. The supra is an excellent performing car, and not too far off of the 3rd gne RX-7. It has great weight distribution and really its only weakness in auto-x compared to the FD is its weight.

jimlab

Have you owned one? You should take a closer look at the brakes and suspension on a MKIV Supra Turbo some time. You should also look at the final results for the last two years of the One Lap of America.

You should really think about what you're saying before repeating popular sentiment or making statements you don't know to be factual. Hell, I saw someone post that a Supra Turbo couldn't go much past 15 psi on the stock twins yesterday, and I ran 1.3-1.4 Bar on a daily basis on pump gas for most of the three years I used my MKIV for a daily driver. Here are some more facts for you...

Motor Trend, August 1993



Motor Trend, May 1994



Road & Track, April 1994

CourageOO7

Now look up the Car and Driver compo from the same year (actually I think it was 95). The Supra did .92G's on the skidpad and the 7 did .98G;s. The 7 accelerated faster to 60mph and was equal in the 1/4 mile. My point? Tires and drivers. The 7 is a better roadcourse car...the Supra can go in a straight line faster. Depends on what you want.

Fatman0203

Exactly my point.

Jim is that some special supra? I have driven one (thought auto) still was a turbo. Pros are easily visible low end torque, very good gearing etc etc. Yet dollar for dollar I think you can get a more formidable FD around the 17 to 20k range than a Supra around the same range which is where they start. I know the N-As are cheaper, and honestly dont know anything about converting them but I bet it would be pricey. I know supra's are very formidable and have seen them do good damage on the SCC Challenge thing, I just dont think that price wise you can get the same.

[EDIT] Jim is that a AUTO Touring they used for the test!?

speeddemon7

whoa.I didnt mean to start a debate over which car is better.They both have strengths and weakneses.But I would bet my money on the supra engines being more reliable than our rotary engines(ticking timebombs) lol.
Thats the one thing that scares the crap out of me when it comes to owning an fd.

jimlab

Your point is still wrong. The Supra can corner every bit as well as the RX-7 on a road course. The arbitrarily tight corners of an autocross course may favor lighter cars like the RX-7, but that doesn't mean that a Supra can't corner. Not that many people autocross. Let's talk real world.

You made no mention of comparing dollar for dollar. You said Supras didn't have enough brake for their weight and couldn't corner because they had poor suspension design, neither of which are true.

"The supra's suspension is not 'up to par' with the FDs. Try to track a stock supra and the rotors and brake system will die trying to stop that weight."

Probably not, but some people are willing to pay more for a car that has better build quality, reliability, and performance potential.

Fatman0203

Once again is that a auto touring they used for the test?!

[EDIT] Scratch that they tested both. Im sorry I really dont see how those numbers are possible. 119 Braking?! 6 second 0-60? They just sound like an auto or bad tires.

Fatman0203

Im not saying at all its a bad car in any aspect. The thread title says dollar for dollar.

speeddemon7

you know about 2 years ago supras and fds were almost the same price wise.the supras were about 2 to 3 grand more.I recently looked up some supras on autotrader and couldnt believe my eyes.Theyve gotten so much rarer and more expensive.Now you cant even touch a twin turbo for less than 17 to 20 k.My wife of all people wants one.

jimlab

Yes, the May '94 Motor Trend test above used an auto Touring model, which obviously affects the 0-60 and standing quarter mile figures, and to some very small degree, the braking. The FDs in the other tests were 5-speed models.

The point was not head-to-head comparison of the Supra and RX-7, but proof that the Supra was not far off (if not superior in some areas), indicating that your statements concerning its braking and handling capabilities were inaccurate.

95FD_VA

my vote is the C5 , Out on the track they hang with me nose to nose on the straights but in cornering I take them pretty easily, sometimes I don't even see them in the riew view mirror when I get back to the straight. I bought my 95 7 for 16,800 and dumped the same amount in mods to get it where it is today. So I figure I have a 33-34k car with 70k miles on it. My buddy just sold his 2000 C-5 vette for 33k, it only had 4,300 miles on it. So in in this aspect they are comparible. So now it comes down to other factors such as looks, relabilty, rareity etc.. If you don't have some great love for the 7 then I would reccomend a C-5. The reality is the 7 is at least 10 years old and can be a pain to maintain. All that being siad I love my FD!