This car came out 16-17 years ago, and one has to ask the question: Has any car since matched it in speed and handling for the price? (talking USDM too, nothing from another country)

Best I can figure the S2000 comes closest, though given its torque shortcomings I wouldn't pick it to win any races.

Do enthusiasts not care about that combo anymore, or do car companies just not care enough?

6/22/2009 9:38:24 PM

If you are talking about for track applications, the Pontiac Soltice. (even though I think its a shitty car for everyday use, it's a sick platform for the track)

6/22/2009 9:50:30 PM

Quote :

"Has any car since matched it in speed and handling for the price? (talking USDM too, nothing from another country)"

yeah, several. especially if we're considering inflation. it's not like they were any real bang for your buck bargain. what was msrp, $35-40k? off the top of my head:

-c4, c5, and c6 vettes
-4th gen f-body
-03/04 cobra
-mkIV supra
-e46 m3

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2009 10:02:01 PM

Although i agree that the numbers match welll all of those cars miss the #1 trait that comes to mind when i think FD.... Nimble... light on its toes.

6/22/2009 10:28:49 PM

Quote :

"-4th gen f-body -03/04 cobra"

pretty sure he said handling.

6/22/2009 10:41:32 PM

^^^I believe MSRP was $29,900 when it came out in 1993. Though it shot up over the few years it was sold here b/c of the strength of the yen. And none of those cars are nimble on this level (talking sub 3000lbs). The E46 M3? No way. Too heavy and too expensive.

^bingo, it'd run circles are all of those, except for the corvette with Z51 option. And again, the Corvette C6 is bumping into $50k for a base model.

The Solstice, especially with the 300hp upgraded engine, is a performance bargain but somehow they still managed to make it weigh over 3000lbs and its handling numbers are put to shame by the Cobalt SS.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 10:43 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 10:44 PM. Reason : no m3]

6/22/2009 10:41:37 PM

Quote :

"Best I can figure the S2000 comes closest, though given its torque shortcomings I wouldn't pick it to win any races."

Uh... you're aware this thread is about the RX-7, right?

6/22/2009 10:47:45 PM

^RX-7: 2800lbs, 255hp, 30-35,000 MSRP
S2000: 2800lbs, 240hp 30-35,000 MSRP

How can you not see the similiarity


Come to think of it performance/price wise I think the best match is the Evo IX but its a 4 door AWD. I'm talking 2 door RWD comparisons.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 10:52 PM. Reason : k]

6/22/2009 10:52:21 PM

^^^^pretty sure he also said speed. the sizable power advantage of those vehicles easily makes up for the excess weight.

the only area i see a stock fd being a clear winner over anything i mentioned would be auto-x or otherwise very tight course.

a c6 might be $50k+, but if we're talking 1993 dollars vs. 2009 dollars it's totally comparable. fwiw, msrp on a 1993 c4 was ~$35k iirc.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 10:54 PM. Reason : also, i meant e36.. typo]

6/22/2009 10:53:59 PM

The C4 Corvette weighed 3300lbs and had 300hp. It's handling and speed were eclipsed by the RX7 in pretty much every measurable way. The E36 was close, but was more expensive and around 3200lbs.

edit: Apparently MSRP spiked up higher than I thought back then. From what I found a base 1993 model's MSRP was $32,900. By '94 loaded with every option it was just over $40k.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 11:07 PM. Reason : still, show me anything with 255hp and a curb weight of 2826lbs]

6/22/2009 11:04:00 PM

Quote :

"yeah, several. especially if we're considering inflation. it's not like they were any real bang for your buck bargain."

yeah. FD is a sweet car, if you can put up with it being a fickle bitch. I would never consider it a performance bargain, though. Inflation adjusted from '93-'95 to 2009 (assuming 3%/year...I don't feel like researching the actual amount since then), it would be something like a $45-50k car. That would make it a total rip-off, pitted against 15 years of automotive progress.

an Evo IX would run rings around it, I'm fairly sure. Z51 'Vette would be a total slaughter. S2000 would be pretty comparable.


Of course, most of the FDs will eventually end up wtih LS1s, anyway.

6/22/2009 11:04:23 PM

IIRC RX-7s, supras, 300zx's, and 3000gts of the early 90s were better than pretty much anything else that was available. the only cars that really compare in more modern eras are the c5 and c6 corvettes, which like their early japanese counterparts, are bargain priced when compared to similar performing cars. the s2000 compares favorably to the early 90s group of cars but for its era it's not in the same league.

adjusted for inflation an FD would cost about $50k today which reinforces my point that FD performance relative to what was available in early 90s is equal to c6 performance relative to what is out today.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2009 11:06:07 PM

well yeah, those cars KILLED in the early-to-mid '90s. They would get eaten up by all sorts of stuff nowadays.

6/22/2009 11:09:37 PM

Quote :

"the s2000 compares favorably to the early 90s group of cars but for its era it's not in the same league."

I somewhat agree, but will play DA's here. While MSRP was almost $35k for the S2K, you could pick one up for $30k no problem. What else built during its time was a better performance bargain? The 350Z was just about even, and the Solstice GXP pretty much came out as the S2000 exited. Z4? Don't think so. RX-8? Nope. Boxster? nah.

But I digress....that kinda belongs in the S2K thread

6/22/2009 11:12:06 PM

I'd love Mazda forever if they came out with a FE RX-7 with (a reliable) 300hp Wankel engine, a sub 2900lb curb weight, and sub $50,000 $40,000 price. Hell, it could look exactly the same as the FD and I'd be happy.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 11:14 PM. Reason : 370Z made me reconsider the price to make a new RX7 worth it]

6/22/2009 11:13:55 PM

^^^no question about it

Since this is an FD thread...
Best color...Innocent Blue Mica






Aesthetically the FD has aged unbelievably well

also since this is an FD thread here is a picture of my old one. (Right)


[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 11:19 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2009 11:15:39 PM

Quote :

"The C4 Corvette weighed 3300lbs and had 300hp. It's handling and speed were eclipsed by the RX7 in pretty much every measurable way."

according to who? on paper, their numbers are nearly identical. my real world experience behind the wheel of both agrees, if not giving the c4 a slight advantage since you don't have to wring the shit out of it to get results.

anyway, debate over some vehicles aside, the point is it's hardly any sort performance/value king. then or now. cool cars nonetheless, though.

6/22/2009 11:19:01 PM

^they were performance/value kings for their era, much like the c5 was, and the c6 is

6/22/2009 11:21:22 PM

^^^ yeah, they're great looking cars.

Quote :

"Z4? Don't think so. RX-8? Nope. Boxster? nah. "

I watched an episode of [user]Top Gear[/user] where they tested an S2000, Boxster, and Z4 (later years on the Boxster and Z4--the S2k would've certainly crushed the early models of both cars). It was pretty much dead even around the track.

When the RX-8 was released, I remember reading in some magazine where they tested it against an FD RX-7. I'm almost positive that the RX-8 cut a very slightly FASTER lap time around their circuit than did the -7, with the -8 making its money in the handling department (while giving up very little on the straights).



I'm not hating on the FD. I like them a lot. Hell, I could end up with one...you never know with me. I'm just saying that you're looking at them through rose-colored glasses. They were some of the baddest machinery around in 1993...but all kinds of stuff would absolutely annihilate them, nowadays.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 11:25 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2009 11:23:06 PM

this thread these videos. mazda bodies are porkers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LfcHgn7BU4

2 step ftw, lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L3DhuxJees

Quote :

" I'm not hating on the FD. I like them a lot. Hell, I could end up with one...you never know with me. I'm just saying that you're looking at them through rose-colored glasses. They were some of the baddest machinery around in 1993...but all kinds of stuff would absolutely annihilate them, nowadays."

exactly.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 11:33 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2009 11:27:39 PM

a bunch of old articles to help give a little perspective.

http://www.fd3s.net/magazine_articles/index.html

6/22/2009 11:32:46 PM

oh, look, an rx7 enthusiast site with half or more of the linked articles being modified cars. who needs perspective again?

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 11:37 PM. Reason : look, i'm all for appreciating the fd here (i very nearly bought one) but lets call a spade a spade]

6/22/2009 11:35:52 PM

I'm talking about the articles from the early 90s chief, not the ones from import tuner...

6/22/2009 11:39:14 PM

i'm failing to see your point. none of us disagree that it was an impressive car for the time. just not THAT impressive or something whose performance hasn't been matched and exceeded several times over.

6/22/2009 11:42:13 PM

all i was trying to say is that the rx-7 was to the 90s what is the c6 is to today. (similarly priced when adjusted for inflation, similar performance when compared to cars of their eras, but NOT similar when compared head to head) thats all.

6/22/2009 11:47:31 PM

ah. fair enough.

6/22/2009 11:49:59 PM

Quote :

""The C4 Corvette weighed 3300lbs and had 300hp. It's handling and speed were eclipsed by the RX7 in pretty much every measurable way.""

My friend had a 93ish RX-7 and he lost every time to my 95 6 speed .

6/23/2009 12:02:41 AM

Looks dated.

I used to think these were beautiful, but now...the small tires, the bubbly styling, that hideous front license plate....

[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/23/2009 12:59:31 AM

tiluin had a sweet one till an ice storm stumped it

6/23/2009 1:34:15 AM

looks hot

i'd prolly own one and swap it, not with the rotary though

6/23/2009 2:09:27 AM

i too love to appreciate something that i need to rebuild every 70K miles. fuck those cars. I mean i would have one as a daily/weekend commuter. but lets behonest, they are fucking money pits, like LT1s, and mopars

6/23/2009 2:30:54 AM

Quote :

"I used to think these were beautiful, but now...the small tires, the bubbly styling, that hideous front license plate...."

I hate to say it but I agree.

6/23/2009 8:09:19 AM

Quote :

"I used to think these were beautiful, but now...the small tires, the bubbly styling, that hideous front license plate...."

The 16/17" wheels look quite proportional on that car, what's this love affair with huge (read heavy) 18-20" wheels? The front license plate is a non-issue, it was never USDM

Quote :

"i'm failing to see your point. none of us disagree that it was an impressive car for the time. just not THAT impressive or something whose performance hasn't been matched and exceeded several times over."

Maybe I'm not conveying my thoughts properly. Name a car since then with that kind of speed and nimbleness for the price? I'm all about light weight, and nothing offered right now (or within the last 5 years) is lightweight and relatively affordable. Porsche Cayman and Lotus Evora are close, but still weigh more. I love the C6 but its only lightweight compared to its peers.

6/23/2009 9:11:07 AM

i wouldn't mind owning another (with an LSx swap)

6/23/2009 9:17:45 AM

Perhaps another rotary?

RX 8 base model comes in at 2888lbs and has been rated between 228hp and 247hp.
2009 Mazda RX-8 MSRP Range: $26435 - $31930

All that I can think of, aside from an obviously modified vehicles (Ie: Porsche/Mazda/Datsun/Nissan engine swaps...)

6/23/2009 9:29:55 AM

Quote :

"all i was trying to say is that the rx-7 was to the 90s what is the c6 is to today. (similarly priced when adjusted for inflation, similar performance when compared to cars of their eras, but NOT similar when compared head to head) thats all."

Primary difference being that a normal person might consider the Vette as it's likely that they can keep it for a decade and put 150k miles on it without paying some specialty shop more than the car cost in the first place just to keep it running that long.

6/23/2009 9:48:50 AM

^no question about it. a c5 makes infinately more sense for 99.9% of car enthusiasts. (I just wish they didn't feel so big)

6/23/2009 10:05:34 AM

^^^what do you mean with the varying horsepower rating? It makes 232 with the stick, 212 with the slushbox.

0-60 right around 6 seconds and it returns mid teens mpg, utterly horrendous.

6/23/2009 10:48:26 AM

^ I was just reading those stats from the Bible Wikipedia. I thought it was around 240hp, however, but w/e I'd rather have torque

In all seriousness, I think when "preowned" 2009 RX8 R3's are around $15k, I might pick up one for fun. (If the drivetrain wasn't rotary, the wife and I would have bought an RX8 a while back ago...) This is an RX7 thread, so I won't go talking about the 8's anymore.


[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM. Reason : .]

6/23/2009 11:04:20 AM

just beautiful still today

6/23/2009 2:05:20 PM

My race-spec FD RX7 went through and shattered every one of my course records in GT2 back in the day

6/23/2009 2:56:34 PM

I used to hang with the Ferrari 512TR and Lamborghini Diablo with the RX-7 in the first Need for Speed video game...okay only on the coastal track (which was fairly twisty) lol.

6/23/2009 2:59:54 PM

almost all the pics posted here have been from 99's. The spoiler on those looks pretty cheesy (I prefer the 93 spoiler), although the wheels look better than the 16's that came on the 93-95 models that were sold here. That blue color was never even available in the US.

You have to remember that the FD was unique and purpose-built (the opposite of "parts-bin"), and completely abandoned the touring coupe type of car it had become by the end of the previous generation. That was its greatest strength and ultimately its undoing.









[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 5:55 PM. Reason : .]

6/23/2009 5:43:24 PM

Quote :

"Maybe I'm not conveying my thoughts properly. Name a car since then with that kind of speed and nimbleness for the price? I'm all about light weight, and nothing offered right now (or within the last 5 years) is lightweight and relatively affordable."

lol, i named like 5 above. any category you want to look at, there are cars that were produced then and since then that equal or better the fd.

curb weight? miata, s2k, etc.

power? vette, supra f-body, m3, cobra, etc.

overall speed/performance? see above

similar price? see above

6/23/2009 8:30:39 PM

^^oh jeez

traction bars
aluminum hood
frame connectors

6/23/2009 9:16:07 PM

lol.

Ivan, obviously (and you know it) I'm not talking about one or the other.

6/23/2009 11:34:14 PM

Quote :

"Name a car since then with that kind of speed and nimbleness for the price?"

Evo.

I know how much it weighs. Go drive one and see if you still disagree. I drove a C6 Z51 back to back with my IX one time, and the Evo makes the 'Vette feel like a school bus. A school bus with fucking unholy performance in every way, yes, but it feels absolutely ponderous compared to the Evo.




Also, Miatas had that transmission-to-rear diff brace, too, even before the RX-7.

6/24/2009 12:15:54 AM

Quote :

"traction bars aluminum hood frame connectors "

The car came out in 92 man, that was some pretty impressive stuff back then. If you look at a 1992 car in the eyes of a 2009 enthusiast it will of course seem pretty mediocre. You really have to drive one that runs right (good luck finding that) to appreciate it. It handles like an Rx-8 except it's lighter and stiffer. On paper the FD had a powerband of a modern DOHC V6 but was far smoother. The torque band was 2000-6000rpm and peak power was 6500. The engine feels nothing like an s2000 or say a C5 Z06 (duh), both of which I have driven. And then you have to go work on one and get really pissed off at it.

The s2000 isn't as good of a comparison as you think. Its motor is just like my nonturbo Rx-7 but with way more top end, and both relied on variable valve timing (and the rotary equivalent) for power rather than forced induction. The FD is a rare (about 11,000? imported) and unique vehicle, but by today's standards the performance before modifications is just ok. Though the fact that we are comparing it to so much newer stuff is a testament to its legacy.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 1:46 AM. Reason : .]

6/24/2009 1:45:29 AM

^^Duke, I already mentioned the Evo comparison and said I'm talking 2 doors only. Are you reading the whole thread?

6/24/2009 7:33:01 AM

^^

I agree. The s2k doesnt have near enough torque to even be considered. It's just similiar shape/style/origin country. The s2k is actually painful to drive around town and I imagine something with some boost at 2krpm isnt (hell even a 1.6L T is better I'm sure a rotary isnt far off).




[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 8:14 AM. Reason : . i still like the FC's anyways!!!!!!!!!]

6/24/2009 8:13:21 AM