FR-S/BRZ vs. FC RX7
 

Not sure why it wasn't on the topic before. Compare it to the FD just a bit too far off. It was the engineering pinnacle for Mazda.

I am talking the NA FC here we have in the US, not even the turbo, which has pretty good torque. I owned the 89 NA version before, and I will think the toyoburu will have a pretty similar feeling to it when driving around: pretty close in weight, direct steering, engine weight in the middle, hard-top, low seating. low torque, high rpm. New car has a little better suspension, and a better high end, otherwse both are driver ecentric cars, pretty close in driver involvement, i think it's pretty close

What do you mean better suspension or driver eccentric

I have owned two FC Rx-7's, a turbo and a non turbo. By better suspension he is referring to the suspension geometry in the rear especially. The FC uses a semi-trailing arm suspension, while the BRZ/FR-S uses a multi-link design that has had the benefit of a couple decades worth of advances.

I think he meant "driver-centric," basically a car that's designed to be fun to drive and give a lot of feedback to the driver.

An excellent comparison, the Toyobaru having an edge in modern chassis advancement and reliability while the RX7 being the more powerful machine.

I've always had a soft sport for the RX7 as a couple of friends have some very fast examples despite their reputation for being finicky and unreliable.

I had a '91 convertible. GREAT car! I would have preferred a coupe or turbo, but I needed a car immediately and it was the first one I looked at that wasn't trashed.

The FR-S should perform about as well as a stock FC turbo (about the same power and weight). But the FC weight distribution is better and it's probably a smidge less compromised as a "sports car". Rotary gas mileage and reliability though...

I owned a '90 Turbo II, and had a few friends with N/A RX-7's. The N/A cars were torqueless wonders that had no around-town grunt, but the turbo was pretty good at getting out of it's own way, with 200bhp/182lb/ft stock. It was a front-midship design because of the compact rotary, and the CoG was pretty low, too. The car had great balance and the rotary made a great sound with a 3" turbo-back exhaust. 4-piston front brakes did a great job at stopping, and some early models had auto-adjusting suspension, too! Unfortunately mine grenaded shortly after I bought it so I ended up selling it.

My biggest gripes about the car were how finicky the rotary could be (if not properly maintained), piss poor fuel economy (I averaged 14mpg), and the quality of the interior plastics (very brittle; broke panels trying to remove them). But it was a ton of fun and it has a timeless design that still looks great today. There's still tons of aftermarket support for them, too!

Thanks, typing on the phone wasn't helping on the spelling. You are pretty spot on what I meant.