FT86 vs. RX-7 FD

[viper_driver]

I had an FD in 1998. It was an incredible car but nearly always broken....like 14 months in the shop over 24 months of ownership. Seriously. I had 4 friends with them and all of them were the same.

It was such a great car when it worked, but I can't even imagine how people can keep them on the road now as old as they are.

My S2000 had zero problems in 6 years and over 60k miles. I'm hoping for more of that and less of the FD memories out of my DD FR-S.

[ZDan]

FD probs feexed!

[Guff]

Originally Posted by ZDan

FD probs feexed!

Nope...




Now they're fixed!

[ZDan]

Either way I love the concept of rotaries, but the reality...
Actually, as I think about it, I'd probably do a turbo rotary sooner than 2JZ, but to each his own of course.

What does the 2JZ do to weight and weight distribution?

The LS2 added ~30 lb., now 2815 lb. empty. F/R = 50.6/49.4 with 1/2 tank, 50.0/50.0 with 1/2 tank and driver installed
(zero weight-savings mods/omissions, the car was built to be a dd street + sometime track car, with power steering, A/C, tons of dynamat)

[dori.]

I am kind of looking at both cars actually...

There's an FD up on RX7club I've been eyeing for a while. But the problem is that I know I'll have to keep my Civic as a DD if I get it. But after owing a few FC's I would love to get one.

But I think that an FR-S or BRZ is a better investment overall. Toyota's and Subaru's hold their value pretty well, and I'll be able to sell all my cars and focus on one. Plus I'd be better off only having to pay insurance on one car and not two.

Not to mention the whole 'brand new vehicle vs 19 y/o used car' thing

[Vasilis]

What you pay is what you get - If you get a cheap FD and expect it to run perfectly as it is you're soooo mistaken. Do NOT for a moment think that because the car is cheap to buy (because so damn many were destroyed by people who didn't know how to maintain / abused them) that they're cheap to maintain !

Get a decent FD chassis, rebuild the engine, do a single turbo swap (GT35R comes to mind) + reliability/cooling mods and you're looking at 350whp to 400whp with minor changes to MPG and a pretty reliable car for an exotic killer...

To be honest, even looking at the title thread made me laugh out loud even if I believe the GT86 will be a good car...FD territory ? Really ? :P

The only cars the GT86 should be compared is the new Genesis, the RX8 and ... that's it :P Can't think of another one...

[ubersoph]

Isn't the FD also a superior suspension setup (like the miata for that matter?)

Double Wishbone front vs MacStruts in the front means that the mazdas can get negative camber as the body rolls, keeping more of the tire planted when the suspension articulates.

[scorcherjf]

Yep, mazda miata, RX-7 FD, RX-8, honda s2000, nissan 350/370z all have double wishbone front but out of all of those the RX-7 FD is really a class above because of the power/weight.

Originally Posted by ubersoph

Isn't the FD also a superior suspension setup (like the miata for that matter?)

Double Wishbone front vs MacStruts in the front means that the mazdas can get negative camber as the body rolls, keeping more of the tire planted when the suspension articulates.

[Vasilis]

Also it's worth noting the RX8 and the latest Miata have a multi-link rear instead of double wishbone which a bit more complex.

The multilink is usually found in more expensive/luxury brand cars but I think Mazda is the only brand introducing it to this price range - Correct me If I'm wrong, I'm not 100% sure.


Also from the cars scorcherjf listed correctly it's also the only one with forced induction as a stock option

Even the early ~250HP models of the FD are not to be underestimated in any challenge!

[ZDan]

Multilink is not necessarily "better" for a sports/sporty car. Double-wishbones are generally preferred. I'd rather have double-wishbones in the back of my FD.
FWIW, the FR-S's forebear, the 240SX, had multilink rear and strut front suspension, so it's not like the setup is for expensive/luxury cars. I think one benefit is to allow some compliance while maintaining toe control.

[Eldorian]

Originally Posted by chulooz

Looks are subjective but the majority of the population agrees that the RX8 is a sharp looking ride.

It's not unattractive, and I've had ladies give it approving looks, but it's certainly not a real looker like the FD was.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by ubersoph

Double Wishbone front vs MacStruts in the front means that the mazdas can get negative camber as the body rolls, keeping more of the tire planted when the suspension articulates.

McPherson struts also gain camber on the with bump (i.e. additional negative camber on the outside wheels with roll), just not as much as you can easily get with double-wishbones.
My 240Z gained ~0.5deg per inch, whereas the S2000 is more like 1deg per inch (don't have the FD suspension modeled, but I bet it's in the 1deg/in range).

You'd need to gain ~1.75deg/inch to totally counter body roll in cornering, but that much camber change with bump would have negatives, e.g. excessive negative camber up front under straight-line braking, too much camber change with pitch, etc.

Struts aren't ideal, but they're not that bad a compromise, either. To me the biggest negatives are lack of stock camber adjustability and they force the hood/front fenderline higher.

I don't know where people get the idea that struts don't gain camber with bump. I've even seen it suggested that struts gain POSITIVE camber with bump. If you look at the geometry, you'll see that for most cars you'd have to go beyond the limits of suspension travel before you'd start gaining positive camber, I know this is true for the 240Z.

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by ZDan

McPherson struts also gain camber on the with bump (i.e. additional negative camber on the outside wheels with roll), just not as much as you can easily get with double-wishbones.
My 240Z gained ~0.5deg per inch, whereas the S2000 is more like 1deg per inch (don't have the FD suspension modeled, but I bet it's in the 1deg/in range).

You'd need to gain ~1.75deg/inch to totally counter body roll in cornering, but that much camber change with bump would have negatives, e.g. excessive negative camber up front under straight-line braking, too much camber change with pitch, etc.

Struts aren't ideal, but they're not that bad a compromise, either. To me the biggest negatives are lack of stock camber adjustability and they force the hood/front fenderline higher.

I don't know where people get the idea that struts don't gain camber with bump. I've even seen it suggested that struts gain POSITIVE camber with bump. If you look at the geometry, you'll see that for most cars you'd have to go beyond the limits of suspension travel before you'd start gaining positive camber, I know this is true for the 240Z.

Once the control arm rises above horizontal, you're gaining positive camber with a MacPherson strut design. The FT comes with the control arms pretty much horizontal in stock trim.

That said, for the travel involved, the gain is minimal and exists pretty much just in theory.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

Once the control arm rises above horizontal, you're gaining positive camber with a MacPherson strut design.

No, you don't start gaining positive camber until the control arm is perpendicular to the strut. The struts are angled inwardly, tops of the struts are much closer together than the ball joints at the bottom. You have to go a long way past control arm horizontal before you start losing camber.