Hey guys.. I was just wondering (price aside) how these two compare, both on the track, and on a straight line. Stock, and with average mods. Any thoughts?

 

I am a big FD fan. Stock vs stock the FD is more car, imo way more car. They are notorious for cooling issues. Their stock system often bakes itself which leads to vaccum hose problems and with like 90 hoses it becomes a pain. The FD takes to mods well, but they have a '3' mod rule before their stock fuel system can't handle it. I can't remember what the fuel system can pull on the stock system but a dp and a full exhaust will be pushing it before injectors and some fuel computer is needed.

They are reliable if all the cooling issues are addressed before modding. Much like the 951 with the belts. Both cars take to mods well, but the FD can go further. From a stock perspective the FD is faster compared to my 87 951, I dunno about the turboS though.

On the track the FD owns just about everything, crap even the FC could pull over 1 g if you did some simple stuff and went to 8"wide rims. The FD's performance model the R1/R2 could pull over 1 G in stock trim.

I know several people with FD's if you have any other questions.

 

Ive owned 2 FD's. They are quick out of the box (13.8) in the 1/4. They also handle really well. Hard to compare them to a 944, since theres alot of newer technology in them. They also respond well to mods, but the stock turbos are crap and 350 at the wheels is pushing them. The stock sequential system is VERY finicky. One broken vacuum line and it throws the whole system in shock. low boost, no boost, no 2nd turbo, hesitations are just a few of the problems when the system isnt 100%. The stock cooling system wont cool a stock car with the AC on in Phoenix. The engines are low life engines. I used to be into RX7's heavily. I even have a 3 rotor FC built by me and my buddy. Mod for mod, the FD will probably own a 944 but as far as longevity and stuff, the 944 comes out ahead. On a side note, in order to save weight, Mazda used the thinnest sheet metal on any production car. so, if you try to bump the door closed with your butt, you could end up with a dimple or an *** print in your door.

 

Yeah, my room mate has an FC and he says you've gotta rebuild or replace the engine in an FD every 90k miles! So, reliability wise, they're not so good..

 

One of my friends SWEARS by his FC. At least, the FC he used to have. I am a 944 driver, and even after he beefed up the suspension and dumped a whole lot of money into it, it still ended up dead on the side of the road, and never handled as well as my stock 944.

I don't know about FDs, but I wouldn't be surprised if they outperform 951s stock vs. stock. They're just newer. Plus, the 951 boasts so many other features that most Mazda fans don't appreciate.

 

I LOVE RX-7TT's- I wish they had the front end of a newer Miata though, w/out the pop-up headlights- tons of people in the Japanese world for mods like this though. They are incredible cars overall. As has already been stated, they have many vaccum lines- I was told it was literally ~50, but could be way more(???)... One good thing about this, though, is that changing out vaccum lines is basically all there is to an engine rebuild, so if you know the engines well, a full rebuild can be VERY simple & VERY cheap... Of course, most people (myself included) do NOT know them well- Mazda sent them over w/out training mechanics properly & that hurt them badly... If you can find a well-maintained example, you can have a very fun, reliable car. Otherwise, you can be in over your head just as badly as w/any 951. I've also been told that the engines usually don't last more ~100k w/out a rebuild, but again, rebuilds might not be that bad- I've been told labor & all can be ~$1500 total... Wouldn't you LOVE to be able to rebuild a 951 engine for that!?

I never knew that about the sheet metal like sillbeer said- that's kind of scary. Yes, they do tend to run hot- you can combat this somewhat, but it's something to watch. SCC did a great project on one 7 or 8 years ago where the first chapters were spent doing things to address some of the weak points- evidently, there are several really good preventative measures one can take to make them more reliable.

The engine takes to mods readily- larger exhausts are a big thing- much moreso than 951's. Evidently, 250-275RWHP is pretty easy to attain- pretty good too, considering they put out ~250HP at crank bone stock. ~275RWHP can push the little cars pretty well, considering they weigh under 2950lbs (test)- think about it- that means they're almost 250lbs lighter than a fully laden 951- they are faster than even a Turbo S- but this is comparing brand new to brand new under perfect conditions etc- most tests show the RX7 running a 14.0 @ 1/4 mile at it's slowest- the Turbo S was ALWAYS 14.2 (except the C&D short-geared one). In 1992 or 1993(?) R&T tested the RX7TT w/300ZXTT, SupraTT, 3000GTVR4, C4 Vette, & 968. It ran a 1:40.0 @ WSIR. 968 ran ~1:43.6. The Turbo S ran 1:41.0 & 911 Turbo 1:43.0 at WSIR in 1988. The Supra TT was the only car in the R&T test that was faster @ 1:39.0... Evidently, a single second at Willow Springs is quite a margin too.

With all that said, I played w/an RX7TT one night, soon after getting my Turbo S- I was surprised to actually pull him slightly... just BARELY, but still... my car was boosting well that night & have no idea the condition of the RX7. They do well off the line w/their light weight & that smaller turbo helping the low end. Many like to think 951's are good at higher speeds & are slow off the line, etc- this is not true... If you compare 0-60 & 1/4 mile & 0-120, etc, you'll find that our beloved 951's are exactly where they're supposed to be- they are harder to launch effectively, this is very true, but if launched well, they will run a perfectly correlated 0-60, 1/4 mile, etc... of course, I wouldn't recommend doing it often... Either way, if comparing bone stock RX7 to 951S, it's really going to come down to the state of tune of the particular car; assuming the drivers are equal, that is... I think 300rwhp is a very more realistic & attainable goal for one- I'm sure more can be had, but I question how well they handle 400+, etc... ALSO, they have a multi-link suspension- something the 951 will never have unfortunately...

Sorry for the novel... I looked into these cars a little before getting my 951- I was also interested in VR6 Corrados... Then I came across my 951- got burned BIG-TIME, but am trying to bring it back to spec... At this point, though (unfortunately), it's got a LOOOOONG way to go...

 

what kind of FC did he have? They should outperform an NA 944

 

I know a guy who has one fully built for racing. I didn't look at them that much when I got my 951 because I was worried about the engine rebuild so I just threw it out of list compared to adding that to the cost of the car. Otherwise, I would driving a RX7-TT for sure.

 

i hear the same thing with the engine have issues and blow up etc..

 

+1. my friend had an '86 FC n/a, w/ JIC coilovers, big swaybars, and T1S tires, that thing stuckk something terrible.

and it was pretty reliable, too.

then my friend tried to supercharge it, etc. long story short, he's on his 4th rx7 right now.

back when i had the n/a, we'd run neck-and-neck in a straight line or on the freeway, with the 944 having a tiny bit better low end torque, IMO. but i know that FC would have owned in the auto-x. he actually went to a few auto-x's and owned on some FD's.

that car was pretty nice.......



edit- as far as the thread topic, FD3S vs 951........it's no contest. like...literaly. you dump as much money into a 951 as you do into an FD, and see who wins.

 

There was some guy at advanced auto parts that showed me and my buddy his RX7. It was one of the older gens that I think came out the same time as the 924s. It also sort of looks like a 924s.

Anyway he kept telling us it ran a 10.1 1/4 mile and stuff. Then he opened the hood and all it had was like a stock spraypainted engine with some sort of big air filter on it. I wonder what he was talking about.

 

3rd Generation Rx-7's are killer. I seriously consider'd an ultra low mileage TT prior to getting my '89 951. I've had 2 Rx'7's previously, an '83 & '87. I loved both to death. The '83 was my first car in high school. Pretty neat car at the time. In the end, I ended up going with the 951 d/t quality issues I saw with my old ones. They look good at the moment, but don't hold up over time as well as a Porsche. I still love them though!

Cory

 

hah... just like a custom avatar... lol...

 

For a toy, given the choice between a FD-tt, and 2 951's, I would take the FD. Looks better (which is hard to do), performs better, and is more exclusive. If I wanted a car for my only car though, I would choose the 951. More reliable and practical.

 

Without direct experience, it's been my observation that the FD's exclusivity may be due to their reliability problems. Someone I know pretty closely was into those, and he said their options were pretty simple. They could mod for reliability, or they could mod for performance, but in no way did those two go together.

Don't get me wrong, I like them. Doesn't mean I want to own one. At least it looks good. More than can be said for the RX8.