MrFC3S

i duno what you guys are going on about, but back to topic...
Idealy i would like an S4, with S5 Front/Rear Side moldings, and mirrors, and an S4 Block with S5 Rotors and intake and ecm... and of course, S5 tails unless the car was black... the s4 are drop dead Sexy on black cars...

Is that wrong???

Anti-Rice-Cannon

S5>S4

Period

If its not true....

Why do people always want S5 this and that

fcdrifter13

Because someone else did it and they want to jump on the band wagon.

Black91n/a

This is fun. I like debating.

I never actually thought that they'd cut the roof off of a coupe to make a vert or anything like that (I suppose I worded it badly before). My point is simply that when comparing a vert to a coupe, the coupe has a roof, the vert doesn't. That's not to say that the vert wasn't planned that way, or that it wasn't compensated for, or anything, it's just to say that it's not there.

As for the comparison thing, all of the S5's are heavier than the equivalent S4, so that comparison biases the results. How about if we compare an 86 5 speed coupe (2625lbs) to a S5 vert (3045lbs)? That makes the vert is 420lbs heavier. I didn't see you making that argument, because it puts the numbers against your argument.

If the stuff about vert safety gets posted (or if I can find it, and I will search) then I'll read it and see if it changes my mind. So what if the A pillars on the coupe collapse and it's the B pillar that holds the car up? Guess where your head is, it's not by the windshield I can tell you that much, it's by the B pillar, so that's where I'd want it to be strong (that's also where roll bars go, for a good reason).

According to the articles you posted the vert has lower grip, a slower slalom, and longer stopping distances than the TII tested along side it, so how does the vert out handle the coupe again? And I'm the one who doesn't read? (I know there are different sized tires, but they're the same width, make and model, and the TII is a coupe, so the comparison stands according to the wording of your post)

I'm not writing off the convertible as a choice because of what I posted, it's just that they don't do it for me for some reason. I never really considered an FC vert, or any convertible for that matter. Besides, the prices (for the most part) on them are much more than for a coupe of equal condition.

I like my cars one way, others like them another way, and that's fine with me, if you're happy with the car you have then I'm happy for you, even if it's not something that appeals to me.

RenofHeavens

I'm not sure how a R&T braking test is faulty, which is what you are implying..

Doesn't really matter, we both have our opinions and I respect yours.

I love my two S5's.

Bluecoop91

iTrader: (14)

Really, did R&T test the '88 GTU and the GTUs at the same time? I didn't think so. Testing conditions can affect the results. I suggest you drive an '88 GTU before you discount them as less of a car than an overrated GTUs. But to each his own I guess.

I like my S5 but I'd rather have an S4 Sport again.

bacek

cant we all just get along....

i really think the weight difference is negligible(sp?) i mean cmon 2-300 lbs wont make a difference for 99% of the drivers out there

and to add to that there are more s4's so that means there are probably more people that will say s4>s5...

with that said i drive an s4 but i dont know if i would trade it straight up for an s5.... but still if i had an s5 i dont know if i would trade it straight up for an s4

they are basically the same car and i love both series... but for my future plans for the car (i plan to make it a touge/trackday car) i prefer the s4 due to the obvious weight difference but still they are the same to me and love them both

snowball

300lbs is ~10% diff, so in theory the car will perform ~10% worse in every way.

WallyHojo

I would personally go with an S5. I own an S4, but almost done with an S5 exterior look.

BlueTII

I prefer the S5 styling, but the S4 drivetrain is better, hands down. Even on our 91 vert with the T67 SP 13b-re, we installed an S4 TII trans and Diff

Den.

I like all RX7's which is why I joined this site. LOL.

Still learning the diffferences. When I buy it depends on what I can afford.

Thanks for the entertaining thread. LOL.

Now the RX8 on the other hand! THAT is an abomination! (Plus they are always in the left lane in the WAY!!!!!)

Icemark

again you didn't read, I said if the wheels and tires are the same, the vert will out handle a coupe. But regardless, on the MT test, the S5 vert and the S5 Turbo both stopped in within in 8 ft of each other. Of course the vert in the test were saddled with considerbly smaller tires and wheels than the Turbos you are comparing against (of course following your logic they should not be even comparied in the first place).

And too your poor verbage on the top cut off thing... Most convertibles are coupes with the top cut off. For example the BMW 3 series, Mustang, Celica, 3000GT, Mitsu cars, or F car convertibles. They start life as a coupe, that is shipped off and the top is cut off. These cars are considerbly weaker in the body and with body flex despite the typical additions to the frame.

The FC3C, Miata, S2K, MR2 Spyder, BMW Z series, all start as convertible from the bottom up. There can be no mistaking the difference.

SayNoToPistons

Black91n/a used "i love debating" so we wont think he got owned... lol. great job Icemark *bows to your knowledge*

Black91n/a

Yea, well the small change in wheel and tire size won't affect the test enough to account for the performance difference. I don't happen to have any road tests for the coupe handy, so I have to use what you posted. As I said, the tires are exactly the same width, make and model. It's a bit of a stretch to call a 205/55/16 a "considerably larger" tire than a 205/60/15. Other than the hole in the midde, it's the same size tire. In the braking test it will not make any difference, in the skidpad test it will make very little difference, and the only place the it will make more than a token difference is in the slalom. Let's also not forget that the vert has lighter wheels and tires, which will help it in the handling department, so on that argument it's not a fair test for the TII.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/plus1_grm.jsp

Have a look at this test. They tested plus size wheel and tire combinations, and with each bigger size they increased the width by 10mm. In going from a 195/55/15 to a 205/45/16 on a 16" wheel they gained 0.8% on an autocross run (0.256 seconds on a 31.456second run). That's with extra width, so call it maybe 0.4% for the extra width and 0.4% for the shorter tire. That's not a big enough difference to account for the handling defecit of the vert compared to the TII.

According to you all FC's are apples, so I compared them, as according to you it's a fair comparison. Also, the TII and the coupe have largely the same suspension, the TII may be slightly stiffer, but it's also heavier. If I can find the numbers for the coupe I'll post them, but untill then I'll use what's available to me at the time.

I'm not sure you want to be comparing the FC vert to a Miata when you're defending the FC's chassis stiffness, as my dad's got a Miata and it's one of the least stiff modern cars around. They're floppier than a wet noodle (I've heard them quoted to be about 3000lbs/degree of twist, which is pretty low nowadays). Have you driven one? I have, and I've ridden in it extensively.

As for me getting "owned", I was shown to be right on 2 of the 4 main debated points (weight and stiffness). The argument over the 3rd (handling) isn't looking so good for the other side. I've seen nothing but the someone's word on the other side of the argument (mind you he's a very knowledgable, respected person). The safety one is still up in the air pending some actual evidence (I searched and came up with nothing).

I do love debating, sometimes I'll argue a point just for the hell of it. I made those original comments just to stir some $hit up for fun.

I'll say it again, the FC vert is a very nice car, it's just not the car for me.

Icemark

so you are saying that a 205/60-15 and a 205/55-16 have the same sidewall height and same footprint??? Ah, yeah okay sure...Cough back to school, cough, cough. I guess then you have proved there is no difference

whoops, I guess you just don't get tire foot print and how it effects handling.

, again your mis-information comes through... the S4 turbo used the same suspension as the 86-87 Sport, and the S5 turbo uses the same suspension except for stabilizer bars as every other S5 coupe. Yet the verts both had specific springs- even though they weigh about the same as the (lets see what did you call it- oh yeah) the heavier Turbo. As a side note, did you even know there was no such thing as a Turbo II after mid '90? They were just the Turbo.

Hmm maybe again you need to go back and read what was posted. Not once did I ever compare the Miata to a FC3C. Instead I have posted that they are built the same way. As convertibles from the beginning. Either way I have extensively driven all but the NCs, not just been driven around in, by someone else. And lets face it if you think a Miata is floppy, then you probably have never driven a Camero or a Civic.

Well then you should find some other section or board to participate in. Made up comments have no place here. Neither is stirring up **** as you say. I would suggest maybe illstreet.com or something would be more appropriate for you if you wish to post crap.

Either way, you have sidetracked this thread enough. I will not be participating in further sidetracking because you can’t read.

snowball

that illstreet.com comment made my laugh very hard.
anyways the 90 name swap is news to me.

calrx7

ice mark turned supersaiyan and owned him haha

Turbo II

iTrader: (1)

That's why there is no TURBO II logo on the side of my '91. Don't know why they changed it though. But I see that decal on the side of most T2s I run into, most of them are S4s though.

Icemark

Yep, missing from the sales brochures as well.

They were getting ready for the FD. It would have been confusing to have the Twin Turbo FD be the Turbo III.

And they also dropped the GXL, GTU etc, to simplify the line. again I think to get back towards the three models of the FD.

In mid 90 on, for the FC there was just the Coupe, Convertible, and Turbo.

Black91n/a

The TII or turbo uses a few different (stiffer) components than the coupe, except for the one specific sport model, which I never mentioned, that was my point and that's what I said. I did say slightly stiffer, not vastly different. I also never mentioned anything about the vert suspension.

The test in question was in 89, so it's a TII. I have heard of the TII to Turbo name swap before.

I was comparing the weight of the TII to the coupe, not the vert, and the TII is heavier than the coupe, besides, in the test posted the vert is heavier than the TII.

A 205/55/16 does have a shorter sidewall than a 205/60/15, but the footprint will be roughly the same. They have the same tread width, and the diameters are about the same, so at equal pressures they will have a similar contact patch. I never claimed that there'd be no difference in handling, just that the difference will be small. In some cases going to a larger diameter wheel with the same width and diameter tire makes the car handle worse and grip less.

The comment about the difference between coupes with the roof cut off and purpose but convertibles lumped the Miata and FC3C together and your point was about strength and stiffness.

I have driven the Miata, as I said before in the quote where you then asked me if I'd driven one. The newer Miatas are much stiffer, my experience is with a 92, and they are not very stiff (not that they're the floppiest of all, they just aren't that stiff). I have not driven a Camero or Civic, but they weren't part of the discussion anyway, and having cars around that are less stiff doesn't make the Miata stiff.

Anyway, the discussion was about what car was best (or favorite), and was asking people to comment, so I made my comments as to what was my favorite, least favorite and why. It takes more than one person to hijack a thread, and all I did was make the original comment that started it, then defended my position. It could have never started if people didn't attack my position (for instance Turbo II telling me to "Die Slow!!!!" How is that appropriate behavior?). This "diversion" expanded on the scope of the discussion and the discussion got more technical. Is that really such a bad thing?

If you look at my post history you'll notice mostly helpful posts with good information gathered from reliable sources or from first had experience. Hell I've even got a thread that YOU put in the archives. I think that I'm a mostly helpful member of this forum, that's not to say I'm never wrong or anything, but I try and what I post is what I believe to be true at the time.

You keep quoting me as saying something, then accusing me of saying something else, you ignore a part of what I said, or you ignore some point I've made, and you accuse me of not reading? I've been polite and courteous up until now but you continue to make false, insulting accusations at me, and frankly, I'm offended by it.

I'm outa here, there's no point in arguing with someone who won't listen and is insulting.

RenofHeavens

Yes, that definitely could change things, but they had nearly identicle results on every test, which in my mind makes them even. I just was being spiteful last time when I said the GTUs was better.


Cheers to the FC, regardless of Series.

Ephiphany

Okay, but performance wise how much faster is a s5 compared toa s4?Is it really a big difference?I like s5 front fenders but I like the S4's more simplness and how it seems more for drivers, and what do we really want to do?DRIVE!ahah I love driving.