And if you knew math.. You'd know that I would have been 11 in 1993.

 

FC3S ran from 1986 until 1991
FD3S ran from 1993 until 2003 (1995 in US)

 

rx7 third gen came out in 1990 or so.

 

Is your name Harris or Gallup? How do you know who or how many liked the looks of a car whose production was rather limited? They sold 10,000 in its 1st model year here in the U.S. Since "nobody" liked it, maybe the whole lot was bought by a consortium of a dozen wealthy car collectors.

 

No, the 3rd Gen was for sale from 1993-1995 in the U.S., not 1990 or so.

 

No, it went on sale somewhere around March of '92. I think you're confusing the 2nd and 3rd gens. You also say in another post you bought a turbo RX-7 for $20,000 in 1980. There was no turbo till the '87 model year, 2nd year of 2nd gen production.

 

1993 came out in 1992, so I was close. But I was there, and I know how people thought about the car. It was not well liked, and the 300zx was better looking and cost less.

 

1988 black new rx7 turbo. $20,000. Traded my 1986 rx7. Got a 300zx in 1990/91 and kept it until I had my first born. 1993.

 

I recently got a chance to drive an RX-7 w/ LS1...unsurprisingly while I loved the raw torque the LS1 put down...it simply did not "FEEL" as good as the RX-8. The 8 is simply feels tighter.

The 8 is better overall in my book for comfort, and feel. Not AS dripping pure sex which is the 7...

It's like the pornstar (RX-7) grew up and went to college...

 

I loved the feel of the turbo on a cool morning. Could really feel it come to life.
But it had two seats, terrible seats. and no air bags. Never owned a 3rd gen. But it was to ugly to buy.

 

I think you are the only person I've ever had any form of contact with that did not like the FD RX-7. You sure you don't walk with a white cane with a red stripe? Or wait, even if you couldn't see, if you felt the lines of the car...

 

No doubt all in part to its rigidity being at least twice as strong as the FD; it's something you can feel the moment you sit in the car, without even having driven it. Although when on the road it becomes very apparent.

In this day when manufacturers quote "17% better torsional" "20% improvement in bending stiffness", the RX-8 betters the RX-7 by, what feels like to me, over 100%. If you go strictly by this number, then yes, the 8 is a better car.

 

numbers I stated above don't come to that conclusion.... lol

 

No, and the performance numbers the 7 holds speak for themselves. It is, however, a good 12 years behind in all technology, whether it be carbon fiber driveshaft, forged A-arms (as opposed to squeeze-cast on the 7), or the biggest and most obvious difference, the chassis strength.

 

Yes true, it has the better updated casting technology and a carbon fiber driveshaft, but it still lags in actual performance. Mazda could have gone a step further, but decided not to, to appeal to more people. Which was wise. Its great that the rotary engine is alive and breathing again from Mazda's Hiroshima Factory

 

Who peed in your eyes?

 

ROFL! Seriously, who the f$ck thinks the FD looks bad?!?!!?

 

I think it looks bad....... ***!

 

I think it looks dated. Pop-up lights come on.... that's so Ford Probe.

 

FD looks gay.

 

Get a '99 front end. I agree not a pop up light fan - but can be fixed.

 

You had a Celica, what are you talking about?


From your posts, it sounds like you're full of ish.

 

fish?

btw, both of them are equally fun, but I would take the rx8due to the 2 back seats and a good sized trunk + more reliable stock

 

FD's are ugly and were ugly when they first came out, and still are years later.

 

You've a right to hold that opinion. But, in your eyes what cars are great looking?