Borg Warner EFR Series Turbo's V 2.0
Announcements
-
Similar Content
-
-
Latest Posts
-
A 180SX has a much better look than a FD. The roofline is far superior being a fastback. It's popups look better. In a world where we all subconsciously add a little bit of low, and wheels of our preference, it's just more handsome than the FD is. The FD just looks 'bubbly' in comparison. It can come down to preference, sure. But "The FD is the BEST looking (on appearances alone) 90's JDM car without question?" Nah. Plenty of questions lol. I could think of 8 cars I think look fundamentally better, and probably a handful of ones that look about on par with a FD. (like say a SW20 MR2) I feel people like/overrate the FD because of it's mythicality/rarity, its rotary and it's unpredictable nature. It probably drives great, you can stuff a ton of tyre under there, has a unique sound, light as hell. I feel that people reading this thinking "YOU CANT RATE A 180 ABOVE A FD BECAUSE A 180 IS A CHEAP DRIFT BUCKET" prove the point about bias as to what the car represents, moreso than how it actually looks.. And this thread is purely about looks :p -
A red or yellow S15 wins my vote, Ack that it just scraps in with the 90's cars theme, but they are great looking little sports car Next would be a A80 Supra (pre face lift), whilst the A80 has its own issues, I feel is the best looking larger GT car As for the FD, "I" feel that the reason it triggers me in a non-positve way when looking at one, is like looking at a high maintenance pretty girl who you know is mentally unstable and likely to explode for no apparent reason -
Yes, it's because it has hips and bulges on the top/front surface, a tiny cockpit and roof, and the skin looks like it is stretched over muscle. The proportions are....perfect. Long nose, short rear, short roof. What's not to like? It continues the theme started with the S1, that peaked with the FC, being "looking like a front engined Porsche", while gaining a little more of the 60's Mustang coupe profile and stretching the skin more tightly over the understructure. The FD is definitely colour sensitive though. Like all Mazdas. There are plenty of details on it that changed over the years that were either better or worse, could have been done better the first time and/or never changed for the worse. But...the same can be said for the NSX. In fact, that's probably even more true for the NSX. I've also just worked out that part of the reason I don't like the rear of the NSX is that the integrated wing is too similar to that shitful R33 rear wing. -
I wonder if people like the FD because it reminds them of old 60's roadsters and such. It just gives me such a 'roadster/soft cruising' vibe as opposed to anything more hard-edged and purposeful. That, mixed with 90's melted soap bar styling. It's hardly ugly, but it's kinda oddly proportioned to me, relative to about 10 other cars I had a think about based on this thread.
-
Well, unless you are prepared to do it yourself, or to pay someone for a lot of labour, you don't want to move the rear camber around much at all. Close to stock length on the rear upper arms (both the RUCAs and the tension arms) will minimise the addition of bump steer. That means you should probably be satisifed with whatever neg camber you end up with as a result of it being lowered, and not try to dial too much of it out. Dialling it out by making big changes to the RUCA length will require effort put into tuning the length of the tension arms. And, apart from front caster and toe at both ends.....that's all there is to talk about. So, yes, toe settings, pretty much.
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now