yeah, i don't like them. the buttons they use suck, i think, and just the over-all appearance i don't like. i'll tell you what, though--t-tops kick ass! that, the ls1+drive train and the fascia are all they got right w/ the ws6 i think.super302 said:I REALLY like the interiors in the ls1's....maybe i'm just weird
oh ya, the radio controls on the steering wheel is cool too
bimmertech said:i have always heard that turbo cars backfire and break the shaft that connects the 2 rotors. i wouldn't be worried about engine(apex seal) life so much as i am worried about the shaft.
i also thought the 220hp version was N/A and the 251hp version was turbo'd?
:Word:SeventyMach1 said:Na. There were no N/A version of the 3rd gens. They were all TT & rated at 255hp. The new RX-8 engine (Renesis) is N/A & rated at 238 hp for the 6 port (manuals) .... or 197 hp for the 4 port engine (autos).
The shaft you're talking about is the eccentric shaft (or e-shaft). I haven't heard of many people breaking them. They were probably doing something stupid to the car if it did. There's not many parts at risk here. There are only 3 major moving parts. The 2 rotors & the e-shaft.
They can be quick cars. The 3 rotor HAS torque. Abel Ibarra, for example, runs his 3 rotor RX-7 in the 1/4 in the 6's at over 200 mph.
bimmertech said::Word:
i saw a vid on streetfire of a 3rd gen with a N/A 4 rotor out of an old lemans car. man that thing sounded soooooooo badass.
Ram000 said:damn, how did they pull off 30 highway mpg?
SeventyMach1 said:An N/A 4 rotor street car .... http://www.ddearborn.net/video/rx7/4rotor.mpg OMG (probably the 1 you saw .... low 10's in street attire)
bimmertech said:i really like GM interiors as well. i think they are styled better than a mustang. my 95 T/A had better seats, better stereo, better instrument cluster, better door panels, etc... yes it rattled, but show me a stang that doesn't.
i'm noy tryin to start ****, but when people say these types of things it usually means they have never owned one.ROLLIN5.0 said:F-Body's are junk. Fast? Absolutely, but they literally fall apart.
Brandon
Window motor...I have the original motor and my car is almost 8 yrs old. My old fox has windows that seem fast as lightning in comparison, but the TA does still work. The dash jumping in your lap....I don't know about that one, my dash has never jumped. The clutch is fine for a stock or slightly modded car. Rattles....no worse than a Mustang and subframes can really help that. The rear end is bad when you start wanting a lot of traction, but most Mustang owners also beef their rear end up with axles, gears, posi, cover.ROLLIN5.0 said:They do haul, handle, and brake. I like the feel of sitting in one better than sitting in my Mustang. I also like the red guages in the TA's, and love the 6-speed. What I don't like is the fact that they also have defective window motors (constant failure), the dash looks like it's going to jump in your lap everytime you hit a bump, they have no soundproofing, every piece of the interior rattles or squeeks, the rear end is garbage, they are prone to clutch failure, do you want me to keep going? They are what they are, and some people are OK with that. I, for one, would never recommend purchasing a vehicle that is put together as cheaply as the F-Body. It's plain and simple.
Brandon
i've never heard of the dash deal either.mattkimsey said:Window motor...I have the original motor and my car is almost 8 yrs old. My old fox has windows that seem fast as lightning in comparison, but the TA does still work. The dash jumping in your lap....I don't know about that one, my dash has never jumped. The clutch is fine for a stock or slightly modded car. Rattles....no worse than a Mustang and subframes can really help that. The rear end is bad when you start wanting a lot of traction, but most Mustang owners also beef their rear end up with axles, gears, posi, cover.
:Word: I love Mustangs, but the fbodies are probably the best bang for the buck sporty/muscle cars on the road.bimmertech said:i've never heard of the dash deal either.
i think you could go faster with the 10 bolt than you can a T5.
i have replaced 2 window motors in my 95, and 1 motor in my T/A.
as far as rattles, all cars have them. the f-bodies are no worse than a stang, nissan, bmw etc... cars get miles on them, and they rattle.
as far as them being put together so cheaply, i feel this statement is biased and uninformed. compared to other cars they are both put together cheaply.
i suggest that if someone wants a vehicle that is not put together cheaply, go buy a Maybach. cuz till you get to that point there is not a car out there that spares no expense in construction. i just replaced b-pillar trim panels in a 760LI($125k) today, they were peeling at 15k miles.
bimmertech said:i've never heard of the dash deal either.
i think you could go faster with the 10 bolt than you can a T5.
i have replaced 2 window motors in my 95, and 1 motor in my T/A.
as far as rattles, all cars have them. the f-bodies are no worse than a stang, nissan, bmw etc... cars get miles on them, and they rattle.
as far as them being put together so cheaply, i feel this statement is biased and uninformed. compared to other cars they are both put together cheaply.
i suggest that if someone wants a vehicle that is not put together cheaply, go buy a Maybach. cuz till you get to that point there is not a car out there that spares no expense in construction. i just replaced b-pillar trim panels in a 760LI($125k) today, they were peeling at 15k miles.
ROLLIN5.0 said:I have been in atleast 10 F-body's, and there hasn't been one yet, where I didn't feel like the dash hit the bump before my seat (actually watch it move a split second before I do).
I find it humorous that I am the one being biased, yet you are the one defending the rattle box with defective window motors. Let me explain to you the difference between being built cheaply, and being built efficiently. When a company builds a car with the cheapest parts that they can find without sacrificing quality, they are building the car efficiently. When a company builds a car with the cheapest parts they can find regardless of quality, they are building the car cheaply. You can defend it all you want, but the second description is the path that GM took when building the F-body. It is NOT normal to have a part on a vehicle go out more than once over the life of the vehicle (on numerous examples of the same model). It is also NOT normal for a car to rattle. The F-body, and the FOX were both lacking quality design. That is why both cars rattle like a can of rocks. They do however serve their purpose. My 95 has 133k miles on it, and the car does not have any hint of a rattle. My 97 Expedition has 223k miles, no rattles. My 71 F-100 (35 years old), god only knows how many times the 5 digit odo has rolled over, no rattles. My Probe, 200k, and rattles like a can of rocks, but it serves it's purpose. The Probe is another example of a car built cheaply. In the last two years I have sold a 92 Lexus ES300 with 160k miles, no rattles, and a 99 Infiniti I30 with 129k, no rattles. You can say that you have been driving vehicles that are notorious for this, so you are used to it, but it is NOT normal. The car was built as cheaply as possible, because they knew that people like you would look past that, and see only the drivetrain, and aggressive design. The level of quality, or rather value (what you get for your money) is the main reason the 94+ Mustang outsold the F-body nearly 10-1, and ultimately lead to it's demise. Had the F-body not had some of it's notorious problems, it would have been worth the extra scratch to a lot more people, and would probably still be pounding the streets today. Do I own 4 Ford's? Yes. Am I biased toward them? I am biased toward vehicles that do not have defective parts, like the window motor listed above, and the fuel pumps GM chose for their 350 Vortec. I haven't had a Ford YET that has had a chronic defficiency. When I do, I can assure you that I will talk about it in the same manner, and will not purchase another that shares that element.
Brandon
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?