1990 Mazda (Savanna?) RX-7 GT-X (FC3S) Review
While last week's C2 Corvette is something I'm largely oblivious about, but know how I feel about it, this week's second generation sports car is quite the opposite: I know what it is, but I don't know how I feel about it. This week, we're taking a look at the 2nd generation Mazda RX-7, chassis code FC3S.
I don't want this post to be 95% me telling you my entire life story and why I love the RX-7, so please just take my word for it: I love the Mazda RX-7. I've spent the vast majority of my life idolising, looking at, lusting after, and driving virtual versions of RX-7s. Yet, I've just never really gelled or jived with the FC generation.
The first generation RX-7, chassis code SA22C and later FB3S, was just one of the few cars to capitalise on the 240Z's splash into the American market, feeding the appetite for cheap, nible sports cars from Japan. However, in comparison to its rivals, what set the RX-7 apart from day one was its compact Rotary Engine, making the RX-7 lighter and more nimble than its already bloating rivals. For the second generation, Mazda wanted to move the RX-7 more upmarket than the FB, and as a result, not only was the FC significantly more expensive, it also got chunkier and heavier. Going for a more refined, classy look, Mazda took more than heavy inspiration from the Porsche 924 in styling the FC. Mazda cars have always been known to be the lighter, better handling, and more innovative than those of its competitors, so you can imagine my disgust when the FC, like a rebellious kid, took all that philosophy and methodology, gave it the finger, and set out to do the exact opposite of what it was told to be and do.
SIR THIS IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL YAMETE
Is that to say that the FC handles like a pig? Well, yes and no. It's complicated. But mostly yes. The 1990 RX-7 in GT-X trim is top of the line as far as the USDM is concerned. Being a turbo model, larger 205mm tyres, lighter alloy wheels, and even *gasp* ABS came as standard on this car! In spite of all this, I feel nothing but frustration driving this try hard, granddad of a car.
At this rate, the Red Bull Ring "Sausage Test" is going to be a staple in my reviews.
The first thing that strikes anyone even before getting into the car is its unsportscarlike stance. Its wedge shaped, boxy and aerodynamically unstable body is stilted up on primary school eraser thin tyres and a skyscraping 150mm ride height. Behind the wheel, it is immediately clear that this car is way too soft for sporty driving. It pitches and rolls like they're going out of style, no doubt in attempt to bury its slim tyres into the ground in attempt to dig up some grip. The stratospheric ride height almost feels deliberate in facilitating all this excessive body movement. The chassis is toothpick weak in this car: you'd think that 206PS isn't even enough to carry a bag of apex seals home, but you would also be very swiftly and happily proven wrong as the chassis completely gives up on you each and every corner exit you attempt the cardinal sin of putting power down out of a corner. The differential in this car spins the outside wheel as much as the C2 Corvette with an open diff from last week spins its inside wheels. Rotary Engines are traditionally known to be top end performers, making them exceptional racing engines for the track; yet, with the way the turbo is set up, the 13B in the FC makes what little power and torque it has in the mid range, necessitating shifting at 7,000rpm like a peasant family sedan, with the last thousand revs being just for engine braking, but mostly for show.
Even the buzzer to remind drivers to shift is annoying in this car: it sounds like a 1980s alarm clock whistling into a 3 day old soiled diaper. It also is the very same buzzer that comes on when you open the driver side door with the key in, so enjoy that. No, I don't need you to remind me to shift, car. Yes, I can tell when I need to upshift. How? Because
you aren't accelerating no mo', that's how! The engine is so dead so early, it would sooner reincarnate as a range extender in an SUV than it would actually hit its rev limiter.
Racing Beat set a BGT record with an FC at Bonneville, so it's an engine with potential, I guess.
(Also, am I the only one super annoyed with Scapes? Like, you go ALL THE WAY to Bonneville to take photos for your game. You take ONE photo, that's NOT EVEN ON THE SALT, and with the sunlight coming from a useless position? Really PD?)
Rating Beat RX7 by a340829161 Download Link
The chassis of this car is so weak that the front and rear of the car feel like two distinct, unrelated halves than a singular body. With the engine and mass up front, the entire car seems centred and focused on the front end, leaving the rears of the car to simply follow along, but it doesn't work that way for a RWD sports car. Given the weak chassis, soft suspension, and front focus, the rear end abysmally lacks control, and is ultra tail happy. While the styling of the car takes heavy inspiration from the 924, the handling of the FC seems to want to emulate a 911 of that era with how incredibly tail happy it is.
Every. Single. Thing you do, the rear slides out. Turn into a corner? Front tyres complain, rear starts to peek out. Corner exit? Rear goes sideways. Engine hits boost? Wheelspin. Breathe a bit heavy in the driver seat, and the car spins. Truly, the way this car swings out its rear, it's almost like an inexperienced actress giving it up way too early and easily. Look,
I get it, you're a RWD sports car,
calm down! All the bits before the slide are just as important as the slide itself, you know! Slowly lead me there! Let me get to know you more first! Practice due safety! Make me work for it!
Because of how slim the tyres are, there is very little in its friction circle. The car is okay at about eight tenths, but it doesn't approach its limits as linearly and predictably as one would hope a sports car would. Push these tyres too hard, and they will just throw their hands up at you and scream, "I DUNNO!" and give up instantly. Because of how soft the suspension is as well, there seems to be weight over only one tyre at any one time through a corner, which makes the car very bad at multi-tasking (look I'm a bit sick as I'm writing this, most of this probably doesn't make sense). To drive this thing at the limit, trying to set a lap time is a very, very frustrating endeavour, as you need at all times to baby the car gently into and out of corners, and its limits is very difficult to explore because of how quickly and non-linearly it transitions from grip to slip. Pushing this car at the limits constantly feels to me like trying to babysit five spoiled children at once: each "child", the tyres, the suspension, the engine, the chassis, and even the aero, all require such care and attention to detail in handling them, and each have their own personalities and tendencies, making them all come together to do ONE thing well is excruciatingly frustrating. I suppose you can make the argument that it's a very involved and analogue drive because of it, but each and every element of the car is just too awful for me to be able to wring any enjoyment out of the drive.
Huge thanks to Vic for saving and sharing replays of this week's races, as I wasn't able to attend.
Because of how soft the suspension is and how weight seems to exclusively be on one of four tyres, I find myself in many situations where I'm just waiting for the weight transition, waiting for the car's balance to return, before I can do anything else. Sometimes, you even get combinations of any of the aforementioned problems at once; you turn the car, the front end suddenly slips, and the rear end with no weight steps out, so you get both under and oversteer. And all you can do as a driver is wait. Wait for grip to return to the tyres. Wait for the car's balance to return.
Wait, wait, wait. I don't mind if a sports car is slow, but a sports car making you wait is the second worst sin a sports car can commit, right after being boring. I don't know about you, but a sports car making a driver wait is like a horror movie asking you to scare yourself: you have ONE job. You're supposed to exhilarate me!
Much more so the lack of grip and chassis rigidity, what I think is most responsible for the car's chronic tail happiness I think can be attributed to its
oh-so-clever rear wheel steering system, which Mazda calls the Dynamic Tracking Suspension System, or DTSS for short. I really don't understand why car manufacturers are so obsessed with the idea of making cars intervene with the drivers, because almost every instance of such a system ends up making a car slower and more frustrating to drive. Look, my life is in my hands. If I die, I die. Don't pretend you're smarter than me. Don't pretend you know me. If even the robotics and IT industry are struggling to get AI more lifelike and intuitive, what makes automotive companies think they can think for us? I'm not the guy that programmed and set up the systems in your factory! I don't drive like him! I don't care if I'm slower,
let me have my fun! *mumble grumble*
COTW is all fun and games until you see Vic in your mirrors.
Anyway, I'd be lying if I told you I knew exactly what DTSS does; what little info of it that exists on the internet is mostly from owners' conjecture. But I'm adamant in blaming the DTSS for the god awful tail happiness of the FC for two reasons: the first reason being that typing "FC RX-7 DTSS" into Google gives me a vast majority of "How to delete DTSS" results, which leads me to believe that I'm not alone in thinking it's stupid and awful. The system was also axed completely for the next generation of the RX-7, the FD. The second reason I blame DTSS for the chronic tail happiness of the FC is because the driving characteristics just don't feel natural. I could be making reasonably civil turn in attempts and corner exit attempts, not even trying to go fast, and the rear just snaps out instantly without warning. There is simply not enough gs to make the rear step out so violently and suddenly like that, slim tyres or not. It really feels like all the rubber just fell off your wheel or something. Even a 930 911 lets go with more warning and linearity. Yeah, there, I said it. DTSS makes the FC more tail happy than an air cooled 911. Fight me.
I can only conclude that, at low cornering loads, the system must think that I'm attempting to make a U-turn or something (at 80km/h, but okay, this is the early 80s, computers are allowed to be way stupider back then), and then toe-outs my rear. It's absurdly bad, and makes sure you
NEVER trust the car, as it's liable to snap on you at any speed, with any load. In this week's races, many people's FCs were wriggling on corner exits, as the car was attempting to over rotate one moment, and the moment counter steering is applied, the car snaps back to understeer, all while lateral gs pull the car wider and wider off the track. This wriggling I think is a telltale sign of the DTSS working its "magic", in what little time I've spent this week trying to figure it out. It's such a stupid system, I swear. Maybe there's someone out there that can adapt to and master the DTSS to make this car perform some magic, but in the week that I've been obsessively driving it, I haven't been able to do get used to it. I'm not saying I'm a very good driver; I'm just saying DTSS really isn't for me.
Also, can I just point out that an AERODYNAMIC DEVICE has a
hole drilled into it to accommodate the radio antenna? I know most wings from the factory are only for show, but I have never seen less effort even in the game of playing pretend.
I'm sorry, but this is the top of the line, turbo model? Mazda made
even less grippy versions of these with 185mm tyres? They made
even weaker, heavier versions of these as convertibles? ABS
wasn't standard on these death traps? You made
AUTOMATIC versions of these power starved things?! Of a
Rotary Engine?! How could this thing tolerate being any worse than it already is? How could lesser versions of these survive its own weight sitting in a parking lot? How have they not fallen apart with how soft and weak they are? How could the lesser versions of the FC be safe to drive at highway speeds? How could lesser versions of these things not slide its rear out at a standstill if even looked at in a funny manner?
oH iT's A jDm It'S mEaNt To Be TuNed
Okay, let's talk tuning this thing. It can't even put down its 206PS, so I'm guessing you're looking for any combination of fitting fatter tyres on it, putting a big wing on it, swapping out the differential, and stiffening the chassis. If lightness is the backbone of a good performing car, then chassis rigidity is the backbone of a good tuning car. The FC has already failed on that front. Good luck finding the space and money to add extra bracing and weld spots.
Oh, you want to put an aftermarket wing on the FC? Good luck finding aftermarket wing stands that have a 90° wing stands, because there simply isn't enough room aft the rear window to mount a wing with traditional stands.
This is truly one of the stupidest car designs I think I've ever seen.
You want chunkier tyres? Well, I guess you now need flared fenders on it, because even the eraser thin tyres on it are pushing the Japan Class 5 body of the FC to its class limits. Oh, what's that? Flared fenders increase the width of the car, and now the car is a Japan Class 3, and you're in a legal cesspool of technicalities and increased tax? Gee, I'm so envious of you, FC Owner-san! Please, teach me how to cope with such suffering in your life!
See, if the old Trail Mountain was in GTS, the underbody shot wouldn't have sand all over it.
For reference, the FC's width is listed as 1,690mm (~66.5″). Class 5 limits are 1,700mm (~70″). If GTS is to be believed for its undercarriage accuracy, given its painstaking detail in the underbody of cars, then there simply is no more room for bigger tyres in the FC's body.
I will stop myself for a bit to make excuses for this car, though. The car is very delicate, not just mechanically, but also dynamically. It not only requires very progressive, smooth (and slow) inputs from the driver, lest you upset it and it whines or even tries to kill you. Because of how delicate the driving dynamics are, the FC is also very much affected by small changes to the car, and Gran Turismo Sport hasn't been very kind to the FC with small changes here and there.
Small changes include wiping away all stock logos on the car when you want to put a license plate on.
The car comes default with Comfort Soft tyres in previous titles, yet all N class cars in GT Sport come with Sport Hards, which makes certain cars nigh undriveable (such as the Amemiya FD for example). You might think the FC getting a tyre upgrade is a good thing, but that isn't strictly the case. Of course it's faster with sport tyres, but as a result, it feels even more disjointed to drive. All the car's faults are highlighted and magnified, like how non linearly the tyres let go, and how much suspension travel the FC has, and so on. Swapping back to the Comfort Softs, the car feels more... natural. More communicative even, somehow. It feels almost as if you and your spouse has always been arguing for years and years, and now you suddenly have a chance to sit down and talk in a calmer, more civil manner. Yes, things are happening slower, but it also feels more fruitful, somehow.
「人生は時にはコーヒー1杯の温かさの問題」
"Life's problems can all be settled with the warmth of a cup of coffee"
Gran Turismo Sport also compresses 100 litres (~26.4 gallons) of fuel into every car for every event, unless you specifically set an initial fuel load (which is only available in lobbies, that hardly anyone uses). This means that, as tested, the FC has 30 extra litres of fuel, amounting to roughly 22 kilos (~49lbs) of extra mass aft the cabin. It's a minor thing that every other road car is subject to in GTS, but the extra mass might go some ways in explaining the horrendous rear end behaviour of the FC. Yes, yes I am trying to make excuses for the car. I just want all cards on the table to be as fair as possible. And, honestly, if a car with back seats is that troubled by an extra 22kg behind the driver... what the heck is it doing with rear seats?!
Also, while we're on the topic of PD ruining the FC, I just want to point out that the turbo gauge on this car doesn't work, AT ALL. It just sits at zero boost, almost like fitting a turbo gauge to a NA car.
Points for making the oil pressure gauge work, I guess...
Oddly enough, the turbo gauge on the FC doesn't work in GT6, either. Even the aftermarket turbo gauge you can put on it works, but not the OE one!
At least this thing has a good view out of the cockpit. One advantage of having such a huge, curved greenhouse rear glass panel is that the view out of the car is almost panoramic, coupled with the toothpick weak, but also toothpick thin A pillar of cars in that era.
As big a fan as I think I am of Mazda Rotary Sports Cars, and as much as I want to love the FC, it is so awful that I can't. It's not that it's bad because it's old, either. It's bad even in comparison to its contemporary rivals. Driving other sports cars from the 80s for comparison, both cheaper and more expensive, I came to the conclusion that the RX-7 is easily the worst to drive. The cheaper S13 is a very solid, no surprises drive, and it's a car that actually enjoys bring revved. The AE86 absolutely comes alive in the twisty mountains where the FC kicks up a fuss every corner, and made me smile,
and laugh, in a way I haven't in a car in a very,
very long time. Upmarket, the A70 Supra, while costing almost 50% more, has just about that much more power, and has a very pleasant demeanour about it. While European sports cars like the M3 Evo and 930 911 cost a kidney each, they still drive better than the FC while being unquestionably faster. You have so many other options in the 80s for sports cars, even within the barren car roster of GT Sport. There is no reason to bother with the FC. It drives the worst among 80s sports cars, while being near the bottom in terms of lap times.
And guess what, that was all on-track comparisons. Off the track, none of the aforementioned cars give you the headaches of a Rotary Engine ownership. None of those cars require an engine rebuild every 150,000km. None of those cars will cook your left thigh when you drive it. None of those cars require you to mix oil into your fuel every time you fill it up. None of those cars will require you to redline it once a day as part of maintenance. None of those cars made me think, "this component is so stupid, I wish I could get rid of it". And when something does go wrong, mechanics will have a better idea on how to fix it rather than just looking into the engine bay and then shrugging.
And so I hope you see how stupid a notion it is to me that a Rotary drives the worst among its competition, because Rotary Engine cars are
meant to be track toys. They're smooth, high revving banshees. They make everything up top, they're lightweight and compact, they run extremely hot and burn oil and apex seals the way I burn through my will to live. Every characteristic about a Rotary Engine screams,
"TRACK ME, I hate everything else!" So why does the FC not want to rev? Why does it have nothing up top? Why is the engine plopped into such an overweight and bulky body? Why is the suspension not set up for the track? Why does it outweigh similarly priced sports cars despite being a Rotary? Why is the base car so bad that even the Turbo and INFINI models can't salvage anything from it? Why are there convertible versions of it? Why are there automatic versions of it that redlines even lower? Surely there are much cheaper and better cars out there for these non sporty applications?
With all the associated pains of Rotary Engine ownership, one does not simply "own" a Rotary. They adopt a lifestyle. They become part of a niche circle in their neighbourhood that understand and can service those cars. You really do have to be "all about that life" to drive a Rotary. And people don't do this to be hip and whatnot; it's because Rotary Engine cars are supposed to be
flipping magical to drive. Does anyone who's never driven a Rotary before hop into an FC and go, "oh yeah, please, I want that lifestyle because of
this!"? I really don't see it happening.
The FC is well and truly the textbook definition of a beater, because it is a car that doesn't live up to lofty expectations its name begets. Granted, I will excuse the car's beater status simply because it was made out to be the car of choice of a godlike character in an anime, and garnered a bit of a following as a result. Moreover, its successor, the FD, is leaps and bounds better than the FC in every respect, objective and subjective. Yes, I know how stupid that last sentence sounds: "The FD is absolutely better in subjective areas". But I assure you, the FD is
that good. It is everything the legends say it is. It elevated the standards and definition of what a sports car should be and can be, and in doing so, raises the expectations and standards to any car that would bear the "RX" name. Unfortunately and unfairly for the FC, I can't help to feel that it suffers from how damn good the FD is. But it also means I don't have to deal with the FC and how bad it is, because the FD exists.
So, in conclusion, if I were role playing a well to do man in the 80s, I'd hold onto the money and wait for an FD. I'd even wait for a NSX if I'm gangsta enough. Or I'd just get an S13 or AE86.
Here's a lap I did with the FC on the Nordschleife, on sport hard tyres, 100 litres of fuel with no consumption for a time attack board. It was swiftly demolised by Alex P, but hey, I have it, might as well share, right?