I'm interesting in buying an NA FC and I'm curious

>>16833123
I never understood the OMG Rotary Maintenence meme.

It's literally: change your oil and your spark plugs; premix if you wanna go the extra mile

Also N.A. FC motors gave been known to do 250k miles

>>16833152
Plenty of people don't even bother to do those things with regular engines let alone rotaries, that's all I'm worried about.

>>16833169
People who maintain their cars externally tend to maintain them internally as well. Just get one that isn't ratty as fuck and doesn't have any noticeable mechanical issues during the test drive and you'll be fine. If you're set on an FC, save up a bit and get a Turbo II. The NA FCs are painfully slow and have weaker parts.

>>16833226
There's no real cost effective way to up the power on an NA? What if i just turbo'd it myself down the road?

>>16833244
i'm pretty sure the na fc motor isn't that suited to turbocharging, you'd have to make a number of modifications and it would be cheaper to just buy a turbo 13b and swap it in

>>16833261
I might still just go with the NA for now, can always resell it later without too much of a loss most likely as long as I take care of it, and in the meantime I can save towards a Turbo if I decide I like the car and like rotaries enough.

>>16833226
>NA FCs are painfully slow
I believe you're thinking of the FBs

>>16833244
The turbo engines are better, with lower compression rotors and a port system more suitable for enlarging. You can still boost an NA 13B, but the NA FC transmission and differential are the same as in the NA6 Miata, and they're horribly weak. The Turbo II parts can theoretically be made to fit, but they actually mount to the chassis differently so you would need to do a lot of fabrication. It's easier all around to just buy a TII.

FBs are a much better option than FCs for an NA car. Sure, they've got an old wagon axle in the back, but they're far lighter than an FC and make similar power after bolt-ons.

>>16833308
Nah, an NA FC is comparable to an NA 944 in terms of speed. They're slow as fuck.

>>16833316
0-60 in under 8 seconds was pretty good in the late 80s anon, still faster than a lot of shitboxes on the road
Quit being such a bench racing faggot

>>16833334
OP here, I drive a D21 which gets 0-60 in like 12 or 14 seconds so that's why I didn't think I'd mind the NA.

>>16833334
It's about 800 pounds heavier than an NA Miata and makes the same power. Not exactly what most people would consider quick.

>>16833380
Na miata makes 160hp? Lmao
They make less than 100

>>16833380
GTU NAs make 170hp, the only Miata that matches it is the NC

>>16833393
1.6 makes less than 100hp.

1.8 makes 130hp

>>16833498
That's his point you moron
They both make less HP than an NA FC

>>16833393
>>16833394
>10% more power
Wow, it's fucking nothing. Especially compared to 25-30% more weight.

>>16833498
1.6 makes 115 horsepower, 1.8 makes 128-142 depending on the year.

>>16833546
>10%
Compared to what? You're fucking math is atrocious

>>16833565
150 horsepower S4 FC (you know, the one worth buying), 133 horsepower NA8.

>Ackshuyawlly, its 12.79% more power

>>16833672
>>>16833565 (You)
>150 horsepower S4 FC (you know, the one worth buying), 133 horsepower NA8.
>>Ackshuyawlly, its 12.79% more power

Except I've been talking about the S5 FC this whole time and you're just moving goalposts to try and make your shit argument work

>>16833684
The S5 is the worse car, though.

>>16833694
>worse car
https://forum.miata.net/vb/archive/index.php/t-219054.html
>Now the next year they did the S5 update and took the GTU name and applied it to the base model. They then massaged the lightweight version into the GTUs which is like the 88 GTU except even lighter (mainly due to the aluminum hood from the convertable RX-7s), a quicker steering ratio and a 4.30 rear end instead of the standard 4.11. And, of course, 20 more horsepower than the S4 but no more than the regular S5s. The original plan was to put a naturally aspirated 20b trip-rotor in it, but there were, apparently, engineering issues.

>>16833711
>Pigfat
>Plastic suspension
>LSDs not standard except on TII and GTUs
>Viscous only, even when it's optioned
>Electric OMP that causes all sorts of problems
S5fags will defend this.

>>16833757
Hi.
You're wrong
Thank you and goodbye

>>16833757
>pigfat
Its lighter than the S4, what the fuck are you talking about

The rest of your shitty points apply to the S4, not the S5

Holy shit your dumb

>>16833771
The lightest S4 is ~2400lbs
The electric OMP was S5 and had no issues
The suspension is the same across all FCs with minor variations for weight or trim.
Nothing wrong with viscous LSD.

Also youre arguing things that you dont fully know either. Please stop or at least google before your respond

>>16833792
Fuck off tripfag, you're not the boss of me

>>16833764
>>16833771
>>16833792
The S4 had a clutched diff that was standard on at least the GXL and GTU trims in addition to the TII, possibly others as well. After 30 years, the fluid in most if not all of the viscous LSDs will have degraded so now most S5 LSDs work just like open diffs. They're not serviceable. The electric OMP in the S5 likes to fail and take the ECU with it (fortunately this is usually before it ruins the engine, but not always), the mechanical OMP in the S4 doesn't have this problem. The S5 cars have plastic sway bar endlinks while S4s have metal.

Really guys, if you didn't believe me you could have just Googled it and saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong on a Serbian kitten punting forum.

>>16833893
So because you changed the wording, youre suddenly right?
And i was not wrong.

>>16833923
Okay, I'll just ignore the fact that these are all well known issues and admit that you're right. It was all Satan's lies that the S5 RX-7 came with plastic suspension components, and all the posts about it that are easily found on Google were put there to tempt the weak of faith.

>>16833950
>>>16833923
>Okay, I'll just ignore the fact that these are all well known issues and admit that you're right. It was all Satan's lies that the S5 RX-7 came with plastic suspension components, and all the posts about it that are easily found on Google were put there to tempt the weak of faith.

GET THEE BEHIND ME

>>16833950
>plastic suspension
Does not specify sway bar endlinks (which are very strong composite and not plastic) and they do not have issue.
If you dont like them, replace them.
Stop being a retard.

>>16833546
Also the shape of the curve... Rotary has a very broad powerband
Miata shit is peaky shit

>>16833984
>If you don't like all of these shitty cheap S5 parts, just buy an S5 and convert it back into an S4
Why not just buy an S4 and then put S5 bodywork on it?

>>16834025
Because the s5 has worse aero.
Why are you being a tard?

>>16834021
Also you can pretty much sneeze on na 13b and make more power
Dumps thousands into an na6 or na8 without forced induction and you'll see literally one digit gains

>>16834032
So why not buy an S4 and have superior mechanicals and superior aerodynamics?

>>16834073
Are you seriously dense?

>>16834079
>Buy S5
>Swap out bodywork for more aerodynamic S4 bodywork
>Swap out open diff for S4 clutchpack LSD
>Swap out plastic endlinks for S4 metal endlinks
>Swap out failure-prone electronic OMP for superior S4 mechanical OMP
>End up with an S4 with a bit more power from stuff that you'd replace with aftermarket bolt ons anyway, for more time and effort and money
So what was your point, again?

>>16834178
Yeah youre retarded.
Im not OP
I dont even like S5s
Youre arguing nothing at all.
And making a fool of yourself in the process.
Good work idiot

>>16834188
Now that we're in agreement that S4 > S5, let's get back to the thread. NA FCs are underpowered and don't have the potential of the turbos. FBs have the same power potential but weigh less. OP should buy an FB, or save another couple grand for a clean TII.

>>16834232
Youre still wrong