944 vs C4 as a DD track rat

track-prepped E30's seem to pop up from time to time, although you may need to travel a bit:

http://www.e30tech.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102121

yamaha wrote:

Javelin wrote: Really? Is that necessary? Would you be happier if I had said if money was no object we'd all have P-51 Mustangs or F-22 Raptors? I mean come on, grow up.

p38 > p51.......just sayin

Well, agreed on the P38. How about X-Wings and TIE Interceptors then?

Ian F wrote: track-prepped E30's seem to pop up from time to time, although you may need to travel a bit: http://www.e30tech.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102121

Looks like a good car but I wouldn't call a cross country trip "traveling a bit"

C4 for me, just based on the fact that on a car meant for racing at all, you need to not be concerned about breaking stuff. yeah, if you call your local dealer and tell them to replace the water pump and the optispark on your C4 he's going to charge you a bunch, but in reality, the clamshell hood gets right out of the way, any Summit water pump will handle it and MSD makes a heck of an optispark replacement. I am not a Porsche guy, but I can't see that coming together that easily. As far as power, you should be able to make as much as you want. More than you want if you'll consider swapping the injection system for something different.

That biturbo ad:

"Dangerously fast."

Pffffffffffhahahaahahahahahahhh.

Engine only having 10k on it is a selling point, though. And the electronics.. youd be better off replacing them even if they WERENT melted, im guessing.

Honestly I think you're both pretty antagonistic. Lighten up, guys!

Bobzilla wrote:

Javelin wrote: Funny, I don't remember ever arguing with you before.

One does not have to engage in your arguments to see a common theme and tactics.

Good grief this is getting annoying.

In reply to dculberson:

Werd. One of the reasons I really like this forum is that in general, the bickering that you get a lot on other forums is kept to a minimum as we're all grown-ups around here and can talk about our differences in a grown-up manner.

Glad to see this got de-railed... again.

Anyways, spinning off from the other what track car thread, how about an FC RX-7? Are those around in your area Tim?

In reply to Javelin:

I've seen a bunch of FBs up here, but not many FCs. There's the occasional FC down Sacramento way but the ones I've seen so far all had 'project' written all over them. And not in a good way.

In reply to Bobzilla:

Very good point and very well reasoned, too. For the record, I've used both an FC turbo II convertible and a tuned FD as a daily driver in the past, without any major issues.

Bobzilla wrote: As a daily driver? HAHAHAHAHAAH

Seriously? There's dozens of people on here, including a GRM employee, who DD RX-7's. You need help.

Javelin wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

Javelin wrote: Yada yada.

Blah blah blah blah.

Yada yada.

Can you boys please go piss in each other's conflakes elswhere? This would be an interesting thread with the background noise filtered out.

i'm used to them up here in the north, were we have 4 seasons, being hard to deal with in the winter, plus the horrific fuel economy. I've seen 4wd trucks getting better gasmileage.... no lie.

I just had to step in here...

As background I have owned 2 third gen Firebirds, a miata, an old 3 series, a Mustang GT and a number of other cars which I have used for casual autoX etc. My current toy car is a low mileage 89 C4 with automatic and performace axle ratio. I have not owned a 944 but I have driven a couple and they can be nice cars.

On the Vette vs 944:

The C4 is the better budget pick if for no other reason the engine/transmissions are very common. Even a low powered 84 can be hopped up with cheap parts from a Jeggs catalog by anybody familiar with building a SBC. And those people are in every town everywhere. I don't know if the 944 is fragile or not but I do know that replacing a SBC is easy and cheap. so is 300+ honest to-the-ground horsepower.

Suspention wise I'd say both cars are pretty good, great even if set up right. Some like the lighter feel of the 944. I think thats subjective. BTW...my 89 tips the scales at 3250 lbs with every option...there was never a 3800 lb C4.

C4's being a tad heavier and having more torque and larger tires means your tire budget is going to be slightly higher but wheels are dirt cheap.

The worries over electronics are over blown. Yes the digital dashboards go out. It costs $250-300 to have them rebuilt. Hey they're 20+ years old. Other than that, the usual stuff, window motors, fan motors, sensors etc probably fail no more frequently than any other 20+ year old car including the 944. And again the GM parts are cheap. Oh and the cowl hood is the greatest thing since sliced bread for do it yourselfers. Not sure why that feature wasn't carried over on newer models?

C4 vs Third Gen F-body

I can sum it up like this...I had an 88 Formula 350 with the WS6 suspention. I also had a 305/manual TA for awhile but being a t-top car it made a better cruiser than race car. The Formula was a great car until some lady in a mini-van t-boned me in 2004 and I bought the Mustang (which was a nice car but handled like crap compared to the Formula). I loved the Formula. It was great. Everything that was great about the formula is as good or better with my C4. Bottom line. Everything that the Formula needed help with is better from the get-go on the C4. This is not to bash the 3rd gens, I still would like to have one but they are engineered to a much lower price point than the C4.

Not sure about 4th gen f-bodies as I've never owned one but they might be an option at this price point too. LT1 6 speed cars are available around here (KS) for $3-4K. Most are a little rough but then again so would a C4 or 944 for those $$

Let us know what you decide to do. It's your money. I'd drive both and see which "feels" better to you.

Cheers,

Dave

We might have a winner:

http://reno.craigslist.org/cto/2298048280.html

I looked at this last year when he was asking more for it and it's almost too nice to take near a track, but at that sort of money it would be almost sacrilegious to pass up.

Im liking the fb tim, and rotaries are only as unreliable as the people maintaining them :) so im sure you'll do just fine with one.

I've never owned a rotary, but I have a couple friends with them. It seems like a well tuned, stock-ish, well maintained rotary can be run hard seemingly forever. They don't like to putt around. Looks like a winner to me!

Why are you posting here instead of driving there with cash?! That's an amazing time capsule car.

In reply to pigeon:

'cos he's been trying to sell it for over a year IIRC. No reason to hurry...

I guess I'll better email him, though.

Wow, sounds like a neat car, that RX-7. I will say this, too. I've never driven one, but ridden in an RX8 on the street. It made no sense for a street car. As a track car, though, those things are perfect. Seems like the rotary is an excellent engine for track days... lemons results would seem to agree.

The "problem" with this RX7 is - apart from it being really nice - is that it's a base model with drum brakes at the back and no LSD.

Given the way I roll, I'd be extremely reluctant to make any sort of modification to a well-preserved survivor like this one, which would kinda sort defeat the objective.

I don't think any rotorhead would call a GSL rear-end swap "destroying a survivor" on this one Tim.