Saturday 30 January 2021

Car of the Week — Week 118: Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition '15


My eyes rolled so far back into my head when I saw that the Evo X was chosen for the Car of the Week. After a sigh, I cracked my knuckles, stretched my back, flexed my neck and gleefully began my torrent of derogatory remarks on the Evo before having driven it. Something along the lines of,

" 
    The Lancer Evolution X takes an iconic, revered name permanently carved into the gravel of rallying and turns it into an oxymoronic joke. Backwards and outdated even when it was first introduced, it was then left to fester and linger without any substantial updates for eight whole years before mercifully having its life support system unplugged. Weighing a whole hundred kilos more than its direct predecessor of the same grade and packing barely any more power, it gets destroyed by the Evo IX and the contemporary Impreza in every measurable aspect, such as in the 0-400m dash, a slalom, sudden lane change, and braking test, and even gets used as a doormat by the older GD Impreza around Tsukuba as well, in addition to being utterly humiliated by the IX. Despite no longer being a homologation model for rallying, the Evo X still stubbornly sticks to a 2 litre, Inline 4 powerplant for some indiscernible reason despite using an all-new engine, consequently requiring a big, peaky turbo to bring its power figures up. A 5 speed manual gearbox in a performance car is just laughably outdated even back in 2007 when the car was first introduced, but by 2015? In a 38,000 USD car? It's just an agonising eyesore. And I'm supposed to believe this thing is an Evolution? Of what? If anything, this is a devolution of the Evolution, a trend which looked to continue until the Evo became an SUV had Mitsubishi not stumbled upon very hard times for cheating in their own emissions tests. As Mitsubishi's flagship model and the only car in its lineup that's even remotely exciting, different, or otherwise noteworthy, the Evo X and Mitsubishi are just a sad sight to behold. It almost physically hurts me with pity to see one of these things on the road, and I would be nothing short of embarrassed to be seen driving one of these things.
"


But, because I needed to take about 2 or 3 photos for a really short review so people might actually get through the whole thing, I had to actually drive the Evo X, if only for a short while. Oh and of course, me actually driving it means that the tirade I diarrhea out will at least be somewhat based on my own experiences and opinion instead of just me throwing unsubbed Best Motoring links at you. I drove it mostly just for the photos, of course. Mostly.


Annoyingly for my narrative, the Evo X really impressed me when I drove it. Despite its unfortunate circumstances and confused nature, the Evo X is still a lot of fun to drive. The car is compliant over bad road surfaces, grips for days, and goes like stink with its horrifically short first four gears, and feels nimbler than its 1,530kg kerb mass (3,373lbs) might suggest. Yes, a five speed performance car in 2015 is laughable, but a manual performance car in 2015? Sounds a bit like a treat, especially because I hear that the 5 speed box is the gearbox of choice for the enthusiasts, being a stronger and lighter box than the DCT 6 speed. Yes, engaging fifth gear makes it feel like the turbo has sprang a leak, but for being an overdrive gear, it at least doesn't dip below 5,000rpm where the 4B11T engine needs to be kept above if you upshift near redline in 4th.


The defining takeaway from my driving experience of the Evo X is, of course, Mitsubishi's trick Active Yaw Control system (AYC), pioneered on the Evo IV and subsequently fitted on all JDM Evos since. It's truly criminal how some USDM cars never came with it; it's what makes an Evo and Evo. Even at its default, minimum setting of 30/130, it's mind boggling, cheeky fun. Chuck it into a corner, and you get none of the understeer you'd expect to experience in a front engined, AWD car. It makes rotating the car into an apex intuitively easy, as the gas pedal is as integral and helpful in rotating the car as the steering wheel. It's stupidly fun to chuck this thing into a corner at what should really be reckless speed, and when the tyres start to let go and the car begins to slide, you can "cure" the car with a small dose of gas to use the engine's torque to somehow convert a the momentum of the slide into useful rotation thanks to the AYC. It's a massively clever system, and unlike most of today's cars with insane technology that even a racing driver would be hard pressed to explain or exploit, the AYC, ACD, and EBD of MMC (IKR? How many acronyms can one fit into a sentence?) are not only immensely clever, but they all have very pronounced — and useable — effects on the driving experience, which is shockingly intuitive in spite of the complications, making for an extremely involving drive. It never once felt like I as the driver was disconnected or unneeded from behind the wheel, nor was I ever left to guess what the car was doing.


Despite the swathe of electronic systems in the car, the Evo X nonetheless feels very raw, natural, and tactile to drive at its limits, which is a rare balance between the digital and mechanical not found in cars other than the WRX and Skyline GT-Rs. I would even go as far as to say that other manufacturers should learn from the Evo in making electronic aids that feel natural and intuitive to use. These systems make for not only a fun driving experience, but also an astoundingly easy one as well. It didn't take long at all before immense confidence filled me behind the wheel, and I began to seriously attack the winding mountain passes of Bathurst within just a lap. It is perfect for narrow, winding, far from perfect mountain roads, where it will happily and readily shame many sports cars and even supercars. Forget the rental car interior. Forget even the abysmal 55 litre fuel tank. I could almost even forgive the lack of a 6th forward cog, because THIS is where most of the money goes when you buy an Evo X, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Plus, for this kind of performance, the fact that you can seat four adults in its no-nonsense, no gimmick, actually useable rear seats with actual rear doors? Absolute insanity!


And so I thought that I could save my condescending angle for this review by comparing it to the Evo IX and the WRX. You see, the Evo X is an amazing car if judged on its own merits. The problem, however, is that the Evo X simply cannot be judged on its own. Just like how you can't assess or critique an Apple product without comparing it to a contemporary Windows or Android product, how you can't proclaim your favourite soft drink is Pepsi without explaining why you don't like Coke as much, or how you can't understand Dante without Vergil and vice versa, no discussion about any Evo is complete without comparing and contrasting it to the WRX STI, its direct rival. Furthermore, as a numbered successor to a long lineage of Evos, the fact that it gets walked by its younger siblings is as atrocious a notion as an iPhone 6 outperforming an iPhone 10. I know I always harp on how the point and merit of sports cars aren't in the numbers they generate, but no one can — nor should — overlook being slaughtered so horrendously by its younger siblings. While I recognise that the Evo X is brilliant on its own, why would anyone not opt for an Evo IX, or any of the two generations of WRX STIs that has seen production in the all-too-long lifespan of the Evo X over it? For anything with a direct rival or a predecessor, simply being good on its own just isn't good enough, because it can never stand alone and be assessed solely by its own merits; it needs to be at the very least, on par with the first two immediate, obvious comparisons people will make, or to offer some tangible trade-offs in the comparisons. I personally don't even know where I'd start making a case for the Evo X.


Just to really drive that point home with hard evidence, I decided to do a time attack run of the JDM Spec 2014 WRX STI Type S around Bathurst alongside the Evo Final Edition. While also utilising a 2 litre 4 cylinder turbocharged engine and offering four proper doors, the WRX does everything an Evo X does and does them better. The STI is of a newer platform and design, accelerates faster, has more gears, revs a whole thousand rpm higher, stops better... it's just more of everything. While lacking in AYC, the WRX more than makes up for it with an adjustable centre differential, which you can adjust on the fly. Of course, in the interest of fairness (and not wanting to waste twenty years of my life figuring out the optimal settings for each car), I left the centre differential of the STI at its default of 40:60 F:R, just as I had left the adjustable AYC on its default of 30/130 on the Evo X.

Evo FE:

24.193 / 0:24.193
54.974 / 1:19.167
39.572 / 1:58.739
36.078 / 2:34.817

Fuel Consumed for 5 Flat Out Laps: 20ℓ
Top Speed: 239km/h (148.5mph)

WRX STI

24.463 / 0:24.463
54.665 / 1:19.128
39.465 / 1:58.593
36.001 / 2:34.594

Fuel Consumed for 5 Flat Out Laps: 17ℓ
Top Speed: 239km/h (148.5mph)

It was only after I did timed runs of both cars did I finally think, "oh, um... wow, I was totally wrong about the Evo and I really can't salvage the condescending angle of my review". Yes, the Evo was slower, but only by such a ridiculously small margin, that in my rather inconsistent hands, either car could've come up on top if I had just one run and couldn't cherry pick the fastest time I did over a few runs. To my unbridled aghast, the Evo X was wholly competitive despite all its quantifiable demerits I had pointed out earlier, and the results were so close that I've even had to overlay one video atop the other to really see how this result came to be.


From the video and time deltas, the Evo had a HUGE advantage of almost 0.3 seconds in Sector 1, which consists of just Turn 1 and a lengthy run down the Mountain Straight. While the WRX stops better and can brake later, the Evo carried more speed throughout of the corner thanks to AYC, and acceleration between the two is DEAD matched, despite my previous misconception that the STI accelerated faster, simply based on how it felt. The Evo then hands this advantage back to the WRX at the uphill Sector 2, where I was forced to hold 4th gear near redline through Turns 8, 9 and 10, Reid Park, Sulman Park, and McPhillamy Park, where the engine was way past its peak, and shifting into 5th would bog the car and rob it of engine braking control when I lift for the high speed sweepers. From the peak of the Mountain, the WRX had the edge over the Evo in the treacherous downhill braking sections, while allowing me to hold a lower gear when approaching braking zones such as Brock's Skyline and the right hand kink leading into Forrest's Elbow. Again, on the Conrod Straight, the instantaneous speeds of these two cars are IDENTICAL, almost frame for frame, and both cars even hit the EXACT same top speed of 239km/h before having to brake for The Chase, though the Evo was visibly running out of breath by then, and the STI was still somewhat pulling in 6th. On the big braking zone into The Chase, the stopping advantage the WRX has is exacerbated even more due to the tall 5th gear of the Evo, meaning I had to wait a lot longer at lower revs before I can downshift into 4th to make the most of engine braking, whereas I could hang high in the higher 8,500rpm rev range of the WRX all of the time in the humongous 239 to mid 90s braking zone. By the time the Armor All banner comes into view for both cars, the difference is stark.

For some context, this is the biggest difference between the two cars.

I guess the moral of the story here is that one shouldn't write too much about an experience before, you know, having actually experienced it. I mean, in my defence, I'm quite behind on my reviews, and how was I supposed to know the Evo X would be so competitive? Heck, even after the analysis, I still don't think I fully understand why the two cars are so close in performance, nor have I even any theories of why there's such a rift between real world test results and my own, virtual testing. Maybe Mitsubishi has quietly kept the Evo X up to date, despite me not being able to find a list of updates for it. Maybe the Evo suits my driving style more. Maybe Subaru similarly went soft after their cars no longer needing to meet homologation requirements. Maybe I'm not good enough of a driver to ascertain such minute differences in two cars. Maybe the Evo is has unrealistically good performance in this game. I don't know. I guess you could say that evolution is a mystery, full of change that no one sees.


I would have taken such perverse pleasure in pooping all over the Evo, but now I am forced to face my own ineptitude and put back all the poop previously reserved for the Evo back into my body, the most painless means of which being via my mouth. And that is my newfound, and only reason for hating it: for making me eat my words. Oh, and the rear wing is horrifically modeled in the game, letting light pass through when viewed from the underside. Eww.


The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition is a fantastic sports car. No ifs, no buts.

Sunday 24 January 2021

Car of the Week - Week 117: Porsche Taycan Turbo S '19

"I apologise for the long, philosophical, and borderline political rant. This is just too near and dear to me. I promise this is the last time I'm going to ramble so much about philosophy and politics (until I review an electric car...)."


Oh no. Oh dear. Oh no oh dear oh no.

So, in case it isn't obvious enough already, this is going to be a very long, philosophical rant. I don't like writing these, and as such I can't imagine anyone enjoying reading these, either. I just want to get a few things off my chest, barely disguised as a review of the Taycan.

The whole point of Electric Vehicles (EVs) is to make cars cleaner and more sustainable. No one driving a petrol car in a spirited manner thinks to themselves, "man, I sure do wish this drivetrain is electric! That'd solve so many faults I'm finding with this car!" Sure, the instant, "flat" torque curve, lack of gears, and low centre of gravity are all nice bonuses, but when the price to pay for those small perks is to have a car that weighs over a ton more than FD RX-7, I think I'd be much happier wringing out my engine and rowing it through gears on my own, thank you very much.

I personally think that, because EVs are more of an environmental necessity that is hopeless for spirited driving, it always comes across as incredibly pandering and insulting whenever an automaker tries to push "sporty" EVs as viable alternatives to Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars for fun driving. And maybe they wouldn't be nearly so offensive, and maybe I could be more level headed about them if EVs and ICE cars can coexist together as alternatives to each other, but clearly, they cannot. No one rides horses on an expressway, nor does anyone use typewriters anymore, and those aren't even powered by non-renewable resources. With the UK threatening to ban all sale of IC vehicles by 2030, the writing is on the wall: this is a war against something I care very, too deeply about, and manufacturers need to scramble to future proof their lineups to stay relevant, either by offering all electric variants of their existing models, or introduce new, pure EV models to compete.

Six paragraphs in and I haven't even begun to introduce the Car of the Week, let alone speak about how it drives. EVs are an environmental and even political thing; their place and purpose on the public roads always, always takes precedence over how fun they are to drive. I don't like politics. I don't want to get into an argument about how green EVs actually are in their production cycle and how long they'd have to be driven on the road to break even with the environmental impact of an IC car, how the batteries will degrade and hold less and less charge like your laptop and phone batteries, how the charging infrastructure can and should improve, how we as a species can't just decide on one plug design and get on with it like we could a fuel inlet, the cost of energy per kilowatt for gasoline and electricity, how much sheer energy you need simply to maneuver a 2.5 ton tank of an EV, and so on. There are way smarter and qualified people out there arguing till their faces turn a melting glacier blue about those very important subjects. I'm just a man child looking to unwind from life and play with cars, because they're my escape. I do enough politicking and arguing as it is in my own adult life in society.

Environmental and social issues aside, there are a multitude of things that grind my gears about EVs. The first of which is always how disgustingly pretentious they are. IC cars have intakes and grilles on the front bumper because their engines need to "breathe" in oxygen to burn fuel, and hence when you see intakes and grilles on an IC car, you can almost anthropomorphise them: the headlights are the eyes, the badges are the nose, the intakes are the mouths, etc.. That's why you often hear motoring journalists describe a car's styling as having an "angry face", a "predator maw", or the like. And it's always such a weird experience to see a pure EV try to replicate these facial features and expressions on a bumper that needn't these openings and intakes, because the end result looks like something that's psychologically engineered to be unsettling. If I didn't know better, I'd say that the "facial features" on EVs are precisely engineered to psychologically unsettle onlookers like a horror film character. You look at a face, you subconsciously look for facial features to get a read, but instead of finding a mouth, you not only do not find what you're preconditioned to, but in its place you instead find creases and lines that suggest they're what you're looking for by being where you expect to find them, but look nothing like what you had expected to find. My brain freaks the hell out at this contradiction every time I see an EV's front end, and as I've said, this almost feels deliberate.




2019 Tesla Model 3, from Wikipedia Commons.
Jason Voorhees (Ken Kirzinger), from Wikipedia Commons.

Granted, the Taycan manages its facial features a lot more naturally, and dare I say, even pleasingly, than its competitors. It is largely congruent to the Porsche Mission E Concept car, and I admire the fact that the production car looks so close to its concept car variant, though losing the suicide doors is a bit of a shame. I really admire the squarish headlights on the Taycan, as not only does it bear more than a passing resemblance to the almighty 919 racecar, it's just refreshing to see something else other than round bug eyes from a manufacturer often criticised for making the same car over and over again. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say I like the looks of a Taycan. It has a smooth, unmistakable presence about it, without being too obnoxious or in-your-face. One look at it, and you know instantly it has to be a Porsche.



Because EVs are a new technology, R&D costs are sky high, which makes the products prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach of your average Joe. This has resulted in EVs being luxurious, flamboyant items, which in my eyes really goes against the notion that these are supposed to be efficient, save the world, frugal, for the masses, or what have you. EVs being luxurious, flamboyant items also means that they all need to have some pretentious levels of flair. In the case of the Taycan, the "fuel" door is... I don't even know, touch sensitive? Capacitive? You swipe your hand under the stripe thing of the charging plug dock thing door and it recedes and slides open... Will it work if my hands are wet? What if I'm wearing gloves? What's wrong with a manual, mechanical latch in the driver footwell, or a push-to-pop-open fuel door? Why does it have to be so fancy, so complicated for seemingly no reason? The interior is a mess of piano black gloss materials that just harvests fingerprints, and everything, everything, is controlled via touch screens: the radio, the air con vents... I'm surprised you don't drive this thing by drawing a line through a laser scanned representation of the road on the screen, with how needlessly complicated the car is trying so hard to be. And I HATE that.


To put this in a way that I believe most reading this at GTPlanet will understand, you don't look at your DualShock 4 when playing on your PlayStation 4, do you? When a game prompts you to press the X Button, you don't have to take your eyes off the screen to look at your controller to find the X Button, do you? You don't, because you know where it is, and you can feel for it. You press it, and you get instant, tactile feedback from the button itself that you've pressed it. It's not rocket science, but it works so much better than touch screens. Could you type without looking at your phone? Me personally, I couldn't type well on my phone even when I'm looking at it, yet I'm typing this on a mechanical keyboard that's completely out of my line of sight. It's the same principle. You know roughly where each key is in the keyboard, and you can feel for them, you get instant feedback after you push each key, each button, and it doesn't require you to take your eyes off what you're currently doing. And so I ask, why the hell do carmakers all feel the need for touchscreens? Why do I have to take my eyes off the road to do something as simple as adjusting radio volume, or adjusting my air con? Why do I have to look at the screen further to confirm my input has registered? Do you have any idea how much quicker it is to, say, reduce the volume of a radio by ten notches with a physical dial, versus tapping a screen ten times slowly enough for it to register? Yes, I get it, you're an electric car. Not everything has to be done with electricity, you know? You don't see the 911's check engine light being lit by igniting its engine oil, do you?

Capacitive touch switches aren't only worse ergonomically, but from my personal experience, they are horrifically unreliable, as well. To draw again from the PS4 analogy, my PS4 is unfortunately the first generation unit that has the capacitive touch switches to turn it off and on, and to eject the discs. And because these things are just for show, they're naturally unlabeled. I've ran into severe problems with them, such as the game disc randomly ejecting itself in the middle of gameplay, apparently because the capacitive touch thing thought I pulled a Monkey D. Luffy or Nero and stretched my hand over to eject a game disc that I'm currently playing from the sofa. These problems were so widespread that Sony immediately backpedaled and gave us sensible buttons on the "facelift" to the console. I've had to rip apart my PS4, twist around some screws, and now neither the power switch or the disc eject switch work, meaning that to turn on my console or to eject the disc within, I have to use PHYSICAL BUTTONS on my DualShock 4. I just want to give some additional context here by saying that the PHYSICAL BUTTONS on my 10-year old PS3 that turns it on and ejects discs still work perfectly, which is how I've managed to boot up Gran Turismo 6 for old specs and photos sometimes.

Needlessly long story short, buttons just work, capacitive touch things don't because they're just for show. I'm not saying the Taycan's UI is unreliable; I can't possibly know that. I'm just saying I don't trust these stupid capacitive touch things to last, or even work correctly, and I wish cars, among other things, would stop trying to be like iPhones. And I'm speaking from my experience with my PlayStation 4, which sits sheltered in my living room. How can I trust the fuel door of the Taycan, exposed to the elements, to not fail sooner than later? I know I'm a dinosaur when it comes to technology, but why must something so simple and proven be thrown out the window for unnecessary complications that don't work? Half of these stupid things need a mechanical override anyway in terms of emergencies, so... why?

*sigh* I'm sorry. I've been harbouring these frustrations for years now with no release, so I'm sorry this had to be where it came spilling out.

The Taycan, with its fingerprint harvesting stupid touchscreens and capacitive thingamajigs, feels like it's just meant to be a shock and awe thing in the showroom, and less for actually living with, because I think this thing will drive me up the wall if I'm forced to live with it, and that's assuming I live in a country that actually has established charging infrastructures. The supposedly thriving first world country that I live in that has about 80% of its population living in apartment buildings, and have to share a huge carpark, some of which are still open air, as exposed to the elements as they are to (urgh) other people. That is probably why our housing carparks currently have zero private-use charging points. EVs simply don't make sense to your average citizen here, and I struggle to imagine it's much different anywhere else currently, seeing as you need to have your own private, enclosed, lockable garage to charge it safely in, all on top of the exuberant 185,000 to 235,000 USD MSRP of the damn thing, depending on options. In Gran Turismo Sport, it's listed at 230,000 Cr, and it doesn't even come optioned with the beautiful panoramic fixed glass roof that I feel is a must-have, though I suppose that just means your head doesn't land on a million glass shards in the event of a rollover, and you get more surface area to play with in the Livery Editor if you're the artistic sort (which I'm not. Have you seen the plain body cars I roll up to meets with?).

The Artistic Sort

The pretentious faces and noises reminiscent of ICE cars, along with the "oh-sho-fanshay" toys and gadgets all just highlight to me that today's EVs are all just transitional things, meant to bridge the gap between a past of purely IC cars and an envisioned future of pure EVs. And as you can expect from something that's meant to transition, I find that they're all so confused, contradictory, things. For its size and mass, why isn't the Taycan an SUV? The view out the back is horrendous with this coupé body style, and I can't imagine it being easy to navigate through tight urban cities. Is the Taycan so hopeless on range it can't afford the aerodynamic penalty of being an SUV? I know car names aren't meant to be literal, but god damn does it really have to be called a "Turbo"? Even calling it the "Taycan Supercharger S" would sound a lot more natural. Or better yet, the "Super Range Edition" or "Better Battery" or something, god. Isn't this car supposed to embody the future? Why is it stuck with misfitting definitions from the past, then? If an EVs are supposed to wholly replace IC cars, why can't it make do without IC monikers and noises? Will people even know what a turbo is 50 years from now? Or is this an elaborate ploy by Porsche so that they can brag about how they've been making cars for so long, they even have a car called a "Turbo"? An EV is supposed to offer a very low centre of gravity and cabin floor because the batteries are all set very low and flat beneath the cabin, and are supposed to be mechanically simpler, so why the heck is the view out the back of a Taycan comparable to a roll cage equipped, rear engined 911 GT3 with a wing tacked on top of it? How awfully big is the 2 speed gearbox of the Taycan to squeeze the rear glass this badly?

Taycan Turbo S:

991 911 GT3 RS:

Lastly, why do most EVs offer the option of piping in bogus, ICE noises into the cabin, including the Taycan? Yes, it's an option I can turn off, but it just grinds my gears regardless simply by it existing. I find it incredibly insulting to play ICE noises in an EV, because who would use that feature, other than someone who wants an IC car, but can't have one? It just reeks of helplessness and illegitimacy. IC cars are already getting a ton of hate for piping in bogus IC noises, so pray tell, what makes manufacturers think EVs can get away with them? Why are EVs pretending to be the very thing they're meant to replace? It's utterly stupid. It's as enraging — and insulting — as a smoker being forced on nicotine packs, or a gambler forced to play a free-to-play mobile game; even though they're fundamentally the same thing, you know it's not the same thing. It's not giving you the same high, and you just wish everyone would leave you the frick alone because you're already being pooped on so hard for having to make a huge life changing choice, fighting your brain at every point, and the best thing anyone can do for you at this point is to just leave you alone and not be a condescending, insulting, holier-than-thou presence. And really, what kind of message is bogus IC noises supposed to send? If manufacturers feel there's enough people that will use this feature to justify the R&D of putting it into their EVs, is it not an open admission that EVs are just not as involving or inspiring to drive as the traditional IC car? Is that meant to say then, that the future generations of young kids won't, or shouldn't, find the same romance, the same inspiration, from authentic EV noises as we do an ICE? Should we not derive the same spark, the same excitement, from driving in general, if EVs are to wholly replace the IC vehicles?

Stupid. Utterly, inconceivably stupid. I hate it. I hate all of it. I am of the firm belief that EVs are for people who hate driving, who see cars merely as tools. And so I hope you can imagine my confusion when Porsche, a company that cut its teeth on motorsports and prides itself with making the most deliciously handling of high end sports cars, and the maker of the only car currently in production that I legitimately lust after (the 6 cylinder 718), is making a pure EV and touting it as a sporting proposition.


*sigh* So how does it drive?

To keep on complaining about stupid features that can be turned off, and therefore really shouldn't be big issues, the regen braking in the Taycan is god awful, though I suppose it's the whole concept of EVs trying to mimic an ICE's engine braking that's awful, rather than Porsche's system for doing so. In the Taycan, you get three regen braking modes: On, Off, and Adaptive. Adaptive, from what I understand reading other articles, works sort of like a cruise control thing, and I've no experience with it, because in the game, regen braking mode is stuck to "On", despite battery life being unlimited, because Kaz just needs to show off his partners' new toys, I guess.

The regen braking in the Taycan is stupidly strong. It'd bring you to a dead halt from parking lot speeds of 10km/h in just over a second if you don't touch either pedal (36 frames in a 29.97fps video, I counted), and it lacks any sort of grace in doing so. Unlike engine braking in an ICE car, which weakens with lowering engine speed, the passive regen braking is a constant anchor the moment you take your feet off both pedals, making smooth stopping in start stop city driving a needlessly difficult task. Not impossible, just difficult. What you're supposed to do I think is to apply juuuust a little bit of either the accelerator or brake pedal, such that the car is losing speed at the rate you want, so that you never relinquish control of the car. Even then, it's super awkward and potentially unsafe, because the moment you take your foot off either pedal, regen braking kicks in full force. Can you imagine the horror of lifting your foot off the brake and the car stops even harder? I don't even think I'd be prepared for it, let alone anyone driving behind me. Oh, and the regen braking doesn't activate your brake lights, either. Let's just hope that's Polyphony Digital misrepresenting the car instead of the real car actually being this dangerously brain dead.


https://youtu.be/aOjAkhsflwU

Yes, I get it, the concept of engine braking, wherein the engine works against itself is a stupid notion as well. But engine braking doesn't just suddenly decide to bite harder the moment you signal to the car, "I want less deceleration now please", and in city driving, it's unlikely your revs will be that high to produce such strong deceleration in the first place. You have agency over it because the engine is always communicating with you, you hear the engine speed drop, and with a manual gearbox, you can choose how much engine braking you want, either by holding a gear, downshifting, or even half clutching. It doesn't become jerky or uncomfortable when coming to a stop because you have to disconnect the drivetrain nearing a stop, causing the car to coast slowly to a smooth stop, or just simply to give stopping control fully to the friction brakes. Yes, both systems are convoluted, and both will require learning and getting used to. It's just that one system allows you to choose what you want with three pedals and a stick, and the other, with a button on the steering wheel. You can turn both off if you want. My problem with the regen braking in the Taycan is that I wish it was just better programmed. I wish it weakens the regen braking the lower your vehicle speed, turning completely off at 15 or thereabouts km/h. I don't really know if passive braking is a thing EVs can, or even should do, because they don't ever passively "talk" to you the way an ICE does with its noises proportional to its braking, and so I think it's something that will always feel a little unnatural and unintuitive to replicate in an EV. I just think that regen is better off taking up the first few centimetres of brake pedal travel, with the friction brakes coming into play past that, instead of being a passive thing.

Anyway, tangential rant aside, the Taycan is freaking weird to drive, even under hard driving on a track.

To just get this out of the way first, because this is an electric performance car and every car reviewer is therefore obligated to say something along the effect of the following, here I go: "OH MY GOD THAT ACCELERATION IS UNREAL I CAN'T BELIEVE IT WHOOO HA HA HA HA THAT IS INSAAANE!"


Yes, we get it. EVs are fast. I don't think that was ever in question. Next.

Anyone remembers how some motoring journalists used to mock American cars when they started trying to make their cars corner? "lol there's no sophistication in the suspension system it's all just blind, dumb grip", or something to that effect? The Taycan is only just barely better than that description, because in Sport Plus mode, the most aggressive mode, the air suspension of the Taycan feel like solid bricks. There is near-zero perceptible pitch under the hard braking afforded by humoungous, larger-than-some-wheels 16.5 Inch brakes, which are ceramic composites standard on the Turbo S, and the car stays shockingly flat through corners as well, thanks to its electronically controlled dampers. Beyond that however, I really haven't anything nice to say about how the Taycan feels to drive.


In other words, aside from blind grip and a stiff suspension setup, the Taycan is an absolutely abhorrent drive. There is zero steering feel in the Taycan. Zero. From the company that is selling us the delectable Cayman GT4 comes an all-new, futuristic car that can easily cost more than twice that while offering a driving experience as informative and involving as a 1990s arcade racing game. You just point it in the direction and it goes. What are the tyres doing? Which have grip and which don't? When might it bite into the apex? When does the rear wheel steering system decide to give you stability, and when does it decide to give you cornering ability? Can you goad it into giving you what you want, when you want? Why do the front tyres bite into apexes sometimes and not other times? What's the road surface like? Who knows? Where is the mass concentrated in the car? You'll only find out when you push wide with understeer on a downhill braking zone, or swing the rear end out when you're too rough with the steering at a high speed chicane. How much torque is going to the front and rear, or even left and right? You might need to take a Masters program to understand the basics of how it works, because I sure as hell can't tell you how, why, where, or when the Taycan distributes torque "just" from my experience behind the wheel. All that is expected of you as a driver is to just point it in a direction, give it some gas- I mean... electricity, and hope it goes as you had hoped. You can't really push it, you can't really play with it. It will never talk to you. You won't ever get to know it. Does that sound fun to anyone? Is this what first comes to mind when people mention the name, "Porsche"? Because as someone absolutely smitten by the 981 GT4, this sure as hell isn't what first comes to my mind at the mention of the brand.


In fact, I find this performance car an even more boring drive than an entry level hatch. Even in the most utilitarian and uninspired of FF economy cars, you're always aware of the mass over the front tyres. The tyres give consistent feedback under even semi-hard driving, and you can easily feel for the car's limits. It behaves consistently and you can therefore set your car up for a corner accordingly, fun factor notwithstanding. In the Taycan, you don't ever get to know the car, and therefore, driving it at its limits is just a crapshoot. The rear wheel steer system, wizardry torque vectoring, stiff suspension, and gigantic brakes and tyres hide the car's real tendencies so well that you don't even get an inkling of the car's limits until after you push it too hard, when the car can mask its problems no more and every bad habit comes spilling out like repressed feelings, meaning you don't get any warning or even reason to believe it'd understeer before it happens, and it's always as sudden, shocking and rude as bottled up feelings erupting. Because the car never "talks" to you before then, you don't get to pre-emptively know the car to prevent yourself from upsetting it, or even to mentally prepare for it when poop goes sideways. Out of an apex of a corner, you give it some gas. It turns. The car isn't washing wide. You give it some more gas. It goes faster. Still no drama. The front tyres are still silent. You steal a peek at your big, clear, easy to read digital speedometer and you're doing insane cornering speeds! How is this car doing this? Then you give it some more gas and WOAH, the car suddenly understeers! But the front tyres sound fine! There aren't screaming! Instead, it's... the rear inside tyre that's screaming and smoking? In an understeer situation? What?


https://youtu.be/nDwUNeniGz8

No, this isn't an isolated incident with my driving habits: even COTW's resident Stig, Vic, prominently had the same issue coming out of the U-turn at Toukyo South. It's just a thing this car does. The rear wheel steering system tries very effectively to mask understeer, but this means that the limiting factor to how fast you can turn and exit out of a corner suddenly switches from the front outside tyre to the rear inside tyre, where you have zero feel over. Usually, if the rear tyres are the limiting factor in how fast you can turn, like, say, in a 911, the rear tyres letting go results in gradual over-rotation of the car, and you can back off well before poop goes sideways. You can hear the tyres letting go, you hear the engine revs rise a little more quickly than it should, you get the steering wheel lightening up a little as signs that you're overdoing it. In comparison, the rear tyres letting go in the Taycan gives you understeer, no feeling, no sound, nothing at all. There is no involvement, there is no engagement; you just back off the accelerator, thinking "what the actual f-" Yes, it's a problem at any tyre grade, from the Comfort Soft I ran in my own Time Attack to the Sport Soft we ran in our weekly meetup. The only way to minimise this issue is to leave traction control on, which I'm sure sounds fun in an AWD performance car.


If you'll pardon the expression, the driving experience of a Taycan is exactly like watching porn. You don't really get to decide how things go; the car just does its own impressive thing and you just go along with it with very minimalistic involvement, hopefully with an amazed smile on your face. But the moment you try to reach in deeper, the moment you try to get to know it more, you get this very distinct feeling that it's all just an act. The seams start to show and you become aware of a logistical, orchestrated process behind it. You start to feel the car almost recoil away from you, and in that involuntary moment that you don't follow the script, the "show" breaks for that moment you go in too hot expecting the car will turn and it doesn't, the tyres suddenly scream, and that's when the illusion breaks for a bit, and you're suddenly aware of what you're asking of this 2,295kg (5,060lbs) car.


Yes, the 0-100 times are astounding, as are the gs it can pull in corners. But what's criminally and frustratingly underreported I find is the cost of all this performance in these obscenely heavy, tech reliant cars: tyre life. It almost feels like a deliberate compromise because there's no metric for it, and therefore no one has to print tyre life on a spec sheet. I kid you not when I say that even on "upgraded" Comfort Soft tyres, I prominently felt the tyres wearing out after just three laps of Bathurst, thereby forcing me to alter my braking points and lines and losing mountains of time in the process. As a result of all this ambiguity in the tyres, along with the drivetrain, and steering, I've never once felt comfortable driving this thing at its limits. It doesn't give you that sense of cohesion, trust, communication and engagement as you would get dancing on the knife edge of adhesion like you would get in a Cayman. If you ever feel the Taycan "talk" to you, then it's the surest sign that something has gone terribly wrong somewhere. And driving a car as numb and vague as this is just boring in isolation and infuriating in a high pressure situation.


Porsche is a brand which has such a rich history in motorsports, and deal exclusively in performance models and brilliant sports cars. They're renowned for taking stupid ideas that shouldn't work in theory and making them outperform conventional engineering. They also happen to have extensive background knowledge in rear wheel steer systems, and even they can't make an EV sports car work. I therefore very highly doubt anyone else can within the near and foreseeable future. Honestly, the Taycan probably isn't even a bad car. It's insanely capable, and handles better than it has any right to even fantasise about, let alone actually do. It just doesn't offer what I'm looking for in a sports car, in a Porsche. It just feels... fake. I don't feel that connection I'm looking for when I drive a sports car. I don't understand one bit of how it works, and in turn, where its limits are, how to work with the car, and drive around its weaknesses. Just like porn, this experience works better in tandem with the "real thing" to give some exaggerated flavour and contrast, but is in no way a substitution for, or worse still, a replacement of that "real thing". And yes, I understand that it's stupidly unfair to compare a 4 door sedan with established 2 door sports cars like the 911 and Cayman. But here's the thing: it costs around the same as a 991 GT3 RS, and will soundly blow the doors off it around most tracks.

991 GT3 RS:

21.106 / 0:21​.106
50.478 / 1:11​.584
35.908 / 1:47​.492
32.514 / 2:20​.006

Fuel Consumed for 5 Flat Out Laps: 26ℓ
Top Speed: 287km/h (178mph)

Taycan Turbo S:

S1: 20.383 / 0:20​.383
S2: 51.283 / 1:11​.666
S3: 35.938 / 1:47​.604
S4: 33.103 / 2:20​.707

Fuel Consumed: -
Top Speed: 266km/h (165mph)

2:20.006 - Porsche 911 GT3 RS (991) '16
2:20.707 - Porsche Taycan Turbo S '19
2:22.739 - Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren '09
2:26.928 - BMW M4 Coupé (F82) '14
2:27.999 - Lexus RC F '14
2:32.381 - Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD) '02
2:32.479 - Nissan Skyline GT-R V・spec II Nür (R34) '02
2:32.512 - Toyota GR Yaris 1st Edition RZ "High performance" '20
2:34.127 - BMW M3 Coupé (E46) '03

911:
https://youtu.be/zyXiyczxg1c
Taycan:
https://youtu.be/IWyJZSNMDMU

Yes, I know I still set a faster time in the 911. But here's where I have to come clean and admit that there was probably a lot more time in the Taycan that I daren't extract because the car is so numb and unpredictable. And consider this: the Taycan spent about seven seconds stuck at its "rev limit" on Conrod Straight, whereas the 911 was constantly pulling throughout Conrod Straight, resulting in the 911 pulling just a 0.7 second advantage over the Taycan. In other words, even though the 911 corners way faster, it will need a track that has stupidly long straights, or just a tight and technical track devoid of long straights to outrun the Taycan, which is a very exacting scenario. I believe that on most tracks, the Taycan Turbo S would whoop a 911 GT3 RS, and who knows if they'll eventually come out with a Taycan GT3 RS, or if they'll "protect" the 911 from the Taycan *COUGH like they protected it from the Cayman COUGH*.


Still think it's unfair to compare the 911 and Cayman to the Taycan? For new technology to successfully replace the old, it not only has to be on-par with the old, but it has to be better. On paper, the Taycan is among the fastest, and therefore quantifiably, the one of the best sports car Porsche has ever mass produced.

...but it just hasn't a speck of soul in it. It's a car for people who love numbers more than cars and driving. It's a car for people who have to have the newest and shiniest. And if you think a sports car is only about numbers and model years, then I'm sorry, but I don't believe we can be friends. I'd much rather drive a diesel Demio over a Taycan. You could connect the ends of its 560kW (751HP, 761PS) batteries to my nipples and it wouldn't stimulate me one bit. Watching manufacturer after manufacturer pump out all these stupidly heavy, awkward looking, pretentious EVs makes me wish it was Hydrogen instead that became the alternate energy source for the future instead of electricity. It just seems like a much less painful transition.

Friday 15 January 2021

My Rave About the FD RX-7

The third, FD generation of the Mazda RX-7 is my childhood dream car. It is the car that introduced me to video games and made me into a petrolhead. It has shaped me from a young age, and thus I am very biased towards it. This is not a review — this is me gushing about my childhood hero, my be all end all dream car, and it is going to be long, dry, perhaps a bit too personal and maybe even a bit cringe. You've been warned.


Mazda has always been largely synonymous with the Wankel Engine, even in the company's early years as an automobile manufacturer. Post WWII, the Japanese government was looking to consolidate part manufacturers to cut down on competition and reduce costs, and Mazda had to carve out a niche for itself as a company to avoid being consolidated into Toyota and Nissan, and thus turned to Germany, where Felix Wankel had been pioneering a revolutionary new engine. While Mazda was neither the first to the party, nor made the most power out of the curious contraption, it was the only one that achieved any sort of longevity with the novel engine, with the 1967 Cosmo Sport being an instant classic in the showrooms. To prove that they have solved the riddle of the Wankel Engine's inherent problems that had plagued all other adopters of this new technology, Mazda entered two Cosmo Sports into the grueling 84-hour Marathon de la Route held at the daunting Nürburgring, with one car failing at the 82nd hour due to axle failure, and the other car going the full 84 Hours, finishing fourth overall — not bad for a conceptually fresh and unproven engine.


Owing to this breakout success, Mazda managed to remain independent as a manufacturer, but more exciting perhaps is how the newly proven Wankel Engine seemed to be the logical next step to replace the traditional Internal Combustion Engine, just as EVs are now threatening the same. The Wankel Engine is more compact, lighter, ran quieter, and was smoother than a traditional piston engine of equivalent power output, but still had reliability issues any new tech is expected to have despite Mazda's success with it, and was notoriously thirsty. That last point relegated the Wankel Engine mostly to sports car applications when the 1970s oil crisis hit — an application where it felt most at home, being a lightweight, rev happy engine that needed to be wrung out to produce power — though it didn't stop Mazda from sticking it into all sorts of other vehicles such as a Familia Sedan, a 3 Rotor Cosmo luxury coupé, a pickup truck of all things, and even a freaking bus!


The first generation Mazda RX-7, chassis code SA22C and later FB3S, bowed in 1978 with the worldwide market in mind. Cheap, light, and fun-to-drive Japanese sports cars were just starting to gain traction in the US thanks to the 240Z, and even though the RX-7 was late to the party, it provided an exciting alternative to its already bloating rivals, characterised by, of course, its unique Wankel Engine. Then the second generation FC3S happened, and I don't want to talk about it more than I already have. In my review of the FC, I said that the third generation, FD3S RX-7 "is leaps and bounds better than the FC in every respect, objective and subjective", and that "It elevated the standards and definition of what a sports car should be and can be". And now it is finally time for me to back up and explain those claims.


The third generation RX-7, chassis code FD3S, was launched in October 1991 in its home market of Japan. While sharing the same name and a familiar chassis code, the FD is such a far leap from the FC that it's very difficult to think of the two as even related. While the FC is a soft, bloated, and boxy knockoff 928, the FD is a low, sleek, curvaceous and seductive beast unlike anything on the road, before or since. Even though the overall length, height, and wheelbase of the FD are all shorter than the FC, the increased width of the FD put the RX-7 for the first time in Japan's larger Class 3 category, to give you an idea of how serious Mazda were about designing the ultimate corner carving machine. Fully capitalising on the Wankel Engine's unique compactness and light weight, the entirety of the 255PS capable powerplant (251HP, 187kW) is situated aft the front axle to finally achieve the perfect 50:50 weight distribution, allowing the stiffer sprung 1,260kg (2,778lbs) package to gracefully dance through corners in conjunction with the precision offered by the Double Wishbones on all four corners (1991 Type R specs, taken from Gran Turismo 6). Tyres were also upsized to 225/50ZR16 front and rear, up from the 205/60VR15 shoeing the top of the line Turbo FC. Standing at only 1,230mm (48.4in) tall, the low, organic, and curvaceous body cuts through opposing air at only 0.31cd, which when coupled with the low frontal area of the sleek FD, puts the bloated and heavy cars of today to shame, as unfair a comparison as that may be to make.


The FD is a very pure, raw, and honest vehicle, if one can make such an assertion without sounding like a moron, and how it looked on the outside is a statement of intent, wholly representative of what lies underneath that immaculately curvaceous sheet metal. In fact, I daresay that the design of the FD is peak sports car design; never again will we be able to have a sports car as light, low and curvaceous as this, due to consumers now wanting everything in their cars, and how lawmakers feel the need to protect people who don't look left right left before crossing from idiots that drive when they shouldn't. Unlike the cars of today, nothing on the FD is fake, or are there only for aesthetic purposes; there are no fake vents, no fake exhaust pipes, no bogus audio piped into the cabin, no pretentious stamped in creases or chiseled out "character lines" that today's mundane and samey cars need to resort to to stand out. Everything on it is functional, and they all blend together so flawlessly, cohesively, and "flow" so well, it leads your eyes around it endlessly, without ever once feeling pretentious or ingenuine. It's like a girl that doesn't need a loud crop top, short skirts, or 10kg of makeup products to stand out; she's just pretty, as-is. As hard as it is for me to pick a favourite angle of the FD, the Series 8 (1998–2002) FD dead on from the rear is probably my favourite. The wraparound light cover with three circular lights on each side almost resembles a weighing scale indicating balance, binding the left and right sides together to also create a sense of cohesion. The four rounded red lights on the unified rear light cluster gives the car a very buttoned-down look, and the adjustable rear wing gives a very real sense of weight visually, suggesting a well put together drive. Coupled with the low and organic looking body of the FD, the unified rear light cluster gives the FD an unmistakable visage that is instantly recogniseable even from a distance.


Impressively (to me at least), the Series 8 RX-7's stock rear wing is an adjustable unit that actually produces downforce! It is possible to change between four angles of attack with the stock wing, at 1, 5, 10, and 14.5 degrees by removing the wedge shaped piece on each wing stand manually, which has four keyholes on the inside leading edge to accommodate the four preset angles of attack. Unfortunately in the Gran Turismo series, the wing doesn't change in appearance even if you change the downforce value, and the keyholes aren't modeled in in the game.


Because the engine is so compact, and because this is 1991 and there hadn't yet been a law that states you need a bit of a "cushion bubble zone" between your bonnet and the engine header, the bonnet line of the FD is set super low, thanks in no small part to the compact Wankel Engine. This in turn necessitated the pop up headlights, since laws at the time at least did require headlights to be a certain height off the ground, meaning that even the flamboyant pop up headlights are actually functional and not just vanity items. Personally speaking, I ADORE pop up and hidden headlights. I can't really explain why. Seeing them just connects my jaded adult self to the 8 year old kid inside me, and it just fills me with such unconditional joy every time I see a set. I love how sleek and cheekily stealthy they look, how they seemingly promise an imminent transformation, and even just tracing the panel gap lines to the beautiful headlight covers fill me with an inexplicable joy. In fact, you could say the same about the entirety of the FD RX-7's body.


Other stylistic standouts are the front bumper of the JDM only Series 8, which have the opened up light cluster below the pop ups. These position lights and turn signals have a mirror finish inside the cylinders, which make the "eyes" glisten in the daylight even when they're off. The car always has a confident, yet gentle look, almost as if it were smiling, without being too in-your-face about it like mid to late 2000s Mazda cars.


The doors too, look like teardrops pulled and stretched back, to give that sense of built up power. The window glass is properly framed, too, unlike those nonsensical frameless windows that need to pop up and down with each door opening. The door handles are flush with the car's body, which was almost unheard of back in the '90s, and it took about twenty years before other manufacturers started to adopt flush door handles in their performance cars and mileage conscious EVs.

(Also, yes, the white Spirit R in the reflection has modified scissor doors)

It is always such a delight to watch light dance across the subtle curves of the clean, widespread front bonnet of an FD as you move around it or as it moves, giving it a surreal sense of motion even if it's standing perfectly still.


The FD RX-7 is so beautiful that I simply cannot find an angle that isn't drop dead gorgeous and just somehow soothing to look at. It's the sort of car that is so charismatic and photogenic that you could point a phone camera at and just shoot for a great photo. While the SA, FB and FC generations that preceded the FD look very much like products of their time, the FD I maintain is the single best looking car to ever be mass produced, in my obviously biased opinion. Even though it was penned in the late 80s to early 90s, it never looks its age. It has an implicit, visceral feel to it that just appeals to something innate in all of us, which is perhaps why it still looks modern today. When I show photos of the car to my non petrolhead friends and family, they are all surprised to learn that the design is older than I am!

Don't worry, this is the first and last time I'm showing my face. I know how ugly I am.

It may surprise some to learn that the FD RX-7 is technically a hatchback! Almost the entire width of the car lifts from wing to the rear greenhouse glass. Even though it has a wide opening and surface area, it's lacking in depth, resulting in a boot that's almost like a kiddy pool in appearance. I think most will still be surprised by how much stuff the FD can carry, however.


Now, I want to know what is up with the discrimination against my FD RX-7 Gran Turismo Sport has, not letting it enter the Hot Hatch Challenge in GT League!

The stylistic theme continues on the interior of the FD: curvaceous, genuine, pleasing to look at, but never obnoxious or distracting. One might find the interior to be rather bland, admittedly, given that the interior is typical 90s Japanese sports car: swathe with nothing more than soulless, black plastic parts typical of cars of its era and price point, with the only reprieve from the monotony being special, limited edition cars with glaring red seats and complementary red stitching.


2002 Spirit R Type A interior.

While lacking in any fanciful materials of today's cars like Alcantara or Carbon Fibre, its appeal being a focused, pure driving machine carries over from the exterior, continuing that sense of cohesion and purity of purpose in design; the dash wraps around the driver, with everything within easy reach and glance, bringing focus naturally to the big, clear gauges on the instrument panel while creating a sense of coddling the driver. The tachometer sits dead centre in the dash and is the largest of the dials, with redline being at about 2 o'clock for easier viewing in the Series 8. Next to the dominating tachometer is the equally sized speedometer, which maxes out at 180km/h (~112mph), where the car is electronically limited to as per the weird jishu-kisei, or "mutual self-restraint" gentlemen's agreement between Japanese manufacturers at the time. The speedometer maxing out at mid 4th gear really makes me feel like a superhero doing insane speeds when in reality, I'm puttering along quite slowly, because of how much it travels in a small speed range, which I'd go as far as argue makes it easier to tell at a glance what sort of speed you're doing without having to read the numbers, though it admittedly is useless past mid fourth gear, and is probably on the top of the list to change for anyone looking to modify their cars. The only button on the steering wheel is the horn, and nothing else to distract you when you're driving, which is something I personally wish more car manufacturers had the sense to do. Amenities and creature comfort include air con, stereo, a cigarette lighter, a few pockets of cubby holes aaaand... that's about it. Anything else would be extra mass, y'know!


Despite the cramped dimensions, the car does feature a double bubble roof design, originally intended to accommodate racing helmets, meaning that, comfort and dignity notwithstanding, even slightly larger Westerners should be able to fit into the car. Once in, the car does an astounding job of lending its occupants an airy, wide open feeling, offering a panoramic view that's almost not an exaggeration to say. There really is a lovely sense of light in the cabin of the FD — even in models not equipped with a sunroof — no doubt helped greatly by the toothpick thin A pillars that could've only been possible in the yesteryear, along with the gigantic rear greenhouse glass that, while beautiful inside and out, probably hurts the chassis rigidity, and I imagine also a manufacturing nightmare, hence why they've become just about nonexistent today. Still, I ADORE the rear greenhouse glass. It gives off such a fighter jet inspired look, affording such a freeing sense of light, and it minimises blind spots and makes parking a breeze.


Lastly, because the later models of the FD RX-7 were never meant for export outside Japan, the car's interior has some... shall we say, quirks and features.


Push LOAD buttin
Insert duscs after"IN" is displayed

The FD RX-7 is considered by many to be the pinnacle of Mazda sports cars. It is, at the very least to me, the pinnacle of creative liberty for Mazda. It was born when technology was adequate, but regulations weren't nearly as strict. It was only with the backing of a rapidly inflating, yet ill-fated economic bubble could a relatively small and independent car company like Mazda finance the development of something to really challenge the larger automotive giants of Honda, Nissan, and Toyota, and perhaps even established brands worldwide. It is often said that the FD RX-7 was designed by a team of passionate engineers when all the accountants and marketing department were away on a vacation, and somehow got greenlit for production. That is what I mean by the car being very "honest". It just oozes and shouts purity of purpose, perhaps even to a fault, so focused on being an engaging, exciting drive, and so little else. It felt like no one but the engineers had a say in the car. It was never offered with any engine other than the Inline 2 Rotor 13B-REW, even when there was a bigger, more powerful 3 Rotor Mazda could've dumped into it, but would've upset the perfect weight balance of the FD. It never came with a convertible, despite the FC's success with it, because that adds extra mass and takes away from chassis rigidity. It was only offered with a 5 Speed Manual, with only two exceptions that I don't want to acknowledge the existence of, let alone talk about. It is a car that knows what it is and what it wants to do, and doesn't bother to try to be anything else, and I love it for that. Cars nowadays simply aren't built with this sort of purity of purpose, this cohesion of a big picture dreamt up by a small team of passionate engineers anymore. It isn't a product separated into tiers based on cost and market trends and demand; rather, it is a sports car, pure, plain and simple. The best that Mazda can give you at the time. And I love it for that.


Powering the flagship sports car of Mazda in the early 90s is of course the company's pièce de résistance: the Wankel Engine, better known by its fans by its in-house name, the Rotary Engine. A close relative to the R26B engine used in the legendary 787B racecar, the Inline 2 Rotor engine in the FD quoted at 1,308cc redlining at a stratospheric 8,000rpm may sound exactly the same to those who are familiar with the FC, but in the FD, they are all sequentially twin turbocharged; only the third production car to feature such a system, after the Porsche 959 and Mazda's own JC Cosmo. A smaller turbocharger with less inertia and less power would come online from near idle to 4,500rpm, and from there, the system would seamlessly switch to the bigger, more powerful turbo once the exhaust gases start seriously flowing, all the way to the redline of 8k. It is a massively complicated system, and as with everything on the FD, was prone to breaking. Diagnosis of the engine, with its miles upon miles of pipes from the twin sequential turbo system, was and still is a nightmare for many owners, with many opting to swap for a much simplified single turbo setup, sacrificing low end torque for reliable top end power. While many Rotary fans are quick to defend the reliability of their engines, saying things like, "they're reliable if you know how to take care of them, bruh", and "well the 787B's engine went full tilt 24 hours straight with no issues", the twin sequential turbo system is perhaps a bit too complicated for its own good, and has been cited to kick the rear end of the car out when the bigger turbo comes online mid corner, which can catch out the inexperienced or unprepared.

But that is not to say that the turbos are bad, per se. Me personally, I love the twin sequential turbo setup of the FD, and wouldn't swap it for anything else. As is the theme of the rest of the car, they are brilliant when they do work. While Rotary Engines are traditionally known to be very peaky engines with pathetic torque figures, the twin sequential turbos give the 13B-REW some semblance of life in the low range, and enough of a kick in the mid range to bring the rear end outwards, especially in the models with the way too slim 225 section tyres at all four corners. Peak power and peak torque comes at 6,500rpm and 5,000rpm respectively. Yes, these figures still suggest a peaky engine. Yes, you will still need to wring the crap out of it to get it to give you the magic. Unlike the turbochargers of today, they aren't designed to compensate for a downsized engine, or to make torque down low so lazy drivers can pass cars without having to downshift in their automatic gearbox SUVs; but rather, they're here to make a very lopsided engine more well rounded for the racetrack. The end result is a car that is never caught unprepared on the track, with adequate revs and torque to propel the featherweight FD out of any complex of corners, even low 2nd gear corners of a tightly wound mountain pass, with the Rotary Engine's natural peakiness taking care of the upper rev range.


Of course, the numbers don't sound like anything special today; a modern FWD hot hatch makes more than what this highly ornate setup does. But I personally find that the FD's torque curve is a very natural fit to the car, as it makes it possible to lug the car out of apexes from as middling as 5,000rpm, and the torque is never surprising or disruptive, just a natural feeling surge that climbs with engine speed, giving you power just as you're ready and able to use it, making for a very cohesive, balanced, and easy car to drive fast. Throttle management out of apexes of corners in the dry is more for ensuring you don't understeer off the track rather than keeping the rear from peeking out in the 255 section rear tyre equipped FDs, which I find difficult to break loose with power alone in any gear higher than 2nd. The sequential twin turbo setup is, to me, an oft neglected aspect — yet a big core component nonetheless I feel — of the FD's central theme: balance and cohesion. It's an especially big help in Gran Turismo Sport, as manual gearboxes shift criminally slowly and awkwardly in this game, and being able to minimise shifting by lugging the car is a godsend.


For comparison to NA Rotary Engines, the NA FC RX-7s made peak power at 7,000 and peak torque at 4,000, redlining at 8,000. The RX-8 made peak power at 8,200 and peak torque at 5,500, of 9,000. As a result of the sequential twin turbos, the FD RX-7 actually goes faster if you short shifted it a little at around 7,500rpm, as heretic as it must sound. Me personally, I wouldn't forgo that sweet sound of revving it out completely, though, as it's not a very perceptible loss without the instantaneous deltas of a racing game, and the car is certainly capable of holding onto a lower gear if approaching a braking point. As was already tradition by that point, Mazda fitted a beeper that was programmed to come on 500rpm before redline, at the magical 7,500rpm. I've personally never found a need for the beeper, as I think the engine is communicative enough without it in the previous games when the beeper wasn't replicated. I can sort of understand why it's there, though, as the engine revs so silky smooth, it's hard to not get lulled into thinking it could go on forever. The beeper does keep the car in tradition and gives it character, so I'm glad it's still there, especially because it doesn't sound like a 1980s alarm clock passing gas into a soiled diaper like the one in the FC.


What's infuriating to me isn't the beeping, but rather, that the turbo gauge is bugged in Gran Turismo Sport: it only toggles instantly between no boost, almost full boost, and full boost, which is most evident when you're launching the car from a standstill like we do in our weekly races. It's so unresponsive that it doesn't even blip at all on downshifts, and it's just an eyesore in what should've been a perfect cockpit experience.


The early 90s in the Japanese sports car scene was truly magical, as every automaker, backed by a short lived economic bubble, vied to claim dominance with their equally daring and innovative flagship sports cars. Nissan had their "Godzilla", three generations of the GT-R. Honda had the now legendary and much revered NSX. Toyota would soon drop a bombshell with the A80 Supra. Mitsubishi and Subaru would go on to have the rivalry of a lifetime with their Evos and Imprezas. The comparatively small, independent automaker in Mazda swam with these sharks and not only survived, but thrived. The debuting FD, when tested and raced in the professional hands of Best Motoring, set the fastest lap both in the race and time attack around Tsukuba, beating out Godzilla and the NSX, both of which costing more. It only gets beat by the AWD Godzilla and the Mid Engined NSX in the 0-400m dash, and took top time in a slalom test. It even took Bathurst 12 Hours 3 years in a row, from 1992 to 1994. In the hands of private customers, the FD was truly the Swiss Army Knife of sports cars, a testament to how well its base design catered to anything motorsports. It partook in and excelled at multiple disciplines of motorsports, from D1GP, Touge runsBonneville Salt Plane top speed runs, and even won Super GT in the GT300 class in 2006. It was truly the Jack of All Trades, and even master of some, which is why the FD RX-7 is such a respected household name in the aftermarket, with support for the car is still thriving today. As brilliant as the car already is fresh out of the factory, the combination of a lightweight, low slung, low drag, wide spread 2 door body with a perfect 50:50 weight distribution and a rev happy, compact engine up front driving the rear wheels proves to be an irresistible and highly capable base upon which many tuners still choose to build upon even today, such as Fujita Engineering, Knight Sports, Pan Speed, R Magic, Racing Beat, and RE Amemiya.


While it debuted strong, I struggle to make a case for it having bowed out the same. Owing to lacklustre sales figures in export markets, the FD RX-7 pulled out of America and Europe with just four years, from 1992 to 1995. That means that the more refined, further improved FD RX-7s were JDM exclusives. And if you know how quickly Japanese cars in the 90s evolved, you'd know that this is a big deal.



In the 90s, Japanese car manufacturers were limited by the aforementioned gentlemen's agreement to advertise no more than 280PS for their cars. This meant that, instead of using raw power as a crush, manufacturers had to look to other means to better and improve their cars, resulting in frantic, almost yearly small updates that often decided which car had an edge over its rivals. Due to lacklustre sales figures in export markets and Mazda's rapidly worsening financial situation in the 90s, updates for the RX-7 were minor compared to its contemporary rivals. Mazda's financial situation was such that it had to turn to Ford for help, who in 1996 owned as much as a 33.4% stake in Mazda. Along with Ford came a frantic restructuring of the company to increase profitability, and it was clear then, even in the mid 90s, that the RX-7 — and Rotary Engines in general — were in the proverbial back seats as crummy as the ones some FDs came with; there more for formalities and insurance than actually being used to accommodate anything of value. In the 12-year lifespan of the FD in the Japanese Domestic Market, the GT-R spanned three generations with leaps in its ATTESA AWD and Super HICAS rear wheel steering systems, getting a 6 speed in 1998. The NSX got a "big minor change" in 1997 (yes, Japanese expressions are weird) that saw its engine bored out and paired with a six speed gearbox, and then a major facelift with much improved aerodynamics in 2000. The Evo and Impreza each had seven or so versions since their inception up to 2002, but honestly, who can really keep track of those two in the 90s? The RX-7 in comparison, had its power slightly bumped a few times and went through three different rear wing and badge designs, I guess?


While pale in comparison to its rivals' evolution, the RX-7 did get some very important changes, in addition to the aforementioned power bump. Most important and impactful of these I believe are the upsizing of tyres from 225mm sections on all four corners to 235/45ZR17 up front and 255/40ZR17 in the rear for the top of the line Type RS model and special editions, which were previously exclusive to the excruciatingly limited Type RZ. This finally gave the "normal" RX-7s the driving characteristics of a proper FR cornering machine. In addition to this, chassis rigidity was also strengthened, resulting in a car that not only approaches its limits more linearly, but also makes it less nervous at and past its limits. Perhaps to compensate for not getting a 6 speed manual, the shortened fifth and final gear ratios that were also originally exclusive to the Type RZ has been made standard across the 5MT range (except for the oddball Bathurst R), which, when coupled with the slight power bumps the FD received over the years, means you'll actually see fifth on Suzuka's home straight in a late model FD. Lastly, the single most beautiful colour in all of recorded human history, Innocent Blue Mica, was made available for the final facelift on almost all models, replacing the very, very odd Montego Blue Mica. Not that the endless creases and curves of the FD really needed fancy paint to show it off, but with these high contrast paintjobs like Innocent Blue Mica and the Spirit R exclusive Titanium Gray Metallic to further accentuate it, the FD becomes almost dangerously addictive to stare at on the road.



The Spirit R that's in most modern racing games, such as Gran Turismo Sport, is the final model of the RX-7, meant to commemorate the end of its 25-year production run. Because the FD was on life support for the latter half of its life however, the Spirit R is simply a top of the line Type RS model with some mostly aesthetic bits thrown into it. However, one look at that list of special bits, and it's impossible to not salivate, as they're all from the best in the industry: Brakes are drilled rotors from Brembo, with special red paint and Mazda lettering on the calipers. Wheels are upsized to 17 inches, of immaculate BBS design. Seats are full on, bare Kevlar backed, thin buckets from Recaro in the Type A, in an attention commanding red, accompanied by red stitching in the steering wheel, shift knob, and parking brake lever. The steering wheel on all Series 8 RX-7s are Nardi items. And while not advertised, I'm sure Mazda fiddled with the breathing of the engine in the Spirit R, as not only is it ever so slightly faster, it also sounds distinctly different from the rest of its brethren, with its otherwise defining Rotary whine almost inaudible in the cockpit, offering only a generic, muffled exhaust noise to go along with your drive. The end result of all this produces what Gran Turismo Sport claims to be 296PS (292HP, 217kW) @ 6,500rpm and 332Nm (245.3lb-ft) @ 5,500rpm for the sportiest variant of the Spirit R, the Type A.


While extensive, the list of changes doesn't add up to a radically different driving experience in the Spirit R. The changes aren't as transformative as a Honda Type R or a Subaru 22B, but one look at a Spirit R, and everything just feels so... special, yet so naturally fitting. Nothing screams "90s special limited edition" like BBS wheels, and the red Recaro bucket seats make the regular ones look ghastly, so much so I almost wonder why they were locked behind special edition models. They seem to contrast and complement the body colours of the FD so well, though it does have the unfortunate side effect of making a red FD look... overwhelmingly red. Even though this is a limited edition model, these parts just look so right on the FD I wouldn't have the car any other way.


So here we are. I've bored you to death and back with the entire history of the FD RX-7. Now the question is, "how does it drive?"

It's worth noting that, as with most production cars in Gran Turismo Sport, the RX-7's stock settings are... very off. The spring rates are inconsistent across Gran Turismo 5, 6, and Sport, and the game defaults to -0.5° Camber for the front and -1.5° for the rear on almost all road cars, along with 0° toe up front and +0.6° for the rear toe. Gran Turismo 6 and the car's brochure both state the RX-7 has a 135mm (5.31in) ground clearance both front and rear, but Gran Turismo Sport instead mucks that up by giving the FD 120mm front (4.72in) and 130mm (5.12in) in the rear, throwing off the perfect weight balance of the FD. I've tried my best to look up the original alignment of the FD to no avail, and with the game's ambiguous units for damping, it's impossible to really replicate what the car would handle like if it were truer to real life. All of my driving impressions therefore are formed within the game, using the game's botched stock settings.


Even with all the muck ups, the Spirit R drives freaking amazing in the game.

Owing to its front midship layout, the lightness of the Rotary Engine, the resulting impeccable balance, and its impossibly low dimensions of its body, the car stops on a dime and slices into corners so effortlessly yet intuitively, that I'm forced to use the cliché of "telepathic" to describe it. It is an absolute delight in its precision and communication with the driver. The turn-in of the FD RX-7 I daresay is better than most bonda-fide rear mid engine supercars of any era, as I find that they tend to have a lot of "grandma hand holding understeer" built into them from the factory — not so in the FD. On corner exits, the steering feel never stops tugging away at you as you feel the weight shift over the rear, making for a very neutral and communicative corner exit.


Whether by design or just a happy coincidence, the diminutive dimensions of the cockpit mean that you're sat so low to the ground, with the gear lever shockingly close to the steering wheel, lending themselves so well to creating a sense that you really are in a racing car, and it's endless encouragement, affirmation, and drama, and it somehow always feels so fresh, just so right, every drive. In addition to the low seating position, you as the driver sit dead centre lengthwise in the car, and the car gives you a wonderful sense of rotation right about your bum whenever you take the steering wheel off centre, an intuitive feel the likes of which not many cars can give. You know exactly where each tyre is at any given point because of where you're seated, and you're never left to guess or be caught by surprise. Coupled with the car's perfect 50:50 weight distribution, the centre seating position really does give a phenomenally tactile sensation that the car is pivoted right between your feet, in the palm of your hands. Every little twitch of your every extremity results in an immediate and proportional change in the car, and it is such a joy to have a dance partner as capable and always willing as the FD.


What I find truly amazing is not only how the car never once breaks character in the entire sequence from braking for a corner and powering out, exhibiting an unshakable sense of balance and predictability, but also how engaging and rewarding the whole experience is. You feel everything in the car, and everything is within your control entirely. The car is such a playful, charismatic thing, making you as the driver pay attention to and be mindful of Every. Single. Thing. that goes on with the car when you chuck it into a corner. Braking for a corner? Yes, the front tyres are naturally the limiting factor in how well you decelerate, but make sure you don't turn the wheel too much, or the car will lean and elongate your braking distances, or worse still, slide the rear end out. The rear end of the car feels a little too soft for my liking, and there's excessive roll in the rear, which can very quickly unstick the rear end despite the ample 255 section tyres. On corner exits, everything comes into play; the chassis rigidity, the suspension setup that is now considered soft, the engine revs, the rear tyre grip, the front tyre grip, steering feel, road surface, balance and weight of the car... you can take nothing for granted in the FD, and as a result, you have to be on top of everything at all times in the FD, and it delivers in spades on all fronts, which is such an excruciating rarity among cars of any nationality and era.


I get that it all sounds very intimidating, requiring the utmost skill and dedication to drive. While the FD demands everything from its driver, it is at the same time, overwhelmingly cooperative and always predictable, and therefore never intimidating. It just takes it upon itself to keep communicating to you how every component is doing at all times. It never does anything unexpected or even slightly rude if you treat it right, yet at the same time, will happily oblige you and kick up a mess if you ask it to. Slides can be held at whim and corrected just as quickly, because the core ingredients of a pure sports car, those being light weight, balance, and communication, all come together to ensure that the car behaves in a predictable fashion even when tyre grip is lost. There are no electronic nannies aside from ABS and a wholly unnoticeable EBD to yank control away from you when you most need it or least expect it — not even Traction Control. Everything is in your control and yours alone all the time. The car simply never betrays the trust it so instantaneously builds in its driver, and any accidental whoopsie is 100% my fault or overeager zest. I love that. That brings SUCH a huge smile to my face every time I go for a drive in my FD. And every time I do drive it, I never, ever want to stop. Not only is it capable and fun to drive, but it's so easy I could do it for hours on end, especially because the lightweight car is gentle on its tyres and brakes, though the heat from the transmission tunnel might cook you alive first before anything else, as these cars run notoriously hot even at responsible, sensible speeds.


THIS is what driving is all about. THIS is the engagement, neutrality, communication, predictability, specialness I'm looking for when I drive a sports car. THIS is why I have probably inadvertently mentioned the FD RX-7 in every review I've done up to this point, because this is the golden standard to which any and everything that wants to proclaim themselves to be sporty has to be held. A sports car is supposed to engage and enthrall me. It is supposed to reward me for performing an art form well, and punish me when I fail to pay it proper respect. It is an excellent car for the beginners to learn the basics of driving fast, as the FD is such a effective communicator, and also for the more experienced to play with and hone their skill.


While all that sounds amazing, I really struggle to make a case for why someone would buy a nearly 4 million Yen FD RX-7 in the early 2000s (trust me, you want at least a Type RS if you're keeping it stock, the upsized, staggered tyres totally transform the car). The R34 GT-R has more power, more gears, and is a lot easier to drive, even if they're excruciatingly close in lap times in my own testing. The Impreza is a lot more practical and cheaper in addition — even in Spec C trim — and any of these AWD machines will make mincemeat of the FD in adverse conditions. The S2000 may be down on power compared to the FD, but it has more gears, revs higher, is lighter, also cheaper, has a stiffer chassis, a bulletproof engine, has a retractable top, and even handles way better! The NSX-R will, in every measurable aspect, outperform the FD, weighing the same, having more gears, much more advanced aerodynamics, and has a rear-midship layout better suited for the track. And if one looks globally for competition and alternatives, the picture becomes even more bleak, as non Japanese manufacturers weren't subject to the weird gentlemen's agreement. The 996 911 GT3 is an all out track weapon that can give you the rawest of track experiences, and is a lot faster everywhere. As I previously mentioned, the FD was on life support in its later years, and its age really shows when you compare it to its contemporary sports car rivals. The suspension setup in the FD is also notably soft for a sports car, and I'm not really sure what Mazda was going for there, especially since the rest of the car seems to scream, "no compromise sports car". If you're not careful with it, you can very easily and quickly find yourself... becoming very busy with the Nardi steering wheel, shall we say. It's not a car you can abuse around a racetrack, but rather, something you have to come to understand and work with, more akin to a 993 Carrera Club Sport in that sense.


Despite its competitive shortcomings however, I urge anyone and everyone who loves cars and loves driving to try driving an FD RX-7 if they ever get the chance. Taken on its own, enjoyed for what it is and what it can bring to the table, it is still a fantastic sports car, one of the best ever produced in my mind. It is the standard to which I hold all sports and modern cars, which at first glance might seem unfair, given how I was just singing praises for the car's uncompromising and focused personality. But, if you can't deliver a driving experience today that is as good as a chassis that's older than I am, or out perform such a granddad that was on life support in his last years, then what business have you in saying your car is sporty, or that it's even a sports car?


The FD has shown me that a sports car is an ideology materialised. It is passionate intent. With today's technology and much more financially able manufacturers, I cannot imagine it being difficult to put into production a 2 door rear drive sports car that weighs around 1.3 tons with about 300HP and electronic nannies that can be turned completely off. The problem is, do you want to make me such a car? Do you think it will make you a profit? Do you think it fits your brand image? And that's why I'm always so harsh in my car reviews, and why I have probably inadvertently mentioned the FD RX-7 at least once in every review I've written so far. If you want to make a sports car, make it better than this, then we'll talk. Benchmark this sense of balance. Make sure your sports car is as involving, predictable, playful, and communicative as this. It's entirely irrelevant to me what your 0-100km/h times are, your 0-400m times, or how many gs you can pull around a skidpad. Time and technology will keep marching forward and make whatever numbers you can conjure up now seem pitiful. Can you make me something that never gets old? Can you give me a dynamic experience that constantly demands my everything to dance together? Can you make something that is unquantifiable, yet so magical? Can it make me feel the things that the FD can make me feel?


A sports car isn't supposed to make sense. It's something anyone of any age, from 7 to 77, takes one look at and think, "I want that!" Nobody needs a sports car, in the same way that nobody needs a 3000 dollar mechanical watch, a Van Gogh painting, to hit balls with bats, to design pixel art, or to practice Kendou with swords costing thousands of dollars. Rather, these are sports, these are art forms people pursue because they find meaning and satisfaction in doing them and doing them well. The acts and technology used may be outdated, but there still exists an appreciation for the workmanship of a watch, they can see the historic value in an old oil painting, and appreciate the technique required on display. I wholly believe that sports cars fit the description of all of the above and more. To draw upon the sword analogy (pun entirely unintentional), I don't want a sword that massages my hands and fires missiles and glows in the dark; that'd be missing the point of a sword entirely. I want a sword that is well weighted and balanced, is comfortable to hold, makes a "whoosh" sound when I angle a cut right, and is sharper than anything else. That's it. I don't want it to protect me, much less others. It is a weapon, I'll exercise the due caution and respect. I want to be careful about slicing my fingers off. I never want to be lackadaisical around it, because it should make me feel the exact opposite. It is much the same with cars. I just want it to drive well. I don't want it to help me keep lanes, brake for me, or be my phone... it is a weapon, I'll exercise the due caution and respect and be held responsible if anything happens. I never want to be lackadaisical around it, in the same way that I don't want others to be lackadaisical around my car, because safety I personally believe is a shared responsibility. I just don't want my sports cars to be so... complicated. To have its focus split so many ways. Instead of using technology to make me a sword that fires missiles, I want technology to make me a sword that is tougher and shaper. I don't want technology to take away from the actual act and feel of cutting with a sword. And if it happens to looks beautiful, then all the more better.


Of course I do want safety. I do want to be able to walk away from a crash and still be able to do it again. I believe in learning from mistakes. I want airbags, ABS, crumple zones, and rollover protection. That's it, really, and the FD I know for sure has the first two. I don't want the car to intervene and interject. I don't want it to intrude, and I don't want it to overwhelm itself. Thing is, with cars chasing horsepower figures, they need that kind of crap to keep themselves in check. No one is driving a 700HP car without aids.


I get that I'm in a shocking minority, which is probably why modern sports cars are such compromised, cumbersomely complicated and confused things nowadays. When I drive modern performance cars that do 0-100 in under 3 seconds with inane power that no one can possibly exploit even on a racetrack, held back by twenty million electronic nannies onboard that can't be switched off, meddling at every turn, I can't help but to wonder what cars the generation after mine will drive when learning how to go fast. I can't help but to wonder if they'll ever learn to perceive the nuances of a purely analogue sports car, know what they mean, and train up the muscle memory to react accordingly. I can't help but to wonder if they will then become the engineers of performance cars, and if they can understand how to make a car go fast or be fun to drive. I wonder if cars will be set up by computers more than people. Most importantly, I can't help but to wonder, in a world where instant gratification is quickly becoming the only affirmation in our lives, and where appearances and numbers mean more than anything else, if there's a place for old classics like the RX-7 and the highly refined art form it brings to our streets, if they will ever be understood even by the microscopic minority of the people who love cars. It will genuinely break my heart if one day a kid gets out of an FD RX-7 and tells me something like "it's slow sloppy and stupid I hate it".


I believe the FD RX-7 is an art form both in the tangible styling of the car, and the immeasurable sensations it delivers to a driver from behind its wheel. We're irrational creatures, some of whom buy expensive watches when their phones can tell them the time, some of whom hit balls for a living, some repeat a sword Kata in isolation thousands of times, and some of us love driving, even if just by ourselves. If we were rational beings, we wouldn't be so opposed to CVTs, and SUVs will be a niche market segment. Great cars like the NSX and the Viper wouldn't have a place in our world. A sports car is almost a celebration of irrationality, of the intangible. It's supposed to be unabashedly pandering. Raw. Communicative. Honest. Beautiful. Balanced. I should be able to trust it and take liberties with it, and it should duly slap me across the face if I take things too far. And it is these unquantifiable traits that make the FD RX-7 so, so beloved. I don't care about 0-100 times. I want an experience that will, like the styling of the FD, never get old. I want the car to talk to me. I want to daily drive it, to show everyone what I'm passionate about. I want to drive it. By myself. I want it to be special. I want it to be selfish. I want it to be made with my enjoyment its top priority. I want it to be uncompromising. I want to see, feel, someone's soul, passion, and intent in it, not profit margins and PR stunts. And cars like that are excruciatingly rare, if not extinct, by today's standards.


While I love the FD RX-7 more than I can possibly put into words, I'm... almost glad that Mazda hasn't tried to build a direct successor to it. Seeing the NSX and Supra name be dishonoured like they've been, I can't help but to worry about the same fate befalling the "next RX". Maybe we really can't have an excellent sports car in the same vein as the FD today. Maybe it's something that could only have been possible in the 90s. I can recognise when I'm in the minority, that I'm an ancient dinosaur when it comes to my tastes. I'm just glad to see that same spirit alive in modern Mazdas, and that they seem to be doing well for themselves. I'm glad my memories and my feelings towards the FD hasn't been insulted by a subpar product that shares nothing in philosophy with the original. And maybe that's good enough of a victory in a world where the Mustang has become an electric SUV, and half of Lamborghini's sales are from the Urus.


I apologise for the long, philosophical, and borderline political rant. This is just too near and dear to me. I promise this is the last time I'm going to ramble so much about philosophy and politics (until I review an electric car...). Just as is with sports cars, I believe the best writings and expressions come from honesty. And I want to embody that so much, it perhaps works to my detriment, as is probably already evident in my reviews and life choices. It is the reason I took up engineering and Japanese in college. It is the reason why I always fly to Hiroshima every time I visit Japan. To me, the FD is neither a good or a bad car. It's not a Beater or a Sleeper. It isn't simply the Car of the Week, or even the Car of the Year for me. It is, quite simply, The One.