FTO AUSTRALIA

manofwood wrote:FTO's rock my socks! A bug-eyed WRX couldnt even hold the pace against Bennoz and myself at wakefield FFS!

FTO's are awesome, leave them alone or someone's going to get stabbed with a soldering iron! End of whinge, and hopefully end of negging the Fresh Tourer!

Hahahah...+1

Seriously, enough effing whinging about it should've been turbo or super... wah wah. Get a manual, do smart mods and learn how to drive the car ffs. Forced induction ain't everything. Launch aside (if it's a 4wd next to you), a bolt ons modded fto mivec has no problems dusting off a lot of stock turbos and even light tune turbo cars.

Still want something faster ??? Get a turbo base and mod the snot out of it.

Delvance wrote:

manofwood wrote:FTO's rock my socks! A bug-eyed WRX couldnt even hold the pace against Bennoz and myself at wakefield FFS!

FTO's are awesome, leave them alone or someone's going to get stabbed with a soldering iron! End of whinge, and hopefully end of negging the Fresh Tourer!

Hahahah...+1

Seriously, enough effing whinging about it should've been turbo or super... wah wah. Get a manual, do smart mods and learn how to drive the car ffs. Forced induction ain't everything. Launch aside (if it's a 4wd next to you), a bolt ons modded fto mivec has no problems dusting off a lot of stock turbos and even light tune turbo cars.

Still want something faster ??? Get a turbo base and mod the snot out of it.

Whos whinging, (beside the guy who said he was and you who +1 him for it) we are just having a discussion if thats all right with you

I8AFRE wrote:WE KNOW IT WASNT EVER MEANT TO BE AND WE ARE SAYING THAT IS A SHAME THAT I WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE

Dude and you forgot about the other 300 cars (slight exageration) that were more powerful than it. Car of the year doesnt mean sh*t, look they give that to commodores all the time.... enough said haha

No offence mate, but... WRONG.

I know what you're saying, and sure it'd be nice if the FTO had more power, but...

1. Commodores don't get Japanese COTY. There aren't Commodores in Japan. FAIL.
2. There were 300 more powerful JAP cars from the same period that the FTO was designed and released? Putting that power through the front wheels? FAIL.

As said elsewhere, more power = Supra. Mitsu didn't fail, only you guys who picked the wrong car did

manofwood wrote:FTO's rock my socks! A bug-eyed WRX couldnt even hold the pace against Bennoz and myself at wakefield FFS!

yeah that is all down to driver skill though theres a huge amount of time to gain when you get good at driving on a track, like ~5 seconds. on the list i posted earlier it shows i bet a few GTR's

the FTO was built for cornering i reckon

SG wrote:

manofwood wrote:FTO's rock my socks! A bug-eyed WRX couldnt even hold the pace against Bennoz and myself at wakefield FFS!

yeah that is all down to driver skill though theres a huge amount of time to gain when you get good at driving on a track, like ~5 seconds. on the list i posted earlier it shows i bet a few GTR's

the FTO was built for cornering i reckon

Exactly! I was all over that Rex like a rash, he slowly started pulling away on the straight, but round the corners I went past him like he was going backwards.

SG wrote:
yeah that is all down to driver skill though theres a huge amount of time to gain when you get good at driving on a track, like ~5 seconds. on the list i posted earlier it shows i bet a few GTR's

the FTO was built for cornering i reckon

what driver skill? That was the first time i've ever put my car on a track (besides my Ian Luff driving courses), and i've only ever owned commodores before the mitsu!

lol thats some good driving then... unless you were on r compound tyres and he wasnt?

nicholas wrote:

I8AFRE wrote:WE KNOW IT WASNT EVER MEANT TO BE AND WE ARE SAYING THAT IS A SHAME THAT I WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE

Dude and you forgot about the other 300 cars (slight exageration) that were more powerful than it. Car of the year doesnt mean sh*t, look they give that to commodores all the time.... enough said haha

No offence mate, but... WRONG.

I know what you're saying, and sure it'd be nice if the FTO had more power, but...

1. Commodores don't get Japanese COTY. There aren't Commodores in Japan. FAIL.
2. There were 300 more powerful JAP cars from the same period that the FTO was designed and released? Putting that power through the front wheels? FAIL.

As said elsewhere, more power = Supra. Mitsu didn't fail, only you guys who picked the wrong car did

No offence taken mate
1) I didnt say commodores got japenese COTY, i just said they got COTY and they did in australia for numerous years. But seriously only mums and pops would buy a car on the fact that it got car of the year so really its null point. FAIL
2) i even stated i was exagerating and no one said anything about FWD vs RWD we are just taking about cars in general FAIL
And lastely thats all we are talking its it would of been nice, we know they didnt and we know they had there reason just would have been nice thats all

Whats r compound? i have potenza adrenalines on my car, 215 wide. Now they have massive chunks and gouges ripped out of them from 'ahem' understeer handbrake saves and hitting the dirt once!

racing compound / semi slicks
they have a softer rubber compound

and you cna basiclaly whoop anyone whos on street tyres with them hehe

The adrenalines i believe have r compound shoulder blocks for cornering yet retain normal rubber elsewhere for cold performance and streetability.

.... I love the way my car looks....
.... I love the way my car sounds....
.... I love the way my car drives....
End of story.

Honestly a couple of you guys are kind of funny
Car of the year just means a lot of japanese people like to drive around a country with no roads in FTO's..along with several million other drivers.

I'm not dreaming about some FTO supercar, or whinning about FWD, or for that matter complaining that Mitsubshi got it wrong...even thought I do think so
The FTO has got something kind of unique..looks and a certain feel about it..but:::
it should never have been 6cyl! a 2Lt v6 with pistons that look like they should be in lawnmower's & engine design that doesn't handle hp increases too well..mainly because it was never designed to be turboed and built accordingly(6A12tt's seem to be heavily revised).
Sure it sounds great & revs like a 2 stroke, but if that's all you want it's not much more than a Lancer. Then there's the trans problems. The FTO is limited by it's weight, now if Mitsu had put a slightly de-tuned 4g63t into it with RWD or better still, AWD then it'd be close to supercar class in HP:weight ratio..that would be some car! no??

Here's my thoughts..a 2Lt 4g63t+ FW/AWD front transaxle assy is just begging to be dropped into any FTO..surely someone has tried it already, can't be that hard to do.
Who said turbo cars aren't everything?..never owned one, have you
hell, yes they are!
And supras, 300zx"s, skylines & GT3000's have something FTO's don't have...weight!
lol.
BTW did I say I love my FTO (well not so much lately..it's being a pita)

Righto...

First of all... Turbo FTOs are all that great... I can gaurantee that Manofwood and Bennoz could nail me round the track, despite having a lot less power...

Secondly, FTO's aren't designed to compete against GTR's, .... Thats why mitsi had the EVO and 3000GT...

Mitsi had 2x AWD Turbo's.. they needed some variety... The FTO hit the mark PERFECTLY!!!

150kw from an N/A 2L??? Thats impressive even by todays standards!

I.e. 2006 Mazda 6.... 2.3L = 122KW
2006 Mazda 3 .... 2.0L = 108Kw
2006 MX-5... 2.0L = 112Kw
1994 FTO...2L = 150kw!!!!

Think about it from a manufactures point of view...

It would be nice if they were AWD 6a13tt from standard.... but if they were... no P Platers would have them... and they'd cost three times as much second hand....

FtoSam wrote: 150kw from an N/A 2L??? Thats impressive even by todays standards!

I.e. 2006 Mazda 6.... 2.3L = 122KW
2006 Mazda 3 .... 2.0L = 108Kw
2006 MX-5... 2.0L = 112Kw
1994 FTO...2L = 150kw!!!!

and an s2000's 2.0L N/A motor is 200kws ATFW

the best way to go with a high revving motor isn't 4 f'ing cam shafts and 6 cylinders with all their valve springs! its just wasting the extra 2.0l capacity at high revs and turning it into a 1.6l. IMO...

I was neck and neck with a mitsu club aquaintance's 1.6l mivec on sunday all the way down the strip like 2 cars in a parking lot, both with the same sort of mods, changing at 8k each gear...

and he only weighs 100kg less.

gearing is a bit different though.

if we're talking about motors that should have gone in there is should have been a 4cyl turbo 4g63 i reckon.

or pull a honda and make a 2.0l 4cyl with a 8k rpm rev limit with light and slippery components.

You track guys just keep going around in circles
I agree with you, 100%, but what I'm saying is if you want to stay stock, then that's fine, MIVEC is great, but what about non-MIVEC or if you want something more than stock, then there's not many places you can go with the FTO (even rhymes).

Forget comparing them with GTR's and the EVO is legendary; the GT3000 wasn't a big engineering success & even the earlier models (GTO's) weren't that popular...but they are all economically challenged.

Now the FTO was just the thing! dead right..Jap car of the year
It was definetely radical designing, especially for '94 in a japanese vehicle, nothing quite like it..sleek, unique styling, long wheelbase (for a small car) sporty & very appealing..plus affordable. Drop a FWD power unit into it, and it will appeal to the masses. Even the '2LT' v6 was somewhat radical. The car screams performance, on a limited budget...but comes up a bit short.

Now if you compare a 2Lt v6 to a 2Lt 4 you have an 8 valve advantage, plus variable cam timing, better breathing and more torque. Better to compare it to a Nissan 2lt IL6 and they have huge potential.
FWD is traditionally an economical decision, sure they corner fast, but there are other limitations involved, as you know, so that's where I think they went wrong. No serious performance car had been FWD.They made it a 149Kw MIVEC power limited vehicle. I don't think 2.5Lt v6 conversions do much to the car..turbo or not The factory single turbo 6A12 was a dismal failure, and I really think a v6 was the wrong option.
I still believe that if they had utilised the EVO powerplant in a de-tuned version, with a turbo option, they would have got everything right..even without RWD.
Anyway, it's all hypothetical..unless you want to do it!

Sorry but hot hatches aren't performance cars?

you see they need to be set up right to be performance cars

i've seen race prepped civics beat race prepped s2000's around a track. and dont say the s2000's werent trying because in one vid the left rear wheel came off of one!

they're only good because they're light though. and that civics can weigh well under a tonne and get a 13 sec n/a quarter.

thats why i also reckon the eclipse will be a failed sports car it weighs over 1300 i think. the 3.8mivec is too much...

testlabmonkey wrote:.... I love the way my car looks....
.... I love the way my car sounds....
.... I love the way my car drives....
End of story.

x2 !!!!

if the Eclipse as you said weighs in around 1300kgs with a 3.8l that is good, as the fto is at most 50-100kgs under that, keeping in mind that is with full tank of fuel and so on.
so there is not that much between them, power to weight would be closs to the fto or a little higher. it also dos 0-60m/h in around 6seconds
so I would say that it would be a great car
also the extra weight would be over the front weels to so it would make less chance of under stear. if that not right please tell me I