BRZ vs Mustang - Here is the review the haters have been waiting for.

[DarkSunrise]

The review is pretty straight-forward IMO. The Track-Pack Mustang put down better lap times and had more power, but the reviewer/Pobst agreed the BRZ was the more rewarding car to drive. That's all it says, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, the BRZ won this "best drivers' car" comparison, but which car you personally prefer will depend on whether you want power/lap times or the better drivers' car. I know which I prefer, but I wouldn't think anyone was an idiot for choosing the other. They're both great cars, just made for different purposes.

[Frost]

Chances are that the BRZ will teach you and make you a better driver than the Mustang can in the same span of time. There's a reason why both reviewers like the BRZ and it's because it is more engaging and thus you tend to learn and become better with it.

I personally love the Mustang - it is such a fun cruiser although I only drove a 2007 V6 auto but it was an enjoyable machine. However, the limits of that car are harder to get to without crossing over it. I haven't driven a BRZ or FR-S (yet) but if it's anything like my old Mister 2, I will learn a lot more from it than I ever did on my IS300 or the 'Stang.

To me, that's the most important - as someone here said, the best mod is the driver mod. 1.5seconds on an 89 second lap is a decent amount but that's a PRO racing both cars - when I hit the track, I highly doubt I'm racing against Pabst-twins all the time and chances are I will probably be able to compete decently well against a 'Stang. That's good enough for me!

So all in all, it's a great comparo and I like the results. If the 'Stang wiped the floor with the BRZ (> 5 secs), then I would be concerned to some degree.

[Spaceywilly]

so does anyone in this thread actually read the previous posts before they reply? people are just saying the same things over and over...

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

The AVG consumer wouldn't look at the SMALL list of "sporty cars" when looking for "sporty cars" though..

If we're considering the AVG consumer to be dumb enough to shop for a v6 mustang..Then it's quite obvious the Avg consumer would also think ANY car that has "sleek design ques" would be a sporty car...

Any car that LOOKS fast would be a sporty car.
Any car with colored stitch and a manual gearbox would be a "Sporty car" to the consumer who looks at a v6 mustang for thrills..

If this were the case then NEITHER of these cars are anywhere CLOSE to the top of that list because then you have to thrown in a bunch of intangible variables that can appear just because of something as simple as " hyundai decided to restyle their c-pillar and people think it's superfast now."


However if you're trying to move away from the "endless variables" of "imaginary consumer Group A" then the only path to stray to would be people who know a v6 mustang is a joke of a car and to compare it to a car which is considered a sports car or is taken seriously in the "sports car world" is downright foolish.

I'm not a Mustang fan but all the negative shit you spew makes no sense. The 2011+ Stangs especially the BOSS have become better handling cars. And it's so funny that you trolled the damn car with a Toyota Camry V6 comparison. You are no better than the Mustang guys who talk shit about the BRZ/FRS. Just listening to your two post makes me sick.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Your wrote "the FR-S/BRZ on 215s has more tire width per weight than the V6 Mustang on 255s". There are many other factors that affect grip, one of them being that bigger tires will also increase contact patch.

1. Bigger tires don't necessarily give a bigger contact patch.
2. Bigger contact patch doesn't necessarily give greater grip

Bigger contact patch at the same loading per square inch will generally give more grip, but that means a heavier load hence commensurately greater grip is *required* just to pull the same cornering g's if all the load is coming from mass and not aero.

I had said that the FR-S/BRZ has more tire width per weight vs. the Mustang. You said:

It's not just width. The Mustang's 255/40R19 tires have a larger diameter, so in addition to a wider contact patch, the Mustang also has a longer contact patch.

Obviously there are other advantages to smaller tires; my point was simply that you really can't only look at tire width per weight.

Wider tires o generate more lateral grip and it's not due to "increased contact patch". How much more is generally overstated and it is going to be something less than a straight linear relationship.

Taller tires do not inherently generate more lateral grip.

Generally, a shorter/wider contact patch is better for handling, and a longer/narrower contact patch is better for drag racing.

For a given tire construction, "contact patch" is a strong function of inflation pressure and weight, not so much tire width and diameter.

[Kunzite]

Originally Posted by SuqMadiq

I do know it can be drastically improved because, wait for it... its been out for several years now and it's proven. Heck, with just the mods the Boss 302 has, the Mustang is capable of pulling over 1 g on the skidpad. The V6 would probably do even better as it has less weight up front. Surely, it can achieve better handling.

Now, what I was saying about the BR-Z was actually a compliment, though it does IMO affect what can be done to improve it. The BR-Z clearly has better handling, and that's the primary reason why it came close to running the same lap times as the Mustang. Because, the BR-Z was designed around its handling capabilities, I honestly believe there will be less room for improvement than what you would find in the Mustang. Don't take this as the Mustang will handle better in the long run. My point is all about the potential improvement in handling, not overall which is better.

IMO grip does not equal handling, and that 1g figure I'm certain it's not with Michelin Primacy tires.
Things are quite simple: stock vs stock, the BRZ/86 seems to have way better handling characteristics. Put the same amount of money in tuning them, and I doubt this will change - you will improve the BRZ/86, but correct Mustang's faults. Again, that's IMO - I'm no expert.
I'd always have a well made cake instead of a turd, even with its much potential in improving the taste... (I'm not trying to insult the Mustang here, just to make a point)

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by justaquestion

... The GT completely shits on everything under 90k. And the V6 shits on everything in its price group too. Hell, the v6 shit on the STI on an equal opportunity track, while bouncing off the rev limiter for a few seconds. Anyone who thinks the new mustangs can't handle a turn are living in another world.
....

Wow, really? That's the best you can do?

All that makes me think is why in the world would I want to own such a shitty car. Hope it comes with Depends.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Your wrote "the FR-S/BRZ on 215s has more tire width per weight than the V6 Mustang on 255s". There are many other factors that affect grip, one of them being that bigger tires will also increase contact patch. Obviously there are other advantages to smaller tires; my point was simply that you really can't only look at tire width per weight.


I never said it did.

Bigger tires don't increase contact patch. Adding weight or losing psi do

[TRD_07]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

so does anyone in this thread actually read the previous posts before they reply? people are just saying the same things over and over...

[TRD_07]

I would like to see a GC 2.0T R-spec vs the BRZ/FRS at a track which would be a 4cyl vs 4cyl. Not a 6cyl vs 4cyl.

[bimmerboy]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

so does anyone in this thread actually read the previous posts before they reply? people are just saying the same things over and over...

so much fanboi-ism in this thread..

[Lighting Red]

Originally Posted by bimmerboy

so much fanboi-ism in this thread..

That's why I titled the thread the way I did

[Turbowned]

I'd consider the Mustang if I lived in Japan. No, seriously. If I lived someplace where the roads didn't resemble post-WWII bombed-out airfields and/or the surface of the moon, I might consider the Mustang. But when Angus mentions that one little midcorner bump unsettles the solid rear end, I'm walking away. And it may cost more money to do so, but a BRZ with the same power-to-weight ratio would walk on the tarted-up secretary-mobile.

More horsepower in a fundamentally-flawed chassis doesn't do it for me; just like I don't give a crap that the Renault Sport Megane 256 Trophy (exhausting name) beat out the BRZ in a performance test. Again, if the BRZ had the same power-to-weight ratio as the Renault (and mine certainly will, sooner or later), it would get walked on.

[tripjammer]

I am in a youtube war with a bunch of Mustang people.

[Turbowned]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

I am in a youtube war with a bunch of Mustang people.

Mother of God. Talk about fighting a losing battle.

[blur]

Lol random thought, 5.0 in the 86 chassis would be an absolute rocket... of course with supporting mods.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

I am in a youtube war with a bunch of Mustang people.

I wouldn't even argue with them Trip. Both cars is great cars at what they do best so I don't have any hate for both cars but I would still choose a BRZ over the Stang mainly because of the LRA and the seating position being higher and a long hood that isn't slung low to see the road ahead better.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by blur

Lol random thought, 5.0 in the 86 chassis would be an absolute rocket... of course with supporting mods.

It would turn into a muscle car that handles worst in feel and numbers than a Mustang V6 PP. The balance would be 57/43 and it would be so damn nose heavy. I realize the strengths and weakness of a 4 cylinder is better handling against great acceleration. If you put a 2.0l N/A 4 cylinder engine inside of a Stang it will handle as well or close to something like a FRS but it would sacrifice acceleration in which Mustang lovers can't deal with.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Slower cars often win comparisons like this. It drives bench racers crazy because apparently for some reason they can't comprehend anything other than lap times and numbers.

The MX5 is one of the best reviewed cars ever, having piled up accolades for its fun-to-drive dynamics over the last 23 years. On paper, it looks horrible and on the track it doesn't post especially fast laps. My last three cars destroy my MX5 in a straight line, yet the MX5 is far more fun (top up or down).

The Mustang V6 (with performance package) and V8 are both great bang-for-your-buck cars. Both have done very well on the track, beating much more expensive cars. If you want a new car the track, they can be great choices.

But their shifters are crap (by my standards) and when the road isn't smooth, their suspension and weight really hurt their dynamics. Every car is a compromise and we all have different priorities; test drive before you buy.

Also the mustang interior is crap too. 2014 is going to be an all new mustang.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I wouldn't even argue with them Trip. Both cars is great cars at what they do best so I don't have any hate for both cars but I would still choose a BRZ over the Stang mainly because of the LRA and the seating position being higher and a long hood that isn't slung low to see the road ahead better.

I agree bro. 100 percent.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

Mother of God. Talk about fighting a losing battle.

LOL! But it is so fun! I can't wait to smoke some Mustang's on the track in real life in my BRZ\FR-S!

[TRD_07]

Originally Posted by Lighting Red

That's why I titled the thread the way I did

Lol, I just noticed!