Mustang? WOW!
 

I know I'm going to catch some heat for this, but we have talked about the FT-86's competition before and I thought I would mention this now that the numbers are out: The 2011 Mustang V8 does 0-60 in 4.3sec, lateral G of .95 and starts at 30k. The FT-86 Turbo will have to compete with this in my book, seeing as consumer reports gave the 2010 mustang GT premium a good rating. Also the V-6 will now have 305 hp, 0-60 in 5.5sec, not sure about the lateral Gs, I'll look again tonight and post it later. I think the V6 starts around 25k. That is incredibly impressive. I drove the 2010 mustang GT and loved the chasis, the new/tighter look, but did not like the old engine's power delivery, which seemed "soft" to me. Hopefully the new 5.0 will impress me. The "downer" is it will need premium gas which is probably what the FT-86 turbo will need anyway. I would really like to have the FT-86, but I will have to wait another year for it, and it's just hard to argue with a 0-60 of 4.3sec! WOW.[IMG]http://*************/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif[/IMG]

I think some where in this thread there was this topic bout this.

I remember the thread, I just wanted to post this because the performance figures just came out. Prior to to this, we only new HP/TQ and engine sizes...

the numbers were out a bit ago. We had a comparison to the E92 M3 somewhere else, the number are almost exactly the same only the Musting being much less expensive

numbers don't tell the whole story. i could throw some wide sticky tires on a city dump truck and get it to pull .95 lateral G's, but how does it FEEL? i bet it feels just as heavy as it is. i'm anticipating the FT will feel light and responsive; nimble.

-Mike

I used to mention it once. FT-86 differs from Mustang in purposes of engineering. FT-86,which resembles of AE86 or Sprinter Levin/Trueno, is mean to be lightweight small coupe. Engineers not only make fun-to-drive, but also looks fun-to-drive. They use boxer engine to keep the car as low as possible, and they want to to have drifting character. Mustang, the American Muscle car, resemble of n.th rather than itself. It doesn't mean to be a fun-to-drive car because it competes with bigger Camaro, and Challenger. It has rear live axle and 3200+lb curb weight.

The FT86 production car won't even compete with the Mustang V8 anyways...If anything it will compete with the V6 at 305hp but a 3500 curb weight. The closest competitor that is currently out that the FT86 needs to beat is the Genesis Coupe which shouldn't be too hard in it's 2.0T trim that only makes 210hp to a 3300 or so curb weight.

Power to weight ratio.

The V6 Mustang 305HP/ 3500 lbs = 11.48 lbs/ HP
MSRP - US$22,995 Base

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/



FT86 estimate 200HP/ 2500 lbs = 12.5 lbs/HP

I don't know much about 'power to weight' or 'weight to power' ratios. However I did a quick read about it on Wikipedia. 'Power to weight' ratios is a measurement of actual performance of an engine. Whereas 'Weight to power' ratios is a measurement of acceleration potential.

Ok, so Sleeperz actually did a 'Weight to power' ratio rather than a 'Power to weight' ratio which he said he did in his post... So this is the Actual Power to weight ratios... (He divided lbs by HP which is weight to power ratio)(Power to weight is dividing HP by lbs)

Mustang = .0871
FT = .0800

... This means the FT is lower in terms of 'Power to weight' ratio, but higher in the inverse of the equation, the 'Weight to power' ratio which I understand are two different things (someone should confirm).

In a nutshell, the Mustang scores higher on the measurement of actual performance whereas the FT scores higher on the measurement of acceleration potential.

I'm just curious, I just want to know more about these Two technical terms. I would read the Wikipedia article about it but I don't have the time or will to read that much into it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio). However it says that Power to weight and Weight to power ratios are different.

NOTE: I am going by Sleeperz numbers in calculations, not the numbers provided by factory so the numbers could be wrong. However, I think in terms of cars, Power to weight ratios are more important because hell, have we ever heard of weight to power ratios in car reviews before? Anyways regardless, the FT body is hot

:laughabove:
You're taking the same numbers, dividing them the other way, and going "Well now THIS number's bigger!" :slap:
The ratio of these two cars' power vs. their weight is the same either way.
One is 11.48:1 (same as 1:11.48 if you reverse the numbers.)
The other is 12.5:1 (Probably. We don't know the actual weight OR the actual power, and I'm personally more interested in torque than HP, but.. Either way, those figures are the same in reverse.)
;)

EDIT: I don't care how it does on the skidpad. I have ZERO faith in a mustang's ability to corner well until I see ANY evidence of it. Mustangs are not cornering monsters. If they're any kind of monster, it's a troll. Those things are ugly.

First off: I LOVE the current gen of the Mustang. Looks great, sounds great and is an awesome rendition of American muscle. I've driven it multiple times and have a tendency to rent it when I'm out on the road for work and it is within reasonable price.

That said, it is not what I want in a sports car.

The Mustang is not the small, nimble, agile, surgical knife I want in a sports car. It is a cleaver. My IS300 isn't that worlds apart when it comes to weight but I can corner in it though the 'stang will beat in on the straightaway (oh and what a sound!). The 'stang is a great powerslider of a car and is a thug when it comes to turns.

The FT86 is supposed to a surgical knife. A ninja. Can't quite compare the two.

You might as well compare the Elise to the 'Stang.

Well-said. I can't personally agree with the whole "I LOVE the current gen of the Mustang" bit, but it's really a matter of opinion there.
It has its strengths, they're just not the ones I'm looking for.

Sounds about right. Furthermore, I think this same thing can be said about the Gen coupe. It set out to be a muscle car, its big, its not going to feel the same.

I still say the best comparison is FT-86 / Ichigo (S15 Silvia)...
The cars are different sizes and all that.. but the spirit's pretty similar.
(IMHO)

But the age of the cars are very different.
Edited.

29 MPG highway (you'll have to tear the shifter from my cold, dead hand) with 305 hp and RWD for $23k is impressive. However, the long wheel base, live rear axle, crappy shifter, and 3500 pounds weight reduce my interest in the Mustang. Its 19 MPG city doesn't excite me either.

The Mustang is a great car, but it's muscle car. The FT86 is a sports coupe, which is closer in character to a sports car (e.g. Mazda Miata, Honda S2000). It doesn't have any direct competition, since the next cheapest sports coupe is the $30K Nissan 370Z.

Comparing a muscle car to a sports coupe and pointing at the higher acceleration and skidpad is missing the point.

Totally agreed, the only thing comparable is the price bracket.

Even so, I've got nothing but respect for what the rednecks did to the Mustang. The new V6 and V8 engines are excellent in terms of engineering, and they seem to have done a damn fine job on the handling - considering it has a live rear axle and it's hefty amount of body fat. If the same amount of engineering went into a car with less weight and a REAL performance rear suspension setup (ie independent multilink) the resulting car would be better in every possible way.

That being said, the Mustang STILL has a live rear axle and too much body fat, and it can never be as good as a FR car that excludes these things.

On an ultra smooth track it may not be too bad, but once you hit roads in real life that actually have some bumps/rough texture, that bumbly rear solid axle will start jittering and wobbling out of control, creating a jarring ride combined with very little grip. Such attributes will only be amplified by it's obese pig weight.

No thanks.

I know, I know... but still, I don't see a better comparison. Setting aside production dates, Those two are the cars I would compare.

:party0030:

though the stang 5.0 is impressive and enticing(spellcheck) i just cant se myself jumping in one.....its now a wait and see game for me now, by the time i get back from my deployment the FT-86,M1,Silvia,RX7...etc 2012 cant get here fast enough.

Just for fun, I was comparing Stang w ISF and spec wise they came pretty close to each other. Both has (just round it up)
Engine: 5L V8
hp: +-5
tq: +-20
Bore x Stroke: +-.1 x +-.1
Comp Ratio: +-.1
Fuel Induction: SFI
Wheel Base: +-1
Length: +-5
Height: +-.1
Weight: +-60

... but some how this Stang gets better gas mileage than ISF? Lexus, whatta hell you're doin'! lol

/siiiggghhhh


If the FT-86 were truly meant to be a spiritual successor to the AE86, then its not supposed to be competeing in the same market as the Mustang anyways. NOT EVEN CLOSE. So who cares?

That role was always reserved for the Celica Supra/ Supra. And it always did the job.


FYI, Mustang: Bigger, heavier, and off-whack weight distribution. If you just want to have a fast car, go for it. But please stop trying to downplay the FT against cars like these. Apples and Oranges.

:word:

. :word:

Premium gas is a "downer" now? If you can't afford an additional $3 more a fill-up for premium, you should be driving a Ford Fiesta.

Good info! I had no idea the engine specs were so similar... I guess we gotta give even more props to the rednecks making that engine so efficient. Did a damn fine job on that new 5.0.

this thread is retarded....please kill it

Let's compare a Lotus Elise to a Monster truck next shall we?

+1 Let's compare boeing 747 to a speed boat.

Really? I think Both automobiles are comparable enthusiast cars, dont exaggerate.

Speed boat > Boeing for the first 1/4 mile lol

Here's the real kicker: Our Nissan tester stickered for a whopping $9,000 more than the Mustang V6. At $34,605, the 370Z is also nearly $4,000 more than the $30,875 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8. This means that our third place Mustang verdict comes with a big old asterisk. We knew the Ford was punching above its weight, but we didn't know exactly how much until we looked at the numbers. At $25,780 then, the 2011 Mustang V6 is something of a hero. Our point is this: if one were to pour $9,000 into a Mustang, not only would that tick nearly every single option box, but you would also get a 'Stang GT stuffed full of Ford's righteous new 5.0-liter Ti-VCT V8 with 412 hp and 392 lb-ft. Gussied up in that garb, and complete with a set of Brembos, we strongly suspect the Mustang GT would wipe the floor with the Genesis Coupe 3.8 and wholly humble the winning Nissan 370Z. But alas, that's another comparison.


http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/17/b...70z/#continued

Interesting article... in the end they've chosen 370z lol

Car and Driver reported the V6 Mustang having a better skidpad than the GT. The lighter front end helps plant the car better for cornering. A much better advancement over the old v6 POS too!

I definitely agree the FT-86 will be better in the corners than the 'stang, no competition (hopefully).

I have to give the new Mustang credit though, it outperforms the heavy chevy and others in its class so its still sick. I would love to have one, but I would rather have the light, nimble, and precise machine that the FT-86 will (hopefully) be. Going fast is overrated (albeit fun), turning and handling is underrated (maybe not to you fine people, but to the general public).

I really like the Mustang, but the problem is that I live in Sweden. Here, petrol costs ca 13 krona per litre, which is about two dollars per litre. So smal margins in fuel consumtion has a huge impact on running costs.
And also there's the question of price. Ford don't actually sell the Mustang here, so what you have to do is to have it privately imported, then have some modifications done to it to make it street legal, then pay taxes for it AGAIN, and finally the company that arranged the import needs to get some profit out of it. The result is a price of 500 000 krona, which is comparable to much more exclusive and refined machines.

Chevy promised that the Camaro will be sold in Chevy dealers over here, so that'll be the only muscle car available here.

Check out this Audi R4. It is a direct competitor to the FRS at a higher price.

The R4 is expected to weigh in at a comparatively modest 2,500 pounds and offer a choice of gas or diesel inline-four engines. Gasoline propulsion would come from a 180 horsepower 1.4-liter TSI unit while the high-mileage option would be the 170 horsepower version of the 2.0-liter TDI used in the TT and the Golf GTD


http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/18/r...-below-the-tt/

I would never own a Mustang.

I never care for Mustang, but if I had to choose... I'll Choose Mustang Boss. Cuz it was design by Japanese guy, L. Shinoda. lol

Does anyone else find the technology anachronisms of the Mustang and Camaro strange? Mustang has DOHC 4V heads + solid axle. Camaro SS has OHV 2V heads with independant rear suspension. It's like they're both half-way there.

They use old technologies that are still somewhat effective to provide enough performance while keeping everything affordable.

I understand why they still use it but it's just odd to me that they went opposite approaches.

I have this funny cartoon in my head of a Ford engineer checking out a Camaro and a GM engineer checking out the new Mustang and they're both like "Duuuuuuude!" (dumb surfer stereotype that just figured something out) Pointing simultaneously at the rear-end and heads respectively.

PS I know GM uses a modern direct injection quad-cam 24v V6 and Ford has used an independent rear suspension in the Cobra R before.