Quote:
Originally Posted by RRnold
But your Honda was FWD!?! You can't really compare the GC and FT to be honest.
|
Why, because weight is the be all end all characteristic that determines car comparisons? I guess they should've never compared RX-7s to Supras with thier 600# difference. Or Supras to 3000GT VR4s with 450#s separating them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUB-FT86
The GC will have 270hp/270tq with a curb weight of 3290 lbs base. If the FT is 2700 lbs for example it will need 210hp/195-200tq to keep up.
|
I reeeeeally wish you were right, but nothing Hyundai has said supports your theory. "Modest gains for the 2.0T" doesn't mean 60hp, when they consider a 25hp jump with the v6 to be a large gain. The 2.0T is going to pickup maybe a couple HP, but I think it will lose some weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceywilly
GC is too big. It competes with the Mustang, not the FRS. I really think it's apples to oranges. And 270/270 is still less than the V6 Mustang, not that I would buy either of them. People who want a big heavy muscle car are going to go all out and get the V8. Why put a tiny engine in a huge car, it doesn't make sense to me.
 |
Have you seen one magazine comparison between those two? I haven't. The 2.0T isn't target'ed at the v6 Mustang. If you're so concerned with comparing apples to apples, then compare the v6 to the v6. 333hp v6 GC > 305hp v6 Mustang.
The 2.0t is the tuner car, what about that is so hard to comprehend? Look at the aftermarket support for both GCs. The GC v6 is for people like my uncle who want to buy a car that has a little pep from the factory with little to no interest in aftermarket support. Buying a turbocharged car is like buying a computer processor with an unlocked modifier. You spend a little more than the car is probably worth just for the ability to turn the dial.
Also, why don't we wait until final production specs before we talk about how huge or heavy the GC is compared to the FR-S?