FR-S/BRZ vs 2011+ Mustang V6

[alluringreality]

Originally Posted by Lytheum

the 6.2 one states it was auto equipped in the review portion. but does the manual really drop over a second?

The performance package with the manual times has summer tires, while the automatic before 2013 would have had standard all season tires. Some people might say the BRZ was at a disadvantage against the manual Mustang because of not having as good of summer tires as the performance package. The stopping distance from the manual Mustang review is also shorter than the automatic numbers, probably largely due to the tires.

[carbonBLUE]

both the mustang in the 6.2 test and the BRZ lack a lot of grip, i think the pony package adds 1.5 inches to the width of the tires on the mustang, i wanna see the brz or frs with some real sport tires on and re-do the test...

[Hawaiian]

Originally Posted by SuqMadiq

Hell, I don't even like Mustangs, but if I was looking for a sporty car in the mid-twenties the Mustang would probably be one of the better choices. The only thing I can figure to why the BR-Z and FR-S cost so much is based upon their exclusivity in the market. Performance wise, it just doesn't seem to be valued correctly.

Anyways, maybe I'm missing something, but I would of thought the BR-Z would have at least beat it in on the skidpad and in the handling department.


Motortrend
------------Price as Tested--------------------Price as Tested
-----------BR-Z Est - $28,000----2011 V6 Mustang-----$25,385

ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.3 sec ------------------1.9 sec
0-40 3.4 ----------------------2.8
0-50 4.8-----------------------3.9
0-60 6.4-----------------------5.1
0-70 8.4-----------------------6.7
0-80 10.5----------------------8.5
0-90 13.2 ----------------------10.5
0-100 16.4----------------------13.1
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.3------------------2.7
QUARTER MILE 14.9 sec @ 95.5 mph------13.7@ 102.2 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 120 ft---------------104ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.90 g (avg)----.96 g
MT FIGURE EIGHT 26.2 sec @ 0.68 g (avg)-----25.8 sec @ .71 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 2650 rpm --------1800 rpm
Mileage - 22/30 mpg-------------------------19/29 mpg

you guys got trolled so hard.

His name is "suck my d..." And it's his first post.

[Zgrinch]

Originally Posted by Hawaiian

you guys got trolled so hard.

His name is "suck my d..." And it's his first post.

Exactly why this forum needs to step up and block first time posters from making new threads.

It is way F@$king overdue.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

how does motor trend have like 4 different specs for the mustang 3.7 v6?
mustang specs from the same site
0-30 2.2
0-40 3.2
0-50 4.6
0-60 6.2
0-70 7.8
0-80 9.6
0-90 12.4
0-100 15.4
Passing, 45-65 mph 3.2
Quarter mile 14.5 sec @ 97.3 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 120 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.88 g (avg)
MT figure eight 26.0 sec @ 0.67 g (avg)
Top-gear revs @ 60 mph 1500 rpm


source http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

:happy0180:

[Sasquachulator]

So do we compare a base non-optioned mustang V6 to the BRZ or do we have to add a performance package to it?

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

So do we compare a base non-optioned mustang V6 to the BRZ or do we have to add a performance package to it?

Performance package. We're comparing performance numbers not affordability. Right?

I checked the numbers posted by carbonBLUE and those can't be the PP numbers as the axle gears are listed as 2.73.

It was a cool read though.

[vivix]

2013 base V6 plus optional Recaros stickers for about 24.5k. Wheels, tires and suspension dont matter much to me- all would be upgraded on the mustang or FRS/BRZ. Tough call but the Mustang has more performance potential and value for me. I like the idea of the 2.73 gears too, most of my commute is on the highway. A test drive in the FRS/BRZ would really have to wow me.

[86'd]

I'm just a bit bored, but I love the new Mustangs.

As I said in another thread, if they were a bit smaller and if the BRZ/FRS wasn't coming out I'd get one.

Price-wise they're a steal.

It's just when I look at the interior of the Mustang it looks like miles and miles of dashboard, and huge seats.

I'm just used to small cars...

[vivix]

Originally Posted by 86'd

I'm just a bit bored, but I love the new Mustangs.

As I said in another thread, if they were a bit smaller and if the BRZ/FRS wasn't coming out I'd get one.

Price-wise they're a steal.

It's just when I look at the interior of the Mustang it looks like miles and miles of dashboard, and huge seats.

I'm just used to small cars...

see, youd think that. always told myself it was a big pig of a car. drove one this weekend and thats not the case at all. interiors pretty damn nice on these. want to check out a frs or brz to compare

[Gaiakai]

Originally Posted by vivix

see, youd think that. always told myself it was a big pig of a car. drove one this weekend and thats not the case at all. interiors pretty damn nice on these. want to check out a frs or brz to compare

I could be wrong, but I think 86'd was talking about the interior space, not the quality of the materials (which are decent at best for both the Mustang and BRZ/FR-S).

Interior space-wise, I felt like the Mustang is quite a bit larger, plus the large windows really make it feel like you have more space. Compared to the BRZ/FR-S, which IMO is more S2000-like in that it "hugs" you more.

[Aki]

I think people who bring up horsepower haven't driven a lot of high-horsepower cars, ironically.

I mean for me, 300 hp isn't that amazing, especially on the Mustang. It felt on par with a Acura TSX V6. Also, it felt heavy--like lugging an anvil at the rear tail. So when the tail gives out, it snaps. Not exactly fun.

Sensation of speed isn't measured by lap times, 0-60 times. It's about how planted the car feels, its characteristics at the limit, the limit threshold, how the chassis responds, throttle response, etc.

[vivix]

Originally Posted by Gaiakai

I could be wrong, but I think 86'd was talking about the interior space, not the quality of the materials (which are decent at best for both the Mustang and BRZ/FR-S).

Interior space-wise, I felt like the Mustang is quite a bit larger, plus the large windows really make it feel like you have more space. Compared to the BRZ/FR-S, which IMO is more S2000-like in that it "hugs" you more.

Im coming from an 07 Focus hatch, interior seemed more closed in in the mustang. The windows are smaller than Im used to, the fake cowl hood blocks a little bit of vision and Im definitely not used to seeing the front of the car from the drivers seat. Steering wheels a smaller diameter than my focus as well, wasnt expecting that. it felt nice and ****pit like, hoping to sit in/ drive a twin soon to compare but like I said the Mustang will surprise you

Theres also a big difference in response if the v6 has the optional 3.31 rear gear vs the 2.73's. really wakes it up

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by Aki

I think people who bring up horsepower haven't driven a lot of high-horsepower cars, ironically.

I mean for me, 300 hp isn't that amazing, especially on the Mustang. It felt on par with a Acura TSX V6. Also, it felt heavy--like lugging an anvil at the rear tail. So when the tail gives out, it snaps. Not exactly fun.

Sensation of speed isn't measured by lap times, 0-60 times. It's about how planted the car feels, its characteristics at the limit, the limit threshold, how the chassis responds, throttle response, etc.

yeah, you'll have more fun in the 86 than a mustang on a daily basis and on the track, plus the 86 is going to have a larger aftermarket group and things like headers, exhaust, suspension, sway bars all cost less because of the following beinhd the 86 and the parts dont have to accommodate 3500 lbs of the mustang,

that means tires and wheels are cheaper and dont wear as fast,

ohh and driving a mustang on the ice is just horrible...