FR-S/BRZ vs 2011+ Mustang V6

[86'd]

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.

Yeah, I've heard that the materials are pretty decent on the Mustang. Space-wise it looks huge even in pictures.

But, like I said, in real numbers, size-wise the Mustang is like 21 inches longer than the FRS and a bit wider. From what I've read the seating position is normal but it looks like your sunken in partially because you're surrounded by so much car.

When I had my S2K it fit me, and I was practically sitting on the floor rather than being swallowed by the car. I'm assuming that's how the FRS/BRZ will be like.

Plus even though I think the V6 on the Mustang is a good engine I'd probably get the GT, because, well, why not.

[Gaiakai]

Originally Posted by vivix

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

Might just depend on an individual's height I guess. Personally I found the Mustang's interior to be larger than I would prefer, not that that's a deal breaker. FR-S/BRZ will be tighter, steering wheel is even smaller, as are the windows, and the lower seating position is a given. I guess I was surprised by the Mustang - it was larger than I honestly thought it was on the inside lol xD

Bolded part: I wouldn't know, I've only driven the GT w/ 3.73s.

Originally Posted by 86'd

Yeah, I've heard that the materials are pretty decent on the Mustang. Space-wise it looks huge even in pictures.

But, like I said, in real numbers, size-wise the Mustang is like 21 inches longer than the FRS and a bit wider. From what I've read the seating position is normal but it looks like your sunken in partially because you're surrounded by so much car.

When I had my S2K it fit me, and I was practically sitting on the floor rather than being swallowed by the car. I'm assuming that's how the FRS/BRZ will be like.

Plus even though I think the V6 on the Mustang is a good engine I'd probably get the GT, because, well, why not.

FR-S/BRZ will be a lot like the S2k with regards to seating position. It'll have a busier (in a good way) dashboard as well - still driver focused, just not ignoring the passenger as much as the S2k does

I agree with getting the GT - personally if I was getting the Mustang I would only consider the V8 because that's what makes the car, like how the FR-S/BRZ is all about the handling. I don't think the V6 is bad, I just think a muscle/pony car has to have the V8.

[Deslock]

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

I'm not sure why SuqMadiq didn't post a link, but his numbers are from the March 2010 issue "First test" of the Mustang with the:

optional $1995 Performance Package that nets GT suspension and brakes, 19-inch wheels with summer rubber, and a strut-tower brace

The Mustang isn't my thing (I prefer the feel of lighter cars), but it's very impressive, especially on paper.

[SVTSHC]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

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...

The fun a person gets out of a vehicle is subjective. It is HIGHLY doubtful that in AMERICA a Japanese vehicle will have a cheaper aftermarket than that of an AMERICAN sports car (example: the Ford Racing supercharger for the 5.0 is $6000. Now consider for a moment that this is the price coming from Ford. Usually aftermarket options are cheaper.). Aside from that you're likely correct about the aftermarket being bigger for the FRS/BRZ than the V6 aftermarket, but the GT aftermarket again would trump the 86. Just for a second consider how long the mustang has been around.

[ahausheer]

According to Motortrend the current mustang v6 pulled higher G's and was faster around their figure 8 course, it was also faster at passing 45-75mph (I think) and was faster in all other measurable ways. I know it wont feel as nice as the BRZ but its numbers are respectable.

[chulooz]

Tires boss, dont worry too much.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

The fun a person gets out of a vehicle is subjective. It is HIGHLY doubtful that in AMERICA a Japanese vehicle will have a cheaper aftermarket than that of an AMERICAN sports car (example: the Ford Racing supercharger for the 5.0 is $6000. Now consider for a moment that this is the price coming from Ford. Usually aftermarket options are cheaper.). Aside from that you're likely correct about the aftermarket being bigger for the FRS/BRZ than the V6 aftermarket, but the GT aftermarket again would trump the 86. Just for a second consider how long the mustang has been around.

[Phaedrus29]

Toyobaru is top on my list but I figure I'd do my due diligence and test drive the V6 Mustang with Performance Package. But searching online I can't find any dealer that has one with the package. Any thoughts or tips? Why are these impossible to find?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus29

Toyobaru is top on my list but I figure I'd do my due diligence and test drive the V6 Mustang with Performance Package. But searching online I can't find any dealer that has one with the package. Any thoughts or tips? Why are these impossible to find?

Truecar.com and then get a GT for the price of a brz

[Phaedrus29]

Originally Posted by fatoni

Truecar.com and then get a GT for the price of a brz

Don't know much about Truecar, but I'll give it a look. Was still thinking about the V6 for the MPG, but can't seem to find one with the performance package.

[f1ver]

one huge knock on the mustang is that the song Mustang Sally is so g'd annoying

Originally Posted by p911gt3

Now I know another thread, Here , has asked the question, but it seems the thread stopped short. Based on what seems to be circulating, a new V6 mustang with the sport package at $25,000 US is right in the price range of the BRZ.

Reasons to compare the two:
-Both of these cars have LSD's (the sport package includes a 3.31 rear LSD on the mustang).
-Same price range
-Classic battle of trade offs (Power vs Handling)
-Both Nat Aspirated

BRZ Advantages:
-Lighter
-Smaller
-Way Cooler Looking **Biased statement**
-Lower CoG

Mustang V6 Advantages:
-More Power
-More Rubber (255/40)
-Bigger Brakes

In my biased opinion, I like the BRZ better, but I can see how for almost the same price, one might make the argument for the Mustang. Thoughts?

As a sidenote, I heard that the new V6 mustang has the transmission from the V8, which should allow one to increase power without upgrading transmission for a while. Can anyone verify this?

[carbonBLUE]

[u2b]LZXBjVIrR08[/u2b]

yeah and this isnt the only guy its happened to

i always wondered why they were speed limited to about 115-120

[D4ng3r]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

[u2b]LZXBjVIrR08[/u2b]

yeah and this isnt the only guy its happened to

i always wondered why they were speed limited to about 115-120

I dont understand your reasoning. Don't buy a mustang because it will fail going over 135MPH?

Pray tell, how many times a year will you need to go over 135mph?

Weak argument, man. "I removed a safety feature on my new car and it blew my engine! This car sucks!"

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by D4ng3r

I dont understand your reasoning. Don't buy a mustang because it will fail going over 135MPH?

Pray tell, how many times a year will you need to go over 135mph?

Weak argument, man. "I removed a safety feature on my new car and it blew my engine! This car sucks!"

ive been over 120 plenty of times, my 13 yr old celica can do 150 without anything breaking, yeah it broke at 135, in 10 years that drive shaft is going to break at a stop light just because of wear and tear...

113 mph limiter kinda sucks on a stock sports car with 300hp, im sure youll find plenty of tracks where your going faster than 120 on a straight

infact he can be outran by a corolla

or you can snap it on the dyno tuning it like this guy did...


[u2b]1_AjKt-KSNU[/u2b]


he installed a new one, and it snapped 20 min after installation in the parking lot...