UNDERPOWERED? THE REAL DEAL!!!

[Purdue FR-S]

Originally Posted by trogdor007

You got any data for the Mustang (V6/GT)? I'm not seeing those numbers on any of the charts I've seen. I'm curious to see how they stack up given their size.

Damnit Trolldor, do some math.

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/spe...ions/view-all/

V6 Manual => 3501/305 = 11.5

GT Manual => 3618/420 = 8.6

GT500 => 3845/662 = 5.8

[trogdor007]

Originally Posted by Purdue FR-S

Damnit Trolldor, do some math.

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/spe...ions/view-all/

V6 Manual => 3501/305 = 11.5

GT Manual => 3618/420 = 8.6

GT500 => 3845/662 = 5.8

Thanks. Math is hard.

[Purdue FR-S]

Originally Posted by trogdor007

Thanks. Math is hard.

" Drives: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) "

[SloS14]

Originally Posted by Harvey

TREX700EPRO heli

That bird is serious business.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by 1086

Weight:BHP ratio

The 86 platform does considerably well considering many of the turbo charged cars on the market and their results, according to this chart. Fortunately the car is lightweight off the lot, so adding more power while dropping 100+ lbs (very easy to do) will yield even greater results.

Also, keep in mind that people who are running E85 w/ a tune may be around the 220-230 bhp mark, which would put the car at ~12.4 (225 bhp / 2800)
Now if someone were to put a modest FI upgrade, like a JacksonRacing SC + oil cooler, which yields around 250 whp @ 6k rpm on a proper tune. So lets say 280 BHP. That would put the 86 at ~10

Remember, this would be on a fully stock car. Once you start upgrading tires, wheels and suspension, you will have quite a quick and superb handling car in the $30,000-$35,000 range. I am also thinking in terms of where I live which is an elevation of 85 ft.

That competes very well with many of the cars below.

Your weight for the Fiesta ST is off. It should be 2745 lbs. Oddly, even with a similar power-weight ratio as the Twins and a large torque advantage, the Fiesta ST is slower than the Twins:

Fiesta ST
0-60 in 7.0 s
1/4 in 15.2 s @ 93 mph

FR-S
0-60 in 6.4 s
1/4 in 14.9 s @ 95 mph

I would have expected it would be considerably faster. I wonder if that has to do with the Fiesta ST only making 197 hp for a limited duration overboost.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ed-test-review
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...test-sheet.pdf

[Deep Six]

I love the entertainment value of these threads. I'm right and you're wrong has no place in this conversation. To me, this car is brilliant and one of the most enjoyable drives period. Kinda like your favorite pair of jeans. However it can be modded to personal taste WITHOUT sacrificing one attribute for another. If acceleration is not important to you then leave the motor alone. If you like the playfull nature of the stock handling opposed to serious lateral grip then keep the stock tires and suspension. It's all about what you value in a car and these cars are the rare breed that can be many things to many people.

For me, I was looking for a semi DD / all weather fun runaround / low cost high yield track car 6-8 weekends a year. This car has met my goals perfectly thus far although I have been progressively modifying to meet my needs. Yes I could have started with a quicker car but that's not MY choice. I want THIS car and I want it to be able to more than hold its own at the track while keeping its other positive attributes. Quite frankly it's fun as hell making people wonder how they were just passed by what they read was a "slow" car.

[Corradooo]

People who say it's too slow need to learn to stop shifting so early, or learn how to downshift properly, and make use of the high revving engine. When I want to be economical and drive reasonably I shift around 3.5-4k. When I want to have fun or be quick I live around the 4.5k minimum when I'm cruising, so I have the upper end of the band where the power is at my disposal. You want power, get your RPMs to where the power lies. It's a high revving engine. It's going to sound a lot higher and whinier then your used to. That's ok. Use your full power band


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TruRace]

One could say the frs is underpowered compared to its competitors. You could argue the competition, but I would put the frs in the same category as the mustsng v6, genesis coupe, gti, and the focus St. All these mentioned have more power than the frs/brz. When the 2015 drops the twins are definitely in trouble. If you remember the motor trend comparison of the 28k high performance coupes last year the Mustang was quicker around willow springs than the twins. Add irs to the equation and the stangs times are sure to improve.
I love the twins but come 2016 there needs to be a increase in power for them to say competitive

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Harvey

Got passed 2000 KM (breakin) yesterday, pushed the peddal in 3rd/4th/5th, went from 110KMH to 185KMH in no time... don't see what else I could want for daily driving, it was like crazy going so fast on the road (I'd never been that fast)!... and try to get this in a 370Z (you can't, I tried, TREX700EPRO heli doesn't fit, needless to comment about the familly!), there aren't that many 4 seat big trunk sport cars around these days :

Dayum!

If you had a contest who can pack more stuff in 86/BRZ, I think you & @Dadhawk are top!

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by TruRace

One could say the frs is underpowered compared to its competitors. You could argue the competition, but I would put the frs in the same category as the mustsng v6, genesis coupe, gti, and the focus St. All these mentioned have more power than the frs/brz. When the 2015 drops the twins are definitely in trouble. If you remember the motor trend comparison of the 28k high performance coupes last year the Mustang was quicker around willow springs than the twins. Add irs to the equation and the stangs times are sure to improve.
I love the twins but come 2016 there needs to be a increase in power for them to say competitive

Couldn't you just as easily say all of those cars (Mustang, GC, GTI, and FoST) are overweight compared with the Twins? And it looks like the Mustang may get even heavier with the next iteration, so it's not staying competitive at all with the Twins.

[TruRace]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Couldn't you just as easily say all of those cars (Mustang, GC, GTI, and FoST) are overweight compared with the Twins? And it looks like the Mustang may get even heavier with the next iteration, so it's not staying competitive at all with the Twins.

I'm not sure what your point is? In order to be considered a competitor the cars must all be that same weight? My rational was all the cars mentioned are the around the same price range. And call it over weight, the Genesis and the Mustang were still faster around the track. Granted I believe the v6 genesis was used in the comparison but the base Mustang is cheaper than the twins.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by TruRace

I'm not sure what your point is? In order to be considered a competitor the cars must all be that same weight? My rational was all the cars mentioned are the around the same price range. And call it over weight, the Genesis and the Mustang were still faster around the track. Granted I believe the v6 genesis was used in the comparison but the base Mustang is cheaper than the twins.

I'm saying you keep talking about power, but that's just one line on a spec sheet. Why ignore weight (or feedback or handling balance), which I feel are the main reasons people buy these cars? Have those other cars improved in those areas in any meaningful way?

I don't think anyone really buys the Twins for stock laptimes or power, so it seems odd to point to those things and say the Twins are falling behind their competition.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by TruRace

One could say the frs is underpowered compared to its competitors. You could argue the competition, but I would put the frs in the same category as the mustsng v6, genesis coupe, gti, and the focus St. All these mentioned have more power than the frs/brz. When the 2015 drops the twins are definitely in trouble. If you remember the motor trend comparison of the 28k high performance coupes last year the Mustang was quicker around willow springs than the twins. Add irs to the equation and the stangs times are sure to improve.
I love the twins but come 2016 there needs to be a increase in power for them to say competitive

The mustang they used was a v6 with the track pack vs. a stock twin. Even on stock wheels, if a twin had those sticky tires it would be much faster.

[1086]

Sorry about that @DarkSunrise. I got that chart from http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/for...o/65298/page1/

I didn't really check any of the numbers. I assumed they were fairly accurate.

@trogdor007 I didn't realize the mustangs started at such a low price. Although the gt500 is $55k which is in a totally different class. The V6 is still pretty quick considering it's weight.