BRZ vs Mustang - Here is the review the haters have been waiting for.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

Once again it appears 6.4 is some arbitrary number....Holding ZERO relevance to the conversation..

My statement was the RSX-S beats this car to 60..You throw out 6.4..I'm ASSUMING you're implying the FRS/BRZ does 0-60 in 6.4..IN which I say you're out of your mind....Why? Because the car does not do 0-60 in 6.4....A 12" rollout is not a method of testing 0-60 in any logical sense..The Rollout method was a shady way started by ford and GM as a means to impress the market with inflated 0-60 times...There is no "us standard method of testing" using a rollout, and if you've EVER been to a drag strip you know that the 12" from beam to beam is not a gap used to get a rolling start, it is the staging area..You don't see cars tutting through a 12" buffer zone before they hammer on it to improve their times, the idea that it's a more "structured way to record 0-60's" is silly...

NOW once again I ask you where the 6.4 comes in.....If you tell me " The BRZ does this 0-60 according to publication A and publication B who admit this is how they perform their 0-60 tests" I will copy and past the previous paragraph in response...just letting you know..



What your "160WHP" implies is that the forum members RSX experiences a 13% loss in power...Meanwhile the RSX-S loses 20% of it's power through the same component system...

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

You can post all the dyno readouts you WANT....I've already told you as i'm sure plenty of others have told you how inaccurate a dyno can be from one to the next as dyno's are methods of tuning not methods of getting "solid readings" on power production, that is what engine dyno's are for...


So to reiterate...

in YOUR eyes...RSX losing 13% power and RSX-S losing 20% power...seems rational, common, feasible and correct.

Riiiight..


And SOMEHOW 201HP is LESS than 200ps? What are you high on here kiddo..The point of my statement is it matters not if the car is producing 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202.5 202.1 202 201.9995...The engine is producing MORE power than the FA20 is producing, and for it to somehow produce LESS on a dynamometer means something is not correct.

To supplement that is the drivetrain dilemma you can't seem to wrap your head around..

A 201HP car when measured on a graph....Spinning the FRONT tires.....through a smaller system of rotating devices....
will show more power than a car producing LESS power...spinning the rear wheels....through a larger system of rotating devices....

It can't be spelled out any more simply than that....

And if it's a hilarious rendition of "copy paste dyno readings

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...0&postcount=87


You're the one who claimed 167 whp could never be an RSX-S. If you didn't account for the k20a2, that's your mistake not mine.

How foolish of me to assume I had been in a discussion with an adult that had both common sense and intelligence. It's quite obvious how in detail you'll need every bit of information spoon fed to you in order for you to come to grasps with simple bits of information.

Are you sure that this article wasn't in relation to a 1970's mustang? How about everyone else in this thread? were they talking about old Shelby II's? I can't be sure what exactly they're talking about because no one said "Most recent iteration of the mustang"..

Good thing THAT'S cleared up.

The rest of your post is absolutely inconsequential, because you're relating it to something no one spoke of....So until you want to join the rest of the adults in the conversation and remove yourself from your adolescent pissing match of "you didn't say which one...so i'm going to place myself in the oldest model availible!"..Have fun chuckles...

I've been reading over your posts on this forum. Half of your posts are arguing for the sake of arguing and the other half are making incorrect comments. The BRZ's supposed "variable valve lift"... tire contact patches.. BRZ "deadspot" v. RSX-S... it's like a disaster zone of posts.

Not worth my time debating with you. I've already explained how the BRZ's "deadspot" v. RSX-S is moot when you look at torque to the wheels. If you can't comprehend that, there's nothing more I can do.

[Embarrassed]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

The only point you could possibly count for the BRZ was even getting close(which just shows how silly the track comparison was).

That's the point - for people who have actually participated in track events, it wasn't even close. The gap is larger than the difference in the tires. To make it worse, for people who know the track, there is every chance that this might be the most favorable track for the BRZ. Heck, even though everyone assumes that the BRZ will be awsome for auto-x could be in for a very rude awaking, given the weight, powerband and the gearing.

O

[Embarrassed]

Found some stuff on another forum about the day that might help put the time differnce in perspective for some people. Turns out he drive some other cars.

"For reference he drove an M3 on the same track (Streets of Willow) in 1.27.67"

That makes the difference in lap times between a V6 stang and BRZ about the same as a V6 stang vs. BMW M3.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...php?p=37048115

[brewksy]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i never said the mustang was more fun.

just because we are using similar reasoning doesnt mean im not making sense. we are coming to different conclusions and while my conclusion was kind of supported yours wasnt. autox is only the best test for andling at the speeds in an autox. cars with more power usually need to handle at higher speeds and they give up alot .

handling doesnt equal ear to ear grins. but if you are saying if you look for the best handling, its a win...that just doesnt mean a whole lot to me. i could just as easily say, if you are looking for the greenest car, its a solid win for ford

Originally Posted by Embarrassed

Found some stuff on another forum about the day that might help put the time differnce in perspective for some people. Turns out he drive some other cars.

"For reference he drove an M3 on the same track (Streets of Willow) in 1.27.67"

That makes the difference in lap times between a V6 stang and BRZ about the same as a V6 stang vs. BMW M3.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...php?p=37048115

... But ignores the fact that better tires improved the BRZ time by 2+ seconds in the Best Motoring race.

"Rude awakening" at autox? Its already at least as fast as a Miata on an autox course which means its definitely faster than a Mustang GT by a large margin. So... Does that mean the GT is an absolute waste of money because it will lose around a track? No. Its about preference, not track times for some of us.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by brewksy

... But ignores the fact that better tires improved the BRZ time by 2+ seconds in the Best Motoring race.

"Rude awakening" at autox? Its already at least as fast as a Miata on an autox course which means its definitely faster than a Mustang GT by a large margin. So... Does that mean the GT is an absolute waste of money because it will lose around a track? No. Its about preference, not track times for some of us.

faster in what class? if youre talking stock i see that as a normal miata is pretty soft barring the msr. and as for the relation to the gt on an auto x, i dont think it would make the gt a waste of money. i never said the brz was a waste of money. im just saying that if the gt runs a slower time, i wouldnt call it a win. for me, i prefer the brz (well i assume since i have never driven one) and i believe preference are important but i dont think preferences are what decide a win from a loss.

[Embarrassed]

Miata has shorter gearing, less weight and proportionally more power down low. The BRZ looks like it has a setup more like a ITR or S2000. If you can't pull off a 2-1 downshift smoothly, you're not going to get much drive out of turns. Wonder how much a BRZ tranny costs.

If you are a national level driver you might be able to make it work. Everyone else will just be slow.

O

[SnapOv3st3r]

Originally Posted by Embarrassed

Miata has shorter gearing, less weight and proportionally more power down low. The BRZ looks like it has a setup more like a ITR or S2000. If you can't pull off a 2-1 downshift smoothly, you're not going to get much drive out of turns. Wonder how much a BRZ tranny costs.

If you are a national level driver you might be able to make it work. Everyone else will just be slow.

O

So if I understand you correctly, you think unless you are a pro driver someone in an BRZ/86 is going to lose to a Miata at the track? What draws you to this conclusion?

[SnapOv3st3r]

It's amazing how none of this even matters. On any given day, the GT can lose to a BRZ/FR-S and vice versa, because not all drivers are created equal. Seen way to many times a slow car being driven fast with a good driver, beating a faster car (on paper) being driven by a slow driver.

Most of you won't even bother with the back and forth banter if you actually spent your days at a track rather than the internet talking about racing. Thread has turned into a big BENCH RACE fest.

[brewksy]

Originally Posted by SnapOv3st3r

It's amazing how none of this even matters. On any given day, the GT can lose to a BRZ/FR-S and vice versa, because not all drivers are created equal. Seen way to many times a slow car being driven fast with a good driver, beating a faster car (on paper) being driven by a slow driver.

Most of you won't even bother with the back and forth banter if you actually spent your days at a track rather than the internet talking about racing. Thread has turned into a big BENCH RACE fest.

Totally agree. You'll notice that whenever I say "even if X car beats Y car around the track, it doesn't diminish that car's fun factor" the response seems to always be "car X would never beat Y around a track" - totally ignoring the point entirely. Bench racers are ridiculously good at talking in circles.

[Embarrassed]

Originally Posted by SnapOv3st3r

So if I understand you correctly, you think unless you are a pro driver someone in an BRZ/86 is going to lose to a Miata at the track? What draws you to this conclusion?

No, I'm saying it will probably lose on an auto-x course. This is based on about 10 years of auto-x experience.

Unfortunately, based on the lap times it looks like it will be a lot closer on a bigger track than I would have thought too.

O

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by brewksy

Totally agree. You'll notice that whenever I say "even if X car beats Y car around the track, it doesn't diminish that car's fun factor" the response seems to always be "car X would never beat Y around a track" - totally ignoring the point entirely. Bench racers are ridiculously good at talking in circles.

Fun is subjective though.

And a lot of people are over-stressing it I think. Especially considering almost none have driven it. If it was all about lightweight handling fun why aren't these people all coming from Miatas (which I believe Fatoni is, oddly enough)? And why did the MR-S die a lonely death? If this car got spanked by a Miata on Streets but was more 'fun' would people still be calling it a win?

[OrbitalEllipses]

I think this thread has run its course.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

I think this thread has run its course.

You think wrong.




We can still throw a few unrelated car pissing matches in here...

Heh...

[Capt Canuck]

Originally Posted by brewksy

The best test of handling is on a very small track like AutoX, etc. The best test of power/speed is a drag race. Everything else is a compromise of the two. However, No single lap time in ANY of these events determines the FEEL or PREFERENCE that the driver will experience. That was the only point I made in my post. Which is why a lot of us are listening to the *words* and opinions about the feel from the drivers of the car, rather than the lap time comparos.

Agreed. Driving around a track should enable the pro drivers to give the general public a better reference point for how those of us will experience these cars abilities, a nice back country road somewhere. As you say, their words and impressions count for more than the seconds do.

Since I don't enjoy thrashing my cars in and around cones in an artificial, exaggerated circuit in a car park and I really wouldn't enjoy dropping my clutch and scooting down a 1/4 straight, neither of those touch points apply to me - and I am guessing don't apply to pretty much everyone else.

Originally Posted by Dimman

You think wrong.




We can still throw a few unrelated car pissing matches in here...

Heh...

Bingo. Surely 500 posts is an easy target