Motor Trend's $28K Bang for the Buck (spoiler alert!)

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by vivix

I love how the Mustang outperformed everything, and even comes in at under 25k with just the performance package, and still comes in 4th. I thought this was a test to find the best performing car under 28k, not the best feeling.

1. I would guess they wanted to find the best drivers car.
2. Feeling is very important!
3. The mustang had the best tires.
4. Put some sticky like the mustang had on the FR-S/BRZ and it/they would probably be be faster around the track.

For the record. BM did a test where they put "extreme performance summer tires" on the GT86. They shaved a laptime of 1.46.071 down to 1.43.136.
Putting some "max performance summer tires" on the FR-S/BRZ like the Mustang had should clearly shave 1-2,5 seconds of the time. Source

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by RaceR

1. I would guess they wanted to find the best drivers car.
2. Feeling is very important!
3. The mustang had the best tires.
4. Put some sticky like the mustang had on the FR-S/BRZ and it/they would probably be be faster around the track.

For the record. BM did a test where they put "extreme performance summer tires" on the GT86. They shaved a laptime of 1.46.071 down to 1.43.136.
Putting some "max performance summer tires" on the FR-S/BRZ like the Mustang had should clearly shave 1-2,5 seconds of the time. Source

Its titled bang for the buck, where do you come up with that?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by RaceR

1. I would guess they wanted to find the best drivers car.
2. Feeling is very important!
3. The mustang had the best tires.
4. Put some sticky like the mustang had on the FR-S/BRZ and it/they would probably be be faster around the track.

For the record. BM did a test where they put "extreme performance summer tires" on the GT86. They shaved a laptime of 1.46.071 down to 1.43.136.
Putting some "max performance summer tires" on the FR-S/BRZ like the Mustang had should clearly shave 1-2,5 seconds of the time. Source

the problem is that you arent painting a complete picture. adding summer tires will increase performance but not bang for the buck. the car is already expensive but adding tires is going to add a significant amount to the price. the frs is already more expensive than you can buy a brand new 12 mustang gt. dropping another 1000 on tires is not going to close the gap on laptimes and is going to hurt cost.

imo the frs is not that great of a value. it holds significance because it fills a niche that has been empty too long. not because it is a steal

[thill]

I also have to say the stock summer Potenza tires on the Genesis Coupe are not exactly anything to brag about either. I suspect the argument can be made that better tires on that car would have resulted in a first place finish, but you can play that game all day, and I would rather pay for an ECU reflash that should yield significant improvement for the 2013 2.0 Gencoupe once it is available (Poweraxel is working on one now).

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by chulooz

Its titled bang for the buck, where do you come up with that?

Chill.

I just "guessed...
And would i help if I changed the sentence to.. "I would guess they wanted to find the best drivers car in terms of overall performance"?

And then we could ask.. what performance... Handling performance, balance performance... drifting performance.. mpg performance.. there are several types of performance.
There is also overall performance. That would include things like the stuff mentioned above and things like, driving feel, agility, steering feel, shifter feel, pedal feel, smile on your face, seating postion, confidence behind the wheel .. etc...etc..

The test showed the mustang outperformed the BRZ/FR-S in laptime. Basically due to the tires.

Buy a scion IQ (or Toyota Aygo if it is available over there), put on some slicks and see it outperform the Mustang on a tight Autox track in terms of lap time. And in terms of a braking test and cornering Gs..
Would that make IQ the better performance car for the buck? It would cost less than 20k and outperform the 25k vehicle in terms of lap time.
It is all relative to how you compare things.

This test showed that the staff of motortrend found the BRZ(/FR-S) to be the best performance car for the buck...
It is a over a week since I read the article but I do not recall them saying the fastest laptime wins or equals best, (overall) performance.

If you would buy a racecar. You would most likely buy the car posting fastest laptimes within your budget.
If you would buy a (performance) sports car, you would most likely consider everything. The overall picture. At least I would.. So did the staff of motortrend the way I see it.

Originally Posted by thill

I also have to say the stock summer Potenza tires on the Genesis Coupe are not exactly anything to brag about either. I suspect the argument can be made that better tires on that car would have resulted in a first place finish, but you can play that game all day, and I would rather pay for an ECU reflash that should yield significant improvement for the 2013 2.0 Gencoupe once it is available (Poweraxel is working on one now).

According to tirerack the tires on the genesis are in the same high performace group as the tires on the mustang. According to consumer reviews they basically have the same dry performance grip as the tires on the mustang. Tires on that car are nothing to whine about in terms if grip. If you would whine about that you should be crying out loud for the tires on the Toybaru.
It does not come with performance tires.

Seems like you should buy a Genesis with ECU flash then if you like it so much. Dont remember to testdrive the Toybaru tough. Make your own decicion. Reviews are just "guidelines" anyway...

Originally Posted by fatoni

the problem is that you arent painting a complete picture. adding summer tires will increase performance but not bang for the buck. the car is already expensive but adding tires is going to add a significant amount to the price. the frs is already more expensive than you can buy a brand new 12 mustang gt. dropping another 1000 on tires is not going to close the gap on laptimes and is going to hurt cost.

The FR-S is 25k. Add 600 for some 215/45-17 star specs and it would outperform the mustang on that track. It would have crushed it on a smaller track.
They put the BRZ on first place, that just shows that laptime (performance) was not the the big factor.

These videos pretty much sums up the cars.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD3hgleEOXA"]Subaru BRZ vs Ford Mustang! - Head 2 Head Episode 7 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoZ1SC8uwk&feature=plcp"]2013 Scion FR-S: A New Hope? - Ignition Episode 14 - YouTube[/ame]


It is easy to see why they put the mustang below. Their arguments are valid. If you dont get it. Then you probably crave the features of the Mustang more. Buy a Mustang and be happy with it.

Originally Posted by fatoni

it holds significance because it fills a niche that has been empty too long. not because it is a steal

If you are a part of that niche. It pushes all the right buttons.
There is no such thing as a steal when it comes to cars. According to sales in Europe VW Golf is a steal. Not in my book! (and yes, I "owned" a 2010 model as a company/private car for a year)
At the end of the day. Bang for the buck is all relative to your needs and preferences.
Some persons "bang" for the buck could be another persons "crap for the buck".

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by RaceR

The FR-S is 25k. Add 600 for some 215/45-17 star specs and it would outperform the mustang on that track. It would have crushed it on a smaller track.
They put the BRZ on first place, that just shows that laptime (performance) was not the the big factor.

These videos pretty much sums up the cars.

It is easy to see why they put the mustang below. Their arguments are valid. If you dont get it. Then you probably crave the features of the Mustang more. Buy a Mustang and be happy with it.


If you are a part of that niche. It pushes all the right buttons.
There is no such thing as a steal when it comes to cars. According to sales in Europe VW Golf is a steal. Not in my book! (and yes, I "owned" a 2010 model as a company/private car for a year)
At the end of the day. Bang for the buck is all relative to your needs and preferences.
Some persons "bang" for the buck could be another persons "crap for the buck".

im not sure youre getting what im trying to say. a mustang gt is cheaper than the frs. spending 600 on tires is not going to change that. tires is also not going to make the frs faster than a mustang gt. i get why i would want an frs over a mustang. it is what i want, not what is the best value. as far as bang for buck goes, the frs cant touch the mustang. i dont know why you think it will crush a mustang in any but the most extreme circumstance

[Minovsky]

Originally Posted by RaceR

Chill.

I just "guessed...
And would i help if I changed the sentence to.. "I would guess they wanted to find the best drivers car in terms of overall performance"?

And then we could ask.. what performance... Handling performance, balance performance... drifting performance.. mpg performance.. there are several types of performance.
There is also overall performance. That would include things like the stuff mentioned above and things like, driving feel, agility, steering feel, shifter feel, pedal feel, smile on your face, seating postion, confidence behind the wheel .. etc...etc..

The test showed the mustang outperformed the BRZ/FR-S in laptime. Basically due to the tires.

Buy a scion IQ (or Toyota Aygo if it is available over there), put on some slicks and see it outperform the Mustang on a tight Autox track in terms of lap time. And in terms of a braking test and cornering Gs..
Would that make IQ the better performance car for the buck? It would cost less than 20k and outperform the 25k vehicle in terms of lap time.
It is all relative to how you compare things.

This test showed that the staff of motortrend found the BRZ(/FR-S) to be the best performance car for the buck...
It is a over a week since I read the article but I do not recall them saying the fastest laptime wins or equals best, (overall) performance.

If you would buy a racecar. You would most likely buy the car posting fastest laptimes within your budget.
If you would buy a (performance) sports car, you would most likely consider everything. The overall picture. At least I would.. So did the staff of motortrend the way I see it.



According to tirerack the tires on the genesis are in the same high performace group as the tires on the mustang. According to consumer reviews they basically have the same dry performance grip as the tires on the mustang. Tires on that car are nothing to whine about in terms if grip. If you would whine about that you should be crying out loud for the tires on the Toybaru.
It does not come with performance tires.

Seems like you should buy a Genesis with ECU flash then if you like it so much. Dont remember to testdrive the Toybaru tough. Make your own decicion. Reviews are just "guidelines" anyway...




The FR-S is 25k. Add 600 for some 215/45-17 star specs and it would outperform the mustang on that track. It would have crushed it on a smaller track.
They put the BRZ on first place, that just shows that laptime (performance) was not the the big factor.

These videos pretty much sums up the cars.

It is easy to see why they put the mustang below. Their arguments are valid. If you dont get it. Then you probably crave the features of the Mustang more. Buy a Mustang and be happy with it.


If you are a part of that niche. It pushes all the right buttons.
There is no such thing as a steal when it comes to cars. According to sales in Europe VW Golf is a steal. Not in my book! (and yes, I "owned" a 2010 model as a company/private car for a year)
At the end of the day. Bang for the buck is all relative to your needs and preferences.
Some persons "bang" for the buck could be another persons "crap for the buck".

ahah yeh that is true what you said..I for one hate american make cars =/ sorry dont be offended >.<! so no matter how fast an american make car can be i would still think it's "Crap for the buck".

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Honeydew

ahah yeh that is true what you said..I for one hate american make cars =/ sorry dont be offended >.<! so no matter how fast an american make car can be i would still think it's "Crap for the buck".

i dont think you are going to offend anyone but do you realize how stupid that is?

[was385]

I went to test drive the V6 mustang with performance pack today ahead of my pre-ordered BRZ coming in. It is a gorgeous car (really like what they did with the back end styling this year), but just a strange car to drive. The power sitting there is impressive, but it's the handling that I just came away kind of unimpressed with. There's tons of grip due to the tires, but at the same time, the body roll is pretty significant and not all that confidence inspiring. I haven't driven the BRZ yet, but if the reviews are true, then I could swap out the tires and get just as good or better grip with a more nimble ride. Rumors are that the next big re-do for the Mustang will shed a lot of weight and cross your fingers, maybe get rid of the pre-historic live rear axle. If Ford solves the problem instead of just masking it with great tires, this will be one heck of a car in a couple of years.

[RaceR]

In my book, the only thing that makes the mustang lots of bang for the buck is the engine. It offers a ton of straight line performance.
Everywhere else, its behind.

Its like someone saying. "this 60 inch tv is so much bang for the buck. Its huge and only cost 200bucks brand new. Then they turn it on and say. Look, its awesome, its huge.. look at the picture.. Its a bargain! Its a steal! "
And then I would think. The picture is crap. You got what you paid for..
The picture is so bad I would be annoyed watching a movie on it. Please dont invite me to watch a movie on it..

BANG FOR THE BUCK IS ALL RELATIVE TO HOW YOU VALUE STUFF!

Originally Posted by fatoni

spending 600 on tires is not going to change that. tires is also not going to make the frs faster than a mustang gt.
...
the frs cant touch the mustang. i dont know why you think it will crush a mustang in any but the most extreme circumstance

I disagree. Made my point earlier. In short. Going from grand touring to ultra high performance to max performance (and maybe to extreme performance). Would most likely make them equal or the Toybaru being faster. I believe the source to BM laptime improvement proves so.
Also, in the test. The mustang had a performance-package with tires. It would only be fair for the cars to be on the same level in terms of tire compound.

My local track is small and twisty ( it is very small, it is also used for go-carting!) For examples E30s are faster than newer 3 series M cars! Ill give you a keyword. Weight! Not only are they faster. They are more FUN compared to heavy cars. They can be tossed around so easily, and are very agile and balanced.
On some twisty mountain roads around here, the mustang would not keep up. Especially not in the rain.

Put a mustang on the typical BM touge. Would not have a chance on same compound tires vs the Toybaru.
The 86/BRZ is just so much more bang for the buck because everything about it is is good. There is no crap rear axle, chassis, or tons of fat (weight) on it. It basically missed out on the basics while the Toybaru nailed them. In terms of low CG they went beyond what I would have expected.

Watch the motortrend video of the FR-S (again). Really, its not even about the numbers. If you can not appreciate the value of all the Toybarus great features you will not consider it less bang for the buck.
If the features of the car do not appeal to you that much, it will not have that much value. Thereby, less bang for the buck...
I do not care if the mustang is 1-3k+ cheaper. If I wanted a cheap car in the US I could just buy some really cheap car and save thousands...
Motor trend testet cars in the 25k range. Fits the Toybaru nicely.

I actually do understand how great value the mustang is (in the US) It is just. If you want a proper, proper, sports car, drivers cars. It just gets beaten on so many aspects by the Toybaru. The mustang is to heavy to be a proper sporty drivers car. And the engine and price does not make up for its other weaknesses. (in my eyes) But again. If you think it is better bang for the buck, then it is... ... in your eyes... ;p

_________

Originally Posted by was385

I went to test drive the V6 mustang with performance pack today ahead of my pre-ordered BRZ coming in. It is a gorgeous car (really like what they did with the back end styling this year), but just a strange car to drive. The power sitting there is impressive, but it's the handling that I just came away kind of unimpressed with. There's tons of grip due to the tires, but at the same time, the body roll is pretty significant and not all that confidence inspiring. I haven't driven the BRZ yet, but if the reviews are true, then I could swap out the tires and get just as good or better grip with a more nimble ride. Rumors are that the next big re-do for the Mustang will shed a lot of weight and cross your fingers, maybe get rid of the pre-historic live rear axle. If Ford solves the problem instead of just masking it with great tires, this will be one heck of a car in a couple of years.

Nice. Seems like you got much of the same impression that we hear about in the mustang vs BRZ review. Would be nice to hear your feedback after driving the BRZ.
If the rumors are true it would have the potential become awesome. I think they might consider dumping the old rear axle (it would be about time!). But I do not think it will shave of that much weight.. *hoping im wrong*

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by RaceR

In my book, the only thing that makes the mustang lots of bang for the buck is the engine. It offers a ton of straight line performance.
Everywhere else, its behind.

Its like someone saying. "this 60 inch tv is so much bang for the buck. Its huge and only cost 200bucks brand new. Then they turn it on and say. Look, its awesome, its huge.. look at the picture.. Its a bargain! Its a steal! "
And then I would think. The picture is crap. You got what you paid for..
The picture is so bad I would be annoyed watching a movie on it. Please dont invite me to watch a movie on it..

BANG FOR THE BUCK IS ALL RELATIVE TO HOW YOU VALUE STUFF!



I disagree. Made my point earlier. In short. Going from grand touring to ultra high performance to max performance (and maybe to extreme performance). Would most likely make them equal or the Toybaru being faster. I believe the source to BM laptime improvement proves so.
Also, in the test. The mustang had a performance-package with tires. It would only be fair for the cars to be on the same level in terms of tire compound.

My local track is small and twisty ( it is very small, it is also used for go-carting!) For examples E30s are faster than newer 3 series M cars! Ill give you a keyword. Weight! Not only are they faster. They are more FUN compared to heavy cars. They can be tossed around so easily, and are very agile and balanced.
On some twisty mountain roads around here, the mustang would not keep up. Especially not in the rain.

Put a mustang on the typical BM touge. Would not have a chance on same compound tires vs the Toybaru.
The 86/BRZ is just so much more bang for the buck because everything about it is is good. There is no crap rear axle, chassis, or tons of fat (weight) on it. It basically missed out on the basics while the Toybaru nailed them. In terms of low CG they went beyond what I would have expected.

Watch the motortrend video of the FR-S (again). Really, its not even about the numbers. If you can not appreciate the value of all the Toybarus great features you will not consider it less bang for the buck.
If the features of the car do not appeal to you that much, it will not have that much value. Thereby, less bang for the buck...
I do not care if the mustang is 1-3k+ cheaper. If I wanted a cheap car in the US I could just buy some really cheap car and save thousands...
Motor trend testet cars in the 25k range. Fits the Toybaru nicely.

I actually do understand how great value the mustang is (in the US) It is just. If you want a proper, proper, sports car, drivers cars. It just gets beaten on so many aspects by the Toybaru. The mustang is to heavy to be a proper sporty drivers car. And the engine and price does not make up for its other weaknesses. (in my eyes) But again. If you think it is better bang for the buck, then it is... ... in your eyes... ;p

_________



Nice. Seems like you got much of the same impression that we hear about in the mustang vs BRZ review. Would be nice to hear your feedback after driving the BRZ.
If the rumors are true it would have the potential become awesome. I think they might consider dumping the old rear axle (it would be about time!). But I do not think it will shave of that much weight.. *hoping im wrong*

okay i will say this one more time: the frs is not as much "bang for the buck" as the frs. i dont know why the car with twice the power, decent handling, and a lower price is coming in second. the only evidence you have are assumptions which does nothing for your case. since you seem to be talking about bang for the buck and then go on to say you dont care about price im not going to explain that any further.

on a side note, the solid rear axle saves weight. going to irs is going to add weight. the advantage would be that it reduces unsprung weight but the mustang as it is competes with the m3 so i dont see why you think it is so bad

[AlanLGuy]

Originally Posted by fatoni

okay i will say this one more time: the frs is not as much "bang for the buck" as the frs. i dont know why the car with twice the power, decent handling, and a lower price is coming in second. the only evidence you have are assumptions which does nothing for your case. since you seem to be talking about bang for the buck and then go on to say you dont care about price im not going to explain that any further.

on a side note, the solid rear axle saves weight. going to irs is going to add weight. the advantage would be that it reduces unsprung weight but the mustang as it is competes with the m3 so i dont see why you think it is so bad

Where do you get twice the power from? The V6 Mustang is rated at 305HP and the FR-S/BRZ at 197HP. As said in the video, the Mustang is a faster car, the V6 engine makes up a lot, but I would have hoped a car pushing 100 more HP would be more than 1 second faster. It really shows how well the 86 platform handles. It's not a really impressive engine, but it is absolutely a racey one.

The 86 was designed as a weekend warrior, the V6 Mustang was not. I think the V6 Mustang is probably the "best bang for the buck" with it's impressive engine, decent gas mileage, and fairly decent handling, a lot of that body roll could be negated with a lower stance, and a stiffer suspension. That being said, I would prefer an 86 over the mustang any day of the week. The mustang barrels through turns, the 86 dances, and that's what I love about the car. Like the original AE86, it's focused less on power and more on great weight distribution and responsive handling.

To me the V6 mustang is a car that doesn't quite know it's purpose, it's tries to be an affordable daily driver, a good ol American pony car, and a responsive sports car, and it fulfills all those roles well, it just doesn't do any one of them great.

[Dimman]

@RaceR are you an American in Europe or European? How much experience do you have with Mustangs? They don't suck donkey balls anymore like they did in the 90s.

It's not the car for me, but I respect its capabilities.

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by fatoni

okay i will say this one more time: the frs is not as much "bang for the buck" as the frs.

That is some deep shit bro..

Originally Posted by fatoni

i dont know why the car with twice the power, decent handling, and a lower price is coming in second. the only evidence you have are assumptions which does nothing for your case.

The results were. Not talking about lap times.
1. BRZ Limited
2. FR-S
3. Miata
4. Mustang

What are you talking about?
If you are talking about why the Mustang came in 4. since it has 50% more power compared to the Toybaru I have made my point. Motortrend made their point. You just dont get...
And for the record. The mustang was the most expensive car. At the cheapest it could have been the same as the FR-S.

My assumptions about tires should not be that far of..
Oh, and after reading some parts of the article again. The Hyundai would have won in terms of laptimes if it had the same rubber as the Mustang.

Originally Posted by fatoni

on a side note, the solid rear axle saves weight. going to irs is going to add weight. the advantage would be that it reduces unsprung weight but the mustang as it is competes with the m3 so i dont see why you think it is so bad

The mustang as it is competes with the m3?
... you funny man... :p