FR-S/BRZ vs 2011+ Mustang V6

[86fanatic]

Originally Posted by Capt Canuck

I wouldn't doubt one of the reasons for the V6's low top-end speed limiter is because of the amount of them that end up in car rental fleets. They don't want anymore of them getting wrecked than need be ;-)

These are still cracking value IMHO and continually banging on about some weak points, that can be fixed, really is fanboyish or having the blinders fastened too tight.

Well you only have to look back one page in this thread to see the video of the driveshaft failing on the V6 Mustang that had it's limiter removed. I was surprised upon seeing that video, and upon further research also surprised to learn that the V8 has a speed limiter which is relatively low for it's power, and same with the Boss.

All in all, it does paint a picture about weaknesses in the drive train.

Of course they are still a good value and your accusation of calling me a fan boy seems way out of place relative to what I was saying.

[Capt Canuck]

^Ah right! Sorry about that, I did quote you there. Oops I wasn't referring to your post as being fanboyish.

I quoted you for the speed-limiter part. My 2nd paragraph was after looking at carbonblue's post, I should have clarified that better.

[MrBonus]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

yeah sad that the new v6 driveshaft shatters and the v8 tranny starts having problems at 5k miles

i would spend 30k on a supra with 200k miles on it compared to a new mustang, i may break a driveshaft... at 800rwhp...

the reason why mustangs are cheap is because they are cheaply made and untested... i mean if the 5.0L started having tranny problems for a lot of people at 5k miles... they must have done almost no track testing and built the thing on a computer hoping it would work, the BRZ/86/FR-S has seen 6 years of track testing... i would be amazed if its reliability didnt satisfy me... or if anything broke under 50k miles, even on its first year...

This post is absurd. The transmission "issues" have largely been reported by people who modified and drag raced the car.

The V6 driveshaft was designed for fuel mileage and it is suspected that the speeds from the infamous video were not intended by the manufacturer, creating vibration the driveshaft wasn't designed to take.

Given the heavy motorsport involvement of the Mustang, especially in the Continental Tire Championship running engines nearly identical to that available in the Boss, it's quite clear that the Mustang has no shortage of track testing.

Originally Posted by 86fanatic

Well you only have to look back one page in this thread to see the video of the driveshaft failing on the V6 Mustang that had it's limiter removed. I was surprised upon seeing that video, and upon further research also surprised to learn that the V8 has a speed limiter which is relatively low for it's power, and same with the Boss.

All in all, it does paint a picture about weaknesses in the drive train.

Of course they are still a good value and your accusation of calling me a fan boy seems way out of place relative to what I was saying.

It paints a picture of the upper limits of factory aerodynamics, much like manufacturers like Mercedes and BMW, who don't want a few exercising poor judgment and ending up with a short-distance aircraft.

When I bought my Boss, I did so because I tired of the costly repairs and maintenance of Porsche 911s, both old and new. It's a stout, well-built package of a machine that doesn't have the brittle and expensive movement arms that require frequent replacement of its German and Japanese counterparts when driven as intended. I don't have to worry about the "Porsche tax" if I have an off or have to replace a major component following track usage and I'm happy with my decision.

[Dimman]

I saw a cut-up V6 display engine at the autoshow, and if the factory headers are an indication, there is still power left in it... (Assuming fitment isn't an issue.)

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by MrBonus

This post is absurd. The transmission "issues" have largely been reported by people who modified and drag raced the car.

The V6 driveshaft was designed for fuel mileage and it is suspected that the speeds from the infamous video were not intended by the manufacturer, creating vibration the driveshaft wasn't designed to take.

Given the heavy motorsport involvement of the Mustang, especially in the Continental Tire Championship running engines nearly identical to that available in the Boss, it's quite clear that the Mustang has no shortage of track testing.




It paints a picture of the upper limits of factory aerodynamics, much like manufacturers like Mercedes and BMW, who don't want a few exercising poor judgment and ending up with a short-distance aircraft.

When I bought my Boss, I did so because I tired of the costly repairs and maintenance of Porsche 911s, both old and new. It's a stout, well-built package of a machine that doesn't have the brittle and expensive movement arms that require frequent replacement of its German and Japanese counterparts when driven as intended. I don't have to worry about the "Porsche tax" if I have an off or have to replace a major component following track usage and I'm happy with my decision.

I personally dont have a problem with the boss, it was well designed and doesnt share a lot kf the drivetrain parts as the v6 or v8

My Celica has had no problems that greatly effected the car, and it was a first year model made in 1999 , the first year 2zzge had 2 problems
1 the lift bolts broke, 7 dollar fix and rarely happened also didnt cause the engine to fail, you just didnt have lift anymore
2 oil pump would shatter on a missed down shift, and only if the RPMs breached 11k, none of the internals would suffer damage at those RPMs,

My 5th gear rubs but my tranny is 13 years old, that is my only problem, my engine is beat on from the moment it starts till I get to my destination and im at 155000 miles, there isnt many motors that can be abused like that... My friend has a new v6 mustang and hes having sludge issues, im very hard on my car and do 8000 mile oil changes compared to his 4000 mile changes and I have no sludge issues....

[MrBonus]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

I personally dont have a problem with the boss, it was well designed and doesnt share a lot kf the drivetrain parts as the v6 or v8

The Boss's motor is a Coyote-based 5.0 and shares the MT82 transmission with the GT. The main difference is the Torsen differential.

[SUB-FT86]

I believe if the Mustang V6 had a IRS suspension, upgraded driveshaft, and 18'' wheels standard it would be priced like the old V6 BASE GC(25k) which had those features and more standard.

[KatHawkDown]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

that why i have so much love for the supra, mechanically, when maintained, by maintained i mean just change the oil, nothing should break for a very long time... a lot of cars cant say that... if its built like a true toyota sports car then we shouldnt have any problems at all.

I think this car will have at least very respectable reliability but there is no way it will be built like the Toyota sports cars of the nineties or eighties. They can't afford that these days. My mother's '08 IS250 has more creaks and rattles than my good buddy's 98 Avalon. I don't have empirical knowledge of this, but they over-engineered them and the Supra is the pinnacle of it. Now they build them just to the point where they have perceived quality and nothing more.

Originally Posted by Capt Canuck

I wouldn't doubt one of the reasons for the V6's low top-end speed limiter is because of the amount of them that end up in car rental fleets. They don't want anymore of them getting wrecked than need be ;-)

These are still cracking value IMHO and continually banging on about some weak points, that can be fixed, really is fanboyish or having the blinders fastened too tight.

No kidding right? I am honestly astonished at the performance value of all current Mustangs. I drove a Fiesta recently (just for fun) that cost $26k here in Canada. Leaving the dealership I looked at the window sticker of a '12 Mustang V6 that was $22k BEFORE incentives. WTF? Over 300hp, some ok standard equipment, and more than respectable fuel economy for what would end up being close to $7k cheaper than a Fiesta?

Somehow I can't bring myself to buy one though. :-)

[SuqMadiq]

Originally Posted by Guff

All good points, but 'out corner the BRZ and FRS all day long' is pushing it. On a tight and technical AutoX, the BRZ would almost certainly post better times than the GT.

I shouldn't have said all day long, but certainly in stock form the 5.0 will out handle the BR-Z/FR-S. The tires on the Scion and Subaru seem to be a budget tire in my mind, it should have at least a 225.

Anyways, since the Mustang is based on a 2011 design, a $3-4k discount off invoice seems like a pretty good deal. I just checked USAA's car buying service and you can get a 2012 GT for about $25k including destination.

Since the BR-Z/FR-S is brand new you'll be paying the full amount if not more (scumbag dealers adding mark-up).

[KeepGuessing]

Question...
How do you test a rod to a certain HP..unless you've got a spare XxX HP car you're borrowing parts from.

I can see testing them to a certain pressure reading..

Originally Posted by Dimman

I saw a cut-up V6 display engine at the autoshow, and if the factory headers are an indication, there is still power left in it... (Assuming fitment isn't an issue.)

Oh there is much to be had by way of aspiration on the Duratec 6. It just lends itself to becoming the a-typical horrible sounding V6 Mustang

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by SuqMadiq

I shouldn't have said all day long, but certainly in stock form the 5.0 will out handle the BR-Z/FR-S. The tires on the Scion and Subaru seem to be a budget tire in my mind, it should have at least a 225.

Tire make/model = WAY more important than width. On the same make/model tires in OEM sizes, I would bet on the FR-S/BRZ in a pure handling test (i.e., power not a factor).

But anyway, the FR-S/BRZ have MORE tire width per pound than *any* Mustang, including the Boss 302 LS and GT500.

[MrBonus]

Originally Posted by justaquestion

+1

Cars in the 90s were over engineered, cars of today aren't. Its as simple as that. Not to mention with inflation, you could buy two GT's today for the price of one Supra.

I don't entirely buy this argument. Today's cars have better knock protection, cooling, and performance than 15 years ago.

Most new sports cars need little more than higher temp brake pads or fluid to be flogged on the track without worry while those same cars 15 years ago required larger radiators and oil coolers to do the same and that's before you sort the aging suspensions.

The thing that bothers me about today's cars are the litany of electronic nannies that must be disabled (or cannot be disabled) to protect the driver's body and ego but, of course, that's why we are all interested in the FT86.

[MrBonus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/au...0000.html?_r=2

Here is an interesting article about the longevity of today's motors. I do however agree with a lot of what you're saying but I think people tend to over-romanticize the quality and engineering of those cars from the '90s.

[Turbowned]

Originally Posted by MrBonus

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/au...0000.html?_r=2

Here is an interesting article about the longevity of today's motors. I do however agree with a lot of what you're saying but I think people tend to over-romanticize the quality and engineering of those cars from the '90s.

Granted the 1000+whp capability of stock bottom-end Supras and Skylines were definitely impressive. They were still big, heavy brutes and are outclassed by many of today's performance cars. Not to say I don't love them all (gimme an FD RX-7 or an R32 GT-R any day!); technology just has gotten better.