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

[blur]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

It would turn into a muscle car that handles worst in feel and numbers than a Mustang V6 PP. The balance would be 57/43 and it would be so damn nose heavy. I realize the strengths and weakness of a 4 cylinder is better handling against great acceleration. If you put a 2.0l N/A 4 cylinder engine inside of a Stang it will handle as well or close to something like a FRS but it would sacrifice acceleration in which Mustang lovers can't deal with.

Lol did you just say a 4 cyl in the stang will make it handle similar to the 86? HAHAHAH.

[JERZgrl88]

This was a good video, I spent the morning watching this and drinking my coffee...at my desk while I was "working." Funny thing - I like Mustangs, but the older 87-93 Fox bodies, however I do not care for any new Mustang, especially a V6. I'd definitely take the BR-Z over the Mustang in a heart beat! The end.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

.... ok walk into ferrari, buggati, lambo HQ and tell them that they all use 20 inch rims...
on high hp and tq cars, you need a larger diameter tire, for the main fact small tires have smaller contact patches,

They have big wheels to house huge BRAKES, which higher-hp cars NEED. V6 Mustang doesn't need anything like the brakes that those cars do, and FR-S/BRZ doesn't need brakes as big as the Mustang.

also having too little unsprung weight in a higher hp application it doesnt help traction

Less unsprung mass/rotational mass is always better. You don't use rotational mass to "help traction"! Any more than you add weight in general to do this (caveat: you might do this on a Bonneville LSR car, certainly not on any sports car for the road/track).

High-powered cars need big brakes. Bigger wheels that aren't necessary to clear required big brakes are pure styling, nothing else.

larger diameter tires spin slower to cause the same amount of acceleration as smaller tires,

Ultimately what it comes down to is the amount of thrust you can apply at the contact patch, which is defined by the tires and how much weight is on them. Tire diameter is just another part of the gearing.

you dont see mustang people going over and asking the miata people to use their rims and tires do ya?

Of course not. Bigger heavier more powerful cars need bigger brakes and wider tires to offer the same performance.

smaller diameter tires of the same grip level as the 19 tires on the mustang would cause a ton of wheel spin and loss of grip, the car already eats through its first gear when accelerating

Tire diameter is accounted for with gearing. They could use 25" tires with a 3.17 diff is exactly the same as 27" tires with a 3.42 diff.

For the GT500, which has massive power and needs massive brakes, big wheels are appropriate. For the V6 trackpack model, 19" is a way to get low profile tires without changing tire diameter which they'd like to keep the same across the different variations of Mustang.

if anything it needs more contact patch and the only way to get that is to go wider or add diameter

You're still not getting it: Contact patch is NOT strongly related to tire width and diameter. It is strongly related to tire pressure and the load on the tire.

both the GTR and the bugatti both weight a ton, in fact almost 2 tones, that taller diameter and wider tires is defiantly a necessity ,they have enough weight

It's related to the power and necessity for housing the huge brakes that big power requires.

rule of thumb if you are having traction problems, add more tire diameter if you can,

This may be a good way to cheaply/easily change overall gearing for a drag car, not a good approach for a autoX or road course car because you're changing ride height in the wrong direction.

The bigger diameter tire changes overall gearing. And in a drag-racing vein, it might add longitudinal grip in terms of giving a softer sidewall and LONGER (not BIGGER) contact patch.

if your having cornering problems then add tire width

Not exactly. If you want to add ultimate lateral grip, add tire width, up to a point. But that won't address handling *problems*, you'll just have the same problems at a higher level. To be nit-picky...

[Grateful Dave]

I believe the whole comparison in this video, is which car is more of a driver's car. He says the BRZ is more of a driver's car, but the Mustang wins the numbers comparisons. The BRZ was a regular package with squeely Prius tires. The Mustang had the track package upgrade with way better Pirelli tires. So to make the numbers comparison equal either we upgrade the BRZ with better tires and some kind of track package upgrade or downgrade the Mustang to a standard V6 Mustang. Then we can make better comparisons. I believe if the BRZ had the same make and model tires as the Mustang it would of had a better track time.
The bottom line is, this was just another apples and oranges comparison. A wanna be muscle car (V6) versus a sophisticated inexpensive sports car. You can't really compare the two. Either you want a muscle car or a sports car. I want a sports car. I want a driver's car and I'm getting the FR-S!

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by koyv90

why do they keep comparing the engine to Honda/Acrua VTEC? I mean i have a rsx Type S but is honda's vtec that amazing when compared to other high rev engines??

I actually compared the two and prefer the BRZ's torque-band. The BRZ is stronger across the board (probably due to how much compression it's running), except above 7200 rpm where the k20's variable valve lift (i.e., VTEC) really pays off. See below for ghetto excel chart:



At 2600 rpm, the BRZ is making 30 lb-ft more than the RSX-S! Also consistently makes 20-25 lb-ft more across the board.

Honestly though, the real beauty of the k20 series engines is how much untapped potential they have. 200whp is possible with I/H/E/T thanks to a very free-flowing head (i.e., variable lift valves/VTEC).

[KeepGuessing]

^^
The issue is that the torque isn't flat..Yes the BRZ produced a hair more torque..but because of those dips you cannot "depend" on it being there....

NOT only that the higher rev nature of the k20 puts that much "more" of a guarantee when you get on the accelerator you'll be in a more optimal point in the powerband..Vs landing right in the deadspot on in the BRZ Which is what comprehensive test drives have complained about.


I think when you look at Dyno readings of engines like the K20 you need to take into serious account that the engine works in favor of it's rev range and close gearing...

Sure the power might kick on till 5000-6000RPM...but seldom are you put in a situation to where those RPM's aren't availible to you in a performance setting.



As for Mustang to BRZ....A BRZ premium(whatever trim) will cost as much as a V8 mustang...Win Mustang....If you're looking for performance...there's a clear choice..If you're looking for "feel" there's a clear winner..

This is much like a car-savvy person deciding between a BMW and a benz...There are ample reasons to own either..but in the end do you want the style/suave of the benz or the feel/tenacity of the bmw

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

^^
The issue is that the torque isn't flat..Yes the BRZ produced a hair more torque..but because of those dips you cannot "depend" on it being there....

NOT only that the higher rev nature of the k20 puts that much "more" of a guarantee when you get on the accelerator you'll be in a more optimal point in the powerband..Vs landing right in the deadspot on in the BRZ Which is what comprehensive test drives have complained about.

Moot point because even in the deadspot, the BRZ is making more torque than the RSX-S. The BRZ will feel stronger than the RSX-S around town, and as strong at high rpms.

20-30 lb-ft advantage of BRZ >>> RSX-S geared for +600 rpm powerband

Calculating torque to wheels per gear should bear this out.

[KeepGuessing]

It's not a moot point...

For ONE....As it stands the RSX-S does/Did net faster 0-60 sprints with numerous confirmed duplications of these faster times..All WITHOUT 5 foot rollouts

Next "Feeling stronger" is a 1000000% subjective term...The phrase "feeling stronger" means less than zero in the grand scheme of things. There are people who feel the RX8 "felt" strong enough around town..There are cars with large amounts of torque that don't "feel" strong because of how well designed they are.

and lastly i'd like to say..

That dyno graph you posted doesn't seem to be a RSX-S..
Unless of course somehow through the course of wizardry The FWD driveline loses more power than a RWD one, despite that going against quite a few mathematics fundamentals.

notice how the "200-210HP" FWD car produces... ~165... While the "200hp" RWD car produces ~173?

Meanwhile RSX-S's dyno at 176+ regularly depending on K20A or K20Z..Or maybe this was just some old sloppy RSX-S on the drums....That and the incorrect torque values as-well...

So now we take into account that the K20Z1 is producing...7less Ftlbs Outside of the vehicle...and loses less power due to the drivetrain, it puts these 2 cars torque production nearly identical quantitatively once the rubber hits the road...Which is when the torque dip comes into play.


-edit--

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Moot point because even in the deadspot, the BRZ is making more torque than the RSX-S. The BRZ will feel stronger than the RSX-S around town, and as strong at high rpms.

20-30 lb-ft advantage of BRZ >>> RSX-S geared for +600 rpm powerband

Calculating torque to wheels per gear should bear this out.

Yeah I don't know why i Put 5' but yes the rollout makes a GIGANTIC difference....which is why there are "cases" of the e90 m3 doing 0-60 in 4.1 seconds..Which isn't happening..

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

NOT only that the higher rev nature of the k20 puts that much "more" of a guarantee when you get on the accelerator you'll be in a more optimal point in the powerband..Vs landing right in the deadspot on in the BRZ Which is what comprehensive test drives have complained about.

all the videos of the brz/frs/gt86 rpms never drop below 5k when shifting, some of the higher gears landing around 6k after a shift that dip ends around 4500 and is at its lowest at 3800, chances of landing in that "dip" is highly,highly unlikely...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

I
For ONE....As it stands the RSX-S does/Did net faster 0-60 sprints with numerous confirmed duplications of these faster times..All WITHOUT 5 foot rollouts.

Never heard of anyone testing any car for 0-60 with a 5' rollout.

One of the mags *does* give a roll-on 5mph to 60mph acceleration time, which is always SLOWER due to bogging.

And I think MT does a 1' rollout for 1/4-mile, just like you have if you stage shallow at the drag strip.

[p911gt3]

There has been some talk about people saying the comparison is biased because of the amount of grip available with longer, wider contact patches. Does anyone think that the BRZ could have an issue with more grip like the S2000's did/do? Cracking of the front A arm brackets and such? Yes I do understand that this is a McP front setup not a double wishbone, but is there a possibility that stock parts might not support the strain associated with 255's or whatever else someone tries to stick under the wheel wells?

[86'd]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

all the videos of the brz/frs/gt86 rpms never drop below 5k when shifting, some of the higher gears landing around 6k after a shift that dip ends around 4500 and is at its lowest at 3800, chances of landing in that "dip" is highly,highly unlikely...

Yeah I think it's driver error that's causing people to end up in that dip.

Falling out of VTEC is also very common.

On another note the curve above looks a lot like my EP3's/Base RSX:



I'm expecting it to be a faster version of my car, so I'm good!

[p911gt3]

Originally Posted by justaquestion

Lots of talk going on about rim diameter and it relating to contact patches, without anymore information, so can someone please explain to me how a 18" rim with the same tires on it as a 17" rim, has a higher contact patch?

Not an expert, just going off general knowledge, but if you have two identical tires, the only difference being diameter, wouldn't the only thing that affect the contact patch be the tires PSI, and the amount of weight that tire is holding up on that corner of the car?

If you took a BRZ, that has (A) tires at (X) psi, on an 18 inch rim, then installed (A) tires at (X) psi with 16 inch rims, on the same BRZ, wouldn't the contact patch be identical, assuming both wheels were the same weight.

Unless you guys are taking into account different widths, and just not telling each other.

The reason people are mentioning a larger area contact patch with bigger around tires is because the contact patch is 2 dimensional. In theory a 1 inch increase in diameter with no increase in weight should net a slightly longer contact patch.(that was a pretty scientific statement huh?) As in most things, this should also be subject to the law of diminishing returns.

IMHO, people forget that there is also a tendency of the contact patch, at rest, to shorten when the tires are widened. In the end, I think we need to program a simulator to calc the contact patch at rest and a variety of loads. Maybe by saying this someone will build one for me

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

It's not a moot point...

For ONE....As it stands the RSX-S does/Did net faster 0-60 sprints with numerous confirmed duplications of these faster times..All WITHOUT 5 foot rollouts

Next "Feeling stronger" is a 1000000% subjective term...The phrase "feeling stronger" means less than zero in the grand scheme of things. There are people who feel the RX8 "felt" strong enough around town..There are cars with large amounts of torque that don't "feel" strong because of how well designed they are.

and lastly i'd like to say..

That dyno graph you posted doesn't seem to be a RSX-S..
Unless of course somehow through the course of wizardry The FWD driveline loses more power than a RWD one, despite that going against quite a few mathematics fundamentals.

notice how the "200-210HP" FWD car produces... ~165... While the "200hp" RWD car produces ~173?

Meanwhile RSX-S's dyno at 176+ regularly depending on K20A or K20Z..Or maybe this was just some old sloppy RSX-S on the drums....That and the incorrect torque values as-well...

So now we take into account that the K20Z1 is producing...7less Ftlbs Outside of the vehicle...and loses less power due to the drivetrain, it puts these 2 cars torque production nearly identical quantitatively once the rubber hits the road...Which is when the torque dip comes into play.

1) Proof of "numerous confirmed duplications" of RSX-S 0-60 in less than 6.4 seconds.

2) You honestly think because this dyno shows 167 whp that it couldn't be an RSX-S? Not even a k20a2? Look at the chart. What other engine is going to put up a dyno plot with a redline at 7900 rpm and a VTEC crossover at 5800 rpm? Seriously man, think. Also realize that dynos vary, cars vary, and environmental conditions vary. Not every dyno of an RSX-S will be the same. Anyway feel free to overlay any of your 176+ whp stock k20a2 dynos (if you have any) over the BRZ dyno. 167 whp or 176 whp, it won't make much of a difference.

3) The RSX-S isn't a 210 hp car, the rating changed from 05-06. In today's rating system, it's 200. In fact, the 02-04 RSX-S was rated at 200 under the old system, meaning in today's rating, it'd be in the 19X range. Also understand manufacturer's ratings of their cars will also vary. Trying to argue a BRZ can't ever dyno more than a k20a2 RSX-S because it's RWD is ridiculous. In fact, the chart above proves it already happened.

4) And back to the original point, calculate torque to the wheels multiplied by gearing and show me the RSX-S putting down more power than the BRZ in the midrange. Hint: the BRZ has shorter gearing than the 02-04 RSX-S (in addition to 20-30 lb-ft more torque through the powerband). This should be interesting...