Mustang? WOW!

[Nemesis]

I know I'm going to catch some heat for this, but we have talked about the FT-86's competition before and I thought I would mention this now that the numbers are out: The 2011 Mustang V8 does 0-60 in 4.3sec, lateral G of .95 and starts at 30k. The FT-86 Turbo will have to compete with this in my book, seeing as consumer reports gave the 2010 mustang GT premium a good rating. Also the V-6 will now have 305 hp, 0-60 in 5.5sec, not sure about the lateral Gs, I'll look again tonight and post it later. I think the V6 starts around 25k. That is incredibly impressive. I drove the 2010 mustang GT and loved the chasis, the new/tighter look, but did not like the old engine's power delivery, which seemed "soft" to me. Hopefully the new 5.0 will impress me. The "downer" is it will need premium gas which is probably what the FT-86 turbo will need anyway. I would really like to have the FT-86, but I will have to wait another year for it, and it's just hard to argue with a 0-60 of 4.3sec! WOW.[IMG]http://*************/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif[/IMG]

[ichitaka05]

I think some where in this thread there was this topic bout this.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I think some where in this thread there was this topic bout this.

I remember the thread, I just wanted to post this because the performance figures just came out. Prior to to this, we only new HP/TQ and engine sizes...

[MtnDrvr86]

the numbers were out a bit ago. We had a comparison to the E92 M3 somewhere else, the number are almost exactly the same only the Musting being much less expensive

[NESW20]

numbers don't tell the whole story. i could throw some wide sticky tires on a city dump truck and get it to pull .95 lateral G's, but how does it FEEL? i bet it feels just as heavy as it is. i'm anticipating the FT will feel light and responsive; nimble.

-Mike

[Dark]

I used to mention it once. FT-86 differs from Mustang in purposes of engineering. FT-86,which resembles of AE86 or Sprinter Levin/Trueno, is mean to be lightweight small coupe. Engineers not only make fun-to-drive, but also looks fun-to-drive. They use boxer engine to keep the car as low as possible, and they want to to have drifting character. Mustang, the American Muscle car, resemble of n.th rather than itself. It doesn't mean to be a fun-to-drive car because it competes with bigger Camaro, and Challenger. It has rear live axle and 3200+lb curb weight.

[EyeZer0]

The FT86 production car won't even compete with the Mustang V8 anyways...If anything it will compete with the V6 at 305hp but a 3500 curb weight. The closest competitor that is currently out that the FT86 needs to beat is the Genesis Coupe which shouldn't be too hard in it's 2.0T trim that only makes 210hp to a 3300 or so curb weight.

[Sleeperz]

Power to weight ratio.

The V6 Mustang 305HP/ 3500 lbs = 11.48 lbs/ HP
MSRP - US$22,995 Base

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/



FT86 estimate 200HP/ 2500 lbs = 12.5 lbs/HP

[FT-HS]

Originally Posted by Sleeperz

Power to weight ratio.

The V6 Mustang 305HP/ 3500 lbs = 11.48 lbs/ HP
MSRP - US$22,995 Base

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/



FT86 estimate 200HP/ 2500 lbs = 12.5 lbs/HP

I don't know much about 'power to weight' or 'weight to power' ratios. However I did a quick read about it on Wikipedia. 'Power to weight' ratios is a measurement of actual performance of an engine. Whereas 'Weight to power' ratios is a measurement of acceleration potential.

Ok, so Sleeperz actually did a 'Weight to power' ratio rather than a 'Power to weight' ratio which he said he did in his post... So this is the Actual Power to weight ratios... (He divided lbs by HP which is weight to power ratio)(Power to weight is dividing HP by lbs)

Mustang = .0871
FT = .0800

... This means the FT is lower in terms of 'Power to weight' ratio, but higher in the inverse of the equation, the 'Weight to power' ratio which I understand are two different things (someone should confirm).

In a nutshell, the Mustang scores higher on the measurement of actual performance whereas the FT scores higher on the measurement of acceleration potential.

I'm just curious, I just want to know more about these Two technical terms. I would read the Wikipedia article about it but I don't have the time or will to read that much into it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio). However it says that Power to weight and Weight to power ratios are different.

NOTE: I am going by Sleeperz numbers in calculations, not the numbers provided by factory so the numbers could be wrong. However, I think in terms of cars, Power to weight ratios are more important because hell, have we ever heard of weight to power ratios in car reviews before? Anyways regardless, the FT body is hot

[Lexicon101]

Originally Posted by FT-HS

I don't know much about 'power to weight' or 'weight to power' ratios. However I did a quick read about it on Wikipedia. 'Power to weight' ratios is a measurement of actual performance of an engine. Whereas 'Weight to power' ratios is a measurement of acceleration potential.

Ok, so Sleeperz actually did a 'Weight to power' ratio rather than a 'Power to weight' ratio which he said he did in his post... So this is the Actual Power to weight ratios... (He divided lbs by HP which is weight to power ratio)(Power to weight is dividing HP by lbs)

Mustang = .0871
FT = .0800

... This means the FT is lower in terms of 'Power to weight' ratio, but higher in the inverse of the equation, the 'Weight to power' ratio which I understand are two different things (someone should confirm).

In a nutshell, the Mustang scores higher on the measurement of actual performance whereas the FT scores higher on the measurement of acceleration potential.

I'm just curious, I just want to know more about these Two technical terms. I would read the Wikipedia article about it but I don't have the time or will to read that much into it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio). However it says that Power to weight and Weight to power ratios are different.

NOTE: I am going by Sleeperz numbers in calculations, not the numbers provided by factory so the numbers could be wrong. However, I think in terms of cars, Power to weight ratios are more important because hell, have we ever heard of weight to power ratios in car reviews before? Anyways regardless, the FT body is hot

You're taking the same numbers, dividing them the other way, and going "Well now THIS number's bigger!"
The ratio of these two cars' power vs. their weight is the same either way.
One is 11.48:1 (same as 1:11.48 if you reverse the numbers.)
The other is 12.5:1 (Probably. We don't know the actual weight OR the actual power, and I'm personally more interested in torque than HP, but.. Either way, those figures are the same in reverse.)


EDIT: I don't care how it does on the skidpad. I have ZERO faith in a mustang's ability to corner well until I see ANY evidence of it. Mustangs are not cornering monsters. If they're any kind of monster, it's a troll. Those things are ugly.

[Frost]

First off: I LOVE the current gen of the Mustang. Looks great, sounds great and is an awesome rendition of American muscle. I've driven it multiple times and have a tendency to rent it when I'm out on the road for work and it is within reasonable price.

That said, it is not what I want in a sports car.

The Mustang is not the small, nimble, agile, surgical knife I want in a sports car. It is a cleaver. My IS300 isn't that worlds apart when it comes to weight but I can corner in it though the 'stang will beat in on the straightaway (oh and what a sound!). The 'stang is a great powerslider of a car and is a thug when it comes to turns.

The FT86 is supposed to a surgical knife. A ninja. Can't quite compare the two.

You might as well compare the Elise to the 'Stang.

[Lexicon101]

Originally Posted by Frost

First off: I LOVE the current gen of the Mustang. Looks great, sounds great and is an awesome rendition of American muscle. I've driven it multiple times and have a tendency to rent it when I'm out on the road for work and it is within reasonable price.

That said, it is not what I want in a sports car.

The Mustang is not the small, nimble, agile, surgical knife I want in a sports car. It is a cleaver. My IS300 isn't that worlds apart when it comes to weight but I can corner in it though the 'stang will beat in on the straightaway (oh and what a sound!). The 'stang is a great powerslider of a car and is a thug when it comes to turns.

The FT86 is supposed to a surgical knife. A ninja. Can't quite compare the two.

You might as well compare the Elise to the 'Stang.

Well-said. I can't personally agree with the whole "I LOVE the current gen of the Mustang" bit, but it's really a matter of opinion there.
It has its strengths, they're just not the ones I'm looking for.

[Franisco]

Originally Posted by Lexicon101

Well-said. I can't personally agree with the whole "I LOVE the current gen of the Mustang" bit, but it's really a matter of opinion there.
It has its strengths, they're just not the ones I'm looking for.

Sounds about right. Furthermore, I think this same thing can be said about the Gen coupe. It set out to be a muscle car, its big, its not going to feel the same.

[Lexicon101]

I still say the best comparison is FT-86 / Ichigo (S15 Silvia)...
The cars are different sizes and all that.. but the spirit's pretty similar.
(IMHO)