Motor Trend Head-to-Head: BRZ vs... Mustang?

In reply to ReverendDexter:

I can't disagree with this. But i mean, the Mustang has had since 2005 to build its aftermarket. The BRZ/FRS aftermarket hasn't gotten to really build since the car just came out. I guess i'm just feeling like the only one to be trying to hold a shield in front of the BRZ/FRS.

I did notice how the engine bay was really cramped. But i believe the aftermarket (when it's better established) will find a way to bulk up the little guy, regardless.

I have however, always liked how as you said, i can go anywhere and find parts for the Mustang. But i very much agree with the metaphor of the Mustang as a blunt tool (hammer), and the BRZ/FRS as a scalpel. Personally, i just prefer the scalpel, especially since every side-ways hat wearing 'bro' with a masculinity complex and unmet childhood emotional needs drives and belligerently flaunts his Mustang, (in my area, at least) and it births powerful resentment.

EdenPrime wrote: In reply to ReverendDexter: I can't disagree with this. But i mean, the Mustang has had since 1964 to build its aftermarket. The BRZ/FRS aftermarket hasn't gotten to really build since the car just came out. I guess i'm just feeling like the only one to be trying to hold a shield in front of the BRZ/FRS.

I realize that it's not the same car since 1964, but it's not the same car as 2005, seems arbitrary to cut it off there.

Also, D-bags are a big part of the sports/sporty car market. Without image-obsessed bro's trying desperately to get laid most of these cars wouldn't be profitable.

I bet the BRZ/FR-S and the Mustang get cross shopped more than you guys think. There are import geeks and domestic geeks in the enthusiast world, but we are a tiny fraction of the market.

Also, I don't see why you would think the Mustang and 370Z are comparable and the Genesis coupe and BRZ/FR-S are comparable, but the two groups aren't. The Gen. Coupe is the same size and weight (the Genesis is 100-ish lbs. heavier actually) than the 370Z and can be had with a very comparable V6 to the 370Z's. MSRP? To me the BRZ/FR-S seems like the outlier here, down a quarter ton and 75 hp against the others. Like I said though, the whole group is going to get attention from the same group of people looking for "something sporty." The D-bags, mid-life crises, and trophy wives see these things as being basically fungible with the tie breaker going to the prettiest one or the one with the coolest stereo.

I would buy a Toyobaru BR-S in a hearbeat if it had a turbocharger, supercharger, or V6. I like torque too much to have fun in that thing.

RexSeven wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Me too - I could have written that copy without ever having seen either vehicle. It's hard to know if it's true or bs, I trust the GRM guys to be honest when they talk about objective things like feel or handling. I don't trust MT guys, especially when they balk at the live axle still.

Do you disagree with Randy's assessments? Not attacking you, just curious because I ASSumed he'd be more objective than the MT guy and, since I own a 2013 V-6 Performance Package Mustang, I can can concur with much of what he said about it. My biggest gripe, like what Randy said, is that the the V-6PP* is severely underdamped even with the GT struts/shocks. They're too floaty. It's a little unnerving in corners because it feels like the car is doing something it shouldn't when it's actually tracking just fine. Koni yellows will be my first or second mod along with 18" wheels for daily driving. Other than that, the new Mustang is a lot of fun. It's a hammer compared to the BRZ's scalpel, but it's a surprisingly agile hammer, and damned quick with the new sixxer. *(Huh, huh, I said PP, huh, huh)

Here's what your Mustang needs:

Steeda Springs + Koni adjustable dampers + Maximum Motorsports caster/camber plates are the SHIZNIT.

Vigo wrote: people complaining about 2.0L NA cars that trap 95mph in the 1/4 mile is lame. The only other 2.0L NA i can think of that's in the ballpark is a 9000 rpm honda that cost more and was a lot less useful.

Acura RSX Type-S traps around 95, is FWD and was available 10 years ago.

DaveEstey wrote:

Vigo wrote: people complaining about 2.0L NA cars that trap 95mph in the 1/4 mile is lame. The only other 2.0L NA i can think of that's in the ballpark is a 9000 rpm honda that cost more and was a lot less useful.

Acura RSX Type-S traps around 95, is FWD and was available 10 years ago.

And is no longer...

Neither is the S2k but that got thrown into the mix.

DaveEstey wrote: Neither is the S2k but that got thrown into the mix.

I'll consider that dumb as well.

My own take is that trying to make sense of sports cars is like tryin to make sense of women: Those that don't waste time rationalizing, will get the mst satyisfying ride.

Or the other one that I heard:

When you turn yur car on...does it return the favour!

Isn't EVO like an SI swimsuit issue with cars as the backdrops? I'm sure they know what they are talking about.

DaveEstey wrote:

Vigo wrote: people complaining about 2.0L NA cars that trap 95mph in the 1/4 mile is lame. The only other 2.0L NA i can think of that's in the ballpark is a 9000 rpm honda that cost more and was a lot less useful.

Acura RSX Type-S traps around 95, is FWD and was available 10 years ago.

The kind of cars that enthusiasts think are great tend to land with a resounding thud with the general public. I hope this isn't one of them.

SupraWes wrote: Isn't EVO like an SI swimsuit issue with cars as the backdrops? I'm sure they know what they are talking about.

Huh? Is this the magazine we are talking about?

http://www.evo.co.uk/

If so then no.

93EXCivic wrote:

SupraWes wrote: Isn't EVO like an SI swimsuit issue with cars as the backdrops? I'm sure they know what they are talking about.

Huh? Is this the magazine we are talking about? http://www.evo.co.uk/ If so then no.

I clicked on that link to see chicks in swimsuits. What gives?

Acura RSX Type-S traps around 95, is FWD and was available 10 years ago.

Good catch, an obvious oversight on my part. I guess i should include the last civic si too. Derp.

EdenPrime wrote: In reply to ReverendDexter: I can't disagree with this. But i mean, the Mustang has had since 2005 to build its aftermarket. The BRZ/FRS aftermarket hasn't gotten to really build since the car just came out. I guess i'm just feeling like the only one to be trying to hold a shield in front of the BRZ/FRS.

Well, it's not just '05... Ford made design specs available for the S197 to aftermarket companies far ahead of when it was available to the public for the express reason of having a thriving aftermarket available as soon as the car hit the showrooms.

And I don't want it to come across as me attacking the BRZ. I want one, and I think it fills a niche that's been barren since the 240SX stopped being sold stateside. Until I drive one, though, I can't make much in the way of comment to what it does and doesn't need.

Until then, I'll keep getting my speed fix from my foxbody