Motor Trend BRZ vs Mustang V6 head to head

[565]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD3hgleEOXA


Despite being different, I think this is a good comparison.

[565]

Some more recent MT test figures for the players in this market.

BRZ Limited:  $28,245
0-60:  6.4 
1/4 mile: 14.9 @ 95.5
Skidpad: .90
Figure 8:  26.2

FRS  $24,930
0-60: 6.2
1/4 mile 14.8 @ 94.3
Skidpad: .93
Figure 8: 25.9

Mustang V6 Premium: $30,830
0-60: 5.3
1/4 mile: 13.9@100.1
Skidpad: .95
Figure 8: 25.4

Hyundai Genesis 2.0T R spec $27,375
0-60: 5.7
1/4mile: 14.2 @ 98.4
Skidpad: .97
Figure 8: 25.5


I'm guessing MT has a comparo in the works given the separate tests they are publishing.  The BRZ/FRS vs Genesis 2.0T R spec is interesting.  Trap speed difference is about 3mph between the two cars.  Both the Mustang and the Genesis run more aggressive rubber.  I'm looking forward to seeing what MT says in this comparo of theirs, and I hope the FRS and BRZ are both in it to see how they weigh in on the suspension tuning difference.

[CJ]

The Genesis Coupe 2.0T got quick.  

[sportyaccordy]

The Genesis Coupe 2.0T got quick.  

Yea it went from an also ran to a serious contender w/a lil boost

They are damn near cheating with those engine ratings though, look at this stock dyno



20 PSI of boost!

[MX793]

Yea it went from an also ran to a serious contender w/a lil boost

They are damn near cheating with those engine ratings though, look at this stock dyno



20 PSI of boost!

That torque curve is awful.  It's only got an 1800 RPM "sweet spot" and it's all in the middle of the band.  Fine for a family car that will rarely see more than 4000 RPM, but not so great for a sporting car.

[S204STi]

BRZ vs Genesis Coupe would be more interesting.

That torque curve is awful.  It's only got an 1800 RPM "sweet spot" and it's all in the middle of the band.  Fine for a family car that will rarely see more than 4000 RPM, but not so great for a sporting car.

I tend to disagree.  That torque curve is fairly similar to mine (albeit shifted to the left by a thousand RPM) and the thing about it that's nice is that you don't need to wind it out to get useful acceleration from it.  Far more tractable.

[MX793]

BRZ vs Genesis Coupe would be more interesting.

I tend to disagree.  That torque curve is fairly similar to mine (albeit shifted to the left by a thousand RPM) and the thing about it that's nice is that you don't need to wind it out to get useful acceleration from it.  Far more tractable.

Having torque down low is great, but you also don't want it signing off way before redline.  That motor's "sweet spot" (90%+ torque range) is only 1800 RPM (~2400 to ~4200) out of a total usable band of 5800 RPM (assuming 700 RPM idle).  A VW GTI is in its sweet spot from about 2400 RPM to around 5400 RPM.

If you want a really tractable powerband, look at the torque curve on Ford's 3.7L V6.  It's making 90%+ of its peak torque from ~2200 RPM to ~6200 RPM.

[S204STi]

Certainly valid, but I would submit that you won't likely notice the lack of torque up top as much as you will the massive shove down low.

[68_427]

The BRZ has a pretty flat torque curve as well.

[MexicoCityM3]

If you want a really tractable powerband, look at the torque curve on Ford's 3.7L V6.  It's making 90%+ of its peak torque from ~2200 RPM to ~6200 RPM.

For a really, really, really tractable engine, look no further than any M engine, especially the N/A ones (but the turbos ain?t bad).

[MX793]

Certainly valid, but I would submit that you won't likely notice the lack of torque up top as much as you will the massive shove down low.

My 240SX was a motor that had a torque curve that signed off well short of redline.  For around town, it was fine and preferable to a motor with no low end, but when you got on it, you definitely noticed (it encouraged you to short shift, even though short shifting didn't net the best performance).  I never hit the rev limiter in that car because it just felt flat as you got within 500 RPM of redline.  My Mazda, is still pulling strong right up to redline and I've bounced off the rev limiter when not paying attention.  I've slammed into the rev limiter in the Mustang as well.

Like I said, the Hyundai's power curve looks great for family sedan duty, where most drivers will spend almost all of their time under 4000 RPM.  But for a performance car?

[MX793]

For a really, really, really tractable engine, look no further than any M engine, especially the N/A ones (but the turbos ain?t bad).

The 4.0L in the newer M3s is definitely one of the best.  Though the S54 didn't have a torque spread as fat as the Ford V6.

[S204STi]

My 240SX was a motor that had a torque curve that signed off well short of redline.  For around town, it was fine and preferable to a motor with no low end, but when you got on it, you definitely noticed (it encouraged you to short shift, even though short shifting didn't net the best performance).

Like I said, the Hyundai's power curve looks great for family sedan duty, where most drivers will spend almost all of their time under 4000 RPM.  But for a performance car?

At 4000 rpm it's making over 200whp and still climbing.  I don't think you'd notice that much of a power drop.

[MX793]

At 4000 rpm it's making over 200whp and still climbing.  I don't think you'd notice that much of a power drop.

Power's climbing, but so is the speed.  The torque curve is falling at that point, and fast, which means that as your speed is climbing, your rate of acceleration is falling (in that gear, at least).  At 5000 RPM, the car is pulling only 86% as hard as it was at 4000 RPM.  By 6000 RPM, you're only pulling 73% as hard as at 4000.  My 240SX had a pretty similar torque curve shape.  It peaked around 4500 RPM.  By 5500 RPM, you'd lost roughly 15% of your thrust.  By 6000 RPM, you'd lost lost a quarter of your thrust and there was still another 700 RPM to redline (and thrust was still falling).  At 15% down, the car still feels like it's pulling plenty hard, but once thrust falls off by 25%, you're posterior accelerometer is telling you to shift.

My Mazda, in contrast, only sees thrust fall by 10% between 4000 RPM and 6000 RPM.  By redline, it's lost 17% from where it was at 4000 RPM.

[MexicoCityM3]

The 4.0L in the newer M3s is definitely one of the best.  Though the S54 didn't have a torque spread as fat as the Ford V6.

The S54 isn?t too shabby from 2.2K to a bit past 7K RPM:

[Catman]

That V6 Mustang is impressive.

[FoMoJo]

I'm glad somebody noticed.

[Catman]

I'm glad somebody noticed.

Unreal how a V6 today would blow the doors off the older GT's.

[GoCougs]

Unreal how a V6 today would blow the doors off the older GT's.

I cringed when Angus asserted the '65 GT350 had one more hp than the modern V6 (306 vs. 305). Uh, no. The V6 has some 50 more hp than that old 289 as the 306 hp was a gross hp rating which = ~250 hp net. In fact Ford never built a small block - even the Boss 302 - as powerful as the modern V6 available in the base Mustang. Running 0-60 well under 6 sec and 1/4 mile in the upper 13s, would put the Mustang V6 faster than most performance cars of that era save for the crazy (and rare) big block terrors set up for drag racing; LS6, Hemi, Six Pack, etc.

[Onslaught]

How much more would a new Stang weigh compared to an old one?

[Secret Chimp]

Mustangs barely came close to cracking 3000 pounds for their first runs with the smaller V8s.

[MX793]

How much more would a new Stang weigh compared to an old one?

IIRC, a '69 V8 Mustang was around 3200 lbs.  New GTs are ~3500 lbs.

[FoMoJo]

I cringed when Angus asserted the '65 GT350 had one more hp than the modern V6 (306 vs. 305). Uh, no. The V6 has some 50 more hp than that old 289 as the 306 hp was a gross hp rating which = ~250 hp net. In fact Ford never built a small block - even the Boss 302 - as powerful as the modern V6 available in the base Mustang. Running 0-60 well under 6 sec and 1/4 mile in the upper 13s, would put the Mustang V6 faster than most performance cars of that era save for the crazy (and rare) big block terrors set up for drag racing; LS6, Hemi, Six Pack, etc.

Certainly, the technology of the last few years has improved the performance of engines greatly.  The real comparison is in the original Boss 302 vs. the modern Boss 302; 444 net NA bhp from the same displacement and more to come when they equip it with direct injection.  The original Boss 302 was rated at 290 gross bhp, same as the Z28 of the era, but, in reality, produced closer to 400 gross bhp, same as the Z28 of the era; so the real bhp is, likely, a bit better than the modern V6.  However, in stating that, the drivability was hardly comparable.  The V6 is a pussycat in comparison to the tempermental original Boss 302 that relied on a high-lift cam and 780 cfm Holley with huge valves in order to make its power; not the best combination for a smooth application of power but a hell-of-a-lot more fun.

edit: as for the big block terrors set up for drag racing, bear in mind that he 428 CJ blew them all away when it arrived on the scene .

[GoCougs]

Certainly, the technology of the last few years has improved the performance of engines greatly.  The real comparison is in the original Boss 302 vs. the modern Boss 302; 444 net NA bhp from the same displacement and more to come when they equip it with direct injection.  The original Boss 302 was rated at 290 gross bhp, same as the Z28 of the era, but, in reality, produced closer to 400 gross bhp, same as the Z28 of the era; so the real bhp is, likely, a bit better than the modern V6.  However, in stating that, the drivability was hardly comparable.  The V6 is a pussycat in comparison to the tempermental original Boss 302 that relied on a high-lift cam and 780 cfm Holley with huge valves in order to make its power; not the best combination for a smooth application of power but a hell-of-a-lot more fun.

edit: as for the big block terrors set up for drag racing, bear in mind that he 428 CJ blew them all away when it arrived on the scene .

The original Boss 302 and Z28 302 were good for ~350 hp gross, which equates to ~280 hp net, and still shy of the new V6's 305 hp net. Also, neither the original Boss 302 nor Z28 could break into the 13s in the 1/4 mile; they were lucky to break into the 14s and would otherwise get clobbered by the new V6 Mustang at the strip.

Actually, the 428 Cobra Jet couldn't really run with Mopar's and Chevy's best - 440 Six Pack, 426 Hemi, LS-5/6 454, etc. - it was too old and otherwise had a few critical limitations. The follow-on 429 Cobra Jet was a notably better motor (but still couldn't quite run with Mopar and Chevy's best).

[Raza]

Unreal how a V6 today would blow the doors off the older GT's.

And by older, you mean like two years ago.  It's insane.

[FoMoJo]

The original Boss 302 and Z28 302 were good for ~350 hp gross, which equates to ~280 hp net, and still shy of the new V6's 305 hp net. Also, neither the original Boss 302 nor Z28 could break into the 13s in the 1/4 mile; they were lucky to break into the 14s and would otherwise get clobbered by the new V6 Mustang at the strip.

Actually, the 428 Cobra Jet couldn't really run with Mopar's and Chevy's best - 440 Six Pack, 426 Hemi, LS-5/6 454, etc. - it was too old and otherwise had a few critical limitations. The follow-on 429 Cobra Jet was a notably better motor (but still couldn't quite run with Mopar and Chevy's best).

Check your history man.  Both Z28 302 and Boss 302 came in closer to 400 bhp gross.  As they were track cars, they weren't prepped for the drag strip.  That is, they were high revving engines with, relatively, tall gears.  On the drag strip, you do best with low end torque and high-ratio gears.  That's why the 428CJ did so well on the strip and on the street.  When they arrived they blew the doors off of both Chevy and Mopar.  Prior to that, Ford owned the race tracks but didn't have much for the street.  When they did a bit of mix and match between the FE 406s and 410s, they found magic with the 428.  Sure, the Hemi could produce a lot of power but launching a half ton of pig iron is what cost it on the strip.  It wasn't until the aftermarket cast it in aluminium and corrected a number of design flaws that it became an engine of choice at the drag strip.  As for the 440, it was okay but needed a lot of headwork to get it to run well.  The Chevys had the advantage of displacement but because of lack-of-skirt they couldn't cross-bolt the mains and were in danger of losing their bottom ends when they raised the compression too high.  They were safe at anything under 500 bhp but prepped Fords and Mopars were pushing out a lot more than that.

[GoCougs]

Check your history man.  Both Z28 302 and Boss 302 came in closer to 400 bhp gross.  As they were track cars, they weren't prepped for the drag strip.  That is, they were high revving engines with, relatively, tall gears.  On the drag strip, you do best with low end torque and high-ratio gears.  That's why the 428CJ did so well on the strip and on the street.  When they arrived they blew the doors off of both Chevy and Mopar.  Prior to that, Ford owned the race tracks but didn't have much for the street.  When they did a bit of mix and match between the FE 406s and 410s, they found magic with the 428.  Sure, the Hemi could produce a lot of power but launching a half ton of pig iron is what cost it on the strip.  It wasn't until the aftermarket cast it in aluminium and corrected a number of design flaws that it became an engine of choice at the drag strip.  As for the 440, it was okay but needed a lot of headwork to get it to run well.  The Chevys had the advantage of displacement but because of lack-of-skirt they couldn't cross-bolt the mains and were in danger of losing their bottom ends when they raised the compression too high.  They were safe at anything under 500 bhp but prepped Fords and Mopars were pushing out a lot more than that.

Check Hot Rod's vintage engine comparo on the Boss 302 vs. Z28 302 (amongst other engines). Gross power range was 356 - 372 hp, and this with an electric water pump, modern/better carb, 1.75" long tube headers, and more precise machining. So, back in '69, without the benefit of these upgrades, the engines were putting out a lot less than 400 hp gross; 350 hp gross is generous.

Again, there's a reason why Ford replaced the FE series with the 385 series, and why overall the FE series is not the choice of Ford hot rodders today; most notably the 385 series had the necessary longer rod length and heads capable of bigger cams and larger valves, and just in general is a stronger engine.

Pretty much no one was cross drilling mains or modding heads on street driven engines back then, and when it comes to modding engines and racing, pretty much all bets are off for a whole host of reasons - anything from disparate budgets to unknown sacrifices in durability.

In my volumes of experience you'd have to look far and wide to find someone willing to admit the FE series was the equal, let alone better, than the Mopar or Chevy big blocks. Even Ford guys - they typically default to the FE-replacing 385 series.

[FoMoJo]

Check Hot Rod's vintage engine comparo on the Boss 302 vs. Z28 302 (amongst other engines). Gross power range was 356 - 372 hp, and this with an electric water pump, modern/better carb, 1.75" long tube headers, and more precise machining. So, back in '69, without the benefit of these upgrades, the engines were putting out a lot less than 400 hp gross; 350 hp gross is generous.

Again, there's a reason why Ford replaced the FE series with the 385 series, and why overall the FE series is not the choice of Ford hot rodders today; most notably the 385 series had the necessary longer rod length and heads capable of bigger cams and larger valves, and just in general is a stronger engine.

Pretty much no one was cross drilling mains or modding heads on street driven engines back then, and when it comes to modding engines and racing, pretty much all bets are off for a whole host of reasons - anything from disparate budgets to unknown sacrifices in durability.

In my volumes of experience you'd have to look far and wide to find someone willing to admit the FE series was the equal, let alone better, than the Mopar or Chevy big blocks. Even Ford guys - they typically default to the FE-replacing 385 series.

It's a well known fact that both Z28 302s and Boss 302s could put out close to 400 bhp with the 780cfm carb and proper tuning.  Both were high-revving engines capable of 7000 rpm plus.

Some information of the FE series.  You might want to take note of this sentence...Beginning with the 406 in 1963, high performance FE blocks featured cross-bolted main caps to provide endurance for high speed operation.   These were not, necessarily, street engines but when 'building' any FE engine to develop more than 500 hp, cross-bolting was possible as opposed to the GM big-blocks which lacked skirting.  That's all I said.

The FE series, being of thin wall casting, though a higher nickel content than most blocks, perhaps aside from Buick and Pontiac, had reached their limit in displacement.  The 385 series was needed to resolve this issue but shortly after introduction the manufacturers withdrew from racing and it never achieved it's potential on the street.  Of course the Boss 429, after demolishing the competition in NASCAR, was promptly disqualified due to whining from, primarily, Chevy.  The golden era of racing was over by then.  Of course Ford guys know that the 385 series had more potential than the FE series but you'll never get a Ford guy to admit that anything Mopar or Chevy put out could beat a FE 427 on the track.  We've got the trophies to prove it.

[Catman]

Debating Cougs 

[GoCougs]

It's a well known fact that both Z28 302s and Boss 302s could put out close to 400 bhp with the 780cfm carb and proper tuning.  Both were high-revving engines capable of 7000 rpm plus.

Some information of the FE series.  You might want to take note of this sentence...Beginning with the 406 in 1963, high performance FE blocks featured cross-bolted main caps to provide endurance for high speed operation.   These were not, necessarily, street engines but when 'building' any FE engine to develop more than 500 hp, cross-bolting was possible as opposed to the GM big-blocks which lacked skirting.  That's all I said.

The FE series, being of thin wall casting, though a higher nickel content than most blocks, perhaps aside from Buick and Pontiac, had reached their limit in displacement.  The 385 series was needed to resolve this issue but shortly after introduction the manufacturers withdrew from racing and it never achieved it's potential on the street.  Of course the Boss 429, after demolishing the competition in NASCAR, was promptly disqualified due to whining from, primarily, Chevy.  The golden era of racing was over by then.  Of course Ford guys know that the 385 series had more potential than the FE series but you'll never get a Ford guy to admit that anything Mopar or Chevy put out could beat a FE 427 on the track.  We've got the trophies to prove it.

I'm not sure how you can disagree with that Hot Rod test proving that neither was near 400 hp even with ~25+ hp of modern massaging...

Ford had to cross bolt the main caps because the FE wasn't all that strong of an engine to begin with; meaning, a more modern big block was as strong or stronger with standard caps.

Well, said Ford guy would be mostly wrong about the 427 FE and I think he'd know it too. And again, the 426 Hemi was a level above the "semi-hemi" Boss 429, and why the former was been replicated almost infinitely so since, and the latter mostly a historic curiosity.