FT-86 vs Mustang

corytate wrote: says it may be rated the same but the v6 feels like trash compared to supposedly the same power in the v8 he used to have.

Well, yeah. The V8 is making more torque, and making it with a lot less rpm. This crowd of all people knows that just looking at peak horsepower by itself is not very meaningful.

And Subaru has shown enough of their version that it's confirmed to be RWD only (the motor is too far back in the chassis to allow for AWD). Hella props to Subaru's marketing considering just how many people persist in believing elsewise (remember, this is the same marketing that lambasted SUVs while claiming the superiority of the Outback... right before Subaru released two SUVs).

ReverendDexter wrote:

corytate wrote: says it may be rated the same but the v6 feels like trash compared to supposedly the same power in the v8 he used to have.

Well, yeah. The V8 is making more torque, and making it with a lot less rpm. This crowd of all people knows that just looking at peak horsepower by itself is not very meaningful. And Subaru has shown enough of their version that it's confirmed to be RWD only (the motor is too far back in the chassis to allow for AWD). Hella props to Subaru's marketing considering just how many people persist in believing elsewise (remember, this is the same marketing that lambasted SUVs while claiming the superiority of the Outback... right before Subaru released *two* SUVs).

Subaru's are only all wheel drive only here. They have a slew of vehicles in Japan that are only two wheel drive. They even have a RWD rear engine van! Check it out the Dias Wagon

As far as your torque arguement, the 4.6 never was a torque beast and there is an interesting video on YouTube that should settle that line of questioning.

P.S. Please forgive the E36 M3 music, I have no clue what or why they did it.

I couldn't stand it.

OK, 300 ponies and 30 mpg in an American musclecar is something to be proud of.

But that thing isn't anything like a Mustang.

It's porky- like a Cadillac. It's got a sort of retro interior, with electric everything and big fat seats that will out perform your Barcolounger.

I'm sitting in it thinking of my old tossable '67 with a 289, and wondering when it's gonna wake up.

The (young) salesman kept saying, "But it's a MUSTANG!" while drooling on the console. All I could think was that this car has NO SOUL.

Don't be knocking my Barcolounger!!!!

I enjoyed it, is it a 67, no but then again when a Scion tC weighs in at 3100 lbs what is what was or meant to be.

I think it holds the soul of a Mustang, cheap, fast enough stock, and straight forward enough that you can Mod the hell out of it.

Mustang yes, flick-able from the factory, probably not, better than the Mustang II absolutely!!!

It's porky- like a Cadillac

uhhh. Im pretty sure the mustang has been the tidiest-sized ponycar for something like 35 years straight. The fact that they have avoided size-growth to some extent is part of why the mustang has my affection moreso than a camaro or challenger. Its not as small as a fox body, or the first sn95, but i think the fox was too small and the current one is close enough to perfect size.

Have you sat in one? Try it.

Subaru engine in the Ft=biggest blunder EVER by toyota

kevlarcorolla wrote: Subaru engine in the Ft=biggest blunder EVER by toyota

could you elaborate?

2011 Mustang V6 w/after-market exhaust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIhUZvsgg4Y&feature=related

It sounds quite nice, but it just seems so wrong coming out from under a Mustang. But it's not like a flat four has much going for it at all.

That's just an opinion, folks. YMMV......

kevlarcorolla wrote: Subaru engine in the Ft=biggest blunder EVER by toyota

I don't think it the biggest blunder ever, but I do think that the car would be better with either a yamaha high revving engine or a supercharged version of the new 2.5 liter scion tc engine. At least that would be pushing out 200+ hp and good torque.

sanman wrote:

kevlarcorolla wrote: Subaru engine in the Ft=biggest blunder EVER by toyota

I don't think it the biggest blunder ever, but I do think that the car would be better with either a yamaha high revving engine or a supercharged version of the new 2.5 liter scion tc engine. At least that would be pushing out 200+ hp and good torque.

This has been my biggest problem with the FT86 so far...

Toyota has had, and still has motors that i would personally rather see in that car. I'd also go so far to say that it probably would have been cheaper had they used their own motors.

Bring back the 2zz from the last gen Celica GTS and dump it in there. 180hp, 190hp in overseas trim. There's your base model. If it ends up being that much heavier than the old celica, then use the 2.5 tC motor. For your top trim (as a way to mimic the Genesis formula), use the 3.5 V6 out of the is350.

Done.

SVreX wrote: Have you sat in one? Try it.

They are not for everyone. But I've liked the ones I've rented.

(OTOH, they seem to be at least enough for enough....)

I'm kind of confused by this Toyota-Mustang comparison- I had always thought that the Toyota was going to be somewhat over a Miata, maybe a bit larger than the Solstace twins. Not a Supra or a Pony car wannabe.

Is it really going to be that kind of car???

When I see FT86 vs. Mustang, I see Apple vs. Orange Whip. Yes, they are both food, but not really the same thing....

Or am I reading that wrong?

Alfa, I think what's creating the comparison is that the 3.7L Mustang has become the yardstick for sub-$30k sports cars. You want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to match or beat the Mustang on power, handling, and price.

Which speaks VOLUMES for the new V6 Mustang. Zero to hero in one model year. Makes me proud to be a Ford guy.

Oldsaw - that exhaust sounds awesome. Looks like it's either catback or axle-back, too, which means it's legal out here in the PRC.

In reply to ReverendDexter:

Watching mustangs a lot closer than I normally would, it just seems funny that we are comparing what should be sports cars to the base version of a Pony Car. That's more stunning to me than anything.

If not for the size (Mustangs have always been to big for me), it would be seriously on my list to replace my Miata. It's the ONLY convertable I can get, and still have a Ford logo on it. Hopefully that changes soon.

Back to the subject...

Even if the 3.7l Mustang is that good- why isn't the FT-86 being compared to the Miata? It may well be bigger and heavier, but so was the Solstace, and they were compared. Granted, we are all expecting the ND to be smaller and lighter than the NC, but it still seems closer than the Mustang....

(I will say- if the V6 Mustang is that good, I'm all for it!)

Because the Miata is a 2-seater convertible.

The Mustang and FT86 are 2+2 hardtops.

I know most people drop them all in the same bucket, but a backseat and a roof make the latter infinitely more applicable as only-cars and DDs.

In reply to alfadriver:

It's not the class of car that brings the comparison, it's the fact that the Mustang is a heck of a car for reasonable money. In a similar vein, I remember a review of a 1990's Celica where the car was reviewed quite favorably, but they finished the article with a quote along the lines of "But its going to be hard to convince people to spend $25k on this when a Camaro will run tire smoking rings around you for $3k less"

Thanks!!

Yeah, I feel it's a price/performance thing as well. I have to admit that when I was pricing out a JCW MINI that I couldn't help thinking I could also get a Mustang GT with almost twice the hp and more usable space for the same $31K. The cars couldn't be more different, but if I'm spending that much money on a sporting dd I'm not going to ignore the options.

I made the mistake of leasing an '08 imprezza,I've owned cars/trucks from pretty much every manufactor and the suby just plain sucks in build quality even compared to the small car junk by gm.I don't live in the city and yet I've had to do 2 brake jobs in 60k(thats only 40,000 miles for you folks) The na boxer engine is the worst running stock fi engine I've ever had,shakes and vibrates at idle(sometimes much worse than others)and whoever programmed the throttle by wire should be hung by a vital body part untill the birds start circling. I very much like the Ft but there's no chance in hell I'll own anything even remotely connected to subaru.

Kevlar - interesting, all my experiences with Subaru have been positive, other than the horrendous body roll in my friend's base Impreza hatch she let me AX that one day my 5.0 decided to let go of its water pump 30 seconds after I paid my dues for the event.

Gawd......... Subaru mystery "check engine" lights are LEGENDARY.... the joke is they take electrical tape to fix it.......

The single biggest problem with using a boxer engine is suspension layout... the boxer is so wide it infringes on the possible geometry options.

The FT began as a good idea.... (under 2million yen, rwd, small sporty car) but balooned into a fat Mustang... otherwise why the comparison????

Oh... and for you Miata guys... here is the Toyota engineer's answer......

I like the new Mustang V-6's on paper. If I were car shopping (for a new car) I would go look at them out of curiosity. Not interested in owning one though. They are still too Mustangy for my tastes.

I'm not sure if I'll see a Chevy Volt, a Nissan Leaf, or an FT-86 first. They are seem to be more vaporware than anything else, so that's what the FT-86 should be compared too. At least Mustangs actually exist.

In reply to ReverendDexter:

Ya thats what I thought too,but so many squeaks and rattles combined with broken sunvisors and the feeling of cheapness everywhere has left me cold.On a positive the awd works just fine.

Odd. I've had a '98 and an '02 Subaru. Neither are luxury cars, but they also haven't had any nagging problems like that.

When I bought my Mustang GT in '05, the three finalist on my short list were it, the Cooper S, and the WRX Sport wag (non-STI). Similar cars? not exactly, but from a buyer's perspective they were the three best choices for my desires - fun, fast, under 30k. The base WRX lost on lack of speed and boring design. The Cooper lost (barely) for being a choppier on my long commute.

Although they are far different in available options, body layout, etc, they were close enough in spirit for me to thouroughly cross-shop them.

And I generally agree that the FT is another great idea that will be killed by poor, profit-centric execution. I know the car companies are there to make money like everyone else, but it seems like other manuf's figure out a way to make it fun and not go broke...