Topic: Motor Trend: Mustang bests Genesis Coupe V6

[Mitlov]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0905_hyundai_genesis_coupe_mustang_fighter_or_cut_price_nissan_370z/index.html

Good read.  Shows things aren't nearly so simple as "Ford guys will buy Mustangs; GM guys will buy Camaros; everyone else will buy the Genesis Coupe," as some here have suggested.  (On the other hand, I think comparing either to a 370Z is a bit of a stretch because they're such different vehicles).

In a different vein [from the 370Z], if your most important requirement is a sport coupe that accommodates the spouse, kids, and gear and is still a hoot to scoot, the Mustang GT is the superior option. Its back seat is a smidge tighter, but its dynamics are just plain bigger, easily offsetting any deficiencies in light of the Genesis. The Mustang simply offers more speed, more agility, and more fun. Yet, it's more mature and refined. The Genesis is the car you take to the prom; the Mustang is the one you take to the reunion.

I know Jaeger posted this article in the "my Genesis Coupe test-drive" thread, but I thought it deserved its own thread.

[rrocket]

Mitlov,

  IIRC US pricing for the Mustang GT and 370Z base are about the same, aren't they??  In Canada, as usual, we get hosed.

370Z = $40K
Mustang GT = $37K
Hyundai Coupe = $33K

BARGAIN = Hyundai 4 banger turbo at $25K.  That ALOT of leftover cheddar for mods!!

[Mitlov]

Mitlov,

  IIRC US pricing for the Mustang GT and 370Z base are about the same, aren't they??  In Canada, as usual, we get hosed.

370Z = $40K
Mustang GT = $37K
Hyundai Coupe = $33K

BARGAIN = Hyundai 4 banger turbo at $25K.  That ALOT of leftover cheddar for mods!!

So long as you want the manic powerband of a tuned 2.0L four instead of a relatively smooth torque curves like the Genesis V6 and Ford V8 deliver, a highly-tuned Genesis 4-banger is the way to go. 

The price differences are indeed much closer in the US.  If I recall correctly, Genesis 2.0 starts at about $22,000 or $23,000, the Genesis V6 starts at about $27,000, the Mustang GT starts at about $27,000, and the 370Z starts at about $30,000.  So there's only about $4,000 separating the Genesis 2.0T and Mustang GT.  Far, far narrower price gap than in Canada. 

Personally, I'd rather have a stock Mustang GT than a turbo four Genesis with $4,000 in mods.  And I'd rather have a Mustang GT than a Genesis V6.  As for GT versus 370Z, that's a tricky one since they're different genres altogether...

[rrocket]

$4000?  LOL  I don't even think it would take that much.  Someone tossed on a GT35R turbo and the car made 300+ with ease.  Remember....this is pretty much the same engine as in the EVO X.  Millen will be drifting one of these this year too...he's a respected tuning outfit so I'd imagine there will be tuning parts galore.

But a Mustang GT is a pretty stout platform for modding too..and the 3V engine takes to FI like mad and puts up HUGE numbers!!

I've owned 3 Mustang GTs....so I'll always be a fan...

[G0dspd]

Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0l Upgraded Turbo Dyno Run

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_UN0cvXr7g

[rrocket]

Wow.  Nice numbers for the smaller GT30R turbo!

[Mitlov]

Okay, the turbo four Genesis was not mentioned AT ALL in the three-car shootout that this thread is all about...


Stay on topic...stay on topic...

[Erik]

And I am in the market for a coupe, and I would take none of them modded in the least.
Once the warranty is gone in about 5 years, I might start playing with some mods. Otherwise, give me the best stock vehicle, and of the 3, it seems to be the Mustang.

Actually, the best possible match for the Genesis 3.8 coupe is probably the Camaro. In LT trim, it is very comparable, and a LOT cheaper. The SS is not much more than the GT loaded.

[rrocket]

I understand.  But for some (like me) the mod-ability of a car is important.  Some of us like to tune up and modify our cars...and think it's one of the best parts of ownership.  So the total cost "bang for the buck" becomes an important factor.

[Jaeger]

And I am in the market for a coupe, and I would take none of them modded in the least.
Once the warranty is gone in about 5 years, I might start playing with some mods. Otherwise, give me the best stock vehicle, and of the 3, it seems to be the Mustang.
Actually, the best possible match for the Genesis 3.8 coupe is probably the Camaro. In LT trim, it is very comparable, and a LOT cheaper. The SS is not much more than the GT loaded.

Best of the THREE is the Mustang?  Well, they did offer a very qualified preference for the Mustang among the three, but the bulk of the analysis was 'Stang versus Genesis and Z versus Genesis.

For a detailed Mustang versus Z comparison, look here for text and video:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=143666?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*

The results here coincide with my decidedly uninformed view - having driven neither.

Jaeger

[Erik]

And I am in the market for a coupe, and I would take none of them modded in the least.
Once the warranty is gone in about 5 years, I might start playing with some mods. Otherwise, give me the best stock vehicle, and of the 3, it seems to be the Mustang.
Actually, the best possible match for the Genesis 3.8 coupe is probably the Camaro. In LT trim, it is very comparable, and a LOT cheaper. The SS is not much more than the GT loaded.

Best of the THREE is the Mustang?  Well, they did offer a very qualified preference for the Mustang among the three, but the bulk of the analysis was 'Stang versus Genesis and Z versus Genesis.

For a detailed Mustang versus Z comparison, look here for text and video:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=143666?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*

The results here coincide with my decidedly uninformed view - having driven neither.

Jaeger

Are we reading the same test?
The Motor Trend guys seem pretty clear in their choice:

Conditions aside (see, Ford, it's not that difficult), were we left to pick just one of these rear-drive rockets, we'd opt for the Mustang. It's a close call, as some of the editors, including your scribe, chose the Z for its eye-watering speed and dizzying grip, but the Ford embodies the whole package. It delivers performance numbers on the heels of the Z's but doesn't limit roll call to two or subject the driver to the high-rpm crudeness of the Nissan's V-6.

It offers the conveniences of the Genesis yet makes no noticeable sacrifices on the street or track, delivering stats that seem fitting for a Cayman. Plus, neither the Genesis's 3.8 nor the Z's 3.7 can match the teeming torque and rapturous rumble of the Mustang's 4.6. In this case, there is no replacement for displacement.

[Iso Octane]

I understand.  But for some (like me) the mod-ability of a car is important.  Some of us like to tune up and modify our cars...and think it's one of the best parts of ownership.  So the total cost "bang for the buck" becomes an important factor.

I've got absolutely no experience in modding.  But it seems to me that adding power isn't anywhere as easy as say, putting on some adjustable coilovers.  In addition to the hardware, there's engine management and tuning.  So you gotta get a garage with equipment and all that.  So in addition to hardware, labour, there's also experience and time.  What does it really take to get a power upgrade as reliable and handsoff as a stock vehicle?

I played around with the idea of turbo-ing the Miata.  "It's easy".  Sure an entry level kit is what $1700 only.  But there's all this other stuff and costs in the name of reliability because I don't want my car breaking down at the track.

[Snowman]

I understand.  But for some (like me) the mod-ability of a car is important.  Some of us like to tune up and modify our cars...and think it's one of the best parts of ownership.  So the total cost "bang for the buck" becomes an important factor.

I've got absolutely no experience in modding.  But it seems to me that adding power isn't anywhere as easy as say, putting on some adjustable coilovers.  In addition to the hardware, there's engine management and tuning.  So you gotta get a garage with equipment and all that.  So in addition to hardware, labour, there's also experience and time.  What does it really take to get a power upgrade as reliable and handsoff as a stock vehicle?

I played around with the idea of turbo-ing the Miata.  "It's easy".  Sure an entry level kit is what $1700 only.  But there's all this other stuff and costs in the name of reliability because I don't want my car breaking down at the track.

I have modded WRX’s for the last 7 years and there is so much in formation available on the internet as to who is the best tuner and what the best equipment is for the type of mod you are considering. I always put my trust into the people who do this for a living but James modded his S2000…. and it ain’t blowed up yet 

[safristi]

It's parked for 6 months...then runs 1 minute spurts on Sundays  inna Summer...........

[Jaeger]

Are we reading the same test?The Motor Trend guys seem pretty clear in their choice:

Conditions aside (see, Ford, it's not that difficult), were we left to pick just one of these rear-drive rockets, we'd opt for the Mustang. It's a close call, as some of the editors, including your scribe, chose the Z for its eye-watering speed and dizzying grip, but the Ford embodies the whole package. It delivers performance numbers on the heels of the Z's but doesn't limit roll call to two or subject the driver to the high-rpm crudeness of the Nissan's V-6.

It offers the conveniences of the Genesis yet makes no noticeable sacrifices on the street or track, delivering stats that seem fitting for a Cayman. Plus, neither the Genesis's 3.8 nor the Z's 3.7 can match the teeming torque and rapturous rumble of the Mustang's 4.6. In this case, there is no replacement for displacement.

Yeah we are - that's what I call a qualified opinion - as in "close call" and "some of the editors, including your scribe" chose the Z.

In comparison, the preference of the Edmunds edotirs for the Z over the Mustang was unqualified and crystal clear:

"If the 2010 Mustang proves a surprisingly capable handler, then the Z is nevertheless in another galaxy. You can see this in the way the 370Z grips harder on the skid pad at 0.94g to the Mustang's 0.91g, but the differences in capability are more prominently evidenced in the slalom. Here, the Z changes direction with more immediacy, returning a 72-mph slalom speed to the Mustang's 68.4 mph."

"No review involving the 2010 Ford Mustang would be complete without addressing the live axle. It has its benefits for launching and on billiard-table-smooth road-racing tracks, yet makes its compromises known to you in the real world far too often. Years of development still haven't reversed physics, and you're reminded of this every time the Mustang's rear end encounters a bump and pitches you vertically like a toddler on a parent's knee."

"The 370Z's helm is a revelation, quicker and far more precise than the Mustang, with a sporting heft and a chatty nature. Cornering loads build in direct proportion to the steering wheel input angle in a way that's intuitive and confidence-inspiring. You'd be hard-pressed to find better steering anywhere. Jump into the 370Z after wheeling the Mustang and you'll wonder why the Mustang is so sloppy."

"When it comes to delivering the best things about performance cars, the Z-car is a decathlete that leaps higher, throws farther and swims harder than the rest. If you can make the financial stretch for it, the 2009 Nissan 370Z will provide all the stimulus you need."

See the difference?

Just to put those slalom numbers into perspective, there was a greater difference between the Z and the Mustang in posted slalom speed, than there was between the Mustang and Edmunds own test of the Nissan Altima V6 SE - a FWD family sedan wearing skinny all-season tires.

While a nice "rumbly sounding" V8 will be the trump card for the Pony car faithful, it isn't with me.  When cars occupy a given segment, and in the absence of forced induction, displacement should count for more than nice sounds.  All else being comparable - a 6 should outperform a 4 and an 8 should outperform a 6 [assuming, of course that the extra pair of cylinders result in greater total displacement].  Here, the Mustang's rumbly V8 doesn't hustle it along with any significant advantage over the smaller 6 in the Z.  For me, that's a wash where it counts. 

Jaeger

[Iso Octane]

I understand.  But for some (like me) the mod-ability of a car is important.  Some of us like to tune up and modify our cars...and think it's one of the best parts of ownership.  So the total cost "bang for the buck" becomes an important factor.

I've got absolutely no experience in modding.  But it seems to me that adding power isn't anywhere as easy as say, putting on some adjustable coilovers.  In addition to the hardware, there's engine management and tuning.  So you gotta get a garage with equipment and all that.  So in addition to hardware, labour, there's also experience and time.  What does it really take to get a power upgrade as reliable and handsoff as a stock vehicle?

I played around with the idea of turbo-ing the Miata.  "It's easy".  Sure an entry level kit is what $1700 only.  But there's all this other stuff and costs in the name of reliability because I don't want my car breaking down at the track.

I have modded WRX’s for the last 7 years and there is so much in formation available on the internet as to who is the best tuner and what the best equipment is for the type of mod you are considering. I always put my trust into the people who do this for a living but James modded his S2000…. and it ain’t blowed up yet 

Of course there are always the success stories.  It just that, IMO, for joe averages like me, its not so easy to take advantage of the price difference.

Turnkey solutions are very compelling.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Are we reading the same test?The Motor Trend guys seem pretty clear in their choice:

Conditions aside (see, Ford, it's not that difficult), were we left to pick just one of these rear-drive rockets, we'd opt for the Mustang. It's a close call, as some of the editors, including your scribe, chose the Z for its eye-watering speed and dizzying grip, but the Ford embodies the whole package. It delivers performance numbers on the heels of the Z's but doesn't limit roll call to two or subject the driver to the high-rpm crudeness of the Nissan's V-6.

It offers the conveniences of the Genesis yet makes no noticeable sacrifices on the street or track, delivering stats that seem fitting for a Cayman. Plus, neither the Genesis's 3.8 nor the Z's 3.7 can match the teeming torque and rapturous rumble of the Mustang's 4.6. In this case, there is no replacement for displacement.

Yeah we are - that's what I call a qualified opinion - as in "close call" and "some of the editors, including your scribe" chose the Z.

In comparison, the preference of the Edmunds edotirs for the Z over the Mustang was unqualified and crystal clear:

"If the 2010 Mustang proves a surprisingly capable handler, then the Z is nevertheless in another galaxy. You can see this in the way the 370Z grips harder on the skid pad at 0.94g to the Mustang's 0.91g, but the differences in capability are more prominently evidenced in the slalom. Here, the Z changes direction with more immediacy, returning a 72-mph slalom speed to the Mustang's 68.4 mph."

"No review involving the 2010 Ford Mustang would be complete without addressing the live axle. It has its benefits for launching and on billiard-table-smooth road-racing tracks, yet makes its compromises known to you in the real world far too often. Years of development still haven't reversed physics, and you're reminded of this every time the Mustang's rear end encounters a bump and pitches you vertically like a toddler on a parent's knee."

"The 370Z's helm is a revelation, quicker and far more precise than the Mustang, with a sporting heft and a chatty nature. Cornering loads build in direct proportion to the steering wheel input angle in a way that's intuitive and confidence-inspiring. You'd be hard-pressed to find better steering anywhere. Jump into the 370Z after wheeling the Mustang and you'll wonder why the Mustang is so sloppy."

"When it comes to delivering the best things about performance cars, the Z-car is a decathlete that leaps higher, throws farther and swims harder than the rest. If you can make the financial stretch for it, the 2009 Nissan 370Z will provide all the stimulus you need."

See the difference?

Just to put those slalom numbers into perspective, there was a greater difference between the Z and the Mustang in posted slalom speed, than there was between the Mustang and Edmunds own test of the Nissan Altima V6 SE - a FWD family sedan wearing skinny all-season tires.

While a nice "rumbly sounding" V8 will be the trump card for the Pony car faithful, it isn't with me.  When cars occupy a given segment, and in the absence of forced induction, displacement should count for more than nice sounds.  All else being comparable - a 6 should outperform a 4 and an 8 should outperform a 6 [assuming, of course that the extra pair of cylinders result in greater total displacement].  Here, the Mustang's rumbly V8 doesn't hustle it along with any significant advantage over the smaller 6 in the Z.  For me, that's a wash where it counts. 

Jaeger

Nice bait and switch. He's discussing the MT review, you quote the Edmunds article.

Edmunds would have written the same review regardless. They very rarely hide their import bias.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Oh, and:

[rrocket]

Re: the 370Z 

Car and Driver:  "The best sports car on the planet for the money?  Damn right!"

Road and Track thought a better car to compare the 370Z to was the Cayman S.  I don't think there will be comparisons to the Cayman S with either a Mustang or a Genesis Coupe people...

[Cord]

What universe has people cross shopping the 370Z with the Mustang GT?