- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Not the same trim levels, but close enough.
Not sure why PD didn't include the newer V8 Vantage in GT6.
Not sure why PD didn't include the newer V8 Vantage in GT6.
Last edited:
GT6 Duel of the Week #70: The Grand Finale (well, not really)
- Thread starter Cowboy
- 1,338 comments
- 192,958 views
- 3,144
- Lancashire
- Ryk_BRM
Jag XKR-S vs V12 Vantage
Smooth down your pencil 'tache, drop in the monocle, slip on your string back driving gloves, adjust your silk cravat and turn your flat cap backwards - It is time for the English to have a dogfight.
Jaguar XKR-S
Supercharged 5 litre V8 - 542bhp - 69.3 torques 1810kg
4795x1915x1310mm
175,000cr
16 chips - with no really gaudy ones. Maybe Crystal Blue Persuasion. Quite clever with the "Expensive" names for the chips. Ebony, Claret, Caviar, Ferrero Rocher... all class here Ambassador.
Looks - Not quite beautiful, more like a female athlete who has quite alot of muscles on show. "Nien Nunb" style front end. Four exhaust pipes at the rather pinched in back end. With a bolt on rear wing. It is a good looking car though, and I am picking out niggles
Aston Martin V12 Vantage
Naturally Aspirated 6 litre V12 - 509bhp - 58.2 torques - 1680kg
4380x1865x1241mm
217,350cr
22 paint chips but they seems to be pretty oddball shades. 4 blacks. Three Greens none of which are even close to being a British Racing Green. And other chips are so close it is nearly pointless having them. It does have Dutch Racing Orange and Belgian Racing Yellow though. (Actual Names have not been used due to Trademark infringments.)
Bonnet Vents - These are a key feature for the car but to me they take alot away from the look of the car... If they were the same colour as the rest of the car that would be the cure. But they stand out like a pair of large framed Hipster glasses on anything other than a very dark colour. This pretty much kills many of the 22 paint chips the car can have.
Looks - This is another disgustingly well proportened car from Newport Pagnell. Despite the bigger v12 engine the car is much less spangly in terms of front end vents and other aero dangly bits and no overt bolt on rear spoiler. The Vantage is by far cleaner, if you can get beyond those carbonfibre bonnet slats.
------------
Interiors... Now I drive GT6 the way I drove it in GT (before they started putting numbers after the GT bit...) so let's look at the interior... I am expecting a few cows, and at least one Tree some precious metals maybe a few tasteful toggle switches.
Track Test.
Chose another Player Made track this time from Spain the 3.59miles Circuito Hornachuelos (Full Layout)
First - The Jag.
A company that can trace its ancestry all the way back to... Blackpool? Amazingly Jaguar started out life as Swallow Sidecars up North in Lancashire in the coastal resort town Famous for TVR.
Looks - Chrome Wire mesh on the grill is nice but the very Audi Looking R-S logo clipped onto it looks very cheap. Carbonfibre Chin spoiler and side flaps make the nose look a bit fussy the bonnet is a nice big slab, with a few vents... and what is this... "Supercharged" engraved on each side. Pretty subtle there Jaguar. Maybe a few points off the front of the car Looking like the Co Pilot of the Millenium Falcon in Return of the Jedi.
Inside - ARRGH MY EYES. This is a huge letdown, looks like a world of black plastic... Where is my hand stitched Leather and Walnut Burr and real analogue dials with gold bezels and cream dials... Some computer screen - Hand crafted by robots...
Start - Engine is great sounds like a feral machine - a weaponized vehicle.
Drive - Weight. This is the big factor the bulk of the car means you have to serisouly adapt how you drive. It doesn't have understeer so much as lack of grip.
Gearbox = was okay but the engine may trick you. I nearly lunched the engine downchanging when the car didn't need it. A nice tip is to drive a lap with a max rev limit of 4,000 then next lap up it to 5,000 and so on till you run at full chat up to 6500 revs the car will rev to 7000 or so but you lose the advanatage of the blowers low end oomph up at that high rev area. It is also slower than the Aston in gearchanges - only a smidge but it is an excuse I'll be using when the Jag is slower...
3.59miles Circuito Hornachuelos (Full) - XKR-S
2m04.538
That was my best time, but many laps were ruined with the car ploughing on at a high speed corner. Don't expected to barrel into a corner fast and sort it out when you get there. The weight of the car means you have to drive the car knowing you have to be in control all the time... if you over work the tyres, the car is just going to wash out to the edge of the track. Build up your speed as the car can get quite a lick of speed up which makes those accidents all the more painful. However onc you do get hooked up and you are mastering that slow in fast out milarky you will feel real pride that you can hurtle arround a track and keep the Jag on the asphalt.
---------------
Aston Martin V12 Vantage
This is a much smaller car, with much more subtle lines The biggest worry on the looks area is the 4 huge vent areas on the top of the bonnet. In Black so if you get any light colour they stand out like a longhaired deathmetaller, pumping his fist with a "Horned Devil sign" (I'd prefer to think of it more as the Japanese band Babymetal's Kitsune Salute myself.)
Interior... Counter Clockwise Tacho... Very Nice indeed... 1970's Era LED speedo display in Napoleans - not so nice... Are we selling Astons to the French now...
I gave mine a respray of an older shade of David Brown Approved paint - 'Ghillies Green', and the car looks so much better. The black carbon fibre slats in the bonnet blend in like a stalker tracking the hunted. It also helps the carbonfibre buttocks the Vantage has aquired at the back.
Start - The V12 is almost restrained and it only revs to 7,000 - Not the best sounding V12 I've heard (Matra V12, Honda V12 then the Weslake V12 are my top three.)
3.59miles Circuito Hornachuelos (Full) - V12 Vantage
2m02.699
The V12 was a delight to drive. In the corners if you overcooked your entry you still had a chance to do a bit of wheelsmanship to get out of a free meal in the Accident and Emergency department of your local hospital. Though if you drive one of these I guess you will be whisked by an Aerodyne piloted by your Setcretary/ Former Female Russian Jet Pilot to your Private Hospital/Clinic. The car is so much easier to drive at the limit. So much. You can light up the rears and it is very easy to powerslide every corner you visit like a houligan. But the V12 is buttery smooth.
----
The Jag wins on the engines "meat". It sounds like it was made from recycled parts from a machine gun.
The Aston wins just about everywhere else.
Is the price worth it? Both are pretty spicey in terms of cash. (Just had a peak in the dealership and Iam stunned how low the Astons PP score is compared to the Slower Jag.)
Winner?
The Aston. It would be fun to drive every apex. The Jag sounds amazing but the driving side of it is hard work under brakes and into the corners.
Aston Martin Lagonda V12 Vantage - WINS
Smooth down your pencil 'tache, drop in the monocle, slip on your string back driving gloves, adjust your silk cravat and turn your flat cap backwards - It is time for the English to have a dogfight.
Jaguar XKR-S
Supercharged 5 litre V8 - 542bhp - 69.3 torques 1810kg
4795x1915x1310mm
175,000cr
16 chips - with no really gaudy ones. Maybe Crystal Blue Persuasion. Quite clever with the "Expensive" names for the chips. Ebony, Claret, Caviar, Ferrero Rocher... all class here Ambassador.
Looks - Not quite beautiful, more like a female athlete who has quite alot of muscles on show. "Nien Nunb" style front end. Four exhaust pipes at the rather pinched in back end. With a bolt on rear wing. It is a good looking car though, and I am picking out niggles
Aston Martin V12 Vantage
Naturally Aspirated 6 litre V12 - 509bhp - 58.2 torques - 1680kg
4380x1865x1241mm
217,350cr
22 paint chips but they seems to be pretty oddball shades. 4 blacks. Three Greens none of which are even close to being a British Racing Green. And other chips are so close it is nearly pointless having them. It does have Dutch Racing Orange and Belgian Racing Yellow though. (Actual Names have not been used due to Trademark infringments.)
Bonnet Vents - These are a key feature for the car but to me they take alot away from the look of the car... If they were the same colour as the rest of the car that would be the cure. But they stand out like a pair of large framed Hipster glasses on anything other than a very dark colour. This pretty much kills many of the 22 paint chips the car can have.
Looks - This is another disgustingly well proportened car from Newport Pagnell. Despite the bigger v12 engine the car is much less spangly in terms of front end vents and other aero dangly bits and no overt bolt on rear spoiler. The Vantage is by far cleaner, if you can get beyond those carbonfibre bonnet slats.
------------
Interiors... Now I drive GT6 the way I drove it in GT (before they started putting numbers after the GT bit...) so let's look at the interior... I am expecting a few cows, and at least one Tree some precious metals maybe a few tasteful toggle switches.
Track Test.
Chose another Player Made track this time from Spain the 3.59miles Circuito Hornachuelos (Full Layout)
First - The Jag.
A company that can trace its ancestry all the way back to... Blackpool? Amazingly Jaguar started out life as Swallow Sidecars up North in Lancashire in the coastal resort town Famous for TVR.
Looks - Chrome Wire mesh on the grill is nice but the very Audi Looking R-S logo clipped onto it looks very cheap. Carbonfibre Chin spoiler and side flaps make the nose look a bit fussy the bonnet is a nice big slab, with a few vents... and what is this... "Supercharged" engraved on each side. Pretty subtle there Jaguar. Maybe a few points off the front of the car Looking like the Co Pilot of the Millenium Falcon in Return of the Jedi.
Inside - ARRGH MY EYES. This is a huge letdown, looks like a world of black plastic... Where is my hand stitched Leather and Walnut Burr and real analogue dials with gold bezels and cream dials... Some computer screen - Hand crafted by robots...
Start - Engine is great sounds like a feral machine - a weaponized vehicle.
Drive - Weight. This is the big factor the bulk of the car means you have to serisouly adapt how you drive. It doesn't have understeer so much as lack of grip.
Gearbox = was okay but the engine may trick you. I nearly lunched the engine downchanging when the car didn't need it. A nice tip is to drive a lap with a max rev limit of 4,000 then next lap up it to 5,000 and so on till you run at full chat up to 6500 revs the car will rev to 7000 or so but you lose the advanatage of the blowers low end oomph up at that high rev area. It is also slower than the Aston in gearchanges - only a smidge but it is an excuse I'll be using when the Jag is slower...
3.59miles Circuito Hornachuelos (Full) - XKR-S
2m04.538
That was my best time, but many laps were ruined with the car ploughing on at a high speed corner. Don't expected to barrel into a corner fast and sort it out when you get there. The weight of the car means you have to drive the car knowing you have to be in control all the time... if you over work the tyres, the car is just going to wash out to the edge of the track. Build up your speed as the car can get quite a lick of speed up which makes those accidents all the more painful. However onc you do get hooked up and you are mastering that slow in fast out milarky you will feel real pride that you can hurtle arround a track and keep the Jag on the asphalt.
---------------
Aston Martin V12 Vantage
This is a much smaller car, with much more subtle lines The biggest worry on the looks area is the 4 huge vent areas on the top of the bonnet. In Black so if you get any light colour they stand out like a longhaired deathmetaller, pumping his fist with a "Horned Devil sign" (I'd prefer to think of it more as the Japanese band Babymetal's Kitsune Salute myself.)
Interior... Counter Clockwise Tacho... Very Nice indeed... 1970's Era LED speedo display in Napoleans - not so nice... Are we selling Astons to the French now...
I gave mine a respray of an older shade of David Brown Approved paint - 'Ghillies Green', and the car looks so much better. The black carbon fibre slats in the bonnet blend in like a stalker tracking the hunted. It also helps the carbonfibre buttocks the Vantage has aquired at the back.
Start - The V12 is almost restrained and it only revs to 7,000 - Not the best sounding V12 I've heard (Matra V12, Honda V12 then the Weslake V12 are my top three.)
3.59miles Circuito Hornachuelos (Full) - V12 Vantage
2m02.699
The V12 was a delight to drive. In the corners if you overcooked your entry you still had a chance to do a bit of wheelsmanship to get out of a free meal in the Accident and Emergency department of your local hospital. Though if you drive one of these I guess you will be whisked by an Aerodyne piloted by your Setcretary/ Former Female Russian Jet Pilot to your Private Hospital/Clinic. The car is so much easier to drive at the limit. So much. You can light up the rears and it is very easy to powerslide every corner you visit like a houligan. But the V12 is buttery smooth.
----
The Jag wins on the engines "meat". It sounds like it was made from recycled parts from a machine gun.
The Aston wins just about everywhere else.
Is the price worth it? Both are pretty spicey in terms of cash. (Just had a peak in the dealership and Iam stunned how low the Astons PP score is compared to the Slower Jag.)
Winner?
The Aston. It would be fun to drive every apex. The Jag sounds amazing but the driving side of it is hard work under brakes and into the corners.
Aston Martin Lagonda V12 Vantage - WINS
- 1,515
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
Really good matchup this week. Both cars bring something interesting to the table. I love how fun the Aston Martin is in the corners, and I love how well the Jaguar can be planted in technical sections in addition to the power from the supercharger.
Mountain Trial:
V12 Vantage - 1:46.684
XKR-S - 1:45.677
City Trial:
V12 Vantage - 1:33.719
XKR-S - 1:34.437
Goodwood Trial:
V12 Vantage - 0:55.048
XKR-S - 0:54.017
On the Matterhorn, the Aston Martin liked stepping out of line in certain portions of the track, especially the tricky technical section right after the start line. I'd estimate a good second or two was used up trying to keep the car in line. Not totally rowdy, just fairly excited on elevation changes. The Jaguar was considerably heavier than the Aston Martin, which did show me a bit of understeer under braking on the downhill. But the extra weight kept the car planted firmly on the racing line that I wanted to take on the uphill sections.
Moving to the fictional streets of SSR5, I could see the Aston Martin liked kicking the end out on turns, especially the long easy left in the tunnel after the start and the long right before the main straight. However, the car felt more manuverable on this track. The oversteer felt very controllable, and I felt it took corners well. The Jag's weight got in the way of its responsiveness, hence why it didn't quite go as fast as the Aston.
Since I had a tie and I loved how both cars drove, I needed a tiebreaker track.Lord March just so happened to be in the area when I was testing the cars in the city, and invited me so I decided to test them at Goodwood. There, the Jag's power got the best of the Aston's manuverability.
I really enjoyed both cars and either one is a good contender performance-wise. The Jaguar proved to be the more adept contender so it gets my vote. But if you want a car you can just kick sideways into corners, and just have a blast, go for the Vantage.
Mountain Trial:
V12 Vantage - 1:46.684
XKR-S - 1:45.677
City Trial:
V12 Vantage - 1:33.719
XKR-S - 1:34.437
Goodwood Trial:
V12 Vantage - 0:55.048
XKR-S - 0:54.017
On the Matterhorn, the Aston Martin liked stepping out of line in certain portions of the track, especially the tricky technical section right after the start line. I'd estimate a good second or two was used up trying to keep the car in line. Not totally rowdy, just fairly excited on elevation changes. The Jaguar was considerably heavier than the Aston Martin, which did show me a bit of understeer under braking on the downhill. But the extra weight kept the car planted firmly on the racing line that I wanted to take on the uphill sections.
Moving to the fictional streets of SSR5, I could see the Aston Martin liked kicking the end out on turns, especially the long easy left in the tunnel after the start and the long right before the main straight. However, the car felt more manuverable on this track. The oversteer felt very controllable, and I felt it took corners well. The Jag's weight got in the way of its responsiveness, hence why it didn't quite go as fast as the Aston.
Since I had a tie and I loved how both cars drove, I needed a tiebreaker track.
I really enjoyed both cars and either one is a good contender performance-wise. The Jaguar proved to be the more adept contender so it gets my vote. But if you want a car you can just kick sideways into corners, and just have a blast, go for the Vantage.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Aston Martin V12 Vantage '10
5.9L
509 hp / 6,500 rpm
421 ft-lb / 5,500 rpm
1,680 kg (3,704 lbs)
521 pp
Jaguar XKR-S '11
5.0L
541 hp / 6,500 rpm
501 ft-lb / 3,500 rpm
1,810 kg (3,990 lbs)
532 pp
The Jaguar has a smaller engine, almost 1,000 cc's smaller to be exact, yet it makes 32 more hp and 80 more ft-lbs of torque thanks to its supercharger. The one thing holding back the Jag is its weight, about 290 lbs more than the Aston.
The V12 Vantage has an almost-perfect 51:49 weight distribution, while the XKR-S has 54:46.
At Mid-Field Raceway, on Comfort Soft tires:
Miraculously, both cars managed a top speed of 155 mph on the straightaway, but the lighter weight and better weight distribution push the Aston ahead in the corners.
In real life, a used XKR-S is less than half the price of a used V12 Vantage, with prices between $50-60k, so it's a relative performance bargain.
The Jaguar has a 5.0L V8 that sounds better to my ears than the Aston's V12.
I have to vote for the Jag.
5.9L
509 hp / 6,500 rpm
421 ft-lb / 5,500 rpm
1,680 kg (3,704 lbs)
521 pp
Jaguar XKR-S '11
5.0L
541 hp / 6,500 rpm
501 ft-lb / 3,500 rpm
1,810 kg (3,990 lbs)
532 pp
The Jaguar has a smaller engine, almost 1,000 cc's smaller to be exact, yet it makes 32 more hp and 80 more ft-lbs of torque thanks to its supercharger. The one thing holding back the Jag is its weight, about 290 lbs more than the Aston.
The V12 Vantage has an almost-perfect 51:49 weight distribution, while the XKR-S has 54:46.
At Mid-Field Raceway, on Comfort Soft tires:
Miraculously, both cars managed a top speed of 155 mph on the straightaway, but the lighter weight and better weight distribution push the Aston ahead in the corners.
In real life, a used XKR-S is less than half the price of a used V12 Vantage, with prices between $50-60k, so it's a relative performance bargain.
The Jaguar has a 5.0L V8 that sounds better to my ears than the Aston's V12.
I have to vote for the Jag.
- 1,233
- Patra
- Rotorist
Don't know why but I think this duel is totally subjective in who likes which as those 2 are too close to each other. Their setup differs though as these are special editions for track days mostly. Aston is better for the track but Jag is a better cruiser. Haven't seen them in person (only seen the previous gen Jag XK-R, what a beauty!) but I tend to like Jag better from the design aspect. V12 is my favourite though and weight destribution offers much in handling too. Don't know for sure. I should drive them a bit in GT6 to decide. For now it is almost a tie. Will update post if news from GT6 driving.
- 6,281
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
2010 ASTON MARTIN V12 VANTAGE VS 2011 JAGUAR XKR-S REVIEW/COMPARISON
"Two Brits, both rear wheel drive. Who's the baddest of them all?"
This time around we have two incredibly similar cars from two rival manufacturers from the British Isles. Let's see which car can come out on top.
Round One: Shakedown
I took both cars out for a lap of my hillclimb track. (Picture to the right) I found the XKR to be prone to understeer because of it's weight. However it was unable to get around the small jump-corner effectively and stuggled getting around the first few bends. It was faster down the uphill straights than the Aston but it lost most of it's time already. It is a rewarding car if you can handle it properly and is fun to drive, but the V12 Vantage take the cake here.
Aston Martin Time: 2:15.846
Jaguar Time: 2:18.784
Gap: +0:02.938
Point goes to the Aston Martin V12 Vantage
Round Two: Drag Race
I took both cars out to the track, and the race was amazing. This was the closest drag race I have done so far! Excuse my unsteady hand but you'll want to watch this one through to the end!
In the end the Aston recorded 49.4 seconds and the Jag won with 49.1 seconds, which was a .3 of a second split. Very close indeed.
Point goes to the Jaguar XKRS
Round Three: Paint Chips
The Aston simply blows the Jaguar out of the water, it has 22 paint chips, an extremely high number. The jag has 16 paint chips consisting of dark tones and few colours while the V12 has bright colours and many darks mixed together. The Aston is also the only one of the bunch that can really rock the bright shades.
Point goes to the Aston Martin V12 Vantage
Round Four: Customization
In terms of customization the XKR lets down because it should have more options being a newer model, but instead the older GT5 Aston has more options. The Aston has 4 unique options, with two nice spoilers, a large front lip and a large easily visible diffuser. The Jag only has two unique options, a ground effects kit and a large diffuser as well as having the option to remove the wing.
Point goes to the Aston Martin V12 Vantage
Round Five: Tuning
The Jag has the ability to do everything the V12 can do, and add a better Supercharger. 'Nuff said.
Point goes to the Jaguar XKRS
Round Six: Sound
By no means Gran Turismo's Strong suit, it has gotten better in recent years though, and the Jaguar really shines through here. It sounds very deep and throaty, a nice sound for a V8. The Aston sounds like a GT3 racing car already in stock form, but I prefer the low V8 grumble.
Point goes to the Jaguar XKRS
Round Seven: Design and Styling
Both cars look very good, with both having essentially the same styling, the choice is yours, classic grill or boy-racer parts? the Jag looks great in Ebony and the V12 looks great in Alloro Green or Viridian Green to me
Point goes to both cars
Final Round: Drifting and Popularity
The V12 Vantage is by far the more popular car for PP racing online, with players leaning more towards lighter weight in their cars, wanting it to be the most planted as possible. The V12 is also more popular for drifting, being easier to control and tune for due to it's plantedness and light weight.
Point goes to the Aston Martin V12 Vantage
Final Thoughts
I think the Aston Martin and Jaguar are both great cars, I respect both equally here, each car has it's advantages and disadvantages. However, when put together the V12 Vantage pulled a 5 to 4 victory over the Jaguar XKRS, thus winning this match and the vote.
and of course...
The Verdict Is:
Buy a Ferrari California.
...Lighter and Convertible, Boi.
What's up next week? Muscle cars? TVRs? Ferrari 458s? stay tuned to find out!
Last edited:
- 6,281
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
review is complete
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
I'll start with the Aston. Sleek design, good aero options, and a wide variety of paint chips. I bought mine in Viridian Green. Driving it felt like what an Aston feels like, the tail sliding on sharper corners and plenty of power on the straights. The only thing that disappointed me on this car was the sound. But I don't need to rant about that.....
The XKR-S. This car basically took the XKR to the next level. Aero options are OK, paint chips are good, and the drive is stable. This car weighs considerably more than the Aston, and with that came a bit of understeer. Bit this car felt more planted to the road than the Aston, and the V8 sound was tremendous. It's a tough choice between the two but after some thought,
I choose the Vantage. Lap times you ask?
3 laps on Mount Panorama, stock tires, no aids except ABS.
XKR-S: 2:22.968
V12 Vantage: 2:21.812
The Aston beats the XKR-S by just over a second. When choosing between the two, it really comes down to which manufacturer you like better, or if you prefer V8 or V12. Your votes?
V12 Vantage: 6
XKR-S: 2
And the winner is.....
The 2010 V12 Vantage!!!
Well that's that. Stop by tomorrow for the next duel of the week and if you have any suggestions for future duels, start a conversation with me!
The XKR-S. This car basically took the XKR to the next level. Aero options are OK, paint chips are good, and the drive is stable. This car weighs considerably more than the Aston, and with that came a bit of understeer. Bit this car felt more planted to the road than the Aston, and the V8 sound was tremendous. It's a tough choice between the two but after some thought,
I choose the Vantage. Lap times you ask?
3 laps on Mount Panorama, stock tires, no aids except ABS.
XKR-S: 2:22.968
V12 Vantage: 2:21.812
The Aston beats the XKR-S by just over a second. When choosing between the two, it really comes down to which manufacturer you like better, or if you prefer V8 or V12. Your votes?
V12 Vantage: 6
XKR-S: 2
And the winner is.....
The 2010 V12 Vantage!!!
Well that's that. Stop by tomorrow for the next duel of the week and if you have any suggestions for future duels, start a conversation with me!
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
This week we have the descendants of one of the most cherished battle in history. This week's duel is.....
The 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS
vs
The 2013 Ford Mustang Boss 302!!!
(Thanks to @MrWaflz55 for the suggestion)
All I can say is 'merica! But give these two a test and let me know which you think is better, and if you have any suggestions, please start a conversation with me!
The 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS
vs
The 2013 Ford Mustang Boss 302!!!
(Thanks to @MrWaflz55 for the suggestion)
All I can say is 'merica! But give these two a test and let me know which you think is better, and if you have any suggestions, please start a conversation with me!
Last edited:
- 218
- Ontario, Canada
- MaxPrez90
Normally I'd always choose a Chevy over a Ford, but this one's an exception.
I choose the Mustang for its race-ready setup and revvy engine. The Camaro has fully-independent suspension all-around of course, but the Mustang is so much lighter. In-game, I find the Camaro better to drive, but in real life the Mustang holds the edge in cornering prowess.
Mustang wins it for me.
I choose the Mustang for its race-ready setup and revvy engine. The Camaro has fully-independent suspension all-around of course, but the Mustang is so much lighter. In-game, I find the Camaro better to drive, but in real life the Mustang holds the edge in cornering prowess.
Mustang wins it for me.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Chevrolet Camaro SS '10
6.2L
427 hp / 6,000 rpm
420 ft-lb / 4,500 rpm
1,755 kg (3,869 lbs)
498 pp
Ford Mustang Boss 302 '13
5.0L
443 hp / 6,500 rpm
380 ft-lb / 4,500 rpm
1,647 kg (3,631 lbs)
501 pp
As we can see, the Camaro has 1,200 more cc's of engine displacement, yet punches out 16 fewer ponies than the Mustang. That is laughable. Points go to the Chevy for its 40 extra ft-lbs of torque, but loses those points again due to being 238 lbs heavier than the Ford.
At Mid-Field Raceway, on Comfort Soft tires:
The Camaro edges out the Mustang. As much as I prefer Ford as a company over Chevy, between these two cars I'd go for the SS.
6.2L
427 hp / 6,000 rpm
420 ft-lb / 4,500 rpm
1,755 kg (3,869 lbs)
498 pp
Ford Mustang Boss 302 '13
5.0L
443 hp / 6,500 rpm
380 ft-lb / 4,500 rpm
1,647 kg (3,631 lbs)
501 pp
As we can see, the Camaro has 1,200 more cc's of engine displacement, yet punches out 16 fewer ponies than the Mustang. That is laughable. Points go to the Chevy for its 40 extra ft-lbs of torque, but loses those points again due to being 238 lbs heavier than the Ford.
At Mid-Field Raceway, on Comfort Soft tires:
The Camaro edges out the Mustang. As much as I prefer Ford as a company over Chevy, between these two cars I'd go for the SS.
- 1,515
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
Ah, the age old American pony car rivalry, Camaro vs Mustang. Chevy vs. Ford.
So both cars have behavior that I like and behavior that I don't like. The Camaro likes kicking the tail end out, but a little bit more than what is called for in the corners. The Mustang is fairly stable and can go for a good drift, but under heavy braking, it gets pretty understeery, requiring more space to slow the car down in order to clear corners effectively.
Mountain Trial:
Camaro - 1:47.193
Mustang - 1:47.775
City Trial:
Camaro - 1:34.258
Mustang - 1:35.181
The Camaro comes out the winner in this trial. Both cars have controllable oversteer, but the Camaro can clear corners quicker than the Mustang.
So both cars have behavior that I like and behavior that I don't like. The Camaro likes kicking the tail end out, but a little bit more than what is called for in the corners. The Mustang is fairly stable and can go for a good drift, but under heavy braking, it gets pretty understeery, requiring more space to slow the car down in order to clear corners effectively.
Mountain Trial:
Camaro - 1:47.193
Mustang - 1:47.775
City Trial:
Camaro - 1:34.258
Mustang - 1:35.181
The Camaro comes out the winner in this trial. Both cars have controllable oversteer, but the Camaro can clear corners quicker than the Mustang.
- 6,281
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
2010 CHEVROLET CAMARO SS vs 2013 FORD MUSTANG BOSS 302 REVIEW/COMPARISON
"A battle of two retro-revival, bad to the bone muscle cars".
This week we have two legendary cars that are almost the same enter the ring. Who will emerge the better of the two?
Round One: Shakedown Lap
Of course, like usual I took both cars down to the "Eifel Field to Hill Sprint" track to see which one can score the best lap time. The course (pictured above right) tests things like turn-in on the hairpins, stability over the extremely mild jump corner and uphill speed and high speed stability on the final two straights.
Here are the specs for the cars:
HORSEPOWER: CAMARO: 426hp.................MUSTANG: 443hp
PRICE: CAMARO 35,000................MUSTANG: 45,000
WEIGHT: FORD WEIGHS ABOUT 200kg LESS
PP: CAMARO: 498PP...............MUSTANG: 501pp
LAP TIMES: CAMARO: 2:19.100
MUSTANG: 2:19.443
GAP: +0:00.343
So the Camaro pulled out a victory despite having lower horsepower, but remember, the torque is higher and makes up time on the uphill sections, The Camaro is also aided by it's more advanced suspension compared to the Mustang's prehistoric struts.
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Two: Drag Race
In the drag race, the Mustang went on to take the lead early, thanks to it's shorter gearing than the Camaro, but of course on this 4km track, that's not enough to save you, so while the Mustang maxed out, the Camaro with more torque came back to win by about half a second.
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Three: Paint Chips
This was also a complete blowout for the Mustang, the Camaro has 5 paint chips, with Red, Blue, Green, Yellow and Black. The Camaro has 10 colours, most of which the Mustang has, and some. They also have two variations of stripes and the option of no stripes at all for every colour.
(Not to mention the Mustang gives you no paint chips...)
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Four: Customization
Again, another blowout. The Camaro has 6 unique options despite being an older model, 3 body kits, 1 flat floor and 2 rear wings with the ability to remove the stock wing too. The Mustang only has 4 unique options, 2 body kits, 1 flat floor and 1 factory-style wing, with the ability to remove the stock one.
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Five: Tuning
Nothing much to see here. Both cars are about equal in tuning, but the Mustang has 1 more PP than 500, so the Camaro would be better in PP restricted or stock racing.
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Six: Sound
The Mustang sounds like a Jag (almost), and the Camaro sounds just like a Corvette. I prefer the sound of the Mustang, but the Camaro sound might be more realistic (in a continuity sort of way) because they both use LS engines.
Point goes to both
Round Seven: Design and Styling
Welcome to the segment where we separate the beautiful from the butt-ugly. Both cars look almost exactly the same to me, both use the classic muscle car retro-revival styling, so there isn't much to compare here. The Camaro here is a little bit lower and longer, and the facia looks a tad more aggressive. Ultimately I prefer the Camaro
Point Goes to the Camaro SS
Final Round: Drifting and Popularity
The reason I prefer to combine these two topics is because the drifting scene in GT6 really shows what cars are in and out in terms of popularity on the interspace. The Camaro seems to be overshadowed online because of the Mustang being new to the series. Both cars are rear-drive and are both able to get around the corner sideways under relative control. Here then it seems the Mustang take the lead.
Point goes to the Mustang Boss 302
Final Thoughts
I love the Mustang, and I love the Camaro, but I can't find any reason to justify buying the former over the latter. It's slower, corners worse and is 10,000 credits more expensive. With a 7/2 win over the Mustang the Camaro takes the cake, and the vote.
And as always, the verdict is...
Buy a Challenger?
Haha. Nope.
(jk)
"A battle of two retro-revival, bad to the bone muscle cars".
This week we have two legendary cars that are almost the same enter the ring. Who will emerge the better of the two?
Round One: Shakedown Lap
Of course, like usual I took both cars down to the "Eifel Field to Hill Sprint" track to see which one can score the best lap time. The course (pictured above right) tests things like turn-in on the hairpins, stability over the extremely mild jump corner and uphill speed and high speed stability on the final two straights.
Here are the specs for the cars:
HORSEPOWER: CAMARO: 426hp.................MUSTANG: 443hp
PRICE: CAMARO 35,000................MUSTANG: 45,000
WEIGHT: FORD WEIGHS ABOUT 200kg LESS
PP: CAMARO: 498PP...............MUSTANG: 501pp
LAP TIMES: CAMARO: 2:19.100
MUSTANG: 2:19.443
GAP: +0:00.343
So the Camaro pulled out a victory despite having lower horsepower, but remember, the torque is higher and makes up time on the uphill sections, The Camaro is also aided by it's more advanced suspension compared to the Mustang's prehistoric struts.
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Two: Drag Race
In the drag race, the Mustang went on to take the lead early, thanks to it's shorter gearing than the Camaro, but of course on this 4km track, that's not enough to save you, so while the Mustang maxed out, the Camaro with more torque came back to win by about half a second.
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Three: Paint Chips
This was also a complete blowout for the Mustang, the Camaro has 5 paint chips, with Red, Blue, Green, Yellow and Black. The Camaro has 10 colours, most of which the Mustang has, and some. They also have two variations of stripes and the option of no stripes at all for every colour.
(Not to mention the Mustang gives you no paint chips...)
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Four: Customization
Again, another blowout. The Camaro has 6 unique options despite being an older model, 3 body kits, 1 flat floor and 2 rear wings with the ability to remove the stock wing too. The Mustang only has 4 unique options, 2 body kits, 1 flat floor and 1 factory-style wing, with the ability to remove the stock one.
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Five: Tuning
Nothing much to see here. Both cars are about equal in tuning, but the Mustang has 1 more PP than 500, so the Camaro would be better in PP restricted or stock racing.
Point goes to the Camaro SS
Round Six: Sound
The Mustang sounds like a Jag (almost), and the Camaro sounds just like a Corvette. I prefer the sound of the Mustang, but the Camaro sound might be more realistic (in a continuity sort of way) because they both use LS engines.
Point goes to both
Round Seven: Design and Styling
Welcome to the segment where we separate the beautiful from the butt-ugly. Both cars look almost exactly the same to me, both use the classic muscle car retro-revival styling, so there isn't much to compare here. The Camaro here is a little bit lower and longer, and the facia looks a tad more aggressive. Ultimately I prefer the Camaro
Point Goes to the Camaro SS
Final Round: Drifting and Popularity
The reason I prefer to combine these two topics is because the drifting scene in GT6 really shows what cars are in and out in terms of popularity on the interspace. The Camaro seems to be overshadowed online because of the Mustang being new to the series. Both cars are rear-drive and are both able to get around the corner sideways under relative control. Here then it seems the Mustang take the lead.
Point goes to the Mustang Boss 302
Final Thoughts
I love the Mustang, and I love the Camaro, but I can't find any reason to justify buying the former over the latter. It's slower, corners worse and is 10,000 credits more expensive. With a 7/2 win over the Mustang the Camaro takes the cake, and the vote.
And as always, the verdict is...
Buy a Challenger?
Haha. Nope.
(jk)
Last edited:
- 6,281
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
It's almost Sunday, let's get the votes going!
- 3,144
- Lancashire
- Ryk_BRM
Camaro SS vs Mustang Boss 302
Chevrolet Camaro SS '10
6162cc - V8 - 426bhp- 1755kg - 47:53
Paint Chips... well firstly you get the choice of a secondary colour...
1- Plain car -
2- Twin bonnet stripes - (Which just cover the side of the bonnet power bulge)
3- Bonnet and Hocket stripes - (This leaves the sides of the bonnet bulge as the primary colour and adds side stripes that look like a Puma Logo... or a Hockey Stick...)
Colours - Summit White / Rally Yellow / Inferno Orange Metallic / Victory Red / Red Jewel Tintcoat / Aqua Blue Metyallic / Imperial Blue Metallic / Silver Ice Metallic / Cyber Gray Metallic / Black
So thirty possible combinations... But No Green...
I chose Imperial Blue Metallic - Fancy Stripes? I drive ABS=0 so I make my own stripes, whenever I like..
Looks - Solid looks, If it had a Cowboy Hat it may look slightly more american. It is a Big old lump with a big V8.
Price 35,000 Kazulas - seems very cheap... or great value. PP 498
Ford Mustangbo SS
4953cc - V8 - 443bhp - 1647kg - 54:46
Paint Chips only 5... and you have to have the matt black sticker stripes but the 5 chips are pretty good. Grabber Blue and Gotta Have It Green Metallic are both stand out but the White and the Red are good along with the Schoolbus Yellow...
I already have one - so I guess I got the Gotta Have It Green one... (Yup!)
I have not got the Laguna Seca version with its second "secret" ignition key. No, I have not got that. No sir. Honest.
Looks - great front end but for me the back end just lacks something the rear side window is also - jarring.
Price 45,000 Kazulas - also seems cheap but PP of 501 is a shame as it invalidates it for many races. You can either detune the engine... or add balast to get the Mutangbo to the 500 threshold... 2 kilos (four and half of your finest English Imperial pounds) will get the car to be a 500pp machine. 40 more Kilos will take you to the 498pp level of the "so called" inferior Chevrolet's rating.
--------------
Track Test - (Sports Hard tyres - ABS=0 TCS=0 In car.)
I tried the Mustangbo SS first. But which track?
Sears Point - Well a Track Builder version of it... which has a bit more rock and roll to it than the Californian track but it really captures the essence of the place.
Mustangbo SS
6 gears but 6th is way way up high... if you are driving under 140mph then all is good... if you are on a track with a bit of a fast section then this could be a an issue. But this high top gear is for low exhaust emmissions and high MPG reasons.
1m58.235 after 5 laps.
Car felt quite nice - Obviously weighty but it felt quite grippy engine was pretty lazy and after Last weeks Jaguar the V8 in the ford felt like a pussy cat in comparison. But it is a road car, ... an American Road car much more at home on long undemanding stretches.
=========
Chevrolet Camaro SS
So this is lighter and has more of that lower weight over the back of the car (???)
1m56.224 after just 2 laps
The car was much more nimble -- but the big gain was its stability in the higher speed corners.
-----------------
Repeated the Mustangbo SS - best lap after 6 -
1m56.278
The main issue was I could get the Mustang to go faster but I know for sure I can push the Camaro to go even faster - I hooned about out of the final corner in the Chevy and lost half a second.
So Sears Point the Camaro was faster. Just (Relativly) more nimble.
I did a run at Spa in the Muscle car event. B Spec had the cars pretty even
Mustangbo SS
3m02.439 - 9m11.633 (B-Spec )
2m45.792 - 8m19.239 (Ryk)
Camaro SS
3m01.764 - 9m12.916 (B-Spec)
2m45.469 - 8m23.713 (Ryk)
Mustang gained alot from slipstreams The Camaro felt easier and faster - but high speeds the lower revving drone was a bit poainful at times. The Mustang sounded a bit better, but wasn't as fun to drive.
I'd pick the Camaro mostly as from the looks I'd expect the Mustang to toast it, but the Camaro was faster and more capable on the track.
Price - Camaro
Chips - Mustang (No green... instant fail.)
Looks - Camaro
Performance - Camaro
Handling - Camaro
No walk over in any area. Prices are close, looks are subjective but the back of the Mustang looks flabby and the sides are slabby. The Camarao has some energy to the lines and contours.
Performance is tricky as I suspect the Mustang may be faster on simple tracks but on the tracks I drove I could go faster right off the bat in the Chevrolet - I had to work very hard in the Ford to get close. (Compared ot last week though the handling style is much closer between these two than the Jag and the Aston.)
Chevrolet Camaro SS WINS!
Chevrolet Camaro SS '10
6162cc - V8 - 426bhp- 1755kg - 47:53
Paint Chips... well firstly you get the choice of a secondary colour...
1- Plain car -
2- Twin bonnet stripes - (Which just cover the side of the bonnet power bulge)
3- Bonnet and Hocket stripes - (This leaves the sides of the bonnet bulge as the primary colour and adds side stripes that look like a Puma Logo... or a Hockey Stick...)
Colours - Summit White / Rally Yellow / Inferno Orange Metallic / Victory Red / Red Jewel Tintcoat / Aqua Blue Metyallic / Imperial Blue Metallic / Silver Ice Metallic / Cyber Gray Metallic / Black
So thirty possible combinations... But No Green...
I chose Imperial Blue Metallic - Fancy Stripes? I drive ABS=0 so I make my own stripes, whenever I like..
Looks - Solid looks, If it had a Cowboy Hat it may look slightly more american. It is a Big old lump with a big V8.
Price 35,000 Kazulas - seems very cheap... or great value. PP 498
Ford Mustangbo SS
4953cc - V8 - 443bhp - 1647kg - 54:46
Paint Chips only 5... and you have to have the matt black sticker stripes but the 5 chips are pretty good. Grabber Blue and Gotta Have It Green Metallic are both stand out but the White and the Red are good along with the Schoolbus Yellow...
I already have one - so I guess I got the Gotta Have It Green one... (Yup!)
I have not got the Laguna Seca version with its second "secret" ignition key. No, I have not got that. No sir. Honest.
Looks - great front end but for me the back end just lacks something the rear side window is also - jarring.
Price 45,000 Kazulas - also seems cheap but PP of 501 is a shame as it invalidates it for many races. You can either detune the engine... or add balast to get the Mutangbo to the 500 threshold... 2 kilos (four and half of your finest English Imperial pounds) will get the car to be a 500pp machine. 40 more Kilos will take you to the 498pp level of the "so called" inferior Chevrolet's rating.
--------------
Track Test - (Sports Hard tyres - ABS=0 TCS=0 In car.)
I tried the Mustangbo SS first. But which track?
Sears Point - Well a Track Builder version of it... which has a bit more rock and roll to it than the Californian track but it really captures the essence of the place.
Mustangbo SS
6 gears but 6th is way way up high... if you are driving under 140mph then all is good... if you are on a track with a bit of a fast section then this could be a an issue. But this high top gear is for low exhaust emmissions and high MPG reasons.
1m58.235 after 5 laps.
Car felt quite nice - Obviously weighty but it felt quite grippy engine was pretty lazy and after Last weeks Jaguar the V8 in the ford felt like a pussy cat in comparison. But it is a road car, ... an American Road car much more at home on long undemanding stretches.
=========
Chevrolet Camaro SS
So this is lighter and has more of that lower weight over the back of the car (???)
1m56.224 after just 2 laps
The car was much more nimble -- but the big gain was its stability in the higher speed corners.
-----------------
Repeated the Mustangbo SS - best lap after 6 -
1m56.278
The main issue was I could get the Mustang to go faster but I know for sure I can push the Camaro to go even faster - I hooned about out of the final corner in the Chevy and lost half a second.
So Sears Point the Camaro was faster. Just (Relativly) more nimble.
I did a run at Spa in the Muscle car event. B Spec had the cars pretty even
Mustangbo SS
3m02.439 - 9m11.633 (B-Spec )
2m45.792 - 8m19.239 (Ryk)
Camaro SS
3m01.764 - 9m12.916 (B-Spec)
2m45.469 - 8m23.713 (Ryk)
Mustang gained alot from slipstreams The Camaro felt easier and faster - but high speeds the lower revving drone was a bit poainful at times. The Mustang sounded a bit better, but wasn't as fun to drive.
I'd pick the Camaro mostly as from the looks I'd expect the Mustang to toast it, but the Camaro was faster and more capable on the track.
Price - Camaro
Chips - Mustang (No green... instant fail.)
Looks - Camaro
Performance - Camaro
Handling - Camaro
No walk over in any area. Prices are close, looks are subjective but the back of the Mustang looks flabby and the sides are slabby. The Camarao has some energy to the lines and contours.
Performance is tricky as I suspect the Mustang may be faster on simple tracks but on the tracks I drove I could go faster right off the bat in the Chevrolet - I had to work very hard in the Ford to get close. (Compared ot last week though the handling style is much closer between these two than the Jag and the Aston.)
Chevrolet Camaro SS WINS!
Last edited:
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
The Camaro. Aggressive looking as ever, this car comes with a variety of paint chips. You can choose between a plain color, a Racing stripe, and a hockey stripe. When I drove it it felt somewhat planted to the ground, and the power made it go one that straights. This car comes at $10,000 cheaper than the Mustang.
The Mustang. Lime I just said, this car costs 10k more than the Camaro. So is it worth it? Well, the paint chips for starters are pretty good, especially with school bus yellow and that green color. When I drove it it felt more planted than the Camaro, but I felt more understeer than the Camaro also. How do these two compare on the track?
Both tested at Midfield, stock tires, no aids except ABS.
Camaro: 1:21.091
Mustang: 1:21.603
Even though the Camaro beats the Mustang, I'm still gonna vote for the Mustang because it's built for a track, which the Camaro could do just as good at too. It was a bit of a tough decision though, and I like both of these cars despite my affection for Fords. So what did you think?
Camaro: 4
Mustang: 2
And the winner is......
The 2010 Camaro SS!!!
This isn't the end though. The new Mustang and the new Camaro will still be going at it, so it is not gonna stop anytime soon. That's it for this week, so be sure to stop by tomorrow for the next duel of the week.
The Mustang. Lime I just said, this car costs 10k more than the Camaro. So is it worth it? Well, the paint chips for starters are pretty good, especially with school bus yellow and that green color. When I drove it it felt more planted than the Camaro, but I felt more understeer than the Camaro also. How do these two compare on the track?
Both tested at Midfield, stock tires, no aids except ABS.
Camaro: 1:21.091
Mustang: 1:21.603
Even though the Camaro beats the Mustang, I'm still gonna vote for the Mustang because it's built for a track, which the Camaro could do just as good at too. It was a bit of a tough decision though, and I like both of these cars despite my affection for Fords. So what did you think?
Camaro: 4
Mustang: 2
And the winner is......
The 2010 Camaro SS!!!
This isn't the end though. The new Mustang and the new Camaro will still be going at it, so it is not gonna stop anytime soon. That's it for this week, so be sure to stop by tomorrow for the next duel of the week.
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
Withhout further ado, here's this week's duel.....
The 2012 Scion FR-S
vs
The 2003 BMW Z4!!!
Euro versus Japanese, and two FR cars. Should be interesting, so let me know what you think of these two and be sure to cast your vote!
The 2012 Scion FR-S
vs
The 2003 BMW Z4!!!
Euro versus Japanese, and two FR cars. Should be interesting, so let me know what you think of these two and be sure to cast your vote!
- 3,144
- Lancashire
- Ryk_BRM
The BMW Z4 vs the Scion FR-S
Right off the bat I'll say I really don't like the look of the BMW... Chris Bangle I don't know how drunk he was when he knocked up the sketch for his cars after a big session with the lads. But there isn't an Angle on this car that isn't painful to look at. (I'll revise that It isn't so bad in the car as at least then you can't see it... but instead you can see the faces of passers by and the looks of shock and pity they have as they first look at the car... then you.)
The Scion ... The American version of the GT86 - Other than the steering being on the sinister side of the car it ispretty good. Inside it is better than the Beemer as it has a ncie tidy steering wheel and a tight binicle of instruments, the tachometer being front and centre. (The Beemer had a pair of big dials behind a wheel so large, I expected to find Johnny Depp in the car doing his usual hammy Keith Richard's impression.
Looks -
The BMW is a modern art masterpiece. The FR-S reminds me of the GT86 or maybe the Subaru BR-Z - both very good looking cars.
(10-6) to the FR-S. (Yes 10-6 - that Z4 is a Horror show of bad lines and proportions.)
Price -
First let's talk tyres. The FR-S comes with Sport Hards, the Z4 has Comfy Hards... once you level out the price considering the tyres you... oh, it makes the Beemer even more expensive... Never mind! If you Get the car and a spare set of tyres (One CS one SH) then the FR-S is 31,450, the Z4 is 45,400... ouch - Big win for the FR-S.
(10-8) to the FR-S.
Chips
The Beemer has 10 chips a couple are quite close but it has a few really strong colours (Merlotrot Metallic) The FR-S only has 7 chips and two are also pretty close (Raven and Asphalt) It has some strong colours, (Ultramarine and Whiteout) but you have to give the round to the Z4.
(10-9) to the Beemer.
Weight
The Beemer is a portly 1365kg and the dainty FR-S is just 1230kg - 135kg is a fair old chunk of blubber to be lugging about. (300 pounds or so in English.)
(10-9) win to the FR-S.
Powah
The Beemers striaght 6 grinds out a peak power of 227 ponies. The FR-S only has 197 brake horse.
(10-9) win to the Beemer.
Handling.
Neither are super great, On stock rubber the FR-S feels like it is planted but woefully underpowered. The Beemer on its stock settings had a diving under brakes effect that I didn't get on with. The FR-S felt very easy to drive and to push with. The Z4 just had something missing.
(10-9) win to the FR-S.
Engine Note
The FR-S's 4 cylinder engine sounds bad, not a nice axe murderer style Subaru Boxer engine note, more a wheezy sucky sound. The Beemer has a musical straight 6 which labours through the revs but it is a nicer note than the FR-S.
(10-9) to the Z4.
Lap times
Ran at Kent's premier Grand Prix track, Brands "All English tracks are so dull and flat" Hatch.
Best Lap -- 3 laps ------Tyre -- Car
1m52.109 - 5m40.175 --- CS --- Z4(Stock)
1m49.044 - 5m33.044 --- SH --- Z4
---------
1m51.285 - 5m37.507 --- CS --- FR-S
1m47.437 - 5m26.940 --- SH --- FR-S(Stock)
Win to the FR-S in terms of out and out lap times as well as short stint consistency on whatever rubber you choose. (10-9 to the FR-S)
Totals
77 - Scion FR-S
71 - BMW Z4
IF the Z4 was cheaper, faster and better looking it would be a Honda S2000.
The Scion FR-S WINS!
Right off the bat I'll say I really don't like the look of the BMW... Chris Bangle I don't know how drunk he was when he knocked up the sketch for his cars after a big session with the lads. But there isn't an Angle on this car that isn't painful to look at. (I'll revise that It isn't so bad in the car as at least then you can't see it... but instead you can see the faces of passers by and the looks of shock and pity they have as they first look at the car... then you.)
The Scion ... The American version of the GT86 - Other than the steering being on the sinister side of the car it ispretty good. Inside it is better than the Beemer as it has a ncie tidy steering wheel and a tight binicle of instruments, the tachometer being front and centre. (The Beemer had a pair of big dials behind a wheel so large, I expected to find Johnny Depp in the car doing his usual hammy Keith Richard's impression.
Looks -
The BMW is a modern art masterpiece. The FR-S reminds me of the GT86 or maybe the Subaru BR-Z - both very good looking cars.
(10-6) to the FR-S. (Yes 10-6 - that Z4 is a Horror show of bad lines and proportions.)
Price -
First let's talk tyres. The FR-S comes with Sport Hards, the Z4 has Comfy Hards... once you level out the price considering the tyres you... oh, it makes the Beemer even more expensive... Never mind! If you Get the car and a spare set of tyres (One CS one SH) then the FR-S is 31,450, the Z4 is 45,400... ouch - Big win for the FR-S.
(10-8) to the FR-S.
Chips
The Beemer has 10 chips a couple are quite close but it has a few really strong colours (Merlotrot Metallic) The FR-S only has 7 chips and two are also pretty close (Raven and Asphalt) It has some strong colours, (Ultramarine and Whiteout) but you have to give the round to the Z4.
(10-9) to the Beemer.
Weight
The Beemer is a portly 1365kg and the dainty FR-S is just 1230kg - 135kg is a fair old chunk of blubber to be lugging about. (300 pounds or so in English.)
(10-9) win to the FR-S.
Powah
The Beemers striaght 6 grinds out a peak power of 227 ponies. The FR-S only has 197 brake horse.
(10-9) win to the Beemer.
Handling.
Neither are super great, On stock rubber the FR-S feels like it is planted but woefully underpowered. The Beemer on its stock settings had a diving under brakes effect that I didn't get on with. The FR-S felt very easy to drive and to push with. The Z4 just had something missing.
(10-9) win to the FR-S.
Engine Note
The FR-S's 4 cylinder engine sounds bad, not a nice axe murderer style Subaru Boxer engine note, more a wheezy sucky sound. The Beemer has a musical straight 6 which labours through the revs but it is a nicer note than the FR-S.
(10-9) to the Z4.
Lap times
Ran at Kent's premier Grand Prix track, Brands "All English tracks are so dull and flat" Hatch.
Best Lap -- 3 laps ------Tyre -- Car
1m52.109 - 5m40.175 --- CS --- Z4(Stock)
1m49.044 - 5m33.044 --- SH --- Z4
---------
1m51.285 - 5m37.507 --- CS --- FR-S
1m47.437 - 5m26.940 --- SH --- FR-S(Stock)
Win to the FR-S in terms of out and out lap times as well as short stint consistency on whatever rubber you choose. (10-9 to the FR-S)
Totals
77 - Scion FR-S
71 - BMW Z4
IF the Z4 was cheaper, faster and better looking it would be a Honda S2000.
The Scion FR-S WINS!
- 6,281
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
I don't have time to do a full review, but I quickly tested both cars. On the track the FR-S wins, on the drag the Z4 wins. The FR-S is also more popular and looks better and sharper in my opionion, but I think the Z4 M coupe looks better than both, so the winner is the Scion FRS
- 1,515
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
Small sports cars go head to head this week. One is the American twin of the sporty Japanese descendant of the legendary AE86 that ran down winding mountain passes usually sideways, and the other is an entry level BMW sportster. Which car comes out on top? Bavaria or Akina Haruna?
Mountain Trial:
FRS - 1:58.325
Z4 - 1:55.853
City Trial:
FRS - 1:41.642
Z4 - 1:40.486
Quite a difference there in times. The BMW does already have an edge on the Scion when it comes to performance points and power. The Scion felt fairly loose in the corners, which did encourage some spectacular drifts, especially on the Matterhorn. The problem is it's not very conducive to actual racing and hotlapping. The first technical section on the Matterhorn (Rotenboden for the few of you that aren't familiar with the tracks I test on) takes place on a steep uphill slope, with a sudden elevation change that rivals Laguna Seca's corkscrew. The Scion, despite its oversteery nature on the downhill corners, stayed planted on the racing line for the chicane. However, this is by virtue that the Scion doesn't have enough power to get very oversteery on the steep uphill section. To be fair, the BMW didn't have that much more power, but it still kicked the tail out more than the Scion. At the end of the chicane, both cars were going about 60 mph, just under freeway speeds where I live.
On the city trial at SSR5, the BMW felt a lot more race oriented. The throttle responsiveness and cornering behavior felt a lot more racecar like than the carefree "I wanna have fun" attitude the Scion has.
The BMW is the better car to drive in GT6 and hence why it gets my vote. However, I'd be more inclined to buy the Scion outside of the virtual worl.
Mountain Trial:
FRS - 1:58.325
Z4 - 1:55.853
City Trial:
FRS - 1:41.642
Z4 - 1:40.486
Quite a difference there in times. The BMW does already have an edge on the Scion when it comes to performance points and power. The Scion felt fairly loose in the corners, which did encourage some spectacular drifts, especially on the Matterhorn. The problem is it's not very conducive to actual racing and hotlapping. The first technical section on the Matterhorn (Rotenboden for the few of you that aren't familiar with the tracks I test on) takes place on a steep uphill slope, with a sudden elevation change that rivals Laguna Seca's corkscrew. The Scion, despite its oversteery nature on the downhill corners, stayed planted on the racing line for the chicane. However, this is by virtue that the Scion doesn't have enough power to get very oversteery on the steep uphill section. To be fair, the BMW didn't have that much more power, but it still kicked the tail out more than the Scion. At the end of the chicane, both cars were going about 60 mph, just under freeway speeds where I live.
On the city trial at SSR5, the BMW felt a lot more race oriented. The throttle responsiveness and cornering behavior felt a lot more racecar like than the carefree "I wanna have fun" attitude the Scion has.
The BMW is the better car to drive in GT6 and hence why it gets my vote. However, I'd be more inclined to buy the Scion outside of the virtual worl.
- 5,668
- Edison NJ
- jdmking13
- Lucid killer 58
Duel of the week Scion FR-S vs BMW Z4
Today we have rather two unique cars to duel it out this week, 2012 Scion FR-S and a 2003 BMW Z4. I am excited to get to drive these FR machines. First lets give a quick lay out of the specs of both cars.
12' Scion FR-S
Engine 2.0 DOCH 16 valve flat- 4
Power 200 hp @ 7000 rpm
Torque 151lb-ft @ 6600 rpm
Transmission 6 speed manual
Tires Michelin Primacy HP(Comfort Hards)
Wheelbase 101.2
Curb Weight 2730 lb
Base price $25,255
Price as tested $25,255
03' BMW Z4
Engine 3.0 DOCH 24 valve inline- 6
Power 225 @5900 rpm
Torque 214 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
Transmission 6 speed manual
Tires Bridgestone Potenza RE050A RFT(Comfort Hards)
Wheelbase 98.2
Curb Weight 3020 lb
Base price $40,945
Price as tested $45,965
The first thing that sticks out when comparing these two cars would be price difference, The BMW is almost twice the price of the FR-S and with the cost of living rising faster than the temperature at your local volcano, it could be a huge factor to determine the winner. Let's forget about cost for a second, and look at the fact we have two cars with front engine, rear wheel drive layouts. Which manufacturer will proceed in giving the driver to claim this week duel winner!
Scion FR-S
General info- The FR-S AKA Toyota 86 purpose was to be a fun sports car you can drive on the streets everyday, and track it when you want a little more excitement in your life. Built in collaboration with Subaru, but according to Toyota their team is responsible for the existence of the FR-S. It was a must for the car to be light agile and affordable according to Toyota. That formula sounds like it would make any driving enthusiast ready to make an investment.
Exterior- Looking at the FR-S from the outside you can see off the gate Toyota wanted to catch the attention of the younger driving enthusiast The FR-S has an off the show room tuner looking appeal. The car looks very sporty I particularly like the rear the best, the front of the car doesn't drive me to crazy. In all I think the car look great and if Toyota ideal was to get the attention of the younger car enthusiast I think they nailed it!
Interior- The interior of the FR-S gets straight to business. Normally in this age we see so many different buttons that do so many different things, you would think your in a quantum physics class. This is not the case for this car. Pleasant comfortable leather race inspired seats, steering wheel, and shift knob. Also making it more attractive is the red stitching combine to the leather parts in the interior. The carbon fiber filled gauge cluster is also cool with the tachometer sticking right at you, making it easy to see when your about to hit red line. Overall the interior is not the most modern filed cabin, but it is very functional and gets the job done.
Driving impressions No Aids No ABS 2/0 brake balance G27 wheel using clutch.
Street- On the streets the FR-S is a blast to drive. On paper the specs wont tickle your ass, but cars aren't driven on paper. Cars are driven on twisty exciting stress reliving pavement. The FR-S feel right at home on any twisty back road in your city. The steering feels direct and connected to the road, that's party due to the fact the boxer engine sits so low in the car giving it a better lower center of gravity. Speaking of the boxer motor it doesn't sound to bad screaming through the back roads, and the motor works efficiently revving up smoothly to red line. Even though this car only has 200 HP driving it on a winding road feels more than rewarding, with a balanced chassis the FR-S is a pleasure to drive on the streets!
Track- The FR-S can be enjoyable on the track as on the street, however on the track it can feel exposed. The difference from the track to the street is timed spent on the throttle. This is where the FR-S gets exposed. During straights the FR-S is underwhelming, but when you get to turns that frown turns upside down. This is where you feel the brilliance balance of the chassis. The sock tires being the same one on your aunt's Prius hold up pretty well. Even when the car breaks traction it's not scary but rather amusing easily corrected with counter steer. In all the FR-S with some minor upgrades seems track ready for the public.
I normally would of done the same format for the BMW but i'm short on time. My verdict goes to the FR-S. Even though the BMW has more power it is not as fun around the track or street. Surprisingly the FR-S ran faster on both street and track. Next duel write up will be a lot better.
Last edited:
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
The FR-S. An American copycat of the Japanese decent of the legendary Hacki-Roku. We already had the 86 GT in the DOTW, so this will be almost a copy and paste review. The FR-S comes with ~200 HP stock and has a 50:50 weight distribution. That very distribution helped make this car quite the fun factor in the test, and some fun drifts as well.
The Z4 on the other hand has more power, but weighs more. It is a roadster, but thanks to PD, they had to put the roof overhead anyways. Anyways, in terms of performance, the Z4 felt a bit prone to sliding because of the heavier weight and increased power. Strange enough, this is probably one of the few BMWs that felt like a drag to me. My obvious choice between the two is...
The FR-S. On the track, I tested both on stock tires, no upgrades or aids except ABS. After three laps on Silverstone Stowe Circuit:
FR-S: 1:03.096
Z4: 1:02.482
Even though the Z4 is faster, I still think the FR-S was more controllable on tighter corners, and according to your guy's votes:
FR-S: 4
Z4: 1
The winner is.....
The 2012 FR-S!!!
I have a great duel for this coming week, so be sure to stop by tomorrow for the next duel of the week!
The Z4 on the other hand has more power, but weighs more. It is a roadster, but thanks to PD, they had to put the roof overhead anyways. Anyways, in terms of performance, the Z4 felt a bit prone to sliding because of the heavier weight and increased power. Strange enough, this is probably one of the few BMWs that felt like a drag to me. My obvious choice between the two is...
The FR-S. On the track, I tested both on stock tires, no upgrades or aids except ABS. After three laps on Silverstone Stowe Circuit:
FR-S: 1:03.096
Z4: 1:02.482
Even though the Z4 is faster, I still think the FR-S was more controllable on tighter corners, and according to your guy's votes:
FR-S: 4
Z4: 1
The winner is.....
The 2012 FR-S!!!
I have a great duel for this coming week, so be sure to stop by tomorrow for the next duel of the week!
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
This week I received a nomination that includes two of the most classic and legendary cars in history. Hopefully you have a lot of money, because this week's duel is.....
The 1971 Ferrari 365 GTB4
vs
The 1974 Lamborghini Countach LP-400!!!
(Thanks to @ThrasherDBS for the suggestion)
Two classics, worth about $720,000 combined. Take these two for a spin and let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions, start a conversation with me!
The 1971 Ferrari 365 GTB4
vs
The 1974 Lamborghini Countach LP-400!!!
(Thanks to @ThrasherDBS for the suggestion)
Two classics, worth about $720,000 combined. Take these two for a spin and let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions, start a conversation with me!
