IPOGT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Threads
48
Messages
2,648
Reaction score
2,277
Location
Southern Long Island Section Of Florida
Vehicle(s)
2021 Mustang Mach 1 Velocity Blue M6
The base Mustang GT is also $4k cheaper than the cheapest (slowest) Z. In fact, the cheapest PP1 GT is only $4k more than the base Z, and is $5k cheaper than the Performance trim Z it compares to. The Mustang is arguably more bang for your buck, but the prices are close enough that choosing between the two is just up to preference.

And in today's market, getting either car close to MSRP is pretty damn difficult.


Base GT
1656608169830.png

https://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/

Cheapest GT PP1
1656609298504.png




1656608238399.png

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a39971441/2023-nissan-z-pricing/
I’m not so sure I want anything to do with the post Renault Nissan or anything to do with Renault at all. I loved the original with it’s dime store interior and all. I’ll say the new Z is really impressive and I do like it. I’m sorely reminded of my neighbors Renault Alliance in the 80’s. Horrible car.

 
Last edited:

Shadow277

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Threads
121
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
380
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT 2012 Corolla
The Z is simply not a better performing package dollar for dollar, the Mustang is cheaper in both trims. The Z could easily be more FUN to drive, and I'm looking forward to test driving one myself.

I'm not trying to bash the new Z, I really really like it. But I'm also not going to ignore reviews and hype it up as the better performer when that hasn't been proven.
In all seriousness, I'm curious if it will be a competent drift platform. And I'm not talking about a decade from now and every high school graduate claps the ever lasting shit out of it. I meant being GOOD.
 

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
80
Messages
11,272
Reaction score
6,259
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, GR86
I like the size of the Z, but it's extremely porky for a small two-seater. That engine and associated parts must be really heavy. Comparing other sporty cars, the GR 86 has a lot less power, but it has 4 seats and also weighs 700 lbs less than the Z. The Mustang is relatively huge and only weighs 300 lbs more.

I really wish it had a naturally aspirated V8 in it instead of a TT V6. Maybe Nissan wouldn't have to charge $50k if it was a little less complicated of a powertrain as well. If it weighed a few hundred pounds less and had a better engine I would be more interested.

I don't love the styling, but the size makes the car interesting to me. It just seems like the Z's design isn't as efficient as it could be as far as weight to size.

The review is also interesting as the performance numbers vs. the author's preferences show that just because a car has good numbers doesn't mean it will be more fun to drive. But I think she makes it easy to miss the connection between her statements and conclusions. I think she's saying the Mustang is marginally more fun and she would buy one, even though it costs more. However, I'm not 100% clear if that's her conclusion or it's my own biases that lead me there.

Edit: the Z does have the benefit that you can increase boost and get more power very easily (if you don't care about the warranty). That is one plus of a turbo engine. But I typically would buy it new and sell within the warranty period, so for me that isn't something I would take advantage of.
 

RocketGuy3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Threads
34
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
488
Location
Dallas, TX
First Name
Raj
Vehicle(s)
2021 Mach 1, 2016 Cayman GT4


Shadow277

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Threads
121
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
380
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT 2012 Corolla
I like the size of the Z, but it's extremely porky for a small two-seater. That engine and associated parts must be really heavy. Comparing other sporty cars, the GR 86 has a lot less power, but it has 4 seats and also weighs 700 lbs less than the Z. The Mustang is relatively huge and only weighs 300 lbs more.

I really wish it had a naturally aspirated V8 in it instead of a TT V6. Maybe Nissan wouldn't have to charge $50k if it was a little less complicated of a powertrain as well. If it weighed a few hundred pounds less and had a better engine I would be more interested.

I don't love the styling, but the size makes the car interesting to me. It just seems like the Z's design isn't as efficient as it could be as far as weight to size.

The review is also interesting as the performance numbers vs. the author's preferences show that just because a car has good numbers doesn't mean it will be more fun to drive. But I think she makes it easy to miss the connection between her statements and conclusions. I think she's saying the Mustang is marginally more fun and she would buy one, even though it costs more. However, I'm not 100% clear if that's her conclusion or it's my own biases that lead me there.

Edit: the Z does have the benefit that you can increase boost and get more power very easily (if you don't care about the warranty). That is one plus of a turbo engine. But I typically would buy it new and sell within the warranty period, so for me that isn't something I would take advantage of.
So what were you saying about ADM? Which car wouldn't have it? Or both?
Both have them currently. I hate how JDMs are so damn high. I actually wanted the Type R over the GT but I couldn't justify spending 42k on a Civic.
 

bonz50

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2022
Threads
1
Messages
26
Reaction score
19
Location
Hamilton, AL
First Name
Tony
Vehicle(s)
15 50th Anniv GT
I really like the new Z, it is worlds better looking than the Supra. Like most here I would have loved to see the Z stripped down like the original and be a lightweight, get that thing down to 25-2600lb, run about 325hp and use uprated brakes/suspension, there would have been high potential here as a very fun driving car and for those that can justify multiple cars in teh stable the Z and the Mustang would have been great stable mates as they would really be pointed at very different driving purposes.

as for the comparison itself, they should have evened out the tires and put the same ones on both cars (I think they should do that in every comparison to be honest) and get someone who can drive worth a damn, those times were pretty pathetic.
 

gottasrt4

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
26
Reaction score
4
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicle(s)
'15 Mustang GT Premium and '05 Neon SRT4
Both have them currently. I hate how JDMs are so damn high. I actually wanted the Type R over the GT but I couldn't justify spending 42k on a Civic.
forgive me, but I think this's a small mischaracterization: at that point you're barely buy'n a civic. you're buy'n the king of civics which could probably outrun most mustangs. do you think it's faster than your current pony?

plus, depending on how you drive it, you'll definitely miss out on the gas economy it's renown for, making it even less of a civic 😆 but will net a lot more smiles per gallon that it's not renown for.
 

Firsttexan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2021
Threads
14
Messages
1,054
Reaction score
853
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
'19 GT A10 PP1-Past '13 GT500, 98 GT, 92 LX 5.0
Same old crappy Nissan. Cheap interiors and minimal bucks spent in the styling department. I would pass on anything Nissan. Including the GT-R.
 

 
199 - Racer X Fabrication
Top