'11 Mustang 5.0 vs. '11 BMW M3

forzav12 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: Across the pond they have much bumpier roads. That's probably why the SRA gets slammed so much. In fairness, Evo, Automobile and even Top Gear said the Mustangs were fine on track but skittery on B-roads. Regardless, I'd rather have a 2.0T Genesis Coupe and 7 grand in change than a 2011 Mustang GT.

I wouldn't. Generic import styling(forgettable at best), much bigger than it has to be-compare with the Mustang GT? Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight. Won't be any cross shopping between those two for any enthusiast with a pulse.

Good point. I'll take my Genesis R-Spec in black, please.

GR40RACER wrote: Another video comparison, this time on the drag strip 2011 Ford Mustang GT vs 2011 BMW M3 Drag Race - Motor Trend Video

Did anyone watch this? The traction control kicks on and applies the brakes and brake lights mid shift. Pass after pass the brakes apply the lights come on and the BMW makes a huge jump.

Makes you wonder what would happen if the TC had a real "off", doesn't it?

John Brown wrote: Did anyone watch this? The traction control kicks on and applies the brakes and brake lights mid shift. Pass after pass the brakes apply the lights come on and the BMW makes a huge jump.

That's due to the traction control? When I saw the brake light flicker, I thought C&D was just tapping the brakes on the top end to make 'em keep having a tie.

Maybe it was, but why?

John Brown wrote: Maybe it was, but why?

Because it makes for better television? Also, I thought that C&D/R&T were not-so-secret BMW fanbois (they have listed the 3-series as the bestest car evar for 19 years straight), so they'd do what they could to make the Bimmer look better without outright fudging the numbers.

That may very well be so. However, both videos posted so fart have been from Motor Trend

I think pretty much everyone in the automotive journalism sphere has a hard on for the 3-series. And they pretty much all say its down the intangibles, and the numbers not telling the whole story. I completely understand this. I cant reasonably tell someone that i want the throttle response of the 03 volvo s80 2.9, the mid range of the 89 dodge aries, and the high rpm feel of the 97 dodge intrepid 3.5, and expect anyone to get it, but I know exactly what i mean. I sound like an idiot trying to explain it, but im confident thati if such a thing existed in the way that i mean, you'd LOVE driving it!

As for the Genesis, i think the v6 mustang makes a better competior for either engine Genesis. I take Forza's meaning about the cross-shopping but i dont think its universal.. i think there are enthusiasts who would go for each.. i just dont think many of those enthusiasts DO cross-shop between those two badges.

Personally, i need to get off my butt and go drive a new v6/manual mustang. It may not be the thing that everyone's crazy for, but i have a feeling itd be just the kind of car i would love.

ReverendDexter wrote: I was about to say the same thing. Okay, so without resorting to "every other sports car has it", explain to the dumb Mustang owner *exactly* what makes IRS *so* much better than a decent SRA setup?

The major disadvantage is really just its inability to allow each rear wheel to follow the contour of an uneven road surface. The unsprung weight issue is also huge but on smooth surfaces they can be made to work really well and are simple as an anvil.

The well designed IRS is better (for applications with turns) because its rare the road you are racing on is perfectly smooth and having all four wheels able to apply grip and react to imperfection without lugging the weight of a differential around is better for cornering of all kinds.

One big advantage of a live axle is that you can have greater than 100% anti-squat designed in vs. only about 25% for an IRS (except Porsche 911s... because the engine weight is right there). That is hugely helpful accelerating out of a corner or wailing down a drag strip. Ford has done a great job of keeping its core happy at the strip and giving the RR folks a workable package. I'd like to see them offer an IRS option as part of a track package because regardless of the sophistication of the multi-link setup... for my purposes its just not as good as a well designed IRS. Its not THAT expensive given that they make dozens of them for other applications.

As far as the M3 vs Stang goes... the rougher the road the worse the Stang is going to fare but both are heavy street cars asked to do something they were not designed for. Randy Pobst would put 20 sec a lap on them in my '90 325 with... er... some mods ;)

I like how they state a win is a win for the M3 after citing the .09 second victory on the track.

I would agure I would have about $25,000 wins in my pocket after leaving the Ford Dealership. And about $22000 wins after puting a decent suspension and wheel tire package under it.

Too bad we don't know anyone that could do an article comparing the two of the to maybe a non M 3 series...

The sound in the revving portion of that video made me JIMP.

I goofed this one, sorry guys.

It wouldn't be much a comparison. The Mustang would win hands down performance wise.

I guess the little things like the arms that hand you the seatbelt might put it in the lead though.

GR40RACER wrote: There's your .9 tenths right there...

And then some, I'm sure the Laguna Seca Boss Mustang will still be cheaper than the M3. Heck, even a regular Boss Mustang will give the M3 fits. And to GR40RACER's point, even a comparably equipped Mustang GT would beat the Competition Package M3.

Funny MT never mentioned the disparity in options for the two cars...

In Herb Adams' chassis book, he states the in Trans Am, there was no real difference between identical chassis using IRS or a live axle. Bare in mind, this is on the track and not real world. Just sayin' for the IRS fanboiz.

93celicaGT2 wrote:

forzav12 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: Across the pond they have much bumpier roads. That's probably why the SRA gets slammed so much. In fairness, Evo, Automobile and even Top Gear said the Mustangs were fine on track but skittery on B-roads. Regardless, I'd rather have a 2.0T Genesis Coupe and 7 grand in change than a 2011 Mustang GT.

I wouldn't. Generic import styling(forgettable at best), much bigger than it has to be-compare with the Mustang GT? Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight. Won't be any cross shopping between those two for any enthusiast with a pulse.

Good point. I'll take my Genesis R-Spec in black, please.

Not a bad car, just cannon fodder for the GT that's all. The Laguna Seca obviously doesn't swim in the same price or perfomance pool as the High-yun-days.

A couple magazines have made it their mission to compare the Hyundai and the Mustang. While there might be a slight bit of cross shopping(with the six), most Mustang fans would sooner walk than pedal the Gen coupe.

I'll add some fuel to the fire. I'm fairly certain several people have run 12.5's in bone stock 5.0s, like here: http://www.upr-images.com/2011-MUSTANG/time-slip.jpg

An M3 beater that is going to depreciate like a rock in 3 years? Sign me up!

Drewsifer wrote: I love the new Mustang. I love how it is a very American answer to the world. It didn't start out great. But it's evolved, and turned into a great car. Would I own one? No way, not my cup of tea. But I still love it.

Exactly. There are so many good cars out there, more than ever before but it doesn't mean I would want to own every one of them. The new Mustangs, Camaros and Challengers are so much better than the origianls in almost every way it's unbelievable yet they are not for me. Thank goodness they exist and are available for those who want them. I say good job.

Appleseed wrote: In Herb Adams' chassis book, he states the in Trans Am, there was no real difference between identical chassis using IRS or a live axle. Bare in mind, this is on the track and not real world. Just sayin' for the IRS fanboiz.

Some of those Trans Am teams ran a Watts link, I know the Ford teams did.

GR40RACER wrote: Holy comparison Batman, I just found out that that is a Competition Package M3 in the video, it has lower, stiffer springs and other handling tweaks that a "regular" E92 M3 doesn't have. On the other hand, that ISN'T a Brembo Package GT, which means it's missing 19-inch rims with stickier tires, stiffer spring rates, and the 4-piston Brembos/14" rotors up front. There's your .9 tenths right there...

While avoiding the M3 vs. Mustang debate, would you be willing to give me (us) a short primer on the various Mustang GT's available? I've seen references to the Boss, the Laguna Seca and now the Brembo package. I'd love to know more. One day I might want another Mustang, as my first car was a brand new '87 LX 5.0 notchback. I still miss the sound of that motor, bone stock but with Flowmasters.

I'd buy a p71 with th 5.0 in it...

forzav12 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: Across the pond they have much bumpier roads. That's probably why the SRA gets slammed so much. In fairness, Evo, Automobile and even Top Gear said the Mustangs were fine on track but skittery on B-roads. Regardless, I'd rather have a 2.0T Genesis Coupe and 7 grand in change than a 2011 Mustang GT.

I wouldn't. Generic import styling(forgettable at best), much bigger than it has to be-compare with the Mustang GT? Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight. Won't be any cross shopping between those two for any enthusiast with a pulse.

The Genesis Coupe was faster around track than the previous GT ... and cheaper. It would be interesting to compare the 11. Styling is subjective. In my opinion the Genesis Coupe spends less time screaming "I'M HAVING A MIDLIFE CRISIS" than the Mustang, but like I said, that's subjective.

And you're right about cross shopping. Mustangs owners tend to span from musclecar enthusiasts to the gold chain crowd to girls looking for something cute. Genesis owners span from sports car enthusiasts to ricers. Not a lot of go between with those groups.

forzav12 wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

forzav12 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: Across the pond they have much bumpier roads. That's probably why the SRA gets slammed so much. In fairness, Evo, Automobile and even Top Gear said the Mustangs were fine on track but skittery on B-roads. Regardless, I'd rather have a 2.0T Genesis Coupe and 7 grand in change than a 2011 Mustang GT.

I wouldn't. Generic import styling(forgettable at best), much bigger than it has to be-compare with the Mustang GT? Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight. Won't be any cross shopping between those two for any enthusiast with a pulse.

Good point. I'll take my Genesis R-Spec in black, please.

Not a bad car, just cannon fodder for the GT that's all. The Laguna Seca obviously doesn't swim in the same price or perfomance pool as the High-yun-days. A couple magazines have made it their mission to compare the Hyundai and the Mustang. While there might be a slight bit of cross shopping(with the six), most Mustang fans would sooner walk than pedal the Gen coupe.

The Hyundai kept winning those comparos, if I remember correctly. As for walking the plank, that's all a marketing/image thing. I would almost rather walk than drive a luxury SUV, for example, because I don't want people to think I'm a clueless soccer mom.

MrBenjamonkey wrote: The Genesis Coupe was faster around track than the previous GT ... and cheaper. It would be interesting to compare the 11. Styling is subjective. In my opinion the Genesis Coupe spends less time screaming "I'M HAVING A MIDLIFE CRISIS" than the Mustang, but like I said, that's subjective. And you're right about cross shopping. Mustangs owners tend to span from musclecar enthusiasts to the gold chain crowd to girls looking for something cute. Genesis owners span from sports car enthusiasts to ricers. Not a lot of go between with those groups.

First off, this isn't a 2005 Mustang GT, but I suspect you have little experience driving the current generation Mustang.

Secondly, you obviously don't know the difference between a Corvette owner and a Mustang owner because you're confusion one with the other.

BTW, how does the Genesis do against the 2011 M3? I don't know myself nor do I have an opinion one way or the other, but I'll bet you do...

dyintorace wrote: While avoiding the M3 vs. Mustang debate, would you be willing to give me (us) a short primer on the various Mustang GT's available? I've seen references to the Boss, the Laguna Seca and now the Brembo package. I'd love to know more. One day I might want another Mustang, as my first car was a brand new '87 LX 5.0 notchback. I still miss the sound of that motor, bone stock but with Flowmasters.

In a nutshell, Ford offer 3 flavors of Mustangs currently:

1) Base V6

2) 5.0 GT

3) GT500

In all three flavors you can option a performance package that mostly adds a more aggressive suspension package. I don't believe you can get the Brembo brakes on the Base V6 no matter the options, the 5.0 GT gets the Brembos with the performance package option and the GT500 gets the Brembo on all models.

The BOSS 302 is sechduled for Spring 2012 and will be offered in a base model and upgraded performance model in the Laguna Seca edition

Which generation? The brand new one, which I haven't driven, or the one from 05 to 10? I have driven a fifth generation.

There seem to be Mustang owners with questionable tastes, and I'm betting this guy has a gold chain. My point was the low end of the Mustang gene pool is here^ while the low end of the Genesis genepool "hella gangsta yo" like here.

How does the Genesis do against the M3? How would I know? That's why I said it would be interesting to compare a Genesis with a NEW Mustang.