View Single Post
      09-13-2010, 12:09 PM   #221
Brigadier General

Drives: .
Join Date: May 2008
Location: .

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by DefBringer View Post
Simply put, the S65 is just not as good as an engine as the 5.0. It makes less power, substantially less torque, can run on cheaper fuel, gets better gas mileage
It's a SMALLER engine . And it makes more power. It's a much more sophisticated (and expensive) engine, but yes, the downside is all those individual butterflies are not fuel efficient, but gives you unmatched throttle response. And it has a totally different approach of making power; either you like it or you don't.

Originally Posted by jdgamble View Post
I have a Honda Accord for my commute, and while I don't mind driving it, I'd definitely rather be seen in the M3. Anyone with a nice car who denies this is full of sh*t.
Speak for yourself man. I much rather DRIVE the M3, yes. I drive an Accord during the week so I'm not 'seen' on the M3 (I have my reasons) . You just defined yourself as a snob .

Originally Posted by Dave07997S View Post
yet in 2013 or 2014 Ford will release the new Mustang and it won't be based on the retro stuff we have today and it will finally put the SRA out to pasture where it belongs.
Until then I'm not interested in considering one at any price, because it looks like crap to me, inside and out. Just look at the gauges. And the driving position. And seats. And everything else. I HATE cheap retro crap; it only shows manufacturers are still living in the past, and can't design/build something nice. I have to give Ford kudos for finally entering the 21st century in engine design , but they still need to catch up with the rest.

Originally Posted by gthal View Post
3. IMO, the M3 and Mustang will be RARELY cross shopped other than by some track enthusiasts or those whose budget is stretched by the M3. If you can comfortably afford the M3 and like the brand, the Mustang won't even be on your radar.
I think you hit the nail in the head for 99%+ of GT buyers. And the test is simple: if you could get a fully-loaded GT or M3 for the same price, which one would you choose? Enough said.

I just want to comment on something nobody has picked up yet. There're all kinds of car enthusiasts: brand enthusiasts (BMW, Ford, etc), model enthusiasts (Vette, M3, Mustang), and driving enthusiasts (driving for the pleasure of driving, whatever it is). Furthermore, each kind has a different bias, be it performance, modifications, racing, engine type, win car show trophies, or a combination of the above (and more). It's hard to describe, but you get my point, which is different kinds of enthusiasts (and there're DOZENS of combinations) will rarely agree on which car is better AND the reasons why .

Having said the above, I'm a driving enthusiast with a NA V8 6MT bias (NA 6MT F6 is 2nd), without regard of price, brand, performance above a certain level (400HP is enough), or anything else. As such, the M3 is IMMENSELY more satisfying to drive than the GT 5.0. And that wouldn't change even if the GT cost $100K; that's what I mean by 'driving enthusiast'. I don't care if it's a bit quicker, brakes a bit shorter, or whatever else; it's the TOTAL PACKAGE. The M3 has all the perfornance I need, so anything above is totally irrelevant to me. And by the same token, the M3 is more satisfying to drive than other cars costing much more. No need to spend anything more than an M3 if you're like me. My bottom line is this: The Mustang drives like a truck by comparison, and that's without even considering its looks, which are a deal-breaker to me at any price. So there you have it folks. I expect very few to agree with me, but that's the way it is. We all like different things, even when we all are considered 'car enthusiasts'. Hope I didn't offend anybody .

Last edited by elp_jc; 09-13-2010 at 12:49 PM.