Originally Posted by quality_sound
All evidence to the contrary. I think you're letting your obvious brand bias lead you. If Randy Pobst, who I think we can all agree is much more of a driver than any of us will ever even come close to being, says that the GT is only a set of good shocks away from equalling, or besting, the M3 at roughly half the cost then the GT IS the total package.
THIS is the real reason you don't like it, not it's performance, real or perceived. The GT simply doesn't have the "status" that the M3 does. TBH, if the Mustang was available in a sedan form and kept all of its performance I'd probably have gone that way and pocketed a huge amount of money and had upgrade parts that are more plentiful and much less expensive to boot. Don't even get me started on how much I almost went with the GT500 over the M3. My desire for a performance sedan is the only thing that kept me in an M.
I agree with the top part wholeheartedly re:Pobst....Also, Foosh is no fanboi either (has owned countless BMWs, Porsche, Z06 and most recently E93M3) and trust his opinion and analysis of the GT as well.
You may be a little off base on the second part about the "looks". I don't know if it status that he was talking about.Perhaps it is.... I don't know
. I, personally dont give a rat's ass about status and think the car looks good from every angle except the rear...still not sold on the rear tail light design/shape.
It will be fun to see how well they do in the reliability department over the next couple of years.