Boss vs. M3 ZCP

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by graider

problem is the gt2 rs at 270k still looks like a 911 and there are thousands of them, everywhere.

and it sounds like a vacuum cleaner.

x 2

Turbolag is another thing. To me, it is no fun to have a $250,000 car that can rev up to only 6500 rpm.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by graider

problem is the gt2 rs at 270k still looks like a 911 and there are thousands of them, everywhere.

and it sounds like a vacuum cleaner.

God's vacuum cleaner. And I respect the hell out of the engineering that went into the LFA but it leaves me cold. Other than the exhaust note that they probably spent a year tweaking because they're anal like that.

[1cleanm6]

gt2rs x1000

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Not sure what the point of your verbiage actually was

Among other obvious things to point out your inconsistency.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

the vast majority of engineering talent devoted to engine design is now concentrated on the extremely difficult areas of efficiency and low emissions. In my opinion, these are the challenges that today's best and brightest are aimed at.

I would not argue otherwise. Nonetheless it is tough to design a production engine that redlines at 8400 rpm and is reliable. The tolerances, strength to weight ratio and stiffness of many reciprocating and rotating parts have to be very carefully engineered, as does the entire intake and exhaust system and engine management software. Simply look how few of them there are.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

High specific output is available pretty much everywhere in the automotive spectrum nowadays, and is frankly ho hum in terms of design challenges compared to what I've mentioned.

At the moment, the M3 is far from the highest when it comes to power per liter, and so what. It's a terrific engine.

Disagree. What percentage of car models have more than 104 hp/l, I would bet the number is less than a couple percent.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

If BMW was bound and determined to enhance the current power per liter numbers, they could only do so by compromising the low end even more than it is now compared to the competition.

And hence it sits at a fairly sweet spot.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Theoreticians care about power per liter. The rest of us just want to go fast.

Well that's your opinion, but it is far from fact. We have gone from general agreement on this detail in the past to disagreement now. Your insistence on being critical to folks who cite certain specs that get a bee in your bonnet causes you to sway too far the other direction and contradict yourself.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

God's vacuum cleaner. And I respect the hell out of the engineering that went into the LFA but it leaves me cold. Other than the exhaust note that they probably spent a year tweaking because they're anal like that.

So what if it took a lot of time? They had nothing to begin with and purpose-built every part rehashing nothing from the parts bin. Atleast the car has an engine that was built from an F1 V10 engine concept from scratch and revs up to 9500 rpm all day (which is why it sounds like it does).

It truly needs to be seen in real life to be appreciated and the crowds that it draws need to be seen.

One Nissan GTR tuning shop owner from NAGTROC did a hotlap around the race track . It was not TopGear "The Stig's most favorite supercar of 2010" without a reason.

This is what he wrote:

Today, we had the rare opportunity to be the first performance shop in the country to get their hands on the new Lexus LFA. One of our local clients is a huge car buff, and was the first person in the country to put a deposit down on his very own LFA. Although his custom prepared LFA won't arrive until Jan, a representative from Lexus corporate was charged with introducing a demonstration car to each buyer and allowing them to drive it for a half day. This yellow LFA is the East Coast demo car, and there is only one other in the country out on the West coast.

This particular client not only has done business with us in the past, but is also a good personal friend. So when he called me at 12:30pm and said he'd be at my shop in 20 mins with the LFA I was ecstatic! When the car rolled up, it brought our shop to a complete standstill...

Much like the GT-R, the LFA looks infinitely better in person. The body line is similar in many ways to the GT-R but with a more compact form factor and a tall broad shoulder line. It's physically a much smaller car. I took about 20 mins simply to take the car in and examine all of it's lines closely. This is a precision designed car with aggressive and sharp body lines along with some magnificent technology underneath the skin. From the carefully placed air inlets to the sturdy support structures for the active wing, it's all very well thought out and designed. The interior of the car is all business. Carbon fiber racing steering wheel, seats wrapped in alcantera and all gauges and controls well placed.

After my viewing it was time to give the LFA a well deserved test drive. After a 2 minute orientation by the nice lady from Lexus, I grabbed the paddles and set the transmission to "SPORT" mode. After making a right turn out of the parking lot I wasted no time in doing a quick 1,2,3 to 9000rpm down Cobb Parkway buzzing past a half dozen car dealerships in the process. One word: MAGIC! The exhaust note is by far the best sounding I have ever heard. It's a sharp Formula 1 inspired note, with very little bass or drone. The gearbox shifts were very sharp in SPORT mode but had that slight delay between power application that I've experience before in the gearbox from Ferrari and Lamborghini, and Audi. It's a shame the gear changes aren't instantaneous like our GT-R's, as it would have made this amazing machine that much better.

I kept heading southbound on Cobb Parkway on my way to my favorite "test track" also known as Delk Road by the Air Base. Noticing that my passenger was a little agitated with my 105mph blast down Cobb Parkway. I assured the Lexus representative that I was a licensed race car driver and I knew what I was doing. She seemed relieved and started to relax a little bit. She mentioned that nobody has taken this car above 4500rpm yet...oops...and she was really impressed with how fast the car was. Fortunately, she was unnerved and gave me full rein to drive the car as hard as I wanted to. One favorite section of my "track" is a nice right hand ramp with two sharp right hand turns inter-spaced with two short straights. I dropped the LFA down to 2nd gear and dove in. Body roll is nearly flat, and the brakes are tremendous. With my foot on the floor we rocketed out of the last right hander and enjoyed the music coming from the engine....another 2, 3, and part of 4 and we are 120mph in a heartbeat.

Overall, the OEM handling of the car is the best I have ever experienced. Flat and firm suspension manners and razor sharp steering make this one really fun car to drive fast. The power delivery is extremely linear with loads of power from 2500rpm all the way to the 9000rpm shift point I chose. No turbos, no turbo lag, just loads of power everywhere. It's a very different car from the GT-R; the LFA has a more purist feel to it despite it's high end hardware and technology behind it. Once our client takes delivery of his own LFA, you better believe we'll have it on the dyno, and tested right away. Maybe even a few "track" comparo's as well....perhaps some twin turbos?! Stay tuned!

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

For the record, I think it's perfectly "fair" for Ford to make the comparison they are making. I just think that people who pay attention to the details know that a new M3 lurks on the horizon for the 2013 model year.

That would be 2015 model year (but please - if I may politely ask - search my prior posts on the subject so we don't have a seventh discussion about it ). And, early rumors are now suggesting that the next generation Mustang may debut by then as well, in time for the 50th anniversary.

So, we may get to see that new model vs. new model comparison yet.

[graider]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

God's vacuum cleaner. And I respect the hell out of the engineering that went into the LFA but it leaves me cold. Other than the exhaust note that they probably spent a year tweaking because they're anal like that.

i don't know what to say since we both haven't driven one. but every journalists who have driven one (tiff needle, chris harris, you name it) said this car is worth every penny. could it be your perception for lexus as a boring brand still in your mind somewhere? hehe

i'm willing to bet the lexus will ride better than the gt2 rs, sounds 100x better, way more luxurious and exclusive.

this is very similar to the gtr when it just came out, the same people that bashed it now purchase it. once the hate for the badge is out the window, the love just keep coming

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by graider

i don't know what to say since we both haven't driven one. but every journalists who have driven one (tiff needle, chris harris, you name it) said this car is worth every penny. could it be your perception for lexus as a boring brand still in your mind somewhere? hehe

i'm willing to bet the lexus will ride better than the gt2 rs, sounds 100x better, way more luxurious and exclusive.

this is very similar to the gtr when it just came out, the same people that bashed it now purchase it. once the hate for the badge is out the window, the love just keep coming

Okay, my last word on this as I don't want to further defile the sanctity of the Boss Mustang v. M3 debate. Like I said, I have huge respect for the engineering that went into the LFA and for Toyota's dedication to the project. It is truly a technological marvel. But when I look at it, I see an 80s Ferrari Testarossa rear ending a GT-R. Maybe it is better in person, like you say. But that's my reaction and it doesn't have to do with any anti-Lexus bias.

So on that lucky day when the plane flying drug money overhead ditches its payload in my backyard and Sofía Vergara happens to move in next door, I'm probably going to take my bags of money to the Porsche dealer. The 911 form may be familiar, but in the GT incarnation, it strikes a sinister profile that resonates in some basic part of my brain. Much like Sofia Vergara.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

Sorry meant the Laguna Seca versions...only 500 will be made.

Dave

Is that confirmed? That seems extremely low to me.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Among other obvious things to point out your inconsistency.

Originally Posted by swamp2

I would not argue otherwise. Nonetheless it is tough to design a production engine that redlines at 8400 rpm and is reliable. The tolerances, strength to weight ratio and stiffness of many reciprocating and rotating parts have to be very carefully engineered, as does the entire intake and exhaust system and engine management software. Simply look how few of them there are.

There is no inconsistency.

You are somehow equating carefully built components made of expensive materials with engineers always striving for max power per liter. This is not rocket science regardless of what you think. What actually is closer to rocket science is to improve engine efficiency so as to extract maximum mileage from a given power and torque curve, and make it blow butterflies out the tailpipe while it does so.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Disagree. What percentage of car models have more than 104 hp/l, I would bet the number is less than a couple percent.

What I meant was that even econoboxes are getting good power from each liter, with obviously low build costs. Listen, if the M guys were interested in max power per liter, would 104 be where they stopped? Hell, a decade ago the S2000 was at 120 HP per liter, for $30 grand.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Well that's your opinion, but it is far from fact. We have gone from general agreement on this detail in the past to disagreement now. Your insistence on being critical to folks who cite certain specs that get a bee in your bonnet causes you to sway too far the other direction and contradict yourself.

You are confusing a couple of items. An engine may be difficult to build for a numbers of reasons (think trucks, for instance, or even better, think commercial boats).

What I am saying, and all I am saying, is that slamming one engine in preference to another based on power per liter is sheer nonsense. Power per liter is almost immaterial most of the time, and it gets lost amongst a myriad of other factors.

You know I have inflamed the faithful in the past by saying that the M3 would work better with an LS3 in it, or an LS7. I do that to make a point (and it's fun to bait the faithful, after all), not to actually recommend it. The M3 is a unique animal, and some of that uniqueness would be lost. Not that I care, but I know others would.

Would the M3 work better with the new Mustang motor in it?

Probably so.

You see, yet again, where my head is on this. Power per liter hardly ever matters out here on the mean streets because of all the other factors that have to be juggled.

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Is that confirmed? That seems extremely low to me.

The LSBs were only 500 while the regular boss was 1500 from what I read.

However, then I read this..so maybe a tad more, but not much more. Only 75% of the dealers will definitely get one as it is based on dealers with high Mustang sales. So if you are in truck country in Wyoming and your local dealer doesn't sell a lot of Mustangs they may not get one at all. As the remainding 25% have to go into an allotment lotto. All very confusing..read this tell me what you think.

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6684...ine/index.html

Just read this on TheMustangSource.com

2012: 3,500+500 Laguna Sega (with 69 Theme)
2013: 3,500+500 R-Models (maybe another Race Track?) (70 Theme)


So they are doing it 2 model years (just like for the 69/70 Mustang). However, the Laguna Seca version is just going to be 500, but then they are coming out with an R model that will also be just 500 units.

I don't think a lot of these are going to end up in everyday peoples hands, investors are going to snap them up. Also, Edmunds reports the non Laguna Seca car coming in at $38,000...LOL, the dealers you know are going to be asking 20k over..


Dave

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

There is no inconsistency.

Some time ago you agreed with me that:

1. Engineering sophistication and power per liter roughly scale together.
2. Part of what contributes to the M3s best engine metric (its broad and flat torque curve) goes hand in hand with it high specific output.

You've now entirely changed course. That OK if you want to, just realize you have.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

You are somehow equating carefully built components made of expensive materials with engineers always striving for max power per liter. This is not rocket science regardless of what you think. What actually is closer to rocket science is to improve engine efficiency so as to extract maximum mileage from a given power and torque curve, and make it blow butterflies out the tailpipe while it does so.

Neither is anywhere close to rocket science. I worked closely with quite a few genuine rocket scientists and ALL of the few companies in the US that actually make rockets. So cliche or literal I know a thing or two about the field. Nonetheless you can't ignore the correlation between sophistication, advanced design, material choices (and costs) and high specific output. That being said more good and advanced engineering is going into efficiency these day, AGAIN (and again and again...) I never said otherwise.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

What I meant was that even econoboxes are getting good power from each liter, with obviously low build costs. Listen, if the M guys were interested in max power per liter, would 104 be where they stopped? Hell, a decade ago the S2000 was at 120 HP per liter, for $30 grand.

Again, what percent of models (not of vehicles obviously) have a specific output greater than the M3, please answer? My super rough / initial guess was in the low single digit percentages. IIRC Honda had some big problems with the first year of the S2000 and consequently lowered the redline in its second model year. Either way that engine was and is also special in my evaluation exactly for this reason and of course for its driving character.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

What I am saying, and all I am saying, is that slamming one engine in preference to another based on power per liter is sheer nonsense. Power per liter is almost immaterial most of the time, and it gets lost amongst a myriad of other factors.

To each their own. I do agree it is not the most important factor (and have and wil continue to do so again and again). However, it does go hand in hand with other features that are desirable. It is up to each person to decide which metrics matter to them and part of specific output is about the character of the engine perhaps even more so than its raw output. Also I don't think anyone (certainly I didn't) was slamming the Stang engine due to low specific output.

Here is another exercise. Make a list of the top (say 10 or so) specific output engines (NA ones, of course). Do you or do you not now also have a list of some of the best engines and best sports cars around? You're probably aware that the Ferrari 458 Italia sits at the very top of the list, right?

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

You know I have inflamed the faithful in the past by saying that the M3 would work better with an LS3 in it, or an LS7. I do that to make a point (and it's fun to bait the faithful, after all), not to actually recommend it. The M3 is a unique animal, and some of that uniqueness would be lost. Not that I care, but I know others would.

Would the M3 work better with the new Mustang motor in it?

Probably so.

And indeed when you magazine race, race on specs or theorize about swaps such as this you do lose sight of the importance of character. You yourself have sung the praises of the M3 (the Mongoose as you say) especially when the tach needle is past the 2 o'clock point. Without a doubt a significant portion of that character would be lost if the car had a Vette or Stang motor in it. And to most, whether or not they'll admit it, this matters and it is related to specific output.

[serge]

Originally Posted by alms211

Don't you just love the elitist attitude of the M3 crowd. They act as if it's a Veyron for Christsake.

Funny. This from someone who drives a 335.

I think the Boss will destroy the M3 in terms of performance and raw numbers. How's that for elitist attitude?

[SnakeKiller]

the Boss will surely beat the M3 in terms of performance, the GT alone has virtually the same performance.

i think were seeing the wrong picture here, ford isn't comparing the Feel or luxury of both cars, its comparing the Raw performance. The Boss without the benchmark is going to sell on heritage alone, Ford just might of thought it was great to match its revived racing legend against the current top dog. Lets not forget the 45+ year racing history the mustang has, the M line is barely scratching 26 years of history, but that's not the point.

what the Boss will offer is Great, the specs alone will make any car enthusiast cry.
440hp 380pf.tq
fully forge engine, that rev-lines @7500rpms(LS models have a "special red key")
5 point adjustable suspension
3.73 gears LSD with carbon fiber plates(op Tor/sen LSD)
LS model- X brace, rear seat delete, cooling duct tunnels, Recaro seats(op on Boss)

the projected price is around 35k to 40k, between the GT and GT500.
Ford is getting mad respect for this car.

[alms211]

Originally Posted by serge

Funny. This from someone who drives a 335.

I think the Boss will destroy the M3 in terms of performance and raw numbers. How's that for elitist attitude?

WTF does what I drive have anything to do with my comment of M3 owners? It doesn't. Secondly, I've done nothing but praise the M3 (I owned an E46M3 as well) on here. Hell, I even considered, and still may, buy one.

I'm just not an M nutswinger like many on this very forum......and for what it's worth in the past five years I've owned the following: a CaymanS, 997S, 996TT, C6Z06 and E60M5. You?

[mike33176]

We did 2 runs, both from 40 roll to 140. It's impressive, but, He was stock and I'm not, pulled 2 cars on his shift to third and continued to walk away at a steady pace.

[graider]

ok wtf are we arguing about here? i think you all missed the point.

if you want track performance and value is your top priority = boss
if you want the finest wine in this class and you can afford it = m3

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Some time ago you agreed with me that:

1. Engineering sophistication and power per liter roughly scale together.
2. Part of what contributes to the M3s best engine metric (its broad and flat torque curve) goes hand in hand with it high specific output.

You've now entirely changed course. That OK if you want to, just realize you have.

Have agreed, and still agree on points one and two. Just don't give a damn how an engine gets its numbers. Have said and still say that the M3 engine is terrific - but would love the M3 more if it had an LS3 or Ford (Coyote, is it?) engine in it as it would be mildly quicker, much quicker around town without drawing attention from the gendarmes, and get much better fuel mileage. It would also make its own terrific (albeit different) noises. Have you actually heard a new Mustang? Fantastic.

I'm fine with you liking the big numbers on the tach. You should also be fine with me liking a more useable torque curve along with way better mileage.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Neither is anywhere close to rocket science. I worked closely with quite a few genuine rocket scientists and ALL of the few companies in the US that actually make rockets. So cliche or literal I know a thing or two about the field. Nonetheless you can't ignore the correlation between sophistication, advanced design, material choices (and costs) and high specific output. That being said more good and advanced engineering is going into efficiency these day, AGAIN (and again and again...) I never said otherwise.

Oh. My. God.

I hereby genuflect in your direction, oh rocket science wannabe.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Again, what percent of models (not of vehicles obviously) have a specific output greater than the M3, please answer? My super rough / initial guess was in the low single digit percentages. IIRC Honda had some big problems with the first year of the S2000 and consequently lowered the redline in its second model year. Either way that engine was and is also special in my evaluation exactly for this reason and of course for its driving character.

I believe you speculated at 4%? I'm OK with that. Bolsters my point about folks not caring about power per liter.

Yet again, my issue is about folks thinking power per liter is somehow a magical thing. It isn't, as proven with my examples. As mentioned, if the M group gave a damn they would not have stopped at 104.

Originally Posted by swamp2

To each their own. I do agree it is not the most important factor (and have and wil continue to do so again and again). However, it does go hand in hand with other features that are desirable. It is up to each person to decide which metrics matter to them and part of specific output is about the character of the engine perhaps even more so than its raw output. Also I don't think anyone (certainly I didn't) was slamming the Stang engine due to low specific output.

See note 30, where I slam someone who slammed the Ford based on power per liter.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Here is another exercise. Make a list of the top (say 10 or so) specific output engines (NA ones, of course). Do you or do you not now also have a list of some of the best engines and best sports cars around? You're probably aware that the Ferrari 458 Italia sits at the very top of the list, right?

I'm not against high specific outputs at all. I'm against folks who somehow automatically equate that with goodness - meaning one engine is "better" than another based on that criterion. Is the M3 engine better than the C63 engine? Not in my book. They're both terrific engines. Just different.

Originally Posted by swamp2

And indeed when you magazine race, race on specs or theorize about swaps such as this you do lose sight of the importance of character. You yourself have sung the praises of the M3 (the Mongoose as you say) especially when the tach needle is past the 2 o'clock point. Without a doubt a significant portion of that character would be lost if the car had a Vette or Stang motor in it. And to most, whether or not they'll admit it, this matters and it is related to specific output.

What part of my line, "The M3 is a unique animal, and some of that uniqueness would be lost." did you miss?

As for your use of the word "most" I assume you mean M3 drivers, and if so, would agree. If not, not.

So, to repeat myself with slightly different words, (and this is way-old data for you, but perhaps not for others) power per liter pretty much comes down to rpm. Torque per liter in smog legal street engines tops out in the 80s for the most part, with, say, 90 as the benchmark in the Ferrari. Thus, you've got to go for the rpm in order to turn that torque into proportionally more power.

The other way to get the power is with more cubic capacity. Even with fewer foot pounds per liter, and way less power per liter, you can develop similar power with way more torque, as with the Chevy LS3. With nothing given up in terms of engine size and weight, this would be an overall good thing, except for the loss of nearly 2000 rpm - and that 2000 rpm is part of the M3 mystique.

Hopefully for the last time, my issue was and is with the guy who put down the Ford based on power per liter.

[serge]

Originally Posted by alms211

WTF does what I drive have anything to do with my comment of M3 owners? It doesn't. Secondly, I've done nothing but praise the M3 (I owned an E46M3 as well) on here. Hell, I even considered, and still may, buy one.

I'm just not an M nutswinger like many on this very forum......and for what it's worth in the past five years I've owned the following: a CaymanS, 997S, 996TT, C6Z06 and E60M5. You?

First off, do not generalize about M3 owners. Most of us are not elitist pricks who think our cars perform as a Veyron. Don't be ridiculous. That attitude is more likely to be found among chipped 335 owners.

Secondly, what's your point about the cars you owned for the past 5 years? Are you trying to make me feel bad or something?

[alms211]

Originally Posted by serge

First off, do not generalize about M3 owners. Most of us are not elitist pricks who think our cars perform as a Veyron. Don't be ridiculous. That attitude is more likely to be found among chipped 335 owners.

Secondly, what's your point about the cars you owned for the past 5 years? Are you trying to make me feel bad or something?

If you don't think that many many M3 owners have an elitist attitude, you have been living under a rock. It runs rampant on this very forum for godsake. Just do a search. If I used the term "most", I apologize...should have said "many".

I am also not going to disagree with you about many many 335 owners that think they are driving something special (a Porsche TT, etc.). There are a ton of them out there. There are many that think their tuned 335 is as good or better than an E92M3 as well. I'm not one of them... and I am tuned. I know the M3 is a better performer and a better overall car. It just isn't edgy enough for me aestheically which is why I have shyed away from it...all the while never bashing the car...just many owners of it. I picked up the 335 to "hold me over" until the prices of the 997TT, CLK63 AMG Black or SL55 AMG came down to my price point..... which they will have in early 2011.

I posted the cars I have owned in the past 5 years as further proof that I don't swing on the nutsack of a particular badge. That's all. Trust me, I am the last person that would attempt to brag/boast about the cars I have owned as I know damn well that none of them are/were anything special.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I'm fine with you liking the big numbers on the tach. You should also be fine with me liking a more useable torque curve along with way better mileage.

Sure, but I would only expect criticism if I said that low end torque is absolutely meaningless.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Oh. My. God.

I hereby genuflect in your direction, oh rocket science wannabe.

You are the one who brought up rocket science and based on my direct experience neither high rpm engine design nor the engineering behind efficiency is anything close to it. If I am a rocket science wanna be then you are a fighter pilot wanna be. No reason for the insults.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I believe you speculated at 4%? I'm OK with that. Bolsters my point about folks not caring about power per liter.

No, I only said low single digits - as a very rough guess, I'd never guess a number like that with any sort of precision. I fail to see how this bolsters any point you've made.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Yet again, my issue is about folks thinking power per liter is somehow a magical thing. It isn't, as proven with my examples. As mentioned, if the M group gave a damn they would not have stopped at 104.

Well it's more "magical" than large displacement, low rpm torque monster engines for sure. Your argument ad absurdum about why the M3 does not have some crazy high specific output doesn't cut it either. There are many trade off and practical limits. It's obvious why it does not have a much much higher figure here given its displacement.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Hopefully for the last time, my issue was and is with the guy who put down the Ford based on power per liter.

The problem with your replies are that you swing too far in the opposite direction to make your points, e.g. "completely disagree, meaningless phrase", etc.

[tres]

im glad ford has made this claim because it will put bmw in check to design a better m, just like nissan made porsche boost up the 911 turbo. I wouldnt underestimate ford because they took down ferrari back in the day in the 24hr lemans. Everyone is stepping up their game the scc even took back the speed record from the bugatti super sport I think now its the horsepower race again.