EVO Mag Group Test: BMW M3 vs RS5 vs C63 AMG vs Boss 302 Mustang

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

I would also like to add that Mercedes seems to have found a way to make the V8 in the SLK 55 AMG N/A and not add turbo's. That's because Mercedes actually spends money on R&D.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by stefan

There's more to the E9x -> F8x transition than just weight and steering. How about FI? That's a serious game changer. It's not just an improvement on a previous platform (most notably the E36->E46 transition). But it's a car I simply will not buy. FI isn't the ONLY way to do things. It's a complete sell-out move and tell us a lot about what BMW wants to do with the M3. Forget journalists, how about us drivers? Most of us lament weight but BMW has done a good job working it into the car and maintaining handling characteristics. Something we CAN all notice however, is a damn vacuum under the hood and the lack of immediate throttle response and rush to redline.

So yes, the E9x M3 is the end of an era and the end of my purchasing of the brand; at least until they make significant strides in turbo tech which I imagine is at least another model generation away.

It certainly isn't as Mercedes has still managed to fit a V8 under the hood of the SLK. BMW just doesn't want to spend the R&D.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

- I don't appreciate the fact that you feel the need to make smurk comments like, " A little reading comprehension goes a long way", This is the second time you've said something like this. Next time, I'm reporting it. We are having a civil discussion, no need to get snarky.

- Quality has dropped significantly. The leather wears after just 2,000 miles, Misaligned hoods popping up left and right,, interior rattles...I could keep going as the list is plentiful.

Come on Ice! Seriously? You're offended by a reading comprehension statement (..I called it as I saw it in that particular situation)? I have been extremely civil.

Nonetheless, it is unfortunate that your individual mileage has varied. My current car has approximately 12,500 miles on it and the leather is as good as new, my hood isn't misaligned nor do I have any interior rattles (..something that was prevalent on my E46(s) along with door rattles, broken window regulators and faulty glue causing interior pieces to fail. E46 regulars know the drill!). Maybe you just don't take care of your leather?!!??

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

I would also like to add that Mercedes seems to have found a way to make the V8 in the SLK 55 AMG N/A and not add turbo's. That's because Mercedes actually spends money on R&D.

...but they supercharge or turbo some of their other cars. You really can't have it both ways Ice! Most of the companies employ F/I at some point in their model line-up.

[adc]

Originally Posted by DefBringer

2) Road test after road test has shown the plain-jane Mustang GT to be just as quick if not quicker than the M3 in a straight line. The Boss has 30+ HP and stickier tires. I smell something fishy.

It has less torque, according to the article - we're talking peanuts, in cars with over 400BHP. 30HP is not very important IMO.

The DCT in the M3 can make all the difference on the other hand - both because it has more/shorter ratios and because it shifts significantly faster. I have absolutely no trouble believing that my manual M3 is slower than both the DCT and the Boss 302.

Who cares?

3) If Mercedes can ever figure out how to incorporate the BMW fun factor in their cars, BMW is in big trouble.

Well if my grandma had wings and a propeller it would be an airplane now, wouldn't it?

[adc]

Originally Posted by Sauce

Seriously, go pick a fight with a boss on a track and see what happens.

Given how close the cars are, what will happen is that the better driver will win.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Probably because you heavy-foot that bad boy on every corner exit.

FWIW, I am pulling 19.2 mpg during mixed driving, and it only drops after prolonged "spirited" curvy road excursions. I admittedly don't drive my car hard all of the time; I have a race-prepped 848 (..and a number of Southern California tracks) for that.

Guilty as charged.

[Sauce]

Originally Posted by adc

Given how close the cars are, what will happen is that the better driver will win.

A regular gt yes, but the Boss is quite a bit more car than a standard gt.

[Ateam]

Keep in mind that new V8 in the slk is actually simply the twin turbo v8 minus the twin turbo! So its not much R and D going into the engine. They added cylinder shutoff and used the engine minus the turbos. It is much less hp too which makes sense given lack of turbos.

BMW could also release the m5 V8 minus the turbos and probably have 400 plus horsepower to put in some small car but why? With turbos they can put 550 hp into a bunch of cars. A NA v8 does not make any sense if it is simply a TT engine without its turbos.

Who would want that as an M engine? M is usually unique engines or atleast maximally tuned OEM engines. The merc NA v8 is a detuned turboless engine. It would be insulting for them to stick the M5's engine without turbos into the m3 and call it innovation.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by Ateam

Keep in mind that new V8 in the slk is actually simply the twin turbo v8 minus the twin turbo! So its not much R and D going into the engine. They added cylinder shutoff and used the engine minus the turbos. It is much less hp too which makes sense given lack of turbos.

BMW could also release the m5 V8 minus the turbos and probably have 400 plus horsepower to put in some small car but why? With turbos they can put 550 hp into a bunch of cars. A NA v8 does not make any sense if it is simply a TT engine without its turbos.

Who would want that as an M engine? M is usually unique engines or atleast maximally tuned OEM engines. The merc NA v8 is a detuned turboless engine. It would be insulting for them to stick the M5's engine without turbos into the m3 and call it innovation.

The e9x M3 is a previous gen M5 engine with 2 cylinders cut off....

[stefan]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

It certainly isn't as Mercedes has still managed to fit a V8 under the hood of the SLK. BMW just doesn't want to spend the R&D.

Correct.. so more on this in a bit. Of course it's Mercedes so.. well.. at least they are trying.

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

One disclaimer however, I will keep my E9X.

I think that says it all. Again when I mention we are drivers and not journalists, this is to question everyone's importance on performance numbers. If that's all you care about, you're driving the wrong car.

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

You must be referring to the run-of-the-mill 135i/335i. Have you driven a 1M yet?

No, but I drove a 335is to get a feel for the power train. I don't see them as being that different. Anyway it was the most boring fast car I've ever driven. Anyway that's irrelevant. I'm really just arguing the side of NA here and how us anti-turbo guys will never like it until they can make NA-like response times and more noise! I agree turbos can overall perform better from a numbers standpoint. But who cares. Well I guess you do. And automotive journalists.

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Why is it a sell out move? This isn't the first turbo car that BMW has produced. They were producing turbo 2002's in the 70's. So I'll ask again, why is it a sell out move? F/I may be the easiest way to maintain performance while still meeting increasingly strict emmissions requirements.

Seriously? You said it yourself, Mercedes is continuing their NA R&D. The turbo 2002 is a useless argument because NA has made huge strides since the 70s. There is plenty of room for NA development. Ask.... any exotic manufacturer. Even the new FT86 based STi is going to be NA!! Turbocharging is a sell out move to appease journalists (for good numbers) and government/environmentalists (with lower emission numbers and better fuel economy). All at the serious expense of lack of feel. Comon, sedan_clan. What you really want is a bit of a weight reduction on the F8x and a slight power bump.

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

We'll welcome you back with open arms.

LOL.. yeah.. I say all of this now. Just don't quote me if you catch me driving an F8x in a few years... haha.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by stefan

I think that says it all.

There is something to be said about a V8 N/A M3 (..the same V8 that everybody b|tched about because BMW was "turning away" from their I6 heritage ), and I absolutely love mine. Even still, I would not be surprised if I ended up with the new model M3 at some point. I progress with the times.

Originally Posted by stefan

No, but I drove a 335is to get a feel for the power train. I don't see them as being that different.

I do! The main reasons are overboost and a few other changes. The 1M drives differently than a 335is.

Originally Posted by stefan

Anyway it was the most boring fast car I've ever driven. Anyway that's irrelevant. I'm really just arguing the side of NA here and how us anti-turbo guys will never like it until they can make NA-like response times and more noise! I agree turbos can overall perform better from a numbers standpoint. But who cares. Well I guess you do. And automotive journalists.

All I care about is whether or not a car is responsive, has fun factor and can hold a corner. I'm not overly concerned with dominant straight-line speed nor am I concerned with how the car makes power (..i.e...N/A vs F/I), but I do favor N/A however.

Originally Posted by stefan

Seriously? You said it yourself, Mercedes is continuing their NA R&D. The turbo 2002 is a useless argument because NA has made huge strides since the 70s.

My only point in bringing up the turbo 2002 was to counter the sell out statement. If a company has produced turbocharged cars throughout the years, returning to F/I can not be considered a deviation.

Originally Posted by stefan

There is plenty of room for NA development. Ask.... any exotic manufacturer.

I'm not denying that whatsoever.

Originally Posted by stefan

Even the new FT86 based STi is going to be NA!! Turbocharging is a sell out move to appease journalists (for good numbers) and government/environmentalists (with lower emission numbers and better fuel economy).

It's all about the bold-faced text, and rightfully so. Emissions regulations are emissions regulations.

Originally Posted by stefan

All at the serious expense of lack of feel.

Turbocharging may or may not affect this at all. I've heard qualms about the new steering (..the M5 being an exception; it has hydraulic steering), but until I drive the car myself I will not pass judgment.

Originally Posted by stefan

Comon, sedan_clan. What you really want is a bit of a weight reduction on the F8x and a slight power bump.

True! In my own perfect little world....

Originally Posted by stefan

LOL.. yeah.. I say all of this now. Just don't quote me if you catch me driving an F8x in a few years... haha.

Quoted for effect!

[DoorKicker]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

It's just too much power for the car to handle. 444 lbs of torque through an open diff is a recipe for insanity. The C63 doesn't even come with an LSD standard! The P31 Development package which bumps up HP to 481 HP is what gives you that.


P.S. You have a C63 so you already know this.

Actually I believe even with the P31 option you still have to special order the LSD as well. I priced it before my M3 and the P31 package and LSD seemed to add about 10000 (ballpark). I may be wrong but I'm almost positive the P31 package doesn't include the LSD.

[BradDickinson]

I love this article! As a former Mustang Cobra owner and the son of an S5 owner I have a good handle on how these (or at least similar) vehicles perform. From my perspective the M3 wins hands down.

If you ever wonder which car is the best engineered all you have to know is that the M3 carries the least power and torque and still is tied for #1 in the drag...not to mention the track where it is even better in comparison!

I am headed to Welt to take Euro delivery of my E92M and can't wait to run into C63's, RS5's and Boss 302's when I return!

[adc]

Originally Posted by Sauce

A regular gt yes, but the Boss is quite a bit more car than a standard gt.

Not really. The Laguna Seca edition is a lot more extreme than a GT, or indeed the Boss 302.

I can pass GT3's on track, and in turn get passed by lightly modified E36 M3's... The Boss 302 and M3 are really close. If you track your car you'll know what I mean.

[Vise]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

- Quality has dropped significantly. The leather wears after just 2,000 miles, Misaligned hoods popping up left and right,, interior rattles...I could keep going as the list is plentiful.

Not this guy again. Don't you ever get tired of the non-stop trolling?

And when is your 2012 M3 scheduled for delivery again?

[tha_good_life]

awesome article!

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Vise

Not this guy again. Don't you ever get tired of the non-stop trolling?

And when is your 2012 M3 scheduled for delivery again?

LOL....Be vewwy, vewwy quiet.




...or he'll threaten to report you because of his delicate sensibilities.

[Sauce]

Originally Posted by adc

Not really. The Laguna Seca edition is a lot more extreme than a GT, or indeed the Boss 302.

I can pass GT3's on track, and in turn get passed by lightly modified E36 M3's... The Boss 302 and M3 are really close. If you track your car you'll know what I mean.

The only reason I say that is because of the amount of time I have spent on the track. Making arguments I pass x cars on the track etc. etc. is a tough argument, because as I'm sure you know, driver variance is too large. A well driven gt3 on any type of serious tire is basically untouchable at the average hpde. I used to pass e9x m3's like no other in my old STi, would I say it is a faster car? No. The delta between a laguna seca and a boss 302 is much smaller than the delta between a gt and a boss. In fact the only real difference between the two cars is the rcomps, a little bracing in the rear, and slightly slightly stiffer spring rates to compensate for the stickier rubber.

[RudyP]

I happen to own a 2011 E92 M3 and a 2011 Mustang GT. I bought the GT first since it seemed like 90% of the performance and value of the M3 at half the price. I already have a nice German sports car (997 C2S) and my DD has to live outside and be a year round commuter - including in the salty, snow mess of a winter that Ohio gets. So the mustang seemed like a good deal - cheap, fast, fun, but not a car that I get too worried about getting dings, salt, rock chips, etc... Well it turns it is all that but it just isn't an M3 either - it has a great motor and is very fast in a straight line, but it's also big, floaty, soft, has (much improved from previous generations) but still rental car quality interior. In short, it wasn't for me. So I ended up buying what I should have in the first place - the M3 and taking a bath on the resale of my practically new mustang. Oh well, live and learn. And now I do worry a bit about street parking and so on, but I'll deal with it.

Lastly, my father in law, who is a Ford guy is intending to bring his Boss Laguna SECA and Ford GT to mid Ohio some time next year - will be fun to see how the mustang does. I'll be in the Porsche so won't do a direct head to head but looking forward to turning some laps. We are both HPDE instructors so can get a pretty good read of a car.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

You do realize how silly you sound right? It is arguable that any highly sought after vehicle is purchased because of the perception of prestige. Your argument might hold water IF the cars DIDN'T perform, BUT they do (..they don't make the best drag cars - and that isn't their intent nor purpose - but they sure do handle). To label any BMW product a "half assed automotive product" is an exaggeration by the furthest stretch (..and is devoid of reason). If you truly feel that the product isn't worth the money, there is another automotive marquee right around the corner anxiously waiting to relieve you of your hard earned (..or not!) money.




The 1M was "thrown together", but it isn't a shoddy product by any means. It isn't like that car is short on performance either.




Yeah, they said the same thing about the E46 after years were spent abhorring its existence. They said the same thing about the E36 after years were spent abhorring its existence. The E9X is just recently being regarded as "the last of the true M3's" by keyboard enthusiasts (..and some automotive journalists) after years were spent abhorring its existence. Notice a pattern here? Almost all of the negative comments surrounded the increasing weight of the vehicles, but NOBODY could deny how well the cars handled and hid their hefty curb weight. ALL cars are increasing in weight and looking for alternatives in power; it's a byproduct of the increasingly strict safety/emissions standards. Livability is extremely important in a daily driven vehicle as well.

Absolutely agree with you. You don't have to dig deep to find all the comments about how the E9x with the V8 is a sellout M3, and how it should be called a 340i instead. At one point, the E46 was called a ricer car too, with its 4 poo shoots and side vents!

It's only a matter of time. I'm not saying just because an M3, it'll be the best thing since sliced bread (probably don't want to bet against that ). I just don't see the point of arguing about a car that is still in testing. Are we really going to sit here and talk about the F8x right now in 2011?

[adc]

Originally Posted by Sauce

The only reason I say that is because of the amount of time I have spent on the track. Making arguments I pass x cars on the track etc. etc. is a tough argument, because as I'm sure you know, driver variance is too large. A well driven gt3 on any type of serious tire is basically untouchable at the average hpde. I used to pass e9x m3's like no other in my old STi, would I say it is a faster car? No. The delta between a laguna seca and a boss 302 is much smaller than the delta between a gt and a boss. In fact the only real difference between the two cars is the rcomps, a little bracing in the rear, and slightly slightly stiffer spring rates to compensate for the stickier rubber.

So my point is this - the driver variance is *much* greater than the difference in ultimate speed potential between an M3 DCT and a Boss 302. You are free to disagree of course, but unless we both drive the two cars back to back on track and come here to report, it will be all very theoretical.

[Sauce]

Originally Posted by adc

So my point is this - the driver variance is *much* greater than the difference in ultimate speed potential between an M3 DCT and a Boss 302. You are free to disagree of course, but unless we both drive the two cars back to back on track and come here to report, it will be all very theoretical.

I definitely will not disagree with the driver variance at a track day, but just for discussion purposes I am speaking assuming all things being equal. The only reason I speak so highly of the Boss is that I have seen first hand how fast that car is. I am in the process of becoming a certified PCA instructor and have very close friends that have raced in the Porsche cup series etc. I have seen them go at it in a Boss and a gt3 and was just flat out impressed, an m3 with a similar caliber driver would lose small small increments of time lap after lap. (I'm talking tenths here so you are correct, the average driver will not extract that last couple of tenths that the Boss has in it the m3 doesn't.) Truthfully I don't feel this should be an argument, both these cars do something special while also having an ace up their sleeve. The M3 is a car you can go home in comfort in, it is a car that will do well on the track and coddle you on the way home. The Boss will accomplish amazing things on the track, but does not break the bank nearly as hard as the m3, or anything else in it's performance bracket.