M3 Eater

[///My5UV]

Originally Posted by M3Now!

1. Will the Mustang be able to put down 650 HP to two rear wheels?

2. Can you use the HP in everyday driving?

Hellyeah to both points!

Probably not in 1st or 2nd gear, but when you're stuck going 70 in a 80 zone and you need to pull out to pass a truck, there's no such thing as too much power

Sorry if you live in some evil place that has low speed limits

[conradb]

Sorry, but I'm ditching my E92 M3 for either a ZL1 Camaro or a 2013 Shelby GT500. I'd be stupid not to. They'll be cheaper, and significantly better performers. Not only that, but modding it is a hell of a lot cheaper. If I can get green hell times on par with the likes of Zonda, Porsche, and Ferrari for something like 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 the price stock, consider me sold.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by Singletrack

Sounds like an awesome car. Competition is great for us consumers.

M has managed to stay relevant for the past 20 years or so - I expect them to continue their winning ways.

They use to. They're just out to please the masses now, instead of just pleasing a certain group of people called enthusiasts. The next gen M3 will be amazing no doubt but it won't be the same.

[conradb]

The irony is that you guys are sounding more and more like the muscle car guys of a decade ago. "Oh, I just don't like the styling/interior." Itsounds the same as comment the old muscle heads made, "those cars are just for prettyboys and wannabe's." You're just getting comfortable with a brand and don't want to admit that market competition has produced better results elsewhere.

Heck, for the difference you spend, make a custom body/interior.

[alms211]

Originally Posted by conradb

The irony is that you guys are sounding more and more like the muscle car guys of a decade ago. "Oh, I just don't like the styling/interior." Itsounds the same as comment the old muscle heads made, "those cars are just for prettyboys and wannabe's." You're just getting comfortable with a brand and don't want to admit that market competition has produced better results elsewhere.

Heck, for the difference you spend, make a custom body/interior.

That's complete and utter bullshit. I've owned said cars (see signature) and they indeed contain shit quality parts/bits/pieces and the interior styling and layout is absymal to boot. I'm no fanboi of any manufacturer and I think my recent past proves that. Has nothing at all to do with "getting comfortable" with a brand. It has EVERYTHING to do with what you expect and what you want out of a car in it's totality. If I am going to drive the car on a daily basis, I sure as hell am not going to "settle" for something shoddily put together.

Yes the competition has stepped up the performance game but it ain't all about speed. Until such time as these guys "get with the program" from an overall perspective (interiors, build quality, style all the way down to a live rear axle), not another one will find it's way into my garage............unless it's a classic.

So, when you selling your M3 for a Mustang?

[alms211]

Originally Posted by Skullbussa

alms I understand your concern about build quality (and let's be honest, the Corvette's interior is quite a bit worse than the Mustang, I've owned both) but at what point do you stop sacrificing power and performance (and money) for refinement and prestige? There has to be a line somewhere, right?

I am far from the only BMW guy who sold his 335i to buy an M3 only to cross-shop other cars like Caymans, Mustangs, and Corvettes and realize that there are truly some COMPELLING options out there.

I have money ready to be spent on the next M3. I think BMW has pulled its head out of the sand and realize they're not the only game in town. And a lot of that is thanks to Ford, Chevy, and Nissan, IMHO.

Good post. The line for me would be a step just above the current CTS-V as far as interior quality, layout, bits/pieces, etc. Hell, if the exterior styling was as cool as the C6 Vette with the CTS-V interior I may be there. Just not sure. But today's Mustang, Camaro, etc. is far from the line that I would draw.

From a pure $$$$ standpoint --- the current level top of the line versioned Mustang and Camaro could be $25K out the door and I still wouldn't buy it. I hate the styling of them first and foremost. If I don't have the urge to give it that "one last turnaround look" before leaving it in the garage at night or entered my place of employment in the morning, then I don't want it. It really is that simple to me.

I agree 100%.......Competition is why we have the GT-R, Mustangs, Camaro, M3, C63 AMG, S5 Audi, C6 Vettes, ACR Viper, 911's, etc. all approaching or exceeding 400-600 hp. Great for car guys everywhere.

[Mookster]

What amazes is that ppl think BMW's interior is all that and more but in reality it really is not

[alms211]

Originally Posted by Mookster

What amazes is that ppl think BMW's interior is all that and more but in reality it really is not

It isn't the end all, be all but compared to the shit they put in a Mustang it looks like a fucking Rolls Royce. Just sayin

[Stainless 45]

It would be nice to see BMW focus less on electronic wizardry and fuel sipping turbo's and give a little more attention to raw power and torque. Mercedes has done it. As has been noted if Ford and Chevy can quit cheaping out on interiors and materials, the future M3 will no longer be in a class by itself.

[Powerslide]

[QUOTE=bruce.augenstein@comcast.;10806926]When the Mustang GT with 412 HP can stay within a whisker of the current M3 around Laguna Seca, and the Boss 302 can soundly whip the Bimmer around the same course, why wouldn't the GT500 be that much faster - meaning in a different league altogether.

With the newest Camaro running low 7:40s around the 'Ring, why wouldn't the GT500 be at least that fast, given that it has more power and weighs less.

The fact of the matter is that although the M3 is possibly the finest compromise vehicle ever built, it doesn't cover itself with glory on track.

I have high hopes for the new M3, but doubt that low 7:40s are anywhere in the game plan.

Slight victory for M3 at Leguna Seca, but it convincingly won at the other 3:


Lap Times (3)



Track

M3

Mustang GT 5.0



Willow Springs

1:36.92

1:37.60



Virginia International Raceway

3:05.40

3:08.60



Willow Springs - Streets of Willow

1:27.67

1:27.76



Technical data



Engine

4000

247 bhp/tonne



Specs



Max speed

280 kph

245 kph



0 - 100 kph

4.3 s

4.6 s



0 - 100 mph

9.4 s

10.1 s



0 - 200 kph

15.2 s

17.5 s



0 - 60 mph

3.9 s

4.3 s



1/4 mile

12.4 s @ 114 mph

12.7 s @ 112 mph



1/8 mile (est)

8.3 s @ 93 mph

8.5 s @ 91 mph



Power/weight ratio

256 bhp/tonne

247 bhp/tonne



Summary



Discipline

M3

Mustang GT 5.0



Track Performance

20 points

0 points



Straight line speed

285 points

266 points



Total

305

266



The verdict

BMW M3 (E92) is noticeably faster.



Community comments (11)

Mustang 5.0 is undoubtedly a great car, especially for its money - but when you look at other track times, it still has the 5.0 pretty convincingly.

[Powerslide]

Check out this comparison of the M3 E92 vs. Boss 302:

Lap Times (2)



Track

M3

Mustang Boss 302



Laguna Seca

1:42.96

1:40.21



Bedford Autodrome West Circuit (post 06/2008)

1:27.00

1:29.00


Again, Ford has surely come a long way - so they deserve tons of credit. I just like to compare two cars based upon all known test results, not just one. Although there are clearly fanboys on this forum, on the other hand some people on this forum go a little too far to discredit the M3... (by the way, where the heck has Footie been these days)???

[991GT3]

Its great that Mustangs are serious muscle cars now. If I had a more limited budget this car would definitely be high on my buy list.
That said more HP doesn't have a linear translation to performance. Take the superior Vette platform. A ZR1 with 640 HP runs about even with a 505HP Z06 with almost an identical setup around the Nurburing.
Some of you though are making excuses for BMW. The M3 is starting to lose its appeal because BMW is too dismissive about the selling power of power. BTW, I think Mustangs look great.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

Its great that Mustangs are serious muscle cars now. If I had a more limited budget this car would definitely be high on my buy list.
That said more HP doesn't have a linear translation to performance. Take the superior Vette platform. A ZR1 with 640 HP runs about even with a 505HP Z06 with almost an identical setup around the Nurburing.
Some of you though are making excuses for BMW. The M3 is starting to lose its appeal because BMW is too dismissive about the selling power of power. BTW, I think Mustangs look great.

The zr1 and and Z06 are not about even, 3 HUGE seconds seperate them. Also, you seem to use the ring times as benchmarks, do you realize how crazy of a run it is to be under the 7:30 mark, these are beyond normal track times and really should be used as the outliers not the average, or expected times. I would even consider it milestone the driver hit, not necessarily the car.

Also, the M3's appeal has never been about power, if it was, why would they put a 4.0 v8 when they have the technology to put a larger engine in the car? Think of the older e39 m5 with a 4.4 v8.

Sometimes I wonder if people have amnesia, for over 10 years Ford has had higher HP cars than the equivalent M3 for much lower prices, hell a GT500 is at the bottom of the M3 price band. The M division has an aggregate approach, improving all parts of the car, rather than just power, that is part of the deal when buying an M car, it's not just about power, it's about everything. Hell, I think a 2003 mustang cobra could be an "e9x m3 eater", the two companies are hitting two different targets.

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by Nine

The zr1 and and Z06 are not about even, 3 HUGE seconds seperate them. Also, you seem to use the ring times as benchmarks, do you realize how crazy of a run it is to be under the 7:30 mark, these are beyond normal track times and really should be used as the outliers not the average, or expected times. I would even consider it milestone the driver hit, not necessarily the car.

Also, the M3's appeal has never been about power, if it was, why would they put a 4.0 v8 when they have the technology to put a larger engine in the car? Think of the older e39 m5 with a 4.4 v8.

Sometimes I wonder if people have amnesia, for over 10 years Ford has had higher HP cars than the equivalent M3 for much lower prices, hell a GT500 is at the bottom of the M3 price band. The M division has an aggregate approach, improving all parts of the car, rather than just power, that is part of the deal when buying an M car, it's not just about power, it's about everything. Hell, I think a 2003 mustang cobra could be an "e9x m3 eater", the two companies are hitting two different targets.

You're mistaken. 3 seconds at leguna seca is huge, not at the Nurburgring. And considering they're basically the same platform, sans the engine, it's about as good of a demonstration of how pure power isn't everything as one can get.
You're correct that the M3 hasn't been all about power and Mustangs have had similiar hp specs but right now there is a lot more competition than BMW has ever seen competing against their iconic M3. Plus the M3 competition isn't just roughly matching its power, they are blowing it ouit of the water.
That said, I would stilll buy an M3 over a Mustang but the choice is a lot harder now than it was 10 years ago.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

You're mistaken. 3 seconds at leguna seca is huge, not at the Nurburgring. And considering they're basically the same platform, sans the engine, it's about as good of a demonstration of how pure power isn't everything as one can get.
You're correct that the M3 hasn't been all about power and Mustangs have had similiar hp specs but right now there is a lot more competition than BMW has ever seen competing against their iconic M3. Plus the M3 competition isn't just roughly matching its power, they are blowing it ouit of the water.
That said, I would stilll buy an M3 over a Mustang but the choice is a lot harder now than it was 10 years ago.

I'm confused by your first line, how can the 3 seconds under the 7:30 mark not be huge? I don't disagree with your comment about the power not being everything, but I can't jump onboard with the comment about 3 seconds being nothing, considering the war that is going on over there.

Right now I think Japan and the US are gunning for the same targets, BMW certainly has had it's cage rattled, I just wonder what their response will be, they certainly are making enough money not to worry about Top Gear episodes or magazine wars.

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by Nine

I'm confused by your first line, how can the 3 seconds under the 7:30 mark not be huge? I don't disagree with your comment about the power not being everything, but I can't jump onboard with the comment about 3 seconds being nothing, considering the war that is going on over there.

Right now I think Japan and the US are gunning for the same targets, BMW certainly has had it's cage rattled, I just wonder what their response will be, they certainly are making enough money not to worry about Top Gear episodes or magazine wars.

I'll retract the first line and simply state we disagree over the magnitude of 3 seconds on a 13 mile course.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

I'll retract the first line and simply state we disagree over the magnitude of 3 seconds on a 13 mile course.

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by Nine

Consider the fact that in 2005 Chevy took the C6 Z06 to the 'ring and got a 7:42. I will say 20 seconds is huge on a 13 mile course.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Stainless 45

It would be nice to see BMW focus less on electronic wizardry and fuel sipping turbo's and give a little more attention to raw power and torque. .

The new turbo motor will provide much more raw power and torque than the current v8, you can bank on that.

I personally am very excited that bmw is moving to a twin turbo 6 setup. The motor will offer much more flexibility than the current v8.

And for those complaining about turbo powerplants not being good on the track, look at the gtr, seems to be doing just fine.

[Powerslide]

[QUOTE=bruce.augenstein@comcast.;10806926]When the Mustang GT with 412 HP can stay within a whisker of the current M3 around Laguna Seca, and the Boss 302 can soundly whip the Bimmer around the same course, why wouldn't the GT500 be that much faster - meaning in a different league altogether.

With the newest Camaro running low 7:40s around the 'Ring, why wouldn't the GT500 be at least that fast, given that it has more power and weighs less.

The fact of the matter is that although the M3 is possibly the finest compromise vehicle ever built, it doesn't cover itself with glory on track.

I have high hopes for the new M3, but doubt that low 7:40s are anywhere in the game plan.

Bruce - couple of things (and sorry to single you out man - I know you're very knowledgeable and I'm sure you're a great guy - but the reason I point this out to you is that like others on the forum, I find you're one of the people who seems a little too quick to discredit the M3):

1) On Leguna Seca, look how the M3 "soundly whipped" the 2010 Shelby GT500 with 547 hp - 1:42.96 vs. 1:44.30 (also beat CTS-V - which has 556 hp and came in at 1:43:90). Even though both of those cars weigh more than the M3, they both still have superior lb/hp ratios than the M3...

2) On the Streets of Willow, the M3 Competition Pack with the standard 414hp "soundly whipped" the Mustang Boss 302 LS - 1:25.47 vs. 1:26.1.

So - while current Ford Mustang from the 5.0 and up undeniably offers more raw performance per dollar than the M3, and although I agree that the 5.0 and up are great cars, for people to take the position that the M3 can no longer keep up with the competition is just as much of an overstatement in the opposite direction as the BMW fanboys who think the M3 is the end-all, be-all of cars in its price-range and below.. Just sayin...
26.

[Powerslide]

Also - Bedford Autodrome West Circuit:

BMW M3 (3 different results for this track):
1:25.1
1:26.2
1:27.0

2010 Shelby GT500 (133 more HP than M3):
1:28.6

Ford Mustang Boss 302 (30 more HP than M3):
1:29.0

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

Some of you though are making excuses for BMW. The M3 is starting to lose its appeal because BMW is too dismissive about the selling power of power.

See, people have created their own idea of what BMW ///M is about......show me where it was advertised EVER in its history based on it having the most power, or being the fastest to 62, or 1/4 mile?

They sold cars based on passion, feel, and balance. THAT is why so many hate the idea of lower revving FI engines, not because they won't be FAST as hell, but because they won't deliver the same experience.

Same reason why I watch my friends GTR smoke our other's friends 911, and I still would take the 911. That is what makes me a Porsche / BMW guy with the "power" guys being AMG / GTR guys. No right or wrong answer, but certainly no reason for BMW ///M to change who they are at their core.

Cheers,
e46e92