Boss vs. M3 ZCP

[adc]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

The word is the cars will base around $40k and I easily see $15-20k of ADM's.

That's way too much.

My M3 was $55k out the door and for $10k I could turn it into a *very* fast track car that can be driven on the street. No way I'd buy a Mustang for that price, it's not justifiable.


But on second thought, if they only make 500 of them they will be worth hanging onto (without driving it) for 10-20 years if you're into that sort of thing.

[Gearhead999s]

There will be a lot more than 500 of the normal Boss but the LS will be the scarce one.I expect the LS will be a fair bit quicker than a E92 M3 on track but they are 2 totally different cars for everyday use.I expect a Boss LS to be about 60% of the cost of an M3 in Canada.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by adc

Didn't Ford screw up big listing incorrect HP numbers on a certain Cobra? Didn't they have to eat crow and make "yummy" noises?

That said, I have more confidence in their claims today.

So, you think these two events are in any way related, and furthermore, that Ford isn't sure the Boss will cream the M3 at the mentioned track?

Your logic train has clearly left the rails.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by AudiS5

I never said the M3 will beat the Mustang straight line, as you can see I only mentioned track. At 440hp more torque, and lighter weight it very well should beat an M3 in a quarter mile drag.

See, tracks have straightaways as well as twisty bits. My point is that a race-oriented Mustang will really and truly beat up on a street M3. And why shouldn't it? You did in fact see the Motor Trend results pitting an M3 against a plebian Mustang GT, right?

The reactions of the faithful on this site are pretty much unique. They feel threatened in some personal way by any vehicle that challenges the M3.

Originally Posted by AudiS5

What I am saying about the C63 is that it's never really been a benchmark, it doesn't excel in anything, at least in stock form. Now that this new Mustang is coming out it will only be pushed back further in the performance genre of tests and figures. I'm not saying its a bad car, hell I even wanted one, but this is just how I feel...my opinion. Not looking to fight just saying that a DCT ZCP M3 will prolly be beaten on a track, but with the four years Ford had to build this thing it better destroy it...Which I can almost guarantee it won't.

You actually think Ford spent four years in a mad project against the M3?

I personally have no idea about the length and scope of the Boss 302 project, but I can assure you that they have no designs on M3 market share.
It's just the the M3 is an icon (as it damn well deserves to be), so it makes for very good press to say they can beat it on a specific track.

As I said, Ford will beat the M3 like a rented mule, because they said they will, and of course with a given that a base Mustang GT got really, really close, so a car with more power, better brakes and track sneakers will in fact be a bunch faster than that.

Bruce

PS - You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I can't imagine any C63 owners caring, unless they're teenagers and daddy bought it. For that matter, only immature M3 owners with brittle egos will care, as well.

Of course, you'll find many of those folks here, although my sneaking suspicion is that many of them inhabit dorm rooms, or are using mommy's computer.

[adc]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

So, you think these two events are in any way related, and furthermore, that Ford isn't sure the Boss will cream the M3 at the mentioned track?

Your logic train has clearly left the rails.

Hey, easy there with the personal references - it won't strengthen your argument at all. I was expecting a little better from you.


I was pointing out that in the past, Ford has made automotive claims that were not truthful. To their best knowledge the Cobra was outputting XXX HP and independent measurements had proven otherwise. So yes, they can be widely off the mark.

On the other hand, the only argument that you came up with is that well, since Ford said it, then it must be true, right? I mean, were you there when they timed both cars? Were you perhaps the one driving them?

Until we see independent verification of these claims, preferably with "customer" cars (i.e. non-manufacturer supplied) and with the same driver on the same day (and preferably with similar tires), it's all just marketing - not necessarily reality.


Edit: And if you actually read my post, you'll notice I said I'm more inclined to believe their claims these days. But just that, more inclined - the actual proof is in the pudding.

[Eccentric]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

torque? hp? this Boss 5.0L can't even manage 100hp/litre......

Explain why that is significant.. neither can a Viper ACR.

[Leonardo629]

Of course it's not significant in the overall performance scheme...

I just thought when you have the word "motor" in your company..don't you have to back it up by producing motors that will reflect that....and then you design an excellent chassis to incorporate that motor....

Maybe I'm just crazy to think that...and most of us here got our M3s because the marque looks cool...

Originally Posted by Eccentric

Explain why that is significant.. neither can a Viper ACR.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Power per liter is only important at frat parties.

and with engine designers, and to combustion engineers, and to those who appreciate getting more with less, and to many race teams, and ...

[elh0102]

You know guys, we're just talking about a couple of cars here. We should be able to express opinions without insulting each other. Maybe I got the thing headed off track by my comment on BMW elitism. I apologize to anyone offended. I've owned a lot (too many) cars, and have little brand loyalty, which is probably why I am sensitive to such attitudes. My last sports car was a 996 GT3, so you know of what I speak. My only advice on cars, drive the ones under conderation, buy your favorite, and never read the forums. Ultimately, no one else's opinion is worth a jar of cold piss.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Getting a little defensive here?

The point is, the M3 is something of an icon, so Ford capitalizes on that fact.

It's not as if Ford considers the M3 to be competition from a marketing standpoint. It's just that if you're a car guy, you'll know that beating an M3 on track resonates. Therefore, good advertising.

Bruce

I get the marketing angle. It's just that whenever these comparisons are made, it's almost always with an M car at the very end of its model cycle. And like I said, I have no doubt the Boss Mustang will put down the numbers. Whether the comprehensive package is anywhere near as compelling as the current M3 is another matter and why I believe it's premature to call the car a "real world success", to address the OP's question.

[captainaudio]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

I get the marketing angle. It's just that whenever these comparisons are made, it's almost always with an M car at the very end of its model cycle. And like I said, I have no doubt the Boss Mustang will put down the numbers. Whether the comprehensive package is anywhere near as compelling as the current M3 is another matter and why I believe it's premature to call the car a "real world success", to address the OP's question.

+1

It would be much fairer to compare it to an M car of the future that has not been built yet.

CA

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by captainaudio

+1

It would be much fairer to compare it to an M car of the future that has not been built yet.

CA

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.

[alms211]

Originally Posted by elh0102

You know guys, we're just talking about a couple of cars here. We should be able to express opinions without insulting each other. Maybe I got the thing headed off track by my comment on BMW elitism. I apologize to anyone offended. I've owned a lot (too many) cars, and have little brand loyalty, which is probably why I am sensitive to such attitudes. My last sports car was a 996 GT3, so you know of what I speak. My only advice on cars, drive the ones under conderation, buy your favorite, and never read the forums. Ultimately, no one else's opinion is worth a jar of cold piss.

No need to apologize about making a statement (..and one I happen to agree with). Like I said earlier, people need to get a thicker skin all the while having respect for other cars while stil having confidence in the one they bought and currently drive.

I'm in the same boat as you in not swinging on any one manufacturer's nutsack. I've owned Porsche, Benz, BMW, Vettes, etc. and am no fanboi of any of them.

[1cleanm6]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

See, tracks have straightaways as well as twisty bits. My point is that a race-oriented Mustang will really and truly beat up on a street M3. And why shouldn't it? You did in fact see the Motor Trend results pitting an M3 against a plebian Mustang GT, right?

The reactions of the faithful on this site are pretty much unique. They feel threatened in some personal way by any vehicle that challenges the M3.



You actually think Ford spent four years in a mad project against the M3?

I personally have no idea about the length and scope of the Boss 302 project, but I can assure you that they have no designs on M3 market share.
It's just the the M3 is an icon (as it damn well deserves to be), so it makes for very good press to say they can beat it on a specific track.

As I said, Ford will beat the M3 like a rented mule, because they said they will, and of course with a given that a base Mustang GT got really, really close, so a car with more power, better brakes and track sneakers will in fact be a bunch faster than that.

Bruce

PS - You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I can't imagine any C63 owners caring, unless they're teenagers and daddy bought it. For that matter, only immature M3 owners with brittle egos will care, as well.

Of course, you'll find many of those folks here, although my sneaking suspicion is that many of them inhabit dorm rooms, or are using mommy's computer.

look at you busting your balls like your a ford salesman im proud of you

Compare the e92 m3 to a ford mustang boss and ill still take the m3 anyday because its a complete package

compare a 911tt to a gtr and ill still take the 911 anyday because its a complete package, hell ill take a reg 911 over a gtr.

[Dave07997S]

I was pointing out that in the past, Ford has made automotive claims that were not truthful. To their best knowledge the Cobra was outputting XXX HP and independent measurements had proven otherwise. So yes, they can be widely off the mark.

This happened 1 model year and Ford was quick to fix it and ended up giving the cars more than the advertised hp. The 99 SVTs were rated at 320hp but they were only making 250-260 at the wheels, when 98 Mustang Cobras that were rated at 305hp were putting down 260-270rwhp. When the recall was done most of these 99 SVTs were putting down solid 280rwhp numbers, which puts the car in the 330+hp range.

I don't know if I would say they were widely off the mark as the cars were probably down 15hp which was proven to be flash in the alum. intakes (thats why plastic intakes are better unless you are using nitrous) and mufflers that were too restrictive and were proven not to be within the spec Ford specified. BTW, the mufflers were provided to Ford by Arvin Meritor, the same maker of BMW exhausts.

That being said they really are 2 different cars, for those of you who wouldn't buy the Mustang thats fine..but to call the car garbage is just being ignorant and being a fanbois. I love Mustangs but I love the M3 more it is a total package. Those who say it won't be reliable and won't last 100k miles don't know the Mustang well at all...they are very reliable and since 2005 they lead their segment in not only initial quality surveys but in long term as well.

Oh another acronym for Ford

First
On
Race
Day



Dave

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by captainaudio

+1

It would be much fairer to compare it to an M car of the future that has not been built yet.

CA

LOL..how do you compare it to a car that isn't even built yet...

[Scoobe]

Originally Posted by swamp2

and with engine designers, and to combustion engineers, and to those who appreciate getting more with less, and to many race teams, and ...

You mean like being a lighter motor in weight, more torque, a dyno'd more whp, and better gas mileage?

Careful to underestimate the 5.0L, its a remarkable engine. Given the choice of that 5.0 or this 4.0, as much as I love the M3 motor, I'd not hesitate to have th 5.0L in my M3, and especially the Boss 302 motor which is confirmed to have a 7500rpm redline. Not too shabby for a torquey American V8. And honestly, Ford V8's are the only American made performance V8's not sporting push rods. They are advanced engines and have never been far behind Europe. Ford hasn't made a pushrod V8 since 1996. All are DOHC, variable timing, multi-port FI.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that modding mustangs is rediculously cheaper than M3's. Ford will have available late this year a supercharger kit that preserves the warranty and rumored to have 550+hp output.

Another note on the Boss 302, original versions from 1970 are one of the most collectable mustangs ever made. Keeping in mind that 69 GT500's are bringing 300-500k at auction right now, thats saying something.

All that said, I love my M3. I have it because I quite literally said, I want Mustang performance with 4 doors. Judging by the latest Motor Trend comparo, that's exactly what I got and couldn't be happier. Plus the added bonus of luxery, EDC, Mdrive, MDM, and of course the comfort. But if Ford made an attractive 4 door around 3600lbs with that 5.0L in it, I'd probably be in that right now.... maybe. The M3 is hard to beat.

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by Scoobe

You mean like being a lighter motor in weight, more torque, a dyno'd more whp, and better gas mileage?

Careful to underestimate the 5.0L, its a remarkable engine. Given the choice of that 5.0 or this 4.0, as much as I love the M3 motor, I'd not hesitate to have th 5.0L in my M3, and especially the Boss 302 motor which is confirmed to have a 7500rpm redline. Not too shabby for a torquey American V8. And honestly, Ford V8's are the only American made performance V8's not sporting push rods. They are advanced engines and have never been far behind Europe. Ford hasn't made a pushrod V8 since 1996. All are DOHC, variable timing, multi-port FI.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that modding mustangs is rediculously cheaper than M3's. Ford will have available late this year a supercharger kit that preserves the warranty and rumored to have 550+hp output.

Another note on the Boss 302, original versions from 1970 are one of the most collectable mustangs ever made. Keeping in mind that 69 GT500's are bringing 300-500k at auction right now, thats saying something.

All that said, I love my M3. I have it because I quite literally said, I want Mustang performance with 4 doors. Judging by the latest Motor Trend comparo, that's exactly what I got and couldn't be happier. Plus the added bonus of luxery, EDC, Mdrive, MDM, and of course the comfort. But if Ford made an attractive 4 door around 3600lbs with that 5.0L in it, I'd probably be in that right now.... maybe. The M3 is hard to beat.

Slight correction, not all Ford motors are DOHC as the older 4.6L Mustang GT engines were SOHC in 2v or 3v variety. You are correct though that for the SVT models they have been DOHC 32V V8s since 1996.

Dave

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by adc

That's way too much.

My M3 was $55k out the door and for $10k I could turn it into a *very* fast track car that can be driven on the street. No way I'd buy a Mustang for that price, it's not justifiable.


But on second thought, if they only make 500 of them they will be worth hanging onto (without driving it) for 10-20 years if you're into that sort of thing.

You know the sad thing is the Mustang will probably have less deprecition than the M3 though as a percentage. I can assure you a limited run of just 500 Boss's is going to make it an instant collectible. I remember when Ford introduced the 1993 Mustang Cobra R and the 1995 Mustang Cobra R hardly any of them made it to the track as investors snapped them up and stored them away.

Dave

[Scoobe]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

Slight correction, not all Ford motors are DOHC as the older 4.6L Mustang GT engines were SOHC in 2v or 3v variety. You are correct though that for the SVT models they have been DOHC 32V V8s since 1996.

Dave

Yeah was talking about the 3v/4v variety. With the latest 3v conversion, I think by next year there wont be anymore SOHC period? I think thats confirmed now with the death of the 4.6L even in trucks. Either way, pushrods have been gone for a long time.

[Dave07997S]

I think these new Mustangs are going to need wheelie bars pretty soon..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBtjVpBVbt8

Dave

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by shift@red

The thing is, Nissan was competing with a 911 turbo that was deisgned many years ago and was at that point several years old, and did so with a ringer. Results subsequent have not been kind to nissan's claims. They aimed at a benchmark for hype...
Who cares if the Boss is faster than the M3, its a similar situation with the 911 turbo and the gtr.

I can't believe the complete nonsense you've come up with here.

Nissan said their benchmark was the then-current Porsche Turbo at the 'Ring, and they beat up on the Porsche. Of course, they had already beaten up on the Porsche before the press releases, or there wouldn't have been any press releases.

First you put down the Porsche ("designed many years ago"), and then you call it a benchmark. Hard to have it both ways...

I personally believe it was a benchmark at the time Nissan beat up on it, and of course they aimed at a benchmark for hype! You type that as if you have a problem with it. Why?

Ringer?

Right. I bet you think all the succeeding runs have been with ringers as well. You might want to look at online GT-R runs. Suzuki is driving with NAFOD, for sure. Much more so than Horst, for example. In my opinion, Horst is supposed to drive hard, perhaps to the 90-95% level or so, but not with NAFOD, please. Big difference.

Oh, NAFOD? That's a Navy fighter pilot acronym for "no apparent fear of death".

By the way, "subsequent results" have been exceedingly kind to the Nissan, I think, down to the current 7:26.7 time, which is about where Nissan was aiming before the car first came out. (They said "under 7:30" was the goal back then, if memory serves.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard anything about the "new" Porsche Turbo with PDK staying with the GT-R at the 'Ring yet, much less the previous one. Am I wrong?

Amazingly enough, I concur with your last sentence. None of the four cars are actually competitors, in my opinion, magazine hype aside.