|
|
11-16-2011, 10:32 PM | #45 | |
Lurker
78
Rep 812
Posts |
Quote:
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
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-17-2011, 05:27 PM | #46 |
Lieutenant
73
Rep 493
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-17-2011, 05:29 PM | #47 |
Been There, Done That.
648
Rep 4,728
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-17-2011, 06:18 PM | #48 |
Lieutenant
73
Rep 493
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-17-2011, 08:04 PM | #49 | |
Banned
14
Rep 746
Posts |
Quote:
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? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-18-2011, 06:48 AM | #50 | |
Banned
14
Rep 746
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-18-2011, 08:13 AM | #52 |
Banned
14
Rep 746
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-18-2011, 04:33 PM | #53 |
Captain
87
Rep 602
Posts |
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.
__________________
Blue Thunder -2011 LeMans Blue e92 DCT, ZCP, European Delivery. BPM Stage II. Dinan 3.45 Rear. Borla/Encore Innovation Exhaust, LUX Angel Eyes, Forgestar F14's, Turner road armor. "Last of the V-8 Interceptors, a real piece of history..."
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2011, 08:56 PM | #54 |
Colonel
1097
Rep 2,287
Posts |
[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. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2011, 09:05 PM | #55 |
Colonel
1097
Rep 2,287
Posts |
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)??? |
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2011, 04:38 AM | #56 |
Captain
92
Rep 885
Posts |
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.
__________________
-2016 Macan Turbo(GF vehicle) -2017 Ford Raptor |
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2011, 10:07 AM | #57 | |
Banned
49
Rep 1,922
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2011, 12:13 PM | #58 | |
Captain
92
Rep 885
Posts |
Quote:
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.
__________________
-2016 Macan Turbo(GF vehicle) -2017 Ford Raptor |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2011, 01:04 PM | #59 | |
Banned
49
Rep 1,922
Posts |
Quote:
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. Last edited by Nine; 11-21-2011 at 01:14 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2011, 02:23 PM | #60 | |
Captain
92
Rep 885
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
-2016 Macan Turbo(GF vehicle) -2017 Ford Raptor |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2011, 04:12 PM | #62 |
Captain
92
Rep 885
Posts |
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.
__________________
-2016 Macan Turbo(GF vehicle) -2017 Ford Raptor |
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2011, 06:43 PM | #63 | |
Major General
590
Rep 5,396
Posts |
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2011, 08:47 PM | #64 |
Colonel
1097
Rep 2,287
Posts |
[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. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2011, 09:12 PM | #65 |
Colonel
1097
Rep 2,287
Posts |
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 |
Appreciate
0
|
11-22-2011, 11:28 AM | #66 | |
Brigadier General
236
Rep 3,303
Posts |
Quote:
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
__________________
"...it's not about the money and not about the brand of the car, it's about handling,performance and passion......And that, no other car has all together like an M3........when you talk about the most complete car the M is invincible." --Tony Kanaan. Last edited by e46e92love; 11-26-2011 at 09:15 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|