M3 vs 2011 Mustang GT

[roosterjuicer]

Originally Posted by DesmoRob

gotta say I'm quite blown away at how well that new 5.0 performs. I doubt it'll change anyone's opinion/mind on the cars they've set out to buy though.

The new 5.0 performs so good it has made me jump ship from being a lifelong camaro/chevy guy into getting a new mustang this coming may.

[Rasmus]

Well anyway, if anyone here wants to add a bit to their 5.0s give me a heads up. On the dyno we've seen 394 to the wheels with stock airbox, and I've seen 426 to the wheels with a Steeda CAI. Both tunes with added timing for 93 octane petrol -- or gas, if you will.

[ThisBlood147]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Well anyway, if anyone here wants to add a bit to their 5.0s give me a heads up. On the dyno we've seen 394 to the wheels with stock airbox, and I've seen 426 to the wheels with a Steeda CAI. Both tunes with added timing for 93 octane petrol -- or gas, if you will.

Careful Ras. I'm already flirtin' with the idea of selling my 05 for a new 5.0, but I need to try and stay financially responsible at the moment. Telling me a tune/filter 5.0 makes more power than my blown 4.6 isn't helping the issue any.

[culver]

Originally Posted by hightower99

In summary: The Mustang is a brilliant car and with a professional driver behind the wheel it achieves performance equal to a modern M3. However in the hands of Joe Average, it is the BMW M3 that still maintains the advantage. Which is highly respectable for a car approaching its third birthday.

If I'm not mistaken it was the Mustang that was faster in the hands of the writer. Personally I found that article to be horrid. My criticism is not directed at either car nor the choice to compare them. Instead it's at the editors who posted numbers but almost nothing in the way of qualitative information about either car. For instance, the feel of the motor is very important in a BMW. It's not just about power but delivery, throttle response etc. The article hardly mentioned any subjective information about the BMW engine. Heck, they didn't say much about the Ford motor either. The writing was formulaic and lacked any sort of insight. Overall it reflects the poor state of auto journalism at MT.

[ThisBlood147]

Originally Posted by culver

If I'm not mistaken it was the Mustang that was faster in the hands of the writer. Personally I found that article to be horrid. My criticism is not directed at either car nor the choice to compare them. Instead it's at the editors who posted numbers but almost nothing in the way of qualitative information about either car. For instance, the feel of the motor is very important in a BMW. It's not just about power but delivery, throttle response etc. The article hardly mentioned any subjective information about the BMW engine. Heck, they didn't say much about the Ford motor either. The writing was formulaic and lacked any sort of insight. Overall it reflects the poor state of auto journalism at MT.

Watching the video does fill in some of the feedback that you're looking for.

EDIT: As a matter of fact, the article was merely amusing. The video was actually informative.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by culver

If I'm not mistaken it was the Mustang that was faster in the hands of the writer. Personally I found that article to be horrid. My criticism is not directed at either car nor the choice to compare them. Instead it's at the editors who posted numbers but almost nothing in the way of qualitative information about either car. For instance, the feel of the motor is very important in a BMW. It's not just about power but delivery, throttle response etc. The article hardly mentioned any subjective information about the BMW engine. Heck, they didn't say much about the Ford motor either. The writing was formulaic and lacked any sort of insight. Overall it reflects the poor state of auto journalism at MT.

Wish that was a problem at MT only..........

[roosterjuicer]

Originally Posted by ThisBlood147

Watching the video does fill in some of the feedback that you're looking for.

definitely

[henk4]

so a 67k BMW is only marginally better than a 40k Mustang.....gosh, how expensive are these propellor blades....

[roosterjuicer]

Notice the difference in fuel economy also. 14/20mpg for the M3 and 17/26mpg for the Mustang.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by f6fhellcat13

I think what this shows most of all is that the M3 should cost less. If enough manufacturers can beat the Germans at their own game, maybe they will get off their badge-snobbery horse and price the cars more reasonably.

What incentive do they have to price the cars "more reasonably" when people continue to buy them? It's a free market. BMW offers a car, prices it at what they think people will pay, and if people refuse, they lower the price.

Even if the Mustang were 3 whole seconds faster, Ford still wouldn't have beaten BMW at this game with the Mustang. It's about a lot more than just numbers.

[roosterjuicer]

Originally Posted by Guibo

What incentive do they have to price the cars "more reasonably" when people continue to buy them? It's a free market. BMW offers a car, prices it at what they think people will pay, and if people refuse, they lower the price.

Even if the Mustang were 3 whole seconds faster, Ford still wouldn't have beaten BMW at this game with the Mustang. It's about a lot more than just numbers.

Well said. I think your average BMW buyer doesn't care that there are better or just as good cars out there for half the price. They want to be able to wear the popped up collar pink polo shirts, 100$ sunglasses, tight jeans and say "I drive a BMW" (joking about the first three points, serious about the "i drive a BMW" part).

Also, as far as "picking up chicks" goes. Which as far as I know, is top priority for at least 60% of BMW buyers. The BMW will beat the mustang by at least five to six dinners or shots (depending on what kind of girls the buyer likes to goes with).



Disclaimer: let the record show that i am guilty of the same sillyness/irrationality. The mustang is a much better car than a camaro. But the hardest part of the decision making process for me was getting over by "chevy" bias and getting comfortable with saying (with a straight face), "I drive a mustang". As a lifelong two time Camaro owner, this is like converting from Islam to Southern Fundamentalist inbred-hick-redneck Christian. Luckily for me, cooler heads, thus far have been able to prevail. Of course, beating/nearly beating an M3 helps a lot. So does the BOSS 302.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by roosterjuicer

Well said. I think your average BMW buyer doesn't care that there are better or just as good cars out there for half the price. They want to be able to wear the popped up collar pink polo shirts, 100$ sunglasses, tight jeans and say "I drive a BMW" (joking about the first three points, serious about the "i drive a BMW" part).

Also, as far as "picking up chicks" goes. Which as far as I know, is top priority for at least 60% of BMW buyers. The BMW will beat the mustang by at least five to six dinners or shots (depending on what kind of girls the buyer likes to goes with).



Disclaimer: let the record show that i am guilty of the same sillyness/irrationality. The mustang is a much better car than a camaro. But the hardest part of the decision making process for me was getting over by "chevy" bias and getting comfortable with saying (with a straight face), "I drive a mustang". As a lifelong two time Camaro owner, this is like converting from Islam to Southern Fundamentalist inbred-hick-redneck Christian. Luckily for me, cooler heads, thus far have been able to prevail. Of course, beating/nearly beating an M3 helps a lot. So does the BOSS 302.

Despite the image and everything BMWs are still brilliant cars to drive. Also, there's a part of the story that the cold numbers can't tell and it's the feel of the thing. I haven't driven any Mustangs, by BMWs have adriving feel that is hard to beat, independent of the speed you drive at.

[roosterjuicer]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

Also, there's a part of the story that the cold numbers can't tell and it's the feel of the thing. I haven't driven any Mustangs, by BMWs have adriving feel that is hard to beat, independent of the speed you drive at.

Thats the difference between the mustang and the camaro. The camaro feels like an appliance with a powerful engine, the mustang feels like a sports car.

[Commodore GS/E]

Originally Posted by roosterjuicer

Thats the difference between the mustang and the camaro. The camaro feels like an appliance with a powerful engine, the mustang feels like a sports car.

Having driven neither a Mustang nor a Camaro, i have to say that i like the Camaro a bit more (exterior-wise).
Ford has improved a lot over the last few years, as has the american auto industry. First proof was the ZR1, the second one the CTS-V, and now the new Mustang. I think that's a good thing, mainly because I hope that the european manufacturers will be forced to improve their offerings as well. BMW is a good example because it's the company that disappointed me the most over the last few years. They have once been was those american companies are looking to become, and i really hope that they will wake up from their sleep to make better, enjoyable cars once again.

[roosterjuicer]

I actually think BMW would be fine pricing the M3 where its priced at if they would just put the v10 out of the m5 in it!!!