M3 and Mustang GT have eerily similar performance figures

[curvedinfinity]

Taken from MT:
Figure: M3, Must. GT
----------------------
HP: 414, 412
weight: 3652, 3612
lb/hp: 8.8, 8.8
0-60: 4.3, 4.4
1/4: 12.7@111.3, 12.7@111.3
60-0: 105, 104
Lat Accel: 0.97, 0.97
MT 8: 24.8@0.76, 24.7@0.77

Its kind of wild that all of the numbers are basically identical. Granted, they are probably completely different driving experiences, but its just uncanny. So I guess the mustang is now the official poor-man's M3.

Edit: price as tested: $63,625, $36,465

Source:
http://www.motortrend.com/road....html
http://www.motortrend.com/road....html

Modified by curvedinfinity at 8:40 AM 4-15-2010


Modified by curvedinfinity at 9:20 AM 4-15-2010

[Big Morgan]

Why is this a poll?

[AHFlynn]

that is weird, id like to see a track compro.

[juice]

I clicked on this poll thinking I'd vote for the M3 for sure, but wow, even with the live axle it ran that Figure 8 quicker!

Gotta vote for the 'stang this time.

[ZoomBy]

so?

[VdubChaos]

This is news?

It has always been the case. American cars matched M3s/S4s performance at a fraction of a cost.

Give me mustang ANY day of the week.

Cheaper to buy
Cheaper to own
German electronics and overcomplexity of simple things just scares me
Easier to work on
Cheaper to maintain
The list is long...>VERY long.

There used to be time when BMW had beautiful design and great interior, that is no longer the case. I actually like Mustang design better (inside and out), although Mustang is not exactly beautiful.

Will M3 drive better and possibly have better lap times? Sure

Do I care enough to spend 2x the money on it.

HELL NO

Maybe when I was a arrogant/ignorant euro fan boy and BMW made great cars.

[juice]

So price is the tie-breaker.

[20VT*J4]

but the Mustang doesn't have the soul of the M3!!

Mustang FTW.

[Gaki]

Quote, originally posted by 20VT*J4 »

but the Mustang doesn't have the soul of the M3!! Mustang FTW.

I was going to say that it got less douche bag per gallon but I think they are on par on that as well

[Big Morgan]

Quote, originally posted by Gaki »

I was going to say that it got less douche bag per gallon but I think they are on par on that as well

Ooh, the truth hurts...

[genjy]

Man, I came into this thread to post about soul and douche.

Late again.

[Short Bus]

I voted Mustang because the BMW isn't good enough in any way for me to consider spending that kind of money on one. I'm sure it's a fantastic car, but I just don't like it enough to spend that much money on it.

[BattleRabbit]

Quote, originally posted by juice »

I clicked on this poll thinking I'd vote for the M3 for sure, but wow, even with the live axle it ran that Figure 8 quicker! Gotta vote for the 'stang this time.

Americans just GET solid/live axles somehow. Look at the Mustang GT and the Cobalt SS, both kick butt with what Clarkson might call "19th century technology."

EDIT: spelling of "Butt"


Modified by BattleRabbit at 1:37 PM 4-15-2010

[Shomegrown]

...and I promise you they feel very very different to drive.

I don't know which I'd choose. With my own money, probably the Mustang but I like the M3 more.

[High Plains Drifter]

The Mustang still uses leaf springs, drum brakes, and a 3 on the tree right?

[axe]

Quote, originally posted by High Plains Drifter »

The Mustang still uses leaf springs, drum brakes, and a 3 on the tree right?

Yup, they've moved up to an electric starter though, no need to crank it manually anymore!

I'd take the Mustang over the BMW all day long.

[AKADriver]

The Mustang V6 is nose to nose with the E46 M3, too.

[1Point8TDan]

Quote, originally posted by VdubChaos »

Maybe when I was a arrogant/ignorant euro fan boy and BMW made great cars.

Was this the time you used to race 4.0 Mustangs and beat them with your Passat?

I loved the E46 M3 and wanted one, and the same applies to this generation. BMW created another great ///M car and it either this or an RS4 (I like sedans).

[mrothwell]

Quote, originally posted by axe »

Yup, they've moved up to an electric starter though, no need to crank it manually anymore!

god, something else to interfere with the pure driving experience! We might as have the car drive for us too...

[Projekt R32]

m3 for me, there is nothing poor about a $40+k mustang.... price one out.

[That1njguy]

Just the skeptic in me doesn't exactly trust Motor Trend.

More evidence/comparos please.

[curvedinfinity]

Quote, originally posted by Projekt R32 »

m3 for me, there is nothing poor about a $40+k mustang.... price one out.

When an M3 costs at least 50% more, the not-poor-man still often doesn't have two options.

[InfraRedline]

Those are astonishingly almost identical. Call me extremely impressed. I assume as the speeds rise, the M3 will feel more in its element, but for autocross on down, that's not bad for ox cart suspension.

[PhilHVW]

Quote, originally posted by AKADriver »

The Mustang V6 is nose to nose with the E46 M3, too.

They're close in horsepower, but the E46 M3 is about a half second quicker to 60.

Car & Driver:
E46 M3
0-60: 4.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.6 @ 105 mph

http://www.caranddriver.com/re...age_3

Car & Driver:
2011 Mustang V6
0-60: 5.4 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.0 @ 104 mph

http://www.caranddriver.com/re..._test

[BRealistic]

Quote, originally posted by BattleRabbit »

Americans just GET solid/live axles somehow. Look at the Mustang GT and the Cobalt SS, both kick but with what Clarkson might call "19th century technology."

[masa8888]

Darn, couple posts late

And just for fun:

2005 BMW M3

MSRP: $47,300
Power: 333 hp
Weight: 3,415 lbs
Weight/Power: 10.26
0-60: 4.7 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.3 seconds

2005 Ford Mustang GT

MSRP: $25,140
Power: 300 hp
Weight: 3,450 lbs
Weight/Power: 11.50
0-60: 5.3 seconds (C&D)
1/4 mile: 14.1 seconds

So while the relative improvement in the Mustang's straight line performance is impressive, the improvement in other areas of performance (handling, braking) is even more impressive.

[Fritz27]

My two favorite brand new "reasonable" sports cars. If I had the money for the M3, I'd pick the M3, if I only had the money for the Stang GT, I'd get the Stang GT. If I needed a sedan and could swing an M3, I'd have one in a heartbeat.

[nicetry]

I picked the M3 for the fact that I do not care for the interior/exterior styling of the current Mustang at all. Very impressive performance stats but I think it's ugly.

[chewym]

To be fair Car and Driver has the M3 @ 4.1 and 12.6 @ 113 with the twin clutch.

http://www.caranddriver.com/va...8.pdf

But why wouldn't the performance be similar with similar horsepower and weight?

[anonymous911]

Blah at Mustang. Ill take the M3 over the mustang any day. I rather the german engineering over the American Engineering.

[BattleRabbit]

Quote, originally posted by BRealistic »

It has a beam rear, rather than IRS. I know it is front wheel drive, but it is still "tractor engineering" that people tend to poo-poo as having more to do with this than with a proper sporty car:

(and yes, this is beam in the front, solid axle out back, the Cobalt is Beam out back and the Mustang is solid axle out back)


Modified by BattleRabbit at 1:36 PM 4-15-2010

[SVTDanny]

Quote, originally posted by anonymous911 »

Blah at Mustang. Ill take the M3 over the mustang any day. I rather the german engineering over the American Engineering.

For what reason? Assuming you are buying either car for it's performance figures, and have no emotional attachment with either one, it comes down to the M3 being $20-30k more for some fancy dodads and a propeller on the nose.

[CBJ]

Quote, originally posted by anonymous911 »

Blah at Mustang. Ill take the M3 over the mustang any day. I rather the german engineering over the American Engineering.

Why exactly? Are German McPherson struts that much better?

[Short Bus]

Quote, originally posted by BattleRabbit »

It has a beam rear, rather than IRS. I know it is front wheel drive, but it is still "tractor engineering" that people tend to poo-poo as having more to do with this than with a proper sporty car:

That's really unfair though.

Some tractors come with turbocharged, DOHC engines, but nobody's slamming modern turbocharged sports cars for having tractor engineering.

There's nothing wrong with "old" technology if it's refined to the point that it works as well as never, heavier, more complicated ways of doing things.

[BattleRabbit]

Quote, originally posted by Short Bus »

That's really unfair though. Some tractors come with turbocharged, DOHC engines, but nobody's slamming modern turbocharged sports cars for having tractor engineering. There's nothing wrong with "old" technology if it's refined to the point that it works as well as never, heavier, more complicated ways of doing things.

I agree with you on all those points. I was applauding the Mustang in both my posts. I was saying "Americans GET solid/live axles," because they are good at making them work well.

A lot of us watch Top Gear, and heck, we probably saw when Clarkson chastised Eric Bana for racing his live-axle equipped Falcon. Clarkson is stupid about suspensions, he's not an engineer, and neither are a lot of the people here who talk down live-axles. They work, and they work well.