• We have updated to the newest version of the forum. Please let us know if you see any issues. And, yes, we know the shoutbox is gone. We'll see about getting it back if they make a newer version.

5.0 vs. M3

JohnnyT

JohnnyT

New Member
Videos: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/24/video-mt-pits-mustang-gt-5-0-against-bmw-m3/

Tough for me to be unbiased here, but watch the videos to see the comparison.

First vid is just the 1/4 comparison - took 'em 8 tries to decide a winner. Mustang wins by 0.1 seconds.

Second vid is test track and lap times.
- 0-60 time is equal at 4.4 seconds
- 60-0 Mustang wins by 2 feet
- Mustang has 0.1 more lateral G's than M3
- Mustang is 0.2 seconds faster in the figure 8 at 0.2 more lateral G's
- M3 is 0.09 seconds faster in lap time - yes, 9 hundreths of a second.

Pretty incredible and one of the best comparisons I've seen in awhile.

Oh, and M3 is $25k more than a 5.0.

So...discuss.
 
S

Slim

Guest
Ford has built a hell of a car.

And let me preface this by saying I am not a Mustang guy, never have been, but this will probably be my next car.
 
YSOSLO

YSOSLO

is the word, beotch
I was reading up on Ford coming out with a new Boss 302 that takes the performance of the 5.0 to a whole new level. I haven't heard anything about pricing, but if it's going to slot between the 5.0GT and the GT500, then that would put it right around $50K....for a car that would crush the numbers of the 5.0.

The article I read is here.
 
Workdawg

Workdawg

NARWHAL
They certainly did a good job on the mustang, I'd still take the M3 as an overall car over the mustang though.

The most recent edition of MT actually had a comparo of the CTS-V coupe against the RS5 and the M3, and the M3 won.
 
Grappler

Grappler

Member
just so happens to come from a thread on 7 club :p

Last time I was at a local car show, two old guys were arguing over which year Fiero my car was.

Last week I pulled into the bank parking lot, minding my own business and parked beside a new Challenger. The driver of the Challenger was exiting his car the same time I was leaving mine and struck up a conversation in a very rude way:

Rude Guy: Betcha wish you had a car with some power eh? (he's gesturing to his)
Me: What engine do you have?
RG: 6.1 litre Hemi!
Me: Wow! How much power is that beast putting out? (I'm acting all excited)
RG: Fucking 425!
Me: Oh (at this point I make all my enthusiasm disappear and look/sound very disappointed)
RG: ???
Me: If your engine was making power per litre like mine, it would be putting out over 2300HP.
RG: (blank stare, mental math happening...)

At that point I went into the bank, leaving him to try and figure out what I said.

What is it with these people? I mean, I don't park next to a Mustang and say "Bet you wish you had an independent suspension!".
 
JohnnyT

JohnnyT

New Member
I've said it in other forums about this topic as well. This is not in regard to the M3, but mainly the 5.0's closest competition - the Camaro SS - 'What would you rather have - an incredibly designed SRA that's been engineered to perfection, or a half-assed IRS system that adds a lot of weight without enough increased benefit?'
 
mndsm

mndsm

I'M OFFENDED!
The Camaro is a poorly designed throwback car, kinda like the HHR is. At least Ford had the good sense to make theirs functional.
 
S

Slim

Guest
^^^ Agreed, the Camaro got FAT! It was a pony car at it's inception in 67, so what the heck happened with this throwback. Styling cues are there, but it's way bigger than the original. I'd spend the $25-30k on an original 67-69 Camaro and it's be way cooler anyway.
 
S

Slim

Guest
Not really. I'm saying why the SS Camaro doesn't stack up against the new Mustang. Cuz Ford got it right, and GM didn't.
 
JohnnyT

JohnnyT

New Member
I guess I started the Camaro talk, but it was more to do with SRA vs. IRS in general, not the cars.

No doubt in my mind Ford got it right, and more power's coming in 2012.
 
Grappler

Grappler

Member
Nah that's ok I still will take the m3 with multi link suspension and all the goodies they added and didn't use....
They added a different Gear set to the mustang and brembos so its not exactly stock per se I didn't see that as an option on fords website when I checked.
They list Horsepower as 412 and 414 but those are just boast numbers at the flywheel not actual brake horsepower which makes a difference in real world scenarios
 
dmention7

dmention7

Hater
Grappler said:
They list Horsepower as 412 and 414 but those are just boast numbers at the flywheel not actual brake horsepower which makes a difference in real world scenarios
Click to expand...
Common misconception.... but brake horsepower actually IS horsepower at the output shaft of an engine.
 
JohnnyT

JohnnyT

New Member
mndsm said:
And I saw a Roush supercharger on top of a 5.0 online today.... o_O
Click to expand...
That's still a roots type. The Ford Racing one is a whipple (twin screw). Ironic the factory aftermarket got it right.

Grappler said:
Nah that's ok I still will take the m3 with multi link suspension and all the goodies they added and didn't use....
They added a different Gear set to the mustang and brembos so its not exactly stock per se I didn't see that as an option on fords website when I checked.
They list Horsepower as 412 and 414 but those are just boast numbers at the flywheel not actual brake horsepower which makes a difference in real world scenarios
Click to expand...
The brembos and 3.73s are factory options. The Mustang was not modified in any way outside of factory spec. Ford has also underrated them as dyno tests have shown 395whp. Although that's nothing new after the fail they had in '99.
 
S

Slim

Guest
And all things being pretty equal between the M3 and Mustang GT numbers-wise, the Mustang still holds the ultimate trump card - Price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top