2011 Ford Mustang GT vs. 2008 BMW M3.. Tie game

[RC0310_EJ]

2008 M3: 4.0L V8 414hp, 3,652 lbs
0-60: 4.3s
1/4 mile: 12.7 @ 111.3mph
60-0: 105ft
skidpad: 0.97g
$71,300 CAD

2011 Mustang GT: 5.0L V8 412hp, 3612lbs
0-60: 4.4s
1/4 mile: 12.7 @ 111.3mph
60-0: 104ft
skidpad: 0.97g
$38,499 CAD

Alright, fan boys (and girls), prepare for battle. The ever keen-eyed Sam Smith over at Jalopnik has spied an interesting phenomenon in the car universe. The new 2011 Ford Mustang GT performance figures are within spitting distance of the mighty 2010 BMW M3. The Bavarian bruiser produces 414 horsepower out of its milky-smooth 4.0-liter V8 and hits the scales at 3,652 lbs. Meanwhile, the 5.0-liter Mustang serves up two less horsepower, but weighs 40 pounds less, too.

At this point, odds are your blood is pumping no matter which side of the ring you happen to find yourself on. Stats that close yield frighteningly similar numbers when the two cars hit the track, too. The M3 can clip off the 0-60 dash in 4.3 seconds. The Mustang can do it in 4.4. Quarter mile? Deadlocked at 12.7 seconds at 111.3 mph.

It's true, a quarter mile doth not a sports car make, which is why these next figures are so important. While the M3 can come down from 60 mph in 105 feet, the Mustang can do the same in 104. And here's the real shocker: Both cars hold onto the skidpad at .97 g. Now, before the comments go superfly TNT, it's worth noting that the as-tested BMW will set you back an eye-widening $28,180 more than the Ford. We could think of a thing or two to do with an extra 30-large.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/16/2...w-m3-tie-game/

[orange7]

lol @ those ppl who couldn't wait for the 2011 mustang gt

[asahai69]

what. i just heard something. wait.......................................i think hell has just froze over. how long till someone says something about the interior or something gay like panel gaps?

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by orange7

lol @ those ppl who couldn't wait for the 2011 mustang gt

uh.... what?

[!Aznboi128]

honestly for 32k less there's going to be a lot of people who's going to consider it. you can get a Mustang GT then get a base 3 series for daily.

[rooster328]

People who buy a m3 are not going to buy a mustang

[asahai69]

Originally Posted by rooster328

People who buy a m3 are not going to buy a mustang

i think the point is that for 30k less, ford got the same performance out of a mustang as bmw got out of their m3. if someone came up to me and told me to choose one and i can have it for free. id totally choose the m3.

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by rooster328

People who buy a m3 are not going to buy a mustang

that's not true... at all...

[gilly]

props to ford for making such an amazing engine. I just don't like the exterior styling of the newer generation mustangs. Interior doesn't look too bad tho.

btw, the m3 is actually my dream car. I would pick the m3 instead hah.

[twitchyzero]

i wonder which one's more reliable?

[CPE]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

uh.... what?

I think he means those people who couldn't wait for the 2011 and bought the 2010 gt.

[tonyvu]

mustangs have always been soo ugly imo

[jstn86]

sure, braking and acceleration performance are the same.
but i want to see a head to head lap times around a track.

not bashing on the mustang. it's incredible but there is a reason why the M3 costs $30,000 more than the mustang.

[Teh Doucher]

Ya the reason is that its luxury, the mustang is just raw performance. Honestly, if I had the money I'd rather buy the m3 and since I don't, mustang it is. And that's what it comes down to in the end.
Posted via RS Mobile

[orange7]

assuming I have to pick one of them.

if I can have either one for free, i`d pick the m3

but if I only have $100 000 to spend, i`d pick the mustang and use the rest on non-auto-related stuff (eg. investment, food, clothes.. )

[shenmecar]

How about in corners?

[Amaru]

If the Mustang can post lap times anywhere near the M3, I'll shit on the floor and eat it with a spoon. Simply won't happen.

Don't get me wrong, this new Mustang looks like the best one in several decades... but I don't think it's quite in the M3 performance league yet. When will people learn that skid pad numbers don't translate to handling and cornering in real life? It's a rough way to tell how well a car sticks to the road, but hardly a conclusive stat.

Granted, I'm a BMW homer to some extent, I think this is a silly comparison anyway. Would you compare an STI and an Audi S4 because the performance numbers are similar? Obviously not.

The BMW doesn't cost $30k more because of the raw performance...

[!Aznboi128]

Need to put these two cars head to head on the top gear test track, some say......

They both pull 0.97g which is amazing for a mustang.... The fact that it's lighter and it's the same at the quarter suggests the mustang's aerodynamics aren't up to par. But damn it's just so close.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by gilly

props to ford for making such an amazing engine.

It's a good engine, no question, but "amazing"? A full liter of displacement more than the BMW, power is probably not as smooth and linear, and it still makes 2 fewer horsepower.

Still, that said, it's better than the ridiculously inefficient motors Ford was stuffing in past generation Mustangs.

[shantz]

Don't forget about the overall cost of maintenance and upkeep too - Its a hell of a lot more to maintain an M3 vs. a Mustang.

[ericthehalfbee]

Originally Posted by Amaru

It's a good engine, no question, but "amazing"? A full liter of displacement more than the BMW, power is probably not as smooth and linear, and it still makes 2 fewer horsepower.

Still, that said, it's better than the ridiculously inefficient motors Ford was stuffing in past generation Mustangs.

^ I'd say the Ford engine is fantastic. Makes as much HP as the M3, but also gives you 100 lb/ft more torque. And it's bulletproof (Ford over-engineered the engine for future direct injection and possible supercharging, so things like the block, bearing caps and even heads and bolts are all upgraded).

The M3? Sure, you can get a whopping 9HP from a Dinan chip upgrade (are people stupid enough to buy this crap?). What would you expect from an engine that's already tuned to the max from the factory? You want any HP from the M3 engine and you're going to be spending big $$$.

Plus I guarantee you the Ford engine is going to be more reliable and costs a hell of a lot less to make.

[Volvo-brickster]

it will be a hell of a deal to scoop up a used 5.0L in 2012 / 2013

12 second car for probably under $30 grand

[tamazoid]

I love the sound of the V8 with a 8,400rpm redline from the M3!

But I am curious what kind of lap times the Mustang will get.

[CPE]

For what its worth, Car and Driver ran into a preproduction 2011 last year, and they said it was lapping the raceway in about the same time as an M3.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/12/r...k-to-handle-5/

C&D claims that the Corsa R-compound car was lapping the 1.88 mile track just as quickly as the current BMW M3 they brought along. But how could a 315 hp car keep up on a track with a 414 hp car? Weight? Maybe, because the Mustang weighs about 200 pounds less than the M3. Don't say torque, because the Mustang only beats the M3 by 25 lb-ft there. Tires? Well maybe, but the Michelin Pilot Sport 2s on the Bimmer are pretty sticky in their own right. Despite all that, 414 horses should have cleaned up.

Well, what if the 2011 Mustang Mule with the fancy tires had a 5.0-liter, 32-valve DOHC Coyote engine kicking out 400+ hp and 400+ torques. The world's worst kept secret engine could also explain the similar lap times.

[flagella]

Someone's eating the shit on the floor with a spoon soon?