http://www.caranddriver.com/features...p_2009-feature

Lightning Lap results at VIR raceway

M3 = 3:05.4
Shelby GT 500 = 3:07.4
Mustang GT ( with track pack ) = 3:13.3

Granted the GT500 is a nose heavy pig of a car, even with 540hp it can't come close to the M3.

With the 2011 Mustang GT, it probably has a carry over track pack from the 2010, but an extra 100hp over the 2010, it still won't overcome nearly 8 seconds on the track

You might be right on this as i can recall a couple months ago on the mustang publication alongside my trusty RC Action. It was a really beautiful article on the Phoenix engine.

What? Are you saying your gonna be in themarket forany of these used two?

All good points... from an engineering standpoint the Ford engine is not up to par with the BMW, but I suppose when you factor in price to manufacture and added "mod potential" it's certainly impressive. I'm not sure about reliability yet, we'll have to wait and see on that one; neither company has a reputation for making reliable motors.

You can buy a used 80's 5.0L right now for $5k, dump another $15k into the motor, and run 11's... that's half the cost of the new one!!! :D

(This sort of ties in to my previous point... there's always a cheaper car that could be fast. For example, people looking to buy a BMW M3 don't want a Mustang... people looking to buy a new 2011 Mustang GT don't want a beat-up 80's 5.0L... people to buy Audi S4's don't want an STI or EVO... people looking at Porsche 911's don't want a 370Z... etc)

Soon = whenever someone shows me the 2011 GT laps faster than the M3.

ohhhh Back peddling already :cry:

And how do you know this? Have you even read any articles describing the Coyote engine in detail? I'll admit the BMW engine is more advanced, but only slightly so. The Ford engine is a lot better than people assume it is (because it's a "Ford").

For example, the Ford has variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust (like many new engines do) but they use a different system that is simpler and works better than other systems. From an engineering standpoint, that makes the Ford system "better" IMO.

Try reading the entire first post.

Also, the Mustang is 30k cheaper then the BMW. If Ford wanted to make an M3, they could, but it would cost at least 30k more to buy.

I have no beef with Ford whatsoever. I am very impressed with Ford's latest models, and although I'm not a fan of the Mustang, I'm always willing to appreciate impressive automotive achievements. And no, I don't know much about this particular engine beyond what's been posted on this forum and what I read in a recent Road&Track article...

However, from an "engineering" standpoint, I'm not sure how you can say the Ford is superior. The M3 motor achieves more horsepower with a liter less displacement, and thus it is significantly more efficient. It's built in the same factory that made the Sauber F1 engine, and the high-strung nature of the motor speaks to that: peak power arrives at 8,300rpm! With an 8,4000rpm redline, this makes it the fastest large-displacement V8 in the world.

The engineering marvel doesn't really come from the efficiency or the high-revving nature of the engine, but from all the other details BMW put into it. For example, it has two sumps and multiple pumps to ensure optimum oil pressure even when cornering at 1.4g... as with other M cars it has individual throttle butterflies for each cylinder with both banks of cylinders controlled by independent elctronic servo units (BMW claims full throttle can be opened in 120 milliseconds, or roughly the same amount of time it takes to stomp on the pedal).

Nonetheless, I'm not trying to belittle the new Ford engine, because it's impressive in its own right. In particular, the weight of the engine and the significant torque output make it appealing to tuners and performance enthusiasts that don't have $90k in the bank to drop on an M3. Hopefully it'll be a big success for Ford.

Simply put, the M3 engine is more of an engineering marvel because it costs so much more to develop and manufacture... no doubt with some hard work and an equal budget Ford could create an engine that's equally efficient and technically impressive. Obviously for cost reasons they decided to opt for larger displacement, aluminum block, etc.

The type of clientele that the M3 will attract is completely different from that of the Mustang. It's like comparing a Ferrari California with a Cadillac XLR-V because they're both front-engine convertibles with 450bhp... both might be good cars, but in terms of comparison, it's apples and oranges.

Granted, this is partly the homer in me speaking, but I think this would be a difficult challenge. Other car manufacturers, notably Audi, Mercedes, and now Lexus, have tried to match the M3 with little success. Sure, they can match the power output, the skidpad numbers, etc... but can you put it in a car with perfect steering feel, outstanding predictability, and a compliant ride? BMW's 30 years of "M" experience is what makes the car so special, and this seems to translate flawlessly with each new generation.

Similarly, I highly doubt BMW could launch a half-ton pickup truck and expect it to be as good as the F150... to develop an industry-leading vehicle takes decades when you're competing with companies that have already perfected the process..

why do ppl always use apples vs orange7.

why not use apples vs bananas

There is a bigger and faster V8 out there in the world.


Ferrari 458 Italia

4.5L V8
570hp at 9000 RPM, 398 ft lbs at 6000 RPM

fobs are afraid of american muscles, that's all:blushsmile:

amaru that was an amazing reply

^agreed, it was like a magazine article

Amaru: Go and read this article. All 16 pages and the pics/captions.

Then you'll see the M3 isn't quite so impressive anymore.

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...ine/index.html


A few very small points to consider:

- The 5.0 engine is about 20 pounds lighter than the E92 M3 V8.
- The 5.0 can actually run on 87 octane gas (instead of the recommended 91 octane). And it still develops 400 HP and 377 lb/ft of torque. How much HP/torque would the M3 lose if it burned 87 octane? Can it even actually run on 87?
- The Mustang with the 5.0 engine gets better mileage than the M3. What was that you were talking about the efficiency of the M3 engine? And check out the highway rating for the Mustang - it obliterates the thirsty M3. And don't tell me the extra 40 lbs makes that much difference.
- The 5.0 is literally tortured on the dyno. One test simulates the equivalent of 62 Daytona 500 races. Another test they run the engine at WOT for several minutes until the headers are red hot. Then they turn off the engine and run ice cold water through the block until it's covered in frost. Then they repeat the process over.
- Read up on the method Ford uses to control valve timing and how they recover lost energy from the valve springs and use it to change valve timing. Pure genius.
- Read up on why they had to move the crankshaft position sensor to a different location because the crankshaft twist produces errors the computer can detect.

and on and on....


Ford hit it out of the park with this engine.

lol this is Marco911 vs Dangonay on the 911 vs Z06 all over again.
how long til "Path Accuracy" is brought up again? :lol

what really gets me about this new engine is that it's lighter and more fuel efficient, while making 100lb-ft more torque than a BMW motor that makes the same power. and an M engine at that. i don't even care who made this thing, it's an incredible work of engineering to beat the crap out of BMW's M division so badly, and at probably half the price too.

I think you're misunderstanding my post a bit. I never said the Ford engine wasn't any good. It looks like an excellent motor, and I have nothing against Ford or the engine itself. I'm simply arguing that in terms of "engineering," the M3 engine is more "impressive"... It runs to 8,400rpm and develops 104hp per liter. The new Ford 5L engine runs to 7,000rpm and makes 82hp per liter.

Clearly, there are a number of things in the new "Coyote" powerplant that are groundbreaking... the weight of the motor, in particular, is very low and that's very impressive.

You've thrown a lot of stats in your post to prove the Ford motor is "superior"... and hey, in a world of mass production, I'll certainly concede that the Ford motor will be more economical and way more practical for use in the Mustang.

As far as "advanced technology," sounds like the engine has a lot of neat gizmos. I assure you that BMW's M department didn't sit back and use outdated technology, either, and I'd be happy to share with you some of the tech mumbo jumbo from the M3 powerplant...


- The cylinder crankcase is made of a special aluminium silicon alloy, conventional cylinder liners being replaced by hard silicon crystals.

- The iron-coated pistons run directly in the uncoated, honed cylinder bore.

- The crankcase is compact in its dimensions and comes in torsionally resistant bedplate design ensuring very precise crankshaft bearing and running conditions.

- The M double-VANOS management system requires no more than normal engine oil pressure in order to operate at maximum speed. As a function of load and engine speed, this sophisticated unit consistently sets the optimum valve angle synchronised to the ignition timing and injection volume.

- Two volume-flow controlled pendulum slide cell pumps supply the eight-cylinder efficiently with lubricant, consistently delivering exactly the right amount for the engine. Wet sump lubrication optimised for engine dynamics, in turn, ensures appropriate lubrication also in extreme braking manoeuvres. The entire system features two oil sumps - a small one in front of the front axle subframe and a larger sump further back. A separate reflow pump, in turn, extracts oil from the front oil sump and pumps it to the sump at the rear.

- Individual throttle butterflies for each cylinder, a technology commonly used in motorsport, are the ideal solution to give the engine an immediate, direct response at all times. The new power unit in the BMW M3 therefore comes with eight individual throttle butterflies, four on each row of cylinders operated by separate actuators.

- To minimise weight, both the intake funnels and air collector are made of a light composite material with a 30 per cent share of glass-fibre.

- One of the world's most advanced engine management systems ever built for a road car. For example, each cylinder is monitored and controlled via the spark plug to determine any knocking tendency. At the same time the system checks the ignition for smooth and correct operation, and recognizes any misfiring.


Anyway, all of that is lovely, but it doesn't change the simple fact: the two cars are incomparable. BMW wanted an ultra-fast, high-strung motor that would blow your hair off all the way up to an 8,400rpm redline. They wanted to create an engine with incredibly lightweight components to maximize not just the power of the motor, but the power delivered to the rear wheels. Manufacturing cost and fuel economy were secondary concerns, they were more concerned with pulling as much power as possible out of a super high-revving V8, hence the 103hp/L.

Ford, on the other hand, is going to make and sell a ton of their motors, and cost is a major concern. They sacrificed engine speed and power per liter numbers in order to make the motor more usable in an affordable road car.

The new Ford motor is going to be an outstanding engine for the Mustang; the BMW is collecting all the usual accolades for the e92 M3. Nonetheless, from the moment of their conception, they've been designed and built for two completely different goals.

I'm all for giving credit where credit is due, but I don't think this engine "beats the crap out of BMW's M division". The M3 motor wouldn't work in the Mustang, and the Ford 5.0L motor wouldn't work in the M3. Just different.

As for the "who cares about the brand," I agree completely... however this is the company that, until recently, produced a 4.0L V6 making 210 hp... nearly a decade after BMW released the S54 motor, which made 333hp from a 3.2L inline-6. :D

(All jokes aside, yes, it's an achievement for any company)

FYI - I am referring to "efficiency" in terms of the engine's efficiency - that is, it's ability to produce power per unit of volume (ie. bhp/L). In this sense, it is significantly more efficient.

Secondly, I'm not sure where you got your fuel economy numbers, but...

M3 fuel consumption (DCT transmission): 14.2 city, 9.6 hwy. (L/100km) (link)

Mustang GT fuel consumption (6spd transmission): 14.7 city, 9.8 hwy. (L/100km) (link)

Mustang GT fuel consumption (Automatic transmission): 13.4 city, 9.4 hwy. (L/100km) (link)

This would indicate the M3 has slightly inferior fuel economy to the automatic Mustang GT, and slightly superior fuel economy to the 6spd. Couldn't find the numbers for the 6spd manual M3.

M3 fuel consumption (6spd manual): 15.3 city, 9.7 hwy (L/100km)

M3 fuel consumption (7spd auto): 15.4 city, 9.9 hwy (L/100km)

source: BMW Canada
secondary source: Natural Resources Canada


Mustang GT fuel consumption (6spd manual): 13.8 city, 9.0 hwy (L/100km)

Mustang GT fuel consumption (6spd auto): 13.0 city, 9.4 hwy (L/100km)

source: Ford USA, EPA certified


Actually the M3 gets 16.8 city, 11.8 hwy (L/100km) for both 6spd manual and 7spd auto under EPA testing for 2010. But we'll give it the benefit of the doubt and go with the Canadian numbers. source: EPA

wtf... GT consumes less in city than M3...?

Who cares about $30k cheaper, I`d never be caught in that hideous piece of shit Ford.

For all the people favoring the mustang can you say that
If the car were to crash at a high speed
would u rather be in a mustang than a bmw?

theyre just cars with similar performance numbers.


marketing wise theyre aimed at different audiences...

'10 mustang got a 5 out of 5 rating by NHTSA

3 series got a 4 out of 5


IIHS find them to be poor, marginal, or good (depending on convertible, coupe, or side/front impact)

I got my fuel efficiency numbers from bmw.ca and ford.ca.

Amaru, you don't need to "share" BMW M3 technology as I'm very familiar with that engine. In fact, we were going to use the same electronic throttle motors that they use to operate their individual throttle butterflies on the Lamborgini Countach we're converting at work, but decided they weren't going to perform as we liked. We went to more traditional electronic throttles as commonly found on Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini. We are, however, using ignition coils from the E46 M3 as they suit our needs perfectly.