The Mustang 5.0 is a great peformance car. The #s are impressive. I think the new 5.0 will sway some Challenger and Camaro buyers, but I don't think many potential M3 consumers will be interested. Totally different beasts built for much different consumers. If your #1 priority is bang for your buck, the Mustang is the way the go. If you want a comfortable, stylish coupe, the M3 is hard to beat. The M3 customer sees the M3 as a bargain Vs 911s & S5 coupes. Arguably, the better bang for your buck is the C63, if you value straight line speed Vs corners.

If I were building a project car and was offered either of these engines free of charge, I would choose the Ford for these and other reasons.

I would love to have a M3 or a Mustang GT but right now 30 grand for same performance? Hands down GT. People who own a M3 are in it for the luxury and speed. I want affordable with good numbers.

If you owned a M3 would you track it knowing you paid 80 grand for it?

^ for sure I would track a new m3. As good as the new M3 is, the brakes still need upgrading. For all those people who think if the acceleration & skidpad #s are the same, then the performance is the same....not for a second. I can guarantee you, after a few hard laps, the Mustang brakes will fade, and you will quickly see the shortcomings in the Mustang chassis and suspension. Regardless what they do with the Mustang handling, it will always be hampered by the solid rear axle. I think the new Mustang 5.0 is an excellent sports car for what it is, but for those that think it can perform as well as an E92 M3 on a track, you are just simply wrong.

@Z3Guy, Unless their using non-slotted rotors running on regular pads, I don't see them "fading" away after a few hard laps. The solid rear axle is true, but I think we are forgetting the mustang is a mucsle car for the strip not the track. I see the M3 as a track car but also a high-end luxury car. The mustang is a in your face affordable car for the everyday driver.

^ you are right bloodmack, the Mustang is an awesome everyday driver you can bag on and not worry....the M3 is more of a weekend car that you could drive everyday, but don't really want to......

I'll bet money the M3 brakes will fade more quickly than those on the Mustang GT.

Mustang GT: 4-pot Brembos
M3: 2-pot sliding calipers; uneven distribution of heat across the pads

The M3 also weighs more.

The only chance of the M3 has in being able to outlast the Mustang for fading is if it came with a significantly more aggressive compound pad from the factory. But who uses factory pads on the track anyway?

I'll agree here. It'll be interesting to see how they've worked around this.

Lol you are such an M3 owner.

We'll see. I'm just waiting for comprehensive back to back comparisons of the two on the track. It'll happen soon enough with the Mustang GT being as mainstream as it is.

Oh that and, well, Amaru promised to take a crap on the floor and eat it with a spoon if the Ford comes even close. Who's got a camera handy?

once upon a time,

ppl compared GTRs (apples) to porsches (oranges). The gtr kept up with the porsche on the track, and it was a lot cheaper. Gtr fanboys jizzed in their pants.

the end.


the point of this story is that GTR>>>>>>>>all (mustang GT, m3)

performance wise, i'll believe it once i see the nurburgring times.

if they're close, then the mustang is definitely a huge bang for the buck performer

that being said, i would never be caught driving one. they're hideous.
mustangs havent looked good since the 80s.

and the 30k extra on the bmw is well spent.
looks, refinement, quality, technology......

just put the two next to each other on the showroom floor and watch how many people go into debt trying to afford the bmw.

Wrong. They haven't looked good since they brought out the second generation. Mustang II, anyone? :Puke:

Mind you, that didn't stop me from buying a late-model, facelifted fourth generation GT a few years back... :lol

personally I don't see things changing much. I'm grossly generalising here, but, Doctors, Lawyers, and other white collar snobs with lots of money to burn will still buy new M3's. Cops, Welders, Contruction guys, and other down to earth blue collar works who loved mustangs and grew up with Fords are still gonna buy the Mustang GTs.

Most of the guys that can afford a new M3 or even a new GT will not be tracking either of them. It's very rare to see a new M3 or even Mustang GT at track days, for whatever reason. That says to me most of the buyer of these vehicles don't really give a crap how it compares to the other car. They want the car because they've ALWAYS wanted the car, even before the current model came out.

so Cops, Welders, Contruction guys, and other down to earth blue collar works are the poor people. Doctors, Lawyers, and other white collar snobs are the rich people. rich people buy the bmw m3. poor people buy the ford mustang.

I would not call cops or trades people poor. And not all doctors and lawyers are rich, either.

I'm just grossly generalising with my example.. I have sold mustangs to lawyers and accountants, but they were really down to earth car guys.

Yep, we know "RICH" is rich.

It's a great feeling when you can spank someone in a car that cost double yours.

It is also quite humbling when they whip your ass.

I've had a few victories....quite a few losses.

But when I go up against an M3 or C63 or CLS55, and get my ass kicked, i don't feel so bad in my poor man's mustang:thumbsup:

That's unbelievably retarded.

You can pay $250k for an F430 and lose a race to a 5.0L Mustang that some guy built in his garage.

People don't pay $90k for an M3 because it has 400 horsepower. If you can't understand that, euthanize yourself immediately.

New cars are about image and nothing about performance. Most people that can afford a new M3 or GT can't afford to wreck them.

Richard, I know you do the PCA stuff so you see a number of 911s on the track (no doubt some of them nice 996s and 997s) but have you been around West Van during morning or afternoon rush hour? How many of those P-cars do you think ever see anything above 120 kph on the highway, if that? :)

As for the entire thing here about performance of the two cars, the Mustang is incredibly impressive. I would expect the M3 to post better lap times but the Mustang can't but be viewed as anything but incredible value.

The extra 30k for the bimmer buys you a lot - nicer interior, better fit 'n finish and more snob appeal - just don't think you're getting $30k more in performance... and I daresay that most of the people turning up their noses at the Mustang couldn't afford either car.

Well it is quite clear that people buy cars for different reasons, and if you can't understand that, you can euthanize yourself immediately.

Some people buy it for speed, some buy it for practicality, some buy it for prestige.

People don't pay $90k for a M3 beacuse it has 400 horsepower? Then what does it have ? A vagina installed in the dashboard ?

The BMW 3-series was on the IIHS's 2009 "Top Safety Picks" list, which you chose to omit from your post... but yes, it did get a 4-star rating in one area. Mustang ratings were more impressive, no question.

The places I took the M3 gas mileage from were clearly overoptimistic... but I'm not getting my spoon ready until I see the Mustang beat the M3 on a track.

Obviously you have no clue......have you ever driven either the GTR or turbo? there is no doubt the GTR is an amazing fast car...but it is boring as hell....the GTR is like a Corvette...fast cars, but not near the mechanical precision of a turbo.

You originally said you would do it if the mustang had times anywhere near the m3, not beat it. Why don't you be a man and live up to your words.

Since when was a M3 90k?

lol.. you do know i was just joking about the GTR>>> all..

my point in the story was that you can't compare just the numbers and the price, and more importantly you can't compare the m3 to a mustang GT. Because if you do, then you're just another fan boy who have no clue what supercars are.

Bashing the m3 in this thread because the mustang is cheaper is like bashing all the supercars in the world just because the gtr is cheaper.

In the end, the ppl who bash the supercars/m3 because the gtr/mustang is cheaper obviously don't know anything about high end cars.

Why is the M3 more costly than a 5.0 mustang? Well, it really comes down to branding and what you want other people see you driving. The majority of the buyers who are looking at the M3 are not going to look at the mustang, and vice versa. Only the enthusiast (like people on RS), the minority, would cross shop these 2 cars. For example, it would be like comparing Aston Martin V8 Vantage to E92 M3, they are both have similar spec in terms of performance, but Aston Martin cost almost twice (rough estimate) or more than a M3. Same arguments can be made against vantage vs M3 as mustang to M3. At the end of the day you are driving a Aston Martin, not a BMW. At the end of the day you are driving a BMW not a Ford. It is called conspicuous consumption, as you no longer pay the actual worth of the product, but you spend the extra moolah on goods and services acquired mainly for the purpose of displaying income or wealth.

Its. All. About. Branding.

This is why car manufacturers are consistently trying to go up market and gain pedigree, because when your brand is recognized as "better" or "superiorly engineered" the car itself already has the upper hand, regardless of its performance, plus you can charge more. Lets say, for example, the performance number were not given out for the mustang 5.0, and someone randomly compares it to the BMW M3, how many of you would think that the 5.0 can perform just as well as the M3? Not many.

Out of the realm of performance, I think these two cars are are hardly comparable. They are both really good cars that offers a very compiling package at two completely different price margin.

Is the extra cash worth it for the M3? Well, I guess this is why this thread exists.

whoa whoa whoa hey hey!

Come on now, the terms of the agreement are quite clear. :)