![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Offtopic now, but personally I wouldn't be buying the Mustang for a GT car at all. It'd be a daily / track car just like my s2k is now. I'm just waiting on the car to come out and get more extensively reviewed on road course performance, and pure driving enjoyment as you mentioned. Pending that, there's a good chance I might replace my car with one! |
Mustang? A GT car? You've got to be kidding me. It is not, never has been and never will be a GT car. The M3 is much, much closer to being a GT car (think space/pace/grace), and it isn't a GT car unto itself. |
a muscle car is a muscle car. a GT car is a GT car. its like comparing jesus and moses for christ sake. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Piston speed of M3 is 21.06 m/s Piston speed of Ford is 21.65 m/s So, yeah, the M3 does have a higher piston speed than the Corvette. By a whopping 0.06 m/s. Oh, and the Ford has a higher piston speed than the M3 does. There are engines on the market (like Audi's V8) that are over 25 m/s, making there piston speeds much higher than the M3. Of course it's stupid to compare the Mustang to the M3. We should be comparing the engines, and on that front the Ford Coyote gives the M3 a run for its money, and at a much lower cost. Bottom line (as I mentioned), putting the M3 engine into the Mustang would actually make the Mustang slower and suck more gas while costing more money. Putting the Coyote in the M3 would make the M3 faster, better on gas and cost much less. Who wouldn't want an M3 that was faster for less money? You'd have to be stupid not to want one. |
Quote:
Piston speeds: M3: 75.2mm stroke at 8300 rpms gives you: 20.8m/s or 1248.32m/min Coyote: 92.7mm stroke at 6500 rpms gives you: 20.08m/s or 1205m/min LS7: 101.6mm stroke at 6300 rpms gives you 21m/s or 1276m/min So these speeds that i've calculated are at peak power. Seems like you're wrong. In addition the LS7 doesn't fall into the under 100g mark. MSRP with same options as M3 is at 100,145 where as M3 loaded to the tits is 85,700. And bottom line, you're a bench racer. Cause you've obviously never driven something that is high revving in nature, all you do is compare #of peak hp and peak TQ. Delivery is much more important. I can guarantee you that throttle response on that M3 is going to KILL that coyote's. It is also 5000000% livelier, and the valvetrain weighs prolly next to nothing. In addition the engine is built to be able to corner hard. With its small front mount lube system accompanied by a bigger rear mount lube system. I guess i'm stupid for wanting an M3 that would be smoother, more fun to rip up the twisties and responds instantly. |
Quote:
In summary: No, people don't buy the M3 just because it has 400 horsepower. Period. They buy it because of the build quality. They buy it because of the refinement. They buy it because of the silky smooth and linear power delivery. They buy it because of the race-inspired engineering. They buy it because of the incredible attention to detail that's obvious in every aspect of the car's construction. They buy it because of the exhilaration you get from revving a V8 to an 8,400rpm redline. They buy it because of the way it sounds as it revs to 8400rpm. They buy it because of the way it handles. They buy it because of the perfect steering weight, and the way it effortlessly eats up the twisties. They buy it because of the way it somehow remains soft enough to drive on the street and firm enough to tear apart a track. They buy it because it doesn't have a solid rear axle. They buy it because of how beautiful it looks. They buy it because the interior is top-notch quality. They buy it because the door makes a resounding "thud" when you close it. They buy it because of the technology and innovation that lies beneath the hood and the body panels. They buy it because they don't want a car that's worth 1/5 of it's original value after 3 years. ...and let's not kid ourselves, they also buy it because it's a pussy magnet and it wears a BMW badge. Flame-retardant disclaimer: I'm not suggesting the Mustang is a bad car in any way, nor am I suggesting that the M3 is the pinnacle of perfection. I'm simply pointing out that 400hp is not the selling point of a BMW M3... it's simply one of the many things that makes it one of the most popular and sought-after cars of all time. Quote:
Quote:
Example: Ferrari F430 "only" has 343 lb-ft of torque... care to criticize Ferrari for not giving it enough torque? It "only" does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds... Engine speed and power delivery make up for the lack of torque. If BMW wanted to give the car more torque, they could've done what Mercedes did and drop in a 6.2L beast of a motor. That's not what makes the a car great (or fast) and it's not what the people who buy M3's are going to demand. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Speaking of math, why do you show the same piston speeds for the M3 and Coyote in metres per second (20.8) and yet show completely different values for metres per minute (1,248 for M3 and 1,205 for the Coyote). Seems I'm not the one needing the math lesson. BTW, did you even read the link I provided showing the details of the Coyote engine? Amaru: You're completely wrong. People buy M3's because they read in magazines that they are great handling razor sharp cars. Then they can brag to their friends about how their car handles so well when they don't have a frickin clue about what handling really is, and 99.9% of them will never see the track. |
Quote:
And let me ask you this: Have you driven an M3? or something that revs high and smoothly? Brute force isn't the answer to a track machine. Bench racer is what you are, omg one has more tQ and hp and weighs less therefore = fasterrrrrrr right? |
Well you said that the M3 had the fastest engine, so why not compare the speeds at red line, as opposed to where they make their peak power. If you had said the m3 had the fastest engine at peak power, then fair enough. |
^ general rule of thumb yes more hp/torque + lighter = SHOULD be faster on the track....should... |
Quote:
And whats the point of comparing them at redline when they don't make any power, no one is going to rev that high when it makes no power. When i drive the S2K i dun rev it to 9k. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
:Popcorn |
In before fight club. |
I have a 2010 M3 with DCT. There is no car that I know of that costs less that gives me a better driving experience..... Kudos to Ford for finally making a semi-decent sports car -- but no thanks.. |
Rickety panel gapped to hell... HP/L PISTONNNN SPEEEED! PANEL GAPPED TO HELLLLLL!!!!! ARGHGHGHHAHHRH!!! |
Quote:
Not only that, but it's also likely that the best RPM to shift at will change from gear to gear depending on your ratios. So you might shift at 7,000 RPM when going from 2nd to 3rd, but 3rd to 4th might be better shifting at 7,200 RPM. You making such a broad generalization about what RPM to shift at clearly demonstrates your knowledge on the subject. I'll have to make sure to take notes in the future so I can better prepare myself for the track. I'm going to throw out my vehicle scales and my 24 channel data acquisition system because I don't need such fancy equipment when I have your wisdom to draw upon. |
Surprised no one brought this up yet! http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...stang_dyno.jpg http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...M3BaseDyno.jpg Lets disregard the numbers and focus on the power delivery. Now I am no engineer, but the torque curve (well more like the torque line) is absolutely flat on the M3, which means you have access to maximum torque at almost all RPM! Where as the stang 5.0 needs RPM to build peak torque but it goes downward right afterward (which is actually normal for a N/A engine). It is actually quiet impressive since high rev N/A engine usually sacrifice torque, especially low end torque for peak HP in the upper RPM. As per S2k where peak torque is not achieved until VTEC hits. I know the S2k example is kind of apple to oranges, but I am just throwing it out there. |
Quote:
M3, it "only" does everything.... :D |
in this comparision, it's actually irrellevant that the m3's torque line is flat, because the mustang still makes at least 50-100 more torque throughout the entire range where the m3 is flat. although I still believe it's pointless to compare the two cars. they happen to have similar performance, but that's where the similarities end. Both awesome cars. I would consider myself blessed to own either one. I feel lucky that I've gotten to drive bmws/m3s at the track/skidpad, and that I get to drive new mustangs at work whenever I want to. And honestly I think anyone who trash talks either car is just showing their ignorance or prejudice. |
LOL hp per L and piston speed... whatever happened to hp per car and speed on the road? |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net