[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/2010/04/16/2011-ford-mustang-gt-vs-2010-bmw-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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Amaru]

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]

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/report-2011-ford-mustang-to-get-upgraded-track-pack-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?

[Volvo-brickster]

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/the_lightning_lap_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

[gilllgamesh]

^ 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.

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?

[Amaru]

^ 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.

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.

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

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)

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

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

[StylinRed]

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.



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


ohhhh Back peddling already :cry:

[ericthehalfbee]

All good points... from an engineering standpoint the Ford engine is not up to par with the BMW
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.

[Iceman-19]

How about in corners?

Try reading the entire first post.

[Iceman-19]

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.

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.

[Amaru]

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.

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.

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.

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..

[orange7]

why do ppl always use apples vs orange7.

why not use apples vs bananas

[Volvo-brickster]

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.


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

[notching]

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

[busdriverman]

amaru that was an amazing reply

[ate.ge]

^agreed, it was like a magazine article

[ericthehalfbee]

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/techarticles/m5lp_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/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.

[RabidRat]

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.

[Amaru]

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/techarticles/m5lp_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/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.

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.

[Amaru]

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'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)

[Amaru]

- 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.

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 (http://www.driving.ca/news/First+Drive+2009/1697808/story.html))

Mustang GT fuel consumption (6spd transmission): 14.7 city, 9.8 hwy. (L/100km) (link (http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/12/28/preview-2011-ford-mustang-gt.htm))

Mustang GT fuel consumption (Automatic transmission): 13.4 city, 9.4 hwy. (L/100km) (link (http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/12/28/preview-2011-ford-mustang-gt.htm))

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.

[RabidRat]

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 (http://www.bmw.ca/ca/en/newvehicles/mseries/m3coupe/2007/allfacts/engine/technical_data.html)
secondary source: Natural Resources Canada (http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuel-consumption-guide/fuel-consumption-guide-results.cfm?year=2010&type=CPC&Mfg=BMW)


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 (http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/specifications/engine/)


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 (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2010.pdf)

[flagella]

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

[sleazyho]

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

[simsimi1004]

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?

[tofu1413]

theyre just cars with similar performance numbers.


marketing wise theyre aimed at different audiences...

[StylinRed]

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?

'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)

[ericthehalfbee]

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.

[Z3guy]

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.

[Mancini]

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.

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.

[bloodmack]

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?

[Z3guy]

^ 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.

[bloodmack]

@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.

[Z3guy]

^ 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......

[RabidRat]

^ 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.

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?

Regardless what they do with the Mustang handling, it will always be hampered by the solid rear axle.

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

for those that think it can perform as well as an E92 M3 on a track, you are just simply wrong.

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?

[orange7]

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)

[unit]

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.

[Lomac]

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


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

[Rich Sandor]

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.

[notching]

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.

[Rich Sandor]

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.

[some_punk]

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.

[Volvo-brickster]

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.

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:

[Amaru]

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.

[Blinky]

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.

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.

[Volvo-brickster]

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.

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 ?

[Amaru]

'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)

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.

[Z3guy]

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)

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.

[CPE]

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.

[jeff_alexander]

Since when was a M3 90k?

[orange7]

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.

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.

[Jackygor]

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.

[RabidRat]

... but I'm not getting my spoon ready ...

whoa whoa whoa hey hey!

If the Mustang can post lap times anywhere near the M3, I'll shit on the floor and eat it with a spoon.

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

[flagella]

Now we just need to finalize the definition of "anywhere near" the M3. How many seconds are we talking about?

[tofu1413]

Since when was a M3 90k?

walked into bimmer dealer two weeks ago, saw one marked at 89 something.



a special edition yellow one of sorts ( @ auto west ) was 99k :p

[orange7]

whoa whoa whoa hey hey!



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



maybe you should give him some points for backing down???

have a poll?

[RabidRat]

maybe you should give him some points for backing down???

have a poll?

lol uh no

[ericthehalfbee]

They should put the 5.0L Ford engine into the M3 chassis. Then you'd have a much better car.

- An extra 100 lb/ft of torque is going to make the M3 quicker in a lot of situations.
- The car will weigh less. Sure it's only 20 lbs, but it's 20lbs on the front axle.
- It will handle better than it does now (see above).
- It will get better mileage.
- It will cost less than the current M3.
- It's mod friendly, so you could actually make your car faster without spending $15K.
- All those M3 owners who leased their car and can barely afford to keep it on the road can now burn 87 octane gas to save money. :rofl:

[too_slow]

^LOL..

No man, people would lease an 8yr old old M3, and then spend more money on mods than the car's blackbook value!!!

IMHO, for those that have never driven a mustang, you should at least give it a chance and take it on a 'spirited' test drive.. My jaws dropped when I drove a '11 V6 coupe recently.. I can't imagine driving the new GT..

For those that are dashboard strokers.. the interior might not look good in photos, but the quality makes the new Civic/Accord interiors look like a Neon from the 90s.. (yes, i just complimented the mustang's interior).. kthxbye

[godwin]

- All those M3 owners who leased their car and can barely afford to keep it on the road can now burn 87 octane gas to save money. :rofl:

Most people lease lower end 3ers.. People leasing M3es are a rarity, because despite you can "write off" portion of your lease rate.. it is not 100%, more like 20%-30%.. For that amount of leasing to make sense, you have to be making 120k+ and when you are in that range, you don't need to lease unless you are over extended in the first place.

Not to mention CRA watches for these leases and consider them "hot" for audits. You can easily justify a 7er to carry around clients and guests, but very hard to justify a M3 for the same reason.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

E92 m3's torque is hella weak for a V8

E46 m3 260ish torqure for a 6 cylinder

V8 E92 makes 300 pounds of torque for a V8
:\

go figure

[Great68]

Once upon a time Revscene compared Mustangs to Civics.

Now on Revscene Mustangs are compared to M3's.

I'd say Ford is doing an awesome job.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

^
:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::t humbsup:

[XtC-604]

^ 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. ford + reliable lol
IM sure that if you could afford an M3 and pay it off all at once,money spent tuning it with a supercharger or a turbocharger wouldnt be a problem.
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.
slightly? its fucking got itbs. and is the fastest and biggest v8 engine under 100g. an oil system thats not gonna get starved by it's immense cornering speeds.
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 ?
It doesn;t have a vagina installed in the dashboard, but sure as hell can attract more vaginas to it than you can. Well guess what? the M3 has more prestige, more practicality(can get it as coupe, sedan or convertible) and more speed!

I'm sorry this is a retarded argument, people looking to buy an M3 are not going to cross shop into a ford dealership. Thats like how people going to buy a Rolex aren't going to end up with a Timex. Both do their functions properly, both can look good. But ain't in the same league

[XtC-604]

E92 m3's torque is hella weak for a V8

E46 m3 260ish torqure for a 6 cylinder

V8 E92 makes 300 pounds of torque for a V8
:\

go figure
then f1 cars are a joke right?

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

F1 is F1, road car is totally different story

[jeff_alexander]

slightly? its fucking got itbs. and is the fastest and biggest v8 engine under 100g. an oil system thats not gonna get starved by it's immense cornering speeds.


Eat my turd

http://www.webdesignetc.net/Merchant2/graphics/00000006/LS7a.jpg

this is the fastest and biggest V8 under 100g.

Shut the Fuck Up

Oh by the way, it also has Dry Sump oil system.

[Lomac]

ford + reliable lol

:rolleyes:

slightly? its fucking got itbs. and is the fastest and biggest v8 engine under 100g. an oil system thats not gonna get starved by it's immense cornering speeds.

Fastest and biggest V8 under $100g? Hardly.

It doesn;t have a vagina installed in the dashboard, but sure as hell can attract more vaginas to it than you can.

Perhaps. But the only girls you're going to get who are attracted to you because of the car you drive are either 1) Gold diggers, or, 2) People that care more about "Face" and what others think about you. Neither of those types of people are even worth giving the time of the day.

Well guess what? the M3 has more prestige, more practicality(can get it as coupe, sedan or convertible) and more speed!

BMW = Perceived prestige. More speed? In what way? Final speed, 0-60? 0-120?

[Hehe]

I don't get why this is even a discussion between M3 and Mustang. They are in completely different market sector.

If everything is about 0-60, quarter miles, then for the price GTR is godlike and anything else can be junk.

People who buy BMW don't care if a Mustang can be as fast as they do. Just as a Ferrari owner doesn't care a GTR is capable of pwning his shinny 300G Italian fine art for 1/3 of the price.

BMW M is a prestigious and well respected division in the world of automobiles. When you read car magazines you see all others (Caddy, Audi, Benz... etc) being compared to BMW Mx. There is no doubt that a M3 engine is much finer tuned than a Mustang. It's all about attention to detail. Mustang might be fast. But it would never have the level of sophistication of a M3.

This is a very same reason why people spend hundred of thousands on a Tourbillon watch when a 5bucks toy watch does exactly the same thing with perhaps better accuracy.

[XtC-604]

Eat my turd

http://www.webdesignetc.net/Merchant2/graphics/00000006/LS7a.jpg

this is the fastest and biggest V8 under 100g.

Shut the Fuck Up

Oh by the way, it also has Dry Sump oil system.
Actually fastest meaning RPMS wise. Piston speed of that M3 is greater than that of the Corvette's. That is what engineering is. And its a dual system not a single.

:rolleyes:



Fastest and biggest V8 under $100g? Hardly.



Perhaps. But the only girls you're going to get who are attracted to you because of the car you drive are either 1) Gold diggers, or, 2) People that care more about "Face" and what others think about you. Neither of those types of people are even worth giving the time of the day.



BMW = Perceived prestige. More speed? In what way? Final speed, 0-60? 0-120? What other road car has a v8 that revs to 8.4k making 400+hp and is over 100hp/L and is still pretty reliable???

I don't get why this is even a discussion between M3 and Mustang. They are in completely different market sector.

If everything is about 0-60, quarter miles, then for the price GTR is godlike and anything else can be junk.

People who buy BMW don't care if a Mustang can be as fast as they do. Just as a Ferrari owner doesn't care a GTR is capable of pwning his shinny 300G Italian fine art for 1/3 of the price.

BMW M is a prestigious and well respected division in the world of automobiles. When you read car magazines you see all others (Caddy, Audi, Benz... etc) being compared to BMW Mx. There is no doubt that a M3 engine is much finer tuned than a Mustang. It's all about attention to detail. Mustang might be fast. But it would never have the level of sophistication of a M3.

This is a very same reason why people spend hundred of thousands on a Tourbillon watch when a 5bucks toy watch does exactly the same thing with perhaps better accuracy.Pretty much what i'm trying to say. Its not like people going to buy a rolex is going to cross shop a timex. In this case, people aren't gonna cross shop a piece of proven art vs a rickety pos with a crappy interior and horrid panel gaps that rebuilt cars don't even have.

[jeff_alexander]

If all you care is about 100hp/L and high revs then you should get a S2000 or a motorcycle.

[Great68]

a rickety pos with a crappy interior and horrid panel gaps that rebuilt cars don't even have.

You were making a somewhat valid argument, until you completely discredited yourself with that statement right there.

[slow-fastback]

If all you care is about 100hp/L and high revs then you should get a S2000 or a motorcycle.

actually, he does have an S2000... lol

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

If all you care is about 100hp/L and high revs then you should get a S2000 or a motorcycle.

he already has a s2k

[tofu1413]

Eat my turd

http://www.webdesignetc.net/Merchant2/graphics/00000006/LS7a.jpg

this is the fastest and biggest V8 under 100g.

Shut the Fuck Up

Oh by the way, it also has Dry Sump oil system.

thats a fine lookin engine. at least it looks like one.

[jeff_alexander]

actually, he does have an S2000... lol

he already has a s2k

No wonder he brings up hp/L arguements on all cars. I bet he uses the same excuses when the 350Z guys go faster than him.

"My car makes more hp/L than your car" "It also revs to over 9000 RPM"

[RabidRat]

crappy interior and horrid panel gaps that rebuilt cars don't even have.

Iono about that one. I traded cars with an '08 Mustang GT owner a while back and imo the interior is at least on par with the s2k (what interior?), except that the seats are total freaking garbage and they're the first thing I'd throw in the trash the second no one was looking. Seriously the seats are a crime against god.

[jeff_alexander]

The 2011 mustang has a much nicer interior compared to the '08.

[XtC-604]

No wonder he brings up hp/L arguements on all cars. I bet he uses the same excuses when the 350Z guys go faster than him.

"My car makes more hp/L than your car" "It also revs to over 9000 RPM"
Lol. Straight line speed wasn't my concern when i bought the S2K. Lol i don't wanna be associated with idiots that say 3fiddyzzzzzzzz lol. Its the pure driving environment that i loved in the S2000 and the sexy looks. If i wanted to go faster id be in a turbocharged s or a supercharged s, well actually i'm going to be soon.
Iono about that one. I traded cars with an '08 Mustang GT owner a while back and imo the interior is at least on par with the s2k (what interior?), except that the seats are total freaking garbage and they're the first thing I'd throw in the trash the second no one was looking. Seriously the seats are a crime against god.
Imho the S2K's interior is almost worse than a Toyota Corolla. But thats alright i didn't buy it for that reason. When you buy a stang its a GT car. Interior would be something that is of a concern.

[RabidRat]

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!

[Blinky]

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.

[tofu1413]

a muscle car is a muscle car.


a GT car is a GT car.


its like comparing jesus and moses for christ sake.

[Jackygor]

a muscle car is a muscle car.


a GT car is a GT car.


its like comparing jesus and moses for christ sake.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7562/bazing0hf.gif

[ericthehalfbee]

Actually fastest meaning RPMS wise. Piston speed of that M3 is greater than that of the Corvette's. That is what engineering is. And its a dual system not a single.

What other road car has a v8 that revs to 8.4k making 400+hp and is over 100hp/L and is still pretty reliable???

Pretty much what i'm trying to say. Its not like people going to buy a rolex is going to cross shop a timex. In this case, people aren't gonna cross shop a piece of proven art vs a rickety pos with a crappy interior and horrid panel gaps that rebuilt cars don't even have.
Piston speed of LS7 is 21.00 m/s
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.

[XtC-604]

Piston speed of LS7 is 21.00 m/s
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.
Actually your calculations are wrong, for one piston speeds are done at peak power.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaZExdTHHjY
Anywho thats why an M3 will always be better than that rickety POS panel gapped to hell car

[Amaru]

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

No offense intended, but this is clearly the opinion of someone that's never driven an M3 before. (And probably never driven any late model BMW or Porsche, for that matter).

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.


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.

OK, I will... I'll have my spoon out when the GT posts a time "anywhere near" the M3. I don't know how to define it, but I continue to be *extremely* confident the M3 will be a fair bit faster around almost any track.

E92 m3's torque is hella weak for a V8...E46 m3 260ish torqure for a 6 cylinder...V8 E92 makes 300 pounds of torque for a V8
:\

Frankly, this doesn't make any sense to me... I understand the value of torque, but it really doesn't mean much here. The 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are practically identical, despite the M3 actually weighing more. Many of the best race-bred cars have "low" torque numbers.

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.


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.

I agree with your conclusions, but not the above portion of your post. It's partly about branding and image, but it's also about the car itself. There's a reason why automotive journalists have been sucking the M3's cock for 15 years, and it's not just because of the badge on the hood.


I don't get why this is even a discussion between M3 and Mustang. They are in completely different market sector.

If everything is about 0-60, quarter miles, then for the price GTR is godlike and anything else can be junk.

People who buy BMW don't care if a Mustang can be as fast as they do. Just as a Ferrari owner doesn't care a GTR is capable of pwning his shinny 300G Italian fine art for 1/3 of the price.

BMW M is a prestigious and well respected division in the world of automobiles. When you read car magazines you see all others (Caddy, Audi, Benz... etc) being compared to BMW Mx. There is no doubt that a M3 engine is much finer tuned than a Mustang. It's all about attention to detail. Mustang might be fast. But it would never have the level of sophistication of a M3.

This is a very same reason why people spend hundred of thousands on a Tourbillon watch when a 5bucks toy watch does exactly the same thing with perhaps better accuracy.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[thumper]

You were making a somewhat valid argument, until you completely discredited yourself with that statement right there.

agreed. having looked at the 2010 mustang up close, and although the quality of materials isn't up to bmw standards, the fit and finish is very good compared to fords of past.

[ericthehalfbee]

Actually your calculations are wrong, for one piston speeds are done at peak power.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaZExdTHHjY
Anywho thats why an M3 will always be better than that rickety POS panel gapped to hell car
You sound like the bench racer using HP/l and high RPM to justify why an engine is better. That's why I used the engine redline in my calculations to show maximum piston speed the engine is capable of, not where the engine makes peak power. If you go back and check you'll find my numbers are 100% correct.

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.

[XtC-604]

You sound like the bench racer using HP/l and high RPM to justify why an engine is better. That's why I used the engine redline in my calculations to show maximum piston speed the engine is capable of, not where the engine makes peak power. If you go back and check you'll find my numbers are 100% correct.

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.

Woot, k go be retarded and rev your engine where it makes no power, secondly i don't need a math lesson, but what you do need are fucking glasses. You're completely wrong, that list is already short for all the reasons people buy an M3 over a rickety pos with panel gapping worse than a car rebuilt in india.

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?

[CPE]

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.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

^


general rule of thumb yes


more hp/torque + lighter = SHOULD be faster on the track....should...

[XtC-604]

^


general rule of thumb yes


more hp/torque + lighter = SHOULD be faster on the track....should...
except you forget that the M3 has a smart diff. And a non solid rear axle :haha: oh and you know that something called steering feel and suspension that won't break your back on a regular drive but is tight enough to carve the twisties.

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.

[Z3guy]

Woot, k go be retarded and rev your engine where it makes no power, secondly i don't need a math lesson, but what you do need are fucking glasses. You're completely wrong, that list is already short for all the reasons people buy an M3 over a rickety pos with panel gapping worse than a car rebuilt in india.

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?

you are so right about bench racing....until you take a car out on the track and understand how a car delivers power to the ground is more important than actual #s. If everyone just looked at #s, the 997 GT3 RS should lose to a Corvette Z06.....

[Amaru]

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.

I don't agree at all. The M3 is a fantastic car, on the street and the track.... and that's why people buy it.

[skyxx]

:Popcorn

[shenmecar]

In before fight club.

[Phat_R]

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..

[Great68]

Rickety panel gapped to hell...

HP/L

PISTONNNN SPEEEED!


PANEL GAPPED TO HELLLLLL!!!!! ARGHGHGHHAHHRH!!!

[ericthehalfbee]

Woot, k go be retarded and rev your engine where it makes no power, secondly i don't need a math lesson, but what you do need are fucking glasses. You're completely wrong, that list is already short for all the reasons people buy an M3 over a rickety pos with panel gapping worse than a car rebuilt in india.

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?
The best RPM to shift your engine can only be determined by knowing the HP and torque curves and the gear ratios of your transmission. Your engine might be making less power once it passes the peak HP RPM, but if it's making more than where your RPM's will drop to after you shift to the next gear, then you are still going to be accelerating quicker in your current gear, even if the power is falling off.

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.

[Jackygor]

Surprised no one brought this up yet!

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/mustang_dyno.jpg

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s142/crazytmaxx/e90M3BaseDyno.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.

[Hehe]

They buy it because of..........



Reading your post, the first thing came up my mind is a slogan I need to borrow from Sony:

M3, it "only" does everything.... :D

[Rich Sandor]

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.

[impactX]

LOL hp per L and piston speed... whatever happened to hp per car and speed on the road?

[Great68]

Now I am no engineer,

Obviously not if you can't tell that the Mustang's torque curve is higher than the M3's throughout the ENTIRE range.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

^

lol

:haha:

[Jackygor]

Obviously not if you can't tell that the Mustang's torque curve is higher than the M3's throughout the ENTIRE range.

Sigh, I already said disregard the number and look at power delivery alone. I guess this is RS for ya. It would be pointless to compare power anyways since it was done on separate dyno. And yes, I acknowledge that the 5.0 would most likely generate more rwhp even if both cars were to have a dyno run side by side.

[XtC-604]

that M3 has a butterysmooth tq band, would love to rip on one on the track.

[ericthehalfbee]

Surprised no one brought this up yet!
So the Ford is rated at 412 HP but puts down 395 HP while the M3 is rated at 414 HP and puts down 350 HP?

Man there's nothing like paying for 400+ HP and geting 350 HP. ;)

Though this BMW dyno run is a little low - most E92's make around 360-365 HP at the rear wheels. Still... 35HP less than the Ford at the wheels? :rofl:

[unit]

no use arguing numbers...
need to see a nurburgring time!

[Tegra_Devil]

talk about needing new tires every month :)

http://blogs.mustang50magazine.com/6640640/miscellaneous/23l-whipple-supercharger-kit-for-the-2011-50l-mustang-gt/index.html

Our friends at Lethal Performance have got the scoop on Whipple's new 2.3-liter supercharger targeted at the ’11 Mustang GT. See it in their words after the jump...

We've got some exclusive info about the all new Whipple Supercharger kits for the 2011 5.0L Mustang GT. How about 600hp? That's right. The new 5.0L 4V motor for the 2011 GT rated at 412hp will soon have the ability to make 600hp. Thanks to our good friends at Whipple for making this possible with their W140ax 2.3L supercharger kit. The kit for the 2011 GT will be offered with a 5" air-to-water intercooler and massive "Crusher" style inlet system which was designed to minimize restriction and maximize airflow. The Crusher inlet for the 5.0L is almost identical in size to what Whipple currently offers for their 2.9L GT500 kit. The 5.0L should make around 600hp @ 7psi which is the maximum boost level recommended for the stock bottom end. Kits will be available in black or polished as well as complete kits with fuel system and tuning or tuner kits without fuel system and tuning. Be sure to stay posted as Lethal Performance will indeed be getting one of the first kits made to sport on our soon to be built Grabber Blue 2011 GT.

shouldnt this work pretty well with the Overenginneered 5.0L engine?


too bad ford didnt have a killer low financing option for 72 months :P

[thumper]

I just wanted to say an open thank-you to Rich Sandor for giving up his time to let me test drive the new Mustang 5.0's at his dealership, even though I said I was not a buyer. It's great to get to look at a new car without the sales pressure normally associated with it. Rich was very comprehensive in the specs, and gave me a detailed demonstration of how the Ford Sync system works. I was given a generous 30 minute test drive up to Cypress and back and really enjoyed the car... I wasn't driving stupid (wish I could same for the other drivers I had the misfortune of coming across during my drive), but now know how 400+hp can make you lose your mind :eek3:

So if you are looking for a new Ford, go find Rich because he needs the $$$ from the sales commission to feed his Porsche LOL :thumbsup:

[DC5-S]

this is going to be my next car!! always wanted a mustang, they sound soo nice with exhaust

[RabidRat]

@thumper - haha no doubt i'll be looking for Rich when i'm in the market for a Ford. which seems increasingly likely at this point with the stuff they're coming out with lately.

[too_slow]

I've only driven a rental 4.6GT Vert (autotragic) in Hawaii 2 Xmas's ago and I thought it was solid and tons of fun. I can't imagine what a 5.0 feels like!

I'll be contacting Rich soon as soon as my Mazda reaches 200,000kms.. :D

[GabAlmighty]

How about this, I buy the Mustang. With the money I've saved i'll put it into the Mustang and absolutely demolish the M3.

I can't believe this is being argued.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

Mehh ppl argue about anything.

They would argue about a civic vs a ferrari

How you can save a million dollar, make it faster yet still have extra money left.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[thumper]

the stock exhaust on the 5.0 sounds great. i don't see the point in anyone changing it out unless it's restrictive. it's very quiet if driven normally, but if you stand on it.... wow.

the engine has so much torque and i just wasn't used to it because i've been driving a little 4 banger for so long that needs to be wound out if i want any sort of power. with this engine there is power just about everywhere. it pulls in every gear, even 6th. i couldn't help but wonder if it would ever run out...

the steering is nice. very accurate. and it's assisted by an electric motor, not a conventional hydraulic pump. it didn't feel artificial, and the assist is variable, so it's not stupid heavy when parking or at low speeds, but i felt it get heavier the faster i drove.

the shift throws for the gearbox are really short. very smooth, not notchy, but it has more effort in it compared to, say, an honda s2000. there is a skip shift from 1st to 4th for fuel economy, but it only happens if you are in low rpms (i think below 2000rpm? maybe rich knows more). the clutch is not heavy, definitely feels better than the 2005 i drove long ago. i was off on my takeoff though... i haven't used a manual transmission regularly in awhile and my coordination was not the smoothest :(

unfortunately the cali special i drove does not come with the brembo brake package, so i have no idea whether it's worth it or not. rich did sell a 5.0 coupe to someone else that had the brembos and he says it's 100% worth it?

the car rides great, even on 19" wheels. no stupid rattles and nothing fell off. i still hate convertibles... with the top up i felt like i was sitting inside an oil drum. i miss the quarter windows and the backlight is really small, made worse by the raised rear wing the CS package comes with... and you can't get a rear view camera if you get the CS package. go figure?

wish the steering wheel was telescopic. at least it tilts. i don't know what ford was thinking but the power seat still has a manual seatback... wut? the backlit "mustang" logos on the door sills was pretty trick. the CS had a grained leather bolstered seats with carbon-fibre printed inserts for the centers and on the door panels. seat belt kept strangling me because of the lack of a b-pillar but rich said there was an extension that you can get to fix that. the center dome on the hood is really high. i didn't hit anyone or anything but i was a bit self conscious all the time. rich mentioned you can get an optional (non-functional) hood scoop as well...

i was a bit unhappy with how the trunk is finished. typical american car with the loose carpeted formed trim that make up the sides and the floor is not flat obviously because of the live axle. the rear says do a 50/50 split, but there is a big crossbeam under the parcel shelf that limits space. at least trunk lid opens right down to the bumper. if you've seen a camaro and the mail box slot they call a trunk opening you know what i mean.

i wrote too much...

[Phat_R]

How about this, I buy the Mustang. With the money I've saved i'll put it into the Mustang and absolutely demolish the M3.

I can't believe this is being argued.


Ya but it'll never look this sexy

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4819388446_f268ddfb02.jpg

I've driven the 2010 Mustang GT 5.0 for a few days a month ago. I was impressed with the power -- not so impressed with the vague steering and SCARY handling over 80 mph.....

but to each his own but for me M3 wins

I'm back to MILF hunting in my car..... see ya

[Lomac]

^^ Not a big fan of how the E92 'vert looks. The hard top is much sleeker, IMO. The Mustang, on the other hand, has a real nice menacing look to it.

[Rich Sandor]

100% agree with thumper's write up.

The track pack is a $1700 option.. worth every penny, imho.

Brakes on a car are the dead giveaway of whether or not it's a serious machine. I can't take a 'sports car' or 'muscle car' seriously unless it has at least 4-piston solid or monobloc calipers and thick, vented rotors.


Take rate on Brembo package for 2011 Ford Mustang higher than expected
by Drew Phillips (RSS feed) on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 9:27AM

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/07/brembomustangtakerate.jpg

2011 Ford Mustang GT – Click above for high-res image gallery

As a general rule, the things that us car journalists typically enjoy – things like manual transmissions, no-frills interiors and wagon variants – don't necessarily sell well. The same can be said for expensive non-powertrain performance options, which is why we were surprised to learn that the Brembo brake package for the 2011 Ford Mustang has been selling quite well.

According to Automobile Magazine, Ford says that the take rate for the option has "exceeded our expectations" and sales are "running substantially above last year's Track Pack." Perhaps we should give Mustang buyers, ostensibly only interested with drag racing, more credit than we initially thought.

Priced at $1,695, the Brembo brake package includes a set of 14-inch front discs with four-piston calipers, rear 11.8-inch discs with four-piston calipers, special 19-inch wheels, summer performance tires, and unique tuning for the suspension, stability control and steering.

Part of the reason for the high take rate might be that choosing the option is actually much cheaper than buying the same parts in the aftermarket. The 14-inch brake kit in the Ford Racing parts catalog will run you $1,489, which doesn't include the rear brake upgrade, and you still have to buy new wheels and tires. For aftermarket-obsessed Mustang owners, checking the option box to get it straight from the factory just makes more sense.

[Rich Sandor]

The M3 is a beautiful car. I would love to own one, although I think the Mustang is a better value for my purposes. I don't think it's fair to compare them though; they both have 4 wheels, 2-doors, and 400hp, but that's where the comparisons should end. They target two totally different demograpics.

[Volvo-brickster]

Ya but it'll never look this sexy

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4819388446_f268ddfb02.jpg



I'm back to MILF hunting in my car..... see ya

People can go hunt JB in surrey with a 5.0 :thumbsup::p

[thumper]

Ya but it'll never look this sexy

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4819388446_f268ddfb02.jpg

I've driven the 2010 Mustang GT 5.0 for a few days a month ago. I was impressed with the power -- not so impressed with the vague steering and SCARY handling over 80 mph.....

but to each his own but for me M3 wins

I'm back to MILF hunting in my car..... see ya

i wish i had your deep pockets, otherwise i would be all over an m3 as well, but that is not the case. even if i were able to scrape up enough for an m3, i wouldn't have anything left for a dinner and a movie after a successful MILF hunt LOL...

i'm a little confused... are you sure you drove a 2010 gt? if so, it would have been the old 4.6L v8 version, and not the 5.0. i'm also not 100% sure but i think the 2010 had the old hydraulic power steering assist... rich, are you out there?

also wondering what is your definition of "vague steering and scary handling"? my test drive didn't involve any autox manoevers and i only experienced the fast sweeping turns and a few of the tighter ones on cypress, and didn't feel anything amiss. but then again i only had 30 minutes to drive it, not days, and rich was in the car so i had to be on my best behaviour heh... the only time i was doing close to 80mph was trying to dodge that mouthbreather in the mercedes who thought merging onto the highway should be done at 50kmh, and there was no hysterics to report. rich regularly autocrosses a porsche and he had no complaints (albeit he may be biased since he sells fords lol)...

[too_slow]

Phat_R: Nice colour combo.. what front lip do you have installed?

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

sick m3

[Amaru]

^^ Not a big fan of how the E92 'vert looks. The hard top is much sleeker, IMO. The Mustang, on the other hand, has a real nice menacing look to it.

Thankfully all e92 'verts are hardtop convertibles!

(Granted, it's not a true hardtop, but it sure looks the same until you get up real close.)

[falcon]

Sit in an M3. Then sit in a Mustang. You'll quickly see why the BMW is double the price.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

^

really?


well obviously the bwm interior is much more refined...little things do add up

[umpadupa]

holy shit it took me forever 2 read through all the pages ( i did run out 2 mc dicks for some buy one get one free stuff haha)

i gotta say the stang is impressive and pretty smart; marketing to the general public and not being exclusive like the M3. Most ppl DD their cars and considering half the price and decent engine ( even in the V6 ponys wif 300hp) this will greatly help them out financially. Maybe help bump Ford out of the slums (well played Ford) and maybe build an even better rival for the M3 in the future?

but i must say, black M3 with red leather = SEX

honestly i would buy the ford; 1)because of the $$ and performance. i really dont need to drive a M3 with its maintenance cost, insurance and gas cost(not to mention i dont look near the the type of guy 2 drive one) 2) im not baller enough for the M3 LOL

[donjalapeno]

at the end of the day, your buddy calls you and says " i heard you got a new whip, what you get?" and you reply " "a bmw....m3" and by saying you driving a bmw it makes it all worth the extra dough:thumbsup:

[Jackygor]

Ya but it'll never look this sexy

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4819388446_f268ddfb02.jpg

I've driven the 2010 Mustang GT 5.0 for a few days a month ago. I was impressed with the power -- not so impressed with the vague steering and SCARY handling over 80 mph.....

but to each his own but for me M3 wins

I'm back to MILF hunting in my car..... see ya

Awesome whip! Sometimes performance isn't everything. Sometimes. ;)

[BMW135i]

They might have close 0-60 and 1/4 mile, but what about corning or time attack??

M3 is like you get what you paid for.

[Amaru]

M3 has better build quality, will drive better, and has more sex appeal. Probably still a bit faster on the track, more race-bred from top to bottom.

Mustang is outstanding value, dollar for dollar, and provides more than enough performance for the average consumer. Tons of usable power. Looks very good, and will certainly be cheaper to own.

Summary: People who can afford an M3 will buy an M3 because it's a better car. Nothing new there. But.... people who can't afford an M3 will buy a Mustang and still be happy because it's an excellent car with superb performance for half the price.

/thread

[Harvey Specter]

M3 has better build quality, will drive better, and has more sex appeal. Probably still a bit faster on the track, more race-bred from top to bottom.

Mustang is outstanding value, dollar for dollar, and provides more than enough performance for the average consumer. Tons of usable power. Looks good and will be cheaper to own.

Summary: People who can afford an M3 will buy an M3 because it's a better car. Nothing new there. But.... people who can't afford an M3 will buy a Mustang and still be happy because it's an excellent car with superb performance for half the price.

/thread


+1,000,000.

[mqr03]

These cars are not in the same class. While the mustang is silly fast in straight line 0-60 times it would totally fail on the track trying to turn the corners. Handling is not Mustangs forte. M3 is arguably one of the best luxury sports couple under $100,000.
If the mustang was free I would drive it and beat the crap out of the motor but the M3 is a car you baby like it was your own child. Thats the main differences of these two cars.

[GabAlmighty]

I'm all about maximization, in which case i'll take the Mustang. And that's alot coming from me.

[Z3guy]

How about this, I buy the Mustang. With the money I've saved i'll put it into the Mustang and absolutely demolish the M3.

I can't believe this is being argued.

How about this, go buy a Civic and drop a huge ass turbo on it... than you can demolish the M3 for even less money:thumbsup:

Just make sure you fold down the rear seats so you can fit your "chip on your shoulder" in your car.

[Z3guy]

Even though the engine performance stats are close in comparison.....there is no comparison between a solid axle car Vs a multi link susp set up....

[tofu1413]

cars aiming at different audiences...

its like comparing an STI/ Evo against... say, a Carrera 4S

[thumper]

Thankfully all e92 'verts are hardtop convertibles!

(Granted, it's not a true hardtop, but it sure looks the same until you get up real close.)

i think what the OP meant by hardtop was in reference to the solid-roofed coupe. the convertible with the hardtop up has funny window lines after the b-pillar IMO... it always looks off to me. no complaints with the top down however.

[thumper]

i was flipping channels last night and i caught the tail end of a rerun of a mid-ohio event on speed channel, where there was mustangs competing in the same class as the m3... what race was this?

[Rich Sandor]

Even though the engine performance stats are close in comparison.....there is no comparison between a solid axle car Vs a multi link susp set up....

Really? Is that why Ford has more points in the Rolex Grand-Am standings than Porsche?

2010 Grand-Am Continental Tire challenge.
Pos Manufacturer - PTS
1 BMW - 264
2 Ford - 239
3 Porsche - 205
4 Chevrolet - 178
5 Subaru WRX-STI - 110


Ford has perfected the live rear end, just like GM has perfected leaf springs in the Corvette, and Porsche has perfected the rear engine car.

[Rich Sandor]

These cars are not in the same class. While the mustang is silly fast in straight line 0-60 times it would totally fail on the track trying to turn the corners. Handling is not Mustangs forte. M3 is arguably one of the best luxury sports couple under $100,000.
If the mustang was free I would drive it and beat the crap out of the motor but the M3 is a car you baby like it was your own child. Thats the main differences of these two cars.

I should fail you. There have already been numerous 2011 mustang vs 2010 m3 track tests, and the stang matched or beat the m3 on most tracks. google it.

[BlackZRoadster]

Really? Is that why Ford has more points in the Rolex Grand-Am standings than Porsche?

2010 Grand-Am Continental Tire challenge.
Pos Manufacturer - PTS
1 BMW - 264
2 Ford - 239




BMW > Ford nuff said :troll:

[Rich Sandor]

Hehe, well I'm not saying that one is better than the other.. I'm just saying, the mustang is a capable car. It's a LOT more capable than I thought it was when I started selling them. The biggest problem is it's rare that a good driver ever gets behind the wheel of one to show what it can really do. I'm just trying to sway a few people who have their attitudes and opinions stuck in 1995.

[Chuck Norris]

I will be honest. I didn't read all seven pages but here is the reality.

First, until there are posted lap time, we won't know what these numbers really mean. So far though, the Mustang's numbers are impressive. Keep in mind that road feel and enjoyment to drive is a huge part of buying these cars.

Maybe some of you can notice 0.1 seconds while you're driving but I personally love the feel of the car. I'd rather drive a car that's 0.5 seconds slower to 60 and pull 0.2g's less on the skid pad but feels great to drive.

I can't comment on the Mustang but I've driven the new M3 and while I'm not a BMW man, it's a great car that's fun to drive.

Many people are going to buy the M3 because it's an M3. How many times do we hear people talk about how they want to buy a car so bad before they've even driven one or before it's even out yet?

We had a similar discussion when the new Z06 came out. The fact that it was faster than a Ferrari wasn't the point. Ferrari buyers are still going to buy their Ferraris. A faster car for half the price is impressive and if you're looking for a track car for the numbers, perhaps that's where loyalty can change.

There are a lot of people that have the money to buy both the M3 and the Mustang. Chances are, the Mustang drivers are going to buy the Mustang and the same for the BMW.

These new stats are impressive but it's not likely to sway a lot of buyers (some will though).

An example of branding would be a Toyota Camry and a Lexus ES. They are essentially the same car and yet they are very rarely cross shopped.

I want to see some head to head action with these two cars though. Looks interesting.

As an FYI, I like both the Stang and the BMW for different reasons and I'd buy neither.

[Z3guy]

Really? Is that why Ford has more points in the Rolex Grand-Am standings than Porsche?

2010 Grand-Am Continental Tire challenge.
Pos Manufacturer - PTS
1 BMW - 264
2 Ford - 239
3 Porsche - 205
4 Chevrolet - 178
5 Subaru WRX-STI - 110


Ford has perfected the live rear end, just like GM has perfected leaf springs in the Corvette, and Porsche has perfected the rear engine car.

No factory backing eh? with the right factory support and influence a Mustang can beat a F430 Scuderia...what is your pt? let's compare stock to stock on any racetrack.

Perfecting a live rear axle is like saying you perfected the 5sp transmission. There is absolutely no benefit to a live rear axle Vs multi link set ups for handling.

If the Mustang is a great track car, why don't you sell your Porsche and track a new Mustang?

[Z3guy]

I should fail you. There have already been numerous 2011 mustang vs 2010 m3 track tests, and the stang matched or beat the m3 on most tracks. google it.

for 1 lap? just like a M3 can hang with Porsches for a few laps until the brakes fade and tires turn to mush......

[mqr03]

I should fail you. There have already been numerous 2011 mustang vs 2010 m3 track tests, and the stang matched or beat the m3 on most tracks. google it.

I just did a search and while the mustang came close to the m3, the M3 still beat the mustang in the tests.

[Rich Sandor]

No factory backing eh? with the right factory support and influence a Mustang can beat a F430 Scuderia...what is your pt? let's compare stock to stock on any racetrack.

Perfecting a live rear axle is like saying you perfected the 5sp transmission. There is absolutely no benefit to a live rear axle Vs multi link set ups for handling.

If the Mustang is a great track car, why don't you sell your Porsche and track a new Mustang?

Believe me I have seriously considered it, along with a Z06. However I am still a Porsche fanboy at heart. Also, true race cars are far from stock. Once you strip the interior, add a cage, delete all the rubber bushings and add a serious suspension with serious tires, you really start to equalise all the cars. The economics of having experience with my car and a million spare parts overshadow the small advantage other cars may have.

As I said before, I'm not hailing the mustang as a better sportscar than an M3 or any Porsche, that would be silly. I am saying that it's a hell of a lot better than most car snobs would like to acknowledge.

[Z3guy]

^ I agree with you....for $40K give or take...the 5.0 Mustang is the best bang for you buck car....it is also very versatile....you can do straight line burnouts, you can drift it, you can autocross and you hang out with the big boys in most turns......the new 5.0 is supremely superior than the new Camaro SS when is comes to handling.

Just drives me crazy when someone looks at the stats and says the Mustang performs better than a M3.....once you drive both, you realize both are great cars....but you can't really compare them......

[ilvtofu]

I just did a search and while the mustang came close to the m3, the M3 still beat the mustang in the tests.


correct me if i'm wrong but you said earlier
While the mustang is silly fast in straight line 0-60 times it would totally fail on the track trying to turn the corners. Handling is not Mustangs forte.

IMO if you think that a car that handles almost as good as an e92 m3 is "totally fail on the track" then i think you should get your brain checked

[Rich Sandor]

^ thank you.

[mqr03]

correct me if i'm wrong but you said earlier


IMO if you think that a car that handles almost as good as an e92 m3 is "totally fail on the track" then i think you should get your brain checked

I had a brain lapse. I was thinking of the earlier year mustangs. Didn't know they came out with a better model. With that said I still would buy a import if I buy a new car. One of the reasons I'm planning on buying a Lotus Elise.

[ilvtofu]

^the point of this thread was to highlight the improvement of not just previous generations, but even the difference with 2010 and 2011 mustang GTs. :rolleyes:

[mqr03]

The ford mustang has been around for how many years?. Any car can be improved if given enough time. It shouldn't have taken this long for ford to make a car rival a more expensive car in terms of performance. even Chevy I have more respect for because they've made the corvette which has always been a sweet car especially the Z06 which shits on cars twice its price.

[Z3guy]

^ true about the Corvette....but I bet you the Mustang has made Ford way more money than the Corvette has for Chevy.....Ford has always been focused on making the Mustang affordable.....there is a reason the Mustang has always kicked the Camaro/trans am in unit sales.......

[ericthehalfbee]

The M3 is hands down the best handling sports sedan out there. Any magazine that has tested it has said so. Any professional driver who has spent time behind the wheel has said so. And, of course, every M3 owner who bought one also says so.

But do the owners say so because they know the subtle differences between an M3 and similar sports sedans and have the skill & knowledge to define the capabilities of each one?

No.

They bought the M3 because the magazines said it was the best. And all the knowledge they share about the M3 to their buddies also comes from these magazines, and not from personal experience. Bottom line: 98% of M3 owners know shit about driving.

Same thing with the 911. Very good car, but mostly bought by people with money and zero driving knowledge.


So it's really funny hearing people talk about these cars like they have so much personal racing experience that qualifies them to actually make a statement like "the M3 feels much more stable in the corners, and I was able to consistently achieve higher exit speeds blah blah blah".

[roastpuff]

Saw the 5.0 today... Track Pack equipped. Definitely hot, and much more attention-grabbing than the M3 just because of how common BMWs are.

I wanna go see Rich and test drive now, haha.

[too_slow]

^I think Rich should offer a RS test drive event of the 5.0 and and 3.7 with the Track pack/Pony pack!

[Rich Sandor]

If I had the inventory, I would!!! But we only have one 5.0L and it's already getting too many miles on it from test drives!!!

[umpadupa]

^ RS SPECIAL DISCOUNT????? :troll:

[tofu1413]

If I had the inventory, I would!!! But we only have one 5.0L and it's already getting too many miles on it from test drives!!!

ur not the only one.. we have wayy too many 2011 cayenne test drives.. and the demo is logging serious mileage!

[Phat_R]

i wish i had your deep pockets, otherwise i would be all over an m3 as well, but that is not the case. even if i were able to scrape up enough for an m3, i wouldn't have anything left for a dinner and a movie after a successful MILF hunt LOL...

i'm a little confused... are you sure you drove a 2010 gt? if so, it would have been the old 4.6L v8 version, and not the 5.0. i'm also not 100% sure but i think the 2010 had the old hydraulic power steering assist... rich, are you out there?

also wondering what is your definition of "vague steering and scary handling"? my test drive didn't involve any autox manoevers and i only experienced the fast sweeping turns and a few of the tighter ones on cypress, and didn't feel anything amiss. but then again i only had 30 minutes to drive it, not days, and rich was in the car so i had to be on my best behaviour heh... the only time i was doing close to 80mph was trying to dodge that mouthbreather in the mercedes who thought merging onto the highway should be done at 50kmh, and there was no hysterics to report. rich regularly autocrosses a porsche and he had no complaints (albeit he may be biased since he sells fords lol)...

this is the car I drove:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4834604149_099b3311f4_b.jpg

the unsprung weight of the wheels, tires and suspension is pretty high --- the car I drove had 19"s i think -- it would be even heavier with bigger optional rims/tires. This is what makes the Stang feel HEAVY and ponderous in my opinion. The suspension just fees like a typical heavy American car -- more like an SUV than a sports car.

i had the Stang for three full days -- did several smoky burnouts in parking lots, tested the steering at highway speed and on on/offramps.

I've also driven an older Shelby Type H in Vegas for a weekend. That was a fun straight line car -- but still scary at the edge of traction limits.

[thumper]

i don't see brembos on it... i think those might be 18's? i really don't know enough unfortunately. was that a base model?

[Phat_R]

it was a gt with the 5.0 -- standard trim

no GT500 brakes

[thumper]

i'm at work so i don't have the documentation rich gave me... but without the brembos i think you get the smaller wheels, all season tires, and standard suspension.

i have to go back and read, but when you order the brembos there is some sort of reprogramming to the computer that handles the traction control system in the car (i don't know the name ford calls it... TCS?)

are you comparing your itr to the mustang? if so then yes i'm in agreement that the mustang feels like a brick. but having owned an itr in the past and now that i'm much older (and more mature but many question that :p ) i still like the mustang more :thumbsup:

ugh i need a better paying job to pay for the toys :cry:

[Jackygor]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1010_2011_2011_ford_mustang_gt_vs_2011_bmw_m3_comp arison/index.html

http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadtests/coupes/1010_2011_2011_ford_mustang_gt_vs_2011_bmw_m3_comp arison/34174689+pheader/2011-BMW-M3-coupe-2011-mustang-GT-front-ends-2.jpg

[flagella]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muRC7WJHgmA

[rJZx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muRC7WJHgmA

And here is the track comparison, quite surprising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOwSPccbzl4

[umpadupa]

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...

SOOOOO... as we can see from the video... ill pay for the spoon.. plastic or metal?

[asahai69]

we still gonna compare mustangs to civics?

[JiggaZed]

we still gonna compare mustangs to civics?

Yes.

[asahai69]

^ i feel sorry for civic owners then

[Gee.Tee.Ar]

wow the new mustang is a hell of a car

[1exotic]

wow the new mustang is a hell of a car

too bad it's ugly.

[asahai69]

too bad it's ugly.

looks are subjective. the numbers are real

[CanadaGoose]

too bad it's ugly.

Styling is subjective. Performance is undeniable.

But holy shit, hell is freezing over...

The M3 is obviously the more desirable car, but at almost 80 grand to put up performance figures a car half it's value can touch? Is it worth it?

I would feel like a total chump if I dropped $30,000 extra, which is basically another car, and had to redline every gear to shit and still couldn't shake a fat, ugly ass mustang off my tail... even having to worry about it completely walking me if I miss a shift...and the fact it's fat and ugly makes it 10 times worse. M3 costs $30,000 extra for what now? A nicer dashboard and door panels? :gay: :p

[DC5-S]

my next car is 5.0.. maybe in a couple years

[ericthehalfbee]

Waiting for BMW's Defender Of The Faith, Z3guy to chime in....

I priced a Mustang and added every option I could and it came to around $37K. Base for an M3 is $71K. That's $34K more, and although I've never gone to a BMW dealership to look at an M3 I have a sneaky suspicion you're not going to see one for $71K.


Remember kiddies, Mustangs are only fast in a straight line.

[seakrait]

so just some suspension work on the 'stang and we're good to go, right? ;)

[CPE]

so just some suspension work on the 'stang and we're good to go, right? ;)

That's what the new boss 302 is for. :thumbsup:

[Rich Sandor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muRC7WJHgmA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOwSPccbzl4

[SpuGen]

^
http://www.revscene.net/forums/m3-vs-mustang-t623090.html?p=7079156#post7079156

[1exotic]

Remember kiddies, Mustangs are only fast in a straight line.

.... and people who drive them think they're bad ass and king of the road driving there automatic chunk of ugly shit.

... just an american fan boys car.

numbers aren't evening.

[Lomac]

numbers aren't evening.

Funny, numbers are exactly how this argument got started. The comparison isn't about panel gaps or whether the interior is made from the finest Dutch Belted cow hide... it's about performance numbers between two cars that, for the standard car buyer, are on two opposite ends of the pricing spectrum.

[ericthehalfbee]

numbers aren't evening.

Who likes to mod car with cheap past?

[Ferra]

These 2 cars aren't really comparable....1 is a classy, luxury euro sport car, and the other one is an American muscle.

It is like comparing a $15,000 motorcycle vs a $1,000,000 Ferrari Enzo. From the numbers, both are about the same speed (actually..i think a 15k bike will be faster from 0-100km & for 1/4 mile). But they are a different class of vehicle and you can't say a 15k bike is > a million $ enzo.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

Who likes to mod car with cheap past?

parts?

[ericthehalfbee]

It is like comparing a $15,000 motorcycle vs a $1,000,000 Ferrari Enzo.

No it's not. Both these cars have the same HP, weigh about the same, are RWD and can carry 4 passengers. We're not comparing a Ford Mustang to a $1,000,000 exotic, we're comparing it to BMW 3 Series, and it holds its own quite well.

Very impressive job by Ford.

I take back my comments last year about Ford's shitty V6 and V8 offerings they had when compared to GM's new engines in the Camaro. Ford really stepped up to the plate with the new Mustang and especially with the engine choices.

[Gee.Tee.Ar]

^ haha the bmw fanboys are choked! Anyways.. I think the mustang will be a better car performance wise as there is still room for improvement for the engine. The m3's engine is basically fully tuned and it would cost a small fortune to tune it.

[umpadupa]

i really wouldnt mind having less "class" if it means i can supercharge my Mustang GT wif up-graded shelby brakes/suspension and still have 25k+ left for other shit

[asahai69]

.... and people who drive them think they're bad ass and king of the road driving there automatic chunk of ugly shit.

... just an american fan boys car.

numbers aren't evening.

take out the word "american" replace it with japanese and you could be talking about a toyota supra. :eek:

[tofu1413]

take out the word "american" replace it with japanese and you could be talking about a toyota supra. :eek:

you're correct sir.

[Nightwalker]

My mind is blown.

FUCK, Mustang GTs run 12s and lap as fast as BMW M3s now?!?!

A Mustang GT is as fast as my Stealth Twin Turbo?!?!!

Fuck me, I need some bigger turbos.

[ericthehalfbee]

Funny how the original thread was very active and grew quickly.

Then the Mustang matches the M3 on the track and suddenly everyone has all but disappeared from this thread.

[too_slow]

I wasn't a huge fan of the styling on the new 5.0 until I saw this

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/06/07-vgj-rtr-mustang.jpg

:drool:drool:drool:drool:drool

[flagella]

Another reason to like 5.0:

http://jalopnik.com/5619496/mustang-50+liter-supercharger-a-624-hp-tire+shredding-bargain

[asahai69]

amaru pulled a tupac. nobody can find him.

[Meowjin]

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