On the street I would say the Mustang most likely has better punch from any speed since it doesn't have to wind up to 8k to make power. Is the M3 like an S2000 where it doesn't do squat unless it's screaming off the rev limiter? I've heard paopel say it doesn't make much until you get to revving it up a bit but might be wrong.

 

That's a myth.

The M3's V8 feels great everywhere. It very drivable at any engine speed. But it just freakin' screams at 8300 rpm.

 

Was it a DSG car Z? IMO, BMW's VANOS and a DSG would make for a very tractable high reving car.

 

Parting with the money by purchasing either one is the only vote that actually counts.

 

the M has very little torque. 8300 vs. 7000 is kind of significant. even at similar power to weight ratios, the extra gearing will pull hard on the road course. initial testing has the 2011 lapping the same as a m3.

same hp rating, but giving up a lot of torque for the same weight. the winner will depend on the road course run. at road atalanta id expect the GT to win especially on the back straight before the down hill, and just past the start/finish straight.


laguna seca would be a M3 track imo.

 

bmw's vanos has NO advantage over the 5.0 ti-vct and eec-v pcm. throttle body location being the small advantage for the bimmer.

 

IMO - the M3 seems to have absolutely no advantage over the new 'Stang - other than price and prestige.

And as for the Bang for the Buck - IMO the Mustang would the clear winner of this contest.

 

Well, the sedan has the advantage of carrying rear passengers slightly easier

I'm sure the M3 is a little more comfortable to drive everyday too. But in a pure performance comparison Mustang GT FTW.

[open can of worms]Haven't seen any nonsense about IRS v SRA yet [/open can of worms]

 

I am sure it will come soon.

Many people believe that any IRS is better than any SRA.

 

I drove the standard M6 trans.

 

Numbers aside, I just don't see much of a comparison between a Mustang (any Mustang) and the M3. I guess I don't want to ever see Mustang in that sort of category either - takes them out of the hands of those that don't want to spend that kind of money on a toy.

 

The Camaro is a bigger car.
I tend to agree.

 

I recently had the chance to ride in the back of a new M3 convertible SMG and I have to say I was disappointed with the acceleration. I'm sure the convertible with three people in it was heavy, but I still expected it to 'feel' fast. Maybe it was, but it sure didn't feel like it. I was surprised. I don't have anything against BMW's so I wasn't looking for things wrong with it.

I didn't get a chance to drive the car, so I can't vouch for the handling.

 

I wasn't making a comparison, just commenting on how VANOS and a DSG would fix a problem with what would otherwise be a peaky gutless engine.

Same with the 5.0, its cylinderhead arrangement does not favor low RPM operation (not speaking of 4v DOHC engines in general, just the coyote heads in particular), however through its clever fuel injection strategy and the use of ti-vct it has a pretty nice torque curve (and the extra liter helps )

 

Disturbingly there are some Mustang fans who want an M3 killer no matter the cost! And I'm not talking SE or SVT material, I'm talking run of the mill GTs.


IMO part of the problem is people see the Mustang as Ford's flagship performance car (which Ford certainly hasn't discouraged) rather than being an affordable perfomrance car for the average guy.

No to mention the unreal expectation that each successive generation has to significatly eclipse the performance of the model before it.