You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabidRat
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.
Offtopic now, but personally I wouldn't be buying the Mustang for a GT car at all. It'd be a daily / track car just like my s2k is now. I'm just waiting on the car to come out and get more extensively reviewed on road course performance, and pure driving enjoyment as you mentioned. Pending that, there's a good chance I might replace my car with one!
Mustang? A GT car? You've got to be kidding me. It is not, never has been and never will be a GT car. The M3 is much, much closer to being a GT car (think space/pace/grace), and it isn't a GT car unto itself.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________ "The guy in the CR-V meanwhile, he'll give you a haughty glare. He's responsibly trying to lessen his impact, but there you go lumbering past him with your loud V8, flouting the new reality. You may as well go do some donuts in a strawberry patch and slalom through a litter of kittens." Dan Frio, Automotive Editor, Edmunds
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.
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?
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 155
Thanked 113 Times in 27 Posts
Failed 3 Times in 2 Posts
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.
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 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.
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.....
__________________
16 GT3 RS
11 R8 V10
17 Long beach blue M2
86 944 Turbo with 340rwhp Lindsay Racing kit
15 991 PTS GT3
18 VW Golf R
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.
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.
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.
in this comparision, it's actually irrellevant that the m3's torque line is flat, because the mustang still makes at least 50-100 more torque throughout the entire range where the m3 is flat.
although I still believe it's pointless to compare the two cars. they happen to have similar performance, but that's where the similarities end.
Both awesome cars. I would consider myself blessed to own either one. I feel lucky that I've gotten to drive bmws/m3s at the track/skidpad, and that I get to drive new mustangs at work whenever I want to. And honestly I think anyone who trash talks either car is just showing their ignorance or prejudice.
LOL hp per L and piston speed... whatever happened to hp per car and speed on the road?
__________________ 08 CBR600RR 03 IS300
Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
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.
