M/T Comparo: 2011 Ford Mustang GT vs 2011 BMW M3

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben99GT

Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
4,380
Location
MS
2011 BMW M3 w/ Competiton Package - 2011 Ford Mustang GT w/ Performance Package

PRICE AS TESTED: $67,025 - $40,275
0-60: 4.4 sec - 4.4 sec
QUARTER MILE: 12.8 sec @ 110.9 mph - 12.7 sec @ 111.6 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH: 110 ft - 108 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION: 0.95 g (avg) - 0.96 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT: 25.1 sec @ 0.74 g (avg) - 24.9 sec @ 0.76 g (avg)
EPA CITY/HWY ECON: 14/20 mpg - 17/26 mpg
CURB WEIGHT: 3544 lb - 3616 lb
POWER (SAE NET): 414 hp @ 8300 rpm - 412 hp @ 6500 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET): 295 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm - 390 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm

WILLOW SPRINGS RESULTS
Lap time, sec: 87.67 - 87.76
Top speed, mph: 107.7 - 106.8
Highest accel g: 0.47 - 0.39
Highest braking g: 0.90 - 0.95
Max lateral g: 1.32 - 1.30

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coup...nd_pricing.html
 
I read the whole comparo. The Mustang can be had for less than the one tested. They ordered some options that could be skipped.
 
Mustang!! Very cool - thanks for posting that. I haven't been reading car mags much lately. Mustang is just a hair more nose heavy, but the equality is amazing. Then say cost and made in USA. Case closed.
 
I'm still a little puzzled by this comparison. The M3 is much more upscale and obviously better suited to high speeds; the Mustang is more focused and a lot cheaper. Ordering the M3 with the competition package and the Mustang fully loaded just distorts both cars IMO; springs and shoes don't focus the M3 much, and optional extras don't make the Mustang more refined. I'm also having a hard time thinking of what kind of person would cross-shop the two. It seems very apples-to-oranges.

Most of all, I really am not looking forward to hearing people taking this exclusively on-the-racetrack review and... extrapolating.

Then again, for Ford to pull this off with a live rear-axle car, turning it from a muscle car into a genuine bona fide sports car, is a BIG deal. If the regular GT does this well, the Boss 302 will be excellent.
 
What was the point of re-running the drag strip comparisons? Obviously the cars were very close and the driver's ability had more bearing on the outcome than the cars performance. Apples to Oranges again, but if it sells magazines???
 
The new M3 is a lot more car than th Stang. I think almost anyone would agree.

But Ford deserves praise for the performance per dollar value.
 
Perhaps for you, and that's your choice. And note the difference could easily be way more than 27k.

But many would agree that that there's more than just numbers to the driving experience. Go take a test drive in a new M3 and compare to the Stang. I sincerely doubt the average BMW shopper will even visit the Ford dealer!

Then park in any large shopping center and tell me how many of each car you see.

Then check back in after 100k miles. The jury is still out on how the new engine in the Stang will hold up. Time will tell.

I have yet to see anything American stay as tight and quiet as the German cars in general. I do not mean to imply they are not problematic, just that they offer an ENTIRELY different feel.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'm still a little puzzled by this comparison. The M3 is much more upscale and obviously better suited to high speeds; the Mustang is more focused and a lot cheaper.

Then again, for Ford to pull this off with a live rear-axle car, turning it from a muscle car into a genuine bona fide sports car, is a BIG deal. If the regular GT does this well, the Boss 302 will be excellent.



Agreed
 
I think the engine in the Ford will hold up just fine. It's all the other stuff that deteriorates around the car.

Not just Fords, but many others. BMWs are probably even worse in some respects, but that's based on what I've read, not personal experience. Perhaps it just seems worse because of the higher costs associated with repairs.

But having to have your battery replaced at the dealer so the computer in the car knows you have a new battery and it deals with it correctly seems to be a needless over-complication of things.
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy
It isn't $27k more car, not with numbers this close!

They said in the article that the Mustang's suspension starts to show weakness above 60 or 70 MPH. That isn't even where the M3 wakes up and starts to stretch its legs. If it's where the Mustang starts to get flustered, there is a HUGE gap between the two at high speeds.

The Mustang is no quicker from a dig, despite having a live rear axle, 100 lb-ft more torque, and only 50 lbs more weight.

At the end of the article, they say that they don't want to compare the Mustang GT to cars like the RS5 and CTS-V OFF the track because that would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The M3 plays in that league easily, on or off the track.

It doesn't take a lot to make a car fast in a straight line and quick on a race track at low-to-moderate speeds. The M3 is better in the areas that are expensive to develop. IMO, what's impressive is that the current M3 is ONLY $27k more than the Mustang.
wink.gif
 
The key there is: as far as pretty much anything you'll have an opportunity to do on regular roads in the US, they're pretty close. At sustained high speeds, or other things not typically experienced on a regular basis in the US, the M3 comes into its own.
 
Ford has nothing that is comprehensively upscale and/or entirely focused on being rewarding to drive.

BMW has nothing truly budget-conscious, particularly fuel efficient, or primarily practical.

The only overlap I can imagine is for a middle-age guy trying to decide between a Z4 and a Mustang for his mid-life crisis. Am I missing something here?
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour

But having to have your battery replaced at the dealer so the computer in the car knows you have a new battery and it deals with it correctly seems to be a needless over-complication of things.


This is precisely the thing that drives me crazy. Particularly when some dealers (BMW) are 50 miles away, and want $100/hr to do this work.

What I would like to see is a database on particular cars and their "built-in" stealership requirements.

It turns out that I've long been a fan of both Mustangs and BMWs, so this article is very interesting to me.
 
I've driven both and see things differently. I'm not comparing the whole lines offered in their entirety. I agree, that would be foolish.

When I had my 03 Cobra, my best friend was driving an M5, I wouldn't have traded him even up. Just my opinion but the M5 was boring to drive in comparison to my Cobra. Meanwhile the Mustang has made vast improvements while the M class has gotten heavier and more complicated to own....just my opinion here.

Thats just me, not saying that holds true for every driver. But to not even look is part of the false superiority that many, not all, but many Bimmer buyers buy into lock stock and barrel.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d

The only overlap I can imagine is for a middle-age guy trying to decide between a Z4 and a Mustang for his mid-life crisis. Am I missing something here?


All males between 40 and 60 is a pretty big market.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: addyguy
It isn't $27k more car, not with numbers this close!

They said in the article that the Mustang's suspension starts to show weakness above 60 or 70 MPH.


They said the SHOCKS start to get flustered, they also said that the Mustang had better balance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top