i been readin stats on the new M3.
Though INCREDIBLY impressive (and im a former e46 M3 owner) i dont think the stats are really far away from the Mustang GT with bolt on mods and tune, suspension mods.

414hp at 8300 RPM, 296 torq at 3900 RPM.

A GT with CAI, tune and other bolt ons can be around 335-340hp and 350 torq. at very low rpms. the 335-340hp is also at low RPMS. Our GT's redline at 6500. What if we redlined at 7500?

I'm not saying a slightly GT can blow away a NEW M3, but the numbers are not too far off

 

First off, the GT's redline at 6,000, and have a fuel shutoff at 6,250 not 6,500.

Second, without some more parts than just easy bolt ons, the 4.6 is not really a 7,500 rpm machine. It could do it, for a while, but the pistons and rods are just not designed for that rpm and would be prone to failure. I'm not sure if the valve springs would like that abuse either, as they are not designed for it either. You might encounter some floating valves. I don't know for sure, because I've never had mine higher than 6,500.

 

i tihnk if you added:
Cold Air Intake
Tune
Throttle Body
Plenum
Cam
Full Exhaust
4.10's

and had some good driving skills you could hang with one.


700!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Base Price on the 4.0L 414HP M3 is $63K. I would suggest that a $63K Mustang could give this thing a lesson in acceleration. Although the two platforms are appealing to separate consumer segments.
Anyone with $63K in their pocket looking for a snooty rocket better look at the Cayman S.

 

does the SCT tune raise the rev limiter? therefore the redline goes up? isnt that part of the reason for high hp and torq with a tune?

i have no doubt the new M3 will perform better overall, but im sayin...the numbers are NOT too far off where a slightly modd'd GT can hang with one

 

You can change the rev limiter with a tuner - but thats not necessarily the reason for higher HP or torque. If you have ever seen a chart from a dyno run, HP and torque begin to fall off at some point (usually before redline). The tuner provides canned tunes or tune customization for things like pulse width, timing, spark, etc - thats what drives the HP and torque numbers.

Page

 

Thanks page. i figured...a GT with simple bolt-ons...tuning...can get about 340hp and 350 torq a low RPMs...

then some simple suspsension mods..we should be able to hang with the new M3 a bit...

on the autobahn we are TOAST though haha

 

I don't think the 3v heads flow enough to make power at 7500rpm.

 

maybe a 4v?

 

While it wouldn't be very hard at all to get a Stang GT up to E92 M3 levels of acceleration, that is but one aspect of overall performance and the M3 would pretty much crush the Stang everywhere else (braking, handling, etc.), especially on vagaries of real world roads (as opposed to smooth racing and test tracks). Sounds great too, kinda a mix of V8 burble with a sharp, high-rpm Euro scream.

Of course, the M3 will cost about double what a Stang GT does, but you do get a boatload of refinement and luxury features, so a little of an apples to oranges aspect here. One could could probably lavish $30K on a Stang and get its test track numbers up to or beyond the M3, but it would likely be a rather crude and brutish beast at best -- though that might be appealling, in short doses, in its own way -- but have nowhere near the refinement and broad capability of the M3.

While both are performance coupes, they really are very different in many ways and aim for different goals, which both seem to meet quite well. That said, the E92 M3 is a fantastic machne, its engine is a technical tour de force and a chassis that can take advantage of it all pretty much on any paved road.

Now if that winning Lotto ticket would come home to daddy and I could upgrade from my E46 M3...

 

I think you're right on the money (pun intended). I think it is the character of the machines--designed for different goals that separate the two even more than the dollars.

Even if you were to go for the Shelby Super Snake, more nearly in line with the price of the M3, the character of the two vehicles is still completely different. (Road and Track has an interesting test of the snake http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6056 )

They are both performance machines in a pricey--but not completely outrageaously priced, neighborhood. (Compared to a Porsche Carrera GT.) The M3 and the Mustang offer distinctly different types of performance. (Cabernet Sauvignon, or tequila shooter!)

 

though its different...we can always compare things based on the fact that they are both 2 door coupes

i know my buddy who is gonna get the new M3 is gonna want to race me! LOL

a european mag. compared a mustang GT to the 335i coupe and like the GT better

 

i would take the Supersnake over the new m3 any day of the week

 

y'know depsite all the different tech, its interesting how close these cars are in tq/liter

BMW M3
414 x 5252 / 8300 = 262 ft/lbs (65.5 tq/liter) - (103.5 hp/liter)

Corvette Z06
500 x 5252 / 6000 = 438 ft/lbs ( 62.6 tq/liter) - (71.4 hp/liter)

Mustang GT
300 x 5252 / 5750 = 274 ft/lbs. (59.6 tq/liter) - (65.2 hp/liter)

Mustang GT w/FRPP tune
320 x 5252 / 5750 = 292 ft/lbs. (63.5 tq/liter) - (69.6 hp/liter)

599 GTB
620 x 5252 / 7600 = 428 ft/lbs (71.3 tq/liter) - (103.3 hp/liter)

From the highest to the lowest only an 11 ft/lbs. spread at peak HP

 

True but what makes a difference is the HP or TQ per pound on each and the curves on them. I'd take a car that makes 400 hp at a much lower rpm and has a fatter curve than one that makes 414 at 8K+ RPM's.

 

Yeah, makes 'em alot easier to drive versus the need to beat it like a hard headed mule or the needed for a XXX speed transmission, just mash the gas for instant gratification.

 

Yao, by any chance do you know what magazine this was in??

 

a finland or polish magazine. dont remember.

someone on this forum posted the exact article. really cool stuff...

at the end of the comparison, they liked the stang better...

 

Although fun to drive, you are actually much better off with the RPM if you are talking straight out peformance. RPM is the king of acceleration. On our 4v Pure Street cars which are naturally aspirated, we spin them to 9,000 RPM. Simply put, if you take 2 cars that both make 400 hp and one makes it at 6k and the other at 8k, the 8k car will be quicker if gearing on both cars is optimal.

As far as getting a 3v to spin higher, it wouldn't be difficult at all. You would need to go into the motor, but the heads are easily up to the task. with a little port work, cams, rods, pistons and good hardware, I think a 3v would love RPM.

 

very interesting Kenb. thanks for this...