i tend to disagree. i had 2001 911 and want to know who it attracted? car guys. middle aged car guys. i can't count the number of stares and comments at gas stations, etc. that i got from. . .middle-aged guys. i only got a couple of looks from the ladies.

when i got my new GT a few weeks ago, want to know who i attracted? you guessed it, middle-aged car guys. they will literally stop in the parking lot or driving by my house, etc. to stop and jaw a bit about my new GT.

so from $$$ german "super" cars to a 2011 GT, what i've got is a middle-aged car guy magnet.

 

Remember some of us BMW owners have a BMW for a daily and a Mustang for a toy..... so no we're not all bad, LOL.

 

That was said with a heavy dose of sarcasm.

 

But obviously that is not REALLY the case. Again, just because the gov't lets these companies get away with that, doesn't make it true.

 

Depends on how you drive it. Using the government standards for when to shift, they are the same.

If I stay in first gear and don't shift to second until redline in my 3.31 car it will perform much worse than the 3.73 geared car following the governments standards.

 

If you read a window sticker under the EPA Hwy mileage it states "Expected range for most drivers 21-31 MPG your actual mileage will vary". Any variations with wheel/tire/gear ratios could easily be accounted for by that statement.

 

back on topic of the performance aspect of the 11GT and the M3 and enough talking about gas mileage with performance cars...

 

The EPA testing is done with base cars and standard equipment, no options.

 

The EPA test is done on all drivetrain options which include engine/transmission/bodystyle/gear ratios.

 

Fuel mileage is a performance aspect. Not in the same right as quarter mile or 0-60 but think about it. It takes BMW making a car getting that terrible a fuel mileage to sacrifice for performance. The Mustang obviously sacrificed only a small amount for fuel mileage while still coming out ahead in overall performance. To think that fuel mileage is no aspect is absurd. When cars run on air then we can talk about only the other performance. I'm not trying to stir any pots but I think people are failing to see the complexities that Ford has overcome with the Mustang. It's an every man's M.

Anyway, not to start a fire, just the way I see it.

I am also not on the same page that the Mustang would lose out in a tighter course. It seems as though even the pro driver comments on the Mustang's turning abilities. While in a tighter course, the corners are taken more slowly I really think the Mustang would still surprise. I know that my 335i will gracefully take a good turn but I would never auto cross it as it doesn't turn nearly as sharp as either of the 2011's I have driven. But it's confident at speed. Yes, my 335i, not an M3, just comparing what I know.

The M3 guys really are taking this very gracefully though and it's appreciated. I haven't even looked on C5 or anything.

New springs and shocks on the Stang would certainly help the Mustang quite a bit but it can't be coincidental that BMW uses large brake calipers and rotors on all 4 wheels for no reason at all. With a ton of braking force at the front, the force creates a pivot point. Yes, most of the force from weight is going forward, the brakes cause it to go downward, but equalizing this action on the rear would cause a force out of the rear of the car and down, the car can do a few things but it will at least do those things equally. Given there is a structure between the car's axles the frame will bear on the load as well as the body to bring the back end of the car back to earth.

Oh well, I certainly am enjoying this thread, go Mustang, Yay!

 

I agree on the gas mileage and how Ford has been successful. I was more or less just being a smart *** with my post....

I love that Yay picture....LMFAO!!!

 

You'll have to show me where it states that in the EPA tresting regulations, I couldn't find it.

 

It's all good, I have been holding on to this post since yesterday and didn't have time to post anything. I'm glad the comparo was done, it's really incredible.

I have been looking for a good YAY picture to use.

 

I said this (in part) in my other post and I'm surprised none of you commented on it or noticed it either:


The M3 got around the track .09 seconds faster with the pro driver (about 1 foot ahead), and Motor Trend declares that a win, and the M3 the winner because of it.

However, the Mustang stopped from 60-0 2 feet shorter than the M3, but they declare that test a tie.
Further, if you watch the drag racing section of the video, the Mustang actually wins by a bumper or a bit more in several of those drags they declared a tie. It didn't look like the M3 ever one by on any of them. But they keep going until the Mustang beats the M3 by several feet.

So again, on the track when the BMW wins by a foot and a mere .09 seconds they declare it a win, but when the Mustang time and time again beat the M3 in the 1/4 mile by 1 foot or .09 seconds they declared it a tie and made the Mustang win by several feet before they declared it a true win.

WTF Motor Trend.
I love the M3 and think it's one of the greatest cars made, but do you think you could have at least some journalistic integrity and be fair.
If you declare 1 foot and .09 seconds a win for the BMW (and even giving it the overall "win" based on just that sole test) maybe you should try being fair and giving the Mustang the "win" when it wins by 1 foot or .09 seconds (or especially when it wins by twice that margin and you still don't give the Mustang the win in that category).


Further, why did they order nearly every option on the Mustang (short of the glass roof)?
Though minor the addition of Nav, cold weather package and some of the other stuff add 10-20 lbs to the weight of the Mustang.
So in the interest of getting the price up to be more like the M3's they make it a bit heavier and therefore perform a bit worse, but they then order the BEST handling M3, disregarding the fact the Competition Package adds $2500 to it's price?

WTF? Order the BEST handling M3 instead of the cheaper regular M3 but then order up the options on the Mustang to build up its price, disregarding the fact those options added probablt 15-20 lbs to the Mustangs weight. That 15+ lbs extra the Nav, cold weather, and a few others added probably cost the Mustang the .09 seconds or more it lost on the race track by.

 

I was wondering the same thing. I have a feeling most of the demo/promotion GTs have all the bells and whistles to impress the testers.

 

i agree driver, if a difference of 2 feet in stopping distance is a tie then a difference of .09 seconds around a road coarse is a tie

 

What you are talking about is proportioning. As long as the brakes are adequate to lock the tires at both ends the size of the brakes should not matter.

BMW needs larger brakes on the rear because of weight distribution. It can use the rear brakes harder for this reason which would fade smaller brakes.

The Brake Dive in the Mustang is primarily a result of Suspension Geometry (Not enough Anti-Dive Front or Anti-Lift Rear). It can be diminished by stiffer front springs and increased shock damping but the underlying cause is still geometry.

 

The magazine asked for, not like they placed an order and had it built, the best handling/braking package from each manufacturer, and to make it more even, asked that the Mustang have a list of options to bring it up to the content level of the bimmer. So, on the Mustang that included the brembo package and a premium level trim and the comfort package and nav, and on the already content laiden bimmer, that request included the competition package.

I do agree that they were very arbitrary in their judging the cars even in braking but the bimmer the winner on the track. That small difference in track time is well within the margin of error of the driver so the test should have been declared a tie.

 

I read your comments earlier and am amazed by the calls done by Motor Trend. Just shows that opinion trumps data apparently. Granted they weren't in awe of the M3 like the usual write ups are but they certainly favored the M3 in most aspects. They really did not like the nose dive of the Mustang and so they are making the call that the M3 does a better job of stopping from a performance/drivers perspective, not that it does the worst of the two car to car. So if you think it's a win for Mustang, your call means as much as theirs. For Mustang fans, it's a win, for M fans it's a swift kick in the ****.

I was enlightened to listen to the pro drive while he drove the Mustang as it seemed as though he were having the time of his life in the car. Noting how much fun and inspiring the car is. Just shows that the Mustang still knows how to have a good time. To me, the mannerisms of the Mustang do the best job of keeping up with the European cars while maintaining that American driving experience and for me I would rather drive the Mustang because that's what I like. I would be more comfortable in the Mustang and if that's what's comfortable, then that's the win.

Most of the M forum members are pretty honest about their snobbery and that would be the reason they chose the BMW. That's cool Jersey Shore, go on with your bad self. I too love the BMW amenities, but I am not against the Mustang's only slight lack of a few minor details. I think I will go check out C5 on this topic. Because...well...you know since NO ONE put a Camaro up against the M3.

Not that it's a pissing contest but I do think that getting the Competition Package on the M3 was a slight blow, not that the Mustang didn't man up to the challenge but originally no one was thinking of the extras, as the Brembo GT doesn't quite stack up with many of the goodies of the standard M3 but none the less, without gigantic cross drilled and calipered brakes, lower stance, bigger meat and more money tossed into the car and it's production, a factory line Mustang GT barely winced as it was pitted against the M.

 

Actually there was a test done by Inside Line and they brought this up themselves. They noticed the car didn't hook as well and its performance numbers were off by quite a bit...they attributed this to the tires. The tires they originally did the test was the Mich PS2s., while the recent test was with the Contis.

Dave