M3hunter

How come in Motortrend testing of the GT Brembo VS the M3 both where almost head to head, and on Car and Driver testing, the M3 left far behind the GT. Also somewhere else I readed that the '11 Shelby GT500 was even on performance with the Corvette Grand Sport, but here also the GS left the GT500 far behind. Apparently the only one that shined was the V6 in the same league as the 370-350 from Nissan.

Lancel

All very good questions. The M3 I don't think they tested same day though, so that could have been a factor. Other than that, the only different mod is the driver, and the 5.0 I honestly feel did not perform up to what I would have expected judging from the other press on it. I feel this needs more independent verification. Driver mod can be a factor for anything, not just by their individual capability, but how they paint the cars to begin with. A Corvette or M3 everyone expects to be a high performance machine which can cut corners like a hot knife through butter. A GT500? Heck, just read the last Lightning Lap with a GT500 and you'll see what they thought of it.

Automagically

It does seem like the Mustang was a little slower than expected. Like some of the other topics we've discussed, a great set of dampers will go far for the Mustang, and like the IS-F in this article, just a little suspension tune up and we could easily see an improvement in times. There are many factors that come in to play when testing these cars.

For half the cost, in my opinion, I think the Mustang can trump the IS-F. It's almost a joke that much money still can't afford you a car to overtake the Mustang. Though it's time was better, it was very close to call. I am still under the impression that the Mustang can still run even with the M3 and I'll stick to that. Which is an amazing feat because I really didn't want to have to plop down that kind of cash for an M3.

Oh, and side note, I'm not trying to be a hater but I'm kind of glad the Subaru was humbled near the bottom of the class. I hear such great things but the car isn't god like I know some Subaru owners like to think. I like the car a lot, I like the attitude a lot less.

06GT

Amen. THAT's the Lightning Lap I'm waiting for.

wjones14

Yep, I wondered the exact same thing! I've been following this Lightning Lap roundup each year since it started and love it. The Mustang GT has come a long way since its debut in the 1st Lightning Lap run (it pulled a 3:20.9 lap in 2006, getting beat by the likes of a Cobalt SS, a Mazda RX-8, and just barely beating a Mini Cooper S on a track that rewards horsepower). Now it's doing a 3:08.6 lap, and maybe most importantly, beating its chief rival the Camaro SS.

But in Motor Trend's testing, the pro driver Randy Pobst got nearly identical lap times with the Mustang and the M3, and the MT magazine editor actually got better lap times from the Mustang. So how does the Mustang GT lose to the M3 by 3 full seconds in Car And Driver's Lightning Lap?

The only explanation I can come up with is that the difference between the Mustang and M3 are more easily seen on a longer and faster course, while the cars are more equal on shorter and tighter courses. The Lightning Lap runs were on the 4.1 mile VIR course while the Motor Trend test was done on the 1.8 mile Willow Springs course. The Mustang hit 137 mph at VIR, while it only hit 106 mph at Willow Springs. The Motor Trend pro driver Pobst said the M3 handled higher speeds better than the Mustang, so the difference is magnified at VIR.

The good news is that Pobst said that all the Mustang needs is an improved set of shocks -- hard corners or bumps at over 80 mph make for a wild ride -- so, get some aftermarket shocks and struts and you have yourself an M3 beater, and have about $25,000 left over (compared to the cost of an M3).

m4a1mustang

That's my thought as well. The higher speeds and faster corners at VIR served to highlight the deficiencies in the GT compared to the M3. Willow is just too short and too slow to really reflect it in the lap times. I'm sure better dampers would have made a huge difference.

r1rider98

Did anybody notice on the GT video the gauges were not 2011 GT gauges?

m4a1mustang

I'm pretty sure that's because they didn't have the '11 GT gauge graphics available for the Vbox at the time they made the video.

MrSandman

That driver was morbidly obese.

neevers1

I noticed that as well. If you look at the EVO X's times, the 08 and the 10, the 08 is the MR, which has better suspension, and wheels, the SE is just a GSR with the DCT tranny, which was reserved for the MR in the past, anyways it did a much different time than the MR did in 08, nothing on that car has changed in that time.

What I'm getting at is times compared over the years aren't really comparable, they weren't run on the same day, and I didn't read that they've used the same driver over the years. Anyways, there might be other reasons, and no doubt better shocks/struts on the mustang would make a ton of difference but not really far, imho, to compare year to year.

Dave07997S

Also, keep in mind the M3 that MotorTrend tested was on the Conti Sports vs. the Mich PS2 or Pirelli PZero which are a much better tire than the Contis. The Mustang had the excellent Pirelli PZero's (not the M/S tires) summer tires which I am sure had a lot to do with it. Don't get me wrong the Mustang is a way over achiever.

With the C&D LL2011 they didn't test the M3 this year but they did test last year and it ran about the same as this years CTSV as well. It was still nice to see the times the GT500 posted.

I can't wait to see what the Boss will run.

Dave

Dave07997S

Exactly, remember in the MT test the driver even mentioned the fact the dampers on the GT weren't really up to the job as he felt the M3 through one section of the track was so much faster that the Mustang would have been off into the weeds at the same speed.

The M3 and Mustang are actually really close in performance with maybe the edge slightly to the M3, however, its the other things the M3 does so well is the reason why you pay the big bucks for the car. If it was just performance my vote is for the Mustang. The M3 actually has real back seats, the Mustang rear seats weren't that much better than my 997 and the interior build as well as the other details are where the money is spent. Also, the seats in the Mustang really need to be changed. There is hardly any support for enthusiastic driving. Yes you can change it, but then you ditch the side airbags in the seats which will kick off a code on the dash and not to mention the wrath of your insurance company if heaven forbid you are injured in an accident. Oh, and the engine, the S65 powerplant at 8400rpm is just magnificent..the roar from the intake is just to die for as 8 individual throttle bodies just give the engine a intake roar that gets the blood boiling.

Love Mustangs and the 2014 Mustang is probably where I will be hanging my hat as BMW M is ditching the V8 M3 to go back to a I6 TT 450hp engine. I am a normally aspirated guy and from the looks of what Ford is doing I think the 2014 Stang is going to be a winner.


Dave

m4a1mustang

I hear you on the seats... they definitely need more bolstering.

Overall I am happy with the 5.0, but when you really push it it's pretty easy to tell where its weak points are. I'm thinking Steeda Sport springs and Koni Sport adjustables are going to make a world of a difference. Probably good for at least a couple of seconds off of that LL time.

Dave07997S

Not to mention running 275s on all 4 corners with wider wheels. This would do wonders.

Then again we start talking modded..although in the M3s case I've seen it when a tuner gets a car they mod it and it ends up being slower around the race track. Although the M3 can use wider tires as well. My M3 is always searching for rear end traction even with 285s out back, unlike my 997 which just dug.

Dave

m4a1mustang

I agree. Stock-for-stock is the only real comparison you can make. Unfortunately the 5.0 does come up short against the M3 in the overall performance category, but you can definitely see the potential.

With the Koni Sports and Steeda Sport springs with some 275 NT05 rubber on all four corners I'll surely eat up any stock M3 around a road track. But who knows how the game would change if they installed coilovers and some better rubber. Comparing modded cars is always a moot point so I never do it!

A lot of my 370Z buddies joke about how they'll "get me once they are TT'd." Well, I'll just supercharge then.

fjm1235

Having put 7500+ miles on my 2011 GT500, I think its one heck of a car. Build quality vs. my former ride, a 2004 Steeda modified GT, is night & day. Performance capabilities are well beyond what even this aggressive driver can wring out of it safely. I've read Lighning Lap for awhile now & followed the progress of the Shelby as its evolved as translated through the results. Yes, the Z06 is an awesome performing car & I've found myself entertaining thoughts of perhaps trading in for it. At the end of the process I read about the Z06 & all Vette's having poor interiors, much less day to day "liveability", & lets not forget, the GT500 is a for real Shelby, & I find the Z06 much less attractive. Congrats Ford on building a great street car that flat out performs!

MyStang2010GB

I didn't think Shelby had anything to do with the GT500s. They are build at a Ford factory and each engine is built by and signed by ford SVT employees. Shelby himself has NOTHING to do with these cars unless the owner sends them out to be upgraded...I.E. "Super-Snaked"...

944withnos

I imagine he meant because it is labeled a "Shelby" for what ever reason...Ford must have thought it would contribute to sales or whatever. The GT500 itself is a spectacular car I believe was his point...I doubt Mr. Caroll Shelby has anything to do with cars now days since he is in a wheelchair. Your point is true...Shelby had little if anything to do with the car. However the car says FORD Mustang Shelby GT500 on it...ohh and cobra, or maybe it is just the emblem...heck I have one and I dont even know...but it is hella fun to drive!