wjones14

This is off-topic for this thread, but how does the Mustang get compared to the M3 in the first place? The M3 costs twice as much!


So how is it Ford's fault that M3 buyers wouldn't consider a Mustang? Mediocre build quality? Do Mustangs really have more problems than M3s? Going by my experience with a 2005 Mustang GT for the past 9 years, I don't see how an M3 could be better. I've had ZERO problems, and my car has never been back to the dealer. An M3 could be as good, but it couldn't beat that record.


But, if M3 owners do insist on comparing their $70K car to a $40K Mustang, they need look no further than that Motor Trend expose, where pro racer Randy Pobst drove both cars on a 1.9 mile road course, and the lap time difference between the cars was 0.1 seconds. The M3 guys don't want to know what happens when the M3 goes up against a $45K Boss.

xlover

I think you are probably pretty accurate especially for the gt, maybe even a bit low when you figure in the premium cooled seats and the blind spot/cross traffic systems. My guess is that gts on dealer lots will consistently msrp a bit over 40. I think it's at least possible that if the motor for the se is a coyote derivative the synergies might drive that cost down or flat with the current gt500. I think the se pricing will be dependent on what the gt350 ends up being, if it's a true gt500 replacement or more of a replacement for the boss.

If you end up being right you should pick your next powerball with your tuckus.....

blksn8k

I just came to a very disturbing realization. I am a single white male making close to 90k per year and I no longer believe I can justify the price of a new Mustang GT. I never would have believed that would happen in my lifetime.

tom281

I agree if it's mid $40's I will have a hard time justifying that price. It would have to be fully loaded and closer to 500hp IMO. Mustangs have always been popular as affordable cars with acceptable performance, the ratio has always been in balance.

eric n

Wow, it would seem to me that a single white male living in ohio with no kids making 90k should have no problem buying/justifying a 40k car. Then again, I don't know what your house payment is, how much you contribute to your retirement every month and I have no real knowlege of your cocaine or hooker habbit.

It really comes down to what your house payment to hooker ratio is. Complex math indeed.

laserred38

rhumb

Solution: screw retirment, move into trailer park, buy Mustang, continue to enjoy hookers, money left over for beer and blow.

Honestly, do I have to do everybody's thinking around here.

blksn8k

Nice.
Perhaps I should clarify my situation. I already have a very low mileage Cobra plus four other classic Fords and a daily driver Sport Trac and no car payments. I also have two houses one of which sits on 91 acres (that one is not paid for but the other is). Bottom line: I don't need a $40k plus car that I won't drive often enough to justify the price. That doesn't mean I don't want a new Mustang but I would have to sell something else that I would rather keep.

Mustang Freak

Ok well NOW it makes sense!

bob

Come on man, you took that right off Bobsbucketlist!.com

bob

Depends on what magazine you read.


http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=585705


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

wjones14

Oops.

It doesn't really make sense that one article would say they M3 and 5.0 GT are thisclose, while the other article says there's a sizable gap between the M3 and even the Boss. But it is there in print.

The only way I can explain it is that Motor Trend had a professional race car driver putting the cars on the track, while the British test used the magazine writers. Writers can be good drivers, no doubt, but professionals are professionals for a reason. The writer in the Motor Trend test was some 4 seconds slower per lap than the pro. When analyzing the data, the reason they came up with is that "The pro don't pucker."

On paper anyway, it would seem there's no comparison - one car is about $40K and the other car is north of $65K. And in things such as refinement and status there is no comparison, because Ford had to cut costs somewhere to make the car $25K cheaper.

But in my mind, the Mustang should be compared to the Camaro, and maybe the Challenger - the M3 buyer is a totally different demographic. That it is compared at all to the great M3 should be praise enough for the "mainstream" Mustang.