Vs 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0 Vs. 2010 BMW M3 E92

[adeel2010]

I'll try to sum it up here; 'You buy a Mustang when you try to be someone & you buy M3 when you are someone'... Enough said!

Well put ateekt! It's all about image and class.

 

[NarutoRamen]

Alright I see your point. I'll go to the dealership to drive the new Mustang and then try to make an unbiased opinion about it.

As nice as it is to hear that, I hope you get to flog the car around. If your dealers are as crappy as mine, you will have a boring ass ride.

You know what, I am biased. I love German and I hate American muscle. But performance is not the only thing that matters, that's why I like Mercedes better. It has the better, more luxury oriented package. And that's what I care about most. That is why I would opt for the M3.

I know you are, that's why I'm saying that your argument with PorscheGuy is just not fruitful because all that keeps coming out is "I Love german cars and badges" and thats about it. It's just counterproductive to go back on forth by just making the same point over and over again. No hating on you or anything.

 

[Porsche Guy]

NarutoRamen, where have you been all this time?! I could have used your help earlier.

It's far from fact, yes, but judging from previous models, you can bet on BMW coming out on top time after time. Note that in almost every comparison, the BMW M3 has never been beaten (for the most part).

Would everyone please stop assuming that this is an assault on the credentials of the M3? It's about the Mustang exceeding your expectations and nothing more.

All he meant was that he personally didn't drive it because of how ugly it was. Just the same way I've never thought to drive a Lexus. But the 7-series, in terms of performance, tends to do better than other vehicles in its class regardless

You're going to disregard one of BMW's most important models because it's ugly? You can't selectively pick from the better parts of the lineup and then make blanket statements about the brand as a whole. That's like turning in unfinished homework and telling your teacher not to grade the parts you didn't do because you didn't like the questions.

What are you going to argue next, Ford Guy? That the next Mustang might just outperform a Ferrari?

Below is the last paragraph from my last post. Please reread it carefully.

"I need clarify that I'm not trying to argue that the Mustang is better than the M3. What I am getting at is that brand image does not assure anything with regards to a manufacturer's next vehicle. As I said in my second post, "A new version of any car, regardless of manufacturer, holds the potential to redefine the brand, for better OR worse" and that's the mindset I want to instill in people in this forum. Everyone should be hesitant of the next M3 or Mustang. Don't assume that because it's a BMW, it's going to be better than the car it replaces or that because it's a Ford, that it's a junky car. When you assume that the M3 is better than the Mustang, having driven neither, I tend to get annoyed because all you're doing is basing your opinion on brand perception and older models, which generally share nothing with newer variants. I can only hope the Mustang is better than the M3 because more competition breeds better products."

 

[PanterroR]

Of course a M3 for me over here, but make no mistake - i f'n love Mustang, i love it! I have enormous respect for that car and with that being said, i'll have a nice GT500 for me, thank you.

 

[adeel2010]

Would everyone please stop assuming that this is an assault on the credentials of the M3? It's about the Mustang exceeding your expectations and nothing more.

Mustang certainly does exceed my expectations, but to someone as biased as me, it's an insult to compare it to the M3. Again, I'm gonna give the Mustang a chance and go drive one. My dealer is great about that kinda stuff, when I drove the last one he had me drive it pretty insanely. If it's as good as you're saying it is, then I'm looking forward to driving it.

You're going to disregard one of BMW's most important models because it's ugly? You can't selectively pick from the better parts of the lineup and then make blanket statements about the brand as a whole. That's like turning in unfinished homework and telling your teacher not to grade the parts you didn't do because you didn't like the questions.

You're getting me wrong. I said that Merc1 said that he thinks its ugly. I've never driven one, but I personally love the car and it's bangle butt. and LOL at the homework analogy.

 

[south]

I understand that such a discussion can get heated, and the internal combustion section allows that to a certain extent. However, some comments in this thread crossed a line, so I'd like to encourage everybody to continue this discussion in a respectful manner. Please appreciate this request and avoid the thread getting closed. Thanks everybody!


Best regards,
south

 

[Merc1]

So I should "bet" on BMW to always have the sportiest car in its respective segment? That's far from fact.

And where did you see me say that it was a fact. Who said it was? I said that BMWs being sportier than most of the cars in their class is what they usually go for or end up being. Besides Infiniti that is largely true when it comes to luxury cars.

Too ugly to care? What do looks have to do with driving dynamics. That sounds like a pretty weak excuse. It's still a BMW and like you just said "you can bet it is a sportier drive than similar vehicles".

I think you're whole reason for posting is weak, but hey so what. If you bother to read any of the reviews for the previous 7-Series you will see that it was indeed sportier than the A8, S-Class or Lexus LS its primary competitors. All of these cars were tested over and over and the BMW was always seen and proven to be the drivers cars of the bunch. This is common knowledge. Now tell me the Lexus, Mercedes or Audi were sportier.

So is it possible for the new Camaro with IRS could have handling on par with the M3? I only ask because the new Mustang beat out Camaro in a recent C&D test. And I quote:

No because suspension is only one part of the equation. Are you trying to be funny here because if you're serious you're pretty lost on vehicle dynamics. The Camaro is a big car and handling isn't its best trait.

"[the Mustang] doesn’t pogo, doesn’t shimmy, doesn’t slump to the outside and clop its way through a corner. The ride may be firm, but nothing throws it off the slot-like path you cut through turns. And somehow that live axle deals with pitching and pocked pavement with much of the sure-footed poise of an independent setup."

2010 Ford Mustang GT Comparison Tests - Car and Driver

When you find a review about the Mustang compared to the M3, and not a fellow pony car, let me know. Until then the above quote is matterless.

Merc1, I need clarify that I'm not trying to argue that the Mustang is better than the M3. What I am getting at is that brand image does not assure anything with regards to a manufacturer's next vehicle. As I said in my second post, "A new version of any car, regardless of manufacturer, holds the potential to redefine the brand, for better OR worse" and that's the mindset I want to instill in people in this forum. Everyone should be hesitant of the next M3 or Mustang. Don't assume that because it's a BMW, it's going to be better than the car it replaces or that because it's a Ford, that it's a junky car. When you assume that the M3 is better than the Mustang, having driven neither, I tend to get annoyed because all you're doing is basing your opinion on brand perception and older models, which generally share nothing with newer variants. I can only hope the Mustang is better than the M3 because more competition breeds better products.

Well you're not going to instill anything on people here. The part you don't get is the Mustang started out not being able to hold a candle to an M3 and now it does, on paper. The actual driving experience is no where near the same. Rarely does a car like a Mustang (years behind) leap high enough via a facelift to topple one of the best cars there is today. It just doesn't happen like that very often. Sure it has leapfrogged its class, but that doesn't say much relative to the M3. The Camaro while a beauty to look at on the road, has a typical GM, hard, brittle plastic, rattle-trap, ugly interior and the handling while good isn't as good as should be per some of the press. The Dodge handles like a boat and is about as big as one. That isn't a hard class of cars to beat.........far from beating an M3 which dominates a class of much more accomplished cars.

You can hope, but it won't happen. The Mustang isn't better than an M3. No one who has driven the two cars will agree with that - hopes dashed. FYI: Ford has a Mustang GT500 that will smoke the M3 in certain areas, yet BMW isn't rushing to do anything about this because the Mustang is not an M3 Competitor. Most (not all) buyers looking at either car won't be looking at the other. They're not competitors. The M3 deals/plays with the C63, IS-F, CTS-V, and the like, not a 30K, live-axle pony car...no matter how good it is.


M

 

[Merc1]

Just because no one else is using it doesn't mean jack. The engineering team behind the mustang has mastered that setup for it, especially the new 2011. The live axle setup sucks if you're pushing the car on bumpy roads because it makes the rear jittery, but if you're on smooth roads, it'll be hard pressed to upset the new handling oriented Mustangs. The days of "They go in a straight line, even in corners" are gone. The new Stang can handle, the only problem is, can you handle that kind of car.

Really? You're right, must be why Ford is thinking about getting rid of it. Surely the live-axle design hasn't reached the end of the line as far as development goes. Must be why every other sports car maker on earth doesn't use it. Makes sense.

We know the Mustang can handle, but again "owning" the Camaro and Challenger ain't saying much and that surely doesn't make it an M3 competitor.


M

 

[NarutoRamen]

NarutoRamen, where have you been all this time?! I could have used your help earlier.

Sorry man, been busy with school. LOL

Really? You're right, must be why Ford is thinking about getting rid of it. Surely the live-axle design hasn't reached the end of the line as far as development goes. Must be why every other sports car maker on earth doesn't use it. Makes sense.

Yeah, and I bet you also knew the fact that Mustang's engineering team has admitted that they thought about using IRS for the current one too and scrapped the idea because of 3 things.

1. Makes the car more expensive, and since Mustang is all about budget, that idea didn't fly inside FORD.
2. Makes the car heavier, so the car better perform WAY better than the live axle setup otherwise the IRS doesn't contribute to anything other than saying it has IRS now. And this leads perfectly into point 3 which I made earlier.
3. Mustang's engineering has pretty much mastered their live axle setup. Thus the statement I made earlier, that unless you're on REALLY crappy roads, you'll have a hard time messing up Mustang's composure.

The reason they're looking into IRS now still has those same questions attached to it. Can we make it cheap or current price with IRS? And is the IRS actually any more beneficial to our car/customer than live axle? The second question is very important because unlike us german car guys, the Muscle heads love drags and live axle is PERFECT for drag racing. You have to satisfy your customer before you have to satisfy some internet data number-nerds behind a computer.

We know the Mustang can handle, but again "owning" the Camaro and Challenger ain't saying much and that surely doesn't make it an M3 competitor.

M

I didn't say that it makes it a M3 competitor, what I said is that IRS doesn't mean jack because it destroys cars in it's class even though they have your beloved superior IRS. As the saying goes in boxing, the 5.0 stang is punching above its weight, and that is what is making it an M3 competitor, at least on numbers.

Once again, I will choose the M3 over this car any day, but I'm just trying level out the balance of bias and ignorance here with hard facts.

 

[Porsche Guy]

Merc1, I am tired of this debate. When you stop confusing opinion with facts, I will gladly continue the discussion. Please understand that this discussion is not the credentials of the M3. No one is going to deny that it's a great car. Rather, this is a debate regarding perception of the new Mustang. You have repeated shown your inability to judge the Mustang with an unbiased perspective. Is the Mustang as good or better than the M3? We don't have any comparison tests draw results from yet you have already crowned the M3 the winner. Do you see the fallacy in this logic? Do you watch sports? If upsets never happened, I don't think anyone would bother to watch.

 

[Sayyaaf]

Although I love high G cornering and stuff, but the thrill of a big block V8 is something else also ...

 

[NarutoRamen]

Do you watch sports? If upsets never happened, I don't think anyone would bother to watch.

Ain't that the truth.

Although I love high G cornering and stuff, but the thrill of a big block V8 is something else also ...

Very true. Two cars with similar numbers on paper, but different attitudes. Still, it doesn't mean the mustang is any worse or the M3 is any better.

 

[Guibo]

Since we're not talking about the 08/09 model, it's irrelevant. The '10 Mustang has been praised for it's drastic improvement in interior quality. I'll go hunting for reviews if you don't believe me but this is nit picking and not really relevant to the discussion.

The '10 being a drastic improvement in interior quality won't tell you much about how it compares to a BMW.

You are right in that you can't be 100% sure that a BMW will always drive better than a Ford. However, if a person has enough personal experience from past models, and takes into consideration numerous reviews which portray an overall trend of how cars perform, then it's a safe bet that M3's typically will outdrive dynamically a Ford Mustang. Obviously, a bottom-rung diesel 1-Series isn't going to outdrive a Ford GT. We don't have to consider those extremes to get a fairly good idea of how models from these brands match up.
In the case of the M3, it has gone up against the C63, old RS4, IS-F, etc. These are some fairly sharp vehicles, honed on the gnarliest track on the planet, yet it invariably walks away the victor. C&D even pitched it against the GT-R, and it came away overall as the better car. Is the '11 Mustang GT as sharp to drive and dynamically polished as a Nissan GT-R? It's possible. But ask yourself: Is it likely?

It's like if you were to make an educated guess as to whether the ZR1 would have matched a Porsche Cayman or 911 Turbo dynamically. Before even driving them, you could make an educated guess, based on how the two have matched up over the years or decades. Even with GM trying to reduce the friction in its steering system (among other detail improvements for '08 models), the mag tests have shown it's not a match to the Porsches. Does making an educated guess necessarily mean pre-conceived bias or snobbery? Personally, I don't think so. One doesn't have to look down at a Mustang to make an educated guess that it probably won't match up.

Remember, when the '05 Mustangs were initially reviewed, the mags raved how much better they were than previous iterations. But when compared head to head against certain foreign competitors on demanding roads, they came up short.
On the flip side, the initial reviews of the M3 blasted BMW for having lost the plot. But when compared head to head against very accomplished competitors...well, we know how that turned out: it fell in line with past comparos where the M3 generally ranks higher than competitors. It's not purely by accident that this happens.


As for the live axle, edmunds.com also commended the '11 Mustang GT, so long as the speeds were sane. But read their 2nd opinion on the Mustang:
"I don't care if you've built the best beam axle rear suspension that money can buy. It's 2010, and the inherent handling compromise is intrusively noticeable on all but the smoothest of corners. Doing a good beam axle is something like making the best-tasting casserole that money can buy — if you're lucky, it might taste as good as a half-assed cheeseburger."
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Full Test and Video

And it actually ended up costing Ford more to use the live-axle:
"Late in the S197 program, however, product development executive Phil Martens reportedly managed to convince Bill Ford Jr. he could save Ford $100 a car if the Mustang was switched to a live rear axle. The S197 platform was hurriedly torn up and reworked to accommodate the old-tech suspension.
There are a lot of good reasons why the rest of the world's automakers stopped using the Mustang's rear suspension layout decades ago. No matter how well set up, a live rear axle will never deliver the refinement, ride quality, and all-round traction of a well set up* independent rear end. Yeah, yeah, I know drag racers like live rear axles, but let's be honest, how many S197s actually spend their weekends pounding quarter miles? I'd be astonished if it's more than a tiny fraction of the total number of Mustangs sold.
Now here's the punchline: My well-placed sources say that once the noise, vibration and harshness, and driveline angle issues were solved, the S197's live rear axle actually ended up costing Ford $98 per unit MORE than the low cost independent rear end originally developed for the car."
2010 Ford Mustang: Near Enough is Not Good Enough | Car News Blog at Motor Trend

I would also wager they lost sales to people who don't want a live axle for some of those very reasons listed. The next-gen Mustang will apparently have an IRS.
*The Camaro SS is far from a well set up system. The Mustangs in those comparos were blessed by competitors who were porky or had poor suspension tuning (or both). It's not a reliable indicator of how an improved version will match up with an M3.

 

[Human]

HUH?

Ahem...Now this American Muscle Car VS. A German sports coupe....

Well, on looks the Mustang holds it's own and their is plenty of power

Though dynamically and technology wise the ///M3 is FAR SUPERIOR in every way! Simple and easy! BMW M3

 

[Merc1]

Merc1, I am tired of this debate. When you stop confusing opinion with facts, I will gladly continue the discussion. Please understand that this discussion is not the credentials of the M3. No one is going to deny that it's a great car. Rather, this is a debate regarding perception of the new Mustang. You have repeated shown your inability to judge the Mustang with an unbiased perspective. Is the Mustang as good or better than the M3? We don't have any comparison tests draw results from yet you have already crowned the M3 the winner. Do you see the fallacy in this logic? Do you watch sports? If upsets never happened, I don't think anyone would bother to watch.

Funny thing is that you've been confused from that. You haven't offered one fact since you started posting. Only to try and convince someone that the Mustang is a better car than the M3. Not gonna happen.

I've given you fact after fact about the Ford's build quality, suspension and what not.

You simply have no clue about me or how I look at or view the Mustang. It happens to be one of my favorite cars, but I don't try to make it out to be something it isn't, i.e. an M3 competitor. My perception of the car is high enough to want one, been that way for years. My signature tells all about the cars I like. The Mustang has been one for years.

Keep thinking a ponycar can top the M3. You'll be alone in your own little world. Sure the Mustang is capable, but you're talking about comparing it to a car hailed as being one of the best in the world.

Sports has nothing to do with this.


Likewise you have nothing that says the Mustang is a better car than the M3, only the fact that it beats up on a relatively primative group of cars. Really compelling. NOT. Have you not been paying attention since the current M3 came out? A car comparable with a base 911 has nothing to fear from a Mustang at either the track in the marketplace.


M

Yeah, and I bet you also knew the fact that Mustang's engineering team has admitted that they thought about using IRS for the current one too and scrapped the idea because of 3 things.

1. Makes the car more expensive, and since Mustang is all about budget, that idea didn't fly inside FORD.
2. Makes the car heavier, so the car better perform WAY better than the live axle setup otherwise the IRS doesn't contribute to anything other than saying it has IRS now. And this leads perfectly into point 3 which I made earlier.
3. Mustang's engineering has pretty much mastered their live axle setup. Thus the statement I made earlier, that unless you're on REALLY crappy roads, you'll have a hard time messing up Mustang's composure.

So? And, this means what? The layout is still flawed no matter what. Again, they wouldn't even ponder changing it if it wasn't flawed.

We all know they've done wonders with it, but it has likely reached the end of its usefulness.

The reason they're looking into IRS now still has those same questions attached to it. Can we make it cheap or current price with IRS? And is the IRS actually any more beneficial to our car/customer than live axle? The second question is very important because unlike us german car guys, the Muscle heads love drags and live axle is PERFECT for drag racing. You have to satisfy your customer before you have to satisfy some internet data number-nerds behind a computer.

Again, already known stuff...no one is disputing this.

I didn't say that it makes it a M3 competitor, what I said is that IRS doesn't mean jack because it destroys cars in it's class even though they have your beloved superior IRS. As the saying goes in boxing, the 5.0 stang is punching above its weight, and that is what is making it an M3 competitor, at least on numbers.

IRS most certainly does mean something, can't help it that the Challenger is a boat and the Camaro just has poorer handling. The layout is just one part of the handling equation. The Mustang also a weight and size advantage over the the class.

If you aren't saying its a M3 competitor whats the point of bringing up numbers when you should know full well that numbers are only again, half the story. How the numbers are made is where the differences and characters of the respective cars lie.

Once again, I will choose the M3 over this car any day, but I'm just trying level out the balance of bias and ignorance here with hard facts.

Saying IRS doesn't mean "jack" isn't anywhere near being a hard fact.


M

 

[NarutoRamen]

So? And, this means what? The layout is still flawed no matter what. Again, they wouldn't even ponder changing it if it wasn't flawed.

You're telling me the only reason anyone ever changes anything because there is a flaw? That's just absurd. If there was a "flaw" the car would be running into walls.

We all know they've done wonders with it, but it has likely reached the end of its usefulness.

That doesn't automatically make it bad or worthless. I love when people who know nothing say stuff like that, because you obviously know more than Ford's engineering right.

IRS most certainly does mean something, can't help it that the Challenger is a boat and the Camaro just has poorer handling. The layout is just one part of the handling equation. The Mustang also a weight and size advantage over the the class.

Again, the weight advantage comes from the fact that they didn't use IRS. And I'm pretty damn sure that the SS handles pretty damn well, its just that the Mustang has tighter handling due to lighter weight and better setup.

If you aren't saying its a M3 competitor whats the point of bringing up numbers when you should know full well that numbers are only again, half the story. How the numbers are made is where the differences and characters of the respective cars lie.

For the same reason many people on here like to use numbers ALL the time to justify things, hell in this thread alone people are justifying things without ANY hard numbers at all, yet me and PorscheGuy are getting crap for showing numbers? Pot, meet kettle.

Saying IRS doesn't mean "jack" isn't anywhere near being a hard fact.
M

If it ain't setup right, then yes, it doesn't mean jack. The FACT is that the mustang handles great with it's "ancient" setup and is beating cars in it's class. So what's the next step? the M3. That's why they are being compared.

It's the same thing all over again, except this time it's 5.0 GT vs. the M3 and last time it was GT-R vs. ALL of Europe's might.

 

[Merc1]

You're telling me the only reason anyone ever changes anything because there is a flaw? That's just absurd. If there was a "flaw" the car would be running into walls.

No it doesn't. Flawed doesn't mean terminally flawed. Put away the extreme nonsense and think for a min. Ford has been tinkering with this layout almost every single year. That indicates at best that its different from the norm. No one else has to tinker with their suspension every model year. That alone should tell you that they're working with a less than ideal layout. Its common sense. Porsche does the same thing with the 911. Continuious improvement for an originally flawed concept.

That doesn't automatically make it bad or worthless. I love when people who know nothing say stuff like that, because you obviously know more than Ford's engineering right.

Again, who said that it was worthless? I said that it may have reached the end of its development. Far from being worthless. If you aren't going to respond to what I actually said then why bother? Nobody said it was worthless, thats your wording not mine.

Again, the weight advantage comes from the fact that they didn't use IRS. And I'm pretty damn sure that the SS handles pretty damn well, its just that the Mustang has tighter handling due to lighter weight and better setup.

The fact that Mustang is actually a smaller car overall seems to escape you as another reason why the Mustang handles better and weighs less. A live axle is not a superior setup in practice or theory. Ford just got it right after years of trying, and that combined with less weight and small size give it the advantage. That and the fact that Chevy hasn't perfected the Camaro yet. Again, no one is saying that the SS doesn't handle, before you say that I did say that.

For the same reason many people on here like to use numbers ALL the time to justify things, hell in this thread alone people are justifying things without ANY hard numbers at all, yet me and PorscheGuy are getting crap for showing numbers? Pot, meet kettle.

Wrong, I haven't used any numbers to prove anything. Period.

If it ain't setup right, then yes, it doesn't mean jack. The FACT is that the mustang handles great with it's "ancient" setup and is beating cars in it's class.

BINGO! IF IT ISN'T SET UP RIGHT. Thats Chevy problem. To try to sit here and say that having IRS in itself doesn't mean anything is ridiculous and you know it hence your addition to your original statement "if it ain't set up right". BIG difference from saying having IRS itself doesn't mean anything. Big difference.

So what's the next step? the M3. That's why they are being compared.

Wrong. Beating up on a boat like the Challenger and Camaro whose chassis hasn't been fully realized (not to mention its brand new) doesn't mean the M3 is the "next step". Ridiculous notion.

It's the same thing all over again, except this time it's 5.0 GT vs. the M3 and last time it was GT-R vs. ALL of Europe's might.

Well until you show something that proves that the Mustang is superior to the M3 then thats exactly what it is. The M3 speaks for itself and I know you know this. Mustang has been transformed into a great car, remarkable considering its underpinnings, but the M3 is the car that teaches the class on handling.


And cost or cost savings had nothing to do with them not going with IRS since according to this it cost them more to go with the live-axle:


"Late in the S197 program, however, product development executive Phil Martens reportedly managed to convince Bill Ford Jr. he could save Ford $100 a car if the Mustang was switched to a live rear axle. The S197 platform was hurriedly torn up and reworked to accommodate the old-tech suspension. There are a lot of good reasons why the rest of the world's automakers stopped using the Mustang's rear suspension layout decades ago. No matter how well set up, a live rear axle will never deliver the refinement, ride quality, and all-round traction of a well set up* independent rear end. Yeah, yeah, I know drag racers like live rear axles, but let's be honest, how many S197s actually spend their weekends pounding quarter miles? I'd be astonished if it's more than a tiny fraction of the total number of Mustangs sold. Now here's the punchline: My well-placed sources say that once the noise, vibration and harshness, and driveline angle issues were solved, the S197's live rear axle actually ended up costing Ford $98 per unit MORE than the low cost independent rear end originally developed for the car."


http://blogs.motortrend.com/6523204...ang-near-enough-is-not-good-enough/index.html


Theory eradicated by FACTS.


M

 

[NarutoRamen]

No it doesn't. Flawed doesn't mean terminally flawed. Put away the extreme nonsense and think for a min. Ford has been tinkering with this layout almost every single year. That indicates at best that its different from the norm. No one else has to tinker with their suspension every model year. That alone should tell you that they're working with a less than ideal layout. Its common sense. Porsche does the same thing with the 911. Continuious improvement for an originally flawed concept.

Hate to burst your bubble, but GT-R has IRS, so does FD-RX-7, Impreza STi, amongst other japanese cars, yet they tinker with it EVERY year and release newer cars with different and better set ups. Are you saying ALL of their cars are flawed so thats why they tinker? No, no you're not. So stop making assumptions like you know the inner workings of these companies.

Again, who said that it was worthless? I said that it may have reached the end of its development. Far from being worthless. If you aren't going to respond to what I actually said then why bother? Nobody said it was worthless, thats your wording not mine.

When you say that something is flawed and should be done anew, it basically implies that it's worthless, doesn't have to be said. Thats where reading comprehension comes in.

The fact that Mustang is actually a smaller car overall seems to escape you as another reason why the Mustang handles better and weighs less. A live axle is not a superior setup in practice or theory. Ford just got it right after years of trying, and that combined with less weight and small size give it the advantage. That and the fact that Chevy hasn't perfected the Camaro yet. Again, no one is saying that the SS doesn't handle, before you say that I did say that.

The fact that Mustang is minutely smaller than the Chevy doesn't excape me. What escapes you is the knowledge of IRS vs. Live Axle. Ask anyone who knows about them and they'll tell you that unless IRS is using really light weight materials, it's not lighter than Live Axle. It's something I've asked and have gotten that answer straight up from everyone.

Wrong, I haven't used any numbers to prove anything. Period.

I said people on this board use it. I didn't say this thread and I didn't say you were one of them. Before you tell me to read, follow your own advice.

BINGO! IF IT ISN'T SET UP RIGHT. Thats Chevy problem. To try to sit here and say that having IRS in itself doesn't mean anything is ridiculous and you know it hence your addition to your original statement "if it ain't set up right". BIG difference from saying having IRS itself doesn't mean anything. Big difference.

This is the same exact argument I'm making for you saying that live axle is "flawed". How does your own medicine taste?

...doesn't mean the M3 is the "next step". Ridiculous notion.

Thats your opinion, which has been discredited by hard numbers. The only thing left is an actual car vs. car comparo. Until then, the numbers DO stand. Once again, I'm not saying numbers are the end of the argument, but the fact that they're real means something, and in this case they are going up if not beating the M3.

Well until you show something that proves that the Mustang is superior to the M3 then thats exactly what it is.

So you must have a 1 on 1 test that no one has ever seen.

The M3 speaks for itself and I know you know this. Mustang has been transformed into a great car, remarkable considering its underpinnings, but the M3 is the car that teaches the class on handling.

The M3 teaches it's class on handling, and the Mustang isn't in it. But until there is a 1 on 1 test done, don't sit on your high horse.

And cost or cost savings had nothing to do with them not going with IRS since according to this it cost them more to go with the live-axle:

Theory eradicated by FACTS.

Did you even read the article? And if you did, did you even understand it?

Let me simplify it for you: They scrapped the IRS for Live axle because they did think it was going to be cheaper. And to have a "well set up", as they pointed out in the article, IRS for the mustang would've made it cheaper. The price for the the parts itself aren't everything, its the extra time spent on it that cost more. And the reason it ended up costing "more" at the end was because IRS was scrapped late in the game, thus extending original plans. Basically, it IRS was scrapped because they thought it will be cheaper but with extra crap they had to do ended up costing them more, which is STILL speculation. My "sources" say isn't a FACT, it's Fluff.

Your facts were nothing more than fluff. Do better next time.

And I'm done arguing. With the bias on this board, there is no reason to argue, no one ever gives credit where it's due unless it's German or European. Hell, GT-R had to beat pretty much everything and even then there are hella haters. But, this is the last post in this thread for me. Write all you want. Enjoy.

 

[HighestOfHigh]

My goodness...What happened?

Well between the two I would have go for the BMW. Even though I'm far from being a M3 fan, I never liked the Mustang.

But if the Camaro was included that would be my pick.

 

[Guibo]

IRS, taken as an entire unit, does tend to weigh more than a live axle setup. However, the point to keep in mind as it relates to handling dynamics is unsprung weight: Because an IRS's differential is more or less static (it doesn't move up and down with the motion of the suspension, but instead stays pretty much fixed to the subframe via bushings), there is less unsprung mass. When a live-axled car's wheel encounters a bump, it also has to contend with controlling the mass of the differential that goes with it.
Another factor is the uncoupling of vertical motion between left and rear axles. Because one side of an IRS can move independently of the other (assuming anti-roll bars that aren't ridiculously thick), it means it can control motions over bumps better than the live-axle.
Yet another factor is alignment: an IRS setup allows more freedom in toe and camber adjustment. With more negative camber, the IRS can better maintain a horizontal contact patch as the car pitches over under compression, where a live-axled car will run harder on its outside edge. I'm not sure that a live-axle setup can accomodate the additional toe-in that some cars with IRS use to help stability under braking.

The extra cost in the S197's development was to deal with the noise, vibration, harshness, and driveline angle issues which accompany live axles (perhaps due to the unsprung weight and alignment factors mentioned above). Had Ford kept to the IRS system, it would have cost them more for the parts, but the development of the live axle to deliver acceptible NVH was even costlier.

The GT-R was quite a bit different. It had a different development goal, with Nissan from the beginning targeting the Turbo and after that one fell, they set their sights on GT2/CGT levels of performance, costs be damned; Nissan are apparently taking a financial hit on each GT-R. Development on none other than the Nordschleife, with thousands of laps (and additional head-to-head testing against the Turbo at Laguna Seca). It also had in it arsenal AWD with some pretty advanced electronics and a dual-clutch transmission. With a former F1 driver doing much if not most of the driving, and a former Group C and Le Mans project engineer managing the GT-R's development. All pretty well documented...