Vs Motor Trend Comparison: 2011 Mustang GT vs 2011 BMW M3

[rollo]

The thrill of driving is purely objective.



The M3, to me, is all about delivering the best driving experience - sharp, communicative, balanced, engaging... feel over power, fun over efficiency. All this in a well built and top quality package.

As expected, subjective. Good thing you don't live in Texas, those cowboy hats would be murder on the digestive system......

Seriously, the M3 is one of my all-time favorite cars. But this new Mustang has teeth. Dollar for dollar, very compelling package this new Ford.

 

[hbs1906]

Dollar for dollar this Mustang is hard to beat; it is punching above it's weight class. Like DocM said, the M3 is getting super expensive and my aspiration of owning one is becoming a wet dream. Even though the Mustang will probably never gain the same respect as the M3 it is good for the "working" man like myself to be able to purchase such a vehicle that can run with the big dogs.

 

[CarGuy]

Now are you high or just stupid? An M3 against a Mustang GT? On a racetrack? Seriously, son, which one is it? High or stupid?"
Yes, we know how this sounds. And had we suggested this matchup just a few months ago, we would deserve more withering scorn than can be found in a week-long Judge Judy marathon. Why? Because this Munich versus Motown matchup has never been done before. Not even considered because it just didn't make sense. Sure, the M3 went V-8 in 2008, but that's not the issue. The truth is, the Mustang GT was never good enough to challenge Bavaria's finest. That is, until now.

Your doubt is understandable, but check the specs. For 2011, both rear-drive, four-seat coupes use all-aluminum V-8 engines with double-overhead camshafts tickling 32 valves. The M3's 4.0-liter carryover makes 414 horsepower at 8300 rpm and 295 pound-feet of torque at 3900 rpm. The Mustang's all new 5.0-liter V-8 cranks out 412 ponies at 6500 rpm and 390 pound-feet at 4250 rpm. But the most compelling number is 0.2: the difference in power-to-weight ratio between the two. The Mustang carries 8.8 pounds per pony to the M3's 8.6. And yet, at the test track, the 5.0 equals or betters the M3 in every performance category we measure. Both hit 60 mph in 4.4 seconds, but the Mustang is faster to the quarter mile by a tenth of a second and 0.7 mph-12.7 seconds at 111.6 mph. It also stops two feet shorter from 60 mph-a tie as far as we're concerned-and the GT really shatters the M myth on the skidpad. America's original ponycar manages to outgrip one of Germany's most iconic sports cars to the tune 0.2 second through our figure eight and by 0.01 g in lateral acceleration. But the M3 is the better driving car, right? What about the vaunted BMW steering feel, cornering agility, and legendary suspension tuning? Sure, the Mustang's antiquated live rear axle is fine at the strip (and skidpad, apparently), but the M3 must be faster where it counts: on a racetrack, against the clock. Well, hold onto your buts (and butts), because we are about to find out.

Read more: here


Video: here

 

[Mr Robert]

As expected, subjective.

I wrote objective, but meant subjective. Long day at work...

Point is, many cars have beaten the M3 in raw numbers but it still remains the car to be beaten. That must mean that there are others, like me, that buys/judges cars based on 90% unmeasurable factors like "fun".

I do, however, think that this is the last generation of the M3 that will have this effect.

 

[Guibo]

Noticed the tires weren't the usual Michelin PS2's. Edmunds also tested a red M3 optioned up to the same $67,025 price (possibly the same car) for its comparo with the CTS-V. Here's what they had to say about the Continentals:
"...this car's Continental ContiSport Contact 3 tires couldn't cash the check written by the improved EDC tuning.
The best results we could muster were 0.90g on the skid pad and a 67.7-mph pass in the slalom. Previous M3 coupe slalom speeds have been as high as 73.3-mph and skid pad orbits have been recorded as high as 0.95g — that's a big difference we attribute to tires.
Every preceding E9X-generation M3 we've tested has been delivered with Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tires — and each one (with the exception of a convertible) outperformed this loaner in our handling tests.
We're told the M division has blessed both brands of identically sized and rated tires, and that the decision to fit Michelins or Contis depends on 'just-in-time' delivery to the factory.
Do yourself a favor and get the Michelin PS2s instead of these ContiSports."
Comparison Test: 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe vs. 2011 BMW M3 Coupe

The M3 with Competition Package and Continentals that Motor Trend tested in Europe against the RS5 and CTS-V recorded the same skidpad and braking numbers as this one, while the E90 they tested on PS2's in the US recorded 0.02g higher and 5 feet shorter in braking.

M3 is getting pricey, but so has the Mustang. 20 years ago, a 225-hp Mustang could be had for $12,222. The M3 of the same year cost $34,950. (Adjusted for inflation, that would be $19.8k vs $56.6k.) That Mustang wasn't a slouch either, beating the Eagle Talon TSi and AWD Celica Turbo on a road course. The same comments about numb steering and lack of suspension finesse, however...

 

[Sunny]

First of all, kudos to GT and Ford, what a fantastic car it is shaping out to be, The 302 is going to be mighty tempting. Having said that, this graph/image doesn't make much sense to me. May be I am reading it wrong, but it looks like M3 takes a lead repeatedly and some how manages to loose it, which would have been understandable if there was a pattern to it, like M3 keeps getting the lead in a corner and loose it in a straight or vice versa, but it is not so, sometimes it gets the lead in the straight and loose it in the corner and sometimes the other way around.

But nice graph, I wish more comparisons would do it.

 

[K-A]

To even be in the same company as the iconic M3 is a testament to how much improved this Mustang is. And when the Boss arrives.........

The M3 will always be more aspirational, but this new Mustang is one hell of a car. A remarkable achievment by Ford.

Agreed.

The new GT is really a statement by Ford. I'd love to have one.

Being an owner of a 96 Mustang (my second car ever) GT some years ago, I can attest to the fact that owning and driving a Mustang is just fun. It's a quintessentially fun car. The sound is second to none, the mod-ability is just too tempting to prevent from convincing you to drain your Bank Account on, and being a car that was intended to define American "freedom" when it first came out, it still gives you that rush.

Now they're finally starting to put attention into the refinement and balance of the car, which will make things interesting.

What I'm thinking, is that the next Gen Mustang (50th Anniversary model) will be something epic, that they are going to make sure makes a huge statement. The fact that Ford is starting to shape itself as one of the more respectable car brands now, will even further enhance what the car should be.

 

[Mr Robert]

Good digging, fellows. I bet there will be more comparisons, maybe not here in Europe, but still.

By the way, that blue colour is simply stunning!

 

[Karabiner98k]

By Comparing the steering ratios of both cars, it seems that M3 has a more communicative and more sensitive steering.

M3 12.5:1
Mustang GT 15.8:1

The price of Mustang is almost half the price of the M3 and that's astonishing value for money. One of the real differences between this Mustang and other American sports cars today is the properly geared 6-speed transmission which helps this car a lot in acceleration. Except for 6th gear which is usually a very tall overdrive for cruising in American cars the other ratios seem to be short and proper. Another improvement is the engine which now has 4 valves per cylinder and uses a rather high-tech variable valve timing system which provides flatter torque curve than those old OHV engines in earlier Mustangs.

I think soon there will be a comparison in C&D but i love to see these two cars in a Vergleichtest either in AMS or Sport Auto with useful data such as 80-120km/h and 60-100km/h times.

 

[Kowalski]

The only thing "close" to a Mustang that Ford offers for us Europeans is the Focus RS, which sadly will soon go out of production.

 

[hbs1906]

Here are the vehicle comparisons and test results.

 

[DocM]

I thought I'd put a little spin on things. since there is a big price gap between the M3 and the Mustang GT, I thought we'd even things out a bit.

forget the up and coming BOSS, Ford + Shelby do offer a mustang for slightly less than a base price M3, its the Shelby GT 500 ( specs 5.4 Supercharged 540 hp 510 lb-ft )

I'd still pick the M3 ( but thats because I'm bmw biased and I admit it ) but which would any of you guys pick for almost the same amount of money

 

[go0gle]

In the video the driver mentioned the lack of torque from the M3 in the low end. I've been saying that since the day we got the official specs on the engine.. it is too weak for that car. That engine needed some sort of a mild turbo job and it would have been close to 480hp with a very nice torque curve I mean..that 458 Italia V8 is probably very close to the limit with what you can do with a low cc, high revving NA V8

 

[rollo]

M3 without question.

The huge price gap with the standard GT has great appeal for folks who can't afford, or justify the price of an M3 or alike.

To me, the much more interesting question is which would (could) you buy, the GT vs. M3? If you remove the value proposition, it's a no-brainer.

 

[hbs1906]

If I had the cash I would buy both. But they would be used very differently.

The reason is the E92 M3 has been diverted so far from the original E30 M3 goal that it has lost all of its rawness. The E92 M3 is an execptional polished luxury grand tourer. It would be used for nights out on the town with the wife and impressing friends. It is a very rewarding car to drive quickly on any road or track but not raw enough for me.

The Mustang would be my toy for its rawness and lack of electronic sophistication. It would be the car I take to the track or search out winding roads with for shear enjoyment.

If I could get an E92 M3 with the following then it would be more desireable to me as "the one".
1. Give me the sport damper tuning in passive shocks (throw out electronic damping control).
2. Give me base 3 Series cloth interior just make sure the front seats are properly bolstered
3. Lower the vehicle and give me the EDC tuning of competition package along with tires
4. Take I-Drive and shove it where the sun don't shine
5. Give me an "all go no show" model and reduce price by $7k

As for the Shelby GT500, I am not sure the balance is there eventhough the engine block is aluminum now. It needs wider rear tires to put the power down, but as you increase rear tire width (without increasing front) you increase the limit understeer of the vehicle. It is an amazing car but I don't think the extra power is worth the extra weight on the front.

 

[south]

If I could get an E92 M3 with the following then it would be more desireable to me as "the one".
1. Give me the sport damper tuning in passive shocks (throw out electronic damping control).
2. Give me base 3 Series cloth interior just make sure the front seats are properly bolstered
3. Lower the vehicle and give me the EDC tuning of competition package along with tires
4. Take I-Drive and shove it where the sun don't shine
5. Give me an "all go no show" model and reduce price by $7k

1. Don't order EDC.
2. There's cloth/leather available ('Speed cloth'). Speaking of the seats, manual seats are standard from Sep 2010 on (US market).
3. This is a bit inconsistent with No. 1 (or I misread your comment). Also, the competition package offers EDC Sport as an active, i.e. adaptive, mode, whereas cars without ZCP have EDC Sport as a passive mode which should meet your no. 1 requirement better.
4. Don't order the Tech package.
5. OK, not sure what things else you want to get rid of, but you'd most certainly have to to this yourself, and you won't save $7k.


Best regards,
south

 

[hbs1906]

Typo in 3. I meant ESC.

Typically it is harder to find a base M3 here in the US, but it looks like my local dealer has one sitting on the lot with no options ticked.

 

[Guibo]

In the video the driver mentioned the lack of torque from the M3 in the low end. I've been saying that since the day we got the official specs on the engine.. it is too weak for that car.

Keep in mind the Streets of Willow is pretty tight and technical. The M3 was probably designed with faster, flowing tracks in mind. The Nordschleife definitely is that. So is the bigger standard Willow Springs track.

Also, while these two cars are pretty close in the standing 1/4 mile tests, the available data shows that the M3 is much faster past the 1/4 mile point. Those high revs are just what you need on an autobahn pull.

And that blue (Grabber Blue?) does indeed look gorgeous on the Mustang.

 

[Mr Robert]

In the video the driver mentioned the lack of torque from the M3 in the low end. I've been saying that since the day we got the official specs on the engine.. it is too weak for that car.

I completely disagree. Diesel character is the last thing needed in a sportscar. Furthermore, if what you feel is lacking in a car when driving on track, is low end torque, you are simply doing it wrong... or you have taken a wrong turn and ended up on a gocart track

 

[Zafiro]

If money is no object and I could only choose one. M3 for me, looks, performance, practicality and comfort. Interior also looks more well-built. I also think M3 is a better allrounder and better for everyday-use.