Are These Guys NUTS or On The $? BMW M3 Vs. Mustang 5.0

Numbers are just numbers. That 0-60 time and 1/4 mile time means nothing when the feeling of the car is numb. While the M3 is more expensive it's a better buy. However if you are into burning rubber then the Mustang is the smarter buy because it's a Ford. You will gain an M3's respect by matching but not so much by brand prestige.

This just shows you how much the M3 is marked up. The Ford is not numb btw...The only thing the M3 has useful over the mustang is a telescoping steering wheel and nicer leather and real wood trim optional. Besides that your paying for the name...the Mustang even has better Brembo brakes that have less fade then the 1-2 piston calipers the M3 uses...they are cheap stingy Germans.

numbers from inside line

Slalom- which they left out in this "review".

M3- 73.3mph

Mustang 5.0- 67.3mph

Thats a six mile per hour difference, which is huge.

Good job Ford. BMW take note, your car needs to offer $28k more of performance than the Mustang. It doesn't. Come on, your going to upset the German workers if you don't pick up the pace. Add a couple of hundred more horses so you can shave off a second or two, then you would be worth it.

That is a ridiculous statement. The BMW has such a better driving dynamic. Its a lot more rigid, dampening controls, better weight balance, free maintenance, better resale, better navigation, better stereo, better quality interior appointments, better vision down the hood- you dont have to look over the hood, better ergonomics, sexier, doesnt come with a mullet.

It is amazing for the new 5.0 to even be anywhere near this territory when you think of where the Stang was at say.... 10 years ago.

So for the money the new Ford is probably at its highest value point that it's ever been. But taking it over the M3? No....

M3 10 years ago was at probably 240 HP (US version)...so it too has come a long way. While the Mustang is a solid straight line performer, it still can't match the M3 in the twisty stuff.

Kudos to Ford for upping their quality...

BUT IMAGINE the M3 with a 5.0 instead of 4.0 V8!

I would buy the 'Stang over an M3 any day. It's better built for starters. BMW is such garbage. Yeah...the BMW slaves can go ahead and click the down button. Who gives a shit...

lol

ask and ye shall receive...

I would drive the BMW M3.

I would'nt want to be seen in that clunk Mustang.

How is the Mustang a Cluck...are you an Engineer? Or are you just looking at the name? Seriously look at the gaps and paint finish on the Ford and compare it to the BMW you will be surprised at who comes on top.

Both are great high performance machines. Im suprised that the Mustang spanked the M...similar story to Nissans Godzilla vs. Porsche 911. Half the price better performance.

Godzilla did spank 911, but where did it say the Mustang spank M3?

When you say that Hogzilla spanks 911 at half the price you are incorrect. The Hogzilla and the 911 C2S are fairly close in price and though the Hog is faster than the 911 C2S, it is nowhere as refined or fun to drive - but it is certainly far uglier and heavy. If you are talking about comparing the Hog to the Porsche Turbo, then perhaps you haven't read the 2010 reviews which clearly shows the Porsche's performance superiority. In fact, Hog is one of the few cars that has actually gotten slower in 2010 - this is to eliminate the self-destructing transmission problem.

There's no 'superiority' in a car of reverse FWD weight distribution. I can buy if they put a turbo to Cayman, but now that Poorsche is owned by VW, will they?

"There's no 'superiority' in a car of reverse FWD weight distribution."

more weight on the rear axle = more grip while accelerating
less weight on the front axle = more stable while braking

alms, lms, 24h of nürburgring...
the 911 dominates everything and btw: it's the most successfull racecar in history and that's exactly what i use to call superiority.

Per your simplified logic you might as well make it 20:80.... Tell me, why Ferrari, Lambo, and Porsche's own best, CGT, are all mid-engined? 911 wins not because the engine is in right place. Too many other factors are involved.

300hp Cayman on track can keep up w/ 400hp M3 and 500hp 911 turbo, so who's got 'superiority'?

well, i mentioned facts.the rear engine layout has at least as many advantages and disadvantages as the front engine layou. the cgt was designed as a lms prototype, that's why it's mid engined.
the cayman is able to keep up with the current turbo? maybe in a race between schumacher and james may.

Hockenheim Nordschleife
Turbo 997 1.11,9 min 7.54 min

cayman 1.14,2 min 8.17 min

http://www.sportauto-online.de/rundenzeiten-supertests-1062778.html?sort=Name&order=ASC&id_value=6

"911 wins not because the engine is in right place. Too many other factors are involved"

yes and t

Of course the hp difference shows when you got those 2 straight lines like Nordschleife's. Hell, even Corvette ZR1 is faster, and you might as well just mention GT-R.

My reference is based on MT's test @ Laguna Seca:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/laguna_lap/index.html

What it comes down to is this.

They are both great performance machines; however, they both do two completely different things.

For instance, the M3 is a car that is precise and can be put on the track.

The Mustang just isn't. Don't get me wrong, it is a fantastic road car in its own respect and it provides plenty of RAW fun while not hurting your wallet.

Sorry but the ford would be a much better track car becuase if you damaged it it would cost a lot less to fix also repairs are way cheeper something what a good track car needs to be and as this story suggest the performance is nearly the same as the BMW.

The M3 is NOT a track car the brakes fade VERY fast and only have 1 piston calipers. The Cross "drilled" rotors do not cast the holes into the mold, but cnc machined and actually drilled like they did in the 1970's. The M3's brake pads and brake fluid will boil at 400 degrees as well. Do not call this posh grand touring car a track car.

With a solid rear axle, that impressive lateral G number on the Mustang would collapse on anything less than an glass-smooth skidpad.

Still, hell of an effort by Ford, even though not my cup of tea.

The 1966ish Ford 427 super Cobra Jet got 1G with a solid axle.

Those numbers for the Ford are a bit exaggerated I think but either way its an impressive car and a huge improvement based on reviews Ive read. If all your concerned about is performance numbers for the money I think an M3 is probably not your best choice anyway realistically you wouldnt even be seriously considering an M3 especially since the GT costs about as much as a base model 328i. Ford is really turning around, when a V6 mustang gets sub 6 second 0-60 times things are changing at the blue oval

That's interesting. I always forget that the average drivers would compare the M3 to the Mustang 5.0. I'm not being sarcastic; I myself was one of those people... although, it would've been nice if the reviewers included some comparison between the latest Shelby Mustang and the M3 sedan - one is a coupe with lots of low-rpm power with a lower price tag, while the other is a sedan that most people have a better time bragging with.

In reality the ford lost by a mile The 3 series doese many more things than the stang in style and has keeps the fun factor as well. stang is a coupe while the 3 series has four doors.

my mistake on the coupe vs four doors but still the 3 has more lux along with better numbers.

No way a E92 M DCT or not is running a 3.9 0-60. 4.1-4.3 is more like it.The Average 6spd driver will get a 0-60 of around 4.5-4.7. Magazines that test the 6spd might get slightly faster times,but thats beating the shit out of the clutch and car with multiple tries and setups.I've seen a E92 DCT M3 with Encore Innovation x-pipe w/HFC's - GIAC ECU Flash - Borla Exhaust - and Rogue pulley run a 0-60 of 3.9. I dont know where this info is coming from,but a stock e92 M3 is not pulling a 0-60 of 3.9 .

E90/E92 M3 performance

* 0-60 mph (97 km/h): 4.4-4.2 seconds for the 2009 E90/E92 M3 DCT,[29] 5.1 sec for the convertible
* 1/4 mile: 12.7 seconds @ 183 km/h (113.7 mph) [29], Convertible: 13.1 @ 109 mph (175.4 km/h)
* Top Speed: Electronically limited to 249 km/h (155 mph), delimited ~290 km/h (180 mph)+
* Skid Pad: 0.98 g
* Slalom: 114.9 km/h (71.4 mph)

The four-door M3 accelerates to 100 km/h in 4.9

To answer the question I'd skip out on both of these cars and opt for this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmqPt-3T7G0

You've got to be kidding. A 135i? Kellners or not, the 135i is a squat, clowny looking auto. I almost bust into tears laughing when I see middle aged men driving around in the convertible version.

I'm not an E92 M3 fan myself, but it looks worlds nicer than any 135 ever will.

I would like to see Ford put that 28 thousand into making this beat BMW on the track, Although very impressive for Ford, I would take the Ford if I had to buy it, but If I was given either one I would take the BMW.

Where's the proof- what specific magazine article/s has an M3 at naught to 60 of 3.9 officially?

Luv it. BMW has gone so far from it's original "M" concept hopefully these types of headscratchers will get them back on track some day. When it or the 135/M1 lose 500lbs I'll put them back on my shopping list.

the mustang is certainly in a class of butt-ugly that the m3 can't touch.

I personally think Ford Australia has the best formula for Ford vehicles:
-Independent Suspensions
-Manual Transmission option for everything
-Turbo Diesel or Twin Turbo Petrol engines across the board

A lot of people don't realize that Ford's Aussie division pisses all over the other divisions.

this comparison would be more interesting if they posted each car's lap time at the 'ring.

If you're not looking for a LUXURY car (which is what the BMW is) and are more interested in 0-60 and quarter mile times; then the answer is obvious. The 30K extra is for the privilege of purchasing a luxury item... I'm not sure I understand the question. While you're at it why not ask Patek Philippe owners if they would consider a Seiko or Porsche Carrera GT owners to cross shop an Ariel Atom 3? Those non-luxury items perform similarly and for considerably less money.

BMW is PREMIUM, not luxury. Rolls Royce is luxury.

It is comparing apples and meat. Both are forms of protein and that is where it ends. For all the numbers, the M3 buyer is interested in prestige and quality. Ford offers neither. By the same token, the kid that wants brute power and couldn't care less about a comfortable ride or what others thing can get a Mustang and be happy.

Analogy police: Ummm...I don't think apples and meat are protein.....

Comparing a finely engineered M3 to a Porsche is as "Nuts" as comparing a finely engineered Mustang 5.0 to an M3. So the comparison is valid. numbers are numbers. And i bet the Mustang is a lot easier to live with, since the torque is avail lower in the rpm band. The new 5.0 redline is 7k, not as high as the M3, but still satisfying uptop, yet more tq down low than the m3.

Hell for 28,000 less money...that is like free gas for 10years. I will take a 5.0 Mustang at $30k + 10 yrs free gas vs an M3 at $58k any day!

The mustang is also less then 1/3 the maintenance costs and does not need valve adjustment from the M3's solid valve lifters that need to be shimmed every 15,000 miles.