Mustang GT v. M3

[monoblanco]

Linked from:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/24/v...gainst-bmw-m3/

[blocke]

Bullshit. And the Ford will be crying for an engine rebuild at 90k miles while the BMW will just be getting broken in.

[87e30]

The mustang is an awesome value.


I just hate the lack of visibility in them.

Bullshit. And the Ford will be crying for an engine rebuild at 90k miles while the BMW will just be getting broken in.

I'm going to call BS on that. I'll say the ford takes less maintenance money in the long run.

And when that engine blows... you will be paying WAY less.

[briansjacobs]

The mustang has always been a great bang for the buck. I know alot of guys that track them oftem and they do well. I can imagine with the simple addition of a panhard bar the Mustang will beat the M3 and still have $20k to spare. I also wonder what tires the Mustang has stock compared to the M3. Assume the same tires and a panhard bar bye bye M3!!!

[briansjacobs]

BTW- I HATE MUSTANGS, but I call it as I see it!

[E30Nova]

The Mustang is a "super coupe?" :rofl: :rofl:

[monoblanco]

The way I see it comes down to the price difference between the two, which is quite significant. No matter how you look at it, with the Mustang you do get a lot of car for the money.

[Wh33lhop]

I saw this earlier. I am not a big mustang fan, but you've gotta give it up. I remember the CTS-V/E60 M5 comparison said something similar--the M5 seemed more composed but also understeered, whereas the CTS-V had better turn-in but didn't quite put the power down as well.

[bimmer_E30]

still ghey who cares

[Holland]

Bullshit. And the Ford will be crying for an engine rebuild at 90k miles while the BMW will just be getting broken in.

Right, I highly doubt any newer bimmer engine will hold up like the old ones, especially a 440 hp 4.4 liter with ITB's. Rebuild would cost the same as that mustang.

[e34john]

Bullshit. And the Ford will be crying for an engine rebuild at 90k miles while the BMW will just be getting broken in.

BMWs aren't built like they used to be while Fords quality is not like the 80s and 90s. My 5.4 just hit 80K and I beat on it. I'd bet the Ford lasts longer, it just doesn't have all the electronics that can fail.



The Mustang is not a bad car but they should have used a Boss 302 or a KR, one of the more limited models, and then go around the 'ring.

[Wh33lhop]

Right, I highly doubt any newer bimmer engine will hold up like the old ones, especially a 440 hp 4.4 liter with ITB's. Rebuild would cost the same as that mustang.

While I share the general sentiment of this post, I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers, or how a mad tyte MTI is going to contribute to engine failure or increase the cost of a rebuild.

[87e30]

///M motors are very expensive to rebuild.

I imagine that 5.0 v8 will be everywhere in the coming years, meaning way less expensive to rebuild I'd imagine.

But I don't see it as being an issue. You could buy two mustangs for the price. The real loss comes with the interior, the mustang is meh.

[Wh33lhop]

///M motors are very expensive to rebuild.

I imagine that 5.0 v8 will be everywhere in the coming years, meaning way less expensive to rebuild I'd imagine.

I doubt 98% of either of these car's owners are going to have them long enough for a rebuild.

But I don't see it as being an issue. You could buy two mustangs for the price. The real loss comes with the interior, the mustang is meh.

Interior, styling, suspension and suspension design, fit and finish the whole way through, probably brake feel and chassis rigidity, probably stereo, etc. But regardless, the Mustang has proven to be a lot of car for the money.

[Holland]

While I share the general sentiment of this post, I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers, or how a mad tyte MTI is going to contribute to engine failure or increase the cost of a rebuild.

I was running those numbers from what I roughly remember. I was adding the ITB comment toward the complexity of the engine which yields the high rebuild costs.