M1 vs competition

[ChrisK]

Originally Posted by bmwzone

I can already see the excuses coming when the 55k M1 loses to the 29k 5.0 GT.

It's too heavy.
My HPFP failed.
The GT was an auto we all know autos are faster.
Ford cheated with the 3.73 rear axle.
The M1 had a fake eLSD not fair.
Sync weighs less than iDrive.
The road was smooth and flat not exploiting the GT's live rear axle. We need to take this off-road.

Don't forget the Run Flat Tires while you are at it.

[bmwzone]

Originally Posted by ChrisK

Don't forget the Run Flat Tires while you are at it.

Do M's have to get RFTs too? That's just a sick joke.

[bmwzone]

Originally Posted by adc

So shouldn't we be loosing you to the Mustang board?

I mean it's faster than your 135i, cheaper, handles better, sounds better - heck, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from buying one and crushing everything else on the road.

I just don't understand what value you see spending time on a BMW forum.

People don't have 2,3,4+ cars? 135i is my new tuner car once my black 5.0 arrives. See what mods it will take to make my 135i faster than the state-of-the-art Ford Mustang 5.0.

[adc]

Originally Posted by bmwzone

People don't have 2,3,4+ cars? 135i is my new tuner car once my black 5.0 arrives. See what mods it will take to make my 135i faster than the state-of-the-art Ford Mustang 5.0.

The Mustang 5.0 is not state of the art, except perhaps for 1995.

Try the S65 V8 in the M3...


To make the 135i faster than the Mustang, all it takes is a JB3/Procede etc and 93 octane gasoline. It will have more WHP and considerably more WTQ than the Mustang and weighs less. Hm, maybe better tires too, depending what tires they put on the Mustang.

[PrimoM3]

Originally Posted by bmwzone

I can already see the excuses coming when the 55k M1 loses to the 29k 5.0 GT.

It's too heavy.
My HPFP failed.
The GT was an auto we all know autos are faster.
Ford cheated with the 3.73 rear axle.
The M1 had a fake eLSD not fair.
Sync weighs less than iDrive.
The road was smooth and flat not exploiting the GT's live rear axle. We need to take this off-road.

You'll probably have the weight advantage in your Mustang too, since your passenger seat will often be empty... particularly on Friday and Saturday night. Enjoy your car, Ricky Bobby.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by adc

The Mustang 5.0 is not state of the art, except perhaps for 1995.

Try the S65 V8 in the M3...

.

By "state of the art' you mean it manages to cost twice as much, make the same HP, much less torque, and get worse gas mileage? Yeah, it takes some serious artistic ability to see that.

[cadeucsb]

Originally Posted by Primo135

You'll probably have the weight advantage in your Mustang too, since your passenger seat will often be empty... particularly on Friday and Saturday night. Enjoy your car, Ricky Bobby.

ricky bobby

[grant]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

By "state of the art' you mean it manages to cost twice as much, make the same HP, much less torque, and get worse gas mileage?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but does the Mustang get better mileage simply because its 6th gear is ridiculously tall like the Vette (not a performance gear at all)? I know that's how the Corvettes get 25mpg...

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

By "state of the art' you mean it manages to cost twice as much, make the same HP, much less torque, and get worse gas mileage? Yeah, it takes some serious artistic ability to see that.

+1.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by grant

I don't have a dog in this fight, but does the Mustang get better mileage simply because its 6th gear is ridiculously tall like the Vette (not a performance gear at all)? I know that's how the Corvettes get 25mpg...

The Vettes will actually do a lot better than that, and the gearing absolutely has a lot to do with it.

BUT...the ability to run tall gears is a direct result of the massive amount of torque that's available. GM and Ford make horsepower by using lots of torque, while in the case of the M3 BMW chose to make it by extending the redline. You have to run lower gearing to take advantage of that, and it hurts the mileage.

I made that comment mostly as a joke, but there's some truth there as well. There's a significant challenge in designing an engine that produces 400Hp and gets 25MPG for a vehicle that's going to have a ~$30k MSRP when compared to designing one that makes the same amount of power with worse fuel economy for a car that's going to have a typica MSRP that's more than twice as much.

If we want to talk about state of the art V8s without any regaurd for price, there are a lot better engines out there than the S65.

[Dackelone]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

The Vettes will actually do a lot better than that, and the gearing absolutely has a lot to do with it.

BUT...the ability to run tall gears is a direct result of the massive amount of torque that's available.

This reminds me of one of Top Gears shows... where Jeremy Clarkson drove a(6sp manual trans) Vette from a standstill in 4th gear! I tried searching You Tube for it.. but I only found this simular video of Tim Schrick (son of the Famous Camshaft maker/tuner) doing the same thing.

0 - 165 mph in ONE GEAR!!! 4th!!! This video is in German... but you really do not need to know much German. Tim Schrick just says at the start you don't have to slip the clucthc much from a stand still... and the engine really pulls! He ends by saying that engine is really the ture meaning of FLEXABILITY!!!

here is the link:

bye

[bmwzone]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

By "state of the art' you mean it manages to cost twice as much, make the same HP, much less torque, and get worse gas mileage? Yeah, it takes some serious artistic ability to see that.

Well remember, it's a BMW - it's about the "feel" - oh yeah, and forking over your checkbook too.

[bmwzone]

Originally Posted by adc

To make the 135i faster than the Mustang, all it takes is a JB3/Procede etc and 93 octane gasoline. It will have more WHP and considerably more WTQ than the Mustang and weighs less. Hm, maybe better tires too, depending what tires they put on the Mustang.

Good ideas.

Wonder what it will take to make the 55k 350hp 1M faster?

[trahsub]

Originally Posted by Primo135

You'll probably have the weight advantage in your Mustang too, since your passenger seat will often be empty... particularly on Friday and Saturday night. Enjoy your car, Ricky Bobby.

So the redneck factor is what will be keeping girls out of the seat? Cause you can't be suggesting the looks are not nice. . . especially since the 1 series' looks are for from it's strongest point. Though three women on my block drive 1 series so they certainly get the approval in my neighborhood.

[AlBel1214]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

The Vettes will actually do a lot better than that, and the gearing absolutely has a lot to do with it.

BUT...the ability to run tall gears is a direct result of the massive amount of torque that's available. GM and Ford make horsepower by using lots of torque, while in the case of the M3 BMW chose to make it by extending the redline. You have to run lower gearing to take advantage of that, and it hurts the mileage.

I made that comment mostly as a joke, but there's some truth there as well. There's a significant challenge in designing an engine that produces 400Hp and gets 25MPG for a vehicle that's going to have a ~$30k MSRP when compared to designing one that makes the same amount of power with worse fuel economy for a car that's going to have a typica MSRP that's more than twice as much.

If we want to talk about state of the art V8s without any regaurd for price, there are a lot better engines out there than the S65.

Agreed... On long trips I can pull 30 MPG in the vette...

[ChrisK]

So many haters...

[grant]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

The Vettes will actually do a lot better than that, and the gearing absolutely has a lot to do with it.

BUT...the ability to run tall gears is a direct result of the massive amount of torque that's available.

I hear you, but BMW has consciously decided to gear the car for performance, rather than efficiency. The new 7-spd Porsche Dual Clutch gearboxes in the newest 911 use a ridiculously tall top gear to achieve good fuel economy and that normally aspirated 6-cylinder has modest torque.

Both the Vettes and the new 911 achieve a higher top speed in one gear lower than their top ratio, while (afaik) the M3 achieves top speed in top gear (allowing for best performance by using closer ratios).

[adc]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

By "state of the art' you mean it manages to cost twice as much, make the same HP, much less torque, and get worse gas mileage? Yeah, it takes some serious artistic ability to see that.

By state of the art I mean it's got 20% less displacement yet makes the same amount of HP - and I'll stake my genuine "M-Power" basebal hat it's also lighter.

Of course it costs more money, quality and engineering don't come cheap. Anybody can just throw displacement at an engine and not make very much power. The fact that I cannot afford say a Gallardo doesn't make it any less thrilling or detract from its amazing engine.

If you lower your expectations and the purchase price accordingly, then the Mustang starts making perfect sense. Although in the $30-40k bracket, I'd still take a 135i over it.

I am pretty certain that people casting the most critiques on the M3 have never driven one in anger. If they did, they'd be singing to the tune of 8400 RPM probably.

If Ford managed to make a car just as fast, as balanced, as responsive, as well built, as good handling and comfortable as the M3, do you think they'll sell it for under $50k?


So come and get me when Ford gets over 500BHP from their normally aspirated 5.0 engine, looses another 100lbs, puts in an adjustable suspension and keeps cost at $40k, I'll be the first in line to buy one - but in the meantime, I'll be taking a nap with my head on the M3's laurels.


Heck, come to think about it I have much more respect for Ford's twin-turbo V6, if they put that engine in the Mustang they'd really be onto something. They'd essentially be making a faster 135i.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by adc

By state of the art I mean it's got 20% less displacement yet makes the same amount of HP - and I'll stake my genuine "M-Power" basebal hat it's also lighter.

Of course it costs more money, quality and engineering don't come cheap. Anybody can just throw displacement at an engine and not make very much power. The fact that I cannot afford say a Gallardo doesn't make it any less thrilling or detract from its amazing engine.

If you lower your expectations and the purchase price accordingly, then the Mustang starts making perfect sense. Although in the $30-40k bracket, I'd still take a 135i over it.

Here we go with the hp/l argument.

What is this? A Honda forum?

Hp/L is an ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS measure of engine performance unless you're in a race serious with a displacement limitation, or you're dealing with a displacement tax. We have neither of those issues in this case, so leave it alone.

You say anyone can throw displacement at an engine and make power? Well I say anyone can throw dollars at an engine and make power. The M3 engine isn't any more "state of the art" than the Mustang engine is. There's nothing ground breaking in either one of them.

[bmwzone]

I like all these comparisons of the Ford 5.0 vs BMW M3. It can mean only 1 thing. Ford is kicking butt.

[adc]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Here we go with the hp/l argument.

What is this? A Honda forum?

So don't ignore arguments when they are not going your way.

Hp/L is an ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS measure of engine performance unless you're in a race serious with a displacement limitation, or you're dealing with a displacement tax. We have neither of those issues in this case, so leave it alone.

I disagree - making an engine do what the S65 does requires R&D, bulding techniques and materials that speaks volumes about the manufacturer.

No wonder BMW won so many engine awards in the past God knows how many years, they are just plain better at this stuff. From the most humble 1.6L to the biggest baddest twin-turbo V12, they make engines that Ford can't even dream about.


But let's stick to the facts and what's relevant - the M3 is faster than the Mustang in a straight line, which should in theory be the pony car's advantage.

But oh yeah, the Mustang gets better fuel economy. I'm sure that's a great comfort. Looks more like an ass than a pony if you ask me...

You say anyone can throw displacement at an engine and make power? Well I say anyone can throw dollars at an engine and make power.

Well dollars and technological know how, of which BMW posseses more than Ford.

The M3 engine isn't any more "state of the art" than the Mustang engine is. There's nothing ground breaking in either one of them.

I'll be sure to acknowledge that as I blow past those Mustangs...

[adc]

Originally Posted by bmwzone

I like all these comparisons of the Ford 5.0 vs BMW M3. It can mean only 1 thing. Ford is kicking butt.

If only they would come out on top at least once, to see what it feels like...

Oh well, better luck next time.