50 years of the Mustang

[Tornado]

Fixed...

Still stone age technology no matter which way you slice it. Put IRS into a Mustang and you'll find it'd be a hell of a lot faster than it is now too.

Just like all those FF cars with torsion bars, AMIRITE?


Of course, you've changed your argument so many times that I'm not sure you know what you are actually debating at this point.

 

[MitchZ06]

Since when are we talking FF cars?...

And changed my argument? Do enlighten me as I'm keen to know how this discussion about M3 vs Mustang has changed from my point of view.

In the original post trying to compare a Mustang to an M3 we've got to eliminate cost and go with the stock or base level cars. A stock M3 would slaughter a stock Mustang on a track and anywhere else. Then brought into the argument was the 302 and 302LS vs an M3 (not knowing the original article it's from it's only fair to assume it was stock or had an optional OEM tyre upgrade). I then asked a question about which car you would prefer to drive, 302LS or M3 and gave my opinion.

Do tell where my argument has changed so many times.

 

[Northstar]

A stock M3 would slaughter a stock Mustang on a track and anywhere else.

It sure as hell better since an M3 is a performance level package for the 3 series. You can't compare an M3 to a stock Mustang as it's just not the same thing.

 

[Eric.]

$58k M3 vs. $29k Mustang is where the problem is. Where the $36k model is faster.

That's akin to comparing the ZR1 (at $120k, twice the M3's sticker just as the M3 is twice the 302's) to the M3. Except the Mustang isn't so far away.

 

[Kent]

I say congrats!
Sure Ivenever really like the mustang but theres no way around the fact it's an honest muscle car and I applaud them for keeping it going this long.

That said, my money is where my mouth is and when I could have bought a boss I bought a 5 door instead!

None the less 50 years is impressive.

Btw faster on the track or not, Id take the m3 over almost any mustang.

 

[Tornado]

And changed my argument? Do enlighten me as I'm keen to know how this discussion about M3 vs Mustang has changed from my point of view.

Initial statement:

"Too bad that 50 year old suspension keeps the car even with an M3 and its modern suspension."

Which it does.
To which you responded:

"Lol what? Compare the 2 on a track (5.0 GT and base M3) and we'll see how it's even."

Which is a different argument than what JCE said, and an incorrect one at that because the closest equivalent to the M3 is the Boss and the Boss still has the same suspension.
And you were proven wrong, so:

"Reading is overrated....base M3 vs the Mustang 5.0 GT is what I said, not the upmarket model..."

So much irony in this statement, not just considering you haven't been reading any of the posts in response to yours but also considering the GT is the equivalent of the 335 more than anything else. So when called on that you went to this:

Still stone age technology no matter which way you slice it. Put IRS into a Mustang and you'll find it'd be a hell of a lot faster than it is now too.

Which is not only completely meaningless but also something that you cannot possibly prove.

 

[homeforsummer]

Oh dear, not the BMW vs. 'Stang argument again...

Of course, if JCE hadn't taken Tyger's comment literally...

None the less 50 years is impressive.

It would be indeed, only the Mustang is "only" 47 years old

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Whatever dude

cars that barely mean anything anymore
BMW 1500, Jaguar Mk X, Triumph TR4, Citroen Ami, Renault 4, Jaguar E-Type, Mini Cooper, MG Midget

This is the stupidest, most ignorant post I've ever seen on the internet.

Top gear (magazine) had a good article about taking the best handling cars from England, Italy, and Germany to Stelvio pass. They played the ambassador card and brought the Boss 302 to represent England. It was competing against the likes of the Bugatti Super Sport, Ariel Atom, 911 GT3 4.0, and new Ferrari FF. To be in that company is praise enough in my eyes. (Also, they rather liked it)

 

[McLaren]

Whatever dude

cars that barely mean anything anymore
BMW 1500, Jaguar Mk X, Triumph TR4, Citroen Ami, Renault 4, Jaguar E-Type, Mini Cooper, MG Midget

You can "whatever dude" all day. Doesn't change the fact you're wrong.

The 2nd part of your post is just icing on the cake.

 

[ampire]

I bought a low mileage 2006 GT for $14k. With just a tune it produced 350 at the crank, (300 at the rear wheels). Thats a 50 horsepower improvement over what the car is rated for.

I am not an American car nut. I like all cars and brands equally.

The car is simply underrated. Intake, Gears, and tuner are enough to get the car to 13 flat in the quarter with all season tires. The only other competitor for the price is the Camaro SS or the 2005-6 GTO, which are also amazing platforms.

The live axle rear is not as big an issue as most people make it. For the amount of torque these cars generate and the fact that the cars mostly see drag strip time having a solid rear axle is beneficial.

You might as well criticize the Corvette's leaf spring system as well.

How many of the guys in this thread criticizing the car have actually driven one? Reading specs over the internet does not mean anything. The current generation 2005+ and 2011+ are some of the finest cars Ford has ever produced. The S197 chassis is a completely new design, with unprecedented stiffness over the sn95 and fox body. The new coyote 5.0 is capable of producing 500 rear wheel horsepower naturally aspirated with just bolt ons and the new 3.7 V6 which produces 300 crank horsepower and still gets well over 30 miles per gallon.

I bet the majority of idiots on this board have mostly learned about cars from playing Gran Turismo.

If the game featured and accurately portrayed the 03-04 Terminator Cobra, I think a number of people would change their tune.

 

[Kent]

Well said amp...
I also get tired of people talking about how this car or that car is overpriced, under powered or handles poorly when in reality they have never driven the car or/and will never be able to afford it. Thats partly why I am so quick to point out what I dont know and what I drive... Live the dream!

 

[JCE]

Reading is overrated....base M3 vs the Mustang 5.0 GT is what I said, not the upmarket model...

Not to mention the Laguna Seca is the track focused model, funny how it wins a fastest lap shootout. Would you prefer to drive a track focused racer-ish car or a BMW? I'd take the Beemer.

Funny thing, the M3 isn't a base model anything. So it is a fair comparison.

So? Take the $30k GT, spend $4k or less on suspension, wheels, tires, and be as fast as an M3. On 50 year old suspension.

Edit: Oh, the Boss is only $36,000 anyway. Yeah...

That Boss 302 is some kind of good value isn't it? $36k is a STEAL.

It sure as hell better since an M3 is a performance level package for the 3 series. You can't compare an M3 to a stock Mustang as it's just not the same thing.

Let's compare base to base? The base 3.7L V6 Mustang vs the base 3.0L I6 328i. The Mustang walks that like the dog it is for over $10,000 less money.

Oh dear, not the BMW vs. 'Stang argument again...

Of course, if JCE hadn't taken Tyger's comment literally...



It would be indeed, only the Mustang is "only" 47 years old

I was half kidding, by using "50 year old" instead of "47 year old". And besides I like how quickly this turned into a good debate.

I bought a low mileage 2006 GT for $14k. With just a tune it produced 350 at the crank, (300 at the rear wheels). Thats a 50 horsepower improvement over what the car is rated for.

I am not an American car nut. I like all cars and brands equally.

The car is simply underrated. Intake, Gears, and tuner are enough to get the car to 13 flat in the quarter with all season tires. The only other competitor for the price is the Camaro SS or the 2005-6 GTO, which are also amazing platforms.

The live axle rear is not as big an issue as most people make it. For the amount of torque these cars generate and the fact that the cars mostly see drag strip time having a solid rear axle is beneficial.

You might as well criticize the Corvette's leaf spring system as well.

How many of the guys in this thread criticizing the car have actually driven one? Reading specs over the internet does not mean anything. The current generation 2005+ and 2011+ are some of the finest cars Ford has ever produced. The S197 chassis is a completely new design, with unprecedented stiffness over the sn95 and fox body. The new coyote 5.0 is capable of producing 500 rear wheel horsepower naturally aspirated with just bolt ons and the new 3.7 V6 which produces 300 crank horsepower and still gets well over 30 miles per gallon.

I bet the majority of idiots on this board have mostly learned about cars from playing Gran Turismo.

If the game featured and accurately portrayed the 03-04 Terminator Cobra, I think a number of people would change their tune.

Great post, if the rep system was still here I'd + rep.

 

[Pupik]

...And people complain about an F1 race thread being started one day early.

 

[SuperShouden]

Sorry. I just thought it was cool that the Mustang was nearing it's 50th. My bad.

 

[Dan_]

The BOSS is scarily fast for the asking price, but it lacks the all-rounder capacity of the M3. Comparisons between them are pointless, since they're not aimed at the same market segments. A sports saloon versus a track focused pony car? Pointless.

BTW, where are the grudge match threads? They are much more appropriate to debating car A versus car B.

It's fair to say that Ford will provide improvements for the 50th anniversary, wheter it will be a whole new car or not is purely speculation, since we are three whole years away...

 

[CodeRedR51]

The BOSS is scarily fast for the asking price, but it lacks the all-rounder capacity of the M3. Comparisons between them are pointless, since they're not aimed at the same market segments. A sports saloon versus a track focused pony car? Pointless.

What about the M3 Coupe?

 

[Dan_]

What about the M3 Coupe?

Sports coupe, not track focused coupe.

The body shape isn't the definitive factor to set these cars in different categories, their purposes are. The M3 is built to be exciting, but comfortable and refined in the first place, as you'd expect from a bimmer.

I never even sat in a BOSS stang but from what reviewers say, it is supposed to be usable, but exciting in the first place.

To put it simple, the Caddy CTS-V has the same philosophy of the M3, a luxurious fast car. The BOSS, briliiant on the track as it may be, doesn't.

 

[ampire]

Sports coupe, not track focused coupe.

The body shape isn't the definitive factor to set these cars in different categories, their purposes are. The M3 is built to be exciting, but comfortable and refined in the first place, as you'd expect from a bimmer.

I never even sat in a BOSS stang but from what reviewers say, it is supposed to be usable, but exciting in the first place.

To put it simple, the Caddy CTS-V has the same philosophy of the M3, a luxurious fast car. The BOSS, briliiant on the track as it may be, doesn't.

Thats correct. 👍

Well said amp...
I also get tired of people talking about how this car or that car is overpriced, under powered or handles poorly when in reality they have never driven the car or/and will never be able to afford it. Thats partly why I am so quick to point out what I dont know and what I drive... Live the dream!

Also to use an analogy: the Mustang V6 is to the Impreza, the Mustang GT is to the WRX (or maybe halfway between the WRX and the STI), and the Cobra/GT500/Mach1/Boss302 is to the STI/Lancer Evo.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Sports coupe, not track focused coupe.

I wouldn't call the Boss "track focused", even though it excels at it.

Let's see here:

- Both have V8's (at the moment)
- Both are RWD
- Both are 2-Door Coupes
- Both are available with leather interior
- Etc, Etc.

What's not to compare?

 

[Eric.]

If we want to be really technical, the Mustang is a sedan, by definition of interior space, or something like that. Thus the American Sedan SCCA class.


And yeah, I had no idea the Boss was only $36k. Good luck finding a 2SS Camaro for that. I expected the Boss name to make it at least $40k just because. Wonder how dealer markup is?

 

[Kent]

Honestly, the more people compare the mustang to the m3 the more credit the m3 gets... Lets face it, these two are not rivals in any way other than being fast rwd cars and because of the comparisons it becomes more and more obvious the m3 is the benchmark.

 

[eSZee]

Comparisons between them are pointless, since they're not aimed at the same market segments. A sports saloon versus a track focused pony car? Pointless.

The BOSS is as track oriented as the M3. It's just a regular car with upgraded suspension, aero, and a bit more power.
The difference between a boss and the car it's based on is smaller than the difference between the m3 and the car it is based on.
This is my view, at least. I don't think that the cars should be compared either but not because ford says the boss is a race car with street tires while bmw doesn't.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I guess in my opinion they are perfectly comparable.

The "it's a BMW" excuse doesn't work for me. They're both RWD, V8 powered coupes that you can have fun with on the weekends. Sounds pretty similar to me.

 

[Kent]

I guess in my opinion they are perfectly comparable.

The "it's a BMW" excuse doesn't work for me. They're both RWD, V8 powered coupes that you can have fun with on the weekends. Sounds pretty similar to me.

That sounds like the kind of thing someone would say if...
1) They had never lived with a tuned manual transmission car as a daily driver.
Or
2) They had never driven a new BMW.

That would be like comparing an rs6 wagon and my 5 door sti.

 

[McLaren]

Edit* nvm.

 

[Kent]

Points to last post made by Kent...

I guess the sti rs6 analogy didnt hit home.
Really thought that would do it too, I guess some of us just dont have the seat time to know about the differences you can find when a comparo goes from paper to the real world (and I mean real world, not the track, unless you drive a track to get to work).

 

[McLaren]

Points to last post made by Kent...

I guess the sti rs6 analogy didnt hit home.
Really thought that would do it too, I guess some of us just dont have the seat time to know about the differences you can find when a comparo goes from paper to the real world (and I mean real world, not the track, unless you drive a track to get to work).

That wasn't there when I made the post, but I don't think your analogy is anywhere close to the Mustang Vs. M3 personally. The Ford & the BMW get compared because of the performance for the price. Nobody has ever done the same thing to a $38,000 STi & a $160,000+ Audi.

As far as seat time goes, I know how a new M3 rides & has a tendency to produce a rough ride at times. And from one owner's perspective, the 302 LS will indeed have a stiff ride, but nothing near that of an Elise by comparison. From his view, it's more than capable of being driven just as often as a M3 without any of the creature comforts.

 

[Tornado]

I'm honestly having a hard time understanding how the "its a BMW so they can't be compared" argument fits into this discussion in the first place.

 

[Dan_]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my posts, the M3 is a luxurious all-rounder, the Boss is a beefed-up version of a more attainable sportscar.

My point resides on the fact that if you want to have fun on the weekends and money isn't relevant, you'd have a nice track comparison, but unfortunately, price does have a profound effect on the success of a car. And still, which one of these would take from work to home in more comfort, and which one of these would put a grin on your face when people are impressed with the quality of the cabin and the awesome seats? They are on different price leagues and again, have completely different ethos. The BMW justifies the extra premium by being a premium car on the road.

They have pretty similar performance figures, mechanical layout, engine, at cetera, yes, but they are on completely different categories.

Why not to put a Cadillac CTS-V on the track to face the M3 then? It is a luxury fast car as the M3 is. The Boss disregards luxury to an extent and works to be lighter and louder, different ethos, different approaches, different price tags. They doesn't share the same market slice.

Well, this is at least the way I see them, if I wanted a muscle/pony car, it would between the Boss and a Challenger SRT8 392, if I wanted a Luxury Sports car, M3, RS5 or CTS-V. These aren't interchangeable categories, they just don't mix.

EDIT: What Kent said. 👍

 

[JCE]

If we want to be really technical, the Mustang is a sedan, by definition of interior space, or something like that. Thus the American Sedan SCCA class.


And yeah, I had no idea the Boss was only $36k. Good luck finding a 2SS Camaro for that. I expected the Boss name to make it at least $40k just because. Wonder how dealer markup is?

I checked my dealer's website and it's sticker is $48,575. Still, I bet one could walk in with $40,000 cash and drive it out. And that still is a huge bargain considering the M3 starts at $55,900.