Motor Trend Comparison: 2011 Mustang GT vs 2011 BMW M3

[Karabiner98k]

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

M3 has no problem with low down torque, in fact it has a very flat torque curve and due to excellent gearing it can beat many of it's rivals in low down tractability including Corvette and Viper.
Have you seen any flexibility test of the M3?? If you look at AMS and Sport Auto and even C&D test results, you will see that in high gears (5th and 6th) M3 is very strong and i'm not joking but it is more flexible than a LP640 in 6th gear from 60-100km/h!!!

The reason why that driver said something about lack of low down torque is that the new mustang GT has a very unusually close ratio box. just look at the ratios of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and, 5th:
Mustang: I)3.66 II)2.43 III)1.69 IV)1.32 V)1.00 VI)0.65
M3: I)4.06 II)2.369 III)1.58 IV)1.19 V)1.00 VI)0.87

The point is that for a car like Mustang which doesn't have a high-revving engine like the M3 and only has a 6500RPM redline, these extremely short ratios are quite unusual especially in American cars which always had extremely tall gearing.
There is not much difference in final drive ratios either:
Mustang: 3.73
M3: 3.846
Now if you compare the overall ratios of both cars, some interesting results will happen:

Overall ratios for Mustang: 2nd) 9.06 3rd) 6.30 4th) 4.92 5th) 3.73
Overall ratios for M3: 2nd) 9.11 3rd) 6.07 4th) 4.57 5th) 3.846

So, interesting isn't it?? A big engine that can't rev to high RPMs (only 6500RPM) has a shorter overall gearing than a smaller engine which can rev up to 8400RPM, and this is why that driver felt lack of torque in the M3 compared to Mustang. These gears (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) are the most important gears in acceleration and laptime and are used more than any other gears when a car is driven on a track.

The general rule is that a big torquey engine should be hooked to a gearbox with tall overall gearing to compensate for it's lack of RPM and a smaller high-revving engine should be hooked to a gearbox with short overall gearing to compensate for it's relative lack of torque BUT the Mustang did the opposite: A big torquey engine and an extremely short gearing and that's why it feels more tractable than the M3. If Mustang had used a normally tall gearing (which is often used with low-revving engines), then the M3 would feel just as tractable. I personally believe that high-revving engine and close ratio transmission is the best possible solution for a supercar because it can achieve very good acceleration and low down tractability without any kind of lag in power delivery plus you will have lots of fun and excitement when you rev it up to 8000RPM or so. If you don't believe me just look at in-gear times of 458 Italia which beats even Porsche Turbo S which has much more torque at low end.

 

[footie]

Ford have definitely tried to take on the M3 with a very similar style of car, something neither Mercedes, Lexus or Audi have tried, and for the most part they succeeded. So well done Ford for making a cheap version of the M3.

Personally I wouldn't pick a Mustang because of the cheap feel from it's interior but this car isn't aimed at me so for those that it is I reckon you will give a lot of fun from it, as no doubt that beefy engine will put a grin on your face.

 

[hbs1906]

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

dr Dunkel sorry but I must agree with go0gle. The problem is the base M3 is no longer a lightweight sportscar that should be matched with high torque band engines. I believe an engine with a broader torque band is more suited for a 3700 lbs vehicle. Take 300 lbs out of the car and the mid-range torque issue disappears. The M3 GTS at 3285 lbs is probably as light as you can go with a car this size. Honestly with the weight savings of the GTS BMW didn't "need" to increase horsepower.

 

[hbs1906]

Karabiner98k, good points. Many times the effect of gear ratios is overlooked.

 

[go0gle]

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

Like Guibo was saying, it depends on what type of track you are driving on.

So you think that the GTR and the FI 911s feel like diesels ? BMW should have put a similar to the GTR engine in the M3 in terms of torque/power curve. I think the GTR will be able to pull quite hard on any German road What are the rumors for the engine in the new M3 ? I am sure they are considering forced induction.

In my mind the M3s engine is underpowered, not enough torque. That great chassis needed something to match it, and I think they failed. The E46 was a better match for its engine.

But then again, this is just my take on it.. I've driven the old and the new one and this is what I came up with

Agree to disagree I guess. I bet most people on this board will disagree with me so..

 

[Karabiner98k]

Like Guibo was saying, it depends on what type of track you are driving on.

So you think that the GTR and the FI 911s feel like diesels ? BMW should have put a similar to the GTR engine in the M3 in terms of torque/power curve. I think the GTR will be able to pull quite hard on any German road What are the rumors for the engine in the new M3 ? I am sure they are considering forced induction.

In my mind the M3s engine is underpowered, not enough torque. That great chassis needed something to match it, and I think they failed. The E46 was a better match for its engine.

But then again, this is just my take on it.. I've driven the old and the new one and this is what I came up with

Agree to disagree I guess. I bet most people on this board will disagree with me so..

Yes, i think most people will disagree with you because you are wrong
M3 has never been underpowered because if it was it wouldn't receive such great awards in magazines. This E92 M3 has been in production since 2007 and all these 3 years it has beaten most rivals and soon there is a new M3 on production. Now that the new generation 3-series and a new M3 is about to come a car like Mustang GT appears and you think M3 has been underpowered in the first place. The most important fact is that M3 was originally designed to compete with Porsche 911 Carrera S and it was quite successful in it and it wasn't designed to beat a supercar like GTR. I think it is quite pointless to compare GTR with M3 because GTR was designed to compete with Ferrari and Porsche. As i said in my earlier post if you think M3 doesn't have enough torque or needs a Turbo then i should say you don't believe in high-revving engines but trust me, big engine and high torque is not the solution because if it was, Viper should have been the fastest and most tractable NA car in the world!!!
Sorry, but it isn't

 

[hbs1906]

Driving the two cars back to back the M3 will feel a little underpowered coming out of turns because of the large difference in power/torque delivery of the two engines.

M3:
414 hp @ 8300 rpm
295 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm

Mustang GT 5.0
412 hp @ 6500 rpm
390 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm

Combined with the ratios that Karabiner98k provided, the Mustang is putting a huge amount of torque to the ground compared to the M3. That's why the driver only shifted the Mustang to 3rd in some corners while having to shift to 2nd in the M3. With the ratios between the two cars so similar the M3 can't match the thrust feeling of the Mustang.

I wish I had the horsepower/torque curves for both engines to fully compare them.

Personally I believe the 5.0 liter is better suited for the weight of these vehicle but the music of a high reving V8 is delightful. If I was developing the engine I would probably split the diference between the two and gain the best of both worlds. The M3 GTS engine is close but I would lower peak horsepower rpm to 7250rpm with 7750 redline and slight increase in torque 350 lb-ft . What's your thoughts?

 

[Mr Robert]

It would be horrible if they made the M3 engine feel like a gigantic American V8... so wrong. Not charming in any way at all.

 

[rollo]

Charming? Now that would be all wrong in a sports car.

 

[Mr Robert]

Charming? Now that would be all wrong in a sports car.

Charming is never wrong. People should try it.

 

[Zafiro]

I've driven M3 and I can't agree its underpowered. Well, its underpowered compare to a Veyron but not to a Golf GTI

 

[Karabiner98k]

Driving the two cars back to back the M3 will feel a little underpowered coming out of turns because of the large difference in power/torque delivery of the two engines.

M3:
414 hp @ 8300 rpm
295 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm

Mustang GT 5.0
412 hp @ 6500 rpm
390 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm

Combined with the ratios that Karabiner98k provided, the Mustang is putting a huge amount of torque to the ground compared to the M3. That's why the driver only shifted the Mustang to 3rd in some corners while having to shift to 2nd in the M3. With the ratios between the two cars so similar the M3 can't match the thrust feeling of the Mustang.

Yes, that's exactly what i wanted to say. This Mustang is really excessively short geared. You might not believe it but it has even more torque at the wheels in 2nd gear than a Supercharged Corvette ZR1 !!!!!

ZR1: 1.61 X 3.42 X 819 = 4509 nm at the wheels
Mustang GT: 2.43 X 3.73 X 528 = 4785 nm at the wheels

That's really insane!

But the truth is that because Mustang has broken the rules, it has it's own disadvantages:

1)The engine is not designed for high revs, so this extremely short gearing always makes the engine turn at very high revs and that shortens the life of the engine.
2)The only way to be economical in Mustang is to drive only in 6th gear because any fast driving will result in hugely high fuel consumption because the engine even runs at RPMs higher than a M3.

Maybe that's the reason why Ford has other choices of final drive ratios such as 3.31 to make this car more fuel efficient.

In the end it is the excellent engineering of the M3 which makes it faster than the Mustang on a track despite all that huge torque. However, The real potential of M3 engine is more obvious with DKG transmission.

 

[rollo]

Charming is never wrong. People should try it.

Very clever, but lets stick to cars. I do look forward to driving the new GT, even if it is "American" made. Out of curiosity, have you driven a contemporary sport-oriented U.S. designed and manufactured V8 car (like a Corvette) or is your prejudice derived from what you have read?

Now back to the debate at hand, I can't imagine how one could conclude that the M3 is underpowered.

 

[hbs1906]

I have driven both cars back to back and you do notice the difference.

 

[rollo]

That difference being? And which two?

 

[hbs1906]

I have driven the 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 with 3.73 gear and 2010 BMW M3 with competition package. Driving the M3 by itself you would not consider it underpowered, but then jump in the Mustang and you notice the increased torque. It is purely relative not absolute.

 

[Sayyaaf]

What a civilized thread, it has been a while since I read threads with no fights or personal attacks.

Regard.

 

[hbs1906]

LOL!

After following the previous Mustang 5.0 vs M3 poll thread I was expecting fireworks when I started this one. Interesting.

 

[Mr Robert]

Very clever, but lets stick to cars. I do look forward to driving the new GT, even if it is "American" made. Out of curiosity, have you driven a contemporary sport-oriented U.S. designed and manufactured V8 car (like a Corvette) or is your prejudice derived from what you have read?

Now back to the debate at hand, I can't imagine how one could conclude that the M3 is underpowered.

Only the C6 Corvette and previous Mustang GT. Not really to my liking.

I think the only way one could think that the M3 is underpowered, is if you like the character of the above mentioned. I hope the M3 never turns into something like that.

 

[Karabiner98k]

Building something that could match M3 in a straight line is not difficult after 3 years, just put a big engine in a lightweight body and you can even beat Ferrari and Lamborghini. Mustang GT vs M3 is the same story of CTS-V vs M5. M cars are not only about being fast in straight line. The thing Mustang lacks is the pure driving pleasure of the M3 which is something that can't be achieved by putting truck engines into motorcycle body. For me the real rivals of the M3 were RS4, ISF, Carrera S, RS5 and Alpina B3 and the M3 beat all of them in acceleration, tractability, handling and driving experience.