More Mustang stuff....GT vs M3

Les Davis · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:04 pm **Posts:** 2059

Got a ride in the beast last night and it is fast, real fast. Maybe there were a couple spark plug wires pulled on the one James test drove?

Michael Westerfield · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:15 pm

Les Davis wrote:

Got a ride in the beast last night and it is fast, real fast. Maybe there were a couple spark plug wires pulled on the one James test drove?

Barking 3rd always sucks. I promiss I'll let you drive it... some day.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:41 pm

Aaron Buckley wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

Kind of coming full circle in this thread...so, does this mean that the SCCA should move the M3 to F-stock? If not, why not? Similar weight, power, less torque, actually harder to keep the thing cooking on an autox course since it depends on major revs with 295 lb-ft to make its power, etc... Oh, and totally crap front camber situation for autox compared to the Mustang.

Not unless you want to kill FS. While the car has no camber and will eat front tires like no tomorrow, it's going to be faster on an autocross course when fully prepped. - AB

I've seen no real world proof of that, have you? I've spent a fair amount of time in both the E92 and E90 M3, 6MT and DCT, so I don't particularly doubt your statement, but I do know that you have to keep the thing on the boil to get big power out of it, and in typical autocross courses, there are many opportunities for that not to be the case.

I can't see how it could kill FS with the 2011 GT in that class. If anything, it might make the class at least something but a one-car class? And of course take it out of A-Stock where it has absolutely no chance to ever be competitive?

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:04 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

Aaron Buckley wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

Kind of coming full circle in this thread...so, does this mean that the SCCA should move the M3 to F-stock? If not, why not? Similar weight, power, less torque, actually harder to keep the thing cooking on an autox course since it depends on major revs with 295 lb-ft to make its power, etc... Oh, and totally crap front camber situation for autox compared to the Mustang.

Not unless you want to kill FS. While the car has no camber and will eat front tires like no tomorrow, it's going to be faster on an autocross course when fully prepped. - AB

I've seen no real world proof of that, have you? I've spent a fair amount of time in both the E92 and E90 M3, 6MT and DCT, so I don't particularly doubt your statement, but I do know that you have to keep the thing on the boil to get big power out of it, and in typical autocross courses, there are many opportunities for that not to be the case.

I can't see how it could kill FS with the 2011 GT in that class. If anything, it might make the class at least something but a one-car class? And of course take it out of A-Stock where it has absolutely no chance to ever be competitive?

You bring up a good point. The e90/92 M3 has no chance in AS, has no chance in BS.....would be really quirky in CS (and cause Mazda riots).....FS actually seems to fit more than any of the other classes. And you are right, the 2011 mustang GT is likely to make FS a one car class so the M3 might mitigate that a bit.

Does the M3 have room to fit significantly more rubber than the Mustang?

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:08 pm

JamesShort wrote:

Does the M3 have room to fit significantly more rubber than the Mustang?

I doubt it. It has 8.5" front and 9.5" rear wheel widths. I'm not sure how much room you have up front between tire and strut (I think that will be the limiter up front). It can run a 275/35 up front on the stock wheel I think.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:11 pm

Les Davis wrote:

Got a ride in the beast last night and it is fast, real fast. Maybe there were a couple spark plug wires pulled on the one James test drove?

Like I said, I drastically underestimated my WRX, but as I found out the performance stats for stopped straight line acceleration are very similar between the WRX and the 2011 GT (of course the stang has much more low end torque and would kill the WRX from a roll....ie coming out of a slow turn in autocross). With that said, in my mind I thought the Mustang would be significantly quicker than my car and therefore my point of comparison was flawed. I didn't mean to say it was slow by any means....it's more a situation that I thought it was going to make my heart jump out of my chest if I went WOT....and it didn't. When I drove a C5 Z06.....I got scared putting the pedal to the floor on street tires in that thing.....I guess I expecting something similar to that I suppose.

Matt McGrain · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:12 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

[ If anything, it might make the class at least something but a one-car class? And of course take it out of A-Stock where it has absolutely no chance to ever be competitive?

That would be really cool Chuck. Instead of reading about the comparison in a magazine with a potpourri of brightly colored track illustrations representing braking and velocity, I'd love to see the M3 battle it out with the Mustang on the actually autocross course. Then again, the M3 would be few and far between given the unattainable (for most) pricepoint.

After all the Pax difference is negligible at only .017 b/t AS and FS as it is. Pax disclaimer: Pax sux! (unless you're in a boring GS car :lol:

)

Michael Westerfield wrote:

Barking 3rd always sucks.

I think Honda owners are going to need a translation on this statement.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:15 pm

James,

Is your car stock? Does an '09 WRX trap 109-110+ in the 1/4 mile? :shock:

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:16 pm

Matt McGrain wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

[ If anything, it might make the class at least something but a one-car class? And of course take it out of A-Stock where it has absolutely no chance to ever be competitive?

That would be really cool Chuck. Instead of reading about the comparison in a magazine with a potpourri of brightly colored track illustrations representing braking and velocity, I'd love to see the M3 battle it out with the Mustang on the actually autocross course. Then again, the M3 would be few and far between given the unattainable (for most) pricepoint.

After all the Pax difference is negligible at only .017 b/t AS and FS as it is. Pax disclaimer: Pax sux! (unless you're in a boring GS car :lol:

)

Michael Westerfield wrote:

Barking 3rd always sucks.

I think Honda owners are going to need a translation on this statement.

1.7% is a good bit if you ask me

. That's a whole second difference between the M3 and 2011 GT on a 60s course. The M3 will probably never be 1s faster than the 2011 GT on a 60s course (driver being consistent)

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:17 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

James,

Is your car stock? Does an '09 WRX trap 109-110+ in the 1/4 mile? :shock:

Yep....a stock 09 on 225 Dunlop SP01s pulled a 12.947 at 104.46

But I probably couldn't do that....I want my transmission to last

.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:19 pm

JamesShort wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

James,

Is your car stock? Does an '09 WRX trap 109-110+ in the 1/4 mile? :shock:

Yep....a stock 09 on 225 Dunlop SP01s pulled a 12.947@104.46.

Ah, so yeah, that's mainly due to launching hard with 4WD and hence the 1/4 mile time. It's the trap speed that tells all on power to weight, and there is waaay back from a 109-110+ range.

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:21 pm

There's a big difference between 104 and 110mph in the quarter.

You're comparing times, which the WRX can make up for a lack of power with the AWD system.

The speed is a better indication of power.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:22 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

James,

Is your car stock? Does an '09 WRX trap 109-110+ in the 1/4 mile? :shock:

Yep....a stock 09 on 225 Dunlop SP01s pulled a 12.947@104.46.

Ah, so yeah, that's mainly due to launching hard with 4WD and hence the 1/4 mile time. It's the trap speed that tells all on power to weight, and there is waaay back from a 190-110+ range.

Yes I understand, again to reiterate, my car was only a point of reference and therefore it's not night and day. If I had an 02 WRX that ran 14.xx in the low 90s (made that up) the GT would have seemed like an absolute rocket ship.

All this defensiveness makes no sense since I have fully qualified my points of reference in all comments I have made.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:24 pm

JamesShort wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

James,

Is your car stock? Does an '09 WRX trap 109-110+ in the 1/4 mile? :shock:

Yep....a stock 09 on 225 Dunlop SP01s pulled a 12.947@104.46.

Ah, so yeah, that's mainly due to launching hard with 4WD and hence the 1/4 mile time. It's the trap speed that tells all on power to weight, and there is waaay back from a 190-110+ range.

Yes I understand, again to reiterate, my car was only a point of reference and therefore it's not night and day. If I had an 02 WRX that ran 14.xx in the low 90s (made that up) the GT would have seemed like an absolute rocket ship.

But James, we're not letting you off the hook here. You're going to be forced to drive the car again!

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:26 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

James,

Is your car stock? Does an '09 WRX trap 109-110+ in the 1/4 mile? :shock:

Yep....a stock 09 on 225 Dunlop SP01s pulled a 12.947@104.46.

Ah, so yeah, that's mainly due to launching hard with 4WD and hence the 1/4 mile time. It's the trap speed that tells all on power to weight, and there is waaay back from a 190-110+ range.

Yes I understand, again to reiterate, my car was only a point of reference and therefore it's not night and day. If I had an 02 WRX that ran 14.xx in the low 90s (made that up) the GT would have seemed like an absolute rocket ship.

But James, we're not letting you off the hook here. You're going to be forced to drive the car again!

Honestly I really think I want to now

. Maybe Michael will let me ride along with him in Sanford and make my heart jump out of my chest

.

THSCC Forums

More Mustang stuff....GT vs M3

Who is online