More Mustang stuff....GT vs M3

clinehall · **Posted:** Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:59 pm

Well, I went and drove a 2011 Mustang GT today. It was a convertible auto because that's all they had out side. They offered to get a hardtop from the show room but it was auto too so I didn't want them to bother. I was impressed. Fit and finish was very nice, that has always been my biggest complaint with ford. The convertible was very tight, handling was excellent, at least what I could tell by going 80 mph on slightly curvy roads in Washington NC. Even the bone stock one comes nicely equipped.

My thought about the car is for a daily driver, short trips with the wife, occasional thow midgets in the back seat, and perhaps occassional track day if I found my self with out other options. It fits the bill for that. The only thing I don't like is I could buy a used M3 for what the depreciation will be in the first two years.

So, I'll probably revisit the issue in two years. My biggest problem is I haven't had a car payment for years and not really excited about one no matter how nice the car is.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:08 pm

What Cline posted also brought up another thought. I sat in the back of Michael's Mustang this past weekend riding to Hardee's. It was actually pretty comfortable.

Comparing a Mustang and Corvette aren't even comparisons. The M3 vs Mustang was better because they are both four seater coupes. The reason why they don't do a '11 Mustang vs. Camaro comparo is that the Camaro would get urinated on... four seats and all, with very similar price points. Chevy missed the boat on that one while Ford is really shining. - AB

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:10 pm

Jason Tower wrote:

this isn't just true of the m3 but of the entire bmw line. personally i think bmw has lost their way and while their desire to increase sales may have worked in recent years it has also alienated their core audience and diluted their reputation. now if you'll excuse me i have to load the e30 on the trailer and head to vir to drive my "real" bmw

+1. 5-series GT. X6M (huhwha?), And the latest...front-wheel drive BMWs (no, not Minis).

Game.
Set.
Match.

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

Steven Carter wrote:

And the latest...front-wheel drive BMWs (no, not Minis).

They definitely have changed their tune on that one. Anyone remember this ad?

JamesShort · **Posted:** Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:46 pm

Just drove a 2011 Mustang GT 6spd....yawn. I guess if the driver in this MT comparo said that it needs better damping in a track setting then it absolutely needs stiffer damping from an autocross perspective. I was doing some slalom like steering inputs and the response was SOOO slow. If I bought one I'd have dampers on it day one (if they exist?).

This model had the 3.73 gears and the Brembos (which requires 19" wheels). I'd keep the gearing but drop the brembos and the 19s.

At 70mph, the revs were only a hair over 2000 rpms in 6th gear! even with the lower final drive ratio.

Anyway, at 390 hp (yes on regular gas it only has 390 hp or so, not 412), the car felt not much faster (if at all) than my WRX.....it weighs 4000 lbs though. I can't see 412hp on 93 octane gas being significantly faster either.

Definitely a step in the right direction but I wouldn't buy one for 33k OTD (base with 3.73 FD)....maybe for $27-28k.

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

JamesShort wrote:

Just drove a 2011 Mustang GT 6spd....yawn. I guess if the driver in this MT comparo said that it needs better damping in a track setting then it absolutely needs stiffer damping from an autocross perspective. I was doing some slalom like steering inputs and the response was SOOO slow. If I bought one I'd have dampers on it day one (if they exist?).

This model had the 3.73 gears and the Brembos (which requires 19" wheels). I'd keep the gearing but drop the brembos and the 19s.

At 70mph, the revs were only a hair over 2000 rpms in 6th gear! even with the lower final drive ratio.

Anyway, at 390 hp (yes on regular gas it only has 390 hp or so, not 412), the car felt not much faster (if at all) than my WRX.....it weighs 4000 lbs though. I can't see 412hp on 93 octane gas being significantly faster either.

Definitely a step in the right direction but I wouldn't buy one for 33k OTD (base with 3.73 FD)....maybe for $27-28k.

Must defend Mustang honor. Must defend Mustang honor!

I remember reading a road test of a Mustang GT 390 in Hot Rod magazine (when I was 8 years old), and their comments include a remark that stock Mustangs weren't all that impressive out of the box. So I guess some things don't change. You always have to do a little work. Who would seriously autocross a late model Mustang without an alignment, camber bolts and (hopefully, though the Westerfields seem to be doing fine without them

) better struts/shocks. And 4000 lbs? Where did you read that?

JamesShort · **Posted:** Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:49 pm

Arthur McDonald wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

Just drove a 2011 Mustang GT 6spd....yawn. I guess if the driver in this MT comparo said that it needs better damping in a track setting then it absolutely needs stiffer damping from an autocross perspective. I was doing some slalom like steering inputs and the response was SOOO slow. If I bought one I'd have dampers on it day one (if they exist?).

This model had the 3.73 gears and the Brembos (which requires 19" wheels). I'd keep the gearing but drop the brembos and the 19s.

At 70mph, the revs were only a hair over 2000 rpms in 6th gear! even with the lower final drive ratio.

Anyway, at 390 hp (yes on regular gas it only has 390 hp or so, not 412), the car felt not much faster (if at all) than my WRX.....it weighs 4000 lbs though. I can't see 412hp on 93 octane gas being significantly faster either.

Definitely a step in the right direction but I wouldn't buy one for 33k OTD (base with 3.73 FD)....maybe for $27-28k.

Must defend Mustang honor. Must defend Mustang honor!

I remember reading a road test of a Mustang GT 390 in Hot Rod magazine (when I was 8 years old), and their comments include a remark that stock Mustangs weren't all that impressive out of the box. So I guess some things don't change. You always have to do a little work. Who would seriously autocross a late model Mustang without an alignment, camber bolts and (hopefully, though the Westerfields seem to be doing fine without them

) better struts/shocks. And 4000 lbs? Where did you read that?

Can't find a definitive curb weight. I've found anywhere from 3600-4000 lbs. What have you found? The GVW was 4600 lbs.

I should qualify that my impression of this car might have been clouded by the fact that the whole automotive community and this M3 comparo had my mind thinking that the new stang GT was going to handle so amazingly that I would have been blown away. Had I gone into the test drive with no preconceived notions, I might have reviewed it differently.

You can do camber bolts in stock class?!?

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:19 pm

JamesShort wrote:

You can do camber bolts in stock class?!?

Only if the FSM specifies they can be installed. But that's the case for a lot of cars to help with crash damage (hence their other name..."crash bolts"). The Toyota Spyder was one such case, but there are others where the bolts exist from the factory, but are NOT specified in the FSM and therefore not legal on that model.

--Donnie

JamesShort · **Posted:** Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:25 pm

Donnie Barnes wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

You can do camber bolts in stock class?!?

Only if the FSM specifies they can be installed. But that's the case for a lot of cars to help with crash damage (hence their other name..."crash bolts"). The Toyota Spyder was one such case, but there are others where the bolts exist from the factory, but are NOT specified in the FSM and therefore not legal on that model.

--Donnie

Well the WRX comes with them installed from the factory so obviously those are legal, but I didn't know that strut cars that don't come with them, but that you could buy them would be legal (assuming the FSM mentions them). Good to know.

Michael Westerfield · **Posted:** Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:32 pm

05-09 camber bolts are legal and we all have them...

What's up with the 2011 dissing though?!?! You just punched my mother with that comment!

JamesShort · **Posted:** Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:57 pm

Michael Westerfield wrote:

05-09 camber bolts are legal and we all have them...

What's up with the 2011 dissing though?!?! You just punched my mother with that comment!

Not a diss, it just didn't live up to the steep....steep expectations

.

I did follow it with a test drive in a 370Z....that thing shifts like a dream and feels so much better in all ways compared to the 350. On the other side of the spectrum, as disappointed as I was with the 350z, I went into driving the 370 with NO expectations...good or bad (well maybe a little bad) and I was pleasantly surprised. Better engaging clutch, very solid shift feel, stiffer springs/dampers. The tranny gearing is LONG....almost 50 mph in 1st gear. Unfortunately the base has an open rear diff and the sports package only comes with a viscous LSD....pretty embarrassing if you ask me.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:38 pm

JamesShort wrote:

Just drove a 2011 Mustang GT 6spd....yawn. I guess if the driver in this MT comparo said that it needs better damping in a track setting then it absolutely needs stiffer damping from an autocross perspective. I was doing some slalom like steering inputs and the response was SOOO slow. If I bought one I'd have dampers on it day one (if they exist?).

This model had the 3.73 gears and the Brembos (which requires 19" wheels). I'd keep the gearing but drop the brembos and the 19s.

At 70mph, the revs were only a hair over 2000 rpms in 6th gear! even with the lower final drive ratio.

Anyway, at 390 hp (yes on regular gas it only has 390 hp or so, not 412), the car felt not much faster (if at all) than my WRX.....it weighs 4000 lbs though. I can't see 412hp on 93 octane gas being significantly faster either.

Definitely a step in the right direction but I wouldn't buy one for 33k OTD (base with 3.73 FD)....maybe for $27-28k.

I will say that I had the same feeling when I drove the STi for the first time (which was on my way home from my order coming in). It didn't feel fast nor did it steer quickly/turn in, but after an alignment, new struts/shocks and a massive FSB, it's better. I still think it's not fun to drive, but I think it can get it done for what I bought it for, so I will continue to tinker with it. :wink:

That said, I liked the Shelby GT I drove at the Double-cross a couple of years ago, so I bet the '11 Mustang would be even better. - AB

JamesShort · **Posted:** Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:56 pm

Aaron Buckley wrote:

I will say that I had the same feeling when I drove the STi for the first time

You are coming from driving a C6 vette though

.

Again, let me emphasize, my comments are all based on how the car felt based on the well built up expectations. It's not a bad car at all. Maybe I was expecting Cobra R like handling.

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:21 pm

Video of Sam Strano at a local event which looks tight. 3:31 gears, shocks, bar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHlpFfBXEl0

If you want RESPONSIVE, get a Mod Car. :lol:

Sam posted weights somewhere, only about 100 lbs heavier than a 2007 Shelby. Spec weight is 3605 lbs.

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011 ... _Specs.pdf

Dick

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:06 am

JamesShort wrote:

Can't find a definitive curb weight. I've found anywhere from 3600-4000 lbs. What have you found? The GVW was 4600 lbs.

According to Ford, it's 3605.
Weight distribution (f/r) 54/46 (est.)

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011 ... _Specs.pdf

THSCC Forums

More Mustang stuff....GT vs M3

Who is online