• Motortrend claims the Boss 302 mustang outlaps the E92 M3 around Laguna Seca?

      Now, don't get us wrong, we are very impressed with what Ford is doing lately. Honestly, we think BMW could learn a thing or two from them. Things like the factory supported supercharger setups for the Mustang 5.0 are amazing and the Ford Racing parts catalog makes the BMW performance parts offering look... well, pathetic. MotorTrend claims the Boss 302 laps Laguna Seca in 1:40.21 vs. the M3's 1:42.96. What were the tires used? Was the M3 a DCT? Were they tested on the same day? Are we to really believe the Boss 302 outlaps the Audi R8? Read below for the answers.

      What Ford is doing with the Mustang is excellent and we commend them. The M3 is stagnant and is being routinely beaten now by the competition such as the C63 which Mercedes improved tremendously with the P31 package. BMW seems content to rest on their laurels and not do anything to upgrade the M3 which is a shame. BMW is going soft and Ford is delivering better and better performance products for better money. The same with Mercedes and Audi seems to be gearing up for an assault as well.

      So what do we think of this? Well, the mustang was tested on R-compound tires, not apples to apples. Is the Boss 302 really about 4 seconds faster than the GT500? Car and Driver in the February 2011 issue tests the GT500 and the Mustang GT (not Boss) around VIR and the GT500 is almost 5 seconds faster on the same track, same day. The M3 being 2 seconds faster than the GT500 and the R8 almost a full second faster than the M3. Motortrend compared results from their database from different days with the M3 on street tires using a manual transmission but it is what it is. Congratulations for Ford for building a great car and it is about time for BMW to do something, anything, because we enthusiasts are more interested in lap times than efficient dynamics.



      This article was originally published in forum thread: Boss 302 vs M3 at Laguna Seca! started by Sinister M3 View original post
      Comments 92 Comments
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by WillieSM Click here to enlarge
        And keep this in mind. How much money do you have to waste to modify an M3 just for a few hps. While the stock 5.0 can handle 600hp, (ford even sells a supercharger kit for up to 625hp), i am scared to know what the forged internals of the BOSS can handle.
        The stock M3 can handle 700 hp.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by WillieSM Click here to enlarge
        Second, Why is everyone BSing about whether the M3 was DCT. That would give the M3 the advantage, it should be the manual version.
        Because both cars should be at their best. No neutered cars or unequal drivers on unequal tires.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by WillieSM Click here to enlarge
        First off, Ford created the BOSS to reach numbers to directly say they could beat an M3. What a Compliment!
        True, it should be seen that way.
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by WillieSM Click here to enlarge
        Why is everyone so uptight? I am a huge Bimmer fan and also had a sn95 5.0 as my first car and have been watching the new 5.0 closely.
        First off, Ford created the BOSS to reach numbers to directly say they could beat an M3. What a Compliment!
        Second, Why is everyone BSing about whether the M3 was DCT. That would give the M3 the advantage, it should be the manual version.
        Third, ok fine everyone is right about the R compound.

        And keep this in mind. How much money do you have to waste to modify an M3 just for a few hps. While the stock 5.0 can handle 600hp, (ford even sells a supercharger kit for up to 625hp), i am scared to know what the forged internals of the BOSS can handle.

        BTW these 2 arent competitors; different market.

        Actually what i want to see is a M1 jb3 and downpipe lap times!!! Click here to enlarge
        Excellent first post good sir, you are an open minded individual and are hereby accepted into my circle of trust.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DBFIU Click here to enlarge
        Excellent first post good sir, you are an open minded individual and are hereby accepted into my circle of trust.
        So now it's you, him, and Dick Cheney.
      1. 12BossKB's Avatar
        12BossKB -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        From the front page:


        So what do we think of this? Well, the mustang was tested on R-compound tires, not apples to apples.
        Exactly where are you getting your information? This reads like unsubstantiated conjecture. Were you at the track when they tested it? Did you help install the R-compound tires for the test?

        Like it or not, the Boss 302 and Boss 302 LS both have faster recorded single laps at Laguna Seca than the M3. I am sure M3 owners will conjure excuses for their precious $70k performance machines getting dusted in the next auto rag comparo by a Ford, but the reasoning is fairly simple. The only performance advantage an M3 holds over a Boss is gearing and an IRS. The Boss has the power:weight, torque, and hp advantages. On similar tires with like-skilled drivers the Boss SHOULD beat an M3 on a track. Does the physics of this really escape that many people?
      1. Sorena's Avatar
        Sorena -
        Dude, my BMW fan part wants to punch you in the face.Click here to enlarge
        but other part says you are right. I double checked and realized just 302 Laguna Seca has R-Compound so then you are correct.
        but still can't hide the fact the test happened in 2 different days, and much more importantly 2 different drivers.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Does the physics of this really escape that many people?
        Not necessarily. You can't speak generally because it's not always true, and you know bro? usually BMW are faster than their rivals even though they may have less HP, torque, etc...

        BTW welcome aboard man.
      1. hworang00's Avatar
        hworang00 -
        Haha I do enjoy this forum because of the fact that anyone can basically say what they feel and believe and to someone who doesn't know as much as the usual posters, it gives me lots of knowledge and different trains of thought to think about. I could spend HOURS reading all the arguments and comparisons on this forum, but I'm learning a lot!
      1. Sledgehammer's Avatar
        Sledgehammer -
        Whine whine whine... I swear you guys over analyze $#@! to the point of exhaustion. The car is tested as equipped from the factory. If a Porsche Cayman S handed an M3 its lunch on Pilot Sport Cups nobody would $#@!. The fact of the matter is that since it's a Mudstang it couldnt possibly handle well. The Boss 302 is silly quick out the box, the LS is faster still. No different than getting a E36 M3 Lightweight, E46 CSL or E92 with the Competition Package. All are faster than than stock brethren in many ways.

        Mustang allows you to pick your poison... Need a fast DD get a basic GT with 412hp, wanna go faster and handle even better get yourself a Boss 302 & 444hp, wanna get really silly on a road course get the Boss LS. Lastly one can also get into a GT500 with only 550hp. Not to mention you can get anyone of those for less than the cost of a new M3 with money left over for mods!!! I love bang for the buck and the M3 just has bucks but not enough bang.
      1. Sorena's Avatar
        Sorena -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
        Whine whine whine...
        2 different drivers, it's not Whine in my mind.
      1. DavidV's Avatar
        DavidV -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
        Whine whine whine... I love bang for the buck and the M3 just has bucks but not enough bang.
        Mmm, you fall into your own pit.
        I was right with you untill the last sentence. Pitty.
      1. Sledgehammer's Avatar
        Sledgehammer -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sorena Click here to enlarge
        2 different drivers, it's not Whine in my mind.
        Randy Pobst in both cars... Stock 2011 GT vs the M3 6spd. Fair comparo with a seriously talented driver with no bias. I think it speaks volumes.

      1. Sorena's Avatar
        Sorena -
        it doesn't change the fact that M3 and Mustang Boss were driven by 2 different drivers around Laguna Seca.
      1. Sledgehammer's Avatar
        Sledgehammer -
        Yeah but if the basis of the argument is that the Boss is not faster than a M3. Then this vid on the same track, same day with the same driver with a base Mustang GT. Makes it hard to believe that a lighter, more powerful, better tired car with a better suspension is not noticeably faster. Base car lost by .10 or so in an equal comparo test. How the Boss wouldnt be faster is beyond me!
      1. Sorena's Avatar
        Sorena -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
        How the Boss wouldnt be faster is beyond me!
        Maybe the driver went for pissing in the middle of lap, who knows?
      1. 12BossKB's Avatar
        12BossKB -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sorena Click here to enlarge
        I double checked and realized just 302 Laguna Seca has R-Compound so then you are correct.
        but still can't hide the fact the test happened in 2 different days, and much more importantly 2 different drivers.
        Drivers, days, and slightly different environmental conditions cannot hide the fact that the Boss 302's lap time of 1:40:21 places it in an elite field.



        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sorena Click here to enlarge
        usually BMW are faster than their rivals even though they may have less HP, torque, etc...
        BMW's are usually faster than rivals with greater peak HP and torque numbers because of variable valve timing technology that allows the BMW engine to make greater power throughout a greater portion of the power curve. The Boss 302's engine makes ~100 lb-ft more than the M3 throughout, roughly, the same rpm range and it makes peak HP at the 7500 redline. It's not a small block Chevy from the 80's that peaks at 4800 rpm and dies on its way to the 6000 rpm redline. A poster on the boss mustangs online board posted his dyno results under the technical forum on the second page. The title is Basline Dyno'd the Boss. The results are impressive. Now I want to see a dyno with the track key tune.
      1. 12BossKB's Avatar
        12BossKB -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sorena Click here to enlarge
        Maybe the driver went for pissing in the middle of lap, who knows?
        If you watch the video and listen to the commentary by the driver he says the M3 is much easier to drive, almost to the point of being boring. He also said at the end of the video the M3 felt much faster. The Mustang was a "wild" ride. The M3 didn't scare him at all. That's a pro driving the car, dude. I'm going with the other 50% of your statement and say, maybe he didn't piss in the middle of the lap and the M3 isn't that much faster than a bone stock Mustang GT.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Exactly where are you getting your information? This reads like unsubstantiated conjecture. Were you at the track when they tested it? Did you help install the R-compound tires for the test?

        Like it or not, the Boss 302 and Boss 302 LS both have faster recorded single laps at Laguna Seca than the M3. I am sure M3 owners will conjure excuses for their precious $70k performance machines getting dusted in the next auto rag comparo by a Ford, but the reasoning is fairly simple. The only performance advantage an M3 holds over a Boss is gearing and an IRS. The Boss has the power:weight, torque, and hp advantages. On similar tires with like-skilled drivers the Boss SHOULD beat an M3 on a track. Does the physics of this really escape that many people?
        It certainly is a possibility since there are optional R compounds right?

        First of all, if you are going to compare a track prepped M3 to a track prepped Mustang take an M3 GTS and do it. Don't get mad when the M3 dusts the Mustang with less displacement because it is a better engineered vehicle.

        Also, you say $70k like it is a lot of money or something. At least it buys you an IRS but I didn't buy my M3 for value. I also didn't buy a Mustang for a reason.

        The Boss 302 weighs over 3600 pounds and has 444 horsepower, and? It has no IRS, no DCT, and is poorly balanced in comparison. 55/45? Sounds like some physics are escaping you.

        Don't let one test with cars on different days shape your opinions unless you want to be biased, which it would seem you are.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
        If a Porsche Cayman S handed an M3 its lunch on Pilot Sport Cups nobody would $#@!.
        I would.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
        The fact of the matter is that since it's a Mudstang it couldnt possibly handle well. The Boss 302 is silly quick out the box, the LS is faster still. No different than getting a E36 M3 Lightweight, E46 CSL or E92 with the Competition Package. All are faster than than stock brethren in many ways.
        It's a very nice car. But they threw the M3 laptime from a different day with a different driver in there to stir up controversy.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
        I love bang for the buck and the M3 just has bucks but not enough bang.
        The M3 is just as quick in the 1/4 as a GT500 and only slightly slower in trap speed with less displacement and no blower. No bang? Kind of embarrassing for the GT500 honestly.

        Additionally, put a blower on the M3. BMW's are not bang for buck cars.
      1. 12BossKB's Avatar
        12BossKB -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        It certainly is a possibility since there are optional R compounds right?
        Wrong. The base model Boss 302 has very few available options, none of which include R compound tires. Nice try.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        First of all, if you are going to compare a track prepped M3 to a track prepped Mustang take an M3 GTS and do it. Don't get mad when the M3 dusts the Mustang with less displacement because it is a better engineered vehicle.
        If bimmer girls and boys bring an M3 GTS, expect to see a Boss 302 S, and then expect to see its tail lights. I'm not mad at the Boss getting dusted, largely because that has not happened. The BMW work-around for the displacement problem has always been free-flowing/high revving engines, combined lately with VVT. The Boss matches the M3 with VCT, high-revs, and free-flowing. It's far more than just a peak torque/peak HP advantage.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Also, you say $70k like it is a lot of money or something. At least it buys you an IRS but I didn't buy my M3 for value. I also didn't buy a Mustang for a reason.
        I made $290k over the last two years, dude. Go whip out your checkbook at a trailer park if you really need to impress people with what you can afford. $70k is still far more than I am willing to pay for a vehicle. IRS? Who cares.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The Boss 302 weighs over 3600 pounds and has 444 horsepower, and? It has no IRS, no DCT, and is poorly balanced in comparison. 55/45? Sounds like some physics are escaping you.
        The physics is the numbers of it, Sir Isaac. IRS and DCT are both intangibles. The boss weighs 100 lbs less, has 90 more lb-ft of torque, and 30 more HP. The Boss has the power:weight advantage. Let it sink in... You'll get it. If you look up a few dyno sheets on both cars, you will see the advantage of the Boss engine is not only the peak numbers, but available HP/torque throughout the entire power curve. This isn't an iron block that dies after one hot lap. This is a true modern V8.



        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Don't let one test with cars on different days shape your opinions unless you want to be biased, which it would seem you are.
        I'm doing nothing of the sort. Listen to Randy Pobst's commentary as he drove a Mustang GT and M3. He even says the Mustang's balance is better and the M3 has more understeer. I realize Randy Pobst isn't a senior member of this forum, but he has been behind the wheel of a few race cars in his day.Click here to enlarge
      1. Sonny's Avatar
        Sonny -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The M3 is just as quick in the 1/4 as a GT500 and only slightly slower in trap speed with less displacement and no blower. No bang? Kind of embarrassing for the GT500 honestly.
        Assuming same driver, same conditions, I don't think that's true. I think the GT500 should be about 2-3 tenths quicker.

        If you add DR's I think the GT500 should typically win in the 1/4.

        This is assuming stock power figures for both cars.

        Edit: What is the fastest known E90/E92 M3 quarter mile time (including cars that have DR's but no other mods [stock power levels])?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Wrong. The base model Boss 302 has very few available options, none of which include R compound tires. Nice try.
        You are telling me they are testing at Laguna Seca with a Ford drive and R compounds are available on the Laguna Seca model and these tires don't fit a Boss 302? Uh, clearly they do. It's a possibility.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        I made $290k over the last two years, dude. Go whip out your checkbook at a trailer park if you really need to impress people with what you can afford. $70k is still far more than I am willing to pay for a vehicle. IRS? Who cares.
        What do I care what you made? I don't find $70k cars impressive but you mention $70k as if price point should be the deciding factor in performance. Does a guy in a DB9 care that a GT500 can smoke him? I doubt it. IRS? Who cares? Apparently Ford since they will be going to it with the next gen race cars since they can't keep up now right?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        The physics is the numbers of it, Sir Isaac. IRS and DCT are both intangibles. The boss weighs 100 lbs less, has 90 more lb-ft of torque, and 30 more HP. The Boss has the power:weight advantage. Let it sink in... You'll get it. If you look up a few dyno sheets on both cars, you will see the advantage of the Boss engine is not only the peak numbers, but available HP/torque throughout the entire power curve. This isn't an iron block that dies after one hot lap. This is a true modern V8.
        No offense, but this is just kind of stupid. IRS has no impact on physics? DCT doesn't change acceleration which is, uh, physics? Seriously?

        The Boss weighs 3600+, it isn't 100 pounds lighter, it is almost 100 pounds heavier. Crank figures mean nothing, what about the gearing? What is the torque per gear? What about about what gets to the tire? Well, you overlooked all these things in your "simple" analysis.

        Oh, and the M3 has a flatter curve with 90% of its torque available from about 1800 rpm over a longer rev range.

        I never claimed it was some old V8. The M3 V8 is more sophisticated though.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        I'm doing nothing of the sort. Listen to Randy Pobst's commentary as he drove a Mustang GT and M3. He even says the Mustang's balance is better and the M3 has more understeer. I realize Randy Pobst isn't a senior member of this forum, but he has been behind the wheel of a few race cars in his day.
        Randy Pobst is an American race car driver and was testing the Mustang that day. There was no direct comparison with the M3 so what was he basing it on? MotorTrend wrote a misleading article pitting against an M3 that wasn't even there. The M3 is better balanced with better weight distribution, fact.

        I find it hilarious that, what, it takes the mustang it's what, like 6th variant made for the track to equal an M3 performance wise? The M3 that came out in 2008? It's funny that it is still the benchmark. Once again, take an M3 that is more recent, the GTS, compare it to the Boss, and the Boss gets walked. Oh, don't forget the GTS is much lighter, has the same HP, and is set up for the track. It's a lot more money but Mustang owners can be happy about that if they want. M3 owners don't care what a Mustang costs.