Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 97
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    747
    Rep Points
    698.9
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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!
    BimmerBoost's Resident n00b...Click here to enlarge

    Titanium Silver 2003 335 Ci || Premium Package || Sport Package || SOLD
    Sapphire Metallic Black 2008 535i || Custom Mandrel Bend Borla Exhaust || BMS Spacers || CMS Pro Meth Kit || JB4 || BMS DCI || SOLD
    Alpine White 2012 C63 Coupe || AMG Development Package || Multimedia Package || Lighting Package || LEASE ENDED
    Alpine White 2015 M3 || Driver Assistance Plus || Executive Package || Lighting Package || M Double-clutch and Adaptive M Suspension ||

    Click here to enlarge

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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.
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -230.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    6,217
    Rep Points
    6,741.9
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    68


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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.
    There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    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.

    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -230.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    it doesn't change the fact that M3 and Mustang Boss were driven by 2 different drivers around Laguna Seca.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    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!
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -230.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9
    Rep Points
    2.5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    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.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9
    Rep Points
    2.5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9
    Rep Points
    2.5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    804
    Rep Points
    607.0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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])?
    Last edited by Sonny; 07-19-2011 at 03:41 PM.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    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.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sonny Click here to enlarge
    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])?
    Maybe the new aluminum block cars but the Iron blocks were right there with it. Let's even give you the benefit and say 2-3 tenths, wtf? For a 5.4 liter supercharged car? 2 tenths on a naturally aspirated 4.0 liter? Well, I know which one I find more impressive.

    12.5 I think to answer your question.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    804
    Rep Points
    607.0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Maybe the new aluminum block cars but the Iron blocks were right there with it. Let's even give you the benefit and say 2-3 tenths, wtf? For a 5.4 liter supercharged car? 2 tenths on a naturally aspirated 4.0 liter? Well, I know which one I find more impressive.

    12.5 I think to answer your question.
    Sticky, I'm continually amazed at the M3's straight line performance. I do not understand how it runs as quick as it does-- talking stock here. I mean, rwtq is in the mid 200's.

    That said, it's not very hard to understand how it runs so close to the GT500. The GT500 has like 400+ lbs on it.

    I agree with you in finding the M3 more impressive. I don't find the GT500 very impressive, btw. Of course, I think if all someone wants is safe, reliable straightline performance with inexpensive mods, the GT500 is the ticket.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I guess we can see it anyway that suits one's argument... My theory is never overlook the obvious.

    The GT500 is barely faster perhaps but 10's of thousands less than the M3. Money saved for near equal performance is hard to ignore IMO. The Boss just ups the ante further and the LS yet another notch altogether.

    Here's the 302R
    http://www.fordracingparts.com/musta...R_herocard.pdf
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    804
    Rep Points
    607.0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
    I guess we can see it anyway that suits one's argument... My theory is never overlook the obvious.

    The GT500 is barely faster perhaps but 10's of thousands less than the M3. Money saved for near equal performance is hard to ignore IMO. The Boss just ups the ante further and the LS yet another notch altogether.

    Here's the 302R
    http://www.fordracingparts.com/musta...R_herocard.pdf
    The GT500 isn't necessarily that much cheaper than an M3. I remember when the 2011's came out, dealers tried to play hard ball until they realized you weren't an idiot. They would try to charge over 60K with options. At the lowest, with the performance package as the only option the car was like 54K. So the two cars aren't that far off.

    From what I understand you can find a very good deal on a brand new M3 right now.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Sticker v sticker it is... Only the I want it as a collector car nuts are paying $10K and higher for these damn things.
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    804
    Rep Points
    607.0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
    Sticker v sticker it is... Only the I want it as a collector car nuts are paying $10K and higher for these damn things.
    I hear ya.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9
    Rep Points
    2.5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    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.
    For the sake of clarity, is it your assertion that when Jonathan Bomarito tested a standard Boss 302 (not a Laguna Seca edition) for Motor Trend at Laguna Seca, someone (either the MT writers, Jonathan Bomarito, or a group of Ford conspirators) swapped the standard Boss 302 tires to R-compound tires similar to the tires that come standard on the Boss 302 Laguna Seca? Is this your assertion? I suppose you are saying it's possible. I suppose it is. I suppose it's also possible that Bomarito never even made it to Laguna Seca that day and the writers fabricated the entire event to include track times. Your assertions in this venue have been rife with unsubstantiated fantasy, driven by paranoia, born of envy, and ultimately foolish.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    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?
    I mentioned $70k, because I would be annoyed if I paid that much for a car whose performance is matched by a Ford at about 60% of the price. You're the one that said $70k isn't a lot of money. It's a ton of money for a car, and not affordable to about 90% of Americans. IRS has not hampered the Boss from performing well in the hands of a capable driver. They used the live rear axle to keep weight down, because if they would have gone to an IRS in the S197 Mustangs, it would have required a major redesign. In 2014 they are going to a completely different platform, which has IRS.

    I think you need to go back and read my initial statement wherein I listed performance advantages in favor of the M3 as DCT, IRS, and gearing. The Boss 302's advantages I listed as HP, torque, power:weight, and weight.


    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    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.
    I hate to disillusion you, actually thatís not true, I am going to enjoy the hell out of this. The curb weight of an M3 is about 3700lbs (BMW lists the unladen weight of an M3 coupe at 3704 lbs.) The Boss 302 is about 3600lbs, roughly 100lbs lighter. The gearing favors the M3, which I said in my initial statement, but the M3 needs a 3.85 final gear because of its lack of torque. The Boss doesnít have that problem and makes due with a 3.73. What about the amount that gets to the tire? Look at the dyno chart on bossmustangsonline . I canít post links yet or I would post it. Itís in Tech on the second page, entitled Base Dynoíd the Boss Today. The chart showed 335 lbft of torque and 423 HP making it to the wheels. Itís not a crank figure. To the wheels. Get it?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Oh, and the M3 has a flatter curve with 90% of its torque available from about 1800 rpm over a longer rev range.
    #1 90% of ~265 rwtq is 238, which is still unimpressive, by any measure.
    #2 The Boss 302 engine makes 230 lb-ft of torque at 2500 RPM, but that figure climbs to 90% of peak rwtq just 400 RPM later and doesn't come back down until 7500 RPM, where it makes a 300 lb-ft. So, the Boss 302 engine makes 90% of peak torque from 3000 RPM to 7500 RPM. And the 90% of peak torque in a Boss is a helluva lot more than the M3 engine. I guess if both drivers agreed to keep their engines at 1800-2500 RPM, the M3 would just straight up handle a Boss.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    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.
    Randy Pobst was an American race car driver, but I think he has retired. There WAS a direct comparison with an M3 that day, only it was a 2011 Mustang GT that they were comparing it to, not a Boss. Same driver. Same day. The M3 was .09 sec quicker on a road course than a 2011 Mustang GT, which would get handled by a Boss. He drove both cars. Randy said the M3 understeered more and he liked the balance of the Mustang better, fact. Granted this is a subjective measurement, but by a pro. Not some jerk-off on a message board.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    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.
    According to all of your gas, the Mustang does not equal M3 performance. The M3 IS the performance benchmark and has been for years. That's why Ford is aiming for it. If you can come close, you know you have built a great car. The Mustang GT comes close, but isn't quite there. The Boss hits the mark and Robin Hoods it.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,170
    Rep Points
    2,132.0
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    22


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I saw a couple BOSS 302 LS Editions at Buttonwillow (some rich guys who own Ford GT's bought them the day before the event) and they looked amazing inside and out. The front splitter is huge and must give some very meaningful downforce to the front end. I think I have to say I would buy the Boss over the M3, maybe cause I have owned an M3. But it just looked so fun, I have to go drive one.


    Found this on fastest laps:


    BMW M3 Competition Package 1:25.47 '10 426 / 1617 The Smoking Tire
    Ford Mustang Boss 302 LS 1:26.10 '12 446 / 1573 InsideLine
    13. BMW M3 (E92) 1:27.67 '07 420 / 1619 motortrend
    14. Ford Mustang GT 5.0 1:27.76 '11 412 / 1648 motortrend
    Current:
    14 Viper TA
    Wsir - 1:28:9
    Buttonwillow C13 - 1:54:1

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    58
    Rep Points
    74.8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Great arguments by all parties but the price/value argument needs to stop! unless your arguing the GT. I stepped in a ford dealer yesterday, motivated by all of this discussion. Within minutes I got a price for a mustang gt with the track/brembo wheels package from 34 to 28k and 0% for 5 years...definitely explains why some of the characters driving the gt's can afford them but once the inquiry about the boss started. I was automatically quoted 20k over sticker...effectively making this cost as much as an m3! no thanks, at 40k I would bite...but how long before the markups stop?

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
    For the sake of clarity, is it your assertion that when Jonathan Bomarito tested a standard Boss 302 (not a Laguna Seca edition) for Motor Trend at Laguna Seca, someone (either the MT writers, Jonathan Bomarito, or a group of Ford conspirators) swapped the standard Boss 302 tires to R-compound tires similar to the tires that come standard on the Boss 302 Laguna Seca? Is this your assertion? I suppose you are saying it's possible. I suppose it is. I suppose it's also possible that Bomarito never even made it to Laguna Seca that day and the writers fabricated the entire event to include track times. Your assertions in this venue have been rife with unsubstantiated fantasy, driven by paranoia, born of envy, and ultimately foolish.
    All I'm saying is they were at Laguna Seca, they make a big deal about the Laguna Seca edition and R-compounds, it's possible. That's all, something to think about. The cars were not run head to head and a pro-driver was setting the best time he could for Ford. The piece almost came off like marketing drivel. I'm not saying they fabricated the time, but clearly set things in their favor.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
    I hate to disillusion you, actually that’s not true, I am going to enjoy the hell out of this. The curb weight of an M3 is about 3700lbs (BMW lists the unladen weight of an M3 coupe at 3704 lbs.) The Boss 302 is about 3600lbs, roughly 100lbs lighter. The gearing favors the M3, which I said in my initial statement, but the M3 needs a 3.85 final gear because of its lack of torque. The Boss doesn’t have that problem and makes due with a 3.73. What about the amount that gets to the tire? Look at the dyno chart on bossmustangsonline . I can’t post links yet or I would post it. It’s in Tech on the second page, entitled Base Dyno’d the Boss Today. The chart showed 335 lbft of torque and 423 HP making it to the wheels. It’s not a crank figure. To the wheels. Get it?
    Why are people always trying to educate me on the M3? Seriously, you are trying to tell me what the curb weight of my own car is? BMW measures the weight with a driver, luggage, and fluids. So, your 3700 figure is way off. I know, shocking. Here, here is how much the M3 actually weighs, hope it doesn't shatter your world and disillusion you:

    Click here to enlarge





    The DCT M3 has a 3.62 and 7 gears. Yes, gearing AND shift speed heavily favor it.

    I do not doubt the Boss makes more HP, and?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
    #1 90% of ~265 rwtq is 238, which is still unimpressive, by any measure.
    #2 The Boss 302 engine makes 230 lb-ft of torque at 2500 RPM, but that figure climbs to 90% of peak rwtq just 400 RPM later and doesn't come back down until 7500 RPM, where it makes a 300 lb-ft. So, the Boss 302 engine makes 90% of peak torque from 3000 RPM to 7500 RPM. And the 90% of peak torque in a Boss is a helluva lot more than the M3 engine. I guess if both drivers agreed to keep their engines at 1800-2500 RPM, the M3 would just straight up handle a Boss.
    The M3 doesn't need to be a torque monster to be fast because it is so efficient in how it uses what it has. Gearing, weight, shift speed, curve, redline, etc. If you don't find the torque impressive that is irrelevant What do I care what you think is an impressive torque figure? The S65 is a superior motor to the 5.0 liter Ford V8 with a higher specific output and a better curve. It is better engineered just like the entire car is.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
    Randy Pobst was an American race car driver, but I think he has retired. There WAS a direct comparison with an M3 that day, only it was a 2011 Mustang GT that they were comparing it to, not a Boss. Same driver. Same day. The M3 was .09 sec quicker on a road course than a 2011 Mustang GT, which would get handled by a Boss. He drove both cars. Randy said the M3 understeered more and he liked the balance of the Mustang better, fact. Granted this is a subjective measurement, but by a pro. Not some jerk-off on a message board.
    Yes, but I think he as an American may biased. Either way, his opinion isn't the be all end all. Yes, there was a direct comparison with the Mustang GT where they were so kind as to not use a DCT M3. Take the best performance version of the car. The M3 is better balanced, fact. What someone thinks subjectively is irrelevant.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
    According to all of your gas, the Mustang does not equal M3 performance. The M3 IS the performance benchmark and has been for years. That's why Ford is aiming for it. If you can come close, you know you have built a great car. The Mustang GT comes close, but isn't quite there. The Boss hits the mark and Robin Hoods it.
    Like I said, I'm glad the 140141047 Mustang variant could equal an m3. A car with less displacement to begin with and that came out years before it. What an achievement by Ford. The M3 is the benchmark, the Ford is trying to get to it but hasn't and never will. The Boss may be able to put up similar raw numbers but part of the experience is how the car does it or else we would shop based on 1/4 mile and dyno figures.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •