Just like the C 4's to C 5's, C 5's to C 6's.........compare corvettes to corvettes..........

 

And let's keep pretending the Mustang performs just like the M3 with a 4.0-liter engine. Throw 1.8 liters on top of that (45% more displacement) and a supercharger and those Goodyears, and I'm supposed to be awe-struck by the performance advantage?

"At last?" The car they benchmarked was the 997, which came out the same year as the C6 (2004-ish).

But thanks for the link. Interesting notes:
"As far as hardware, everything about the C7 is new, and GM is making a more concerted effort to attract driving enthusiasts to the fold without abandoning the sensibilities of the traditional Corvette owner.
Improved Driving Experience
Modern Corvettes are plenty fast, yet lack finesse. 'Vette boys have turned this into a badge of honor, claiming that rough-and-ready-ness is the essence of the Corvette's appeal. Corvette Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter appears to disagree, saying that improving the driving dynamics was one of the priorities for the 2014 Chevrolet Corvette.
To help address complaints of vague steering, the C7's rack-and-pinion steering system was substantially beefed up and is said to be five times stiffer than that of the outgoing car. Suspension geometry has been revised, and we're told the unusual, confidence-sapping lateral rear end motions endemic to C5s and C6s have been mitigated."

Guess that "subjective mumbo jumbo crap" isn't so irrelevant after all.

 

Corvette rival.....T-Bird......HA HA HA HA HA, Just kidding, isn't it funny how far those two cars have strayed from each other

 

Especially in the "one is still actively developed and manufactured and the other isn't" department.

 

Why would I chose that BMW over a CTS-V? Because that's the car I want. I'm not looking for fuel hog with 550hp.

Second, the GTO was canceled because Holden was ending it's run on that car in 2006, sales be damned. The zeta platform took over, and we got the G8, but that was (turns out temporarily) canceled because Pontiac ceased to exist. It's now back as the "SS".

I don't care why the M3 is bloated, it's just a fact that it is and because of that, a mustang kicks it's fat rump. Quit making excuses, it's not as if the mustang was using racing slicks.

The cadillac is a luxury vehicle, first and foremost. I don't know if it's faster than a GT500 on a track (I seriously doubt that it is, but who cares).

When some magazine compares a cadillac CTS-V to a mustang on a race track (they never will because there is no reason to), then you can bitch about people not griping about what you think is a "poor bang/buck ratio".

 

Check that post again: I said "regular CTS."
You think Holden/GM would have quit making that car if they had ready and willing paying customer lined up around the block? Fact is, GM missed their sales estimate on the GTO for every year it was sold in the US. It was a goner, even with the slower, more expensive M3 on the market. Its real main rival, the Mustang, was slower and a bit less expensive, but it had something the GTO didn't, and it's not something easily measured: character. GM made the mistake of foisting their competitor against the best-looking Mustang in ages. Ford got away with the V6 doing healthy sales of around 50%; you think GM could have done the same if they put a V6 into that GTO?
Mustang kicks its fat rump...yeah, a $60k Mustang that will only do that in the most extreme and rare of conditions (yet still lack all of the amenities and safety found on the M3). Meanwhile, that poor BMW driver is enjoying all of those other traits on a much more regular basis. It's not so clear that the Mustang is the better car for the money after all, for how great is that performance advantage when you can only enjoy it in about 1% of your driving (assuming you even happen upon an M3 in the first place)?
And you think BMW nowadays is a performance marque first and foremost and not luxury? What separates a bottom-rung 3-Series (or even 1-Series) from similarly priced non-premium marques? I can guarantee you it's not objective performance. Quit giving excuses to Cadillac that you wouldn't allow the BMW.
Here you go, R&T comparing the old GT500 with "only" 550 hp against the CTS-V, showing the GM for what it really is: overpriced and outmatched in bang/buck against the Ford:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roada...5ddd7341cb.pdf
http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roada...c258edd2da.pdf
Here's Motor Trend pitching the GT500 and CTS-V together on the same day:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...r/viewall.html
Start your b!tching.
(Now, if you're going to whine that it's irrelevant to compare a CTS-V against a GT500 on track since there's no reason to, then why should I believe you when you claim there's a compelling reason to compare an M3 against a Mustang?)

 

To this day Porsche has had no answer in a production car for the performance of the C6's top Vettes. They simply couldn't keep them on the road for everyone. The mass production GT2RS was never up to it. Now they have engineered some fancy engine suspension system that takes enough kick out of the lower powered 911 to everyones satifaction. I haven't heard if it works that good on the turbo, which, might be the fly in the ointment.

Tell me!

 

What makes you think they are worried about finding an answer?

 

The real "mauling" takes place in the showrooms. Porsche sells about 4,000 Turbos per year. The last time I saw breakdown sales figures for Porsche in the US, 60% of their 911s started at $100k (that's before options, meaning the average transaction price for a Porsche 911 is comfortably in excess of your typical Z06/ZR1, which, unlike Porsche, benefits much more from employee/loyalty discounts and factory holdbacks). When was the last time GM sold that many Z06/ZR1s at $100k+ a pop (more like $140-150k once the Turbo is out the door)? Production breakdown of Corvettes last year showed only 117 Z06s with the Z07 package ordered, and 404 ZR1s (a far cry from the planned 1800-2000 per year).
Hmmm...millions in profits on the one hand vs a few seconds here or there on a track. Any smart company would know which one to take. And thus we see GM trying to make such improvement for the C7 in areas that typically played to German car strengths (driving involvement, driving pleasure, interior ambience).



Revisiting the active lighting systems for a moment, one would have to be pretty blind not to notice the system at work here.

 

A good sign!

 

Nurburgring Nordschleife, December 2006. Walter Rohrl laps in a base GT2, time: 7:35, and returns with a list of modifications needed to make the car better. May 2007, back at the 'Ring, Rohrl at the helm again in a base GT2, time: 7:32. He then gets into the modified GT2 and, after breaking a time of 7:29 on the first hot lap, he begs Porsche to build this car. With a green light from the powers that be, Porsche begins work on project 727 (a nickname based on Porsche's target time at the 'Ring).

You'll have to act quickly: Porsche is making only 500 of these vehicular masterpieces, priced at a mere $245,000.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2LxjSDRVl

They know the price$

 

All you have shown is that
1) The standard GT2 was not all that it could be, as evidenced by a modified one that was already in existence with the standard car, and
2) Porsche have a bunch of internal metrics they want to meet

Do note that at the time the original GT2 was around, the Carrera GT was still being produced and sold. When the Carrera GT finished its run, the GT2 then took up the title of fastest, most powerful Porsche. It did not take as much effort as you seem to make it, as only 500 RSs were built (and all were sold; I doubt any languished on dealer lots with massive rebates). Also note in your test the RS's behavior in the wet, even on the Cup tires. Chris Harris was also amazed by how much grip the regular GT2 had on its Cup+ tires during his Nordschleife laps, and that was on a damp, greasy track at only 4 deg C.

There is no "jumping topics" here. It's perfectly acceptable to talk about what the marketplace competitors will be. GM is aligning the C7 for a different market than before, and they've done the same for Cadillac to go directly against the Germans. No more "for a car sized like a 5-Series" excuses like when the CTS was pitched against the 3-Series.

 

Yes, Holden would have stopped making the GTO no matter what the ultimate sales figures were. That platform was very old from the mid 90's, and just brought over to the US as a stop gap for the later camaro/G8. The zeta platform was also used by Holden right after the GTO/HSV was discontinued. And, yes, the sales figures for the GTO were less than expected, but it did not matter.

I'm not sure why you want to bring up the cadillac, I personally could care less on whether it outruns anything.

And the Mustang GT does NOT cost $60k. As tested against the BMW it was around $40k. And that generic mustang kicks the M3's fat rump, and that's a fact. The GT500? I assume it would lay a raping on the M3 and M5/6 to boot.

And we're not talking base 3 series. As usual, you want to move the target. But the base 3 series is strictly a young woman's car, which is why the M3 is such a slouch.

And quit whining about the comparison the M3 lost to the regular mustang, I didn't perform the test.

 

Why do you think that any of that indicates that Porsche is looking for an answer to the Vette??

 

Ha, BS it wouldn't matter. You're telling me that if GM had 1 million customers lined up around the corner, they still wouldn't keep selling it? If that were true, that might explain why GM's marketshare had been plummeting, and why they were losing 10s of billions of dollars in some years before the bailout. Oh yeah, that paragon of success the G8. How did that work out? Don't give this crap that it would only have been a Pontiac (dead) car. If the demand were there, they could easily rebadge it as a Chevrolet.
I keep bringing up the Cadillac because I want to know why you would pick the 5-Series over it. If there was a really good reason, I'd think we'd have heard it by now.
We don't have to be talking about the regular 3-Series to talk about whether the M3 is a luxury car. Did you really think they stripped out the quality and luxury of the M3 to make it a performance-oriented car? If anything, it's loaded up with even more standard equipment than the regular 3 Series. Which is a lady's car. Yeah, I never see a girl driving a V6 Mustang LOL. And aren't we talking about the regular 3 Series because back in post #469 of this thread, it was you who stated:
"since the majority of 3 series are sold to women" ?

Speaking of which, chew on this:
"The M3 had highest number of male car buyers in the sports category, with most of these buyers falling into the 16- to 35-year-old demographic. The Porsche 911 was the second top pick, followed closely by the Corvette."
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/t...-buying-habits

I don't know what test you're referencing, but that Mustang did not kick the BMW's fat rump. The M3 was faster on the track. And you're right, you did not perform the test. Let's turn it over the professionals who drove both, shall we?

From that Motor Trend test:
As for steering, the Mustang's is fast but lacks feedback.
"The undulations I felt at high speeds in the bumps did not appear to be coming from a lack of control of the rear axle," says Randy, who suspects a damper issue. "The shocks can handle the car up to 60 to 70 mph. At 80, 90, 100 mph, we have a really challenging set of curving bumps and braking zones for which the shocks are overmatched."
BMW's smooth 4.0-liter V-8 trades mid-range punch for dizzying revs. It's a modern marvel, especially when paired with the M3's springy six-speed.
But the BMW shines where it matters most: "The BMW has far better shock control when being driven hard, which gave tremendous advantage on the hairiest part of this track," says Pobst. "...superior shock control at high speed. It has very little nose dive, very little brake dive, which gives me more confidence as a driver. It's more refined, a more conservative car than the Mustang is and far better controlled."
For the definitive answer, we go to Randy's times: 87.67 seconds in the BMW to 87.76 seconds for the Ford.
1ST PLACE: BMW M3
2ND PLACE: MUSTANG GT"

And that was on a racetrack. What about a public road? Considering the Boss 302 was outclassed by the M3 (and with the DKG gearbox and PS2s, outlapped too), the regular GT wouldn't stand a chance for overall depth of ability:
"The M3 doesn’t feel like a coupe, it feels like a sports car, such is the tautness of its chassis. Direction changes happen with an alacrity and force that you really wouldn’t expect of something with four seats and a boot, while the tight, slightly metallic howl from the 4-litre V8 speaks of tiny tolerances and a motorsport mentality.
You can be almost certain that when the grip does run out it will be behind you, because the nose seems to be nailed to the road no matter what. This means you can concentrate on exactly how much power to feed through the M-diff to the tyres, and that’s made easier by the fact that there is absolutely no wooliness to the accelerator – it’s like drinking chilled neat gin to most cars’ warm Merlot.
You have to lean hard on the Michelins to get them to relinquish their hold on the road and they let go in a flash once they do, but the steering is so quick and the accelerator remains such a precise instrument that the M3 is definitely a car to be enjoyed over the limit. As long as you’re alert you can bleed out of the throttle rather than jumping off it entirely, thus keeping the wheels spinning sweetly for almost as long as you want.
To be honest, the Mustang still feels a bit too much like a throwback to that original car. Despite new adjustable dampers there is still a lot of roll in the set-up that robs it of any comparable precision. The big, Alcantara-trimmed wheel feels great and you can hustle the Mustang surprisingly quickly and amusingly down a narrow road, but it is a process of sometimes worryingly big gestures*. The suspension is 11mm lower at the front but only 1mm lower at the rear compared with a standard GT and it feels like it, with the back taking an age to rock onto its springs and start really working the tyres after you’ve turned in. The more positive and almost aggressive your inputs the better, as this keeps things loaded up, but it feels like a big car to try and control… particularly when there are also bumps and cambers constantly distracting it from your hoped-for trajectory.

Circuit Shootout
There are plenty of things to like about the Boss Mustang but, as we’ve discovered, on the road it can’t compete with the broad breadth of high-tech thrills deployed by the scalpel-sharp M3 or the hot rod-esque C63 AMG. So what about on track? Here that lack of sophistication may not be such a compromise; a composed chassis and a decent slug of grunt can be both entertaining and very fast without gizmos. Indeed, Ford claims that the Boss is faster than an M3 around the Laguna Seca circuit in California.
Will the same hold true at the Bedford Autodrome here in the UK? The Mustang will certainly have to be exceptionally good to scalp the BMW. Select the stiffest suspension setting, switch out the stability control completely and the M3 takes on the attitude of a race car. The front end lasers-in on apexes, the throttle can be picked up early, the balance is spot-on, and the very clever M-Diff gets all of the power onto the tarmac. The brakes are powerful (for a while at least – the pedal begins to go soft after three hard laps) and the M DCT gearbox not only ensures your hands can remain on the wheel, but wastes no time slicing through the seven ratios.
You need quick wits and reactions to keep on top of the M3 – it will break away hard and fast, particularly through the high-speed corners, but you can ride the limit as it’s clearly detailed through both seat and wheel. A fast lap is a thrilling buzz of speed and efficiency and the lap time of 1.25.1 is properly rapid. Ford reckons its 302 is even faster…
I insert the red ‘TracKey’ into the barrel, fire up the rumbling V8 and head out again. The 5-litre has a broad spread of power and, encouragingly, the throttle response is as crisp and clean as the M3’s. There’s a manual gearshift to be operated, of course. In fact, although it’ll be impossible to match the Bavarian hardware on every shift, the Boss’s shift is precise, feelsome and effective.
The early signs are good, then. Trouble is, things take a turn for the worse as we get near the bendy bits. The brakes have meat, but not the sharpness of response of the M3’s. More of an issue is the way the Boss pitches forwards, suggesting a considerably softer spring set-up than is ideal on track. It’s amplified on turn-in – the precision that was key to the M3’s success isn’t there with the Mustang and it also requires more steering lock, labouring the whole cornering process.
What it needs to stay in the game is high levels of grip and traction, but it lacks these too. Through mid-speed turns the rear tyres have trouble matching the fronts, slipping into oversteer where the M3 would be hanging on. The Ford is also too vague in terms of feedback; it feels a world away from being a true M3 rival and the stopwatch confirms it: four seconds off the pace."
VERDICT
..in all honesty ‘the Boss’s car’ is still dynamically some way behind our leading pair…
Choosing between the M3 and the C63 is incredibly difficult, and if you are lucky enough to be in the market for either one I couldn’t fault your decision whichever you plumped for. But there has to be a winner, and it’s still the BMW...the extra weight and feedback of the M-car’s steering, the lack of slack, its fantastically sharp throttle and super-precise chassis mean it is still the best drivers’ car. Whichever side of the Atlantic you’re on.
FIRST PLACE: BMW M3
Second place: C63 AMG
Third place: Boss 302
Fourth place: RS5 "
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/carg...s_c63_amg.html

*Speaking of big gestures, the Mustang is longer by 6.3 inches, and wider by 2.9 inches. Yet it only offers .4" more front legroom and an identical front shoulder room of 55.3". The M3 offers 2.1 inches more rear headroom, 3.9 inches more rear legroom and a bit more rear shoulder room (.3"). Is this because the Mustang has to fit front and rear curtain airbags? No, it's not. Because between these two, it will be the Mustang's passengers' head shattering the glass in a side impact or rollover. Tell me again how the Mustang is the superior engineered car for the money.

The only Mustang that kicks the M3's fat rump is that $60k GT500. You don't think +1.8L, +supercharger, +grippier tires has something to do with it, do you? Tell me again why Ford doesn't start with a 4.0L V8 and the answer should be obvious to any tuner (and to BMW themselves): It's easier to extract power from a larger lump and even moreso when that lump has forced induction on top of it.

 

They built it and lost out in tests, and at The Ring, to the ZR1!

 

The Viper ACR was a better value then the GT2! A bigger engine can be ran easier and more reliably then a little engine which has to have the crap boosted out of it! (Vette same thing, but, more of a street car). If I was Porsche and I could sell all of them, I still wouldn't want to many 600hp GT2RS to warranty. Probably just enough to prove a point and collect my new Ring time.

 

Well, there are no "official Ring test protocols", and Porsche isn't out there on the Ring worried about "winning" anything. If they wanted to build a production car that could turn sub-7 min laps, they could.

 

The Viper is better...if all you do is drive around closed racetracks all day. For a street car, one that doesn't need a team to set up the picnic bench wing and splitter (namely because these can't be adjusted) and still has enough class to be seen in ritzy parts of towns, I could argue the GT2 was the better value. I'd be more impressed with the Viper if it was street legal in the country where it set its lap times; in the US, that's hugely debatable with that splitter, and in Germany, if it is legal, it is only legal under the most lax laws that apply to low-volume builders (essentially a waiver). The last time the Viper was type approved for Europe, it had rear-exit pipes, and dozens of detail changes that had to be carried out by Prodrive. And even then, it was still a dismal failure in Europe. You can drive a GT2 down twisting, narrow roads with trucks coming the opposite direction without having to squeeze a diamond out of your sphincter. You think even a pro driver could handle an ACR on its Cup tires the way this GT2 RS is being driven up a wet mountain road in near freezing temps?
Or driven comfortably with full stereo, A/C and navigation like this?
And you said it yourself: Starting with big displacement is the easy way to fast times. No wonder the Viper was cheap. If it cost as much as the GT2 RS, nobody would have bought it! It is priced that way because it has to be.

Collecting 'Ring times vs collecting checks. It is painfully evident which one Chrysler chose. Nobody realistically buying a GT2 RS gives a crap about the Viper's 'Ring time. They were all sold out. You can still find brand new, untitled ACRs for sale, however.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you guys are arguing about, but Randy Pobst is "right on" with his assessment. I've had the opportunity to drive a number of current year V6 and V8 Mustangs over thousands of miles, and Randy is exactly right. They ride well, but they are underdamped at higher speeds. That's why it takes more than styling, or a big engine to compete with the Corvette, or other car that is more polished.

Michael