Close

    • 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 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        It's possible that they put the R-compounds from the LS on a base Boss 302 so they could post an inflated time for the article. Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds? You are being ridiculously obtuse to continue in that line of thinking, when it's so very obvious you are wrong. Yes, they used a pro, but no they did NOT use the R-compounds from the LS. That is complete baseless conjecture on your part. They made a "big deal" about the R-compounds? How? How exactly did they make a "big deal?" I never said the cars were run head-to-head, and, yes, Bamarito is a pro. And? Marketing drivel, indeed. Try reading every article in C&D about any of the M cars from BMW.
        How ridiculous is it for car companies to try to extract as much performance for magazine articles as they can? Doesn't Ferrari go to absurd lengths like this all the time? Didn't they throw slicks on an F430 just to try to get stickier rubber on the dyno to make sure they could get as many horses as possible? Yet the car doesn't come with slicks? It really isn't all that absurd. You admit it's a possibility.

        The fact the cars were not run head to head and on different days with different drivers means it isn't exactly a perfect comparison. Part of my point, thank you.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Wow, you posted a pic of a digital scale readout that could have an M3 on the scale next to it...or couldn't. At any rate, the Boss 302 would still enjoy a significant power:weight advantage over the M3, even if it weighed 100lbs more than the M3. How much of the 413 HP crank figure makes it to the M3's rear wheels? You run your yap incessantly about the DCT, then talk about efficiency of the M3. I don't suppose you've ever heard of parasitic power loss? I suppose the brilliant engineers of BMW have engineered that right out of the car. The DCT is going to get less power to the wheels than the manual. fact. no getting around it. So, some of the advantages created by gearing and shift speed are negated by the parasitic power loss that comes with an automatic transmission. FACT.
        Wow, use Google image search and verify if that is a picture of an M3 on the scales. It is, and if you search the web you will find many picture of the M3 on digital scales that match that weight. So yes, you were wrong about the weight. So yes, I was correct.

        Losses? What are those? The DCT gets greater loss to the ground? If only someone really took time to look into that: http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthread.php?2641-E92-E9X-M3-Drivetrain-Losses-Explained-DCT-(dual-clutch-transmission)-vs.-Manual

        R
        ead my article so you know the facts. 2% penalty. Which, the DCT still easily overcomes to be much faster. Think of it as a tenth per ship to put it in terms you may better relate to.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        And that is one of the main variables of a physics formula when determining performance. It not only makes more peak HP, it makes more HP throughout the top end of the power band where the ingeniously engineered M3 engine is supposed to be wondrous and oh, so efficient. The gearing and shift speed and DCT and bla, bla, bla, advantages are overwhelmed by the Boss's power and not just peak power, but greater power from ~3k rpm to redline. It's not just peak torque/peak hp numbers like most American engines.
        It is a single variable and you ignore all the others I mentioned which are in the M3's favor. Clearly not a simple case of "physics" now is it?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        You miss the point entirely. When I say unimpressive, I mean low. Compare the dyno charts that you can find online. It has low torque throughout the powerband, so 90% of a E92 M3's available torque is a low number. When the engines get into the higher part of the powerband, 3k and up, the Boss 302 engine makes more torque and HP from 3k to redline. So, the S65 motor was "better engineered" and, in your mind, a "superior" motor because it has less displacement and makes more power/liter, yet makes less power in total and less torque/hp throughout the part of the powerband most likely to be used on a track.

        BMW has been making highly efficient, true, modern engines for years. This is Ford's first shot at an all aluminum, double-over-head cam V8 with variable timing. I think they did well and I think it is rightly compared to the E92 M3 engine, as that was their mark. I know... I know... What do you care what I think about what Ford did...Irrelevant...bla, bla, bla. Go eat something with some fiber, dude. You're too uptight.
        You said unimpressive. Now you say low. You seem to be equating those terms. Regardless, it is low in your opinion. The fact is the M3 does have greater torque multiplication due to its curve and redline. Meaning if you boost the torque, you get a greater gain than the Boss will see. The revs are the equalizing factor.

        The Boss may make more peak torque but the M3 has a better curve and is a more efficient motor with greater specific output and volumetric efficiency. BMW engineers build a better motor. The new 5.0 is the first motor from Ford in a long time that is at least somewhat impressive and not just some junk F150 V8 with 4 valve heads on top.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Again, you dismiss opinions out of hand and yet post your own freely. The "biased" American racer = pot. You = kettle. Yes, it was a 6 sp M3 vs a 6 sp Mustang GT. The Mustang was just as fast 0-60 and faster 1/4 mile and 9 hundredths of a second slower on a road course with a pro behind the wheel. The fact that Randy Pobst is an American is irrelevant. Maybe you think you could beat Randy's time on the same course with a DCT M3? And I think when subject matter experts deliver their subjective opinions, people are more inclined to take that over raw numbers. I know I am, but you can be content to keep staring at your list of features and perfect balance of your M3. Hilarious.

        You're the one that cited "different drivers, different days." Then you say, "I think he as an American may biased [sic]" That is unprovable and more conjecture on your part. What do I care what you think of the driver's bias? Irrelevant. Same driver. Same day. And yet you persist. Ridiculous.
        He may be biased, is that not a possibility? Yep, 6 speed M3. The DCT M3 would be faster than either. I couldn't beat Randy's time, but Randy could beat Randy's time in a DCT M3.

        If you are asking me to put stock in subjective opinions as definitive evidence getting the perspective and bias of the source of those opinions is necessary. See the problem with using those as evidence?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        "How the car does it" You mean like masking laughable torque figures by using a computer-controlled, dual-clutch automatic transmission that any imbecile without the slightest bit of driving skill can use to produce decent acceleration times? Yes, that's brilliant. The Boss is not an M3. It is a car Ford engineered to be superior to an M3 on a track. You don't think it is...or you do...you won't ever admit it, but you have a bunch of excuses for why it is... Really confusing.

        The current Mustang GT with the Brembo package and loaded with all the trimmings will come in at about $40k MSRP. Most that have been in one will think they are nicely detailed. It's performance rivals the M3 6 sp variant. Is it right to call it an American M3? I think so.
        Who cares that anyone can drive a DCT? The fact is it shifts faster, period. Are you into performance or not? The Boss is not an M3, Ford can not build an M3 beater. They can only make Ford fanboys feel better about themselves because they get to mention M3 in the same sentence and then point to 1/4 mile times. Good for them.

        I think it is right to say Americans finally are building a decent car in the new Mustang. BMW has been building better vehicles for a long time now. At least we can all be happy Ford didn't need a government bailout.
      1. Sledgehammer's Avatar
        Sledgehammer -
        Yeah I'm just gonna agree to disagree...
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
        Yeah I'm just gonna agree to disagree...
        Fair enough.
      1. 12BossKB's Avatar
        12BossKB -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        How ridiculous is it for car companies to try to extract as much performance for magazine articles as they can? Doesn't Ferrari go to absurd lengths like this all the time? Didn't they throw slicks on an F430 just to try to get stickier rubber on the dyno to make sure they could get as many horses as possible? Yet the car doesn't come with slicks? It really isn't all that absurd. You admit it's a possibility. The fact the cars were not run head to head and on different days with different drivers means it isn't exactly a perfect comparison. Part of my point, thank you.
        The fact is that this test was not conducted by Ferrari. The fact is you were not there. The fact is you have no evidence to support your mindless conjecture. The fact is the Pirelli Corsa R-compound tires that YOU (Not MT, but YOU alone) keep making a big deal about are mentioned ONCE in one sentence in one paragraph in the entire article MT wrote on the Boss. From MT:The Boss' wheels are lightweight 19-inch racing alloys wrapped in Pirelli PZero summer rubber, while the Laguna gets wider 9.0-inch fronts and 10-inch rears wrapped in Pirelli Corsa R-compound tires. The Corsa R-compounds are not mentioned again. The fact is Bamarito has lapped Laguna Seca in a Boss LS in under 1:40, showing what the advantage of better rubber and a stiffer structure would be. The fact is the 2009 BMW M3 7 sp auto that competed in MT's 2008 Best Handling competition was driven by...wait for it....Randy Pobst!!!! and he clocked 1:42:9 at Laguna Seca... He also clocked 1:44:3 in a 2010 Shelby GT 500 (Yea, that's the iron block pig that weighed in at 4k) during the same competition. Okay, here you come with, "He's an American, bla, bla, bla, biased unlike me the stalwart of objectivity...bla, bla, bla" Your conjecture is unprovable and not worth reading.

        One more note: Randy liked the R8 best in the competition and has many compliments of cars from the foreign companies. If you think he is biased toward American cars, you should watch a few of the MT videos where he tests cars and listen to his commentary. It is improbable that he is surreptitiously biased, while doling out compliments of great cars from across the pond.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Wow, use Google image search and verify if that is a picture of an M3 on the scales. It is, and if you search the web you will find many picture of the M3 on digital scales that match that weight. So yes, you were wrong about the weight. So yes, I was correct.
        Wow. I did use google image search and found that picture you posted. It's a digital readout of Paul Walker's M3. You're not Paul Walker are you? If you are, then I just want to let you know what a horrible actor you are and I hope you retire soon. If not, then you can in NO WAY verify that the picture of the scale is the readout of an unaltered M3 being weighed. If an M3 really does tip the scales at 3560 and a Boss weighs 3600, then the M3 has a nominal weight advantage, but a substantial power:weight disadvantage and a substantial power disadvantage throughout the power curve beginning at 3k rpm. The Boss revs all the way to 7.5k rpm where it makes peak HP. There is no point in the powerband of either engine above 3k rpm where the M3 has any advantage on the Boss 302 motor. Meticulous engineering not withstanding, the Boss motor is superior.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Losses? What are those? The DCT gets greater loss to the ground? If only someone really took time to look into that: read my article so you know the facts. 2% penalty. Which, the DCT still easily overcomes to be much faster. Think of it as a tenth per ship to put it in terms you may better relate to.
        I would rather stab myself in the groin with a carrot peeler than read an article authored by you. So, the DCT version of the car loses 2% more power to the ground. That is about what I expected. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Does DCT = greater performance? Yes. Does that translate directly to better performance on a track/strip than a Boss 302? No

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        It is a single variable and you ignore all the others I mentioned which are in the M3's favor. Clearly not a simple case of "physics" now is it?
        Jeezus!!! Dude, I stated DCT, gearing, and an IRS as advantages held by the M3. Do you only look for points of contention and ignore all else? Look, dude, like it or not, the Boss 302 motor is more powerful at peak numbers, and throughout a greater portion of the powerband than the M3 motor. That is one of the advantages in the performance formula of the Boss 302 over the M3. Brilliantly engineered, more efficient, wondrous, galactically (not a word I know) orgasmic and whatever other adjectives you choose to use to describe the M3 motor does not hide the fact that it is less powerful than the Boss 302

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You said unimpressive. Now you say low. You seem to be equating those terms. Regardless, it is low in your opinion. The fact is the M3 does have greater torque multiplication due to its curve and redline. Meaning if you boost the torque, you get a greater gain than the Boss will see. The revs are the equalizing factor.
        Yes, I said unimpressive and then I said low...this time around I'll go for the combo and say unimpressively low. I am equating those terms. Um...low...my opinion...a sports car that delivers about 250 lb-ft of torque to the rear wheels. Yea, okay... I guess that's just my opinion. Dude, the torque curve starting at 3k - redline there is no comparison. The Boss makes 50 more lb-ft of torque at any given point in the curve, and about 50 more HP at any given point in the curve. There is no comparing the power plants. This is a losing argument.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The Boss may make more peak torque but the M3 has a better curve and is a more efficient motor with greater specific output and volumetric efficiency. BMW engineers build a better motor. The new 5.0 is the first motor from Ford in a long time that is at least somewhat impressive and not just some junk F150 V8 with 4 valve heads on top.
        It isn't about peak numbers...I never made that argument...not once. I said the entire time that it's about the numbers throughout the curve. Better efficiency due to output/liter. Okay, BMW wins the blue ribbon in that event. It is simultaneously irrelevant, because the other motor makes more power at any point above 3k in the entire powerband. The M3 motor is superior because of available torque at 1875 rpm to 2500 rpm? That's idiotic. If you're on a track and you spend a lot of time in that rpm range, you need to trade in your M3 for a Volvo. The power advantage of the M3 motor in the ultra low range is irrelevant. 3k - redline the Boss motor outperforms it. The Boss 302 isn't meant to be an M3. It's a Boss Mustang. It will outperform a stock M3 at a drag strip and some racetracks. Will an M3 beat a Boss at a few tracks? Sure, but that doesn't make the Boss an incapable machine or any less of a driver's car.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        He may be biased, is that not a possibility?
        Improbable and unprovable conjecture.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        If you are asking me to put stock in subjective opinions as definitive evidence getting the perspective and bias of the source of those opinions is necessary. See the problem with using those as evidence?
        I'm not asking you to put stock in anything. I'm saying that I would listen to a pro driver's opinion and take that over the list of options/specs from a manufacturer.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Who cares that anyone can drive a DCT? The fact is it shifts faster, period. Are you into performance or not?
        Maybe meticulously groomed, metro-sexual, effeminate city boys prefer DCT over manuals, but I do not. Just breaking your balls. Obviously, the American automakers are going to get left in the dust if they don't start doing some R&D on a DCT transmission. It leads to significant performance gains, which are greatly multiplied in the radical end sports cars.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The Boss is not an M3, Ford can not build an M3 beater. They can only make Ford fanboys feel better about themselves because they get to mention M3 in the same sentence and then point to 1/4 mile times. Good for them.
        Um... I'm not a Ford fanboy, but you are a little full of it here. Do you work for Ford? Do you hire for them or oversee their R&D and engineering departments? Do you make statements rife with ridiculous conjecture? Oh, wait, you answered yes to that last question. Seriously, the Boss 302 was made to best an M3's performance. It does. It's faster any way you slice it: track/strip...oh, wait, okay the M3 takes the blue ribbon in all racing events wherein rev-limiters are set to a max of 2500 rpm. The Boss 302 doesn't have the refinement of the M3 or the features or amenities. If that's what you meant by they can't build an M3 beater, I would say it doesn't look like they've been trying. I wonder what a GT's numbers would look like with direct injection and tighter suspension. I would say neck and neck with the current M3. Conjecture, I know...once again you don't care what I think...I get it…

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I think it is right to say Americans finally are building a decent car in the new Mustang. BMW has been building better vehicles for a long time now. At least we can all be happy Ford didn't need a government bailout.
        And I couldn't agree more about the truck motor with 4v heads. That's why I waited so long to buy a car.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        The fact is that this test was not conducted by Ferrari. The fact is you were not there. The fact is you have no evidence to support your mindless conjecture. The fact is the Pirelli Corsa R-compound tires that YOU (Not MT, but YOU alone) keep making a big deal about are mentioned ONCE in one sentence in one paragraph in the entire article MT wrote on the Boss. From MT:The Boss' wheels are lightweight 19-inch racing alloys wrapped in Pirelli PZero summer rubber, while the Laguna gets wider 9.0-inch fronts and 10-inch rears wrapped in Pirelli Corsa R-compound tires. The Corsa R-compounds are not mentioned again. The fact is Bamarito has lapped Laguna Seca in a Boss LS in under 1:40, showing what the advantage of better rubber and a stiffer structure would be. The fact is the 2009 BMW M3 7 sp auto that competed in MT's 2008 Best Handling competition was driven by...wait for it....Randy Pobst!!!! and he clocked 1:42:9 at Laguna Seca... He also clocked 1:44:3 in a 2010 Shelby GT 500 (Yea, that's the iron block pig that weighed in at 4k) during the same competition. Okay, here you come with, "He's an American, bla, bla, bla, biased unlike me the stalwart of objectivity...bla, bla, bla" Your conjecture is unprovable and not worth reading.

        One more note: Randy liked the R8 best in the competition and has many compliments of cars from the foreign companies. If you think he is biased toward American cars, you should watch a few of the MT videos where he tests cars and listen to his commentary. It is improbable that he is surreptitiously biased, while doling out compliments of great cars from across the pond.
        The fact is you agreed it is a possibility there supporting my entire point. What else you say is irrelevant but Ferrari was mentioned as one competitor who will change tires and not disclose it to improve their numbers. I doubt they are the only ones who do it.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Wow. I did use google image search and found that picture you posted. It's a digital readout of Paul Walker's M3. You're not Paul Walker are you? If you are, then I just want to let you know what a horrible actor you are and I hope you retire soon. If not, then you can in NO WAY verify that the picture of the scale is the readout of an unaltered M3 being weighed. If an M3 really does tip the scales at 3560 and a Boss weighs 3600, then the M3 has a nominal weight advantage, but a substantial power:weight disadvantage and a substantial power disadvantage throughout the power curve beginning at 3k rpm. The Boss revs all the way to 7.5k rpm where it makes peak HP. There is no point in the powerband of either engine above 3k rpm where the M3 has any advantage on the Boss 302 motor. Meticulous engineering not withstanding, the Boss motor is superior.
        Good job! You found out it was an M3. I'm not Paul Walker and the only coincidence between us happens to be the same tuner is doing both our cars. Glad you found the picture of his car BEFORE weight removal. So, once again, I was right and you were wrong about the M3 weight. Go search again and see what they got the weight down to on the car.

        I also told you if you don't believe it, there are many more readouts from other cars. All in the 35XX range. I guess it is shocking to me since I knew this years ago and you are just learning it today. Regardless, I made my point with support and prove it.

        The M3 revs to 8400, longer powerband, greater rev multiplication, period.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        I would rather stab myself in the groin with a carrot peeler than read an article authored by you. So, the DCT version of the car loses 2% more power to the ground. That is about what I expected. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Does DCT = greater performance? Yes. Does that translate directly to better performance on a track/strip than a Boss 302? No
        If you would rather stab yourself in the groin with a carrot peeler than read an article I authored where I contacted the transmission manufacturers and agree with your assertion on drivetrain losses for dual clutches than perhaps we should stop here? Yes, DCT equals greater performance and yes it translates to the track and strip. Makes no sense to say it doesn't.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Jeezus!!! Dude, I stated DCT, gearing, and an IRS as advantages held by the M3.
        Yep, exactly what I said. And those items are not physical and do not have an impact on the "physics" of how the car moves? So, as I stated earlier, it is not a one sided case of physics there are many other factors some of which ARE in the M3's favor.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Yes, I said unimpressive and then I said low...this time around I'll go for the combo and say unimpressively low. I am equating those terms. Um...low...my opinion...a sports car that delivers about 250 lb-ft of torque to the rear wheels. Yea, okay... I guess that's just my opinion. Dude, the torque curve starting at 3k - redline there is no comparison. The Boss makes 50 more lb-ft of torque at any given point in the curve, and about 50 more HP at any given point in the curve. There is no comparing the power plants. This is a losing argument.
        The boss makes more crank torque, granted. Is the gearing multiplication the same? You mentioned the M3 has gearing in its favor. I wonder what the torque difference in gear really is? Crank torque is just a number, who cares? It changes in each gear and what gets to the axle matters. I'm willing to bet your crank advantage doesn't translate the way you think it does. Either way, you can go do that math.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        It isn't about peak numbers...I never made that argument...not once. I said the entire time that it's about the numbers throughout the curve. Better efficiency due to output/liter. Okay, BMW wins the blue ribbon in that event. It is simultaneously irrelevant, because the other motor makes more power at any point above 3k in the entire powerband. The M3 motor is superior because of available torque at 1875 rpm to 2500 rpm? That's idiotic. If you're on a track and you spend a lot of time in that rpm range, you need to trade in your M3 for a Volvo. The power advantage of the M3 motor in the ultra low range is irrelevant. 3k - redline the Boss motor outperforms it. The Boss 302 isn't meant to be an M3. It's a Boss Mustang. It will outperform a stock M3 at a drag strip and some racetracks. Will an M3 beat a Boss at a few tracks? Sure, but that doesn't make the Boss an incapable machine or any less of a driver's car.
        I said the M3 motor was better engineered. You agreed, end of story point made.

        The M3 motor is superior because it is a superior design. Give it 5.0 liters and what will happen? One motor is better designed than the other.

        It won't beat every M3 as I stated, a GTS will trounce it around a track.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Improbable and unprovable conjecture.
        Unprovable conjecture is you stating it is improbable then. The fact remains he may be biased, the possibility exists and I would lean toward it.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        I'm not asking you to put stock in anything. I'm saying that I would listen to a pro driver's opinion and take that over the list of options/specs from a manufacturer.
        Go ahead and do that then?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Maybe meticulously groomed, metro-sexual, effeminate city boys prefer DCT over manuals, but I do not. Just breaking your balls. Obviously, the American automakers are going to get left in the dust if they don't start doing some R&D on a DCT transmission. It leads to significant performance gains, which are greatly multiplied in the radical end sports cars.
        You are touting the Boss based on performance yet discounting the DCT transmission which offers greater performance than a manual. You are not consistent in the application of your argument. I don't give a crap if it is a 90 year old nun driving, if she whoops your ass with a DCT she wins which is all that matters. You can then talk about your driver involvement as she pulls away.



        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Um... I'm not a Ford fanboy, but you are a little full of it here. Do you work for Ford? Do you hire for them or oversee their R&D and engineering departments? Do you make statements rife with ridiculous conjecture? Oh, wait, you answered yes to that last question. Seriously, the Boss 302 was made to best an M3's performance. It does. It's faster any way you slice it: track/strip...oh, wait, okay the M3 takes the blue ribbon in all racing events wherein rev-limiters are set to a max of 2500 rpm. The Boss 302 doesn't have the refinement of the M3 or the features or amenities. If that's what you meant by they can't build an M3 beater, I would say it doesn't look like they've been trying. I wonder what a GT's numbers would look like with direct injection and tighter suspension. I would say neck and neck with the current M3. Conjecture, I know...once again you don't care what I think...I get it…
        If the target for the Boss was the M3 the M3 won before it began. The M3 will always be the benchmark as it currently is which is why everyone compares their cars to it. Good for Ford, they can build a higher performance car. They can't build a better car. Ford is at least the best out of all the American junk but just because a Mustang can perform well does not mean suddenly they are on BMW's level.

        The M3 wins the categories that matter to me. I'm sure a GT500 can outperform a Porsche 911 but I know which one I would choose. The M3 is the better overall car offering the better driving experience. Once again, more to cars than raw numbers.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        And I couldn't agree more about the truck motor with 4v heads. That's why I waited so long to buy a car.
        Glad we agree on something.
      1. 12BossKB's Avatar
        12BossKB -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The fact is you agreed it is a possibility there supporting my entire point. What else you say is irrelevant but Ferrari was mentioned as one competitor who will change tires and not disclose it to improve their numbers. I doubt they are the only ones who do it.
        What else I say is irrelevant? Deemed by whom? You? Who the hell are you? The Arbiter of Relevancy? I think not. The “evidence” you have listed in your favor is what? The Corsa R-compounds come standard on a LS, so you believe those tires were used during the test of a base Boss 302 at Laguna Seca driven by Bomarito? That would mean that Ford set the car up that way and this detail either: a) slipped the attention of the MT writers, because they are incompetent or b) the MT writers were in on a conspiracy with Ford and Bomarito to what end? They were bribed? They really, really, really like Ford? And using the R-compounds available ONLY on the LS is the ONLY way Bomarito could have recorded faster times than an M3 at Laguna Seca in a standard Boss 302?

        No, wait there is more… Randy Pobst, pro racecar driver and possible biased American, sandbagged his time in a DSG M3 (3 years before Bamarito lapped LS in a Boss 302) in the hopes that Ford (or other domestic car manufacturer) would eventually produce a Mustang (or xxxxx) that would beat the M3’s time. Nevermind that Randy Pobst, pro racecar driver and possible biased American, beat the GT500KR that year by about 2 seconds with the M3. I suppose Randy had not yet been bribed/threatened or fallen to bias?

        And never mind that one year later when Randy Pobst, pro racecar driver and possible biased American, tested a GT500 for MT at LS, he still did not beat the M3’s time, which he purposely sandbagged in hopes of beating its time with the, yet to be developed, Boss 302. He recorded a time of 1:44:3 in the GT500, 1.34 sec slower than the M3. I guess he should have sandbagged it a little harder?

        The fact is the R-compounds were mentioned once in the article in which you said the writers “made a big deal” about them. In fact, you are the one that made a big deal about them. You weren’t there and have no idea what ACTUALLY happened. I said it was possible they changed the tires for the test, but I also think (yea, that’s right, this part is conjecture on my part in which I am using common sense and logic in place of your deliberate obtuseness) it is highly improbable that the tires would have been changed to something other than the original equipment without mentioning it in the article. Lot’s of things are possible. Like I said, it’s possible that Bomarito never showed up that day and the times were completely fabricated. Possible…not probable. Yes, it takes some amount of conjecture to determine what is and isn’t probable. I think MT is a reputable publication and would not participate in such a scheme either as described by or as implied by you.

        In case I forget later, what else you say is irrelevant and I don’t care what you think. See how immature that sounds? If you post a counterpoint, I can deduce for myself that you don’t care what I think and you do not believe I have a relevant point. When you state it so ham-fistedly, you come off like a condescending douchebag.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Good job! You found out it was an M3. I'm not Paul Walker and the only coincidence between us happens to be the same tuner is doing both our cars. Glad you found the picture of his car BEFORE weight removal. So, once again, I was right and you were wrong about the M3 weight. Go search again and see what they got the weight down to on the car.
        I think I know which tuner that is. They have a sign out front that says, “We Service D-Bags and Second Rate Actors.” As I said before, even if the M3 is 100lbs lighter than a Boss 302, the Boss 302 still enjoys a power:weight ratio advantage. That is undeniable.

        AND IM NOT TALKING CRANK NUMBERS!!!!!!! How many times do I have to keep stating that? Seriously, just give me a number and I’ll keep posting happily until I reach it and we can get on with the rest of the argument.



        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The M3 revs to 8400, longer powerband, greater rev multiplication, period.
        ***For the sake of clarity, I am referring to rear wheel HP/TQ numbers obtained from two separate dyno charts of Boss 302 Mustang owners***The Boss 302 dyno results are superior to the M3’s, period. There just isn’t enough HP (at the wheels) and torque (at the wheels) to compare to the Boss’ HP (at the wheels) and torque (at the wheels). (these are dyno numbers at the rear wheels, not the crank) According to the dyno chart I first referred to, the Boss makes 230 lb-ft of torque at 2500 rpm, and that figure climbs to 300 lb-ft of torque at 2800 rpm. The torque climbs steadily throughout the rpm range of the engine to reach peak torque of 338 lb-ft at 5600 rpm, then declines to a chintzy (sarcasm) 300 lb-ft at redline. The car puts out ~98% of peak torque from 4500-6200 rpm. Okay, so those are not crank numbers, fella. That is torque measured at the rear wheels.

        Its HP figures starting at 3k rpm is 166, then 3.5k 200, then 4k 230, then 5k 320, then 5.5k (where it overlaps with peak torque) 345 HP, then 6.5k 397, then 7.5k (redline) 427HP. Again, these are rear wheel HP/TQ numbers measured on a dyno. So, 427 at the rear wheels at 7500 rpm.

        Like I said earlier, it’s not an iron block dinosaur. There is no way in hell a stock M3’s numbers look like that at the rear wheels.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Yes, DCT equals greater performance and yes it translates to the track and strip. Makes no sense to say it doesn't.
        I never said it doesn’t translate to a performance gain when used in the same car. I said it doesn’t necessarily translate to better performance for the DCT M3 over a Boss 302 at the track/strip. I used pronouns last time…this time I was more specific. Hopefully that clarified it.




        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The boss makes more crank torque, granted. Is the gearing multiplication the same? You mentioned the M3 has gearing in its favor. I wonder what the torque difference in gear really is? Crank torque is just a number, who cares? It changes in each gear and what gets to the axle matters. I'm willing to bet your crank advantage doesn't translate the way you think it does. Either way, you can go do that math.
        Dude, you and crank numbers….holy lord. See my above paragraph for the related frustration.



        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I said the M3 motor was better engineered. You agreed, end of story point made.

        The M3 motor is superior because it is a superior design. Give it 5.0 liters and what will happen? One motor is better designed than the other.

        It won't beat every M3 as I stated, a GTS will trounce it around a track.
        I’m sorry, was one of the arguments, “Which car is better engineered?” I don’t car how meticulously engineered a performance automobile is, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will outperform other cars in its price range, or in this case a price range beneath it.

        Yea, okay… An M3 GTS, one of the 150 built by hand, will beat a Boss on a track. I think the difference between the GTS and Boss 302S is less than your elitist snobbery will allow you to see.



        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Unprovable conjecture is you stating it is improbable then. The fact remains he may be biased, the possibility exists and I would lean toward it.
        This is so stupid…see my above rant.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Go ahead and do that then?
        Gee, thanks, sir. I was awaiting your permission.



        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You are touting the Boss based on performance yet discounting the DCT transmission which offers greater performance than a manual. You are not consistent in the application of your argument. I don't give a crap if it is a 90 year old nun driving, if she whoops your ass with a DCT she wins which is all that matters. You can then talk about your driver involvement as she pulls away.
        I never discounted anything. I said the DCT, gearing and IRS were in favor of the M3. I also said and automatic transmission is going to have greater parasitic power loss than a manual. You said it was 2% and I agreed that sounded about right. So…are we still talking about this? Yea, performance is performance, no matter if you get your doors blown off by a car that was not engineered by the galaxy’s greatest engineering team and lacking IRS and a DCT.





        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        If the target for the Boss was the M3 the M3 won before it began. The M3 will always be the benchmark as it currently is which is why everyone compares their cars to it. Good for Ford, they can build a higher performance car. They can't build a better car. Ford is at least the best out of all the American junk but just because a Mustang can perform well does not mean suddenly they are on BMW's level.

        The M3 wins the categories that matter to me. I'm sure a GT500 can outperform a Porsche 911 but I know which one I would choose.
        Yes, the M3 wins the categories that matter to you. My Boss 302 wins the categories that matter to me. Dude, I think M3’s are sick. I really do like them. I’m glad you’re happy with your car. I’m happy with mine. The Boss isn’t heavily laden with amenities, but it has serious track capabilities. That was more important to me.

        I’m not sure the GT500 is much of a performance machine. I don’t think it puts down the power it makes very well. From everything I’ve seen and read, those cars are really good at destroying tires and little else.

        As far as American junk…c’mon…now you’re just being ridiculous. The Challenger/Charger/300C series cars are built on an E series platform and Chrysler recently engineered cam-in-cam variable timing. VCT in a pushrod engine!? That’s sharp engineering. The flexibility of VCT with the cost savings of a pushrod engine.

        GM’s magnetorheological (seriously, look how long that word is and doesn’t have any German in it!) suspension system is next gen. Caddy went to a 2mm interior gap spacing standard to trump BMW’s 3mm interior gap spacing in 2004/5.

        Does all of this translate to better performance? Well, according to the fastest 7, 8, and 9 laps ever recorded at Nurburgring’s Northern Loop respectively held by a ZR1, Dodge Viper ACR, and Z06, I think so…

        Granted the US auto manufacturers are still making a ton of pushrod engines (so annoying, notice I didn’t buy one), and have yet to either engineer or contract a DCT for any of their cars, I would hesitate to call them junk. If you had asked me what I thought of American cars just 6 or 7 years ago, I think I would have said junk too.
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        MIND = BLOWN
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        What else I say is irrelevant? Deemed by whom? You? Who the hell are you? The Arbiter of Relevancy? I think not. The “evidence” you have listed in your favor is what? The Corsa R-compounds come standard on a LS, so you believe those tires were used during the test of a base Boss 302 at Laguna Seca driven by Bomarito? That would mean that Ford set the car up that way and this detail either: a) slipped the attention of the MT writers, because they are incompetent or b) the MT writers were in on a conspiracy with Ford and Bomarito to what end? They were bribed? They really, really, really like Ford? And using the R-compounds available ONLY on the LS is the ONLY way Bomarito could have recorded faster times than an M3 at Laguna Seca in a standard Boss 302?

        No, wait there is more… Randy Pobst, pro racecar driver and possible biased American, sandbagged his time in a DSG M3 (3 years before Bamarito lapped LS in a Boss 302) in the hopes that Ford (or other domestic car manufacturer) would eventually produce a Mustang (or xxxxx) that would beat the M3’s time. Nevermind that Randy Pobst, pro racecar driver and possible biased American, beat the GT500KR that year by about 2 seconds with the M3. I suppose Randy had not yet been bribed/threatened or fallen to bias?

        And never mind that one year later when Randy Pobst, pro racecar driver and possible biased American, tested a GT500 for MT at LS, he still did not beat the M3’s time, which he purposely sandbagged in hopes of beating its time with the, yet to be developed, Boss 302. He recorded a time of 1:44:3 in the GT500, 1.34 sec slower than the M3. I guess he should have sandbagged it a little harder?

        The fact is the R-compounds were mentioned once in the article in which you said the writers “made a big deal” about them. In fact, you are the one that made a big deal about them. You weren’t there and have no idea what ACTUALLY happened. I said it was possible they changed the tires for the test, but I also think (yea, that’s right, this part is conjecture on my part in which I am using common sense and logic in place of your deliberate obtuseness) it is highly improbable that the tires would have been changed to something other than the original equipment without mentioning it in the article. Lot’s of things are possible. Like I said, it’s possible that Bomarito never showed up that day and the times were completely fabricated. Possible…not probable. Yes, it takes some amount of conjecture to determine what is and isn’t probable. I think MT is a reputable publication and would not participate in such a scheme either as described by or as implied by you.

        In case I forget later, what else you say is irrelevant and I don’t care what you think. See how immature that sounds? If you post a counterpoint, I can deduce for myself that you don’t care what I think and you do not believe I have a relevant point. When you state it so ham-fistedly, you come off like a condescending douchebag.
        This is turning into a novel.

        What, you think this is the first test where a manufacturer wants to show how great their car is? The damn car is at Laguna Seca and has a Laguna Seca edition with R-compounds. If they want to prove R-compounds were not used on the then why not show us the laptime with R-compounds? They left is ambiguous raising this possibility which you agree is a possibility. I'm not saying they are deceiving us but since there is no evidence posted to completely remove the doubt I will continue to remain skeptical.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        I think I know which tuner that is. They have a sign out front that says, “We Service D-Bags and Second Rate Actors.” As I said before, even if the M3 is 100lbs lighter than a Boss 302, the Boss 302 still enjoys a power:weight ratio advantage. That is undeniable.

        AND IM NOT TALKING CRANK NUMBERS!!!!!!! How many times do I have to keep stating that? Seriously, just give me a number and I’ll keep posting happily until I reach it and we can get on with the rest of the argument.
        So, I was right about the weight and you were wrong? Wonderful, another to add to the list.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        ***For the sake of clarity, I am referring to rear wheel HP/TQ numbers obtained from two separate dyno charts of Boss 302 Mustang owners***The Boss 302 dyno results are superior to the M3’s, period. There just isn’t enough HP (at the wheels) and torque (at the wheels) to compare to the Boss’ HP (at the wheels) and torque (at the wheels). (these are dyno numbers at the rear wheels, not the crank) According to the dyno chart I first referred to, the Boss makes 230 lb-ft of torque at 2500 rpm, and that figure climbs to 300 lb-ft of torque at 2800 rpm. The torque climbs steadily throughout the rpm range of the engine to reach peak torque of 338 lb-ft at 5600 rpm, then declines to a chintzy (sarcasm) 300 lb-ft at redline. The car puts out ~98% of peak torque from 4500-6200 rpm. Okay, so those are not crank numbers, fella. That is torque measured at the rear wheels.

        Its HP figures starting at 3k rpm is 166, then 3.5k 200, then 4k 230, then 5k 320, then 5.5k (where it overlaps with peak torque) 345 HP, then 6.5k 397, then 7.5k (redline) 427HP. Again, these are rear wheel HP/TQ numbers measured on a dyno. So, 427 at the rear wheels at 7500 rpm.

        Like I said earlier, it’s not an iron block dinosaur. There is no way in hell a stock M3’s numbers look like that at the rear wheels.
        The Boss makes more at the wheels, and? Ok, who is saying it doesn't? Does not change the fact this all has to go through the gearing which is a factor in the M3's favor. Not quite as clear cut as you try to make it out to be.

        First it was weight, then power, well, you clearly overlooked several aspects and made some incorrect conclusions based on incorrect information to begin with.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        I never said it doesn’t translate to a performance gain when used in the same car. I said it doesn’t necessarily translate to better performance for the DCT M3 over a Boss 302 at the track/strip. I used pronouns last time…this time I was more specific. Hopefully that clarified it.
        Excellent, so a DCT M3 will then lap faster than a 6-speed like what was being compared. Excellent, something that further mitigates this inflated gap.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Dude, you and crank numbers….holy lord. See my above paragraph for the related frustration.
        Reference any of my paragraphs on gearing and the DCT, thanks.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        I’m sorry, was one of the arguments, “Which car is better engineered?” I don’t car how meticulously engineered a performance automobile is, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will outperform other cars in its price range, or in this case a price range beneath it.

        Yea, okay… An M3 GTS, one of the 150 built by hand, will beat a Boss on a track. I think the difference between the GTS and Boss 302S is less than your elitist snobbery will allow you to see.
        Which car is better engineered by better engineers matters to me. This is why I drive an M3 instead of a Mustang anyway. It isn't elite snobbery, BMW has built better motors and cars for a long, long time vs. Ford.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        This is so stupid…see my above rant.
        Doesn't change the fact I am quite correct in that the possibility is there.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        I never discounted anything. I said the DCT, gearing and IRS were in favor of the M3. I also said and automatic transmission is going to have greater parasitic power loss than a manual. You said it was 2% and I agreed that sounded about right. So…are we still talking about this? Yea, performance is performance, no matter if you get your doors blown off by a car that was not engineered by the galaxy’s greatest engineering team and lacking IRS and a DCT.
        Fantastic, we have several factors all in the M3's favor. So it isn't as clear cut as you tried to make it out to be originally. I have successfully managed to get you to admit these factors are in the M3's favor. I am satisfied.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 12BossKB Click here to enlarge
        Yes, the M3 wins the categories that matter to you. My Boss 302 wins the categories that matter to me. Dude, I think M3’s are sick. I really do like them. I’m glad you’re happy with your car. I’m happy with mine. The Boss isn’t heavily laden with amenities, but it has serious track capabilities. That was more important to me.

        I’m not sure the GT500 is much of a performance machine. I don’t think it puts down the power it makes very well. From everything I’ve seen and read, those cars are really good at destroying tires and little else.

        As far as American junk…c’mon…now you’re just being ridiculous. The Challenger/Charger/300C series cars are built on an E series platform and Chrysler recently engineered cam-in-cam variable timing. VCT in a pushrod engine!? That’s sharp engineering. The flexibility of VCT with the cost savings of a pushrod engine.

        GM’s magnetorheological (seriously, look how long that word is and doesn’t have any German in it!) suspension system is next gen. Caddy went to a 2mm interior gap spacing standard to trump BMW’s 3mm interior gap spacing in 2004/5.

        Does all of this translate to better performance? Well, according to the fastest 7, 8, and 9 laps ever recorded at Nurburgring’s Northern Loop respectively held by a ZR1, Dodge Viper ACR, and Z06, I think so…

        Granted the US auto manufacturers are still making a ton of pushrod engines (so annoying, notice I didn’t buy one), and have yet to either engineer or contract a DCT for any of their cars, I would hesitate to call them junk. If you had asked me what I thought of American cars just 6 or 7 years ago, I think I would have said junk too.
        Then what is the problem? I like all these cars, pick the one that you like best. What does it matter what I think?

        I'm not being ridiculous, you know the Vette is a pile of $#@! on the inside. It has an awesome motor and is very lightweight and will run circles around more expensive cars but it still is a pile of American junk. It just isn't as refined as its European competition and this has always been the main knock on it. I respect it though.

        I'm not denying any car you mentioned performs well, they do and for far less money.

        If the American engineers were not technologically behind maybe they could make and overall package that would actually rival the world's best and turn the tide. For now, all they do is give you a bigger motor for less money. That is enough for some, it isn't enough for me.
      1. 12BossKB's Avatar
        12BossKB -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        This is turning into a novel.
        It started as a novel when you made baseless claims about the tires used when the Boss was tested by MT at Laguna Seca.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        What, you think this is the first test where a manufacturer wants to show how great their car is? The damn car is at Laguna Seca and has a Laguna Seca edition with R-compounds. If they want to prove R-compounds were not used on the then why not show us the laptime with R-compounds? They left is ambiguous raising this possibility which you agree is a possibility. I'm not saying they are deceiving us but since there is no evidence posted to completely remove the doubt I will continue to remain skeptical.
        I suppose I could say it's possible that Laguna Seca was completely destroyed, then reconstructed to 98% of original scale for the testing of the Boss 302. After the test they rebuilt the track to the original size; possible, but improbable, much like your claims about the surreptitious tire swap.

        Like I said, the R-compounds were mentioned once in one paragraph in one sentence in the entire article and never again. The car tested that day was a standard Boss 302, which does not come with the R-compound tires. The only ambiguity was inferred by you through a convoluted postulation that is removed from the facts. The Boss 302 LS was tested by R&T at Laguna Seca and it tracked .71 seconds quicker than the time Bomarito posted in a standard Boss 302 recorded by MT (1:39.5 vs 1:40.21). The LS edition has 10% greater structural rigidity and better tires among a few other things. This could account for the 1 sec time disparity between the two cars, and moves to prove the time recorded by Bomarito posted by MT is authentic and in a completely stock, standard Boss 302.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        So, I was right about the weight and you were wrong? Wonderful, another to add to the list.
        Driver and luggage included in curb weight = dumb. Click here to enlarge


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The Boss makes more at the wheels, and? Ok, who is saying it doesn't? Does not change the fact this all has to go through the gearing which is a factor in the M3's favor. Not quite as clear cut as you try to make it out to be.
        No doubt BMW gets everything they can out of the M3's 4 liter in just about every way. It still doesn't mean it's faster around a track than a Boss 302.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        First it was weight, then power, well, you clearly overlooked several aspects and made some incorrect conclusions based on incorrect information to begin with.
        The curb weight is w/in 100lbs of each other. The Boss 302 has, not just a power advantage, but power:weight. And not just peak power, but power at the wheels throughout a significant portion of the powerband. No, I didn’t know how BMW figured their curb weight and used the figure on BMW’s website. My bad.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Excellent, so a DCT M3 will then lap faster than a 6-speed like what was being compared. Excellent, something that further mitigates this inflated gap.
        The DCT M3 will lap faster than a 6-speed M3. That doesn't mean it will lap faster than a Boss 302, and the performance gap is what it is.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Which car is better engineered by better engineers matters to me. This is why I drive an M3 instead of a Mustang anyway. It isn't elite snobbery, BMW has built better motors and cars for a long, long time vs. Ford.
        And now the engineers are better too? Interesting. I'll bet the BMW engineers are better people too. If you were a super hero, your super power would be making assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on them.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Doesn't change the fact I am quite correct in that the possibility is there.
        Can you prove that the test was actually conducted with the R-compound tires from the LS edition? No. You can’t. It is conjecture on your part and not provable.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Fantastic, we have several factors all in the M3's favor. So it isn't as clear cut as you tried to make it out to be originally. I have successfully managed to get you to admit these factors are in the M3's favor. I am satisfied.
        Don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back just yet.

        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.

        That was an excerpt from my opening statement. So, I should have included weight in the favor of the M3 to really show all of the advantages it holds over the Boss, but you didn't "successfully manage to get me to admit" any of these factors. I recognized them from the beginning. The only thing you corrected me on was the M3’s curb weight. Single point for you. Yay. The Boss 302 also has wider tires Click here to enlarge

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm not being ridiculous, you know the Vette is a pile of $#*! on the inside. It has an awesome motor and is very lightweight and will run circles around more expensive cars but it still is a pile of American junk. It just isn't as refined as its European competition and this has always been the main knock on it. I respect it though.

        I'm not denying any car you mentioned performs well, they do and for far less money.
        The Vette's interior has come a long way and just a few years ago it was a complete &^%$ pile. Its 2012 incarnation is decent. Is it a Bimmer? No. The interior still screams GM and the seats suck ass. Would I take a Vette over an M3? I dunno...maybe... I definitely love both cars. Maybe a Vette with leather, power Recaro's?

        I guess we can keep going back and forth forever. God knows I love arguing more than most. I think my main points I will cling to are these:

        1. I think your assertion about the possibility of the use of R-compound tires used during the MT test of the Boss 302 at LS are inferences that the R-compound tires were actually used. I disagree. I believe the test was conducted with a stock, standard Boss 302 and, despite your tenacious skepticism, you have not and cannot prove otherwise.

        2. I believe the Boss 302 has enough advantages over an M3 to track like one. I think at some tracks an M3 DCT will be a little faster and at others a Boss 302 will be a little faster, but I think they are in the same performance league.

        3. I think Ford has done an excellent job on the new Mustang GT. And I think a Mustang GT Premium or CS, while not quite as nice as a BMW, is still a nice car, inside and out.

        Jonathan Hensley
        Kingwood, TX
      1. Sledgehammer's Avatar
        Sledgehammer -
        Click here to enlarge I cant believe this is still going on... But let me offer a quick recap and a opinion.

        1. Boss 302 Mustangs are as fast if not faster than a M3 DCT in a straightline or around a track. No matter what tire its rockin!Click here to enlarge

        2. The M3 DCT has a far nicer overall interior than a Mustang or for the matter a Corvette since it was mentioned. Click here to enlarge

        3. Sticky will NEVER concede the obvious for reasons unknownClick here to enlarge

        I try to never underestimate another car, I admit to being a Honda hater of epic proportions. The fart cans, loud exhausts, holes in the bumpers, nasty smoke and gutted interiors repulse me. But I've had my tail handed to me by a couple over the years that were silly fast. I know everyone that has been gutted with no a/c, no interior bits and motors built on the edge. But an L is an L, no way around the obvious.

        I relate that to this entire back and forth to say simply to Sticky, never estimate another car. The Mustang GT, Boss 302 and Boss 302 LS are formidable cars.

        While the M3 is a great little car its not the benchmark it once was. BMW has continued to mess with the M3 formula trying to perfect it for some time now. The E30 was all about chassis, handling/braking and a peaky rpm based motor. The E36 was all about having more tq, better balance and more refinememt. The E46 (The best of them IMO)was all about the motor and styling trying to get its groove back in the vain of the E30 chassis(Flared fenders and all). This latest iteration went to a V8 which M purist decried around the world.

        This car attempted the velvet wrapped hammer concept in the vain of a elegant Mustang-esque package. I.E. a V8 RWD coupe. That formula didnt seem to fly as well so now they are on to a 6 with forced induction with the next generation M3. Performance Mustangs have always been V8/RWD (barring the SVO 4cyl turbo in the 80's and the horrendous Mustang II). They keep improving, growing and evolving that formula in much the same way Porsche has done for decades with the 911 series.

        BMW needs to find a formula and stick to it with this car and then perfect it. Otherwise they will keep finding GT's, Boss 302"s, GT500's and a host of other cars up its tailpipes on highways and tracks round the globe.

        My final 2 cents on this one!
      1. Sorena's Avatar
        Sorena -
        this thread is really stupid, a guy came into a BMW forum and tries to convince one serious M3 fan that his Mustang is better than that dude's M3. I don't care if that Mustang is better or not, the goal behind this kind of argument is nothing but just BS.
      1. Sorena's Avatar
        Sorena -
        BTW someone change Hammer's sig, it prevents me from typing properly lol.