If you can throw some stats out I’d be inclined to get a comparison between the three to keep this on topic. I only say this because I value your opinion and also interested in how the S4 performs along these specific guidelines while in a “stock” environment.
^^^i think i knew him, was in one of my classes at UB…sick driver.
Well stats for mustang and m3 were in that picture on the first post. 4.3 0-60 and 12.7 1/4 for both.
Audi says 4.9 0-60 13.2 1/4 stock for the s4. Still no slouch for “only” 333 hp. Really impressive gains are seen from just APR or revo software.
Other stuff
60-0 109 feet
Skidpad .92 lateral g’s
Base price 47k. Fully loaded 59k
the APR stage 1 new S4 that I got a ride in butt dyno’d faster than E39 M5 or similar 400hp cars.
I was gonna mention that but for “specs” was keeping it stock. Yes the APR cars are amazing. I had a ride in a stage 1 car and it will do all wheel drifts, it was awesome.
People are getting 4.3-4.5 0-60’s with just software (800$ I think) and mid 12’s in the 1/4
I know a stage 2 car (pulley and exhaust) recently did like a 3.9 or 4.0 0-60 and a 11.9 1/4, idk if he was on 100 octane though.
So in my opinion, base price is 10k more than base mustang price but you get way more “car or value” and base price is 14k less than m3 but only some performance “loss”. Seems like a damn good option to me.
Idk what a tune does on a mustang or m gains you, but it’s damn near 30 awhp 50tq on the S.
mustang and M3 will both be significantly more fun to drive because RWD, but for a daily I’d take the S4 all day. I just won’t consider until they get down to the low 20s.
And by then they’ll all be broken and out of warranty. Considering how often the bone stock OEM ones were in for shit I can’t even imagine owning a modded one. What a nightmare.
I disagree with the both of you, on paper the Mustang has been on par with the M3 (save for the first 3 years of the E92). And on track the Mustang GT and M3 have been classed together.
The ONLY thing that has changed is magazines are doing more track / comparative testing.
Mustang GT has been on par with the M3 “on paper”:
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html
1988 BMW M3 7.1 15.4
1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0 (MT Jan '88)
1995 BMW M3 6.2 14.6
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.1 14.9 (C&D Dec '93)
1995 BMW M3 Lightweight 5.3 13.9
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R 5.2 13.8 (5.8 liter)
1996 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.4 14.0 (4.6 DOHC)
1998 BMW M3 Sedan 5.5 14.0
1999 Ford Mustang GT 5.5 14.1
2003 BMW M3 4.8 13.6 @ 105 http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2003-audi-s4-vs-bmw-m3-m-b-c32-amgcompactadrenalinedeliverysystems-2.pdf
2005 Ford Mustang GT 5.1 13.8 @ 103 http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2005-pontiac-gto-vs-2005-ford-mustang-gt21st-century-muscle-powertrain.pdf
2008 BMW M3 4.4 12.9 @ 111 http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2008-bmw-m30709-m3-history-final.pdf
2008 Ford Mustang GT Bullit 5.0 13.6 @ 104 http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2008-dodge-challenger-srt8-vs-2008-ford-mustang-bullittretro-rewind-1.pdf
I’m not going to copy all the data, but:
1988 M3 = .81g, 179 ft from 70mph,
1983 Mustang .76g, 208 ft from 70 mph.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/1988-bmw-m3-road-test-review-car-and-driver1988-bmw-m3.pdf
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/1983-ford-mustang-gt-vs-chevrolet-camaro-z28-ho.pdf
1994 M3 = .86g, 158 ft from 70mph ,
1999 GT = .85g, 170 ft from 70mph.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/1994-bmw-m3-mdash-archived-road-test-mdash-car-and-driver1994-bmw-m3.pdf
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/1999-chevrolet-camaro-z28-vs-ford-mustang-gt-3.pdf
2003 M3 = .87g, 161 ft from 70mph, lane change 61.1 mph
2005 GT = .89g, 170 ft from 70 mph, lane change 64.7 mph.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2003-audi-s4-vs-bmw-m3-m-b-c32-amgcompactadrenalinedeliverysystems-2.pdf
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2005-pontiac-gto-vs-2005-ford-mustang-gt21st-century-muscle-chassis.pdf
2008 M3 = .94g, 163 ft from 70mph,
2008 GT Bullit = .85g, 182 ft from 70 mph
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2008-bmw-m30709-m3-history-final.pdf
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2008-dodge-challenger-srt8-vs-2008-ford-mustang-bullittretro-rewind-2.pdf
This isn’t a completely fair yard stick. The E92 M3 has to run a restrictor, there is sometimes a tire / weight / parts options that give cars some slight advantage beyond stock to even out the field.
But for the last 10 years (and well beyond if I could find a good archive) the M3 and Mustang GT have been competing in the same class. M3 does have stronger participation. But overall class participation is too small of a sample size.
2002 see page 40 Mustang and M3 run in Touring 2
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/Documents/runoffs_archives/02-finals.pdf
2003 see page 24 ('97 stang vs. '98 M3)
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/Documents/runoffs_archives/03-run-results.pdf
2008 see page 3 (no Mustang partcipation)
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/Documents/08-RO-Race-Final.pdf
2011 (Mustang back)
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/results/t2%20final.pdf
2012 current rules page 716
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/2012GCR-updatedJulyMobile1.pdf
Cliffs: Why didn’t they have track shoot outs and head to heads in 1988, 1994, 2003, 2008… I think they E30 and E36 races would have been close & good, E46 a win, E92 destruction in 2008 and here we are with the results from 2011.
All years BMW nicer subjectively.
Reliability though goes to the Ford, skunk owned both, but blew an engine in one.
This thread just got really ghey with stats, domt ruin fun - mustangs are for jerkoffs and m3s are for euro fggtz
Hate you all.
KC
haaahaaahaaahaaaahaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaa
This is hilarious.
Some of the arguments in this thread remind of when car magazines do a comparative test and an obvious favorite “wins” because of the “gotta-have-it” factor the writer puts in at the end. Track times weren’t enough to say the Mustang is getting better and the M3 is getting soft, people need to hate on a car they’ve never driven because it’s trendy.
I don’t know which I’d prefer to own, I see some similar performance numbers, but which is easier for an average joe like me to drive fast?
I could pose another argument for discussion when we’re talking about an AWD S4 but this is way off topic of course. My Evo is putting almost as much power as the stock S4 for thousands less and I’ve only got a few bolt-ons plus a tune… and that’s from a 4 cylinder opposed to an 8.
However you’re back to the same argument you were at before with the M3 vs the Mustang. It’s all about personal preference and for me I’d dive an s4 or an M3; I wouldn’t even consider a mustang GT.
That’s my opinion and honestly who really gives a shit at the end of the day. I’d like to see how many people that we’re considering an M3 actually decided to buy a Mustang GT because of these “comparisons”.
You based your decision cause Aaron doesn’t know how to shift from 2nd to 3rd? Awesome choice!
Audi S4 has a 3.0L Vs. your 2.0L
the power delivery of the audi makes all the difference. the evo with big power is like flicking a rubber band, nothing at first and then SNAP! the audi is a wall of torque starting at zero. The sweet supercharged V6 with 7 speed DSG is just amazing.
plus, let’s not talk about interiors.
number one reason I sold my evo was because it sucked at a daily.
Reason why I don’t ever drive mine and probably why I’ll end up selling it too.
Its always nice to see you pop up every now and then :tup: