2011 BMW M1 vs 2011 Mustang GT

[esscolab]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

How exactly?

Interior electronics? Not if the Ford has the Sync system, which gets rave reviews from everyone who uses it.

Safety systems? They're about the same. ABS, traction control, stability control, and a bunch of airbags.

Drivetrain? Same transmission options. The BMW has IRS over the Mustang, which adds a little complexity, but it's not something that would cause build quality issues or create customer complaints.

Engine management? They're about equal. Ford has a DI twin turbo V6 on the market right now.

So honestly, I don't see where it's additional complexity that's causing BMW to have worse survey numbers than Ford in recent years. It's most likely quality control and engineering validation problems at BMW that's caused their numbers to drop.

Active Steering, Variable ratio steering, six piston calipers, i-drive (love or hate it), HVAC, Hill Assist, regenerative braking, EfficientDynamic Engine. Ford are always playing catch up i'm afraid, they are, and always will be the blue collar workers method of transport no matter what guise.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by esscolab

Active Steering, Variable ratio steering, six piston calipers, i-drive (love or hate it), HVAC, Hill Assist, regenerative braking, EfficientDynamic Engine. Ford are always playing catch up i'm afraid, they are, and always will be the blue collar workers method of transport no matter what guise.

Many of those things you list don't add complexity (hill assist is nothing but a little code for example) and Efficient Dynamics is nothing more than turning the alternator on and off. I-Drive isn't any more complex than Sync, and Ford has pleny of Automatic HVAC systems.

I don't think you've been in one in a while. I don't see where BMW is doing anything that's much more complex than what Ford is, especially on cars like the 1 and 3.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by esscolab

Active Steering, Variable ratio steering, six piston calipers, i-drive (love or hate it), HVAC, Hill Assist, regenerative braking, EfficientDynamic Engine. Ford are always playing catch up i'm afraid, they are, and always will be the blue collar workers method of transport no matter what guise.

Ok first of all, how many road cars have 6 pot calipers, not even the M3 has em, so thats not a fair comparo. Did you really site Active Steering? That system sucks and we all know it. Sync is far better than iDrive in every way imaginable, touch screen and audible connections are seemless, And ED? Have you seen Ford Hybrids? They are easily the best on the market.

And who cares if they are blue collar workers? Ford started because they gave a car to the masses. If you want luxury buy a Lincoln (its what they are for) Similar to if you want a land yaht you buy a Rolls Royce (still owned BMW I think). BMW started and is only alive today because they produced cheap motorcycles for the common man (Im not counting the aircraft engines that they produced). Its how they rebuilt after WWII. They made the choice to go upscale, but it wasnt always that way.

You Euro Snobs are really getting on my nerves. BMWs are far from the best cars on the market...my 01 Mercury Mountaineer (a Ford product) has over 150K miles on it and the only non service item that I have had to fix was a stuck throttle body and I fixed that myself within 15 min of discovering the problem. My 135i is more a rattle pot than my 10 year old Ford.

And nomatter what guise? Just look...

[esscolab]

Oh and finally, the looks, the Mustang will only sell in the US due to it's roots. You may see one or two a year here in Europe, it's too big, too loud and crass. Quite frankly it's a car that's been ressurected from the 60's, kinda like a remix of an old tune that should have been left well alone.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by esscolab

Oh and finally, the looks, the Mustang will only sell in the US due to it's roots. You may see one or two a year here in Europe, it's too big, too loud and crass. Quite frankly it's a car that's been ressurected from the 60's, kinda like a remix of an old tune that should have been left well alone.

Im sorry, I think that you are thinking of the Camaro and the Challenger...

[MarkkyyMan]

Both are good car companies, both have awesome performance divisions.

[BBBluey]

Originally Posted by esscolab

Oh and finally, the looks, the Mustang will only sell in the US due to it's roots. You may see one or two a year here in Europe, it's too big, too loud and crass. Quite frankly it's a car that's been ressurected from the 60's, kinda like a remix of an old tune that should have been left well alone.

Get real. No one takes a second look at a 1 series in Europe. A mustang GT over here is hot stuff, women flock to it. You don't see to many of them because - how much do u pay for a gallon of gas? and tax?

Look, the 1 is a great car, that's why I bought one. But in no way will I disregard the GT as a tough competitor. When these little turbos die, that V8 will still be kicking.

[BoostedTerp]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

Im sorry, I think that you are thinking of the Camaro and the Challenger...

The more people call it too loud and crass, the more I like it personally. It was never meant to do anything else! Its just a fun car, performs well for not a lot of money. I don't see why people are so threatened or feel the need to demean them.

[RäDIOCLäSH]

Originally Posted by BBBluey

This was a good topic for discussion ...not one to win.

As simply said before...two great cars and each does their own thing well.

But since we're trash talking - The real bottom line is, which vehicle will attract more chicks and I think the Mustang will dominate pretty much on every continent easily over the 1 series.

Ya,the kind of chicks that get drunk and sunburned at a N A S C A R race.You can have all those "fine" women.

What we are really talking about are lifestyle differences.Cars are performers,but they also go a long way to define a person.
......I think I'd rather be the guy with a car from Munich...not Detroit.

[NYC6]

Originally Posted by esscolab

Oh and finally, the looks, the Mustang will only sell in the US due to it's roots. You may see one or two a year here in Europe, it's too big, too loud and crass. Quite frankly it's a car that's been ressurected from the 60's, kinda like a remix of an old tune that should have been left well alone.

Thats not really fair. Just because you guys across the pond have been paying four times what Americans have paid for petrol since before WWII and have been driving "cars" with lawnmover engines while we were driving 7 Litre Chevy and Ford 500 hp engines doesnt mean we still drive them today only out of homage to the past. Yes that plays a part, just a most Brits would love to own an Austin Healey 3000. A 60's version or a current one if it existed. And just because you dont see alot in your neck of the woods for whatever reason(gas is how much a litre?) has no bearing on how good something is. It seems I sense a little envy for cheap gas, Long, open,dry roads and the roar of an American V8 with the torque pinning you to the seat.Cheers.

[esscolab]

Originally Posted by NYC6

Thats not really fair. Just because you guys across the pond have been paying four times what Americans have paid for petrol since before WWII and have been driving "cars" with lawnmover engines while we were driving 7 Litre Chevy and Ford 500 hp engines doesnt mean we still drive them today only out of homage to the past. Yes that plays a part, just a most Brits would love to own an Austin Healey 3000. A 60's version or a current one if it existed. And just because you dont see alot in your neck of the woods for whatever reason(gas is how much a litre?) has no bearing on how good something is. It seems I sense a little envy for cheap gas, Long, open,dry roads and the roar of an American V8 with the torque pinning you to the seat.Cheers.

No envy at all, please keep the thirsty archaic contraptions to the long open cornerless dry roads, where their cheap plastic interiors melt in the desert sun. Take a sip of your 10 gallon coffee while cruising in your oversized lardy seats and leave precision driving to the europeans. I thank you.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by esscolab

No envy at all, please keep the thirsty archaic contraptions to the long open cornerless dry roads, where their cheap plastic interiors melt in the desert sun. Take a sip of your 10 gallon coffee while cruising in your oversized lardy seats and leave precision driving to the europeans. I thank you.

You make your ignorance well known with posts like that. You don't have to look far to find a challenging road to drive in this country.

The cars we're talking about here equal (or very nearly equal) the 135s fuel economy, while making more power, so they're not thristy, or archaic, and as for the seats, I'd guess they have the UK in mind just about as much as us when they're designing them, considering that you're the 3rd fattest country on the planet.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...health-obesity


Spare us the condescention.

[Jaguar66]

If i may be so bold as to say this thread seems to be going nowhere, evolving into "my country makes a better car than your country" type of argument (perhaps my dad can beat your dad might be as appropriate).

I for one would like to see this thread closed.

[JimmyT]

without a proper road test with either car... this is all theoretical bench raceing...

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by RPM90

Oh, and after reading the C&D track review, which I think it where most other articles are citing performance potential, the numbers generated by that new GT were generated not by a base GT, but with track type tires and tweaked suspension that may not be the one the for sale GT will get.

The car they tested was a standard GT with the optional "Track Package". It was not some special tweaked car.
It's basically like the 135i with the Sport Package.
But with the "Track Package" on the MGT you get upgraded suspension, tires, lower gearing and so forth.

They car they got however, was mistakenly delivered with the standard GT's all season tires on it, not the Track Packs high performance rubber.

The 315 hp 2010 GT got around VIR faster than the 135i did the previous year.
With 100 more hp and Brembo brakes for the 2011 it should lap VIR faster than the front heavy and therefore worse handling GT500, and probably not far behind the e92 M3.


This post was a comparison about performance (again clearly on paper since the cars are not out yet). There was no argument as to which car will have more luxuries and refinement, but like many performance cars, luxury and refinement is not what's built into them (you don't buy a Lotus Elise for it's luxury and refinement, same goes for a Corvette).

As for low end power, I have had two N54 engines, and as much as BMW wants to claim it has 300 lbs ft of torque at 1400 rpms, I don't buy it.
I've dynoed dozens and dozens of N54's and there is NOT peak torque happening anywhere near 1400 rpms, much less even 2000 rpms.
I've had many FI cars too, and many of them claim full torque at 1400 or 1800 rpms, and I've never believed that.
They will bog and lag down at those rpms.

Put an N54 car into 1st gear and lug it around at 1200 rpms.
Then mash the throttle. You will NOT be at peak torque 200 rpms later, and you certainly will not be on full boost. There is lag.

I'd have to see dynos, but I'd put my money on the 5.0 liter V8 in the 2011 Stang having more torque at 1500 rpms than the N54 does.
Now the M1's motor, who knows yet, but regardless of what manufacturers or magazines say, there will always be some lag in a turbocharged car, especially down low in the rpm range.

Lastly, I'm again, not quite sure why some people feel you can ONLY compare two cars that are in similiar price range.
That mentality is just narrow at best.
There are just WAY to many OTHER aspects in cars to say that price is the all encompassing factor in comparisons.

[BBBluey]

Originally Posted by Driver72

The car they tested was a standard GT with the optional "Track Package". It was not some special tweaked car.
It's basically like the 135i with the Sport Package.
But with the "Track Package" on the MGT you get upgraded suspension, tires, lower gearing and so forth.

They car they got however, was mistakenly delivered with the standard GT's all season tires on it, not the Track Packs high performance rubber.

The 315 hp 2010 GT got around VIR faster than the 135i did the previous year.
With 100 more hp and Brembo brakes for the 2011 it should lap VIR faster than the front heavy and therefore worse handling GT500, and probably not far behind the e92 M3.


This post was a comparison about performance (again clearly on paper since the cars are not out yet). There was no argument as to which car will have more luxuries and refinement, but like many performance cars, luxury and refinement is not what's built into them (you don't buy a Lotus Elise for it's luxury and refinement, same goes for a Corvette).

As for low end power, I have had two N54 engines, and as much as BMW wants to claim it has 300 lbs ft of torque at 1400 rpms, I don't buy it.
I've dynoed dozens and dozens of N54's and there is NOT peak torque happening anywhere near 1400 rpms, much less even 2000 rpms.
I've had many FI cars too, and many of them claim full torque at 1400 or 1800 rpms, and I've never believed that.
They will bog and lag down at those rpms.

Put an N54 car into 1st gear and lug it around at 1200 rpms.
Then mash the throttle. You will NOT be at peak torque 200 rpms later, and you certainly will not be on full boost. There is lag.

I'd have to see dynos, but I'd put my money on the 5.0 liter V8 in the 2011 Stang having more torque at 1500 rpms than the N54 does.
Now the M1's motor, who knows yet, but regardless of what manufacturers or magazines say, there will always be some lag in a turbocharged car, especially down low in the rpm range.

Lastly, I'm again, not quite sure why some people feel you can ONLY compare two cars that are in similiar price range.
That mentality is just narrow at best.
There are just WAY to many OTHER aspects in cars to say that price is the all encompassing factor in comparisons.

Finally back to topic. Good points too! Thanks.

[Numb3rs]

Originally Posted by Driver72

The car they tested was a standard GT with the optional "Track Package". It was not some special tweaked car.
It's basically like the 135i with the Sport Package.
But with the "Track Package" on the MGT you get upgraded suspension, tires, lower gearing and so forth.

They car they got however, was mistakenly delivered with the standard GT's all season tires on it, not the Track Packs high performance rubber.

The 315 hp 2010 GT got around VIR faster than the 135i did the previous year.
With 100 more hp and Brembo brakes for the 2011 it should lap VIR faster than the front heavy and therefore worse handling GT500, and probably not far behind the e92 M3.


This post was a comparison about performance (again clearly on paper since the cars are not out yet). There was no argument as to which car will have more luxuries and refinement, but like many performance cars, luxury and refinement is not what's built into them (you don't buy a Lotus Elise for it's luxury and refinement, same goes for a Corvette).

As for low end power, I have had two N54 engines, and as much as BMW wants to claim it has 300 lbs ft of torque at 1400 rpms, I don't buy it.
I've dynoed dozens and dozens of N54's and there is NOT peak torque happening anywhere near 1400 rpms, much less even 2000 rpms.
I've had many FI cars too, and many of them claim full torque at 1400 or 1800 rpms, and I've never believed that.
They will bog and lag down at those rpms.

Put an N54 car into 1st gear and lug it around at 1200 rpms.
Then mash the throttle. You will NOT be at peak torque 200 rpms later, and you certainly will not be on full boost. There is lag.

I'd have to see dynos, but I'd put my money on the 5.0 liter V8 in the 2011 Stang having more torque at 1500 rpms than the N54 does.
Now the M1's motor, who knows yet, but regardless of what manufacturers or magazines say, there will always be some lag in a turbocharged car, especially down low in the rpm range.

Lastly, I'm again, not quite sure why some people feel you can ONLY compare two cars that are in similiar price range.
That mentality is just narrow at best.
There are just WAY to many OTHER aspects in cars to say that price is the all encompassing factor in comparisons.

Your butt dyno isn't the same as a real Dyno chart. The 135i and the subsequent M1 does and will have more low-end torque.

Most of what you suggest is opinion and not based on factual evidence..!

[bluejaypanther]

Originally Posted by Driver72

The car they tested was a standard GT with the optional "Track Package". It was not some special tweaked car.
It's basically like the 135i with the Sport Package.
But with the "Track Package" on the MGT you get upgraded suspension, tires, lower gearing and so forth.

They car they got however, was mistakenly delivered with the standard GT's all season tires on it, not the Track Packs high performance rubber.

The 315 hp 2010 GT got around VIR faster than the 135i did the previous year.
With 100 more hp and Brembo brakes for the 2011 it should lap VIR faster than the front heavy and therefore worse handling GT500, and probably not far behind the e92 M3.


This post was a comparison about performance (again clearly on paper since the cars are not out yet). There was no argument as to which car will have more luxuries and refinement, but like many performance cars, luxury and refinement is not what's built into them (you don't buy a Lotus Elise for it's luxury and refinement, same goes for a Corvette).

As for low end power, I have had two N54 engines, and as much as BMW wants to claim it has 300 lbs ft of torque at 1400 rpms, I don't buy it.
I've dynoed dozens and dozens of N54's and there is NOT peak torque happening anywhere near 1400 rpms, much less even 2000 rpms.
I've had many FI cars too, and many of them claim full torque at 1400 or 1800 rpms, and I've never believed that.
They will bog and lag down at those rpms.

Put an N54 car into 1st gear and lug it around at 1200 rpms.
Then mash the throttle. You will NOT be at peak torque 200 rpms later, and you certainly will not be on full boost. There is lag.

I'd have to see dynos, but I'd put my money on the 5.0 liter V8 in the 2011 Stang having more torque at 1500 rpms than the N54 does.
Now the M1's motor, who knows yet, but regardless of what manufacturers or magazines say, there will always be some lag in a turbocharged car, especially down low in the rpm range.

Lastly, I'm again, not quite sure why some people feel you can ONLY compare two cars that are in similiar price range.
That mentality is just narrow at best.
There are just WAY to many OTHER aspects in cars to say that price is the all encompassing factor in comparisons.

I have to disagree with this. There are legit criticisms of the 135i for sure, but the N54 (HPFP aside) is beyond reproach. You can talk about your subjective experience with the engine, or when you dyno'd a car and didn't see 300 HP (stupid question: you mean at the wheel or at the crank? because no one ever made the claim that it put 300 to the wheels). But none of that crap matters. I dont care if the reported horsepower is 75 with a torque peak at 5k. If the car is going 0-60 in 4.6 seconds with a 1/4 mile of 13.1 (source zeroto60times.com , which has the current GT stang 0.5 slower), then it has a fantastic engine, and more than likely, great low end torque. Those times are the domain of 400HP cars. Granted, there is a skill requirement, but I'm NOT a particularly skilled 6MT driver, and I can get my car to 60 in under 5 seconds, no problem. You just can't do that without low-end torque in a car weighing 3400 lbs.

Also regardless of whether peak torque comes at 1400 or 3000 RPM, stating that the N54 has turbo lag just doesn't fit either. Even if the engine didnt hit peak torque until 3k, it doesn't exactly lack punch down low. It goes from a making a lot of torque to making a shit-ton of power, and the results speak for themselves.

I hope the new Mustang is awesome. Even if it's not for me (and if the performance is good enough it might be. I just don't like the way it looks- it's too reverential for my taste. I didn't live in that era and I don't have sentimental attachment to it. But other people, even younger than me, apparently do) giving people more and better choices, and putting some pressure on BMW is a good thing in my book. However, trying to say that the Mustang will be faster than the M1 based off the N54 being overrated and having "turbo lag"- you lost me there. Regardless, I should certainly hope that with 5.0L and 5 more years of technological advances, that the new Ford V8 is a superior performer, regardless of how much the car costs.

End rant.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by bluejaypanther

I
Also regardless of whether peak torque comes at 1400 or 3000 RPM, stating that the N54 has turbo lag just doesn't fit either. Even if the engine didnt hit peak torque until 3k, it doesn't exactly lack punch down low. It goes from a making a lot of torque to making a shit-ton of power, and the results speak for themselves.
.

Are you driving the same car we are?!? The N54 absolutely has turbo lag. It's not as bad as an STi or an Evo, but it's still there, and it's very obvious during quick on-off-on throttle transitions, and during gear changes on cars with manual transmissions.

The lag doesn't come into play as much during a 0-60 run because as with any car you can build up revs enough that when you dump the clutch you've easily got enough power available to break the tires loose.

Also, the times you're quoting for the Mustang are for the old 300Hp version. The new one will, without a doubt be significantly faster than a stock 135i, breaking well into the 12s in the 1/4 mile.


The people here using low end torque as an argument against a V8 Mustang don't really make much sense. Lack of bottom end has NEVER been a problem the Mustang (or any other American V8 powered car in recent memory for that matter) suffers from. You'll see them pulling 1.6 60' times on any drag strip in the country all night long with a decent set of tires.

[bluejaypanther]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Also, the times you're quoting for the Mustang are for the old 300Hp version. The new one will, without a doubt be significantly faster than a stock 135i, breaking well into the 12s in the 1/4 mile.

Like I said with it being a larger and more modern engine than the n54, I would certainly expect so. And if anyone seriously suggested that an NA V8 would make less torque down low than an FI I6, I agree, they were wrong. But when I think of real turbo lag, I think of a WRX that goes off at 3k RPM and not a moment before. I realize that this is a subjective finding, but I've never seen a quantifiable definition of 'turbo lag'. It's especially hard to define when you consider that there are NA engines that don't make peak torque until they get past 6k RPM.

And maybe the n54 does, technically have turbo lag. But from a practical standpoint, if you intend to go fast with a 135i, 'turbo lag', in the traditional sense, isn't going to hold you back. Creating experimental conditions to demonstrate the phenomenon, I think, is meaningless in the context of how the engine is actually used.

And I'm not going to bury the M1 until some real data comes out.

[justphil135]

just curious??does the new mustangs have independent suspensions??

[LeoHammer]

Originally Posted by justphil135

just curious??does the new mustangs have independent suspensions??

Thats highly unlikely... the 1999-2004 SVT cobra had independent suspension but they went back to a live axle setup because of customer request they said.