Mach 1 vs M3

[xsellr8]

I understand its run what you brung on the street etc etc..like I said in my last post, this debate only happened because of your post that an M3 should be compared to a GT500 because they are simair in price. It was a dumb comment to make so got bated into the convo we have been have been having all day ( which is OK by me as it was a good way to waste my morning lol) but in the end I love both cars as they are two completely different types to carving a track. I would choose the boss as a track toy and M3 as a daily :beer:

At the end of the day people will run these cars if they are in the same class-as described as "I have a fast car that will run that." If you want to pull out an options sheet every time you race and show the differences..good luck. There isn't a significant difference between an M3, GT 500, or BOSS that someone will not race because one is a school bus and the other a sports car. They will meet on the streets and if someone thinks its a fair race, they'll run them. Excuses will fly about the M3 being a luxury car, the Shelby having 662HP, and the Boss being cheaper, but they can all be put in the same class on the street- if you don't think that's the same class, the real world has something to teach you. They are what they are and you can't throw excuse cards to win races. Price has a huge roll as it decides what you can buy with the same money. If a Shelby and a M3 cost the same and the M gets trashed, that's life.

 

[xsellr8]

Lol..first off, I didn't call you any names. Second ///M is a luxury and performance brand meaning balaned between the two while svt is strictly performance so yes naturally the top svt will beat the top ///M in the perfomance category. And lastly if you would read what I said I never contradicted myself because I stated performance wise you can say one is better but that doesn't make it better as a whole. Does that makes sense to you?

You can't take a 60k gt500 and compare it to a 60k M3 because the gt500 is that price strickly because of its performance vs the M3 is because u get a balance of luxury and performance. They are no where near the same class of vehicle.

What I said about you contradicting yourself is that you said they cannot be compared because one is luxury, but they can be compared because they have a similar layout. Which is it? They can or can't? I say they can because people will run them just how I did. You can't pull out a options sheet and say it wasn't fair. You race for one reason. That's all we're taking about here and you keep defending the M due to its differences.

 

[xsellr8]

Lol..first off, I didn't call you any names. Second ///M is a luxury and performance brand meaning balaned between the two while svt is strictly performance so yes naturally the top svt will beat the top ///M in the perfomance category. And lastly if you would read what I said I never contradicted myself because I stated performance wise you can say one is better but that doesn't make it better as a whole. Does that makes sense to you?

You can't take a 60k gt500 and compare it to a 60k M3 because the gt500 is that price strickly because of its performance vs the M3 is because u get a balance of luxury and performance. They are no where near the same class of vehicle.

That's not accurate either. SVT puts a lot of time into comfort. The GT500 has awesome seats, a navi, HIDs etc. Ford Racing makes the Cobra Jet and other track cars that would be performance only. ///M and SVT is a fine comparison.

 

[O3dsg]

The E-46 is a great car but in no way shape or form would I ever call it a luxury car. This car was about performance after all it was BMW's flag ship for the 3 series was is it not? I have spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of a few of these cars and it is an awesome car! That being said I say stock for stock the M is easier to drive fast than the Mach. What the BMW lacks in Tq it makes up in gearing much like a Mach with 4:10s. Yet displacement prevails as it is much easier to make power with the 4.6 32v Dohc giving it an overall advantage. They were both great cars only a couple of years behind the curve! :beer:

 

[Fenixfire]

Yes that is what I am saying an is the case. The boss is faster on the track but M3 has for more luxury and comfort features . The quality and detail on the M3 is far superior . I am speaking from the point of view of somebody who has driven both.

Are you kidding? The M3 might be more luxurious, but it is definitely not better quality. The ONLY way I would ever own a BMW is on a lease, because its completely covered under warranty and I dont have to worry about paying when it breaks. And break it will. BMW is pretty far down the list of manufacturers when it comes to quality.

I work in the automotive industry and I see every make and model every day and I drive them too. BMWs are super nice cars dont get me wrong, but they arent a lexus, thats for sure. When it comes to quality and reliability lexus is unmatched. Ford has better quality and reliability than a BMW. Ive seen it firsthand. Even if the Ford does break it will be a helluva lot cheaper to fix than the BMW.

I agree that the M3 will have more luxury and fancy doodads than a boss, but the boss will last alot more miles than the BMW will.

As far as balance goes, I thought you meant chassis balance, because the boss was praised for being more balanced than an M3.

 

[Fenixfire]

The E-46 is a great car but in no way shape or form would I ever call it a luxury car. This car was about performance after all it was BMW's flag ship for the 3 series was is it not? I have spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of a few of these cars and it is an awesome car! That being said I say stock for stock the M is easier to drive fast than the Mach. What the BMW lacks in Tq it makes up in gearing much like a Mach with 4:10s. Yet displacement prevails as it is much easier to make power with the 4.6 32v Dohc giving it an overall advantage. They were both great cars only a couple of years behind the curve! :beer:

Ive driven an M3 before, but not the e46. For me, the mach is easier to drive fast now, but thats probly because ive been driving a mach for 8 years now. I can do some pretty crazy things with this car. However, I am definitely not saying it is superior to an M3 except for maybe in a straight line.

 

[kaz109]

That's not accurate either. SVT puts a lot of time into comfort. The GT500 has awesome seats, a navi, HIDs etc. Ford Racing makes the Cobra Jet and other track cars that would be performance only. ///M and SVT is a fine comparison.

Now you are just going too far lol..I am done with this as you are blinded to the point I was making and now going even ferther saying the interior is the same quality as an M3 lol..

When I started defending the M3 is when u made the statement " a gt500 would be a better comparasion since it is the same price as the M3" thus saying the M3's price point is based solely on its performance like that of the GT500 . So yes you are right, if they line up on the street the mustang will win. I am agreeing with you on that point. I will not waste any more time trying to get you to understand the point I am making about a vehicle being a better overall car vs a great performance car. You are lost and there is no point trying to help you see the big picture lol

Look I understand cars are gonna line up and run no matter what class of car it is or how much each person paid as I never disputed that.

 

[kaz109]

The E-46 is a great car but in no way shape or form would I ever call it a luxury car. This car was about performance after all it was BMW's flag ship for the 3 series was is it not? I have spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of a few of these cars and it is an awesome car! That being said I say stock for stock the M is easier to drive fast than the Mach. What the BMW lacks in Tq it makes up in gearing much like a Mach with 4:10s. Yet displacement prevails as it is much easier to make power with the 4.6 32v Dohc giving it an overall advantage. They were both great cars only a couple of years behind the curve! :beer:

It is not a pure luxury it is sport luxury..also keep in mind the E46 M3 was introduced in 2001 so for that time it definetly was luxury to that of say a mustang or camaro.

Yes it was the flag ship but you are forgetting what that ship stood for, was it solely performance? No it was balance , the perfect balance of performance and luxury . It was never meant to be the most luxurious or the absolute best performer . You are right about the modding advantage of the 4.6L of the mustang but that is kinda obvious since the M3 is making the same power with less displacement and less cylinders. All in all they were just built for two different market of buyers

 

[kaz109]

Are you kidding? The M3 might be more luxurious, but it is definitely not better quality. The ONLY way I would ever own a BMW is on a lease, because its completely covered under warranty and I dont have to worry about paying when it breaks. And break it will. BMW is pretty far down the list of manufacturers when it comes to quality.

I work in the automotive industry and I see every make and model every day and I drive them too. BMWs are super nice cars dont get me wrong, but they arent a lexus, thats for sure. When it comes to quality and reliability lexus is unmatched. Ford has better quality and reliability than a BMW. Ive seen it firsthand. Even if the Ford does break it will be a helluva lot cheaper to fix than the BMW.

I agree that the M3 will have more luxury and fancy doodads than a boss, but the boss will last alot more miles than the BMW will.

As far as balance goes, I thought you meant chassis balance, because the boss was praised for being more balanced than an M3.

As somebody who has owned both ford and a ///M car I can tell you BMW is definelty better quality than ford, its not even a question. As for BMW's breaking down you are right as I have heard everybody saying this , I had just never experienced it. I have also seem countless cars go above 150k mile mark when proper services are done .

I would not say the M3 has a better chassis then the boss because like I said I have driven them both and the boss is simply an amazing performer. It is what I would call an engineering marvel :beer:

 

[xsellr8]

Now you are just going too far lol..I am done with this as you are blinded to the point I was making and now going even ferther saying the interior is the same quality as an M3 lol..

When I started defending the M3 is when u made the statement " a gt500 would be a better comparasion since it is the same price as the M3" thus saying the M3's price point is based solely on its performance like that of the GT500 . So yes you are right, if they line up on the street the mustang will win. I am agreeing with you on that point. I will not waste any more time trying to get you to understand the point I am making about a vehicle being a better overall car vs a great performance car. You are lost and there is no point trying to help you see the big picture lol

Look I understand cars are gonna line up and run no matter what class of car it is or how much each person paid as I never disputed that.

For the last time. We are in the road kill section and we are comparing PERFORMANCE, not luxury or overall quality. I've proven my point multiple times. It's making you look bad. If two people go out and one buys an M3 and the other buys a Boss or a GT500 and they race, te M will lose both times ON A PERFORMANCE LEVEL (which is the only thing we are comparing). You don't pull over after a race and say it didn't count because the cars are not in the same class, or one is more expansive, or whatever lame EXCUSES you make up. Stop comparing overall quality when we are talking about performance and what performance you can get for the $. There is nothing wrong with comparing both cars that cost the same. What you can get for the money is not only a valid argument, but REALITY.

 

[kaz109]

Yes, good #s, but if you're going to compare BMW's motorsports line car, it should be compared to the Boss engine, and even at that the 444HP Boss is not in the same price class. The 662 HP GT500 is the SVT canditate that should be compared to ///M

This is the post. You weren't talking about two cars lining up on the street in this post. You made the comment that because two cars are at a the same price point that they should be compared and put in the same category .

Only point I was making is that is a false and dumb statement that you made. I agreed the boss was faster back on page two so the point you proved soooooo many times was pointless as I told you the same thing when the topic of boss vs M3 first came up

 

[xsellr8]

Now you are just going too far lol..I am done with this as you are blinded to the point I was making and now going even ferther saying the interior is the same quality as an M3 lol..

When I started defending the M3 is when u made the statement " a gt500 would be a better comparasion since it is the same price as the M3" thus saying the M3's price point is based solely on its performance like that of the GT500 . So yes you are right, if they line up on the street the mustang will win. I am agreeing with you on that point. I will not waste any more time trying to get you to understand the point I am making about a vehicle being a better overall car vs a great performance car. You are lost and there is no point trying to help you see the big picture lol

Look I understand cars are gonna line up and run no matter what class of car it is or how much each person paid as I never disputed that.

For the last time. We are in the road kill section and we are comparing PERFORMANCE, not luxury or overall quality. I've proven my point multiple times. It's making you look bad. If two people go out and one buys an M3 and the other buys a Boss or a GT500 for the same price and they race, the M will lose both times ON A PERFORMANCE LEVEL (which is the only thing we are comparing). You don't pull over after a race and say it didn't count because the cars are not in the same class, or one is more expansive, or whatever lame EXCUSES you make up. Stop comparing overall quality when we are talking about performance and what performance you can get for the $. There is nothing wrong with comparing both cars that cost the same. What you can get for the money is a valid argument.
Let me prove you wrong even further. The Shelby has more luxury features that are not found on the Boss- heated seats, navi, leather, HIDs (except 2013 when all Mustangs had HIDS). Why can't you put those two against each other? That's closer to your argument. yes, the GT500 would not be a FAIR comparison, but being that they are comparable as sports cars its legit.
When the C5 Z06 came out it was compared to the M3. How could this be? They are less similar than the Mustang/BMW. Why then? Because they are performance cars around the same price.

So far your complaint has been I said a GT500 could be compared to an M3.
Are you going to say an Evo can't race a terminator, or a corvette can't run a C63 AMG?

I have proved you wrong on:
1.The M3 being a lot lighter
2.The BMW being more powerful
3.That you can't compare the two
4.That SVT isn't performance only
5. A Ferrari/ Bently is NOT the same comparison as a Boss/M3
6. We are not talking about irrelevant "overall quality" but performance.

You have no valid points, so just give up. You keep digging yourself deeper.

 

[Fox 5.0]

I raced an e46 in my Fox and won, does this mean it didn't count now?

 

[xsellr8]

I raced an e46 in my Fox and won, does this mean it didn't count now?

Sorry, they're two different cars, not in the same class. It didn't count.

When hot rod magazine compared the WRX to the Cobra it didn't count.
When Car and driver compared the M3 to the Z06 it didn't count
When Ford straight out said they built the boss to target te M3 it didn't count.
Whenever anyone races a similar-HP car at the track or the street it doesn't count

It's like playing wack-a-mole here! They keep poping up and I keep smacking them down...

 

[kaz109]

Sorry, they're two different cars, not in the same class. It didn't count.

When hot rod magazine compared the WRX to the Cobra it didn't count.
When Car and driver compared the M3 to the Z06 it didn't count
When Ford straight out said they built the boss to target te M3 it didn't count.
Whenever anyone races a similar-HP car at the track or the street it doesn't count

It's like playing wack-a-mole here! They keep poping up and I keep smacking them down...

Hahahaha..calm down there guy I never said a win didn't count so once again comprehension > you .....I said the boss and gt500 are better in the performance category I will leave it at this, the boss is the best performance car ever and the gt500 is the best luxury sports car for 60k . I am glad you beat that M3 and put him in his place as I am sure he is getting to sell it now to pick up a mach :beer:

 

[kaz109]

Ahahah soo true :beer: The dyno I originally saw it was from a German? mag that dynoed the E92 M3, 335i and E46 M3 which was spot on for the first 2 cars. Thats how I got the 300-ish whp for the E46.


As for M3 not being in the same class as the Boss. I would say it is but its not, the track package GT would be better suited against the M3. The M3 while technically a track car is still more of a luxury first. If they re-made a CSL type of M3 or made the M3 GTS a bigger production car, I wouldve put it against the Boss. Price difference are huge on both but they're both for two different types of crowds. The Boss is probably the best bang for buck track car PERIOD. The M3 is the best bang for buck for a LUXO track car. See the difference? The M3 is the better car overall over the Boss but that comes with a price.

Best post of the thread :beer:

 

[StinkyM]

*This will probably be long so prepare yourselves*

Hello gentlemen, been watching SVT from behind the scenes for a few years and finally decided to sign up a few days ago after seeing this thread.

First off, it's getting more rare to see forums with kill sections so I tend to frequent the lot. Whether it be LS1, or whatever forum, if it has a kills section I am there. Really gets you to learn more about the other cars in the world as opposed to being centered on one certain brand.

Anyways, I'm not going to debate the Boss 302 vs E92 M3. I'm pretty sure it's been beaten to death enough. However, I am a true enthusiast and see greatness in both machines. The Boss is exactly that on the track. A BOSS! The Boss is very fast, agile but could be better, and has a huge amount of potential waiting to be unleashed. The Boss is simply a great car.

The M3 is a beast in its own ways as well but I won't even get on that subject because I may end up sounding biased. However, I will comment on some discrepancies regarding the E46 M3.

Most E46 M3's do dyno in the 300RWHP range with bolt ons. Simple bolt ons and a cann tune will definitely put you in the 300 rwhp range and it's quite simple using any off the shelf header, any x pipe, and and rear muffler section and a $400 cann tune from many various sites. Simply put, the majority of M3's on the road will use this method.

Now, that's not at all, the most you can get out of an E46 M3. E46's can and have been dynoing in the 320-360 rwhp range without touching the block and without cams. Yes, simple bolt ons, but the right bolt ons. See the dyno here. This dyno sheet is from a very very reputable company in the BMW tuning world and they produce some of the highest quality parts on the BMW market. Granted, that quality comes at a cost. This header alone is $2k and that's not the cheapest header on the market either. But, it's worth the costs ten fold. This dyno here shows a full bolt on E46 M3 using the same companies 3.5" straight exhaust. Most people do not even look into purchasing this exhaust because it's simply too loud for the road. But it's a performer and the most powerful exhaust on the market for the E46 M3. There's a lot and I mean a lot of people who run this exhaust on race only applications.

http://store.bimmerworld.com/epic-motorsports-e46-m3-header-p1939.aspx

Point here is, our cars can make the power, you really just need to put the money down on the right parts. We also have what is known as Alpha N tuning which is simply a MAF-less system. This alone is worth 20-40 rwhp. On many occassions people have replicated the same gains over and over but it depends on the setup and the tuner. Proof is here. Don't believe this one, google Alpha N tuning and the S54.

BimmerBoost - Evolve gains 46.8 wheel horsepower naturally aspirated on an E46 M3 S54 with their carbon airbox and Alpha-N tuning for a total of 326.8 wheel horsepower


Now, comparing the Mach 1 and the E46 M3. They are both very potent cars. Stock for stock both are low 13 cars with some glory runs into the 12's. However, when the Mach 1 adds gears, bolt ons, good tune and tires, we do not stand a chance in the 1/4 mile. The low end torque coupled to those gears is simply staggering. We can't go low 12's without a good bit of weight reduction, tire, gear, and a really really good driver like myself. But once the speeds are rolling, we definitely have the upper hand. No doubt about it. Our cars breath better in the higher rpms and our gearing is more suited for that style of driving. Not some German "it was built for the Autobahn" BS either.

The Mach 1 is a fun car to drive I am sure, as is my M3. I would never consider owning a Mach 1 but I would love to have one at an Autox or at an HPDE event and really ring it out. I tried to keep it somewhat short but I like to write I guess.

 

[S8ER01Z]

Now, comparing the Mach 1 and the E46 M3. They are both very potent cars. Stock for stock both are low 13 cars with some glory runs into the 12's.

I would like to see the glory runs you speak of... link/proof?

 

[xsellr8]

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races"
-Carol Shelby

 

[StinkyM]

I would like to see the glory runs you speak of... link/proof?

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1272256

Here's ours. I'm sure there's been a Mach or two that have touched 12's bone stock.