Keef's Car Thread | Wheels on the Bus | 09/08/23

[Keef]

Civics are some of the greatest cars ever made. Many qualities are inherent in all versions, such as the double-wishbone suspension design and crisp shifting transmissions. Add to that many sporty touches like stiffer springs and dampers, better wheels and tires, a relatively powerful and high-revving engine coupled to a better transmission, and you've got yourself a pretty decent sport/economy compromise. I'd argue that in some ways it is better than many modern examples.

An RX7 is an RX7, and that speaks for itself. Though I do have the slow version, the car is basically the epitome of late-80s Japanese sports cars.

The reason I'm having such a dilemma trying to find a new car is that the car's I've already owned have been some of the best at what they were designed to do. The Civic, basically the ultimate affordable sport/economy compromise. The RX7, a great affordable compromise between serious sports car engineering and surprising material and build quality. So what else is there? Now that I've had it, I need sport and I need economy. A Miata? But even fully decked out interiors are strippers compared to the RX7. An E30? It's like a rear-wheel drive Civic, but having driven a couple I can tell you that the RX7 snickers in their face when people refer to them as "sports cars".

One of very few solutions to this problem is a car like an E36 M3. But I can't afford that. So to avoid this conundrum I came up with the idea of getting something totally different.

 

[homeforsummer]

The only things I can suggest that aren't either a Miata, Civic or E30 which wouldn't cost a lot and/or require another loan are all American. Bang for buck you'll struggle to beat something like an old Mustang or similar and aside from a few small maladies people around here (as in GTP, not the UK...) seem to be fairly happy with their lumps of American iron.

I've not driven many American cars (in fact I've driven one, a PT Cruiser, and spent a lot of time as a passenger in a current-gen Impala) but based on what I know and general preconceptions, they're fairly cheap to buy, fix, insure and tune, pretty comfortable, generally spacious and fun, albeit in a different way from say, Miata fun.

So unless you happen across a perfect E30 or scrape together the cash for an M3, I'd suggest either a Miata, another Civic, or something American. Because I you obviously want some degree of performance, fun and practicality, and you're not going to get those from many imports unless you're prepared to stump up the cash.

 

[Perfect Balance]

The only things I can suggest that aren't either a Miata, Civic or E30 which wouldn't cost a lot and/or require another loan are all American. Bang for buck you'll struggle to beat something like an old Mustang or similar and aside from a few small maladies people around here (as in GTP, not the UK...) seem to be fairly happy with their lumps of American iron.

But they absolutely suck to drive.

Horrible seating positions, horrible seats, steering either feels completely numb or has a huge dead spot, the steering wheels themselves feel like turning a watermelon, pedal placement sucks for downshifting, and a general fail of suspension design, ect ect. (except for the recent, modern stuff. Which tends to be expensive) The controls in the interior frequently require leaning forward to access all of them. Little things that amount to a pretty crappy driving experience. A lot of them are nice, reliable cars, but not driver's cars.

I'm not saying they can't be make to be quick, but I feel America has yet to hit the "overall driving feel" nail on the head..

 

[Keef]

I've vowed to never own any Mustang pre-2005. Things are an absolute dread to even be a passenger in, much less drive, and what's even worse is that the chassis stayed nearly the same for the previous 30 years so every model for an entire three decades is horrible to drive.

The only thing America has churned out that could hang with any foreign sports car was the Solstice, and even it couldn't best the Miata for overall driving experience.

 

[///M-Spec]

I used to have a couple of friends with SN-95 SVT Cobras. One was a modular, the other was a Terminator. (That would be an '01 4.6 and a supercharged '03) for those of you not down with the terminology.

I thought they were pretty good. Better, in fact, than most 'import' people would care to admit. FYI, the SN-95 Cobras had an honest to goodness IRS, so the whole 'dinosaur live axle yadda-yadda' doesn't really apply to them. Not exactly the last word in steering feel or body control, but the latter isn't something some springs, shocks and sways can't fix.

Largely academic, since even a Mod SN-95 is out of your price for a reasonably clean example.

But I learned by experience not to discount a Cobra or even a GT with some simple work done to it.

The only thing America has churned out that could hang with any foreign sports car was the Solstice, and even it couldn't best the Miata for overall driving experience.

Uh... Corvette.. Viper?


M

 

[Keef]

The Vette and Viper are inaccessible to the majority of sports car enthusiasts. As for Mustangs, especially Terminators, I know they can be or are good performers. They're just not proper sports cars, and that kills it for me. I could care less about performance unless the experience is there, and that's why I think Miatas are the greatest sports car invention of all time.

Anyway, I think I've made a decision. I'm not going to get a new car. Instead, I'm going to use a bit of the money to replace and repair broken and worn bits on my car. Next weekend I'd like to get under it and inspect my suspension components again, checking for worn bushings and ball joints, and replacing them as needed. Might even spring for a polyurethane kit because most of the bushings didn't look difficult to replace. A couple interior trim pieces I've broken will make it a lot nicer looking in there. A new exhaust system could either make it more comfortable, or just as loud but more proper and better looking.

After taking a look on Mazdatrix for interior switchgear, holy cow, I pray to baby Jesus that my HVAC unit or headlight and wiper switches go bad. To replace those three parts with new Mazda units would cost nearly $1500. Wowzers. The wiper switch/unit alone is over $700.

 

[WeinerSchnitzel]

The only thing America has churned out that could hang with any foreign sports car was the Solstice, and even it couldn't best the Miata for overall driving experience.

This guy would like a word with you...

 

[Perfect Balance]

@M-spec:
That's pretty much how I see it. They're out there, but not exactly for prices that there isn't a better option out there.

I've never driven a Cobra, but I've driven a GT, and while the car itself felt decent, the overall interior/seating position/seats/steering wheel/pedals just didn't feel right.

I also drove an '08 GT as well. I actually kind of liked it, the engine was great, but the car felt very massive. All the panels around you are roughly shoulder height. On a small car with a low mounted seat, it's more apparent that it's just a low seat, whereas on the Mustang it felt like the car was simply large. The pedals had too much resistance for my tastes though, and the steering wheel felt very bulky, although I think with an aftermarket wheel it would be much improved. Again though, they aren't very cheap.

 

[///M-Spec]

The Vette and Viper are inaccessible to the majority of sports car enthusiasts.

Dude... an early C5 is like 10 grand these days. A clean C5 Z06 is around 20k. A clean 1st gen Viper is like 25k.

As for Mustangs, especially Terminators, I know they can be or are good performers. They're just not proper sports cars, and that kills it for me.

Bah... neither are Civics or 240SXs or AE86s, but that doesn't stop nearly every one who puts a shoshinsha sticker in his windshield and mounts his front plate offset to the side (for no reason other than trying to be "different") from trying to make them into one.


M

 

[Keef]

Bah... neither are Civics or 240SXs or AE86s, but that doesn't stop nearly every one who puts a shoshinsha sticker in his windshield and mounts his front plate offset to the side (for no reason other than trying to be "different") from trying to make them into one.


M

That's why I got rid of the Civic, and why I gave up on the BMW idea. The only sports car they make that I could even possibly afford is the Z3. Everything else has a rear seat.

 

[homeforsummer]

Uh... Corvette.. Viper?

This guy would like a word with you...

I suppose it depends what you pick for comparison (and it's a struggle because American performance cars are often very different in ethos to Euro or Japanese ones, and generally offer much more power for your money) but I'd think it's probably pushing the point a little to say either the Corvette, Viper or Mustang could compete on things like handling and driving feel against a lot of what Europe or Japan offers. Power, certainly, but not cornering.

Obviously, Viper ACR and 'Vette ZR1 excepted.

But when the States produces something that gets anywhere near an Elise (and don't say the Tesla ) then I'll sit up and take notice.

And anyway, it's academic since I doubt Keef could afford a $20k Z06 or $25k snake...

 

[///M-Spec]

Power, certainly, but not cornering.

A new Mustang 5.0 ran a 3:08.6 at VIR in the hands of C/D.

By way of comparison an E92 M3 Coupe (which has a very similar power/weight ratio) runs a 3:05.x in their hands. A 997.1 Carrera S ran a 3:05.6. A Nismo 370Z ran a 3:12... only half a second faster than a V6 Mustang.

There is no fast way around VIR without good handling. And by good handling that means driver communication as well as mechanical grip.

The 5.0 has no significant power or weight advantage over an M3 and is a couple hundred pounds heavier than a 997 and 370Z. That it manages to run a time like that for half the price and a live-rear axle in the back is fairly impressive. And the V6 car's time is downright amazing... quicker than an Evo X MR and Impreza STI!

And the lowly bargin basement turbo Cobalt SS ran a 3:13... with a torsion bar rear suspension. I would never in the world care to own one, but you certainly can't argue with results.

Oh, and a "base" Corvette C6 Z51 runs a 3:01.2... About as quick as a 997.1 GT3....

http://www.caranddriver.com/feature...plete_lightning_lap_times_2006_to_2011_page_8

American companies don't always want to build cars that corner well. But when they do, they can get the job done.


M

 

[Time_Attack]

So are practical cars out of the question now? I have a friend with I think its a 2001 Subaru outback. It is a 5 speed awd 2.2l. Its very practical being a wagon but its still very sporty being a small AWD car. Its not the best looking car it has some dents and it leaks a bit of oil but it has leather, sunroof and I believe he said hes going to be asking $5000 obo for it. Think of how cool it would be with a WRX swap...

Its the same body style as this one I think.

 

[Keef]

I've thought about Legacys and Outbacks but I'm not too keen on them. In my price range it's hard to find one that lives up to my standards. I want one, but then again I want a lot of things and can't have everything. I already know my RX7 pretty well and being in school like I am, I don't have enough time to possibly be fixing issues like I've already done on the Rex. Especially a head gasket job which all those 150,000 mile boxers will be looking at soon enough.

Like I said earlier, I think I'm going to inspect my car over and under and then stock up on replacement parts that I can install over the summer. Poly bushings to replace the 20 year old rubber will go a long way toward making the car feel tighter. A couple interior pieces to replace broken plastic will make it look nicer from the passenger seat. I might even treat myself to a new exhaust that will probably be just as loud as what I have now, but won't look like I got it from a junkyard.

I was intending to buy a car with this loan money, sell my Rex, and have to pay back about $1000. Including the exhaust, to get any meaningful amount of new parts I'm going to have to raise that to at least $1500. As with everything, there's a big list of replacement stuff that I want to do but I need to tally up the actual worn parts and common failures first, then splurge.

 

[homeforsummer]

There is no fast way around VIR without good handling. And by good handling that means driver communication as well as mechanical grip.

I've not read any reviews of the new Mustang but I've previously heard about that test. I'm unaware how well it's supposed to handle but I'd be surprised if the time wasn't simply a result of good traction, grip and brute power rather than delicate handling balance.

Worth noting that their article says that the 5.0 was running stickier tyres and upgraded brakes too.

You're damn right it's impressive though, but then the simple approach can pay dividends sometimes.

And the lowly bargin basement turbo Cobalt SS ran a 3:13... with a torsion bar rear suspension. I would never in the world care to own one, but you certainly can't argue with results.

People constantly bleat on about torsion beams like they're somehow disadvantageous (not directing this at you, just in general) but they've been used for decades in French hot hatches which are constantly commended as being the best handling FWD cars around. And we already know that the Cobalt is a fairly handy device as it's second only to the Renaultsport Megane R.26 around the 'Ring. I'm not keen on laptime willy-waving contests but there are some pretty hot FWDs around out there.

 

[Keef]

I've actually had the opportunity to flog an SS, and I have to say...it wasn't enjoyable. It was an immense performer in all aspects, but the experience was just terrible. Having used one for daily chores I can tell you the car is a bear. That's actually a great analogy - surprisingly capable, but brutish.

My RX7 is a sports car times 3 compared to a Cobalt SS, no matter how much worse it actually performs (which is a lot).

I'm not falling for the BMW-as-sports car hype, and that hype goes beyond BMWs these days to apply to all sorts of cars that think they're sports cars, including some that I would actually call sports cars.

Though my RX7 isn't as pure as Miata - which of course is the ultimate sports car for me - it does strike a better balance of experience and civility. It also happens to be supremely capable, well beyond a Miata's scope. It just takes some money and work to get it there. Also driving skills that I don't have.

 

[///M-Spec]

I've not read any reviews of the new Mustang but I've previously heard about that test. I'm unaware how well it's supposed to handle but I'd be surprised if the time wasn't simply a result of good traction, grip and brute power rather than delicate handling balance.

Worth noting that their article says that the 5.0 was running stickier tyres and upgraded brakes too.

You're damn right it's impressive though, but then the simple approach can pay dividends sometimes.

The M3 ZCP rolls on 245s front and 265s in the back. In the US, you get ContiSportContact3s or Pilot PS2s. The GT rolls on 255s front and rear. PZeros if you spec the Brembo package. I see no significant tire advantage for the Mustang. In fact, the PS2 is generally regarded as a stickier tire than the PZero.

Saying the Mustang is simple is true. But I think assuming it can not be a good driver's car just because it is a simple device is unfair. Afterall, we heap unending praise on the Miata in this very thread precisely because it is a paragon of simplicity.

Motor Trend did a very good comparo of the M3 vs. the Mustang GT, which can be found here. Don't miss the video, Randy Pobst does a great job comparing the M3's chassis with the Mustang's. He got his start in Solo II, so he's very well versed on what makes a good handling car.

I really think Ford hit a home run with the 5.0. Too me, the only clear advantages the M3 has left is more refinement, luxury options, better ride/handling compromise (because of EDC), possibly better steering, and as Randy mentions, better body control.

Things are going to get very interesting when the Boss 302 hits the streets.

People constantly bleat on about torsion beams like they're somehow disadvantageous (not directing this at you, just in general) but they've been used for decades in French hot hatches which are constantly commended as being the best handling FWD cars around. And we already know that the Cobalt is a fairly handy device as it's second only to the Renaultsport Megane R.26 around the 'Ring. I'm not keen on laptime willy-waving contests but there are some pretty hot FWDs around out there.

A torsion beam can definitely do the job, provided the car is FF, reasonably light and doesn't have too much power to contend with. I'm not a suspension guru, but I would guess it is much harder to get acceptable ride quality AND good wheel control as performance increases.

I've actually had the opportunity to flog an SS, and I have to say...it wasn't enjoyable. It was an immense performer in all aspects, but the experience was just terrible. Having used one for daily chores I can tell you the car is a bear. That's actually a great analogy - surprisingly capable, but brutish.

Might have something to do with the fact that the interior is molded from melted down toilet seats and stuck together with chewing gum.

I'm not falling for the BMW-as-sports car hype, and that hype goes beyond BMWs these days to apply to all sorts of cars that think they're sports cars, including some that I would actually call sports cars.

BMW only makes one sports car, the Z4. But the M3 has always had all the best qualities that you want in a sports car, combined with the practicality of a sedan. That is why after 25 years, it is so highly regarded. Honestly, when I owned both an M3 and a Miata, the M3 was easily the sharper driver's tool. And not just because it was way faster (which it was) but because it simply put your thoughts into action quicker and even more accurately than the Miata could.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you need to drive more performance cars. Start with a Porsche. A 993 if you can. A 986 Boxster S if you can't. Then an S2000. Then drive an Evo. Then an M3. E92 if you can, but any M3 coupe or sedan in good shape should do the trick.

I say that because I'm getting the feeling that you're basing your opinion of the ultimate sports car using a pretty limited sample set. Nothing against the Miata of course, I'm well versed in it's many strengths.

You know that guy who thinks Bud Light is the best beer in the world and the only other beers he's ever tried in his life is Coors and Mich Ultra? Don't be that guy.


M

 

[Keef]

Let me rephrase my statement then: A Miata is the best sports car in the world for me. I can't even begin to afford the other cars you've mentioned at this point in my life, but perhaps one day I will. Between then and now I'd gladly take the opportunity to drive then if the opportunity were to come along.

Actually, I would quite like to own an old 911 with no power steering. That would make for a properly pure driving experience.

 

[GT5Junkie]

the RX7 snickers in their face when people refer to them as "sports cars".

tbh, and no offense, but I wouldn't think NA 80s RX-7s were really allowed to snicker in anyones face. Back when I owned an 88 supercharged MR2 I drove a Turbo II and thought I would be amazed and wasn't even mildly impressed.

 

[homeforsummer]

The M3 ZCP rolls on 245s front and 265s in the back. In the US, you get ContiSportContact3s or Pilot PS2s. The GT rolls on 255s front and rear. PZeros if you spec the Brembo package. I see no significant tire advantage for the Mustang. In fact, the PS2 is generally regarded as a stickier tire than the PZero.

My point wasn't that the Mustang had better tyres than the M3, it was that the Mustang had better tyres and brakes than stock, which would go a fair way to explaining its impressive showing. Tyres and brakes are possibly the two single most important components of a performance car.

A torsion beam can definitely do the job, provided the car is FF, reasonably light and doesn't have too much power to contend with. I'm not a suspension guru, but I would guess it is much harder to get acceptable ride quality AND good wheel control as performance increases.

Again, I think ride has always been something that the French hatches have also scored well on. A lot of it is in the damping. Many manufacturers buy in their dampers from external makers and then tune them to suit. To my knowledge, with cars like the 205 and 106 GTI and the Clio Williams, the manufacturers made the dampers in-house to their own exact specifications.

You're right though, light weight helps. And I presume low-ish power was a factor, though it's only fairly recently with power upwards of 250bhp that hot hatches have become significantly faster. The Williams had a 7-second 0-60 with 150bhp back in 1995-odd. A Focus RS with double the power only knocks a second off that, largely because it weighs about 1200 lb more. Modern hatches need fancy-ass suspension because they're big bloated things.

My Panda has a third the power of the RS. I suspect it offers significantly more than a third the fun. And it doesn't make me look like a massive a-hole.

Sorry, hot-hatches-are-too-fat-and-sophisticated rant over

Actually, I would quite like to own an old 911 with no power steering. That would make for a properly pure driving experience.

You and me both. A mid-eighties 3.0 SC would suit me just right, I reckon. That or an Elise, which is another car said to have pretty much telepathic steering.

I'd echo what M-Spec has said though actually. Go out and try some more stuff, even if it's just for the hell of it. You might find something that really grabs you.

I'm thinking that depending on how desperately you need rear seats, you could do worse than an SW20 MR2. They're damn nice looking things at the very least.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

My point wasn't that the Mustang had better tyres than the M3, it was that the Mustang had better tyres and brakes than stock, which would go a fair way to explaining its impressive showing. Tyres and brakes are possibly the two single most important components of a performance car.

It's an upgrade from the base model, but still stock.

Factory options != aftermarket or not stock.

Again, I think ride has always been something that the French hatches have also scored well on. A lot of it is in the damping. Many manufacturers buy in their dampers from external makers and then tune them to suit. To my knowledge, with cars like the 205 and 106 GTI and the Clio Williams, the manufacturers made the dampers in-house to their own exact specifications.

You're right though, light weight helps. And I presume low-ish power was a factor, though it's only fairly recently with power upwards of 250bhp that hot hatches have become significantly faster. The Williams had a 7-second 0-60 with 150bhp back in 1995-odd. A Focus RS with double the power only knocks a second off that, largely because it weighs about 1200 lb more. Modern hatches need fancy-ass suspension because they're big bloated things.

They might be getting very fat but the other reason for the extra power not helping as much as one would hope is the lack of traction. Twice the power means nothing when you don't have twice the grip That said, from 60 onward the RS will run away and hide from the Clio.

You and me both. A mid-eighties 3.0 SC would suit me just right, I reckon. That or an Elise, which is another car said to have pretty much telepathic steering.

I'd echo what M-Spec has said though actually. Go out and try some more stuff, even if it's just for the hell of it. You might find something that really grabs you.

I'm thinking that depending on how desperately you need rear seats, you could do worse than an SW20 MR2. They're damn nice looking things at the very least.

From what I've seen him say, Keef's got a bit of a thing against SW20s. Something about McStruts in the front or something.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's an upgrade from the base model, but still stock.

Factory options != aftermarket or not stock.

If it's an upgrade, it's not stock. Sticky tyres and big brakes aren't representative of a stock car. I'm not disagreeing that it's quick with them fitted, but I suspect its laptime without them wouldn't be quite as impressive.

They might be getting very fat but the other reason for the extra power not helping as much as one would hope is the lack of traction. Twice the power means nothing when you don't have twice the grip That said, from 60 onward the RS will run away and hide from the Clio.

Very true, though on the sort of roads that hot hatches excel at, twisty and bumpy country roads (in the UK, at least), you struggle to get above 50mph a lot of the time so the extra power is rendered completely redundant. And as you say, traction comes into play instead. And Revo-knuckle or not, 300bhp through two front tyres on a bumpy road is going to cause problems!

From what I've seen him say, Keef's got a bit of a thing against SW20s. Something about McStruts in the front or something.

Pah. The E30s he's looking at aren't the most advanced of machines. McPherson struts at the front and a semi trailing-arm at the back. The SW20 is struts all round. Save for earlier models being a bit tail happy I've only heard generally good things about them.

 

[///M-Spec]

My point wasn't that the Mustang had better tyres than the M3, it was that the Mustang had better tyres and brakes than stock, which would go a fair way to explaining its impressive showing. Tyres and brakes are possibly the two single most important components of a performance car.

If it's an upgrade, it's not stock. Sticky tyres and big brakes aren't representative of a stock car. I'm not disagreeing that it's quick with them fitted, but I suspect its laptime without them wouldn't be quite as impressive.

In my 20+ years of being a gearhead, with 15 of those whittling away time on the interwebz, I've never heard of anyone consider a car with a factory option as "not stock".

"Stock" means 'as equipped from the factory, purchased and delivered through normal dealership channels'.

As Rotary Junkie already pointed out, the Brembo brake package is a regular factory option. You can walk into any Ford dealership and check off the box on the options list and have your Mustang GT delivered as such.

Why you would consider the Mustang "modified" and not most cars is downright strange, since pretty much every car ever sold is offered with some kind of factory options.

Both M3s from the C/D Lightning Lap tests I posted were wearing the optional 19' tire package and one had the dual-clutch gearbox. The red M3 from the Motor Trend article had the optional ZCP Competition Package. Should we disregard their times since they weren't 'stock'?

To go out further along this (very) slippery slope, the M3 is a factory performance upgrade of the regular 3-series coupe, the least potent of which is the 141 hp 318i. So should we be comparing the 318i to a V6 Mustang?

You and me both. A mid-eighties 3.0 SC would suit me just right, I reckon. That or an Elise, which is another car said to have pretty much telepathic steering.

The Elise is at the top of my list for a 3rd car. I just have to talk my wife into it.


M

 

[GT5Junkie]

If it's an upgrade, it's not stock. Sticky tyres and big brakes aren't representative of a stock car.

The definition you're using for stock is incorrect. Stock means as equipped from the factory, as opposed to aftermarket. It DOES NOT mean "base," as you are using it. By your definition practically everything on the M3 isn't stock, because it's upgraded from the base 3 series.

I'm not disagreeing that it's quick with them fitted, but I suspect its laptime without them wouldn't be quite as impressive.

Of course it wouldn't be. Just like the M3s laptime wouldn't be quite as impressive if it didn't have the "non stock" M3 engine in it and only had whatever motor they put in the base 328 or whatever the low man on the totem pole is these days.

Even if we assume that your definition is correct for wherever you hail from (which I suspect it isn't), the M3 has "sticky tires and big brakes" as well. And don't tell me that it's not the same just because the M3 has a bit of a different name than the rest of the three series. By that logic they could change the name of the GT that has the Brembo package to the GTX or the Ford Palomino and all of a sudden it's an okay comparison again, which is silly logic.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'll respond to M-Spec since his replies were more polite (and more readable), and GT5Junkie added nothing that M-Spec hadn't already put without acting like I'm a massive idiot.

In my 20+ years of being a gearhead, with 15 of those whittling away time on the interwebz, I've never heard of anyone consider a car with a factory option as "not stock".

"Stock" means 'as equipped from the factory, purchased and delivered through normal dealership channels'.

Well then stock isn't the exact word fitting my description. "Standard" is probably more what I'm looking for. In fairness, we don't really use the word "stock" in the UK.

Basically, it's not a "standard" Mustang. It's an upgraded one, factory or otherwise.

If you could buy an M3 from the factory with slick tyres and a roll-cage as a tick on the options list, would you consider it "standard"?

Why you would consider the Mustang "modified" and not most cars is downright strange, since pretty much every car ever sold is offered with some kind of factory options.

You're taking what I said far too literally. My Panda has silver wingmirrors and a red stripe that aren't on the standard car, but since they aren't performance modifications I'd still describe the car as standard, or stock. If Fiat offered a factory package with Michelin Pilot Cup tyres and Brembo brakes, I wouldn't consider that a "stock" car, regardless of whether it came from the dealership like that.

I suspect it's a phrase slightly lost in translation across the pond rather than either of us being wrong.

You'll note I've not actually used the term "modified" either. That implies I'm making out the 'Stang is massively altered, which isn't the case.

Both M3s from the C/D Lightning Lap tests I posted were wearing the optional 19' tire package and one had the dual-clutch gearbox. The red M3 from the Motor Trend article had the optional ZCP Competition Package. Should we disregard their times since they weren't 'stock'?

Since I wasn't aware the M3 had any upgrades, I can't possibly answer this.

Though knowing it now, it again makes the Mustang look better in comparison. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure how much effect on lap times some heavier wheels and a DCT would make to lap times - certainly not as much as better tyres and brakes would to a 'Stang.

To go out further along this (very) slippery slope, the M3 is a factory performance upgrade of the regular 3-series coupe, the least potent of which is the 141 hp 318i. So should we be comparing the 318i to a V6 Mustang?

That's not furthering the point so much as just being pedantic.

A set of stickier tyres and stronger brakes fitted as an option package on a regular car is completely incomparable with a car built at the factory with a carbon roof, wider track, a V8 in place of four- and six-pot engines, different interior, electronics, bodywork etc... you get the idea.

 

[GT5Junkie]

The bottom line is that both cars are stock, and that there's nothing on the Mustang that gives it an "unfair" advantage. It's a completely valid comparison.

You'll note I've not actually used the term "modified" either.

You can't keep using the word stock. The word (term) that fits is "factory option" or "non-base" or "factory upgraded."

Basically, it's not a "standard" Mustang. It's an upgraded one.

As can be virtually all performance cars. M3 has the competition package. Corvette has the Z51 (amongs others). 370Z has the Nismo. WRX has the STi. Mitsu has the Evo or MR. Your point, that the Mustang isn't completely bare bones with zero optional equipment, just doesn't really mean anything. It especially doesn't mean anything since the M3 already comes with brakes and tires that are equivalent, if not better. The Mustang has a decent (but not great) set of performance tires and front brakes that you can buy at any Ford parts counter for 1200 bucks or so. If it came with legit racing tires and a 6,000 dollar set of race spec Brembos you might have a point, but it doesn't. The equipment you're pointing out is nothing special, completely reasonable for a stock street car, and isn't any better than what the M3 has.

 

[Keef]

Basically, it's not a "standard" Mustang. It's an upgraded one, factory or otherwise.

What's your point?

If you could buy an M3 from the factory with slick tyres and a roll-cage as a tick on the options list, would you consider it "standard"?

No, it isn't a "standard" or "base" model as we say here in the States. But it is factory stock. If you can order it at the dealer, it's stock.

You're taking what I said far too literally. My Panda has silver wingmirrors and a red stripe that aren't on the standard car, but since they aren't performance modifications I'd still describe the car as standard, or stock. If Fiat offered a factory package with Michelin Pilot Cup tyres and Brembo brakes, I wouldn't consider that a "stock" car, regardless of whether it came from the dealership like that.

You're using lingo that nobody else uses. That Fiat with it's Cup tires and Brembo brakes would be a stock car, just like the Mustang with it's performance package, or like an M3 with its performance package, or like a Scuderia, or a Viper ACR. All stock cars. All factory options. Stock. Not standard, because they have options packages, namely the performance packages in question, but they are stock. Stock, stock, stock.

A set of stickier tyres and stronger brakes fitted as an option package on a regular car is completely incomparable with a car built at the factory with a carbon roof, wider track, a V8 in place of four- and six-pot engines, different interior, electronics, bodywork etc... you get the idea.

So you're saying stock vs. stock isn't a fair comparison? It's a great comparison if what you're interested in is stock vs. stock.

In fairness, I'm not really interested in stock vs. stock. People tout one of those Renault hatches as being the fastest in the world or something. It's even faster than a Cobalt SS, the say. Well, okay. But the Renault has a stripped interior, roll cage, and R-compound tires. Those tires happen to come in the Cobalt's size, too. The only way to see which car is the better sum of parts is to test them on the same tires. I wish somebody would do this - I'm 100% confident that the Cobalt, with it's relative lack of fancy-schmancy engineering and "Forumla One heritage", will wipe the slate with the Renault.

But see, I don't like stock vs. stock comparisons because I don't like stock cars. You can always put slicks on a car and it'll beat everything else around the track. That's why I think the only fair performance comparison is when the cars are on the same tires.

 

[///M-Spec]

Not multi-quoting a wall of text for the sake of everyone's retinas and sanity.

@HFS: Yes, an M3 with slicks and a roll cage from the factory is "stock".

In fact, such a creature exists; it's called the M3 GTS. Too bad it costs way too much and we don't get it here anyway. But if we did, me and everyone else here in the states would call it "stock".

"Hey Billy Joe, that there orange Bee-Em-Dubbya of yours come off the lot lookin like that?"

"Sure did, Earl. Comes stock like that."

"Well I'll be a raccoon's uncle. How you gonna take Chrissy Lee down to the lake on the mud tracks with them there bald tires??"

I could write plenty of paragraphs on whether the 19s (which are forged), DCT and EDC could contribute to a lap time advantage. I could tell you that from personal experience a DCT M3 feels quicker than a 6-speed. And that the Delphi shocks (which are also used in Ferraris and Corvette ZR1s) give the car supernatural body control (Remember how impressed Randy was with the M3's damping). But ultimately, I can't offer solid data because to my knowledge, no one has ever clocked a base M3 vs. an M3 ZCP at the same track on the same day. But an educated guess would strongly suggest that all three features do make a difference.

All that is ultimately besides that point.

The original issue was whether an American performance car could compete with the best from Europe (or Japan), ostensibly so our dear Keef could be persuaded to consider spending his own hard earned money on one, or at the very least, lend some credence to the notion that they can.

(which we know he won't because no one in the entire history of the internet has ever been persuaded to change his views based on a forum or chat room discussion)

For the comparison to be valid, the only pertinent questions should be: is the Mustang in this example engineered and sold by Ford, fully road legal, compliant with all state and federal laws, covered by the standard factory warranty and purchasable by anyone who is able to sign the dotted line on the retail order form?

And can the same be said of the M3?

Furthermore, are the cars in question equipped with all performance enhancing options available at the time of testing?

Answer to all of the above is: yes.

That is all that matters. Anything else is a fallacy of distraction.

I will directly respond to this one line though...

That's not furthering the point so much as just being pedantic.

And quibbling over a option package in a comparison test when cars are tested all the time by car magazines all around the world with options on them is not pedantry? I think you opened the door to this line of argument. No need to criticize someone because they followed you through.

That's why I think the only fair performance comparison is when the cars are on the same tires.

I think the cars should be tested with whatever the factory puts on. Because that is what people get when they buy one.


M

 

[homeforsummer]

I think to summarise (since this has been blown well out of proportion) is that I consider the words "stock" and "standard" to be interchangable, and you guys don't. I don't care whether my definition of "stock" is wrong, since I've given you the chance in my last post to assume that I'm referring to "standard" spec and you're still trying to call me on it.

Just assume every time I've used the word "stock" I mean standard, and we can end it there. And just assume that I'm not out to "get" the Mustang for no good reason and that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that some sticky tyres and a brake upgrade are contributory to a quicker laptime (regardless of what the competition are wearing. If it was just Mustang vs. Mustang, the upgraded one would be quicker - or is this assumption incorrect?).

Of course, were you not all assuming that I was implying a Mustang with upgraded tyres and brakes was an unfair comparison with a like-equipped M3 then there wouldn't be an issue anyway. All I was pointing out was that the Mustang had some fairly useful-for-track-driving upgrades that would go some way to explaining it's lap time. That's all.

And yes, whilst this discussion started with saying that American sports cars can compete with those from Europe, there were two caveats to that comment - one was that the subsequent comparison was focused solely on an arbitrary lap time (akin to all the big ZR1 vs. GT-R on the 'Ring discussions which are ultimately irrelevant since different people will want different things from their sports cars), and the other was that all the cars being discussed are completely out of Keef's budget anyway so the whole thing is moot...

And also, I seem to remember I was the one recommending American sports cars to Keef in the first place So I obviously don't have a problem with them, whatever tyres they're on...

And God forbid I ever use the word "stock" again.

 

[Keef]

I think the cars should be tested with whatever the factory puts on. Because that is what people get when they buy one.


M

Fair enough.