Mustang GT vs BMW 335D
Discussion
Just been reading posts on BMW forum. Chipped 335D pushing out 340bhp and 510lb/ft torque.
Guys reckon it'll do 5.5 0-60, keeps up with an M3 to 90, then leaves it for dead from 100mph+.
So how would a chipped one compare to a 400+bhp modded 'stang over normal real world conditions?
Thoughts?
Anyone actually driven both recently?
PS - I'm assuming my stock GT wouldn't keep up..........
Guys reckon it'll do 5.5 0-60, keeps up with an M3 to 90, then leaves it for dead from 100mph+.
So how would a chipped one compare to a 400+bhp modded 'stang over normal real world conditions?
Thoughts?
Anyone actually driven both recently?
PS - I'm assuming my stock GT wouldn't keep up..........
I had a chipped 330d auto, they are quick (335 will be quicker still) as a way of getting from A to B quickly and economically they are very effective. However driving it wasn't an 'event' if you are even considering a Mustang I think you will be disappointed, I sold mine to buy a Monaro
I do agree - driving Mustang is 'an event' everytime. Going out now just to get a pint of milk (real excuse is a run in the 'stang).
BUT............kinda grating away at me that I could get 'similar' performance but double the fuel economy from a car that can beat an M3 mid range (albeit anonomous & clinical experience). Yearly that's £4k in petrol vs £2k diesel for me.
Head v heart consideration..................may test drive 335D but y'know what, think I'll stick with heart for now and have some fun unless Beemer blows me away
BUT............kinda grating away at me that I could get 'similar' performance but double the fuel economy from a car that can beat an M3 mid range (albeit anonomous & clinical experience). Yearly that's £4k in petrol vs £2k diesel for me.
Head v heart consideration..................may test drive 335D but y'know what, think I'll stick with heart for now and have some fun unless Beemer blows me away
Stock Mustang 0-60 is 5.2, the stock M3 will peel it off in 4.8. 100 comes up in the M3 in 11.5 and in the stock GT 13.5. The DMS-chipped 335d we're talking about achieved 60 in 5.5 and 100 in 12.3 seconds, nearly a second behind the M3. Sure it would overhaul the stock Mustang GT but nobody would be yelling "Taxi" at you while you did it.
A 410 horse Vortech-equipped Mustang GT will rip the to 60 in 4.6 and run a less than perfect quarter in an endlessly repeatable 13 seconds @ 108.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/112...
By comparison the M3 CSL will run the quarter in 13.3 @ 104
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0505...
I'm afraid I've never been convinced by diesels and every time I've driven one, it's not so much a non-event as a frustrating one with a very narrow power-band and nothing by way of passion in the experience, just annoyance. I would only ever buy a naturally aspirated diesel in a small car where they make sense (the little Citroen diesels were great). You should also remember that petrol turbos can be chipped too and for the same price. A Focus ST with 300bhp would chew it up and spit it out for breakfast.
Let's not forget that the 335d Coupe costs £36k on the road and a supercharged Mustang would cost considerably less, even with suspension, wheel and tyre upgrades to keep it firmly tied to the road.
A 410 horse Vortech-equipped Mustang GT will rip the to 60 in 4.6 and run a less than perfect quarter in an endlessly repeatable 13 seconds @ 108.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/112...
By comparison the M3 CSL will run the quarter in 13.3 @ 104
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0505...
I'm afraid I've never been convinced by diesels and every time I've driven one, it's not so much a non-event as a frustrating one with a very narrow power-band and nothing by way of passion in the experience, just annoyance. I would only ever buy a naturally aspirated diesel in a small car where they make sense (the little Citroen diesels were great). You should also remember that petrol turbos can be chipped too and for the same price. A Focus ST with 300bhp would chew it up and spit it out for breakfast.
Let's not forget that the 335d Coupe costs £36k on the road and a supercharged Mustang would cost considerably less, even with suspension, wheel and tyre upgrades to keep it firmly tied to the road.
LuS1fer,
I'll play devils advocate.
Did you see the Mustang shootout on topgear a month or two back?
Handling was crap out of the standard car.
The saleen modified version with superior suspension had I seem to remember 80 horses less but got round the circuit in a quicker time.
Strait line performance is'nt everything unless you're just drag racing.
My wife's boss has recently purchased a new 335D (twin turbo) and slow it is not.
So to keep the oil burner in the relatively narrow power band you have to use the cogs more frequently is no big deal.
Phil
79 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS
02 E39 530d Tourer Tiptronic Auto
I'll play devils advocate.
Did you see the Mustang shootout on topgear a month or two back?
Handling was crap out of the standard car.
The saleen modified version with superior suspension had I seem to remember 80 horses less but got round the circuit in a quicker time.
Strait line performance is'nt everything unless you're just drag racing.
My wife's boss has recently purchased a new 335D (twin turbo) and slow it is not.
So to keep the oil burner in the relatively narrow power band you have to use the cogs more frequently is no big deal.
Phil
79 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS
02 E39 530d Tourer Tiptronic Auto
Transmitter Man said:
LuS1fer,
I'll play devils advocate.
Did you see the Mustang shootout on topgear a month or two back?
Handling was crap out of the standard car.
Steady! I'll play devils advocate.
Did you see the Mustang shootout on topgear a month or two back?
Handling was crap out of the standard car.
The Mustang has been on TG quite a few times. I think you're referring to the Shelby GT500 vs Roush Mustang but let's start with the basic GT on that "crap handling" point. 
1. The Mustang GT was pitted against an Exige and wasn't so far behind IIRC. The Exige is a definitive focused stripped-out road legal, largely impractical, noisy, track car on semi-slick tyres costing a lot of money and the Mustang was a stock 1600kg 300bhp air-conditioned, leather armchair 4 seater GT on (I assume)the stock 235/55 tyres? For all Clarksons "Stig vs me", he'd said on many occasions that the Exige was simple to drive on the limit and from the way the tail was going, he seemed to be playing with the limit. So it proved a Lotus-designed, dedicated track car on semi-slick sticky tyres handles better than a stock American muscle car on a small track that physically favoured the Exige in any event. I think I already knew that.
2. On Clarksons fact-free DVD, he pitted a supercharged Exige, still on stock semi-slick tyres (good for a few seconds round any circuit?)against a supercharged Roush Mustang which is good for 415hp and seemed to be driven by a fat bloke to increase the weight. I think the Mustang did very well on another tight circuit that favoured the smaller Exige. Had they swopped drivers and repeated the exercise to get a driver-neutral picture, then so be it but does it really take a £40k supercharged lightweight track car to beat a live-axled Mustang? If so, then I'm sure Ford are flattered and probably got a lot more sales out of that than Lotus ever will. LOL.
That exercise doesn't make the stock Mustang GT a crap handler any more than comparing a greyhound to an Irish Wolfhound makes the wolfhound a crap dog. Far from it, the Stang has been widely praised, the bodyshell being as stiff as the last generation Mustang fitted with a rollcage. I will grant you in stock form its too soft and a little too rolly - as long as you bear in mind at this point that we're comparing a £40000 track car with a car you can have on the road brand new for under £25k. You can see where I'm going with that one...and they could have compared the Exige to the off-the-shelf racing FR500 which reatils for $125000. that would be interesting.
Transmitter Man said:
The Saleen modified version with superior suspension had I seem to remember 80 horses less but got round the circuit in a quicker time.
What you saw was the production Shelby GT500 with 500 hp and the 5.4 litre cast iron supercharged engine. That car weighs 4000lbs and is widely criticised, even in the US, for being overweight. The overall weight, much of it in the nose compromises handling (it ran the TG track in the same time as a lesser powered Monaro VXR). The "point" of the GT500 is to allow drag-race mad Americans the luxury of tuning it to silly levels of power as the stock 4.6 3v all-alloy unit has a limit of around 550hp. All "tuner" Mustangs in the US use the all-alloy 4.6 3v engine. The Roush version, which is what you refer to, (Saleen do a variety of models but is a different company)has 415-420hp and it was this car that ran the TG circuit in 1:28, 2 seconds faster than the GT500 as it has Roush suspension, far less weight and better handling.
On a BMW-centric point, what also ran the TG track in 1:28 was a BMW M3 CSL (on those semi-slick tyres good for carving a second or so out of the time - but I've no idea in what conditions to truly compare). It was also 2 seconds faster than a Monaro VXR and nearly a second faster than a 911 Carrera S (not so far behind a GT3). The Roush costs about £40k in this country but if you do what myself and most owners do, you just supercharge one yourself, change the suspension for better dampers or adjustables, add a set of lowering springs and hey presto, same thing for £10k less.
Transmitter Man said:
Straight line performance isn't everything unless you're just drag racing.
I agree. In 2005, the Roush Mustang came 3rd in Evo's Performance Car Of The Year behind the M3 CS and ahead of the 350Z, both of which are handling benchmarks. I really like the M3 CS.Transmitter Man said:
My wife's boss has recently purchased a new 335D (twin turbo) and slow it is not.
I'm not saying it is but I've run my supercharged Mustang alongside a 500hp BMW M5 V10 and a 911 GT2 and everything is relative and what we're talking about here is what you can buy for the money and whether a chipped diesel is superior, not just to a Mustang, but an equivalently priced Mustang. After all, if you're allowed to modify your diesel, you should be allowed to modify the Mustang or else compare stock to stock.Transmitter Man said:
So to keep the oil burner in the relatively narrow power band you have to use the cogs more frequently is no big deal.
But I think it is a big deal because the whole "mantra" of diesels is the big effortless torque. Don't get me wrong, I've never driven a 335d which I'm sure is plenty fast enough but the issue is whether it's better. Changing gear in a diesel doesn't give that aural thrill and having to swop cogs for a narrow power band is frustratingly little reward and is what frustrates me especially since many diesels (of those I've driven) have terribly spaced gears for economy.I'm certainly not knocking the BMW and would never underestimate one as I've frequently followed fast diesels. However, as you might agree, outright pace isn't everything and driver involvement is far more than just speed.
Edited by LuS1fer on Wednesday 4th July 19:04
Very well answered and I stand corrected on some points.
Yes, it was the Roush and not the Saleen and that live axle. I may be wrong but live axle cars were never designed to go round corners. Am I correct in that the vette still use an irs and that this and it's chassis design allows fairly phenominal cornering G's. Ride quality is superior also.
My near 30 year old De Tomaso has independant rear suspension and the ride quality is firm but comfortable.
Re the diesels, I'm aware and agree that some cars do have a problem with poorly designed gear ratio's. My daily TDi hack is a cruiser and not a bruiser. The bruiser comes out at weekends.
I think American cars do from the outset offer good value for money but on the whole are just not designed for our roads. My last American car was many years ago, a 68 Camaro SS/RS which of course cannot be compared to todays products in the handling department but other than something like a vette (and I'm not a vette man) I'd go down the less weight and more nimble route.
However, I would very much like to take a Saleen around Goodwood.
Just my 2p, your mileage may vary.
Phil
79 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS
02 E39 530d Tiptronic Tourer
Phil
Yes, it was the Roush and not the Saleen and that live axle. I may be wrong but live axle cars were never designed to go round corners. Am I correct in that the vette still use an irs and that this and it's chassis design allows fairly phenominal cornering G's. Ride quality is superior also.
My near 30 year old De Tomaso has independant rear suspension and the ride quality is firm but comfortable.
Re the diesels, I'm aware and agree that some cars do have a problem with poorly designed gear ratio's. My daily TDi hack is a cruiser and not a bruiser. The bruiser comes out at weekends.
I think American cars do from the outset offer good value for money but on the whole are just not designed for our roads. My last American car was many years ago, a 68 Camaro SS/RS which of course cannot be compared to todays products in the handling department but other than something like a vette (and I'm not a vette man) I'd go down the less weight and more nimble route.
However, I would very much like to take a Saleen around Goodwood.
Just my 2p, your mileage may vary.
Phil
79 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS
02 E39 530d Tiptronic Tourer
Phil
Transmitter Man said:
I may be wrong but live axle cars were never designed to go round corners.
You may well be wrong.The Musting GT4 race car did rather well in it's first outing at Silverstone. The live axle equiped Mustang won round two against European opposition with their "better" IRS. Not a bad result against Aston, BMW, Lotus, Porsche, Maserati etc.
http://www.gt4cup.com/
Obviuosly we're talking race cars here but it shows the basic underpinninga of the Mustang are sound in the handling department. Take a stock GT for £24K and spend £6-7K on suspension and a blower, and you've got a very competent and quick car by any standard.
Edited by benny.c on Wednesday 4th July 11:28
Transmitter Man said:
Very well answered and I stand corrected on some points.
Yes, it was the Roush and not the Saleen and that live axle. I may be wrong but live axle cars were never designed to go round corners.
A widely held misconception. Escort Mk II rally cars never had any problem and I think the Roush proves it's the set-up not the live axle that dictates whether it can go round corners. Ford sell a racing version of the Mustang called the FR500C. It competes with the best European cars can throw at it and beats them all. The Americans have a very refreshing approach to engineering - if it' ain't broke don't fix it and don't make something complicated if you can make it simple.Yes, it was the Roush and not the Saleen and that live axle. I may be wrong but live axle cars were never designed to go round corners.
Transmitter Man said:
Am I correct in that the vette still use an irs and that this and it's chassis design allows fairly phenominal cornering G's. Ride quality is superior also.
My near 30 year old De Tomaso has independant rear suspension and the ride quality is firm but comfortable.
EVO commented that it was the Roush that felt like it had an IRS and the Vette the live axle when driving them. The Vette came 10th in the same test the Roush came 3rd. The high g generated by Vettes is largely a product of the wide tyres and low CofG created by that unfeasibly low engine and lightweight materials like plastic and balsa wood. Ride quality is dictated by springs and dampers and my Mustang, even modified, rides more comfortably than my C5 Z06 did.My near 30 year old De Tomaso has independant rear suspension and the ride quality is firm but comfortable.
Transmitter Man said:
Re the diesels, I'm aware and agree that some cars do have a problem with poorly designed gear ratio's. My daily TDi hack is a cruiser and not a bruiser. The bruiser comes out at weekends.
Which really answers the question about which one is best. LOL.Transmitter Man said:
I think American cars do from the outset offer good value for money but on the whole are just not designed for our roads. My last American car was many years ago, a 68 Camaro SS/RS which of course cannot be compared to todays products in the handling department but other than something like a vette (and I'm not a vette man) I'd go down the less weight and more nimble route.
I think American cars are coming on in leaps and bounds and offer remarkable value. I know some people winge about import duty and VAT but they forget that UK cars are subject to 10% car tax and VAT too. Much depends on the dollar which at the moment is really weak so $2 to the £ is like a day in a toy shop.The 60's American cars were both large and pretty much straight line machines (as were 90% of most cars in Europe at the time) with less feel than a 12 year old schoolboys sexual experience. The American suspension set-up is often too soft for British roads but as a set of quality adjustable dampers can be bought for $650, it's a pretty simple matter to transform the modern stuff into seriously quick cars.
On the weight point, the Mustang weighs under 1600kg and in that respect is lighter than most supercars and no heavier than a BMW M3 which weighs 1577kg yet is a physically smaller car. The Nissan 350Z weighs 1545kg. So it is another misconception to believe it weighs a lot when its about normal and lighter than Astons and Monaros and M5s.
Transmitter Man said:
However, I would very much like to take a Saleen around Goodwood.
Me too.Preferably without stealing it first. Edited by LuS1fer on Wednesday 4th July 19:47
Hi there
Just thought I'd add my comments.
My car began life as a standard Saleen. So essentially the same/similar suspension setup as the Roush which lapped the Top Gear track in 1:28.0
Now my car since then has had a further £1000 worth of suspension mods done to it in the form of Steeda LCA's, Steeda adjustable UCA, Steeda rear swaybar with HD links, Steeda adjustable panhard bar, Panhard brace, G-Brace and adjustable upper mounts for camber adjustment. All the mods were easy enough to fit in my driveway. Now let me say this a Saleen and Roush is a great handling car. Pretty much on par with a base M3 so certainly not poor.
Now since I've done what I've done to the suspension the car is truly fantastic. The car is pushing a very conservative and reliable 530BHP. Its a twin-screw blower so has 400Lb-Ft at just 2000rpm which peaks at 510Lb-Ft at 4400rpm, better than most diesels for you but with a rev range of upto 6800rpm, something no diesel can manage. Also my car has the Shelby GT500 brakes which work fantastic considering my car is circa 250kg lighter than the Shelby.
Needless to say if one was to speculate my car would no doubt do the Top Gear track in 1:25.0 - 1:26.0 which is very impressive. As already said, all these mods can be done to a Mustang GT for not huge money.
I've sold my car to the first person who came along and viewed it. The chap has owned two Porsche GT3's and after been in my car was set on buying it, he thought the handling was fantastic and certainly rated it.
So yes the car may have a live axle but it can corner quicker than a lot of European cars and some that cost 2x-3x more money whilst at the same time its a very unique vehicle.
A standard Mustang GT drives fine, a Saleen or Roush can handle just as good as an M3 and if you throw the money at one you can really make it special. The Shelby is the one that looses out because its too nose heavy and thats not easily fixed. The people who buy a Shelby buy them for the badge or tuning potential, they don't buy them because they handle because the Roush and Saleen run circles round them, even the standard Mustang GT does.
Just thought I'd add my comments.
My car began life as a standard Saleen. So essentially the same/similar suspension setup as the Roush which lapped the Top Gear track in 1:28.0
Now my car since then has had a further £1000 worth of suspension mods done to it in the form of Steeda LCA's, Steeda adjustable UCA, Steeda rear swaybar with HD links, Steeda adjustable panhard bar, Panhard brace, G-Brace and adjustable upper mounts for camber adjustment. All the mods were easy enough to fit in my driveway. Now let me say this a Saleen and Roush is a great handling car. Pretty much on par with a base M3 so certainly not poor.
Now since I've done what I've done to the suspension the car is truly fantastic. The car is pushing a very conservative and reliable 530BHP. Its a twin-screw blower so has 400Lb-Ft at just 2000rpm which peaks at 510Lb-Ft at 4400rpm, better than most diesels for you but with a rev range of upto 6800rpm, something no diesel can manage. Also my car has the Shelby GT500 brakes which work fantastic considering my car is circa 250kg lighter than the Shelby.
Needless to say if one was to speculate my car would no doubt do the Top Gear track in 1:25.0 - 1:26.0 which is very impressive. As already said, all these mods can be done to a Mustang GT for not huge money.
I've sold my car to the first person who came along and viewed it. The chap has owned two Porsche GT3's and after been in my car was set on buying it, he thought the handling was fantastic and certainly rated it.
So yes the car may have a live axle but it can corner quicker than a lot of European cars and some that cost 2x-3x more money whilst at the same time its a very unique vehicle.
A standard Mustang GT drives fine, a Saleen or Roush can handle just as good as an M3 and if you throw the money at one you can really make it special. The Shelby is the one that looses out because its too nose heavy and thats not easily fixed. The people who buy a Shelby buy them for the badge or tuning potential, they don't buy them because they handle because the Roush and Saleen run circles round them, even the standard Mustang GT does.
Why don't you guys find out for real - www.fightingtorque.org - we have the same said 340hp BMW 335d running and its a 3/4 mile drag race. As for US muscle we have a couple of vipers and a Vette already entered......................
longbow said:
Why don't you guys find out for real - www.fightingtorque.org - we have the same said 340hp BMW 335d running and its a 3/4 mile drag race. As for US muscle we have a couple of vipers and a Vette already entered......................
because BMWs are boring and we don't actually care that much.as a guess.
Well, if thats the case why did someone start a thread on the subject? I agree, a big hp diesel doesn't really interest me as a TVR owner, but I am curious as to how fast these things are relative to very fast standard cars.
As I said, we have all sorts of cars racing from 911 GT3s, Tuscans, Cerberas, M6, RS4, Viper, Corvette etc etc. The diesel is an anomaly, but its there because no one has done this before.
Surprised at the reaction TBH, I thought as 'iconic US musclecar' owners you'd be up for some straight line stuff like this. Ho hum.........................
As I said, we have all sorts of cars racing from 911 GT3s, Tuscans, Cerberas, M6, RS4, Viper, Corvette etc etc. The diesel is an anomaly, but its there because no one has done this before.
Surprised at the reaction TBH, I thought as 'iconic US musclecar' owners you'd be up for some straight line stuff like this. Ho hum.........................
longbow said:
Surprised at the reaction TBH, I thought as 'iconic US musclecar' owners you'd be up for some straight line stuff like this. Ho hum.........................
the problem is thats it a BMW. its as interesting as watching paint dry.i'm sure its a very capable car, and i'm sure it will despatch my GT pretty easily. but is it an exciting car? nope. is it a car that makes you smile when you see it in the morning? nope. is it the car you dream about owning? i certainly hope not.
the car is devoid of character, personality, and most importantly, spirit.
Gassing Station | Mustangs | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff