TheDonEffect

I'm confused, so did you or didn't you say it? And if you said it, you're saying I misinterpretted it? So like you said, if all I was looking for was fun in a sportscar, then what? But the value in the M3 is beyond the fun factor right? I get that. But per dollar it's not as fun as the mustang gt using your logic. And based on the numbers in this test, per dollar you don't get as much performance, but you deny the credibility of objective number based results of this article because of whatever (and I'll acquiesce somewhat reasonable) reasoning you have and yet use the unbiased folks' at Top Gear opinion to support your statement. And then you go on about boy racer, yadda yadda. Later in this thread you make statements about mags credibility, yet here you are citing Top Gear.
So if the M3 were the same car but was in boy racer clothes, then that car would be inferior? Ever hear the expression never judge a book by its cover? I get what they were saying, they were mostly eluding to the notion of class and sophistication you get with a luxury make, an intangible that cannot be quantified, and that's fine because they recognize that the competitor, in that case a vauxhall, was an incrediblly capable performance car.

And I'm too lazy to criticise the rest of your post.

Vik2000

lol, every comparison thread ends up like this haha.

tarheel91

Did I cite Top Gear for numbers? No, I was simply illustrating a point with an opinion they'd held. The sophistication necessary to make a car both sporty and luxurious is not free. It costs money. It also costs money to make a car look luxurious (inside and out).

In regards to the other half, you claimed I said if you were looking for fun you wouldn't see the value in the M3 and I thus implied it was boring. That was clearly not the case. I said if you were only looking for fun its value wouldn't be clear. However, if you're only looking for fun, I can introduce you to some $40k race cars that have a weight/power ratio of about 4lbs/hp and will embarrass both of these cars on any track. Something tells me that's not what you're looking for, though. Fun isn't the only thing you're consider, and the same is true for many other people.

Also feel free to expound upon my "lack of reasoning." In my experience, when someone says that without backing it up, they simply have no counter argument but don't want to admit they were wrong.

QUIKAG

Wow. Talk about arguing semantics.

RC 94

The first part was showing that averages are better than outliers because they don't tell the entire story, and the second was to show how important tires are. The Miata/Mclaren thing was just to say a F1 could be slower than a Miata with the wrong tires yet that doesn't mean the Mclaren is a worse car/slower car.

That's what I got.

exb00st

^Thanks. I was being facetious.

My point was that not every mag comparo is going to do thousands of tests to prove that one car does something better than another as statistics are an atypical factor in that aspect (i.e., "4932 times out of 5000", the Mustang was within .123123123 seconds of the M3 around BFD track.")

The fact is, fastest laps DO say something about these cars, objectively. This is why people fancy Nurburgring lap times, etc. so much.

As far as the tires argument, it makes sense, but the M3 didn't have POS tires and the Mustang didn't have superteleportationbeammeupscotty tires. Having a standardized test where the only thing being controlled is tires is senseless, as I'm sure everyone knows, suspensions, etc. are made to work with certain tires and there are so many other factors involved. Floodgates = open. Some components may be better than others, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It would be like comparing a stock car to a modified car.

Stretching. Just saying.

tarheel91

I said this LAST PAGE: "I said equal not the same. I agree cars are designed with a certain type of tire in mind in terms of slip angle, weave patterns, sidewall, etc. I meant tires with equal Max lateral G's of whatever style the car is designed for."

Fastest laps don't say shit objectively. There's not a single statistical test you can do with only one piece of data, and for good reason. You don't know if it's an outlier (fluke) or where it might possibly lie in regard's to the car's true average. People love Nurburgring lap times because they're an easy way for them to point and say "Hey, car X is faster than Y." Just because a lot of people like it doesn't make it an accurate assessment of how good a car is performance-wise.

I'm not asking for 1000 laps. Honestly you could probably get by with 10. Is that so bad? It'd take all of 15 minutes once the driver was comfortable with the car.

To finish up, a bit more about tires: "Here's an extreme example to better illustrate the point."

It was an illustration to show that what determines how fast a car is around a corner is tires first before anything else. No, in regards to this comparison it won't cause a crazy change, but it could be worth a couple seconds (which I think we'll agree is a ton in any sort of racing situation). It's this tire issue COMBINED with the shoddy statistical work COMBINED with the writer's lack of technical knowledge COMBINED with single driver who will undoubtedly be more accustomed to/better with one car or the other (because of their different styles), COMBINED with the driver's lack of experience in regards to these cars that makes this comparison worthless.

QUIKAG

tarheel, you are really getting into the technical specifics of which only a very few people actually give a crap about. The primary reasons for this whole comparison are for:

1. entertainment value
2. to show that the Mustang GT now runs in the same realm of overall performance as the M3 which is quite impressive

I completely disagree with you that fastest lap isn't indicative of a car's performance. Who is to say that most fastest laps come after running many, many slower laps? A fastest lap is how fast a car can run a lap when just about everything comes together just right all at the same time over the course of that one lap.

Lap averages are more driver-centric and show how consistent a driver can keep a car near it's best lap after lap after lap. Professional drivers can run right near "fastest lap" lap after lap after lap. That is what makes them professionals.

At a few tracks around DFW, I've put up some pretty impressive single lap times, but my lap time average is much slower for a multitude of reasons: traffic, driver fatigue, car fatigue, tires getting greasy, brakes fading, sloppy driving, not following proper lines, etc.

But, the fact my car can still throw down a single great lap shows that it has great performance POTENTIAL. That is what most people care about.....what their car COULD do in the right hands, in the right conditions, when everything comes together just right. Most will never be able to exploit their cars full potential anyway, so why would they care about much else than their car's POTENTIAL performance?

You need to go back into your engineer world and do a bunch of testing and statistical analysis to make yourself feel better because you're like a wet blanket around here IMHO.

JakeJewler

QUIKAG, you fell into the trap buddy.

Chris S

Reading this thread is giving me a massive headache. Maybe I should take my M3 out for a fun drive, you know, the kind where no timers, accelerometers, or other measurement devices are involved aside from the tach and speedo.