M3 vs Old School Muscle

[SchnellM3]

So I watched pretty much all the Mecum Spring Classic in Indianapolis this week on HD Theater and Discovery today. So what do you guys think our German V8s vs old school Mustangs, Hemi's and everything in between...

[M3Fool]

^^+1 Nothing beats the classics. Dream car........ '63 cherry red split window Stingray.... that my friend is better than any PRON!!!!

[icemang17]

kinda funny....I was leaving the Eye Dr office and a UPS driver knocked on my window and said...."I have never heard an M3 like that...you gotta have a V8...it sounds like my 327 64 impala!!" He was stoked.....I gave him a short 8k plus burst as I left.....

[M3Fool]

Originally Posted by icemang17

kinda funny....I was leaving the Eye Dr office and a UPS driver knocked on my window and said...."I have never heard an M3 like that...you gotta have a V8...it sounds like my 327 64 impala!!" He was stoked.....I gave him a short 8k plus burst as I left.....

He probably left a LARGE 8k burst in his pants...

[SUB-ZERO]

Originally Posted by M3Fool

He probably left a LARGE 8k burst in his pants...

LOL! I can always count on this board to make me laugh!

-SZ

[dibxna]

def a different type of drive - I have a 1966 big block corvette with straight pipes - pushes around 450hp. i also have a 2009 bmw e90 m3 - stock.

both cars are scary fast in their own ways - the corvette has 4 gears to work with so it is geared for running quick sprints - ie quarter mile and 0-60 treks.

The vette is also 100% original numbers matching which means it also has the factory brakes and suspension making it really only capable of competing against modern muscle in a straight line.

The m3 is insanely fun for cornering and straight line and is a different feel on the accelerator - at any speed when I hit the gas in the vette i fly back in my seat because it pushes just about as much torque as hp. The m3 doesnt push me in my seat quite the same way but just having the 8300-8400 redline makes that 295lb of torque hit you for a longer span of power and an overall different type of drive.

love both cars - dont love that old cars always need to be worked on and theres no warranty to cover the costs - do like that you can work on your old car more easily than the new ones allow

[frenchM3dreamer]

the day i have a M3 (E93) and a 64ish Shelby Cobra (blue roadster with that crazy V8), i'll be a happy guy...

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by SchnellM3

So I watched pretty much all the Mecum Spring Classic in Indianapolis this week on HD Theater and Discovery today. So what do you guys think our German V8s vs old school Mustangs, Hemi's and everything in between...

From a performance perspective, a current M3 will simply blow away any of those musclecars, whether in a straight line or around a track. It won't even be close.

Probably the fastest car from the '60s was the L88 Corvette, rated at 430 HP, but said to make around 560 on a dyno with aftermarket open headers.

They would go low 13s in as-delivered condition, which was just a hair quicker than the Chrysler Hemi-powered cars from that era, or the famous 413 and 426 "Max Wedge" super stock Dodges and Plymouths from 1962 and 1963.

On the other hand, those sixties cars were and are huge fun to drive, because they made a lot of torque, and they didn't know then what they know now about body control, so all sorts of cool things would happen as you ran through the gears. Plus the noise, of course.

A friend of mine had one of those '63 426 "Max Wedge" Mopars, and when he punched the "D" button (TorqueFlite) at rest while on the brake, the entire left side of the car would rise about an inch and a half.

On one occasion, I was driving behind a 1963 427 Ford Galaxy (425 HP) in my '64 TriPower GTO, and when he punched it in first gear at about 20, the left side of the car rotated up about four or five inches. On the one-two shift, the left side of the car dropped and then rose what seemed like around eight inches, and the right rear wheel actually came off the ground!

Cool stuff, and I remember being both impressed and worried at the time, because we were about to race. Any thing with that much power would give me trouble, I thought. Nah. Blew him away. Power to weight rules, no matter the chassis histrionics.

Today's cars are much more composed under duress, which is wonderful, but actually subtracts a bit from the fun factor.

As an example, I recently took my son's C63 to the local drag strip in an effort to get a "before" picture, before upping the software ante in the ECM.

Result: With a down barometer, headwind, full tank plus (oof!) me aboard and stuff in the trunk, it clicked off a couple of 12.9s at 110 plus.

And it was pretty boring, I must say! Just stab it and steer it. The only similarity to musclecars of the sixties was the terrific exhaust note, which is a bit unusual these days.

Bruce

[calintexas]

Originally Posted by frenchM3dreamer

the day i have a M3 (E93) and a 64ish Shelby Cobra (blue roadster with that crazy V8), i'll be a happy guy...

Those early Cobra's were real flexible flyers. Ford designed the chassis for the 427 cars (1966 on I believe). Those are supposed to handle much better. Still, you don't want to crash either one. There is just no protection. Back in the day, I had a '67 Mustang Fastback GT with a 289 4 barrel, a 4 speed, and front disc brakes. I loved that car, but It doesn't compare with today's cars.

[adc]

I badly want one of those Shelby Cobras race cars (either coupe or roadster). I saw a few videos from Goodwood and they were very very fast. Sounded incredible.

I believe, simply due to the power to weight ratio, that the 427 Cobras were the fastest American cars of that era, bar none.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

From a performance perspective, a current M3 will simply blow away any of those musclecars, whether in a straight line or around a track. It won't even be close.

Probably the fastest car from the '60s was the L88 Corvette, rated at 430 HP, but said to make around 560 on a dyno with aftermarket open headers.

They would go low 13s in as-delivered condition, which was just a hair quicker than the Chrysler Hemi-powered cars from that era, or the famous 413 and 426 "Max Wedge" super stock Dodges and Plymouths from 1962 and 1963.

On the other hand, those sixties cars were and are huge fun to drive, because they made a lot of torque, and they didn't know then what they know now about body control, so all sorts of cool things would happen as you ran through the gears. Plus the noise, of course.

A friend of mine had one of those '63 426 "Max Wedge" Mopars, and when he punched the "D" button (TorqueFlite) at rest while on the brake, the entire left side of the car would rise about an inch and a half.

On one occasion, I was driving behind a 1963 427 Ford Galaxy (425 HP) in my '64 TriPower GTO, and when he punched it in first gear at about 20, the left side of the car rotated up about four or five inches. On the one-two shift, the left side of the car dropped and then rose what seemed like around eight inches, and the right rear wheel actually came off the ground!

Cool stuff, and I remember being both impressed and worried at the time, because we were about to race. Any thing with that much power would give me trouble, I thought. Nah. Blew him away. Power to weight rules, no matter the chassis histrionics.

Today's cars are much more composed under duress, which is wonderful, but actually subtracts a bit from the fun factor.

As an example, I recently took my son's C63 to the local drag strip in an effort to get a "before" picture, before upping the software ante in the ECM.

Result: With a down barometer, headwind, full tank plus (oof!) me aboard and stuff in the trunk, it clicked off a couple of 12.9s at 110 plus.

And it was pretty boring, I must say! Just stab it and steer it. The only similarity to musclecars of the sixties was the terrific exhaust note, which is a bit unusual these days.

Bruce

Put race slicks on those cars and it's a different story.

[frenchM3dreamer]

Originally Posted by calintexas

Those early Cobra's were real flexible flyers. Ford designed the chassis for the 427 cars (1966 on I believe). Those are supposed to handle much better. Still, you don't want to crash either one. There is just no protection. Back in the day, I had a '67 Mustang Fastback GT with a 289 4 barrel, a 4 speed, and front disc brakes. I loved that car, but It doesn't compare with today's cars.

Originally Posted by adc

I badly want one of those Shelby Cobras race cars (either coupe or roadster). I saw a few videos from Goodwood and they were very very fast. Sounded incredible.

I believe, simply due to the power to weight ratio, that the 427 Cobras were the fastest American cars of that era, bar none.

i'm sure those were not the best handling cars around, nor the safest, but frankly, who cares
those were light (based on a 4-cyl english chassis, correct?), had tons of power, sound ridiculous, and look better than most of today's cars.... i remember reading that these 427 Cobra had so much power / torque that under full acceleration the passenger couldnt bend forward enough to reach the dashboard... sounds like fun to me, doesnt it? i have never seen a handling test of these though
i drove in a replica one day back in Europe with only a 200hp Ford V6... that thing was fast as it was, and so fun to toss around... when i thought about having an American V8 with more than twice the power in that same car, i was

[Radiation Joe]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Put race slicks on those cars and it's a different story.

That is simply not true. What Bruce said about the chassis cannot be understated.

A friend of mine had a Yenko Camaro. 427 Corvette motor in a flexy late sixties GM F-body. It also had a turbo-400 transmission. When he would hit second gear in that beast, it would literally jump two lanes over. That freaking thing was terrifying (translation: fun). Without at least decent traction bars (anyone here remember those), you couldn't keep those cars going straight.

And one more thing. Most '60s muscle car engines made shit power. They seemed fast compared to their contemporary cars, but compared to modern equipment they were just plain slow. I remember getting 50 hp just from doing a decent valve job and port clean up. I think a lot of people these days equate muscle car engines with the custom built and good quality crate motors you can buy today. Those engines back then were mass produced in low tech factories with very loose tolorances and even worse quality control.

So to recap. Muscle cars = SLOW unless you modify them significantly.

[335rocket]

IMO plus my all time favorite muscle car from the 60's era is def the 67 Shelby GT 500

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Put race slicks on those cars and it's a different story.

Meaning they'll be quite a bit quicker in a quarter mile, I assume.

You figure today's cars like the M3, C63, Vette, etc. wouldn't benefit from slicks?

Think again. They're making more power than those musclecars ever did, are typically more aggressively geared, and can really put more traction to good use.

Hey, I love those old cars, but facts is facts.

[dibxna]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

From a performance perspective, a current M3 will simply blow away any of those musclecars, whether in a straight line or around a track. It won't even be close.

Probably the fastest car from the '60s was the L88 Corvette, rated at 430 HP, but said to make around 560 on a dyno with aftermarket open headers.

They would go low 13s in as-delivered condition, which was just a hair quicker than the Chrysler Hemi-powered cars from that era, or the famous 413 and 426 "Max Wedge" super stock Dodges and Plymouths from 1962 and 1963.

On the other hand, those sixties cars were and are huge fun to drive, because they made a lot of torque, and they didn't know then what they know now about body control, so all sorts of cool things would happen as you ran through the gears. Plus the noise, of course.

A friend of mine had one of those '63 426 "Max Wedge" Mopars, and when he punched the "D" button (TorqueFlite) at rest while on the brake, the entire left side of the car would rise about an inch and a half.

On one occasion, I was driving behind a 1963 427 Ford Galaxy (425 HP) in my '64 TriPower GTO, and when he punched it in first gear at about 20, the left side of the car rotated up about four or five inches. On the one-two shift, the left side of the car dropped and then rose what seemed like around eight inches, and the right rear wheel actually came off the ground!

Cool stuff, and I remember being both impressed and worried at the time, because we were about to race. Any thing with that much power would give me trouble, I thought. Nah. Blew him away. Power to weight rules, no matter the chassis histrionics.

Today's cars are much more composed under duress, which is wonderful, but actually subtracts a bit from the fun factor.

As an example, I recently took my son's C63 to the local drag strip in an effort to get a "before" picture, before upping the software ante in the ECM.

Result: With a down barometer, headwind, full tank plus (oof!) me aboard and stuff in the trunk, it clicked off a couple of 12.9s at 110 plus.

And it was pretty boring, I must say! Just stab it and steer it. The only similarity to musclecars of the sixties was the terrific exhaust note, which is a bit unusual these days.

Bruce

the speed of the car is also changed by the gearing they have. as i mentioned in my above post i hold a 1966 big block corvette - 427 cu in 425 hp - has straight pipes now which has bumped that upwards of 450hp. it pulls 12.XX seconds in the 1/4 with 0 mods other than straight pipes - the reason the 12.XX? depends on elevation - depends on air temp - depends on type of fuel used etc.

id argue my new m3 would absolutely slaughter my vette in any race that involved cornering and braking. I would argue that in a straight line 0-60 my vette would beat (even if by an inch) the m3 because instead of 295 ft lbs it has upwards of 475-500 ft lbs launching it off the line quicker and it has a slightly lower curb weight at 3200lb the e90 m3 i drive has a 3700lb curb weight. horsepower to weight ratio plays part of the factor in this but the other is just the gearing. the m3 would likely be a half to full car length ahead by the 1/4 mile marker but all in all theyd battle closely on the straight line.

the new dct technology from bmw is just sickeningly smooth and fast. its nuts to me you can launch the m3 from 5500 rpms using factory launch control. on some of the older beasts you see if you did that youd have a flywheel through the floorboard doing that! german technology is just intensely meticulous and damn near perfect.

[MaxL]

Originally Posted by dibxna

because instead of 295 ft lbs it has upwards of 475-500 ft lbs

You do realize that if you put a 1.5 reducing gear in M3 (which it actually has via aggressive transmission gearing), you'd get roughly 442lb/ft at 4000 rpm and 415hp at 5550 rpm, which coincidentally happens to be a close match to the most powerful version of '66 Corvette (mind that the measurements were done in a more forgiving settings back then, resulting in higher numbers). So the ridiculous torque numbers of big block engines are an illusion without real practical implications. It is like saying that eating 30 dinners per month is "WOW!" and eating 7 dinners per week is "meh" .

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by dibxna

the speed of the car is also changed by the gearing they have. as i mentioned in my above post i hold a 1966 big block corvette - 427 cu in 425 hp - has straight pipes now which has bumped that upwards of 450hp. it pulls 12.XX seconds in the 1/4 with 0 mods other than straight pipes - the reason the 12.XX? depends on elevation - depends on air temp - depends on type of fuel used etc.

I'd guess that your '66 is making somewhere around 375 HP now, using current SAE Net standards. This is with straight pipes. As modded and with current rubber, the car is capable of mid to upper twelves, at, say, 109-110 mph.

My guess would also be that your car would not have an off-the-line advantage, based on the fact that the M3 has more weight on the tail, and also based on the fact that it's really aggressively geared compared to your car with it's 2.20 first gear.

Of course, the other major factor is that today's cars transmit their power to the pavement much better than sixties cars. By that I mean that ever since the beginning of CAFE standards, the drivetrains have become a bunch more efficient than they used to be.

Whatever. It'd likely be a fun run.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by MaxL

You do realize that if you put a 1.5 reducing gear in M3 (which it actually has via aggressive transmission gearing), you'd get roughly 442lb/ft at 4000 rpm and 415hp at 5550 rpm, which coincidentally happens to be a close match to the most powerful version of '66 Corvette (mind that the measurements were done in a more forgiving settings back then, resulting in higher numbers). So the ridiculous torque numbers of big block engines are an illusion without real practical implications. It is like saying that eating 30 dinners per month is "WOW!" and eating 7 dinners per week is "meh" .

You are not correct about the gearing scenario. The M3 (or any other car) will be putting out whatever its numbers are regardless of gearing.

It's power and weight that matter, with the caveat that the M3 will be getting its power to the pavement more efficiently than the Vette.

[dibxna]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I'd guess that your '66 is making somewhere around 375 HP now, using current SAE Net standards. This is with straight pipes. As modded and with current rubber, the car is capable of mid to upper twelves, at, say, 109-110 mph.

My guess would also be that your car would not have an off-the-line advantage, based on the fact that the M3 has more weight on the tail, and also based on the fact that it's really aggressively geared compared to your car with it's 2.20 first gear.

Of course, the other major factor is that today's cars transmit their power to the pavement much better than sixties cars. By that I mean that ever since the beginning of CAFE standards, the drivetrains have become a bunch more efficient than they used to be.

Whatever. It'd likely be a fun run.

yeah i would agree the hp ratings are a bit different than originally printed but as far as the car itself it actually comes from the pops - he had a 65' fastback corvette... nassau blue with white leather... blew the original engine first week he had it and ended up building a new one with his dad... dyno'd out just short of 520hp and unfortunately i don't know what numbers it was producing for torque. the dad is the old car nut (due to ease of working on them himself in his garage) and i am the new car nut with an appreciation for old vehicles.

the vette is just an overall different type of drive - no power steering, drum brakes, the clutch gives you a leg workout as you engage it and let out. for road feel its hard to beat the older beasts, for overall technological advancement and driver amenities its tough to touch the new m3.

i also have a 1956 ford f-100 pickup - lowered 6 inches all the way around... 3" wider fenders on each side in the rear... still a 4 on the floor... original motor... looks and sounds like a beast... does 0-60 in about a 1/4 mile lol.

pics below:
new:


old:

[Nautik]

The M3 is no doubt a technological masterpiece and is more efficient in every way than old school muscle cars. Most old school muscle cars are not even that fast (although they will still scare the crap out of you because like others have said, they do crazy stuff).

Now hot-rods are a different story Most are built to fulfill 2 reasons, cruise around town making a lot of noise and go really fast in a straight line. An M3 will never hold a candle to this kind of straight line power (and trying to make 600-700 lbs of torque on an M3 drive-train and then launch it under that much power would break it no doubt). But these are not and were never production cars so I don't that kind of comparison really counts.

But unless you already have a car with matching numbers, hot-rod is the way to go if you are doing an old school muscle car and want lots of power.

[uljoe]

new american muscle is here and better than ever! played around with a real 5.0 mustang (coyote), and that kept rite up! could of bin that i was driving a sedan?