name one reason why this bitchin german monster isn't the most awesome sports car for 40k
>protip: you can't.
>>13814210
inb4 you can buy a _____ and put a ______ in it for half the price and it will be just as fast
that's not the same
The fact that a new type R is faster and 10k cheaper NEW. it's almost like bmw stopped trying
>>13814274
Aren't Type Rs 50k and not 30k?
>>13814274
>4 doors
i said sports car.
>>13814296
Technically sports cars are *usually* 2-door, but not required to be, although I dunno about the Type R being a better overall package.
>>13814210
Because the Camaro is better.
>>13814296
So a sedan is faster than your sports car, who are you insulting exactly?
>>13814274
every. fucking. thread.
>>13814319
>civic is faster than m3
maybe around a track ill literally never go to. on the highway? only thing beating me in my price bracket is a corvette
>>13814315
GM shill gtfo
>>13814363
>only thing beating me in my price bracket is a corvette
see:
>>13814315
get used to this view. You'll be seeing it a lot.
ITT:
>look at this fast car, it's fast
>well this car is faster than that car
>well this one is faster than that one so fuck you
>this one is even faster you fucking faggots
ad infinitum
>>13814363
Lol please you'll be seeing type r's with boost in the 20's taking you for a spin
>>13814373
>you'll be seeing it alot
doubtful, most people in the market for a car that expensive wont stoop to such cheap interior options or to such a generic car. i might see one a few times a year. in the 3 years ive driven this car ive come across less than 4 ZL1/z28s and only 1 special mustang.
that might be the kind of car you'll see lots of poor people driving in 5 or 6 years though!
>>13814413
>such cheap interior options
The 2016 Camaro's interior quality is much improved
>>13814413
That's a regular SS, not a Z/28 or anything special. I wish Chevy didn't fuck up the styling so much to make me dislike it, from a technical standpoint it's a fucking monster.
It's garbage
source: actually driven it
>>13814428
>looks neat!
the "leather" in that is miles away from the quality of leather in actual luxury cars. it looks cool but the materials and build quality is seriously subpar compared to an actual luxury car.
also the point stands. no one with that much money to spend is buying a camaro when theres the m2, cayman GTS, and tons of other new exciting cars on the market.
>>13814439
how
>>13814399
No its more like this car is cheaper, better built and faster than x car for much less
>>13814439
>DCT on car with less than 500hp
you didn't drive anything. you steered.
>>13814452
I...uh....do those cost under 40 grand?
>>13814439
>autotragic
>fat hand
>blonde
haha fuck off faggot
>>13814463
we were talking about the SS not the V6 dont get shifty here
>>13814296
>muh 2 doors
>muh reer weels
Did a subarufag fuck your wife?
>>13814210
>stanced
they sell this shit?
>>13814452
Good thing it's a sports car and not a luxury car.
>seats made to kind of hold you in
>don't touch anything else besides controls so who the fuck cares what the dash etc is covered in
>>13814463
no and niether does that 2016 ss that you posted
>>13814373
>>13814475
>Good thing it's a sports car and not a luxury car.
so whats your point then? because your original point in posting the interior was that it was just as luxurious as the cars i posted, the "cayman GTS, m2, and other exciting new cars" or at least luxurious enough to compete, which you are now retracting by saying interior doesn't matter and we should ignore it because this isn't a luxury car? lol ok.
>>13814468
Look at the OP >>13814210
>>13814477
I'm not Stolen Recaros, and FYI the Camaro SS starts at like $38000 or so.
>>13814493
I'm not Stolen Recaros. He just said the interior had improved.
>>13814497
the 2016 ss you just posted is listed at 47k optioned as it was in the picture of the interior.
>>13814210
Because you can buy a brand 340kw HSV GTS r8 for the same price as one and i would rather the GTS to be honest.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC9qnjOUjss
>>13814504
M8 I AIN'T FUCKIN' STOLEN RECAROS
>>13814509
Fuck that noise you could buy a mint condition GTS Monaro for that price. (BMW is an 80,000 car here)
>>13814497
>>13814504
The Camaro SS starts at $39k
>>13814456
test drive it and find out
>>13814461
>>13814464
>
>>13814315
looks like it is a cheap toy you get with a happy meal from mcdonalds
>>13814557
>>13814557
Still a performance monster for the price.
http://news.boldride.com/2015/11/2016-chevy-camaro-ss-review-performance/93314/
The V8 in the e9x M3 is terrible, has no torque, and gets terrible gas mileage. BMWs are also fucking gay.
>>13814210
>german
There you go
>>13814315
The 2011 Mustang GT was a better car than the E90 M3. Even used its $20-25k vs $40-45k.
The 2016 Camaro SS just blitzes it. I bet it'll be quicker than the M4.
>M3 can't outpace pigfat truck engined chinese transmission shitbox with a caveman suspension originally made for teenage girls
where's the extra $20,000 going when you buy a m3
>>13815062
>2011 Mustang GT was better car than the E90 M3
>2016 Camaro SS will be quicker than the M4
God damn this must be a bait
How can you expect a muscle car to be quicker than a fucking sports car which is all about accelaration?
>>13815418
>he doesn't know about the Camaro's obsessive focus on handling
>>13815081
The badges
this exist
>>13815081
>where's the extra $20,000 going when you buy a m3
you might be able to get a few roots from the badge if you arent an ugly mother fucker. but 20k buys a lot of hookers...
Because amercans still make cars like the Camaro, Corvette, Shelby, Charger/Challenger Hellcat and you don't pay half of the price just for the brand. Also, Subaru BRZ, Toyota Camry V8 and a huge bunch of tuners that you can get an engine swap for and dominate any BMW are both cheap and practical. Plus, I don't think bitching is the best word to describe it. Bitch might do it better.
>>13815418
because the sports car lost its roots and got fat and pudgy while the muscle car hit the gym and became world-class
>>13816931
>not putting straight pipes on the mustang/camaro and attracting some trailer park sluts
>>13816837
Ok I'm jacking this thread.
I need a new car soon and I was pretty much set on the Mustang GT for several reasons, but then I saw the 2016 Camaro interior.
I still prefer the exterior look of the Mustang, but the interior leaves a lot to be desired, even with Premium trim.
Also, the Camaro /looks/ like it handles like absolute ass, but apparently it's not bad at all... the rigidity, big ass wheels, blockyness, and appearance of weight distribution make it seem like it would handle only slightly better than a Challenger.
tl;dr
Give me legitimate reasons to consider the Camaro SS over a Mustang GT, and please for the love of god leave the youtube-tier chevy vs. ford fanboy drama out of it.
>>13814439
That looks identical to my 328xi, i'm not convinced.
>>13817059
>please for the love of god leave the youtube-tier chevy vs. ford fanboy drama out of it.
here's a direct youtube comparison of the old models. If the NEW Mustang couldn't beat the old Camaro before the 2016 redesign, what chance does it have against the 2016 model that's lighter, better handling and has even more power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTJPDurLEKw
>>13817054
The M3 still won there.
But I agree, Ford has really been starting to show effort in their cars again.
None of them can stand against Japanese cornering and power.
Itt: poor people that have no idea what refinement feels like and can only argue about numbers from Google.
>>13817059
Honestly you would be happy with either car. I have owned both a 2010 ss camary and a 2013 mustang gt. And I have driven both in the 2016 model.
I would choose whichever car you can get cheaper
>>13817102
>refinement
Define that.
>>13814315
Is that a Lexus front clip?
>>13817113
Not that guy and no dog in this fight, but..
Some things can't be easily articulated. It's about fit and finish, NVH, ride quality, sound insulation, but also about brand perception and how it makes you feel when you're driving it.
>>13817102
>used BMW
>anything but poorfags buying them
>>13817129
I feel you.
I'm just tired of Beemerfags yelling "MUH REFINEMENT" when there are cheaper cars that ride a fuck of a lot better.
>>13817136
>he doesn't buy low mile CPO BMWs
>>13817142
I get what you mean, it's just an easy argument like "Muh feels" but there really is something to it.
I test drove a LOT of cars before I gave in and bought a BMW. I really liked the 5.0 Mustang, it was even a nice smooth quiet ride. It was a close second to the E90, even if it lacked "refinement" because it's generally a pretty great car to drive.
>>13817233
>he does
>>13817239
>Not letting some dentist pay your depreciation
Suit yourself m8
>>13817245
but the dentist is not going to be there to fix all the shit that will go wrong
>>13817233
>low mile CPO BMWs
ANYONE WANT MY WIFE? SHE'S CERTIFIED PRE-FUCKED!
>>13817136
buying a new BMW is pretty much the worst financial decision you can make short of blowing 100k in a single night on whores and booze.
financially literate people just wait until the tards take the depreciation hit, then they buy the used bmws in cash for a third of their original price.
>>13817251
>>13817261
But I have 6 years of warranty, by then I'll be driving something else.
>not having a worry-free bmw to DD
your loss fags
>>13817269
SERIOUSLY. ANYONE WANT MY WIFE? I GUARANTEE SHE'S BEEN RIDDEN HARD AND PUT AWAY WET!
>>13817275
stop trying to make everything a kek thread, this isn't /tv/
>>13817269
>cant do anything because it voids your warranty
>something good
aight man
>>13817269
>warranty
>m3
no such thing, the cars are too unreliable and expensive to fix when shit breaks.
>>13817277
LET'S START THE BIDDING AT ONE DOLLA!
>>13817279
>oh no i can't LS swap my four year old DD
>>13817233
>he wants a BMW
Literally the only thing worse is buying a new VW.
>>13817106
>>13817090
>If the NEW Mustang couldn't beat the old Camaro before the 2016 redesign, what chance does it have against the 2016 model
with the 2017 model, I imagine. Maybe the 2016 SS will finally push Ford to DI this bitch.
Also, it seems like the GT is easier to mod for power than the SS. Same Whipple SC looks like it can squeeze almost 100hp more out of the GT but I haven't looked into it enough.
Side note, are Chevy assholes about throwing their performance package onto an automatic like Ford are?
Big downside to the GT for me is that I want it in auto because it's going to be my daily and fuck driving in stop and go traffic with a manual and sadly they won't put the Performance Package on an automatic so I'd have to put the equivalent parts in myself for a much higher price.
>>13817289
look man, if you want to DD a boring bmw for 6 years thats fine
>>13817323
The 1LE package is manual transmission ONLY.
>>13817335
fucks sake... how annoying.
>>13817341
>wanting an auto on his sportscar when a manual is available
just buy a suburban, you amerifat. it'll be easier to transport your tubs of lard from costco or whatever the fuck you amerifags eat to get so fat
>>13817341
but chevy does offer everything from the 1LE package as an individual upgrade
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/camaro-parts/1le-zl1.html
You're still a pussy though. The reason they refuse to offer the performance packs with the automatics is because the automatic transmission is actually a detriment to the performance.
>>13817367
>this shitty meme will never fucking end
>muh manual
Fucking uppity yuros. Pick any goddamn car on the planet and give me 3 laps to get a feel for it and I will wipe the floor with you every single time. Not wanting manual in a daily driver is no indication of inability to drive stick; if I want to do that, I'll go to the fucking track.
>>13817371
>The reason they refuse to offer the performance packs with the automatics is because the automatic transmission is actually a detriment to the performance.
No it's not. And no it's not.
They don't do it for probably the same reason Ford doesn't; business. As evidenced here everyone buys into the manual is better crap so they don't think the demand for an auto performance package is enough to warrant the increased complexity in the assembly line.
Truth is, it's not 20 years ago and the autos aren't a step behind anymore. Across the board the automatic is going to be better at everything from 0-60 and other speed benchmarks, 1/4 mile and other distances, achieving higher speeds in those distances, and yes, even around a track in cases (though depending on the setup the manual will probably hold a slight advantage here). The biggest advantage you have with a manual is the control and ability to keep the car in its power band, and that's effectively negated by semi-auto/paddles.
Don't get me wrong, manuals are fun as hell, especially on a track, but I literally have no intention or desire of dealing with that shit in god awful traffic. None.
>but chevy does offer everything from the 1LE package as an individual upgrade
Will they let me order all that shit on the car or am I going to have to get the parts and pay for them to get swapped out and ruin the warranty in the process?
>>13817371
Then they fucked up on the automatic transmission. Automatics are objectively superior to manuals when it comes to performance.
>>13817479
Except the automatics ARE still a step behind. On the Camaro, the automatic V8 is slower, and has less power. The automatic couldn't handle the full grunt of the LS3 V8, so manual cars got the full 426 HP LS3, while automatic cars got a 400 HP L99 V8 with cylinder deactication for fuel economy.
Automatics are STILL worse in performance category's because there's STILL much more power loss through the transmission than with a manual. Unless theyre using a hyper-quick shifting DCT automatic, the manual will ALWAYS be faster
And no you have to pay for the parts to be swapped out, but the parts don't void the warranty.
2016 Camaro's don't have an optional performance pack yet, but there are already warranty friendly performance parts at the dealers. The 2010-2015 Camaro and the 2016+ Camaros do not have any interchangeable parts by the way. The 2010-2015 Camaro uses GM's Zeta platform, while the 2016+ car uses the new Alpha platform designed by Cadillac.
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/camaro-parts/2016.html
>>13817523
unless it's a DCT, the manual will be faster. There is not a single pony car using a DCT.
>>13817479
>I want to buy an expensive-ass performance car to drive in traffic all day so it has to be automatic because I'm too much of a bitch to ever do anything that requires some semblance of effort
Kill yourself
>>13817367
HURRDUDRRR AMERICANS I POSTED IT AGAIN
>>13817532
>On the Camaro, the automatic V8 is slower, and has less power. The automatic couldn't handle the full grunt of the LS3 V8, so manual cars got the full 426 HP LS3, while automatic cars got a 400 HP L99 V8 with cylinder deactication for fuel economy.
Then I'm going with what >>13817523 said. On the Mustangs the automatic is bulletproof and better at literally everything except being marginally slower around a track. Bonus points? The automatic was put up against a PP manual GT for those tests and still came out ahead in everything except around the track by a small margin. Take the PP off the manual and I'll put money on the automatic winning that one too.
>Automatics are STILL worse in performance category's because there's STILL much more power loss through the transmission than with a manual.
There really, really isn't. Not if it's a proper transmission, which it seems the Camaro's isn't. Hopefully that gets sorted out in the 2016, otherwise that's big points for the GT since I'm only interested in an auto for this car.
>Unless theyre using a hyper-quick shifting DCT automatic, the manual will ALWAYS be faster
It doesn't even need to be a DCT.
>>13817537
>I want to buy an expensive-ass performance car
expensive is relative, but yes, I want a performance car, not a shitbox.
>to drive in traffic all day
Not all day, but driving it in traffic will be inevitable. I still want something fun for when I'm not driving in traffic.
>so it has to be automatic
Yep.
>because I'm too much of a bitch to ever do anything that requires some semblance of effort
Clearly that's the only reason and not everything I've explained so far.
You sure are assblasted about what someone else wants to do with their car though...
>>13817523
>Automatics are objectively superior to manuals when it comes to performance.
except that wrong you kukold faggot
>>13817532
>unless it's a DCT, the manual will be faster. There is not a single pony car using a DCT.
no
sequential manuals are faster
>>13817532
Also remember that not every DCT is equal. DCTs in normal cars are generally still shit.
>>13817588
clearly logic doesn't work on you.
The 2016 Camaro automatic doesn't suffer power loss over the manual like before. You still get 455 HP either way. The Camaro uses a new 8 speed automatic, which is great, for an automatic, but the manual is still faster because power loss through the transmission
>>13817633
also, it's well-documented that Ford gimped manual transmission cars on the Mustangs so that's not a proper comparison. Of course a decent automatic is going to be better than a shitty chinese-built manual.
>>13817646
Then what about the Challenger? The auto is faster than the manual.
>>13817633
Why would I have been talking about bhp when discussing the difference in transmission types?
Idk what logic you want, because I've given you all sorts of examples that say that automatics are performing on par with manuals and you refuse to believe it. Like I said, I don't really know Camaros so maybe they have shit transmissions and it doesn't hold true for them. That said, one car with worse automatic performance is not indicative of the reality.
You can keep reciting your old school 'manual is better' mantra all you want, it's not going to change the fact that automatics have caught up.
I don't even know why we're discussing this. Even if you were right and manuals were miles better, I still wouldn't be getting a car with a manual transmission when I'm going to have to drive it in heavy traffic.
>>13817367
>not drag racing your Camaro
get a load of this goon
What about e46 m3 with s85 v10 out of a m45 with an e9x 6spd. Boom.
>>13815062
The Mustang GT has never been a better or faster car.
>>13818088
No, it's been an equally good car for $25k less
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOwSPccbzl4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muRC7WJHgmA
>>13818106
The lap times don`t make any sense, with those lap times it would mean that the Subaru WRX is faster than the E92 lmao...
also look at this article from Motor Trend, its the same BMW but the test data shows much better results than in the M3 vs Mustang video...
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1108_2011_bmw_1_series_m_vs_2011_bmw_m3_comparison/viewall.html
>>13818188
Track might have had a different amount of rubber on it, different air temperature, humidity, etc.
>>13818188
i'm not a scientist or anything, but on the same day with the same driver, the mustang comfortably hangs with the M3. I'd rather own the BMW but let's stop pretending that 5.0 isn't a respectable car.
>>13818195
in that article they say that ''lap times depend on the driver''...
>>13818195
The mustang is slower on any recorded lap times anyway, sure for the price it seems like a good choice but only if you are american because a new Mustang costs the same or often even more than a new M3 in Europe.
>>13818248
Nonsense. You can get a brand new mustang for ~40k in Germany. M3 starts around ~70k
>people still fall for 'muh German reliability'
>>13818395
I know, right? Even the fucking Koreans are better at this point.
>>13818406
At least Korean cars don't need $500 oil changes.
>>13818410
at least korean cars have oil dip sticks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGE6roEThig
>>13814296
lmao
>>13818367
the E92 is a direct competitor for the new mustangs and you can get an E92M3 for around 30k
>>13814529
the m3 in OP starts around 30k used.
>>13817142
it has nothing to do with the ride.
go to the subaru dealership and sit inside the new STI with the leather, not the cloth. touch things. squeeze the leather. get comfortable.
then go to the porsche dealership and sit in the 911. touch that leather... squeeze it.... its an actual bunch of classes ahead in quality. and that's just the beginning. people talk about muh budget for mustangs and camaros all day long but if you've never had a car where the sound the door makes as it closes wasn't a point of engineering (luxury cars engineer this and its sublime) then you really can't even begin to understand all the mintue details that make a higher quality build better.
>>13818541
and a used SS is in the low 20's, high teens.
Your point?
>>13818599
B T F O
T
F
O
>>13818599
you were specifically talking about the new 2016 and i was specifically talking about a used m3.
dont try to act like you don't know what you were doing. you specifically spoke about the brand new 2016 being a competitor to this used, 8 year old car. which btw speaks miles about the two cars. if an 8 year old car is still competitive against a brand new one... new one must not be as good as the 8 year old one.
>>13818669
The 8 year old BMW isn't competitive against a new Camaro by a long shot.
>>13814315
This looks like it came from kne of those photoshop threads
>>13814210
>less than 300 lb-ft torque
>>13814210
>over $30,000
>not a modernized, customized muscle car
Man such shit taste today.
>>13818875
>modernized, customized muscle car
>restomodding
Disgusting.
>>13818674
still worse than the E92 M3 GTS.
>>13818689
That's the production model. not a photoshop
