omg... Morphmcmanerson you gotta be trollin or have fuckin downs man.

a longer wheel base helps with power to weight and aerodynamics. also a longer bottom can help with downforce.
your examples are extreme.

the power to length of a wheelbase has to be proportionate.
ok for instance take a short block of wood and center it on a cement brick and put a 3lb weight on one of the sides hanging off, most likely it will flip/fall. now get a longer piece of wood and do the same thing, the weight will stay on there and the wood wont flip.
same goes for cars, you try to add too much power (or weight) to it then you throw off the power to weight ratio and the car wont handle optimally.
have you ever seen an f1 car with a wheel base of a prius? no, and will never. in addition to power to weight, the car also gains help in the aerodynamics and downforce department from having a longer wheel base PROPORTIONATE to is power.
the reason why you dont add 30 inches to every car so it can handle better is because making a car longer usually makes it heavier so to maintain power to weight, you need to increase the power.

taking a 120 hp saturn and adding 10 hp inst going to throw off power to weight enough to require a longer wheel base, or even that fact adding 80 hp to his formula (which already has a long wheel base).
sure there are things you can do to increase handling to a car with a lot of hp and a shorter wheelbase, but it will never handle as good as a car with a longer wheel base(with better power to weight) with the same power and same mods.

i hope you understand that now...

This post was edited by Huayra on Jan 2 2013 11:06am

You're right Huayra it's all about proportionate weight/power.
It's not power = required wheelbase growth
that's why when i add more power to my saturn i wouldn't need a longer wheelbase.
Because more power doesn't always require a longer wheelbase to maintain control.

His argument isn't a constant.
He has backtracked and reworded it several times throughout the thread, had he dropped the word proportionate somewhere in his original argument we wouldn't be on page 25 still talking about it.

He obviously can't defend his original statement. Because as i said, it's false.

the 2013 mustang is faster than your 2013 m3 so keep on laughing lol

think im wrong? go look up the statistics and numbers, then get back to me

you know what ill do the research myself and just make you shut up here and for good

2013 e93 m3:
weight-3704lbs
horsepower- 414
torque- 270
0-60 time- 4.7 seconds
price (base)- 60,100$

2013 mustang gt:
weight- 3675lbs
horsepower- 420
torque- 390
0-60 time- 4.3 seconds
price (base) - 34,300$

sources:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-car-buying/bmw/m3/
http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2013/m/default.aspx
http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/ford/2013-ford-mustang-gt-review-1894.html
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/2013-ford-mustang-gt-motoramic-drives-143038804.html

so as you can see, my car compared to yours, has more hp and torque, weighs less and costs substantially less.

sit

This post was edited by Sopranos on Jan 2 2013 12:58pm

was gd

You're comparing a cabrio to a couple, of course the cabrio is at a huge disadvantage; cabrio vs. cabrio my car will shit on the Mustang any day.

What's even funnier is the fact you think 0-60 times are a good representation of which car is "faster"--especially with you quoting a conservative BMW estimate (no M-DCT/proper launch taken into consideration) vs. a best-ever time from the Mustang. Many people with my particular model have recorded actual 4.3-.4 times.

But, in the end of the day, you'd still get shit on in the track and you'd still be the one in the trash American vehicle.

why is that always the argument people bring up. american cars suck on the track blah blah blah. the m3 does have a nice chassis but its not as OMFG WTF SUPER HAX as fast as u think it is compared to american cars of late

edit would also like to see some links of articles to support these facts about track times. aka the tracks they were on and the times

This post was edited by TeaRs- on Jan 2 2013 01:40pm

your rebuttal was so bad that its sad :\

i quoted fair websites that werent biased, now if i quoted a website that was entitled for example "mustangsarebest.com" then youre right, it wouldnt be fair, dont try to make excuses for your car and how it cant compete with a better one.

and 0-60 is a bad thing to use to see what cars fast?... you do know how stupid that sounds right? what other purpose does a 0-60 time serve other than showing which cars are fast and not?

if i really wanted to make it a fair comparison, id of compared the gt500 to your m3, because price wise they are identical. and a gt500 would shit on your m3 horrifically, and itd shit on bmws m5 as well, need statistics for that as well?

dont feel bad that you made a mistake for buying an overpriced car, we all make foolish decisions from time to time, maybe next time youll learn.

I didn't know 0-60 was all that mattered.

What's the 1/4 on m3 vs 5.0?
What's 60-120?

if you actually clicked the links, youd of had your answers.. guess thats asking too much of you

m3 1/4 time: 13.1s at 109 mph
gt 1/4 time: 12.8 at 111 mph

This post was edited by Sopranos on Jan 2 2013 01:55pm