What always cracks me up about these posts is that (aside from the obvious "your results may vary" of any given situation) "faster" is always being defined in a very specific (to the post) way, or a loosey goosey, not specific enough manner. Meaning, if you are saying a 340 is "faster" in a roll on race from 30-X, do we know what tires each person had, the road conditions and each driver's abilities in those conditions, who got the best jump, any tuning done on either car, how much (extra) weight either car may have had in trunk, etc? Also, if a 340 is "faster" from say, 0-30, but the M3 trounces it 30-100, which one is "faster", and why? Also, assuming both cars have limiters lifted, wouldn't the faster car be the one with higher top speed (vs. "quicker")?
If you've spent any time on a track, you'll see guys in fairly stock Miata's, etc., often eating boosted BMW's, Mustangs, etc. for lunch, because they're better drivers, more comfy pushing their cars to the limits, etc., so in essence, even though their cars have less HP, they are in fact, faster.
If you've got an M3, you know it's fast as F***. Learn to wring out all its capabilities and you'll have no worries about power and speed, IMO
