De Tomaso Longchamp

vs

BMW 3.0 CSi

Italy vs West Germany — 1972 vs 1971

De Tomaso Longchamp (1972)
BMW 3.0 CSi (1971)
Specifications
Longchamp GTS3.0 CSi Fuel-Injected Coupe
Horsepower330 hp200 hp
Torque332 lb-ft192 lb-ft
Engine Size5,763 cc2,985 cc
0-60 mph6.5 sec7.0 sec
Top Speed155 mph137 mph
¼ Mile14.8 sec15.0 sec
Weight3,351 lbs3,086 lbs
Wheelbase2,600 mm2,625 mm
Length4,580 mm4,660 mm
Units Produced4098,199
Original MSRP$35,000$10,500
Value (Excellent)$150,000$180,000
Collectibility7/108/10
Rarity9/107/10
The Verdict

On balance, the 1972 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS makes a stronger case on paper with more power, quicker acceleration, higher top speed. However, the 1971 BMW 3.0 CSi Fuel-Injected Coupe counters with lighter weight, stronger collectibility, and its appeal extends beyond mere numbers. Choose the 1972 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS for outright capability, or the 1971 BMW 3.0 CSi Fuel-Injected Coupe for a more distinctive ownership experience.

Overview

The rivalry between Italy and West Germany automotive industries has produced legendary matchups, and the 1972 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS versus 1971 BMW 3.0 CSi Fuel-Injected Coupe is among the most fascinating. These two cars represent the best of their national engineering schools. The 1972 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS holds a clear advantage in raw power with 330 hp compared to 200 hp, a 130-horsepower difference that shapes the driving experience. Under the hood, the contrast is notable: the De Tomaso Longchamp uses a V8 OHV displacing 5,763 cc, while the BMW 3.0 CSi relies on a Inline-6 SOHC with 2,985 cc. In the sprint to 60 mph, the 1972 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS edges ahead at 6.5 seconds versus 7.0 seconds. The BMW 3.0 CSi carries a weight advantage, tipping the scales 265 lbs lighter. Rarity plays a significant role here — with only 409 units built, the 1972 De Tomaso Longchamp GTS is considerably scarcer than the BMW 3.0 CSi's 8,199 examples. Both trade at comparable values on the collector market, making the choice between them largely one of personal preference.