2015 Mustang GT

[94boosted]

Motortrend's first test is a bit disappointing.

How in the hell did they manage to make this thing near as makes no difference 200lbs heavier than the 14' GT and is it just me or does the interior still look really similar to the 05 GT. That being said I think it looks pretty darn good.





I wonder if it'll beat the Boss around a track.

[A790]

The weight difference can be pretty easily explained by the independent rear suspension...

[killramos]

Originally posted by 94boosted
Motortrend's first test is a bit disappointing.

How in the hell did they manage to make this thing near as makes no difference 200lbs heavier than the 14' GT and is it just me or does the interior still look really similar to the 05 GT. That being said I think it looks pretty darn good.





I wonder if it'll beat the Boss around a track.

Not sure how i feel about the painted rear diffuser...

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Holy fack I heard they weighed a GT at over 3800 lbs. That's 'maro heavy.

[Shlade]

I've owned a lot of mustangs and am an avid mustang fan. But this... This looks like shit to me.

I know it's been said before but the front is fusion looking. Back end I don't mind much at all.

[heavyD]

I want to buy one on looks alone. It's gorgeous but I will wait until the add DI to the 5.0 and work out the bugs as it's a Ford which means there will be lots of bugs as I found out the hard way with my 2012.

[Hallowed_point]

It looks cool from the back. I love the tail lights and black out panel on 2005+ stangs . It's a little too blah for me though. I won't be rushing out to buy one. The curb weight is horrendous as well. I'll probably just stick to 80s and 90s cars while I can.

The side profile and front end don't scream mustang to me. It looks way too European or something.

[Shlade]

Originally posted by heavyD
I want to buy one on looks alone. It's gorgeous but I will wait until the add DI to the 5.0 and work out the bugs as it's a Ford which means there will be lots of bugs as I found out the hard way with my 2012.

No, got a lemon.

And I remember you complaining about the transmission as well so unless you're planning on getting an automatic i wouldn't bother getting or even thinking about another mustang.

[Hallowed_point]

Who gets an auto mustang? Way to suck out all the fun IMO unless your building a drag car.

[94boosted]

Originally posted by A790
The weight difference can be pretty easily explained by the independent rear suspension...

I understand that IRS will be heavier than a solid rear end but with all the R&D that went into it it's sad they couldn't offset the weight. It's frightening that a non luxury 2 door sports car weighs this much.

[ExtraSlow]

They're letting it pork up so that the next redesign, which will have lots of aluminum in it, will look like a more impressive weight loss . . .
Or that's my conspiracy theory.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by 94boosted

I understand that IRS will be heavier than a solid rear end but with all the R&D that went into it it's sad they couldn't offset the weight. It's frightening that a non luxury 2 door sports car weighs this much.

I'm not surprised when you factor the size of the car and the low price point V6 models come in. These are big cars. For years my garage has had vehicles from DSM's, Civic's, EVO, STI and my 2012 Mustang took up significantly more space in my garage when parked next to my wife's car. They are big cars. I'm sure they could have made the car lighter but the cost would have come in significantly higher than the average Mustang buyer would like to pay as carbon fiber and aluminum parts aren't cheap. The Camaro and Challenger are also heavy cars but that's the trade off with affordable 400+ HP cars. The Corvette is lighter but it's also more expensive and isn't derived from a $25k entry level version.

[JRSC00LUDE]

All around disappointing looking, I had much higher hopes.

[94boosted]

Originally posted by heavyD


I'm not surprised when you factor the size of the car and the low price point V6 models come in. These are big cars. For years my garage has had vehicles from DSM's, Civic's, EVO, STI and my 2012 Mustang took up significantly more space in my garage when parked next to my wife's car. They are big cars. I'm sure they could have made the car lighter but the cost would have come in significantly higher than the average Mustang buyer would like to pay as carbon fiber and aluminum parts aren't cheap. The Camaro and Challenger are also heavy cars but that's the trade off with affordable 400+ HP cars. The Corvette is lighter but it's also more expensive and isn't derived from a $25k entry level version.

I agree that it's a big car, I guess my only issue is that it got substantially heavier considering the dimensions from MY 14' to 15' didn't change much. I'm curious as to how much of this additional 200lbs is attributed to the IRS. When the new Camaro comes out riding on the Alpha platform it should be lighter (and smaller).

[Gripenfelter]

MT Test Results:

'13 Camaro 1LE vs. '15 Mustang GT

0-60: 4.3 vs. 4.4
1/4 mile: 12.7 @ 111.8 vs. 12.8 @ 112
60-0: 101 ft. vs. 107 Ft
Figure 8: 24.2 sec. @ .83g (avg) vs. 24.7 sec @ .84g (avg)
Lateral acceleration: 1.03g (avg) vs. .96g (avg)
Weight: 3,860 vs. 3,814
Price as tested: $37,035 vs. $46,380

m235i vs '15 GT

MT test numbers.

0-60: 4.4 to 4.4
1/4: 13.0 @ 106 to 12.8 @ 112
60-0: 103' to 107'
fig8: 24.9 to 24.7
lat accel: 0.97 to 0.96
price as tested: 46025 to 46380.

Hmmm...maybe the Ford pistons are encrusted with diamonds.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by 94boosted


I agree that it's a big car, I guess my only issue is that it got substantially heavier considering the dimensions from MY 14' to 15' didn't change much. I'm curious as to how much of this additional 200lbs is attributed to the IRS. When the new Camaro comes out riding on the Alpha platform it should be lighter (and smaller).

A 2014 ZL1 Camaro weighs 4375 lbs so Chevy's new chassis will have to be several hundreds of pounds lighter just to be on even terms with the Mustang. People tend to forget the Camaro and Challenger are 4000+ lb cars.

[Darkane]

I hope ford doesn't repeat the late 90's.

The 4.6L killed the stang. GM was pounding out 300hp 5.7's, 6speeds and fast cars all day long.

Fords only chance honestly is the ecoboost model tuned to 400hp+. Should make more torque than last gens coyote. But that won't happen unless it's aftermarket.

[A790]

Originally posted by Darkane
I hope ford doesn't repeat the late 90's.

The 4.6L killed the stang.

Can you elaborate on that? I'm not really familiar with pre-2005 Mustangs.

[Shlade]

Stock out of the box the 2V 4.6's suck asshole

[Gripenfelter]

Originally posted by A790

Can you elaborate on that? I'm not really familiar with pre-2005 Mustangs.

1996+ 4.6 L V8s made 260 hp but it was OVERRATED. Wasn't till 2005 that they made decent numbers that were still about 10 yrs behind GM.

GM had 305 hp in their SS and WS6 cars in 1996. 1998+ was underrated and they had about 340 hp.