2015 Mustang GT

[94boosted]

Motortrend's first test (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_gt_first_test/?sm_id=social_20140917_31787836) 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 :eek: 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.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j174/94boosted/Front_zpsdd22ef2c.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j174/94boosted/Rear_zps58f2142c.jpg

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 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_gt_first_test/?sm_id=social_20140917_31787836) 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 :eek: 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.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j174/94boosted/Front_zpsdd22ef2c.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j174/94boosted/Rear_zps58f2142c.jpg

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. :dunno:

[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.

[mikestypes]

Originally posted by heavyD


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.

A 2014 ZL1 weighs 4120 lbs, and the recent Motor Trend article weighed a ZL1 at 4051 lbs. That is with the additional blower and bullet proof upgraded drivetrain over a standard SS camaro.

A comparable SS or 1LE weighs 3935 lbs and the MT article quoted by the Grip weighed it at 3860 lbs.

The Camaro would need to lose less than 100 lbs to be under the new Mustang. I do think the new platform the Camaro will arrive on will be lighter but no more than 100-200 lbs lighter than it currently is so the playing field will be relatively level.

[heavyD]

Top Gear is smitten with the new Mustang. Interesting note in regards to the Ecoboost version;


The EcoBoost-equipped car is, by quite a margin, the best handing of the two.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/new-ford-mustang-first-drive-car-review-top-gear-2014-09-17

[Darkane]

Originally posted by A790

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

As the above posts. Also, the '99 cobra had a dog slow engine.

Ford rated 320hp but it was up to like 30hp lower or some shit.

Ford had to recall the cobras to do horsepower mods. Hahaha.

[mikestypes]

Originally posted by Gripenfelter


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.

4.6 2-valve was rated at 215-225hp in 1996-1998. They updated to the PI heads in 99 and rated it at 260hp.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by Shlade
Stock out of the box the 2V 4.6's suck asshole

True. But they are nice sounding slow-stangs. Especially with aftermarket exhaust. Having owned both an LS powered and
ford powered I give the exhaust note edge to ford no question.
Bark of a pitbull, bite of a chihuahua ;)

[heavyD]

Yeah the 4.6 exhaust note with an aftermarket exhaust does sound better than the Coyote but that's about the only advantage of that engine. That said my 2012 Mustang GT with Borla S-Type exhaust sounded pretty darn nice.

[94boosted]

Originally posted by heavyD


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.

I don't know where that 4375lb figure comes from for the ZL1 I believe they are closer to 4100lbs. And like mikestypes said comparing a Mustang GT to a ZL1 isn't apples to apples. a 15' GT Track Pack (in the original article) more closely compares to a 1LE which is only ~50lbs heavier than the new Mustang. I'm sure that the 16' Alpha platform Camaro will be able to loose more than 50lbs and with the LT1 Engine :burnout:

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by 94boosted


I don't know where that 4375lb figure comes from for the ZL1 I believe they are closer to 4100lbs.

You have to take into account the average Camaro buyers weight.


Originally posted by Darkane


As the above posts. Also, the '99 cobra had a dog slow engine.

Ford rated 320hp but it was up to like 30hp lower or some shit.

Ford had to recall the cobras to do horsepower mods. Hahaha.

Oddly enough the Mach 1 performed better out of the box (for power anyways) than the Cobra's did :nut: On paper it had less hp/tq, but it was under-rated (especially for torque)

[94boosted]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


You have to take into account the average Camaro buyers weight.


hahah 275lbs sounds about right

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
You have to take into account the average Camaro buyers weight.

Lmao..they tend to be on the hefty side

[Darkane]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


You have to take into account the average Camaro buyers weight.



Oddly enough the Mach 1 performed better out of the box (for power anyways) than the Cobra's did :nut: On paper it had less hp/tq, but it was under-rated (especially for torque)

Mach 1 was beast. I remember driving one when I worked at Ford. Twin throttle bodies. It had way more jam than a GT.

[J.M.]

Not really a mustang guy but I think it looks pretty good :thumbsup:

[shutterbug_art8]

Any dealership in Calgary has the new Stang available for a test drive yet?

[KRyn]

?v=_Kpq9rxDyPA

[Shlade]

Bumped into a salesman from advantage last night as he was going and driving the new ecoboost. Says they have 15 or so coming within the next week. The car is stunning in person. Said a yellow GT should (probably already did) arrive today

[EM2FTL]

rTJPDurLEKw

[94boosted]

Originally posted by EM2FTL
video

Not really surprised by the results. Nearly dead even in a straight line and Camaro faster around a track. Can't wait for the comparo against the new Camaro.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[xnvy]

Woodridge has one. I believe it's the EcoBoost. Sitting in the middle of the showroom so I don't think it's available for test drives.

[Shlade]

Ya advantage gave Woodridge and Okotoks ecoboost a while they have a GT sitting in their show room at the moment. Can't believe I'm saying this but i prefer the camaros performance package over the mustangs... Wheels look better and sit perfect to the body, and the quad exhaust looks sick. It actually sounds better than the mustang too

[Redlined_8000]

Originally posted by Shlade
Ya advantage gave Woodridge and Okotoks ecoboost a while they have a GT sitting in their show room at the moment. Can't believe I'm saying this but i prefer the camaros performance package over the mustangs... Wheels look better and sit perfect to the body, and the quad exhaust looks sick. It actually sounds better than the mustang too


Dont be surprised. The Camaro is a true performer. I prefer it over the mustang too.

[heavyD]

I wish the interior of the Camaro wasn't so horrible. I mean it's downright embarrassing. Not to mention maybe I'm not tall enough but I feel like I'm a kid peeking over the top of a bathtub sitting in it. I'm sure I would get used to it but I've never been in another car that had blindspots as bad as this car.

[SKR]

Maybe it's because I haven't owned a car in 10 years, only trucks, but I don't have the visibility issues out of my Camaro that everyone else seems to. I don't think I've ever had difficulty or been unable to see anything. I'm not tall either, 5'8" and I have the driver's seat as low as it will go just so I can get in and out of it.

[JRSC00LUDE]

I don't think, if choosing between the two, that I could justify performance over looks in that comparison. I would still go Mustang as the Camaro just......I don't know, I couldn't feel good driving that thing around I can't get behind that styling. :dunno:

I don't love the Mustang but, it's growing on me seeing them in parking lots. Ford just always seems to shit the bed on that rear end in my opinion.

[A790]

Daily driving? Mustang.

Camaro has blind spots up the wazoo.

[tehwegz]

Not just the Camaro's with GM/Chevy. Their pick ups are also awful. No matter how I position the seat you feel so crammed in the cab with a squished down windshield and small windows all around (for a truck).

With the new Canyonrado's its just like the Tacoma but with bulging fenders, deeper box, and even more awkward seating positions.

I'd go Mustang over the Camaro too on account of blind spots. And weight. I can barely get my head out the Camaro with window down all the way. But with the '15+ Mustang you look out the smaller than last gen windshield and see nothing but hood in front of you. And from inside, all the aggressive lines on the new hoods make it look all crumpled with a fake air vent that would drive me nuts seeing all that every day while driving. I want to see either A) NO hood, just road in front of me (NSX good example but RIP thanks to safety bull) OR B) minimal hood and if it needs one, a hood scoop can be there (TMIC Subies etc.)

[01RedDX]

.