2015 Ford Mustang / Shelby GT350 Official - 5.2L FPC with 500+hp/400+ lb-ft

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chulooz

I just think that a 'stang without the v8 is like an rx* without the rotary.

Except that the 'stang without the V8 is slower, while the RX* without the rotary is faster

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Except that the 'stang without the V8 is slower, while the RX* without the rotary is faster

I wasnt measuring 'performance', I was measuring 'soul.'

[OrbitalEllipses]

I wouldn't buy a Mustang...but if I were to somehow acquire one, it'd better be a V8 or a hopped up on drugs turbo 4 that weighs significantly less than the V8.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chulooz

I wasnt measuring 'performance', I was measuring 'soul.'

Cars don't have souls. I've had a few fun cars that I have LOVED (3.1 240Z, FC na rotary RX-7, S13 240SX, AP1 S2000, 6.2 FD RX-7), none of them had a "soul". They have characteristics that can be altered to suit my wants and needs. Some cars need a heart/lung transplant to be consistent, reliable, fast and fun on the street and at the track

[EAGLE5]

Oh boy, a semantics game! Let's change to religion. There's no such thing as a soul, silly.

And why are the ones without a twin the ones who play the most semantic games?

Originally Posted by ZDan

Cars don't have souls. I've had a few fun cars that I have LOVED (3.1 240Z, FC na rotary RX-7, S13 240SX, AP1 S2000, 6.2 FD RX-7), none of them had a "soul". They have characteristics that can be altered to suit my wants and needs. Some cars need a heart/lung transplant to be consistent, reliable, fast and fun on the street and at the track

[ZDan]

Definitely not trying to play semantics here. People think their cars have these "magical" qualities (using magical/mystical words like "soul") that make them great. Cars don't have mystical/magical "soul" qualities. Some people think that changing a powerplant does something that fundamentally ruins a car (even if an improvement in absolutely every respect). They're wrong.

[kanundrum]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCXj_pItCOk&feature=c4-overview&list=UU7T18AGE5FJmWzLFifNldwA"]NEW 2015 MUSTANG REVVING / START UP / IDOL SOUNDS! - YouTube[/ame]

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Cars don't have souls. I've had a few fun cars that I have LOVED (3.1 240Z, FC na rotary RX-7, S13 240SX, AP1 S2000, 6.2 FD RX-7), none of them had a "soul". They have characteristics that can be altered to suit my wants and needs. Some cars need a heart/lung transplant to be consistent, reliable, fast and fun on the street and at the track

Thanks for the literal interpretation.

Soul for a car are things like its history, traditions, expectancies, quirks, improvements, and innovations. There are lists of other things that give a car soul and no I didnt mean some metaphysical existence.

[reni]

it's going to be a sad day the first time someone posts a video of a modded ecoboost spanking a v8...

although if I ever bought a mustang, it would still have to be a v8

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by sofrsnsokleen

ford wasn't trying to completely reinvent the mustang, that would kill 50 yrs of heritage. They sought out to design a mustang that still fit in line with the lineage of all the previous models but be progressive towards the future. Of course its going to have a big long hood, and look muscular, it IS a muscle car. Its actually going to be the smallest muscle car on the market as well. If you want something smaller and compact, thats why they sell the focus st.

The original Mustang *was* "smaller and compact"! V8 versions of the 65/66 were 2700 lb. Give me some of THAT "heritage"!

I hate how many car "enthusiasts" knock muscle cars. Is there no pride in our products any more?

The Mustang was originally a PONY car rather than a muscle car. Much smaller and lighter weight. Over the years its weight has gone up and down, the 05+ models being very much on the big/heavy side. This was an opportunity to fix that. Too bad...

I love the twins but to me the mustang gt has always been the everymans true sports car. Thanks to fast and furious franchise, everyone wants a 1000hp japanese car... wtf happened 'merica?

Why does the "everyman" need a hulking 3500+ lb 2+2 coupe (it's not what I'd call a "sports car" by any stretch)? America got bigger and fatter and uglier. Mustang did too. I was hoping for a step back in the smaller/lighter direction.

[jdrxb9]

Glanced through this whole thread and I didn't see any overlay comparison, so...







(these are the most like views I could find - also assumed the 107.1" wb at mustang6g.com is correct)

I'm not making a judgement - the Mustang is what it is - the 1965 fastback was 181.6" overall on a 108" wheelbase.

[Whitigir]

Originally Posted by jdrxb9

Glanced through this whole thread and I didn't see any overlay comparison, so...







(these are the most like views I could find - also assumed the 107.1" wb at mustang6g.com is correct)

I'm not making a judgement - the Mustang is what it is - the 1965 fastback was 181.6" overall on a 108" wheelbase.

Nice comparision. Is it almost 2 inches lower roof line from 86 to Mustang that I am seeing ?

Despite being that dimension over-all. But look at it as the whole. I think the new Mustang will be very well Balanced.

Drivability and handling will have to wait for test track runs...

[jdrxb9]

Originally Posted by Whitigir

Nice comparision. Is it almost 2 inches lower roof line from 86 to Mustang that I am seeing ?
...

I'm seeing official claims of 1.5" lower than the current, so that would make it 55.8-1.5=54.3". So about 3" taller than the twins.

Note that I scaled the photos above based only on wheelbase and let everything else follow. The Pictured height difference may or may not be 3" - especially considering the slight perspective difference.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

The original Mustang *was* "smaller and compact"! V8 versions of the 65/66 were 2700 lb. Give me some of THAT "heritage"

In my opinion, unfair comparison. Remove the regulated safety/emissions equipment along with "unnecessary" creature comfort add-ons from today's car (or add it to the '65) and the weight difference would evaporate.