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

[EAGLE5]

I know Mustangs make popular track cars, but usually only after significant mods. The current Mustang left me colder than a Disney princess. Maybe the new one will be awesome, but yeah, they keep avoiding saying the weight, and they haven't let anybody drive one yet. Fast and fun are not synonyms.

[airjonny]

Slow and Fun aren't synonyms either. I checked.

[Allch Chcar]

Neither are sex and fun synonyms.

The new Mustang with 2.3L Turbo is going to be heavier than the Focus ST at the very least. I'm still guessing it will be somewhere near the current v6 curb weight if anything. So somewhere between 3200-3500lbs curb weight for the 2.3L turbo.

Mustangs aren't just popular. They are extremely common and parts are cheap and easy to come by. They are one of the most popular cars to get into racing. It just so happens that drag racing is the cheapest and most popular form. But the vast majority of people buy Mustangs to daily drive or as a weekend cruiser. They do not want a stiff, uncomfortable kind of sports car. That's what the Boss, Shelby, Roush, and SVT variants are for.

And hopefully a return of the SVO.

[blackhawkdown]

3200lbs with 300+ hp is just like the STi except the STi is around 3400-3600lbs and 305hp. No difference in the weight category and they are both great cars, granted one is AWD and the other is RWD.

[Davey]

Originally Posted by blackhawkdown

3200lbs with 300+ hp is just like the STi except the STi is around 3400-3600lbs and 305hp. No difference in the weight category and they are both great cars, granted one is AWD and the other is RWD.

We know the Mustang is gaining about 100 lbs, we know the base 2014 V6 manual weighs 3500 lbs. Since the V8 is the same the 100 lbs isn't from the engine, it's from the IRS and maybe some interior stuff, etc.

As a guess, the Ecoboost 4-cylinder Mustang will weigh at least 3500 lbs. Count on it.

[OrangeJuleas]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Nah - it's too small, unrefined, and noisy to be a grand tourer (which isn't a bad thing at all, in my opinion). Yes, it does have rear seats, but it's not big, it's not well-insulated, it's not adorned with leather everywhere and premium sound systems, and it's not driven by a large torquey engine. Instead, it's light, nimble, a bit noisy and rattly over bumps, and has an engine which needs to be wrung out to get the most out of it. It's definitely a sports car in my book.

That's a good point - but I'm not sure how many other sports cars you have driven. Compared to my Miata, my friend's Atom, another friend's NSX, it is smooth as butter and runs twice as nice.

Originally Posted by ZionsWrath

Why can't sport car just mean a car you love to thrash. What's the point of having an arbitrary list of qualifications. Pretty sure most of the cars I've seen in track day posts and videos would not be considered sports cars by the various "definitions" I've seen people post on here. But I bet they are all having fun and didn't stay home because someone told them their vehicle isn't a "sports car".

It totally can. But people love to thrash muscle cars, luxury cars, hell even hatchbacks and sedans have been known to be thrashed about. Why did you put "definition" in quotes? Are you implying that the definitions that people are giving aren't real?

Please note that the wikipedia page for Grand Tourer lists the 86/FRS/BRZ as an example. Also, who says you can't have sports car-esque fun in a GT car or anything else for that matter? Is it that important that it is classified as a sports car?

From the wiki page for Sports Car:

"Terminology
A car may be a sporting automobile without being a sports car. Performance modifications of regular, production cars, such as Sport Compact, Sports Sedan, Muscle Car, Hot Hatch and the like, generally are not considered sports cars, yet share traits common to sports cars. They are sometimes called "sports cars" for marketing purposes for increased advertising and promotional purposes. Performance cars of various configurations are grouped as Sports and Grand Tourer cars or, occasionally, as performance cars."

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

The term Sports Car used to be a way to classify a car based on certain qualities. Its harder to define now, but still used for a specific type of car. You can't just call any fun to drive car a Sports Car, just like you can't call all American cars Muscle Cars.

Just because my Taurus wagon has more torque than my FRS and can hold a bunch of stuff, doesn't mean it's automatically a Hot Hatch.

Good point. These types of things are hard to define. Like, where would you put the Cadillac CTS-V? Lexus SC400? Integra? Dodge Neon? How about the GT-R?

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

To 99% of the population today a sports car is a low slung, fast/quick, good handling car, with two doors. So when you use the definition of a sports car being only a two door, two seater, RWD, drop top, light weight, one-off design you are in fact using the archaic definition. Which is from the 50's I might add.

When most non-enthusiasts (Americans) think of a sports car today they think of a "muscle" car such as the Mustang or the Camaro. The Mustang was originally an American interpretation of European sports cars. And today it is still true to it's heritage.

I think you're putting words in people's mouths. Nobody is saying it has to be a one-off, a convertible or even RWD. It just has to be designed for pure sport, low weight and excellent handling characteristics. Like I said, it's really semantics but technically the GT86 is a Grand Tourer, '50's definitions aside.

The Mustang is a Pony car, which are highly stylized, short-deck, well priced vehicles. Once larger engines were fitted it became a muscle car. Could a muscle car be a sports car? Sure, why not. I can call anything I want whatever I want, that's the beauty of being human.

Originally Posted by airjonny

Based off of the ridiculous puritan definition of a sports car, I could probably count them all the cars on sale in the world on one hand.

And you would probably be right. True sports cars are a dying breed. Again, I don't understand, what's wrong with the classification Grand Tourer?

Did anyone realize that Toyota is calling it the GT for a reason? Or did that just seem like an arbitrary name? I mean, FRS and BRZ are clear acronyms.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by OrangeJuleas

That's a good point - but I'm not sure how many other sports cars you have driven. Compared to my Miata, my friend's Atom, another friend's NSX, it is smooth as butter and runs twice as nice.



It totally can. But people love to thrash muscle cars, luxury cars, hell even hatchbacks and sedans have been known to be thrashed about. Why did you put "definition" in quotes? Are you implying that the definitions that people are giving aren't real?

Please note that the wikipedia page for Grand Tourer lists the 86/FRS/BRZ as an example. Also, who says you can't have sports car-esque fun in a GT car or anything else for that matter? Is it that important that it is classified as a sports car?

From the wiki page for Sports Car:

"Terminology
A car may be a sporting automobile without being a sports car. Performance modifications of regular, production cars, such as Sport Compact, Sports Sedan, Muscle Car, Hot Hatch and the like, generally are not considered sports cars, yet share traits common to sports cars. They are sometimes called "sports cars" for marketing purposes for increased advertising and promotional purposes. Performance cars of various configurations are grouped as Sports and Grand Tourer cars or, occasionally, as performance cars."



Good point. These types of things are hard to define. Like, where would you put the Cadillac CTS-V? Lexus SC400? Integra? Dodge Neon? How about the GT-R?



I think you're putting words in people's mouths. Nobody is saying it has to be a one-off, a convertible or even RWD. It just has to be designed for pure sport, low weight and excellent handling characteristics. Like I said, it's really semantics but technically the GT86 is a Grand Tourer, '50's definitions aside.

The Mustang is a Pony car, which are highly stylized, short-deck, well priced vehicles. Once larger engines were fitted it became a muscle car. Could a muscle car be a sports car? Sure, why not. I can call anything I want whatever I want, that's the beauty of being human.



And you would probably be right. True sports cars are a dying breed. Again, I don't understand, what's wrong with the classification Grand Tourer?

Did anyone realize that Toyota is calling it the GT for a reason? Or did that just seem like an arbitrary name? I mean, FRS and BRZ are clear acronyms.

Its not just you, so i'm just using this as an example.

No one should use wiki as a reference. I can go list a BRZ/FRS/GT86 as an exotic right now if I wanted to.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by OrangeJuleas

I think you're putting words in people's mouths. Nobody is saying it has to be a one-off, a convertible or even RWD. It just has to be designed for pure sport, low weight and excellent handling characteristics. Like I said, it's really semantics but technically the GT86 is a Grand Tourer, '50's definitions aside.

The Mustang is a Pony car, which are highly stylized, short-deck, well priced vehicles. Once larger engines were fitted it became a muscle car. Could a muscle car be a sports car? Sure, why not. I can call anything I want whatever I want, that's the beauty of being human.

People have said those exact words, repeatedly, in General. The reason I didn't quote anyone was to avoid a confrontation by suggesting that their views on true/pure sports cars were somehow untrue or wrong. When it's truly a matter of opinion. A Toyota 86 GT would still be a sports car but specifically a Grand Tourer. Technically a Mustang GT is a Grand Tourer too, making it a direct competitor with the Toyobaru twins. Which irritates purists but whatever.

The marketing term "pony car" was used to separate big block muscle cars from small block pony cars back in the 60's. That terminology stopped being used after muscle cars died out in the 70's. Today's pony/muscle cars have a small block and big block variant in addition to a v6 base model. So they aren't one or the other anymore, they are both. :/

[vh_supra26]

Originally Posted by PRG3000

Base MSRPs have been announced and the turbo four is right in line w the FRS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure the V6 model is the same price.

Mustang V6 Fastback (050A) - $24,425

Mustang V6 Fastback (051A) - $25,420

http://jalopnik.com/the-ecoboost-201...-gt-1579134760

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by vh_supra26

I'm pretty sure the V6 model is the same price.



http://jalopnik.com/the-ecoboost-201...-gt-1579134760

The actual retail cost for the Ecoboost engine might be $1k. But Ford never sells an Ecoboost engine without extra options $$$$. Add in that only suckers pay MSRP on a Domestic.

Ecoboost with GT Performance package would be at least a MSRP of $28490. Knowing Ford, they'll probably roll the GT Performance Package into the 201A package and make it optional only on the 200A package. So it'll make a decent competitor at least. Anything that improves the breed is fine by me.

[OrangeJuleas]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

Its not just you, so i'm just using this as an example.

No one should use wiki as a reference. I can go list a BRZ/FRS/GT86 as an exotic right now if I wanted to.

I'm not sure anyone in their right mind would consider it to be an exotic. I'll take that challenge.

Also, if wiki is not a relatively reliable source, what source would you prefer that we use? I only use it because it is fairly universal, easy to access and has generally never steered me wrong.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by OrangeJuleas

I'm not sure anyone in their right mind would consider it to be an exotic. I'll take that challenge.

Also, if wiki is not a relatively reliable source, what source would you prefer that we use? I only use it because it is fairly universal, easy to access and has generally never steered me wrong.

Wiki is not a reliable source because its a Wiki... Have you been to college?

Anyone can add anything to a wiki. That is why you can not use it as a reference.

[OrangeJuleas]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

Wiki is not a reliable source because its a Wiki... Have you been to college?

Anyone can add anything to a wiki. That is why you can not use it as a reference.

I have been to college, thank you for the underhanded insult. I also believe that people are free to make their own judgement on what is a reliable source and wikipedia actually has links to the articles that you are claiming to be perfect fact. Here is something they may not have taught you in school: how to think for yourself and learn to separate useful information from something irrelevant.

Not to mention that your first statement is a clear example of circular logic. That's like saying a sports car is a sports car because it is.

I can add anything to a wiki. Then later, someone who comes along and sees that something is wrong/outdated can fix/update it. Have I seen wiki articles that had wrong information? Yes, definitely. Have I read articles by supposed experts that contained false information? You better believe it. Even within the confines of school, I have seen many a professor corrected by a student who did even a little research on a subject. Were I looking up a medical procedure or the thesis on 17th century politics I would turn to an expert first.

Otherwise, for simple thing such as this...yes, I believe I can quote wiki for something that is obviously subjective to begin with. Perhaps you believe that a wiki is edited by the worst of humanity, but I tend to think they stay away from sites like that. I believe we are better collectively and so embrace a living, self-updating encyclopedia.

I apologize in advance if you meant no offense, but I feel that wikipedia hate is one of the most pointless things that I heard while going to school.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by OrangeJuleas

I have been to college, thank you for the underhanded insult. I also believe that people are free to make their own judgement on what is a reliable source and wikipedia actually has links to the articles that you are claiming to be perfect fact. Here is something they may not have taught you in school: how to think for yourself and learn to separate useful information from something irrelevant.

Not to mention that your first statement is a clear example of circular logic. That's like saying a sports car is a sports car because it is.

I can add anything to a wiki. Then later, someone who comes along and sees that something is wrong/outdated can fix/update it. Have I seen wiki articles that had wrong information? Yes, definitely. Have I read articles by supposed experts that contained false information? You better believe it. Even within the confines of school, I have seen many a professor corrected by a student who did even a little research on a subject. Were I looking up a medical procedure or the thesis on 17th century politics I would turn to an expert first.

Otherwise, for simple thing such as this...yes, I believe I can quote wiki for something that is obviously subjective to begin with. Perhaps you believe that a wiki is edited by the worst of humanity, but I tend to think they stay away from sites like that. I believe we are better collectively and so embrace a living, self-updating encyclopedia.

I apologize in advance if you meant no offense, but I feel that wikipedia hate is one of the most pointless things that I heard while going to school.

Your description is exactly why it's not credible and why universities do not allow wiki as a source.

Speaking of sources, to what original post that I made about sports cars are you referring to?