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

[53Driver]

I guess why some people feel disappointed is that Ford went on the record saying they were going to focus on dropping some weight on the incoming Mustangs. They've already got a great powerplant with the 5.0 and sure the IRS was never going to be leap years ahead of the solid axles in the back due to years of tweaking that set-up. They even hinted that the new Mustang would be slightly smaller than the outgoing model to help with the weight drop. I guess in the end it was all talk. Oh well, I'll just look at picking up a used 13/14 GT500 in a few years unless the new GT350 turns out to be a monster.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

I know. But I thought LSX meant the '15s lost 200lbs.

Yep I was agreeing with you

[sato]

Originally Posted by hmong337

i was hoping 3200 for the v8, 3100 for the v6, and 3000 for the i4turbo... NOT EVEN CLOSE ahaha. Big fat 3800lbs... damn!

First was a rumor for an unrealistic 400lbs weight drop, then 200lbs. In the end, it gained 200lbs in GT form.

The Great Ford Hype???

[BobDigi5060]

Originally Posted by Top Gear

Give me more of an idea here. Would the EcoBoost Stang give a GT86 a run for its money?

It wouldn't just give it a run, it would smash its face in. The new Stang has a stack more grip, more power, more torque and is an altogether bigger, faster car.

[chaoskaze]

Damn.... I thought they would have gey everything right cuz 2015 basically look like the Gigaro mustang concept back in 09...

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by steelertown

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/n...ear-2014-09-17


Complete disagreement with most peoples reaction to the reviews. I came very close to buying a 2014 but I changed my mind because the steering felt more loose than I would like. Honestly, my truck steering felt tighter. Most of the reviews say steering is much improved over the outgoing model. I look forward to test driving one of these. The only thing left is to get over the fear of a first model year ford...

Interesting quote from the article...

Originally Posted by Pat Devereux, Top Gear

Give me more of an idea here. Would the EcoBoost Stang give a GT86 a run for its money?
It wouldn't just give it a run, it would smash its face in. The new Stang has a stack more grip, more power, more torque and is an altogether bigger, faster car.

[Dave-ROR]

Autoweek first drive of the Ecoboost: http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...n=awdailydrive

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Interesting quote from the article...

Originally Posted by Pat Devereux, Top Gear
Give me more of an idea here. Would the EcoBoost Stang give a GT86 a run for its money?

It wouldn't just give it a run, it would smash its face in. The new Stang has a stack more grip, more power, more torque and is an altogether bigger, faster car.

Pat is missing the point. There are a lot of bigger and faster cars than the '86. People don't buy an '86 because they prioritize bigger and faster. '86 buyers prioritize smaller and more agile and then add power (F.I.) and grip (tires) if they feel the need.

The Mustang is more of a Camaro/Corvette-lite, where the '86 is more akin to a Elise/Cayman-lite. I don't see why so many auto-journalists miss this very obvious point.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by LSxJunkie

A 200lbs weight loss is MASSIVE.

Yeah, and so is a 200 lb. weight GAIN.

To lose that much weight and still have the features it currently has and comply with federal safety regulations, the car would have to shrink to the size of a BRZ. That may be what all of you clearly like, but that is not what the Mustang, as a brand, is about. It's not a small 2+2 sports car.

Well, I wouldn't say it was ever a real "sports car", but it definitely WAS a "small 2+2" from 1964-1966 and from 1974-2004. Most iterations of the Mustang were lighter-weight than the contemporary Corvette.

There was a plan to make the new one smaller and lighter, but unfortunately they decided to keep it big and heavy

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Autoweek first drive of the Ecoboost: http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...n=awdailydrive

Another interesting mention of the Twins there:

We kept thinking the whole time we were driving what this might mean for the Scion FR-S and Subaru BRZ. In four-cylinder trim and with the Performance Pack, the turbocharged Mustang could make for a strong competitor to those two sporty cars.

I guess magazines feel obligated to mention the Twins because they feel those are the most compelling coupes under $30k right now. But I don't really see the Twins and Mustang as being in the same class. Having driven a 2013 Mustang GT and 2014 Mustang V6, the Twins are much smaller, sharper and lighter. And the Mustangs are more powerful, larger and refined. Very different cars.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Yeah MT weighed their 2015 GT at 3814 lbs.

They're saying it's a 196 lb. increase from last year's similarly-equipped GT they tested.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...gt_first_test/

Hmm. then my 3705 musta been a dry weight.

[Allch Chcar]

At least the 2.3L Ecoboost(really just a turbocharged Ti-VCT Duratec) provides me more engine pron.

This is a SFW shot.

[BobDigi5060]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Another interesting mention of the Twins there:



I guess magazines feel obligated to mention the Twins because they feel those are the most compelling coupes under $30k right now. But I don't really see the Twins and Mustang as being in the same class. Having driven a 2013 Mustang GT and 2014 Mustang V6, the Twins are much smaller, sharper and lighter. And the Mustangs are more powerful, larger and refined. Very different cars.

Obviously, but these are $25,000 cars here. No way around that.

The truth is Top Gear makes a quick comparison which is unfavorable to the twins, but nobody was crying foul when the twins were coming in 1st and 2nd in this review

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by BobDigi5060

Obviously, but these are $25,000 cars here. No way around that.

The truth is Top Gear makes a quick comparison which is unfavorable to the twins, but nobody was crying foul when the twins were coming in 1st and 2nd in this review

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

I don't think it's any surprise that a 300+ hp Mustang will be faster than the Twins. The outgoing model was, and the newer one will be. No one's disputing that, and that's all the Top Gear "comparison" was saying (as far as I can tell).

But that's not why the Twins won that MT competition, or Top Gear's COTY for that matter.

As you said, people will compare them because they're both $25k coupes. But they're different as can be.