Twins vs GT 350

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by Jaden

People are getting 475 out of Ford's 2.3l turbo that was in the SVO mustang in the 80's with a single cam...It had an awesome bottom end. It will be interesting to see what the aftermarket can do with this ecoboost...

Jaden

You don't wanna hear what people are getting out of the GM 2.0 with aftermarket.

Apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

That ecoboost 4 is laughable :P

Cadillac/GM pulls 272/295 out of a 2.0.

And lets not even mention Mercedes :P

What is the cost difference between the Mercedes/Cadillac and the Ecoboost Mustang?

[abraxis]

"The new Mustang GT rips 'round the figure eight in 24.7 seconds, pulling 0.84 g average in the process. That's not only quicker than the last Mustang GT (25.0 seconds at 0.77 g average), but it's also a better performance than the last Mustang Boss 302 (24.7 seconds at 0.78 g average) we tested. Though it managed a higher average g on the figure eight than the Boss 302 -- which we'd still feel confident calling the best Mustang ever -- the 2015 Mustang didn't feel as nimble or competent as the Boss; it didn't feel like the front and rear ends were talking to each other. Turning in off-throttle resulted in moderate push (understeer from the front end), which needed to be corrected with the throttle. This, in turn, caused a bit of slushy oversteer that, while manageable, slowed the GT down a bit. While that's not bad per se, we were expecting a bit more from the new IRS-equipped Mustang.
So why isn't the new ponycar faster than the old one, or handle as well given its horsepower and torque bump and new suspension? One word: weight. The new Mustang GT weighs in at 3814 pounds, a 196-pound increase over the last similarly equipped Mustang GT we tested. While that extra weight is unnoticeable on the street, it does rear its ugly head during limit handling and performance driving.

While the Mustang GT might not have lived up to our high expectations on the track, it more than makes up for it on the street. On the road, the new Mustang GT is perhaps the most livable yet."

Hmm....not a ringing endorsement. Same time with more grip also means worse handling.

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

Crawford BRZ

"On the figure-eight, the BRZ's 23.5 second lap time at 0.78 g puts it in the same league as the Audi R8 V10 Plus, Ferrari 458 Italia, and SRT Viper"

http://wot.motortrend.com/nearly-500...on-378811.html

Guess we'll see what a GT350 does for the $$.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

What is the cost difference between the Mercedes/Cadillac and the Ecoboost Mustang?

About 32 grand for an ecoboost mustang w/ performance package.

Vs. 39 grand for an 2.0t ATS coupe.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

About 32 grand for an ecoboost mustang w/ performance package.

Vs. 39 grand for an 2.0t ATS coupe.

I like how you included the price of the performance mustang, but not the performance package ats which is 43k. Sneaky.

Either way its roughly a 10k difference between the two cars. I think you can cut the 2.3L a little slack.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I like how you included the price of the performance mustang, but not the performance package ats which is 43k. Sneaky.

Either way its roughly a 10k difference between the two cars. I think you can cut the 2.3L a little slack.

Thats to put the Ecoboost stang on par with the performance of a standard ATS coupe which comes STANDARD with big Brembo brakes and all the lil bits the ECOboost stang needs from the performance package.

[babydriver]

Originally Posted by Jaden

People are getting 475 out of Ford's 2.3l turbo that was in the SVO mustang in the 80's with a single cam...It had an awesome bottom end. It will be interesting to see what the aftermarket can do with this ecoboost...besides I thought it was 2.3l, not 2.6???

Jaden

So it is; my mistake.

[Ganthrithor]

The GT 350 looks and sounds pretty good. Can't see people cross-shopping it with the twins, though. There's really no comparing the too of them: totally different cars at totally different price points (presumably).

The new car sounds pretty cool. Way better sound than normal American V8s. The car's kind of flashy though: if I wanted to spend $60k on something that sounded batshit crazy and looked flashy, I think I'd prefer an old Ferrari.

[ducky369]

I like the looks, always thought mustangs were shitty until I watched need for speed. Then I started looking into them, the 2015s including the gt350 caught my eye. But there's really nothing to compare about. Straight lines twins lose. On a touge, idk maybe lose? Heard the new irs are so much better than the old live axle from old mustang

[phobos512]

Originally Posted by ducky369

I like the looks, always thought mustangs were shitty until I watched need for speed. Then I started looking into them, the 2015s including the gt350 caught my eye. But there's really nothing to compare about. Straight lines twins lose. On a touge, idk maybe lose? Heard the new live axel are so much better than the old irs from old mustang

WTF? Dude, the new Mustangs are IRS; all the old save the 2000ish Cobra R were live axle. Trolling?

[ducky369]

Originally Posted by phobos512

WTF? Dude, the new Mustangs are IRS; all the old save the 2000ish Cobra R were live axle. Trolling?

Yes I got it messed up. I mean it got rid of live axle and uses irs

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by phobos512

WTF? Dude, the new Mustangs are IRS; all the old save the 2000ish Cobra R were live axle. Trolling?

And the 03-04 Terminators. I think 96-98 were as well.


But those IRS versions sucked since they still used the "quadra-bind" mounting points.