2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[dkong40]

It also has god awful MPG - not a good prospect for an entry car that currently gets pretty darn good gas mileage with a lot of power.

Not sure where you're getting that from, the 274 hp twin turbo 4 in the sonata (a full size sedan) makes 22/34 city/highway. Those numbers are some of the best in its class, and very impressive for a car of any class--in comparison, kia's Rio, a much smaller car, makes only 4 mpg more with a 1.6l, 138 horse motor.

 

[ShobThaBob]

And in the RWD genesis it makes 21/30 and 17/28 with the automatic. That's also with premium fuel.

The V6 gets better MPG, more power, and on regular fuel. Not much of a comparison really.

 

[KinLM]

Looks like a Ford Fusion with a mustang badge. I don't like it.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Looks like a Ford Fusion with a mustang badge. I don't like it.

We don't even know the final design yet...

 

[KinLM]

We don't even know the final design yet...

I thought those renderings in the latest Road and Track were basically what it's going to look like..?

Front looks like a new Fusion. To me it kinda sucks they are straying away from the current design. I think they nailed it with the '13, and is the best looking Mustang since the 60's.

Matches what I've seen in the renderings. We may not know the final design but if it's anything like what those covered road models or the renderings show, I think I'd rather stick with the '13.

 

[Joey D]

It's under a giant piece of black canvas. We have no idea what it will look like until January.

 

[dkong40]

And since when is a Mustang an entry level car? At all trim/power levels insurance and cost of ownership is higher than an actual entry level car, i.e. a focus or fiesta. No one buys a mustang as a practical car. Nobody chose a v6 mustang over a v8 model because the v6 gets better mpg. People buy the models with lesser engines because they want a fun car and can't afford a v8 'Stang. 4 cylinder=lower cost to produce than 6 cylinder=lower msrp=easier to acquire for those who want a sporty car under 30k.

 

[playnthru]

Is there any conformation the V8 is being dropped entirely? It seems like a illogical move on Fords part. I understand leaning towards ecoboost 4's, but dropping the V8 entirely seems silly..

 

[CodeRedR51]

Is there any conformation the V8 is being dropped entirely? It seems like a illogical move on Fords part. I understand leaning towards ecoboost 4's, but dropping the V8 entirely seems silly..

Not sure where you got that, but no.

 

[ShobThaBob]

And since when is a Mustang an entry level car? At all trim/power levels insurance and cost of ownership is higher than an actual entry level car, i.e. a focus or fiesta.

A fully optioned out fiesta gets into Mustang territory and a fully optioned Focus gets into Mustang GT money. If you can purchase the car for around 20 grand, it's an entry level vehicle.

No one buys a mustang as a practical car. Nobody chose a v6 mustang over a v8 model because the v6 gets better mpg.

Plenty of people do because it's actually very practical. Where else are you going to get RWD, 300hp, and decent amenities for 20 grand? Answer? Not many places.

People buy the models with lesser engines because they want a fun car and can't afford a v8 'Stang.

Far from true. Plenty of people purchase the V6 premium or V6 convertible + premium. Those easily creep into GT territory.

4 cylinder=lower cost to produce than 6 cylinder=lower msrp=easier to acquire for those who want a sporty car under 30k.

What makes you say that? Honestly. You have no clue in the world how much it costs to make those engines and implying otherwise is ignorant and dumb. Don't be ignorant and dumb. There's a reason the entry level mustang had a truck engine in it instead of a Duratec for almost 2 decades. It was much cheaper to go with what was had than convert a longitudinal V6 into a RWD car and people were still buying them. Only 3 years ago the V6 in the mustang was a 4.0 with 220hp. They're not ditching the 3.7 anytime soon for American markets, especially if it means further developing a 4cyl turbo which has no guarantees of being more economical or powerful.

 

[KinLM]

It's under a giant piece of black canvas. We have no idea what it will look like until January.

Did you not read what I just posted? I said that the shape and visible details of the car under the canvas strongly match those of the renderings and that I can already tell there's features on the car I don't like by what's visible under the canvas, such as the headlights.

 

[Organ-Donor]

It's under a giant piece of black canvas. We have no idea what it will look like until January.

But the C7 Corvette renderings were pretty much spot on. Not sure how much of the car was revealed before the actual world premiere though.

 

[ShobThaBob]

But the C7 Corvette renderings were pretty much spot on. Not sure how much of the car was revealed before the actual world premiere though.

Those C7 renderings also came with a headline that said "this is not an artist impression, this is what the car will look like."

And they got it, right down to the wheel design.

 

[KinLM]

Those C7 renderings also came with a headline that said "this is not an artist impression, this is what the car will look like."

And they got it, right down to the wheel design.

Source needed, as I remember many of them NOT saying that and still being very close.

 

[playnthru]

Not sure where you got that, but no.

I was wondering really. I didn't know, thanks for the reply.👍

 

[Joey D]

Did you not read what I just posted? I said that the shape and visible details of the car under the canvas strongly match those of the renderings and that I can already tell there's features on the car I don't like by what's visible under the canvas, such as the headlights.

Camouflage is designed to change the shape of the car, there's no way you can really tell what the car will look like based on those pictures.

But the C7 Corvette renderings were pretty much spot on. Not sure how much of the car was revealed before the actual world premiere though.

I thought Jalopnik got some inside info on what the car would look like though? I seem to remember them posting CAD drawings.

 

[KinLM]

Camouflage is designed to change the shape of the car, there's no way you can really tell what the car will look like based on those pictures.

You must've not looked at the camo pictures much because there's no way in hell that you can look at them and not see the shape of the grille and lights. It's pretty obvious.

 

[Joey D]

You must've not looked at the camo pictures much because there's no way in hell that you can look at them and not see the shape of the grille and lights. It's pretty obvious.

Grill and lights, sort of, but even then you don't know what they will look like for sure. Judging the car by two small, obscured details isn't exactly giving the design a chance.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Source needed, as I remember many of them NOT saying that and still being very close.

http://jalopnik.com/5858683/exclusive-this-is-the-2014-chevy-corvette

The exclusive images you see here, derived from hours spent secretly poring over the sheetmetal of two seventh-generation Corvettes, show the next step in the supercar's iconic evolution. These aren't photos, but this is absolutely the next-generation Chevy Corvette in ZR1 trim. GM so doesn't want you to see these.

They were wrong about ZR1 trim. But that was 3 years ago.

 

[KinLM]

EDIT nevermind

 

[Tornado]

Um... the C7 renderings were leaked from one of the component manufacturers...

 

[KinLM]

Im saying (and said back there) that I remembered seeing renderings that were not leaks that were very close to how the final body shape looked, and how the same could be easily true for the Mustang even though we don't have any "official" renderings yet. This situation seems like it could be similar to those for the Corvette.

 

[Organ-Donor]

Um... the C7 renderings were leaked from one of the component manufacturers...

That's why I said I wasn't sure how much was revealed before the actual premiere.

 

[Tornado]

No one buys a mustang as a practical car. Nobody chose a v6 mustang over a v8 model because the v6 gets better mpg. People buy the models with lesser engines because they want a fun car and can't afford a v8 'Stang.

One of my Grandfather's childhood friends made a splash into Mustang territory last year. I guess it was technically his "blow his retirement money because he won't be around for that much longer" car. He bought one that was about as loaded as can be. Glass roof. Automatic. Backup camera. Touch screen display. Leather everything. Whole nine yards. Spent around 35 grand on it.




Didn't want the V8, and mostly because he wanted to be able to drive it and not worry about gas and the V6 provided more than enough power for his needs anyway.

4 cylinder=lower cost to produce than 6 cylinder=lower msrp=easier to acquire for those who want a sporty car under 30k.

The Ecoboost 4 is almost certainly a (much) more expensive engine on Ford's end than the V6.

 

[Endless-Wilso]

According to a source from Ford R&T has they say a NA 5.4L flatplane crank V8 will top out the line up with 600hp and a 7k rev limit, although apparently this is for a 2016 GT350 model.
Im not to shure on the info on the 2.3 turbo as the said it will be an option over the V6 with near 350hp. But both the 4 & 6 will be turbo'd.

 

[Tornado]

I'd think it would be a step back to go back to the 5.4 regardless of the power...

 

[KinLM]

I'd think it would be a step back to go back to the 5.4 regardless of the power...

Why would that be? As long as they keep the 5.0 and the 5.4 is a special edition (GT350 or something), I don't see much wrong with it.

 

[Tornado]

Because the Modular engine is massive, and the Coyote is a lot smaller.

And the 5.4 DOHC is considerably larger (taller mostly) than the 4.6 version.




It's why the regular SVT Cobra looked like this:

And the SVT Cobra R looked like this:

It's all aluminum now, so it's a lot better then it was, and it always had decent potential for good power without forced induction; but the engine is a truck motor in every sense of the word. And Ford is supposedly trying to make the Mustang smaller in dimensions than the current car, remember (which already has a big hood bulge to get it to fit).

 

[CodeRedR51]

According to a source from Ford R&T has they say a NA 5.4L flatplane crank V8 will top out the line up with 600hp and a 7k rev limit, although apparently this is for a 2016 GT350 model.
Im not to shure on the info on the 2.3 turbo as the said it will be an option over the V6 with near 350hp. But both the 4 & 6 will be turbo'd.

I'll believe that when I see it. Turboing the 6 would put it near the GT in power = not happening.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Because the Modular engine is massive, and the Coyote is a lot smaller.

And the 5.4 DOHC is considerably larger (taller mostly) than the 4.6 version.




It's why the regular SVT Cobra looked like this:

And the SVT Cobra R looked like this:

It's all aluminum now, so it's a lot better then it was, and it always had decent potential for good power without forced induction; but the engine is a truck motor in every sense of the word. And Ford is supposedly trying to make the Mustang smaller in dimensions than the current car, remember (which already has a big hood bulge to get it to fit).

Who said it's the old modular 5.4? I would think it's a Coyote based motor. Also, not sure how I feel about a flatplane V8 in a Mustang. It's kind of the wrong sound.