2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Badasp5.0]

I don't think they would bother with the 4-cylinder Ecoboost. The 3.7 being the standard car and the 3.5 Ecoboost and 5.0 being the next steps. The 5.0 could get an extra 10 or 20 hp, or maybe up to 450. The Ecoboost could be left alone at 365 or whatever the SHO makes. Normally the Ecoboost has premium pricing but I think demand for the 5.0 is still high enough to gouge $3,000 more out of it over the 3.5. Your price points are decent but I'd swap the 3.5 for the 2.3 because who the hell actually wants a turbo four in such a bigass car? Nobody wants that unless it's a base model, but the Ecoboost 4 is too premium to have it as a base model in the Mustang.

How is a Mustang a big ass car? If it was the same size as the Challenger I would agree but its not. I am one of the people waiting for the Turbo 4 in the Mustang. The TT 3.5 is to much to ask for to be honest the price point of that motor would put it very close if not over the 5.0 price point.

 

[CodeRedR51]

How is a Mustang a big ass car? If it was the same size as the Challenger I would agree but its not. I am one of the people waiting for the Turbo 4 in the Mustang. The TT 3.5 is to much to ask for to be honest the price point of that motor would put it very close if not over the 5.0 price point.

Not to mention this new car is supposed to be a lot smaller/lighter than the last one.

 

[Keef]

How is a Mustang a big ass car? If it was the same size as the Challenger I would agree but its not. I am one of the people waiting for the Turbo 4 in the Mustang. The TT 3.5 is to much to ask for to be honest the price point of that motor would put it very close if not over the 5.0 price point.

I drive a 91 RX7. When I'm eye-level with the door handles, it's a big ass car.

 

[Sage Ages]

I can't imagine it being too difficult honestly. The Boss motors screamed 444hp, so how hard can it be to squeeze out 6 more? If they breathed that well at 8,000-8,500 rpm, then I'm sure they can get the normal Coyote to do it. They would need to install forged internals though, and that most certainly will drive the price up on top of what they are already claiming it to go up by.

In short, they'd basically just have to take the Boss engine and dump it in and give it a better exhaust manifold.

Its an estimate. It will probably an unchanged boss motor.

 

[Badasp5.0]

I drive a 91 RX7. Everything is a bigass car to me.

LOL very true
I drive a '96 Legacy and a '95 Cobra which are small and lightweight compared to everything new too. Hell My Cobra is pretty close size and weight wise to the Genesis coupe.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

How is a Mustang a big ass car? If it was the same size as the Challenger I would agree but its not. I am one of the people waiting for the Turbo 4 in the Mustang. The TT 3.5 is to much to ask for to be honest the price point of that motor would put it very close if not over the 5.0 price point.

The current Mustang is definitely a big car. The styling makes it look much fatter, too.

 

[Badasp5.0]

The current Mustang is definitely a big car. The styling makes it look much fatter, too.

But that is unfair since EVERYTHING is bigger. I always laugh at the BMW 5 series evolution picture since its a good indicator how huge cars have become.

 

[Slash]

I think the current Mustang is one of the largest Mustangs ever built actually. Weight and size wise.

 

[Tornado]

It's pretty close to the same size and weight as the Aircraft Carrier.



Though that's 40 years of age difference, and the current Mustang isn't awful like that one, so there's that.

 

[Slash]

It's pretty close to the same size and weight as the Aircraft Carrier.



Though that's 40 years of age difference, and the current Mustang isn't awful like that one, so there's that.

Funnily enough it's actually larger than that one in size, and several hundred pounds heavier. When you compare it to the first 3 years, this thing is GIGANTIC. The 6 cylinder base model weighed right around 2,500 lbs. This current one is DOUBLE THAT!

 

[Tornado]

The current Mustang is neither larger nor any heavier than the Aircraft Carrier; nor does it weigh anywhere near twice as much as the original car. The GT500 is a little heavier (and is certainly a porker), but not several hundred pounds such over the heaviest of them.

 

[Badasp5.0]

I think the current Mustang is one of the largest Mustangs ever built actually. Weight and size wise.

Very true but compared to its contemporaries its smaller and lighter. The Camaro and Challenger are the boats. I wish we were at Fox or even SN95 weight/size.

 

[Joey D]

The 6 cylinder base model weighed right around 2,500 lbs. This current one is DOUBLE THAT!

No Mustang weighs 5,000lbs.

 

[Badasp5.0]

No Mustang weighs 5,000lbs.

Yep the GT500 Coupe is around 3900 and the 'vert is a few hundred above that.

 

[Joey D]

Yep the GT500 Coupe is around 3900 and the 'vert is a few hundred above that.

From MotorTrend on the 2013 GT500 Convertible

The convertible, which tipped our scales at 3951 pounds, is only 80 pounds heavier than the 3871-pound coupe we tested a couple of months ago. When a vehicle weighs nearly two tons and has more than 600 hp on tap, 80 pounds is basically insignificant.

Source: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...y_gt500_convertible_first_test/#ixzz2iP9Wa98h

 

[Badasp5.0]

From MotorTrend on the 2013 GT500 Convertible



Source: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...y_gt500_convertible_first_test/#ixzz2iP9Wa98h

WOW I was way off! Thanks Joey for correcting me.

 

[Slash]

The current Mustang is neither larger nor any heavier than the Aircraft Carrier; nor does it weigh anywhere near twice as much as the original car. The GT500 is a little heavier (and is certainly a porker), but not several hundred pounds such over the heaviest of them.

Let me do a comparison for you.


1964 1/2-1966 Mustang:

Wheelbase: 108"
Length: 181.6"
Width: 68.2"
Height: 51"
Curb Weight: 2,445-3,280 lbs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)
http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/muscle/mustang/f65mcont.frame

1971-1973 Mustang:

Wheelbase: 109"
Length: 187.5"
Width: 74.1"
Height: 50.1"
Curb Weight: 2,907-3,261 lbs

http://www.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-1973-ford-mustang-specifications.htm
http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/muscle/mustang/f71mcont.frame

2013 Mustang V6-GT500

Wheelbase: 107.1"
Length: 188.5"-189.4"
Width: 80.1"
Height: 55.1"
Curb Weight: 3,501-3,951 lbs

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/mustang/2013/features-specs.html

The new Mustang is EASILY 15 inches wider than the original, weighs 1,000-1,500lbs more than the original, is taller than the original, and quite a few inches longer than the original as well. The only thing it has it beat in is with the 1 inch shorter wheelbase.


Are you really going to sit there and tell me the new Mustang isn't the biggest and heaviest Mustang ever produced? The current Mustang is a 🤬 fat ass compared to it's previous brethren. Especially the Fox-New Edge era. As much as I like the current Mustang there is no doubt in my mind it needs to shrink CONSIDERABLY.

Very true but compared to its contemporaries its smaller and lighter. The Camaro and Challenger are the boats. I wish we were at Fox or even SN95 weight/size.

I agree. Fox size would be lovely. Really anything along the original specs would be FANTASTIC.

No Mustang weighs 5,000lbs.

It was quite an exaggeration

 

[Tornado]

Are you really going to sit there and tell me the new Mustang isn't the biggest and heaviest Mustang ever produced?

Yes. Because it isn't. And since the last time your thirdhand cherry-picked Mustang "knowledge" was questioned (over this exact topic, no less) you stuck your fingers in your ears and went "lalalalalala" for several pages while posting link after link of sources that outright contradicted what you were saying, I'm struggling to see the point in breaking down exactly how cherry picked your sources are (very, by the way) and how little they support your point (that is, you again posted several links that say the exact opposite of what you're claiming) because you didn't actually bother reading them; since you will continue to be just as willfully ignorant as you were in the Mustang II Cool Wall topic.

 

[Slash]

Yes. Because it isn't. And since the last time your third-hand cherry-picked Mustang "knowledge" was questioned (over this exact topic, no less) you stuck your fingers in your ears and went "lalalalalala" for several pages while posting link after link of sources that outright contradicted, I don't really see the point in breaking down exactly how cherry picked your sources are (very, by the way) and how little they support your point (that is, you again posted several links that say the exact opposite of what you're claiming) because you didn't actually bother reading them.

Listen to yourself

 

[Tornado]

Listen to yourself

How wide is the current Mustang? 74 inches. How wide does both of your links say it is? 74 inches. How wide did you claim it was? 80. Why did you claim that? Because you took the width measurement including the mirrors off of Ford's website without actually understanding why it isn't comparable because the car made in the 1970s had such stupidly wide doorsills that the mirrors fit within the width of the door.


That's one example of your typical attempt to argue facts that you don't actually grasp because you only read to the point where you saw something that might support what you are saying.

 

[Slash]

How wide is the current Mustang? 73 inches. How wide did you claim it was? 80. Why did you claim that? Because you took the width measurement including the mirrors off of Ford's website without actually understanding why it isn't comparable because the car made in the 1970s had such stupidly wide doorsills that the mirrors fit within the width of the door.


That's one example of your typical attempt to argue facts that you don't actually grasp because you only read to the point where you saw something that might support what you are saying.

Included in the doorsills? Um, how about no. Go stand up close next to one and measure it for me please.


The only part about them being wide is the actual door itself going inwards towards the interior. Otherwise your argument is laughable.


And again, even still, at 74 inches (which you are correct about the mirrors on the new one), it's still larger than the original by 6 inches. Even if it's on par with the 71, it's still bigger in just about everything else, especially weight. Off the top of my head its GIGANTIC when sitting next to a Fox, SN-95 or a New Edge. I saw that every week this past summer.

LOOK AT IT^^^^ ITS HUGE! And that's not even a new (year wise) GT500.



And look at the Fox and '65 behind this pre facelift S197.

Oh but nooooooo, it's not any bigger guys

 

[Tornado]

Included in the doorsills? Um, how about no. Go stand up close next to one and measure it for me please.

I don't need to:

The bodywork of the car very obviously extends past the width of the mirrors (almost entirely before it curves down for the actual door part, no less).

The bodywork of the current car very obviously does not.

The only part about them being wide is the actual door itself going inwards towards the interior. Otherwise your argument is laughable.

"Mustang II's actually produced 190hp from the factory" laughable?

Or "actually able to read the links you provided" laughable?

And again, even still, at 74 inches (which you are correct about the mirrors on the new one), it's still larger than the original by 6 inches. Even if it's on par with the 71, it's still bigger in just about everything else, especially weight. Off the top of my head its GIGANTIC when sitting next to a Fox, SN-95 or a New Edge. I saw that every week this past summer.

And? You claimed that it was the largest and heaviest model ever built after I said that with 40 years of advancements it was still a little bit smaller and lighter than the porkiest one (which in turn isn't that much worse than the one that preceded it), which is the assertion that I was responding to. I never said anything regarding whether it was similar in size or weight to the original (which is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, because the original 1960-desgned car is impossible to benchmark for a car being released in 2015), or the Mustang II, or the Fox, or the SN-95.

 

[Slash]

Alright, I think I see what your getting at now. Sorry for blowing this out of proportion.


As far as the whole mustang II thing considering the non HO motor of the mid 80s was an untouched exact same thing as the 70s could do it, yes I believe at possible.

 

[Omnis]

I brightened it up a bit.

If it looks like that, has IRS, and has a good interior... 🤬 I'm gettin' a Mustang.

 

[Keef]

So, we've argued our way for a page and a half just to come to the conclusion that the Mustang is, indeed, a big ass car? Yeah, there are bigger two door coupes, but that's like debating which is bigger: "big as S" or "big as F". I CANNOT SEE AROUND AN ELANTRA IN TRAFFIC.

 

[BKGlover]

Yes, the new car is heavy, but this isn't something you can just glance at and make assumptions. First thing first, safety stuff has added weight, followed by modern amenities that simply did not exist back then. I'm also willing to bet that there is a ton of open space in the engine compartment in an old mustang, as opposed to now. Also, if you put a high-end Gen 1-2 mustang on a track against any new mustang, both stock, I'd take the new one.

Looking at the current car today, then thinking back to the renders, is this actually a NEW mustang, or is it really just a mid-model refresh.

 

[Slash]

Yes, the new car is heavy, but this isn't something you can just glance at and make assumptions. First thing first, safety stuff has added weight, followed by modern amenities that simply did not exist back then. I'm also willing to bet that there is a ton of open space in the engine compartment in an old mustang, as opposed to now. Also, if you put a high-end Gen 1-2 mustang on a track against any new mustang, both stock, I'd take the new one.

Looking at the current car today, then thinking back to the renders, is this actually a NEW mustang, or is it really just a mid-model refresh.

It's supposedly an entirely new platform.

 

[Dennisch]

I would love to see a track car made by Ford. Completely stripped of anything useless, just 2 seats, a roll cage, 400-500hp and see how the weight is.

 

[Slash]

The Boss 302 came pretty close to that, but it needs more taken away from it. Would be pretty cool to see. They did pretty well with the Cobra Jet so a circuit car can't be too awful difficult.

 

[Badasp5.0]

I would love to see a track car made by Ford. Completely stripped of anything useless, just 2 seats, a roll cage, 400-500hp and see how the weight is.

Ford has been doing that for years now with the FR500 and BOSS302 race cars from the Ford Racing Catalog just like the Cobra Jet Drag cars.


FR500 cars
http://www.fordracingparts.com/mustang/HeroCard1.asp

http://www.fordracingparts.com/mustang/HeroCard2.asp

BOSS 302 race cars
http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=11545

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=11687


Cobra Jet
http://www.fordracingparts.com/cobrajet/