2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[eran0004]

I don't see any Evolution X at all.

The front looks a lot like it.

 

[Slash]

You can read my reasoning from a few pages back, but I doubt Ford will go that route. Thirty-odd years of marketing behind the GT branding doesn't really suggest that they'd throw it out the window.

Regardless, it's happened before several times. Would be nice.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

The main reason I think ford made a drastic change to the mustang is because Chvrolet made drastic changes to the Corvette and the Camaro. Because the corvette and Camaro changed all of a sudden ford didn't have enough time to thoroughly design the car so now it looks kind of bad.

 

[Joey D]

GM didn't make a drastic change to the Camaro, they gave it new tail lights and squished the front grill slightly.

 

[Slash]

The main reason I think ford made a drastic change to the mustang is because Chvrolet made drastic changes to the Corvette and the Camaro. Because the corvette and Camaro changed all of a sudden ford didn't have enough time to thoroughly design the car so now it looks kind of bad.

Ford has had plenty of time.

 

[Sage Ages]

 

[Badasp5.0]

The main reason I think ford made a drastic change to the mustang is because Chvrolet made drastic changes to the Corvette and the Camaro. Because the corvette and Camaro changed all of a sudden ford didn't have enough time to thoroughly design the car so now it looks kind of bad.

So Ford doesn't have a cycle of model changes and refreshes they just shoot from the hip when GM changes something? You can't be serious.

 

[Tornado]

The main reason I think ford made a drastic change to the mustang is because Chvrolet made drastic changes to the Corvette and the Camaro. Because the corvette and Camaro changed all of a sudden ford didn't have enough time to thoroughly design the car so now it looks kind of bad.

The Mustang was up for a complete redesign next year long before Chevrolet revived the Honda Prelude.

 

[Slash]

Black render, and a nice write up on some stuff engine related. http://blog.americanmuscle.com/ford...um=social&utm_campaign=fbpost10302013S550news

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Hmm.. that 2.xl GTDI looks more and more promising. With a chip and some breathing mods it will easily match the torque of the V8.

 

[Slash]

Hmm.. that 2.xl GTDI looks more and more promising. With a chip and some breathing mods it will easily match the torque of the V8.

Probably at a MUCH higher RPM though.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Not necessarily. Modern turbochargers start boosting at 1200-1500rpm, and by 2500 they have max torque available. It's all depending of the programming of ECU.

 

[Slash]

Not necessarily. Modern turbochargers start boosting at 1200-1500rpm, and by 2500 they have max torque available. It's all depending of the programming of ECU.

I don't think Ford would, at least stock anyway, have an I4 outpower their V8. It would piss off too many people.

Do I think it could be done? Certainly. But I don't think it would be good for a track car to have power that low in the RPM range.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

I don't think Ford would, at least stock anyway, have an I4 outpower their V8. It would piss off too many people.

Do I think it could be done? Certainly. But I don't think it would be good for a track car to have power that low in the RPM range.

First you claim that the power would be too high in the RPM and then that it would be too low in the RPM.. Make up your mind. For example, the Taurus SHO produces max torque from 1500rpm to 5000, and max HP at 5500rpm. I believe that this new 2.3l turbo will have performance curves somewhere between the Focus ST and Taurus SHO, while outrunning both on track.

 

[Slash]

First you claim that the power would be too high in the RPM and then that it would be too low in the RPM.. Make up your mind. For example, the Taurus SHO produces max torque from 1500rpm to 5000, and max HP at 5500rpm. I believe that this new 2.3l turbo will have performance curves somewhere between the Focus ST and Taurus SHO, while outrunning both on track.

It depends if it's peaky or not. If it's got a broad curve then it's not a bad thing.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Ford's Ecoboost engines have been far from peaky so far; no reason to imagine a slightly enlarged two-point-something four cylinder won't follow that trend.

I'd be really curious what sort of sales split Ford is hoping for with a three-engine lineup (not counting the potential SVT successor).

 

[Slash]

It will be interesting to see that's for sure. Though it's not like the old days, where 8+ engine options were offered haha.

 

[Keef]

Ford's Ecoboost engines have been far from peaky so far; no reason to imagine a slightly enlarged two-point-something four cylinder won't follow that trend.

I'd be really curious what sort of sales split Ford is hoping for with a three-engine lineup (not counting the potential SVT successor).

I'm betting they're well aware that the Ecoboost engine will have a smaller audience. It'd be more like a boutique option, even moreso that the turbo-4 Genesis. I think this is an example where the other two engines really capture the essence of the Mustang whereas the Ecoboost doesn't really offer anything special. In the F150 the Ecoboost engine makes tons more power and torque than the base engine while also getting noticeably better fuel economy than the big engine making it more than a compromise of the two, but actually the most efficient choice overall. I feel like the Ecoboost V6 could occupy that same position in the Mustang lineup, but seeing as they want the 4-cylinder instead, well, I just don't think it's gonna capture much interest.

If I were to save a few thousand dollars, I would take an Ecoboost V6 Mustang over the V8. But not an I4.

 

[Tornado]

In the F150 the Ecoboost engine makes tons more power and torque than the base engine while also getting roughly the same fuel economy as the big engine for much more up front cost

ftfy

 

[Slash]

Convertible spy shots with interior shots:

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1088038_2015-ford-mustang-convertible-spy-shots-with-interior







Ford applies for the "Mach 1" trademark.


Yay!

 

[YSSMAN]

Ford applies for the "Mach 1" trademark.


Yay!

Not to be "that guy," but keep in mind that automakers renew/apply for older trademarks all the time. As soon as Chevrolet did so for the Chevelle and El Camino a few months back, remember how excited everyone got?

 

[Slash]

And I totally get that, but unlike those cars there's more to the Mach 1 theory than just a renewed trademark as there have been other "leaks" for lack f a better word that people have found. Ill try and get them in the morning

 

[CodeRedR51]

Ford applies for the "Mach 1" trademark.


Yay!

I posted that like a few days ago.

 

[Slash]

I posted that like a few days ago.

Dammit, you always get me.

 

[Zenith]

I'm part of that crowd that just wishes companies would stop using 40 year old special editions. Remember how nobody gives a hoohah about the SVT Cobras because they weren't named after an irrelevant car from before the birth of 75% of its buyers? Oh wait that's completely untrue.

Name the fast version the iMustang 5.0S and move on.

 

[TheCracker]

Whilst it's design still largely follows retro clues, i see no problem in using retro names too.

Since it's a global car now, i'm crossing my fingers for the '1.6 Laser' 👍

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

I'd love to see a Mustang 2.0 GL with GLX fittings as optional extras.

 

[Slash]

I do have a soft spot for the GLX.

 

[Badasp5.0]

I don't think Ford would, at least stock anyway, have an I4 outpower their V8. It would piss off too many people.

Do I think it could be done? Certainly. But I don't think it would be good for a track car to have power that low in the RPM range.

They did it with the SVO in the '80s I don't think anyone will care to be honest they appeal to different buyers.. Also the Turbo 3.8 T/A was rated for more HP than the V8 in the '80s too.

 

[MrWednesday]

I don't think Ford would, at least stock anyway, have an I4 outpower their V8. It would piss off too many people.

They did it with the SVO in the '80s I don't think anyone will care to be honest they appeal to different buyers..

According to the specs on the Wikipedia page, the SVO never exceeded the power of the corresponding V8. In 1984, both were at 175 HP. In 1985, the SVO went up to 205 HP while the V8 went up to 210 HP. In 1986, both were at 200 HP.