Run for cover! (The Ford Mustang Thread)

[novicius]

(Continued from here (http://gtxfrefuge.freeforums.org/2015-ford-mustang-t1238.html).)

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/14q2/598276/2015-ford-mustang-23l-ecoboost-photo-598659-s-986x603.jpg

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/14q2/598276/2015-ford-mustang-23l-ecoboost-photo-598661-s-986x603.jpg

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/14q2/598276/2015-ford-mustang-23l-ecoboost-photo-598664-s-986x603.jpg

Ford Mustang EcoBoost: Driven (http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=30857)


Ford claims 310hp, 320lb ft and a US highway economy figure of 32mpg that should translate into something over 40mpg on the official NEDC test. First impressions are good: the motor fires into life with a nice hard-edged exhaust note and there's appropriately Mustang urge low down. The car we drove was fitted with the optional six-speed auto, but even working through the slush of the torque converter throttle response is decent and there's little lag. At everyday speeds, it works well.

Ask for more and the engine breaks sweat. It's been tuned to deliver best in the mid range and it starts to feel breathless well before it gets to the 6,500rpm redline and the soundtrack gains a harshness that suggests the motor isn't really appreciating the workout. There's less at the top end than the brawny low-down response has led you to expect; the Mustang is plenty fast in absolute terms - a mid-5s 0-60mph according to US magazines - but you feel a bit short-changed when you try to rev it out.
Huh, I'm surprised that it runs out of breath towards redline. :| I'd think that early EcoBoost owners are going to feel dissatisfied compared to the cheaper V6 (that is, until they re-flash the ECUs :D ).

As an aside, keep in mind that the weight of the 5.0L GT as been stated as being in the 3,750-3,800 lb. region, aka as fat as the current Camaro now. The new Camaro could end up being as much as 250-300 lbs. lighter than the new Mustang.

[Kchrpm]

Lots of mid-range, breathless at the top? Sounds like the turbo 4 in the Mazdaspeed.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Wonder if Americans are really ready to embrace a 4 cylinder Mustang. :|

[novicius]

Wonder if Americans are really ready to embrace a 400+ HP 4 cylinder Mustang. :|
FTFY. :assclown:

[21Kid]

I like it! :cool:

FiFTY?

[FaultyMario]

What happened to Dat Ass?

[Crazed_Insanity]

I really like the looks all around, but even I find a 4 cylinder Mustang kinda weird. That profile... that big bulging hood should have a big engine residing inside it... Hope it'll at least sound good. Not going to be like the turbo charged whimpy F-1 cars...

BTW, I thought it's 310HP... where did you get the 400+ from? Does it have the potential to output that much after some sort of after market mods?

[thesameguy]

Let's remember the Mustang had a four cylinder for almost twenty years before it went back to the V6/V8 only... and some of those four cylinder 'stangs were pretty awesome....

http://image.mustangandfords.com/f/16629009+w750+st0/mdmp_0902_13_z+1984_mustang_svo_hatchback+front_vi ew.jpg

...and seriously threatened their V8 brothers!

The fact that the torque > HP leads me to believe the breathing issue is tuning - boost tapering off or maybe cam selection - and quite possibly designed to make the four slot in neatly between the six and eight. The exact same thing was true of the SVO (and the XR4Ti for that matter), where they didn't want to cannibalize Mustang GT sales by having a magical 240-250hp four cylinder running around. It's certainly possible the issue is from a shitty head (also true of the Lima 2.3t) that they didn't have incentive to fix, but in 2014 I don't think that Ford has the luxury of introducing pumping losses like they did 30 years ago. ;)

I read that Ford said the weight gain was between 28 and 87lbs depending on model, so not too bad. The bump in MSRP ($1k-$3k) seems a little rough. OTOH, nobody knows exactly what an ATS-based Camaro is going to look like. The ATS is an expensive car and is built using some high end materials. The only way GM will be able to keep its weight down is by retaining those materials, so either (IMHO) the Camaro will get lighter and more expensive - or the opposite. I think it's also conceivable that Ford left themselves a route for improvement - more power, less weight, whatever - to magically produce once they see the Camaro and/or to keep the Mustang fresh for the next several years.

Personally, ATM, I like this new car, but I'm not sure I'd chose it over a '13/'14. My friend ostensibly ordered one (not sure if the four or six, definitely not the eight), so I guess I'll see...

[novicius]

825

I wonder if it's using the Compacted Graphite Iron head/cylinder walls (http://www.autonews.com/article/20140127/OEM06/301279972/ford-pickup-v-6-gets-new-twist:-a-2-piece-block) like the other EcoBoost V6's do?

[thesameguy]

400hp is sounding a little ambitious from this mill... that exhaust manifold is going to be a restriction in making big power. Still, ~350-370hp from a 2.3t is nothing to sneeze at.

[Freude am Fahren]

I'm planning on test driving the EcoBoost (hopefully back-to-back with the V6) when they are on lots. Mostly out of curiosity, but don't tell the salesman that.

By the way does anyone else want to go on a murder spree when they see dust spots on press/publication photos?

[KillerB]

I saw two of these today - one in the tunnel in Griffith Park and the other on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. Both with manufacturer plates and autojourno-looking dudes driving them.

[KillerB]

PS - I'm totally tired of people jerking it to the lame EcoBoost four-cylinder. It's breathless up top because, like almost every other modern turbo motor, it's tuned for torque off idle and minimization of lag, so they put tiny little turbos on them. The V6 was a sportier choice, but now you can't get it with the Performance Pack.

V8, all day, every day.

[novicius]

Cheaper MSRP, cheaper insurance, lower taxes overseas, slightly improved handling and slightly less weight are all benefits to the EcoBoost four. Nobody is saying it's better than the V8.

Now, better than the V6? Genuinely debatable but with no Perf Pack on the V6 Ford pretty much settles that.

[thesameguy]

... and let's be honest: The joy of the Mustang since Day 1 - with very rare exception - has not been winding it out. Nobody IRL is going to notice the Ecoboost's minor lack of breath in the last few hundred RPM, nobody. Most Mustang drivers don't even know anything exists past about 4k because, historically, nothing has for most Mustang drivers.

[novicius]

I read that Ford said the weight gain was between 28 and 87lbs depending on model, so not too bad.

The new Mustang GT weighs in at 3814 pounds, a 196-pound increase over the last similarly equipped Mustang GT we tested.
The weight gain has floored me, really. :| The Mustang is not a small car and hasn't been since the debut of the S197 but still: 3,800+ lbs. is firmly in 5th-gen Camaro territory.

Not that I'm a customer for either car -- a mod-motor'd S197 (or someone willing to take a serious loss on a first-gen Challenger R/T) will (eventually) get my money. But I fully expect the next-gen Camaro SS to A.) become lighter and more expensive, and B.) trounce the 2015+ Mustang GT.

[thesameguy]

Motor Trend is the only magazine reporting that weight gain as far as I can tell, and the only magazine that also says they didn't like the handling. IME, MT's numbers are frequently inaccurate, so until someone else says 200lbs, I'm going to have to side with Ford. Unless the IRS is made of steel (which is possible...) 200lbs seems like a huge weight gain, especially after they went to all that work to lighten it up.

I'm really uncertain about the Camara's future placement. It's already substantially more expensive than the Mustang. A loaded 2SS RS is encroaching on C7 territory. It seems nuts to me that GM would take any steps to narrow that gap... although there are rumors of the C8 going way upmarket, so who knows. Still, GM has only done one thing in the past 10 years, and that's make cars heavier. I' have little faith they are going to buck that trend any time soon. Must. Add. Sound deadening.

[KillerB]

... and let's be honest: The joy of the Mustang since Day 1 - with very rare exception - has not been winding it out. Nobody IRL is going to notice the Ecoboost's minor lack of breath in the last few hundred RPM, nobody. Most Mustang drivers don't even know anything exists past about 4k because, historically, nothing has for most Mustang drivers.

The sort of people who would order the EcoBoost + Performance Pack will. They would have been better served by the V6.

[Sad, little man]

I was reading today at work that at least the rear knuckles are aluminum in order to minimize unsprung weight. Not sure about the rest of the rear suspension.

On the way out of my office today, I saw a heavily camo-ed 2015 Shelby version (whatever they end up actually calling it) come through the intersection and pass by me as it headed back into my business park. It sounded pretty mean. This happened to be playing on my stereo...

http://vdownload.eu/watch/8091872-the-white-stripes-the-big-three-killed-my-baby-live-under-blackpool-lights.html

I had a moment. :)

[thesameguy]

The sort of people who would order the EcoBoost + Performance Pack will. They would have been better served by the V6.

That's definitely one opinion. The 2.3t has more grunt sooner than the V6 could even think about. 320lb ft at 2000 rpm is clearly better than 280lb at 4350rpm. Maybe it's just my bias, but I wouldn't have ever considered a V6, but the 2.3t for me is a real alternative to the V8. The additional tuning ease certainly doesn't hurt, either, and it's quite reasonable to believe (based on reports), the "tapering output" is solvable with software. It certainly has been in Saabs and Volvos.

[TheBenior]

Lots of mid-range, breathless at the top? Sounds like the turbo 4 in the Mazdaspeed.
Judging by the only dyno chart I've seen which is from Motor Trend (http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_ecoboost_23_first_test/75142172+w644/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-dyno-graph.jpg) (not the most credible source for figures, I know), the 2.3 Ecoboost seems to run out of steam at high rpm at a pretty noticeable rate. However, judging by my experience with a 2.3L engine with a medium/small twin scroll turbo, I'm guessing that it could be mitigated effectively with intake/exhaust mods and a reflash. Hopefully, exhaust mods for the 2.3L Ecoboost will be cheaper than on the GT, since it's only got one bank of cylinders and turbo cars don't need mufflers.

Ecoboost Mustang:
http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_ecoboost_23_first_test/75142172+w644/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-dyno-graph.jpg

Stock MS3:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10698397_10154574566475696_343919203016686721_n.jp g?oh=9ab45df7210ea1e9658fc8b552beb4fe&oe=548D22FD&__gda__=1422726594_c40d3d3d779dd71f6d9877907fddba7 3

MS3 with off the shelf Cobb AP 93 octane map, catted turboback exhaust, intake/turbo inlet, but the same old K04 turbo:
https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/29082_10150191587215696_1603961_n.jpg?oh=044af5a54 153224cc1d95f6012a0af11&oe=54C3A298

[Godson]

50 whp is no joke

[thesameguy]

BOOST 4 EVA.

[The359]

https://twitter.com/RoadandTrack/status/512298603986309120/photo/1

Apparently the EcoBoost is using an artifical sound generator out of the stereo. Also, if you replace the headunit with an aftermarket stereo, you lose the sound generator.

[Yw-slayer]

It's OK, BMW are doing it, so it's Euro, AMIRITE

[The359]

It apparently only exists on the EcoBoost. No sound generators ont he V6 or V8.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Interesting... Maybe F-1 cars should also consider sound generators for their current eco boost engines...

[thesameguy]

Buddy's '15 2.3t was built on the 29th, and should be delivered in a week or so... Am exite.

[Random]

3700+lbs for a GT 6-speed w/ Performance package and not very much gas:
http://vorshlag.smugmug.com/Projects/Vorshlag-2015-Mustang-Build/i-59J65qh/0/X3/DSC_4878-X3.jpg

[SkylineObsession]

Buddy's '15 2.3t was built on the 29th, and should be delivered in a week or so... Am exite.

Need pics and videos. Burnout mode also needs to be tested on video.

Thank you for your co-operation.

[thesameguy]

He had the dates wrong, sadly. It was built on the 29th, VIN'd two weeks ago, and is on a truck now. Should be a week or two from now.

[novicius]

3700+lbs for a GT 6-speed w/ Performance package and not very much gas:
http://vorshlag.smugmug.com/Projects/Vorshlag-2015-Mustang-Build/i-59J65qh/0/X3/DSC_4878-X3.jpg
So fully optioned with the spare tire, jack and a full tank of gas, it's not impossible that it could hit 3,814 lbs. like Motor Trend stated.

[thesameguy]

What is the trunk junk? Does the Mustang actually even have a spare tire? I didn't think anything did anymore (or a jack). Maybe as optional equipment? Our rental '14 had a pump.

[Random]

Trunk junk:


This weight is with the "Trunk Junk" (TM) removed, which includes the floormats, trunk mat, and the emergency tire inflation kit.

That stuff came in at 13 pounds, and there's likely another 15-20 pounds in the trunk mounted sub-woofer. It is removable but they asked me NOT to take it out, since this car is their very first 2015 and going right on the showroom today.

[novicius]

Huh, guess MT was lying like TSG said. :twitch:

[thesameguy]

IME, MT never gets their numbers right. I don't know why - I don't know if they have bad tools or an agenda, but they just can't be trusted. My first (embarrassing) exposure to this was in the '80s when they reported an '88 Saab 900T convertible had a 7 second 0-60, almost a full second quicker than the lighter and legitimately faster '87 SPG - both their own numbers. Today I actually don't remember what the 0-60 on these cars were, but there is no way a convertible is faster than a -400lb +15hp SPG. Ever since then, I've taken their reports with a grain of salt.

[Random]

15 gallons of gas is ~90 lbs, for what that's worth.

[Kchrpm]

Why would they lie? I think it's far more likely that they just have some option package that makes it heavier than the people at Motor Trend said "3718 lbs? That's not a story! MAKE IT 3814!!!!!"

I can't find out what Motor Trend's specific weight technique is, but just for example the tank holds sixteen gallons of gas, which would weigh about 96 lbs. 13 lbs of trunk junk, plus about 4/5ths of that 96 lbs will get you pretty damn close to that extra 96 lbs between MT's number and picture above.

[21Kid]

maybe they used metric pounds.




:assclown:

[novicius]

Huh, guess MT was telling the truth like I said. :twitch:
Fixed? :rolleyes:

[Kchrpm]

IME, MT never gets their numbers right. I don't know why - I don't know if they have bad tools or an agenda, but they just can't be trusted. My first (embarrassing) exposure to this was in the '80s when they reported an '88 Saab 900T convertible had a 7 second 0-60, almost a full second quicker than the lighter and legitimately faster '87 SPG - both their own numbers. Today I actually don't remember what the 0-60 on these cars were, but there is no way a convertible is faster than a -400lb +15hp SPG. Ever since then, I've taken their reports with a grain of salt.
Easy answer: Saab sent them a model with the BOOOOOOOOST turned up.

[KillerB]

I feel like the narrowing weight difference between the three modern muscle cars is going to have the Challenger be much more competitive performance wise.

At this point you're looking at the Scat Pack 6.4L having a good 50 more hp than the GT and only about an extra 250 lbs to haul around.

[Kchrpm]

If the Camaro loses a few hundred pounds as is rumored, and gets something like the C7's LT1, that will open things back up.

[novicius]

Exactly. As long as Mark Stielow (http://www.lateral-g.net/bio/stielow/) is in charge of Camaro, Challenger & Mustang will be battling for second place.

[KillerB]

I'll believe it when I see it. I want to see a lighter Camaro for sure, and the ATS specs make it promising, but until we know for sure, I'll stick with comparing what's out there to vaporware.

[novicius]

See it? You can see it now in the Z/28 -- there isn't any Mustang or Challenger that'll lap a road course as fast right now.

[KillerB]

Oh, you mean the $75,000 Camaro? :lol: Because performance comparisons between that track slut and the under $50,000 versions of these cars are SO relevant. :rolleyes:

I'm talking Mustang GT vs. Camaro SS vs. Challenger Scat Pack. You know, the ones people actually buy. The Challenger has been at a price/performance disadvantage to the other two, due to being quite a bit heavier than the Mustang and only offering the 6.1L/6.4L in the most expensive loaded SRT variants. Now, the Mustang has gained a few hundred pounds and you can now get the 6.4L in a Challenger under $39,000. The Mustang will still be better value for money if you want the go-fast goodies and absolutely nothing else - though once comparably equipped, all three cars sticker within a few grand of each other.

[novicius]

I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't see a trim level restriction in this challenge. :p

[Kchrpm]

Unfortunately the Z28's accomplishments are not like the C6 ZR1's: whereas the aluminum frame for the ZR1 no doubt was a stepping stone on the way to the C7s, the Z28's upgrades over stock do not seem to be things that can trickle down.

[novicius]

I feel like the narrowing weight difference between the three modern muscle cars is going to have the Challenger be much more competitive performance wise.

If the Camaro loses a few hundred pounds as is rumored, and gets something like the C7's LT1, that will open things back up.
Between these two statements, I agree with Kch, that's all I'm saying. I am very pro-Hellcat but I would never claim that it's faster than the Z/28 or ZL1 anywhere except at stoplights or a dragstrip. #shrug

[novicius]

Unfortunately the Z28's accomplishments are not like the C6 ZR1's: whereas the aluminum frame for the ZR1 no doubt was a stepping stone on the way to the C7s, the Z28's upgrades over stock do not seem to be things that can trickle down.
The Camaro SS 1LE benefits from the Camaro ZL1's drivetrain, suspension bits and tires, so the trickle-down is currently occurring between other models. I find it very hard to believe that no engineering from the Z/28 finds its way into the 2016 Camaro.

[Kchrpm]

What are the suspension benefits, though? I haven't seen them specified. If it's more expensive shocks and a strut frame brace, that's not necessarily anything that's going to change things on a base model.

[novicius]

For the love of the Baby Jesus, fellas, pick your range of discussion with more accuracy, ffs. :rolleyes:

No, the base model Camaro is obviously not going to get any bolt-on goodies. But a lighter unibody and better aero benefits the entire line. Would that qualify as "trickle down" enough since ZL1-to-1LE doesn't seem to count?

[Kchrpm]

You're switching up the discussion on us.

KB is saying that he will wait and see if the new platform actually leads to a significant weight loss across the entire line. That is the assumption, but there's no proof yet.

I am saying that there don't seem to be "lessons learned" from the Z28 or ZL1 that are more than just expensive new features that will result in new option packages.

If the 1LE was faster because they figured out a better suspension geometry or a new manufacturing process that could then be brought into all the new models, that's what I consider trickle down. Just bolting on more expensive components, and charging more money for them, isn't really trickle down, IMO. The new hood leads to better aero, but will that hood become standard on all the vehicles or is still just going to be another option?

My comparison to the ZR1 and C7 was because the ZR1 introduced an aluminum frame in a $100k+ model, and now the $55k+ model is using an aluminum frame. Raiding your performance parts catalog is not the same as making wholesale improvements to the platform.

But I honestly simply don't know if there were any other refinements in the ZL1/Z28/1LE besides that type of stuff. I would be very glad to hear that there is.

[KillerB]

Yes, this. All I've said is the following:

- The Challenger has, so far, been lagging behind the Mustang and Camaro at comparable sticker prices. Now that the Mustang has lost most of its weight advantage, and the 6.4L is available in less expensive models of the Challenger, all I am saying is that I think the Challenger will be more competitive with the other two cars on a performance basis, trim-to-trim. The Z/28 is irrelevant to this discussion as it's 25% more expensive than even the Hellcat, and clearly a completely different sort of vehicle. The Hellcat is clearly meant to compete with the ZL1 and whatever replaces the Shelby GT500, and most importantly (in the market and to my point), Dodge now offers a mainstream variant of the Challenger with *the potential* to have comparable performance to the Camaro SS and Mustang GT, though there have yet to be any instrumented comparison tests between either the standard V8 versions or the supercharged V8 cars.
- I'm not including the next Camaro since other than the fact that we've been told that it will share a platform with the ATS, we don't know a damn thing about it. I'm hoping it comes in near the ATS in curb weight, but once you add all the stouter bits required once you start throwing 400 hp under the hood and the expectation that it will be driven harder, 3,400+ lbs has a way of turning into 3,500... 3,600... etc. I hope I'm wrong but it's basically irrelevant to the discussion.

[novicius]

You're switching up the discussion on us.
Bullshit -- you guys have been adding criteria to your original statements all day. :lol:

This is all I'm replying to:


I feel like the narrowing weight difference between the three modern muscle cars is going to have the Challenger be much more competitive performance wise.

If the Camaro loses a few hundred pounds as is rumored, and gets something like the C7's LT1, that will open things back up.
I agree to your original statement only, Keith. All other trim level complaints and a moving target for what qualifies as "trickle down tech" I am ignoring. :finger:

Have a nice day. :)

[Kchrpm]

The trickle-down minutiae was in response to "well what if the Camaro doesn't lose hundreds of pounds just from switching platforms." If the ATS platform doesn't by its nature introduce major weight losses, there is nothing in the ZL1/Z28/1LE packages that make me think they have found ways to lose weight or improve performance "naturally" (that is to say, without go-fast parts which will just be sold as part of a package).

The only criteria I added to my statement was to admit that none of us really knows if using the ATS platform will make the car lighter/heavier/cheaper. Going from that point, do we think the Camaro team has used the extra development time afforded to them to work on the performance models to find anything that will improve the platform, not just the package.

Of course they could prove me wrong and start putting carbon fiber body panels on a $30k V8 car.

Not that it really matters much, I honestly don't think there is a significant number of people that look at lap times before choosing which pony car they want.

[TheBenior]

Not that it really matters much, I honestly don't think there is a significant number of people that look at lap times before choosing which pony car they want.
I'm pretty sure that styling and horsepower are the most important criteria for pony car buyers.

Handling feel, lap times, and even acceleration times are probably all way down on the list for the average buyer.

[Jason]

^ basically...

I like the Challenger best, even though it's not nearly the all around car that the Mustang and Camaro are, simply due to styling.

[thesameguy]

Out of the current crop, I do as well.

But of all of them, the '13-'14 GTPP tickles my fancy. And other bits.

[Kchrpm]

Out of the three of them, on the used market, I picked a Mazdaspeed 3 :-/

Not that I don't regret it sometimes, but as much as I wanted a Camaro, I'm also super paranoid about not being able to see around me.

[novicius]

The only criteria I added to my statement
Which is fine -- but don't blame me for not being a mind-reader.


Not that it really matters much, I honestly don't think there is a significant number of people that look at lap times before choosing which pony car they want.
Another generalized statement you've made that I fully agree with -- stop "correcting" me for agreeing with something you wrote. :angry:

[Kchrpm]

Where was I correcting you? I'm so confused, Carlo, so very confused :( :D

And sorry if it wasn't clear that I was continuing the point that KB made about wanting to see a lighter Camaro before we discuss it as a given, and your response that the Z28 shows us what we need to see.

[novicius]

...but the Z/28 is lighter, that's not vaporware. :? Production numbers are slated to be increased to 2,500 units in 2015, so we're only going to be seeing more of them.

Furthermore, while Joe wants to discount the Z/28 from this discussion due to price, he didn't state that in his original opinion -- which is why I agreed to your original counter-point, Keith.

[Kchrpm]

The Z/28 is lighter, but not because of real improvements to the platform, from what I understand. It's only lighter because they gutted the thing. Ripping out NVH gear and the sound system is fine for "because racecar" intentions, but that's not something you learn from. That doesn't improve the model line as a whole. Same for carbon fiber bodywork, unless you've figured out a way to make it that is cost-effective enough that you can make it standard.

*checks some things*

The Z/28's weight saving additions.

The weight reduction on the Z/28 is found all over the car. The wheels, for instance, save weight in their thinner spoke design. The standard rear seat foam is swapped for lighter, thinner foam, saving 42 pounds. The Recaro racing seats have to be adjusted manually, saving a lot of weight by not utilizing motorized, electronic adjustments. The rear-seat pass-through to the trunk was even eliminated, saving nine pounds. Doesn’t seem like much, but stuff like that adds up.
Camaro Z/28 engineers also went on to remove interior sound insulation, and carpeting from the trunk. But it doesn’t stop there. Even the standard LN4 battery was swapped out for a lighter LN3 unit, as was the standard 3.5 mm rear window glass for 3.2 mm glass; HID lights were removed, as were fog. And as stated above, the air-conditioning unit is not a standard feature, though it is the vehicle’s standalone option. Opting out of using Magnetic Ride Control also saved some mass.
Out of those things, maybe the wheels (depending on cost), the battery and the rear glass are translatable for non-track use. Everything else is "because racecar."

Another thing, the Z/28 actually isn't a huge weight saver. It's 300 lbs lighter than the ZL1, yeah, but that thing was a heavy sonofabitch with a supercharged engine. It's only 100 lbs lighter than the base car.

Weights from Chevrolet.com
Z/28 - 3,802 lbs
1SS - 3,908 lbs
ZL1 - 4,120 lbs

So yeah, if we're talking about balls-to-the-wall, "because racecar" models, then Chevrolet has shown they can be the most aggressive in attacking that market with a no-holds-barred product, but when it comes to the actual platform and what 99% of people will be driving, to me any large weight saving designs are not visible yet.

For now, though, it may be useful to look at the ATS Coupe, arguably the production car that is closest to what the next Camaro will be.
2.0L Turbo - 3411 lbs
3.6L - 3530 lbs
ATS-Vsport guesstimate - 3725 lbs (3.6L + CTS 3.6 vs Vsport weight difference)

If those are the numbers the Camaro can hit (with the Vsport representing the SS, I have no idea what the weight difference is between the 3.6LTT and the LT1), I think most will be satisfied.

[thesameguy]

So yeah, if we're talking about balls-to-the-wall, "because racecar" models, then Chevrolet has shown they can be the most aggressive in attacking that market with a no-holds-barred product, but when it comes to the actual platform and what 99% of people will be driving, to me any large weight saving designs are not visible yet.

Honestly, the Z/28 isn't that aggressive. The Cobra R - now *that* was aggressive. The Z/28 was the limit of what GM felt they could do and still have a broadly marketable car. Nothing in that weight savings plan was "because racecar" any more than it was "because cost savings." Seriously - all those things they did were just things you'd ordinarily find on a lower-end car to start with. It's not +carbon fiber, +aluminum, or +magnesium.

The thing with GM in general over the past decade or so is that they are universally balls to the wall with insulation. People - somewhat naturally - associate quiet with well-built, and I think GM's bent towards adding mountains of sound deadening is to give their cars the appearance of quality. I'm not saying they're not a quality product, but whereas I put value in performance, dynamics, fuel economy, and other broadly mechanical attributes my mom puts value in "I can't hear the engine - AMAZEBALLS!" GM knows who the average car buyer is. It's not me, it's my mom. And to that end all the stuff they do in the Camaro to make it "quality" also makes it heavy. Or, rather, heavier. The Z/28 they just backed down on their normal MO to try and earn some of that back. Still, even with "2014 bare bones" attributes it's a 3,800lb car - its guts are inherently heavy. Stripped down it weighs as much as a loaded GT.



For now, though, it may be useful to look at the ATS Coupe, arguably the production car that is closest to what the next Camaro will be.
2.0L Turbo - 3411 lbs
3.6L - 3530 lbs
ATS-Vsport guesstimate - 3725 lbs (3.6L + CTS 3.6 vs Vsport weight difference)

According to the nice people on the Fiero forum the LT1 weighs 500lbs, or 130lbs more than the 3.6 DI motor. That puts the Camaro at 3700lbs with an LT1, assuming it retains both the relative size and special materials the ATS gets, and nothing (like the diff or transmission) is beefed up to deal with more power. I have doubts about that, but even still that puts the "manufacturer specified weight" of the Camaro LT1 and Mustang GT on extremely equal footing.

[novicius]

The Z/28 is lighter.
As I said. :assclown:

[Kchrpm]

I do not know if the NVH in the Z/28 is closer to a cheaper car or a racecar, but I will say that I don't believe for a second that those parts were removed for cost savings. A C6 Z06 had the same motor as the Camaro, presumably a similar drivetrain, plus all of the creature comforts one would expect, and cost about the same if not less.

[thesameguy]

I'm not suggesting that the motivation in changing those things was a cost savings, only pointing out that "less foam, thinner glass, and manual seats" are, in fact, things which are cheaper to produce than "more foam, thicker glass, and power seats" and typically found on less expensive cars as a result.

[novicius]

Seriously - all those things they did were just things you'd ordinarily find on a lower-end car to start with.
Hell, the option list is quite acceptable for a moonshine-runner/track car (http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-z28-track-car/specs/options.html).

[KillerB]

All I said was that the Challenger might be more competitive with the group as a whole.

Carlo, I think you are conflating my question here with the question I posed on Facebook - and in any event, I was thinking of the 1LE when I said Z/28 there. I most definitely wasn't intending to talk about a $75k track rat but instead the GM equivalent of the Boss, which I personally think the 1LE more accurately represents.

Anyway, back to my point; in a world where the cars have the following specs:

Mustang GT - 435 hp/3705 lbs
Camaro SS - 426 hp/3908 lbs
Challenger Scat Pack - 485 hp/4160 lbs

That the Challenger may be competitive, performance-wise, than it has been.

[thesameguy]

I guess it is, and again I'm not suggesting it isn't. But you do get an undeniably noisier cars with manual seats and whathaveyou and it's still not lighter than a GT without those compromises.

Really, though, I'm just so unimpressed and/or uninspired by the Camaro in general I find it hard to be enthusiastic about anything it does. I don't know what I was expecting exactly what the revival was originally announced, but its debut followed by a test drive of the 2SS my coworker had preordered and subsequently cancelled left me feeling really meh (him too, obviously). I find the Challenger to be infinitely more inspiring, even if it's a little less effective and the Mustang is significantly better looking and tangibly cheaper. The Camaro could be and might continue to be the legitimately best car, but being the heaviest car with the biggest engine and the heftiest price tag, what else would you expect?

[thesameguy]

Just for fun...


Mustang GT - 435 hp/3705 lbs (GT Premium = $36.9k base)
Camaro SS - 426 hp/3908 lbs (2SS = $37.3k base)
Challenger Scat Pack - 485 hp/4160 lbs (=$38.5k base)

[novicius]

I most definitely wasn't intending to talk about a $75k track rat but instead the GM equivalent of the Boss, which I personally think the 1LE more accurately represents.
All of which is perfectly fine, Joe, and I love that discussion, too -- but your original comment was open-ended, for which the Z/28 is a suitable example, that's all I was stating.

[novicius]

Mustang GT - 435 hp/3705 lbs
Camaro SS - 426 hp/3908 lbs
Challenger Scat Pack - 485 hp/4160 lbs
Apple pie. :up: :up:

Because I'm old, poor and slow, I'm also keenly interested in reading up how the V6's/Ecoboost will compare, as well as the Ecoboost Perf Pack vs. BRZ/etc.

[thesameguy]

Raises a question - does the Ecotec SIDI even grow past 2.0l? There are non-boosted versions, but to date the boosted ones max out at 2.0l and cannot realistically make more than 350hp before there is DANGER TO INTAKE MANIFOLD. The Ecoboost was designed to grow to 2.5l from the ground up, hence a 2.3l boosted version in the Mustang. I don't know what GM plans to put in the midrange Camaro - maybe it's two V6s and a V8? Related, Dodge doesn't even really have a worthwhile small engine - not that you'd even want to consider such a thing in the Challenger.

[Kchrpm]

When you're on the build your own page for the Mustang, there is no mention of the horsepower ratings for the different engines, even if you go to the Compare Models page. Odd.

I wouldn't be surprised if the midrange Camaro will be the V6, and the base will be the turbo 4. ~275 hp from the 4, ~325 from the 6, ~425 from the V8.

However, I also wouldn't be surprised if they just made a new engine for the Camaro (and future applications where they're trying to replace a 300 hp V6).

[KillerB]

I can't remember the last time I've seen a Challenger SE/SXT that didn't have a rental barcode, so I'm not really convinced the car needs a turbo-4.

[Kchrpm]

Neither am I, but that's what the kids want!!!111 turbo fuel mileage chip and tune etc

[novicius]

According to reports, it is also 100 lbs. lighter off of the nose (http://autoweek.com/article/car-reviews/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-first-drive) (3,550ish lbs. overall (http://www.windingroad.com/articles/reviews/wr-tv-2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-23l-performance-package-pov-test-drive/)). #don'ttrustjournos

[thesameguy]

I don't have twitter, but I'd follow that. 3550 seems ambitious. ;)

[KillerB]

3523 lbs is what Ford's site says... that's base curb weight.

[LHutton]

Will the Shelby GT500 version do 200mph and is it coming to Europe?

[drew]

I need to find someone with a family Ford thing...

I have a connection with Jeep/Chrysler/Dodge, but....

I'd drive a '15 GT in a heartbeat.

[The359]

Saw a 15 in the wild yesterday. Not a fan of how big that ass is.

[Sad, little man]

I need to find someone with a family Ford thing...

I have a connection with Jeep/Chrysler/Dodge, but....

I'd drive a '15 GT in a heartbeat.

Are you asking me to marry you?

[Sad, little man]

Also, I don't believe that there will be any super insane-o high power version of this Mustang, at least from Ford. Everything I've heard is that we're just going to back off with the massive power and make the special edition an all around capable track car.

I have to say, it kind of makes sense. I mean, what would we do, make something with 750hp to come back at Chrysler with? I mean, there's a fine line between winning the dick swinging contest and having one that's so big you start tripping over it.

[Freude am Fahren]

Saw a couple '15's in Austin. Back end if ugly as fuck.

[Godson]

I say let them trip...







But give me a track oriented one also.

[thesameguy]

Friend's Ecoboost was delivered and is in his possession. I expect hooning this weekend.

[Sad, little man]

I'm surprised at all the hatred towards the back end. As soon as I saw the first photos (which was earlier than all of you did :finger: ) I immediately loved the cool fastback look it had. I still like it, even in the flesh.

And for the record, I hated the previous generation's back end, so I'd like to claim that this is not employee bias.

[Freude am Fahren]

I'm talking about the rear fascia. That body color bit is hideous, and the lines of the bumper, are strange. Kinda reminds me of a girl with no ass in jeans.

[Biggdogg]

I test drove a base 5.0 with performance pack. I have decided on an oxford white 5.0 premium with performance pack and redline recaro seats. The premium seats are really nice, but the BRZ has seats I absolutely love and they hold you in, the premium ones in the mustang were just too plushy and not enough bolstering. The base interior was kinda crappy. Looked really cheap, but the premium interior is fantastic. I actually think it looks, and feels better than my best friends girlfriend's S5. What I didnt like, and I am probably in the majority, but I think it is too refined. The BRZ is a bit bumpy, but comfortable. The mustang is just very smooth, and you look down and your nearing triple digits. I didnt cane the nuts off of it but it is extremely fast, and feels damn solid out the back road. Coming from a BRZ its just improbable to think. I couldnt test it properly because it was wet out so no hard cornering, but I loved it. I am holding off until the GT350 is released Monday and some pricing is released on it, but if it is out of the price range, and with the rumor of a 5.2 flat plane crank pushing mid 500 horsepower i think it is, I will be putting the BRZ up for sale and ordering my mustang within the next couple months.

As for the rear end, I prefer the 13-14 rear end. I think its the tail lights. I just think it looks more modern.

[Kchrpm]

Daddy like.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/11/17/ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-official-photos/

5.2 liter V8 with a flat plane crankshaft, 500+ hp, 400+ lbs*ft, MagneRide dampers, and some nice styling changes.

http://images.thecarconnection.com/hug/ford-mustang_100489861_h.jpg

[drew]

boner

[LHutton]

Ssswwwing!

[novicius]

Looks damn good -- but it's also getting ZL1-spec suspension, not Z/28-level suspension. Maybe Ford engineers didn't need custom-built spool valve dampers and their new MagneRide is dynamic enough? The Shelby should weigh 200+ lbs. less than the Z/28. Also-also, I'm not a fan of all the optional bits (optional engine oil cooler, optional transmission cooler, optional strut tower brace, optional Recaro seats, etc.), I'd rather they were just standard. Oh well, I'm not buying one so that's pretty minor. :D

The power figures put it right at Z/28 level (505 HP, 481 ft-lb.), which is excellent. My expectation is the price tag will also be similar to the top dog Camaro's.


Aluminum wheels – 19-inches in diameter and measuring 10.5 inches wide in front and 11.0 inches at the rear – will be shod in a custom set of Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires, and two-piece, cross-drilled rotors with Brembo six-piston calipers in front and four-piston in the rear, round out the rolling stock quite nicely.
10.5" front rims should match the Z/28's front 305/30ZR19s -- the question will really be: are the Michelins up to the task of matching the Pirelli Trofeo R's on the Z? Looking at the tread of both tires, the Trofeo R's look like 1/2 summer street tires, 1/2 race slicks whereas the Pilot Super Sports look like typical street tires...

[thesameguy]

I'm not so sure this is going to be as expensive as you think it is... nor are PSSs as bad. ;)

[novicius]

I say $69,999.99 USD base MSRP. What say you? :)

[thesameguy]

I think they will keep it under $60k. Maybe $60k on the nose. The outgoing GT500 was $55k - I don't see the GT350 going for much more. If all the optional stuff was standard, I'd go higher - but I think they're going to want to keep it at $60k and have a catalog plenty big to get it over $70k. I'm pretty sure they'll also leave room for the inevitable supercharged GT500, which will probably be another $20k.

[novicius]

:up:

EDIT: In April 2000, the 2000 Ford Mustang Cobra R was released with an MSRP of $54,995 -- running it through an Inflation Calculator (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/), that comes out to $76,019.25 USD in 2014. ;)

[thesameguy]

Yeah, but that was kind of a different car - a pure race car and sold in very limited quantities to boot. I doubt that will be the case with the GT350 which is truly just a trim level. Plus, inflation price checkers really don't work on cars anyway. If they did, a Honda Accord would be $40k ($19.5k in '87) in 2014 and a Saab 9-3 would be $65k ($32k in '88). Cars have in general gotten better and cheaper for the past 15-20 years.

(Side note: I went to check how inflation affected Model Ts and that when I learned that the wood scraps left over from making T parts were turned into charcoal. Originally Ford charcoal, but very quickly rebranded as Kingsford. Fun trivia! OTOH, Model T prices were so all over the map on their 20 year run inflation adjustments don't work on them, either ;) )

[novicius]

Ok. :)

(The 2008-2009 Ford Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500KR MSRP started at $79,995 USD.)

[21Kid]

Very nice. :cool: :up:

[thesameguy]

(The 2008-2009 Ford Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500KR MSRP started at $79,995 USD.)

I expect we're going to see another one of those, too - I just don't think the GT350 is it. It's good (maybe great?), it's neat, but it's not a GT500KR. I think there is going to be a step above the GT350, and if the GT350 is $70k that doesn't leave a lot of room for More Mustang.

[novicius]

Ok. :)

[thesameguy]

Forgot my link -

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-spy-photos-news

GT350 = Boss 302 ($50k, 2013)
GT500 = GT500 ($55k, 2013)

[Phil_SS]

"The more agile GT350, on the other hand, will get a naturally aspirated V-8 with—look out, Ferrari—a flat-plane crankshaft. This so-called “Voodoo” engine will be a modified iteration of the regular Mustang GT’s 5.0-liter Coyote mill, and it should rev to at least 8000 rpm and pump out 550 Z/28–slaying horsepower."


http://youtu.be/jYj7T9eEQ4U

We live in phenomenal time.

[Godson]

I love it.

[KillerB]

Shit, now I'm going to actually have a choice to make instead of HellcatHellcatHellcat!

I'd also guess this will be more than the Boss 302 but less than the Z/28. I'm going to guess about $60k. On the other hand, this engine doesn't sound cheap to build.

[thesameguy]

The idea of choosing between a Hellcat and the GT350 might even be beyond the pale for my schizo car shopping. One is literally built for the road course and the other the dragstrip. GT500 vs. Hellcat, sure, I'll buy that - but if it's a track car you want the only decision point would have to be Z28 or GT350. (And obviously the right answer is the GT350, because as much as I don't like the new Mustang's styling the new Camaro is and always has been ugly).

[novicius]

Yep, this thing sounds the business. (http://kinja.roadandtrack.com/shelby-gt350s-flat-crank-v8-sounds-wicked-even-in-crap-1659843822?rev=1416264638688&src=spr_FBPAGE&spr_id=1459_112868073) :sing:

[Freude am Fahren]

:drool: That sing will sound awesome at full song.

[novicius]

The 2016 Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 has an 8200 RPM redline. (http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/national-auto-shows/losangeles/2015-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-redline?src=soc_fcbks)

http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roadandtrack/images/eZ/ShelbyGT350_14_HR.jpg

[Sad, little man]

They benchmarked the Ferrari California as an NVH target, as it was the only other front-engined vehicle with a flat-plane crank V8

So that's what the Ferrari California was doing in the company fleet database. I was wondering why on earth Ford would need something that exotic in our company fleet.

[thesameguy]

What's good about an 8200rpm redline is fucking everything.

[KillerB]

The idea of choosing between a Hellcat and the GT350 might even be beyond the pale for my schizo car shopping. One is literally built for the road course and the other the dragstrip. GT500 vs. Hellcat, sure, I'll buy that - but if it's a track car you want the only decision point would have to be Z28 or GT350. (And obviously the right answer is the GT350, because as much as I don't like the new Mustang's styling the new Camaro is and always has been ugly).

Hey, I can like both! Remember, I ended up with my Challenger by starting off shopping for a Boss 302. :lol: I like what I like... and I like 707 hp... and I also like 8200 RPM.

The sound track in that camera phone video is delicious.

[Random]

You want the built FE big block that is in Bruce Cambern's 427 Cobra (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hedlRC4-Y1Q). :D 800+hp, 8000rpm+ redline.

[Biggdogg]

I dont think the price of this thing will be as bad as some are thinking. I am thinking 49,999. Interviewing the top dogs at ford they have said that affordability was one of their main concerns, its why carbon ceramics are not on it. If this thing is between 50-55k it will be my next car. It will be out next fall, but pricing wont be released until closer to the date.

[thesameguy]

Another video with much higher quality audio -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ruc1pBkOLN8

[Godson]

Definite fappage quality sound.

[tigeraid]

I have never, ever given a shit about a Mustang.

I do now.

[Yw-slayer]

So that's what the Ferrari California was doing in the company fleet database. I was wondering why on earth Ford would need something that exotic in our company fleet.

My friend has an R8 as his company car.

[Sad, little man]

Yeah, but this was in the company test fleet, not something that would be driven by employees as their own car. I was wondering why we would need a Ferrari to test on. It just didn't seem like we would have any need for something that exotic to compare our cars to.

[The359]

Isn't there a new Ford GT coming? Granted, it wouldn't be competing with the California, but still.

[Yw-slayer]

Benchmark yourself against DA BEST, bro.

[LHutton]

http://galpinrocket.com/

http://galpinrocket.com/pdf/Fisker_Rocket_Mustang_Card.pdf


VEHICLE SPECS

Handmade carbon-fiber body constructed by Metalcrafters,
Inc.725 hp V8 Engine
15-inch Brembo Gran Turismo Brakes
Custom Silver “Éminence Grise” Body Color
21-inch ADV.1 Wheels w/Pirelli P-Zero Tires
Front/Rear Fully-Adjustable Ind. Suspension
Hexagonal Carbon Fiber GrillIntegrated Rear Spoiler
Custom Sculptured Flared Fenders • Front Splitter
Enlarged Rear Diffuser
Polished Carbon Fiber Aero Skirts

http://image.mustangandfords.com/f/84409800+w620+re0/galpin-fisker-rocket-front-three-quarter-2.jpg

[novicius]

Ugh, fuck that ugly fucking Galpin Mustang. :down:

[Random]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/North_American_F-100D_060922-F-1234S-002.jpg/800px-North_American_F-100D_060922-F-1234S-002.jpg

:D

[novicius]

:lol:

[thesameguy]

Jesus, who thought that was a good idea?

[Yw-slayer]

I think it looks good.

[Fast As Possible]

http://galpinrocket.com/

http://galpinrocket.com/pdf/Fisker_Rocket_Mustang_Card.pdf



http://image.mustangandfords.com/f/84409800+w620+re0/galpin-fisker-rocket-front-three-quarter-2.jpg
http://gaygamer.net/images/thundercougar.jpg

[Sad, little man]

You know, the grill could just as easily be a cooling necessity as it is a styling decision. I'm you look closely at the most recent GT500, you'll notice that there is absolutely no mesh type protection in front of the radiator in most areas. As in, a golf ball sized rock could fly right in and hit your radiator. As far as I can tell, this was the only way to get enough air into the engine. 700+ horses are a lot to keep cool.

[novicius]

I expect we're going to see another one of those, too - I just don't think the GT350 is it. It's good (maybe great?), it's neat, but it's not a GT500KR. I think there is going to be a step above the GT350, and if the GT350 is $70k that doesn't leave a lot of room for More Mustang.
Your info was correct! :up: :up:

Rumor: 2016 Mustang Shelby GT350 Starts at $53,000, Even Sportier Model Coming Soon (http://blog.caranddriver.com/rumor-2016-mustang-shelby-gt350-starts-at-53000-even-sportier-model-coming-soon/)


That pricing would line up with another rumor that Horsepower Kings mentions, namely that Ford is building a more track-focused GT350R with better brakes, tires, and aero. If such a Mustang materializes, likely at the Detroit auto show in January, expect it to be comparable to the Z/28 in speed equipment, (lack of) amenities, and price.
Heh, I completely forgot about the GT350R, that's where my confusion is -- that sucker is the car I figured would sticker at $69,999.99 USD. But my confusion is your win! ;)

[thesameguy]

Didn't even know there was going to be an R version - I assumed we'd go straight to a 500. Guess Ford wants a Mustang at every $10k increment. :|

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140217170301/lego/images/d/d8/Benny_looks_cute!.jpg
MUSTANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Random]

Didn't even know there was going to be an R version - I assumed we'd go straight to a 500. Guess Ford wants a Mustang at every $10k increment. :|

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140217170301/lego/images/d/d8/Benny_looks_cute!.jpg
MUSTANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, when you have one and only one performance car, you gotta milk it.

Now, if they would start making the high-zoot Falcon over here...or the Focus RS... *daydreams*

[novicius]

EcoBoost Mustang does high 12's with intake and tune. (http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a24278/ecoboost-mustang-does-13s-stock-much-faster-with-intake-and-tune/?click=_hpTrnsprtr_2)


The 2015 Mustang EcoBoost is no slouch with 310 horses and 320 lb-ft of torque. But tradition is tradition, and 'Stang fans love two things: Drag strip dominance, and more horses. The folks at Bama Performance–who just recently built the first 2015 Mustang GT to break into the nines–are already turning the wick up on the four-banger 'Stang. What did they get? Oh, just a 12.98 at 103 mph from nothing more than an intake and tune.

There's plenty to learn here. First off, the automatic EcoBoost Mustang doesn't do half bad in stock form, clocking a 13.6-second quarter-mile at 98 mph on drag radials. But swap in an Airaid intake, and flash Bama's tune, and you've got a four-cylinder 'Stang that'll hang on the heels of its V8 big brother.

Of course, that tune might not be quite as longevity-minded as Ford's stock parameters: Bama cranked up the boost to 22 PSI, boosted the automatic transmission's shift pressure by a whole bunch, and jimmied the throttle settings to give more boost everywhere on the tach. But for a lot of folks, the biggest attraction of the EcoBoost Mustang is its turbo tunability, and right out of the gate, Bama shows us there's some headroom built into the boosted pony.
:up:

[thesameguy]

22psi is not actually that much. GMPP on the Ecotec is 20psi, and that's a full factory warranty. I can't imagine the Ecoboost suffering in any measurable way from such a tune unless they did not adjust ignition timing and fueling in a safe way to complement.

[Godson]

Yeah. The E36 BMW guys are running 20-25psi on pump gas, and putting 500-600+ HP down with that.

[LHutton]

GT350 + 2 turbos --> Koenigsegg coupe.:):assclown:

[novicius]

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/wn3ekmvswilafoyzjjxc.png

2016 Shelby GT350R Mustang more or less of good thing (http://www.themustangnews.com/content/2015/01/2016-shelby-gt350r-mustang-more-or-less-of-good-thing/)


To arrive this summer, the Shelby GT350R has the same 500 plus horsepower 5.2 liter flat-plane crankshaft V8 and six-speed manual transmission. It has the same 400 plus lb-ft. of torque, though exact power specs have not yet been revealed.

Where the 2016 Shelby GT350R differs starts with the light-weighting. What you see is what you get, and those 19” wheels are made of carbon fiber, saving some 13 lbs of unsprung weight at each corner. Ford points out they are the first mainstream manufacturer to offer such things in production.

They’re wrapped in also very lightweight Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 high-performance tires designed specifically for the Shelby GT350R. The wheel and tire combination is said to offer exceptionally sharp steering feel on the track.

Ford says the Shelby GT350R is more than 130 pounds lighter than the Shelby GT350 Track Pack model. This is accomplished by removing air conditioning, audio system, rear seats, trunk liner and carpet, the backup camera and emergency tire sealer and inflator.
Yeah, I think I'd take the "base" Shelby GT350 and save the rest of my pennies.

Is this car as special as the '00 Cobra R in peoples' minds?

[thesameguy]

Yeah, I think I'd take the "base" Shelby GT350 and save the rest of my pennies.

Agreed. Losing all that comfort for 130 measly pounds?


Is this car as special as the '00 Cobra R in peoples' minds?

The proof would be in the drive I guess, but on first blush I'd say it's nowhere near as hardcore.

[novicius]

Yep, I'm gonna go ahead and say that the Z/28 is gonna win both in performance AND comfort -- the Z/28 still has a stereo and A/C! :lol:

[thesameguy]

I don't know that I'd go that far. Way too many details to make that determination based on a singular 130lb metric. There is also the matter of cost - the Z28 is $72k, and it seems unlikely the GT350R will exceed $60k. If nothing else, for another twelve grand I'd expect the Z/28 to be superior. Will it be 20% better? I'd go so far as to say No Way.

[novicius]

So it's gotta be 20% better? Alright there's the metric. ;)

[The359]

Soooo, that's a GT-R, right? Pretty sure that looks like a GT-R.

[thesameguy]

For sure - who can be mad at the more expensive car being better?

But, with similar power over a wider powerband and less weight, I'll bet the GT350R is at least its equal in most every situation. In fact, I'd bet the only situation where the Z28 is clearly better than the GT350R is inability to see out the back or sides. The Z28 has shitty outward visibility totally locked up. :P

[novicius]

Figure $70K for the GT350R, so, cheaper than the Z/28. (http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a24773/ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-should-start-around-50k/)


We spoke to a trusted source, however, who indicated that it would be fair to expect the standard GT350 to carry a base price of around $50,000, while the significantly upgraded GT350R should have an opening sticker of around $70,000.

The latter number is an important one, because it undercuts the Camaro Z/28's starting price of $75,000. And the GT350R is clearly Ford's designated Z/28 slayer, following a similar weight reduction regimen, etc.

I say $69,999.99 USD base MSRP. What say you? :)
Your ball, TSG. :)

[thesameguy]

"Trusted source" and "fair to expect" is still speculation. I'm not saying it's wrong, but until it's on the Monroney it isn't fact. Along those same lines, if Ford *is* pricing it at $70k, I would expect it to at least keep up with a Z28. Until those tests are in, it's all wild, pointless speculation, but I do think it's beyond safe to say Mfg A isn't going to knock on Mfg B's MSRP door without bringing performance commensurate with the price.

[novicius]

I'm just sayin'...

<--- called it. #swish #scoreboard #beersonyou

:D :toast:

[thesameguy]

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Monroney Pudding, IIRC.

:P

Although I'll totally buy you a beer. Beer sounds rad right now.

[novicius]

:up:


Another video with much higher quality audio -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ruc1pBkOLN8
Original isolated soundtrack here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxKhiCh9r0k

SAE article back from Nov. '14 (http://articles.sae.org/13709/) -- notes that the GT350's Voodoo V8 receives the same Plasma Transfer Wire Arc coatings of the cylinders that the Nissan GT-R has used (Nissan licensed the tech from Ford (http://articles.sae.org/7624/)).


Shelby Mustang owners will delight in the fact that the 2011 GT500 is the first contemporary Shelby vehicle that does not carry a gas guzzler tax. Its EPA estimated fuel economy numbers are 23 mpg highway/15 mpg city, up from 22/14 mpg for the 2010 car. Fuel-economy gains come from the new aluminum-block engine that is 102 lb (46 kg) lighter, electronic power steering, and various aerodynamic changes to the vehicle.
Heh, that is a lot of weight to lose just from the engine! :eek:

[Freude am Fahren]

I'd think you could get a lot more out of the base GT350 + $20,000 at a race shop than the GT350R.

[thesameguy]

The R might carry some long term resale value perks, but yeah, from my perspective the GT350 is *plenty*, and surely would have the room to grow if/when I did.

Of course, me throwing sixty large at ANY single car is preposterous, and if I did it wouldn't be a Mustang, and if I did and it was a Mustang I sure as hell couldn't afford to risk it at a track day. I was nervous enough chucking the $30k CTS-V around. I'll stick to $2000 cars with $2000 tunes that I can absolutely ball up, walk away, and a have a beer.

The only people buying GT350s with $20k tunes and driving them at track days are people with mountains of money or epic deficits of sense. ;)

[novicius]

Track? Who said anything about the track?? We're gonna rail this bitch through the back country! Insurance is on the hook for this rig, not I!!!*

*If I were to ever buy one. :lol:

[thesameguy]

There are a few windy roads here in town, on account of the foothills and the Sierra Nevadas, and I've enjoyed them in numerous cars. But the CTS-V was WAY too fast for them - it was always short shifting, part throttle, or leaving a seriously deficient margin of error. The Fiero is about right - I can push that thing to 100% and still have time and room to react. I can't imagine even thinking about pushing a GT350 on a public road - the risk to self and especially others is just way too high. I'm actually slightly concerned I will have engineered the fun out of the XR4Ti, but I guess I can always turn the boost back down. ;)

Edit: And yes, working at a law firm has ruined my sense of fun. Too many victims of irresponsible drivers pass through here.

[novicius]

No shame in fun-running -- a V8, stick-shift and Goodyear Polyglas tires has been a recipe for fun in a Pony Car since they were invented. :up: :up:

But living' that Track Dawg lifestyle is expensive beyond MSRP as you've stated. Ergo, people gonna rail. (http://jalopnik.com/first-hellcat-sold-in-colorado-wrecked-an-hour-after-pu-1673994344)

[thesameguy]

No shame in fun-running -- a V8, stick-shift and Goodyear Polyglas tires has been a recipe for fun in a Pony Car since they were invented. :up: :up:

Yeah, but they didn't have 500hp when they were invented. They had 250hp on their best day.

[novicius]

So ditch the stock Pirellis and put on some 60,000-mile all-season radials. :lol:

That'll lower the limits into the Fun category real quick! :D

[thesameguy]

I think I built that car in FH2, matter of fact. :lol:

[neanderthal]

Auto journos who tested the '15 Mustang were concerned about the rear suspension being a little "unresolved."

You reckon they fixed it?

[novicius]

I think I built that car in FH2, matter of fact. :lol:
It's an interesting conundrum: how much grip is too much?

I think about this on my Daytona 675, too -- I roll on harder Michelin Pilot Road 3's and not the soft stock Pirelli Diablo Supercorsas. As can be expected, the Supercorsas offer great grip and road feel, and their V-shape makes you fall into the corners easily but they wear out after 2k miles of railing (if THAT). The PR3's are almost always hard, not sticky in all but the hottest days and are shaped like a bus driver's ass but they work better in the rain/gravel/shit WI roads and last for 7K+ miles -- but it takes a lot less speed to make one shit their pants on the PR3's, let me tell you! :lol:

(Maybe I should do my riding on only supremely beautiful days but hey sometimes the weather changes quickly. #shrug)

Low grip means your overall speed is also lower to reach the limit. Riding (or driving) at the limit is where the fun is. Ergo...

[thesameguy]

That was the approach with the FR86-Z, no?

Probably no right answer. A buddy of mine who is on a the trackday-a-month plan has been running HTRZ-IIs on his RX8 and having a lot of fun, but he commented last weekend that he's done with that and wants to go fast. So now he rolls on NT01s. To work. H4RDC0R3!

[novicius]

Well, while RWA and other like-minded fellows will chime in with "riding at the limit on max grip is the only acceptable way to enjoy life", I'm leaning more and more towards hard-tire'd-fun over grip-&-speed in a road car.

So while the tires on the GT350R & Z/28 are amazing, I'd swap 'em for the all-seasons immediately. :lol:

[thesameguy]

This is probably a messed up thing to say, but riding irresponsibly on a bike will probably kill only you, and that's ok. Driving irresponsibly in a 400hp 3600lb car may very well kill you and take other people with you. Seen way too many of those results around here. The best you can hope for is dying so you don't have to live with the consequences. It's gotta be awful knowing you took a father/mother/sister/brother out of the equation.

[novicius]

This is probably a messed up thing to say, but riding on a bike will probably kill you, and that's ok.
FTFY. ;)

[TheBenior]

Low grip means your overall speed is also lower to reach the limit. Riding (or driving) at the limit is where the fun is. Ergo...
Driving my 115 whp Miata was more fun than my 295 whp MS3. Hell, the Miata might have actually been a bit more fun with the stock sway bars, worn out shocks, and shit tires than the Tokico Illuminas, FM springs, FM sway bars, and Toyo T1-Rs that replaced them, in a hooliganish, albeit slow, fashion.

I haven't put enough miles on the Monster 696 to say for sure that it's more fun than the GS550 was, but it definitely takes turns and brakes with less drama. Then again, riding just about any motorcycle is more exhilarating than driving any of the cars I've driven.

[novicius]

I haven't put enough miles on the Monster 696 to say for sure that it's more fun than the GS550 was, but it definitely takes turns and brakes with less drama.
That's the downside of having too much grip/capability: it takes a lot more speed to get thrilling. On your Duc as-is right now, a skilled track day Control Rider can probably wrestle that spaghetti chassis and under-damped suspension around most country corners at double the posted speed limit. Then in order to "fix" the ride, you have the front forks loaded with RaceTech springs and new fork oil and an Ohlins adjustable rear shock & spring and mount some decent sticky Dunlops or Pirellis or whatever -- boom, now your bike has the bite to take corners at 2.5-3.0x times the posted limits! Whoops! :lol:

The limits end up being so high that anything less than "Death Race" speeds are ho-hum commuting. Then as you approach those limits, as the thrill comes back for something like a Supersport bike, a Corvette, a Viper, or a GT350R, your margin for error shrinks to a tiny, tiny percentage of your control.

Which leads us back to why it can be more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slowly (especially if you don't have the skill!) -- aka, buy hot cars, roll on shitty tires! :rawk:

[TheBenior]

under-damped suspension

Please, I weigh maybe 165lbs with all my riding gear ;)


But in all seriousness, I'd probably be looking into ~$1000 worth of front suspension upgrades if I were equivalent to the average American male rider in weight. There's not really much in off-the-shelf front fork improvements for the 696, as most people willing to drop $1500 on suspension improvements probably paid the extra money for the 1100 S or 1100 Evo right from the start.

[novicius]

2015 Shelby GT bows in Scottsdale with 627 supercharged ponies (http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/19/2015-shelby-gt-official/)

http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/15/03/980x490/landscape_nrm_1421614590-sai23501.jpg

Not a fan of the silver bezel on these mesh grills, but whatevs.

This sort of "bespoke" ordering is what I'd expect these $60K toys to eventually devolve into: if you're a $500K+ household and you want big power, you just pick up the phone. No need to have a production run of these things...

[LHutton]

^700hp optional:
http://www.shelbyamerican.com/2015ShelbyGT.asp

[thesameguy]

My friend's '15 Ecoboost now sports a Cobb AccessPort. It barely affects top-end power - but we kind of knew that based on the turbo limitations. The midrange is pretty funny though, because it's just such a huge boost there. Something like 20hp but 80lb ft. It actually feels like a much newer XR4Ti now. Heh. Still a great drive, though and with the extra juice it feels pretty light, actually. I like it more each time I drive it, but regardless I just can't see a car getting thirty two large out of me ever - unless I magically come into a LOT of money. And I mean a LOT.

[TheBenior]

Heh, that reminds me of my buddy's A4 GTi with the stock K03, intake, turboback, and tune. It made slightly more torque than my MS3 with the stock K04, intake, turboback, and Cobb AP reflash, but 50 less horsepower.

[Sad, little man]

I like it more each time I drive it, but regardless I just can't see a car getting thirty two large out of me ever - unless I magically come into a LOT of money. And I mean a LOT.
See, this is where having the employee discount really comes through. :toast: :D Then again, I'm a cheap bastard and still won't spend money on a new car. :o

[thesameguy]

He's got USAA, so he pays invoice+$100. Employee discount is still too much. By a factor of two or four. I can have all the fun I need to have in an $8000 car, no problem.

[novicius]

Speed Dating Prank | 2015 Ford Mustang | Ford.com


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nyr1Ao7iZA

[novicius]

:: 2015 Mustang GT Dimensions ::
Length: 188.3 in (4,784 mm)
Width: 75.4 in (1,916 mm)
Height: 54.4 in (1,381 mm)
Wheelbase: 107.1 in (2,720 mm)

:: 1973 XB Falcon Dimensions ::
Length: 189.3 in (4,808 mm)
Width: 74.8 in (1,900 mm)
Height: 53.9 in (1,369 mm)
Wheelbase: 110.9 in (2,819 mm)

If the shoe fits...

HPE700 Supercharged Upgrade for the 2015 Ford Mustang GT (http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/2015-mustang-gt-hpe700.html)

http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/15/08/980x490/22-hennessey-2015-mustang-test.jpg

http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/15/08/980x490/20-hennessey-2015-mustang-test.jpg

http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/15/08/980x490/30-hennessey-2015-mustang-test.jpg

Power
• 717 bhp @ 7,000 rpm
• 632 lb-ft torque @ 4,400 rpm

Performance
• 0-60 mph: 3.6 sec.
• ¼ mile: 11.2 @ 131 mph

HPE700 Supercharged 5.0L V8 Engine Upgrade
• 2.9 Liter Supercharger System
• Upgraded Fuel Injectors
• All Necessary Gaskets & Fluids
• Professional Installation
• HPE Engine Management Calibration
• Dyno Tuning & Road Testing
• Hennessey Exterior Badging
• HPE700 Exterior Badging
• Supercharged Exterior Badging
• Hennessey Premium Floormats
• Hennessey Embroidered Headrests
• Serial-Numbered Dash & Engine Plaques
• 3 Year / 36,000 Mile Limited Warranty

[thesameguy]

I guess there is an upside to the goofy-shaped pedestrian-safe hood - cramming superchargers in!

YEAH!

[George]

"Pedestrian-safe hood"? :smh:

What it really needs is some Boss Hogg bullhorns!

[novicius]

I would have said "wider rear tires".

[novicius]

EcoBoost haters, take note!

2015 V6 Mustang Runs 14.20’s Factory Stock! (http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/1503-2015-v6-mustang-runs-14-20s-factory-stock/?sm_id=social_aumohotrodsshub_default_20150409_435 19256&adbid=10152682760192540&adbpl=fb&adbpr=13601527539) :rawk:


Remember, about 25 years ago when you got your new 5.0L Mustang? It had 225 ground-pounding horsepower and could cover the quarter in mid-14s. Tweak it with a cold-air intake, gears and you could nail low 14s. Hey, that was fast for 1990. If we told you 25 years ago a V6 Mustang could smoke your 5.0L, you’d think we were mad.

But Ford’s latest V6 is no joke. The amazing six in the 2015 Ford Mustang can produce really quick elapsed times, not to mention knocking down almost 30 mpg and keeping those insurance rates nice and low.
:up: :up:

Having been in high school during these times (and still remembering getting my shitbox rocked by a lightly modded white '88 5.0L LX one summer night in 1990), this is awesome. I was worried that this would be a pure Secretary's Car once they yanked the Performance Package but this still sounds really stout. You can get an optional 3.55 rear-end but honestly if you've got the V6 & six-speed combo, going straight to aftermarket 4.10's (or 4.33's!! #dontfearthegear) would be money better spent.

[thesameguy]

Fast or no, I just can't see going for the six. It is good for sure - but I can't see why it's a better choice than the four from a cost, performance, or tuning perspective.

What I am really happy about, though, is that the '15 is getting all this press. It's killing prices on the '14, and the more I see more of each of them on the road the more I want a '13 or '14 GT. :D

[novicius]

Well Ford has slotted the EcoBoost Mustang above the V6 for a reason. It costs more than the V6 and it's also faster than the V6 -- but I find this cool because the V6 in itself isn't slow. :up:

[thesameguy]

Indeed - 14.2 is more than respectable!

[KillerB]

Meh, I'd still just spend the money for the V8. If you can't afford the insurance and gas, you probably should be getting something used.

[novicius]

It's an $8K+ jump up on the MSRP from V6 to the Coyote, Joe. That is a noticeable difference for (probably) most FR-S/MINI/Mustang V6 buyers -- and then add in the insurance & gas mileage difference.

[thesameguy]

.... and the V6 is faster than anybody actually needs anyway. I don't think I'd buy a V8-less Mustang, but I can definitely see why most Americans would choose otherwise.

[TheBenior]

I'd have a tough time getting a non-V8 Mustang, but that's likely due to the V6 Mustang being terrible when I was growing up.

Rationally, that V6 Mustang is as quick as my Mazdaspeed3 was stock.

[KillerB]

That's a bigger spread than it used to be. I'm not at my computer to have access to all the tools, but I am curious what the delta is when comparably equipped. That base price on the V6 reflects the rental spec Mustang than no human will actually purchase.

[novicius]

Anecdotally speaking, Randy (lostnight) bought a V6 Mustang a few years ago and I'm sure he still likes his.

[novicius]

New color/stripe option on the Shelby GT350R spotted.

http://www.charlottemotorspeedway.com/images/gallery/dsc_0056_lg.jpg


Other new shots of the GT350R:

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25575&d=1428541807

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25576&d=1428541807

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25574&d=1428541770

[novicius]

Also, over at Mustang6g.com there is a very handy "What Things Weigh" thread (http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15864).

So they state (the fastidious #1 fan site for all things S550), for the record, that a 2015 Mustang GT weighs thusly:


2015 Mustang GT Performance Pack 300A - MT82 Transmission:
Curb Weight (scaled at BMR) - 3,736 lbs
It's officially around 25 lbs. lighter than a Camaro SS. :lol: #murica

[Kchrpm]

Which may be losing around 200 lbs. LET THE PONY WARS CONTINUE!

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/132/4/e/ponies_of_war_by_ziemniax-d4zh6mt.png

[novicius]

:hard:

Also, I said this in the very first post in this thread: (http://gtxforums.net/showthread.php?915-2015-Ford-Mustang&p=23272&viewfull=1#post23272)


As an aside, keep in mind that the weight of the 5.0L GT as been stated as being in the 3,750-3,800 lb. region, aka as fat as the current Camaro now. The new Camaro could end up being as much as 250-300 lbs. lighter than the new Mustang.
And then I was laughed at and TSG pulled my pants down in the front of everybody. #sniff #iwuzwrong #butsoclose! ;)

[thesameguy]

It's officially around 25 lbs. lighter than a Camaro SS. :lol: #murica

Where are you getting this? Everywhere I've seen pegs the SS at like 3850. The base V6 weighs 3700lbs. I just don't see how a fully optioned model with two extra cylinders and a beefed up transmission only adds 75lbs.

Edit: GM says the V6 LS weighs 3719 and the SS 1LE at 3860.

[novicius]

Just typed it into Google.


http://gtxforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1150&stc=1

[thesameguy]

Yeah, that is from Wikipedia that lists 3750 as the weight for all of them. Edmunds, R&T, and C&D are publishing the numbers from GM's website. which are as I listed. I am pretty sure 3860 is the right weight for the SS - because I also remember my outrage when the 400hp Camaro was announced as weighing exactly the same as my 400hp CTS-V except with less doors and a smaller trunk. :smh:

[novicius]

But I thought that you didn't like the weight listed for the Camaro SS from HodRod.com? (http://gtxforums.net/showthread.php?924-2016-Chevrolet-Camaro&p=38623&viewfull=1#post38623)

No matter, I can accept 3,860-3,888 lbs. for the gen V Camaro SS. :up:

So a 2015 Performance Pack Mustang GT is about 110-125 lbs. lighter than a 2015 Camaro SS -- sound more accurate?

[Godson]

Still a fat pig of a group of cars.

[novicius]

Yup definitely.

[TheBenior]

Eh, that's just modern cars in general. Among other powerful, sporty coupes, the lightest 435i is 3600lbs, the C350 coupe is 3693lbs, the C63 AMG is 3816, the S5 is 3858, and the RS5 is 4009lbs.

Even my 2008 Mazdaspeed3 in it's Grand Touring trim is close to 3200lbs.

[novicius]

More and more formerly compact sports/pony cars are being made on fullsize family sedan platforms.

[Godson]

And people wonder why I bought a 911. 2900 lbs.

[novicius]

Yeah but you gotta pull the mill & trans yourself on the 911. ;)

Modern heavy pony cars typically come with warranties.

[Godson]

It adds to the ownership experience :lol:


:( :lol:

[Sad, little man]

Not that the 911 is a bad car, but I find it really sad that we're at the point of praising a 2900lb two seat sports car for being super light weight. :|

(Yes, I know it has a back seat. It doesn't count because humans don't fit in it.)

[Yw-slayer]

Mine is ~2800-2900lb and has rear seats which can legitimately fit a 5' 6" person behind a 5' 8" person for 20-30 minutes, or alternatively a car seat and a 2-4yo kid behind a 5' 6" person. WIN

[speedpimp]

My SX-4 is 2700 lbs. :assclown:

[Jason]

2350lbs here :hard:

[speedpimp]

2350lbs here :hard:
2225 with driver :hard::hard:
Fixed that for you.

[TheBenior]

2350lbs here :hard:

and still the worst power to weight ratio on the forum! :P

[Yw-slayer]

My SX-4 is 2700 lbs. :assclown:

FWD don't count, boyo!

[LHutton]

Not that the 911 is a bad car, but I find it really sad that we're at the point of praising a 2900lb two seat sports car for being super light weight. :|

(Yes, I know it has a back seat. It doesn't count because humans don't fit in it.)
In a world where a Golf GTI now weighs more than an Escort Cosworth, things have gotten very confusing.

[Godson]

Not that the 911 is a bad car, but I find it really sad that we're at the point of praising a 2900lb two seat sports car for being super light weight. :|

(Yes, I know it has a back seat. It doesn't count because humans don't fit in it.)

I agree.

[speedpimp]

FWD don't count, boyo!

It's AWD, ladyboy.

[Yw-slayer]

Whatever <trollface>

[CudaMan]

The average weight of our fleet is about 2925 lbs. 83% of it is RWD.

[/uselessfacts]

[speedpimp]

Whatever <trollface>
:blahblah::assclown::finger::assclown::blahblah:

[Ali]

Mine's 2900lb and people commend that as light for a hot hatch! It's a weird world we live in. Be interested to try a Mustang when they land here later in the year, but I've really got my eye on the Focus RS....

[Random]

The average weight of our fleet is about 2925 lbs. 83% of it is RWD.

[/uselessfacts]

With the sale of the BMW, we're at about 2800 or a little less.

If we replace the Camry with something Fit/Fiesta sized, we'll be sub-3000 on all the cars. :D

[thesameguy]

I don't like this game. I've got 20,000lbs between two Fleetwoods and another 10,000lbs between two Suburbans.

[Random]

:lol:

[novicius]

2003 Ford Explorer XLT 4x4 V8 -- 4,449 lbs.
2005 Toyota Yaris -- 2,348 lbs.
2008 Triumph Street Triple -- 416 lbs.
2011 Triumph Daytona 675 -- 407 lbs.

Average fleet weight: 1,905 lbs. :assclown:

[Freude am Fahren]

'13 BRZ - 2,776lb
'14 Yamaha R6 - 417lb (wet)

Avg - 1597lb :p

Probably a few lb's less after modifications :)

[novicius]

:up: :up:

My number is actually higher -- I forgot to add in the weight of my camper. :lol:

[CudaMan]

Bikes are cheating. :p

Our MX-5 helps the average a lot, but is offset by the three Grand Tourers with big sixes. And the SUV.

[Godson]

Ducati monster 900 - 407
Porsche 996 - 2904

1655...


I haves more powers ;p

combined hp to weight, without the mods to the monster. 4.425

[Kchrpm]

The weight of my motorcycle is 0, so half of whatever my Mazda weighs.

[novicius]

Bikes are cheating. :p
Yep but for some of us, it's all the toy we gots. :( #sniff

[novicius]

A Look at Australian 2015 Ford Mustang Pricing (http://www.torquenews.com/106/look-australian-2015-ford-mustang-pricing)


Australian Base Pricing for the 2015 Mustang
The 2015 Ford Mustang will be offered in Australia in two trimlines, as is the case in China, Germany and the United Kingdom. The base model 2015 Mustang will be powered by the new 2.3L EcoBoost 4-cylinder while the 5.0L V8 will serve as the premium engine, with both engines coming with either the 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic transmission.

The least expensive 2015 Ford Mustang fastback in Australia will have the 2.3L EcoBoost, the 6-speed manual transmission and a starting price of #44,990 AUD, which converts to $34,314 USD with the current exchange rate. That same EcoBoost/manual transmission fastback in the USA would start at $25,300 USD, so Aussie buyers are facing a markup of around $9,000.

That same base model 2015 Mustang starts around $38,000 USD in Germany, $43,000 USD in the UK, $65,000 USD in China and $80,000 USD in India – making Australia the least expensive local market price increase we have seen thus far.
Not terrible markup, all things considered -- and should depreciate nicely for future bogans. :lol:

[Darius]

So I bought a 2015 Mustang GT last month... I love it. Coming from a '08 BMW 328 so it feels quite fast and I'd argue handles better. But when I got the BMW I traded in my '01 GT and it felt like a massive upgrade. It's kind of amazing how far mustangs have come in 14 years.

[novicius]

Wow nice! :up: :up:

So... pics? :D

[Darius]

I need to wash it this weekend and I'll try to get some pics then. It's triple-yellow with the performance package, so black 19" wheels and such. The pictures I have right now are pretty poor.

I took a few days off during spring break because the weather was supposed to be nice and was out enjoying my motorcycle. I knew the local dealer had the yellow car but I wanted to see it in person. Needless to say it was favorable in person. I love the contrast between the yellow and black bits.

This is what it looks like, but like I said I'll try to get some real pics of it this weekend.

http://files.americanmuscle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2015-Mustang-GT-Triple-Yellow.jpg

[Godson]

Bitchin'

[Yw-slayer]

Sweet. I wish Ford would offer them in HK.

[Ali]

Sweet. I wish Ford would offer them in HK.

Tempted to have an affair on my little Italian next year. But a different Ford...

http://preview.netcarshow.com/Ford-Focus_RS-2016-hd.jpg

It has a drift button, I tell you. A drift button!!!

[SkylineObsession]

It's photos like this of the new Mustang that have me wondering whether i've found a new favourite Mustang generation/look (currently it's the '99-'04 Mustangs which i love the look of most).

https://scontent-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/11082390_10153185062169795_791048748964066051_o.jp g

Struggling. To. Pick. Jaw. Up. From. Floor.
:hard:

And with the manual only option, i'm very, very interested in the Focus RS. Enough to sway me back to Ford from my beloved Skylines even. :twitch:

[Yw-slayer]

Oh, it's the best-looking Mustang since say the 60s or early 70s IMO.

[thesameguy]

It has some really ungainly angles, IMHO, but it's overall very nice looking and the package is solid. I still think I prefer the '12-'14 cars for the back, but the '15+ cars have a gorgeous front.

[XHawkeye]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMG_1567-626x469.jpg

http://blog.caranddriver.com/mustang-gt350-official-figures-526-hp-429-lb-ft/

[novicius]

Sex. :up:

I do wish something had been done to dress up the Voodoo, tho'. It looks pretty much exactly like a Coyote. :|

http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMG_15551-626x469.jpg

[KillerB]

"8,250 RPM"

Shut up and take my money!

[novicius]

Tuner FFTEC breaks 500RWHP with EcoBoost Mustang. (http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24929)


- Technical Details -

Turbo System
BorgWarner EFR8374 @ ~33PSI
FFTEC CylHead/Turbo Flange Adapter
FFTEC Intake System
FFTEC Chargepipe System
FFTEC EcoEconomy Intercooler
FFTEC Exhaust System

Cylinder Block
FFTEC Forged Pistons
FFTEC Forged Rods
OEM Crank
OEM Cylinder Block -- No BlockGuard, Sleeves, CSS, etc.

Cylinder Head
OEM Cylinder Head -- no Port/Polish
OEM Valves
OEM Valve Springs
OEM Camshafts

ECM/Electronics
COBB Accessport Protuned by our own Calibration Staff

Fuel System
Stock Fuel System -- yes, it's possible!
91 Octane Fuel blended with some 101 = ~95-96 Octane
http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz82/mikeb_at_fftec/MEB%206.10.15%20SAE%20Correction_zpsnbbkykyp.jpg

OneDrive link to video: http://1drv.ms/1GqP1pw

Doesn’t sound particularly fetching but impressive nonetheless.

[thesameguy]

Very interested in this:

FFTEC CylHead/Turbo Flange Adapter

I had gotten it in my head that the manifold+turbo casting was part of the head casting, but clearly that is not correct. That is rad, as that would be the big limitation in making big numbers with the EcoBoost. If you can just remove the exhaust manifold and bolt on something reasonable, well, the world is your oyster. Your silent 500hp oyster.

[Drachen596]

assuming you can find 95 to 101 octane fuel near you..

[thesameguy]

Just down the street, in fact. Exactly one mile - I could walk.

[Drachen596]

pretty sure the nearest place to me that carries over 93 is either the local short oval track which is likely only open on race day or the gas station next to the Motocross track thats clear across town and then some. (and both those are 'race gas')

[Freude am Fahren]

It can twerk.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8ykQCFCD--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/1314615867861454373.gif

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--e77DhT2z--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/1314621429113954703.gif

[thesameguy]

I could watch that all day.