Skip to main content
HOME   |   ABOUT   |   NEWS   |   TECH ARTICLES   |   AT THE TRACK   |   REVIEWS   |   VIDEOS   |   CONTACT ME

2015 Ford Mustang GT First Test - A Closer Look





The test everyone has been waiting for - the all new 2015 Mustang GT. Let's get straight to the numbers and compare them to the now-last-generation Mustang GT:

                                              2014 Mustang GT                     2015 Mustang GT

0-60 mph                     :                    4.4 s                                           4.4 s
1/4 mile                       :         12.8 s @ 112.2 mph                 12.7 s @ 111.7 mph
60-0 mph braking       :                   107 ft                                        110 ft
Average lateral g        :                   0.96 g                                       0.96 g
Motor Trend figure-8  :            24.7 s @ 0.85 g                          25.0 s @ 0.77

Since the two cars were tested on different days, comparing the exact differences aren't relevant but the conclusion that can be drawn is that the new Mustang GT is not a leap in terms of acceleration. I doubt that the change from the solid axle to an IRS resulted in the small loss in the 1/4 mile ET seen here (0.1 seconds). The 0-60 mph time which is hugely influenced by launch didn't change. If the new car couldn't launch as well in stock trim, it would have shown in the 0-60 mph time. Seeing the two run side-by-side would be interesting for sure, though.

In terms of handling, Motor Trend did not seem too satisfied with it, saying: "the 2015 Mustang didn't feel as nimble or competent as the Boss; it didn't feel like the front and rear ends were talking to each other. Turning in off-throttle resulted in moderate push (understeer from the front end), which needed to be corrected with the throttle. This, in turn, caused a bit of slushy oversteer that, while manageable, slowed the GT down a bit. While that's not bad per se, we were expecting a bit more from the new IRS-equipped Mustang."

Car and Driver, however, had almost the exact opposite opinion: "untying the Mustang’s rear wheels from each other pays massive dividends in terms of impact mitigation and keeps the front and rear ends working more closely together. Setting the Mustang into a corner no longer puts you into the awkward situation of serving as a couples’ counsellor to the fore and aft axles. Turn-in felt natural in the outgoing Mustang, but the rear end seemed slightly disconnected, as if it wasn’t sure it wanted to follow the front. Cornering is now secure and flat, and the grip likely approaches a full 1.00 g with those sticky P Zeros. The new Mustang’s chassis is in total harmony."

The take away for me is that you're going to have to test drive one and decide for yourself about the handling. The one point that all reviews agree on, and it was expected, is that ride quality on the road is certainly improved. Interestingly, (in Motor Trend testing) the average lateral g on the skidpad is identical between the 2 cars at 0.96 g but on the figure 8, there is a difference of 0.08 g plus going 0.3 seconds quicker. The cause of this, I suspect, is better transitional response either due to the IRS or the rear end wobble that plagued the S197 in stock trim due to being underdamped from the factory (which could again be linked to the solid axle). However, what is obvious and has been to many people, going to IRS does not automatically make the car leap forward in terms of handling capability. A well set-up solid-axle can go head-to-head with an IRS-equipped car, the ride refinement and quality is what suffers. 




What seems to be the biggest problem (and has certainly upset quite a few people on different forums) is the added weight. At 3,814 lb., the car has gained as close as makes no difference, 200 lb. compared to the outgoing car. This is not only a significant jump, it also puts it within a stone's throw away from the current (5th gen) Camaro SS which has been criticized since its introduction for being overweight and is bound to lose a few pounds when it moves over to the new Alpha platform underpinning the lightweight (for their respective classes) Cadillac ATS and CTS.

After a long period of teasing and many rumours about the Mustang losing 200-300 lb., this was especially a huge disappointment to many. However, I did not expect the car to lose more than a 100 lb. The reason being is the C7 Corvette. Although the chassis lost nearly 100 lb., due to the added safety and infotainment tech that todays market demands, the car gained weight overall. Chevrolet was smart about putting a number to the effort, saying that the chassis alone is that much lighter than the outgoing one.

Personally, I am disappointed due to the large weight gain but I suspect a base Mustang GT with just the performance options would be closer to 3,700 lb which, while still high, isn't that much higher than the last generation. I have no doubt that the new Mustang chassis (S550) is lighter than the outgoing one but with all the added tech, it was bound to at least stay the same. I think the Mustang's entry into Grand-Am (Tudor now) will be a good indication as I'm sure it will be lighter than the most recent S197 entry, the Boss 302R. I hope I start seeing them at the local track as it would be fun to go up against one in my car (a 2012 Boss 302).

What do you think about the new Mustang? Did it disappoint, pleasantly surprise or meet your expectations? Sound off below!

Comments

  1. My husband has always told me he wanted a Mustang. We have a one year old son, though and we need a family car. We ended up getting a Dodge Caliber. It is perfect for our little family. He still swears he is going to get his Mustang, though. I told him in another decade maybe.

    Kourtney @ Thomas Sales and Service Ford

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment







Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.






Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.




🔥 Most Visited This Week

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's vs Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's

I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one. The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would

GTR vs Evo X vs STI: which has the best AWD system?

A few weeks ago, I made a post explaining  mainstream AWD system types and how they compare , pros and cons, etc. including some simple diagrams to show where the power goes and how much. As promised, this post will focus on specific cars and what AWD systems they use, especially ones that that have more or less been defined by their AWD systems, and the best place to start may be with a bombshell; the Nissan GT-R. Nissan GT-R (R35) The GT-R has built a reputation around having monster traction and very approachable performance, thanks to its AWD system - Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-Terrain (ATTESA) - and what it can do for you. But the GT-R doesn't actually use the most mechanically sophisticated type of AWD systems discussed in the previous article, namely a "true" AWD with a centre differential. Instead, it uses a clutch pack to transfer power. RWD-based clutch-type AWD schematic - Rams Eye The Track Guy © The R32, R33, and R34 Sky

How would a Mustang 3.5L EcoBoost compare to the 5.0L V8?

Ever wonder how a 3.5 litre EcoBoost might fair against the 5.0 litre V8 in the Mustang? Of course you have. Ever since Ford dropped it in the F150 (and perhaps well before), everyone has been wondering how it would perform. There are basically two camps; those who think it would be awesome because of tuneability and power potential and those who think it means the death of the V8 in the Mustang. If you are in the latter group, we seem to be good so far with continuous upgrades to the 5.0 litre Coyote and the brand new Shelby GT500 which still uses a supercharged V8 as it has been for over a decade and multiple iterations. But what if... Well, it seems we are closer than ever to finding out the answer to that question. American Trucks recently got together two crew cab, short box, 4x4 F150's but one has the 5.0 litre V8 and the other has the 3.5 litre EcoBoost V6. There has been a few comparisons between 5.0 litre and 3.5 litre EB F150's, but this seems to be the most di

Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R Track Review

2012 Boss 302 on square 305/30/19 RE-71R's at AMP - Graham MacNeil © For better or for worse, I have heard and read so much about RE-71R's. Everyone swears by the grip but complains about the wear. Generally speaking, the pros are: 1. They grip as well or better than most R comps. 2. They don't wear as quickly as R comps if driven occasionally on the street. 3. They work better in the rain than R comps. The cons were limited to overheating quickly when used on track (being an autocross tire) and wearing too fast on heavy cars like mine. In the popular 200 TW category, they are faster than the popular Hankook RS-4's and BFGoodrich Rival S's according to published Tire Rack Tests. According to plenty of reviews, they are also faster than well established R comps like R888R's (which don't seem to work too well on heavy cars anyway) and the venerable NT01's. But I was still hesitant for a while until I talked to a tire tech support gentleman