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 Super Sports vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 - Street Review

I've been a huge fan of Michelin PSS tires and exclusively bought them for the Mustang over the last four years. So how did I end up here? This year, I was hugely interested in trying an "R-comp" tire. I had my eyes set on Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's for two simple reasons: price and reputation. Although not a true "R-comp" tire on paper, it performs like one by the account of every single test and review I've read (down to wear rates...). They seem like they're easily the most affordable (from a big brand) R-comp tire and combine that with a reputation for having tons of grip, it was an easy top contender. I had my concerns, though. For one, I'm told and have read that they are an autox tire, not really designed for high speed, pressure, and temps associated with open track. For another, the Mustang is a heavy car (as far as track cars are concerned) being roughly 3,800 lb. (including driver), which will amplify the unwanted open track loads.…

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's

If you've had any doubts about whether or not they will fit, fear not! You absolutely can run square 305/30/19's. I had a lot of doubts before pulling the trigger, even more so when the wheels where on the car. The tires do poke out a bit and I figured rubbing is all but guaranteed at full compression but I couldn't be happier I trusted APEX and those on here who have run it.

Here's what you need:

1. Camber plates: I have MM C/C plates and they are maxed out at -2.3 deg with the stock struts. I have been running them for years with many track days without issue.

2. 1"/25 mm spacer: I have Motorsport-tech 1" spacers and they look like high quality units. There is maybe a 1/4 inch clearance in the back so you can't go any narrower than 25 mm. http://www.motorsport-tech.com/adaptec/car/ford_s and you want Design 2.


3. Elongated studs: your best bet is to get the FPP hubs with elongated studs instead of reusing the old one. Bearings are consumables anyway so…

The Truth behind Owning a Modified Ferrari 458 Italia

After driving and reviewing this modified 620 hp Ferrari 458 Italia, I talk to the owner to find out the truth behind owning and living with a modern Ferrari. This isn't a garage queen Ferrari either, it serves double duty as an every day car and track car. Watch to find out ownership costs, reliability, and experience. Interested in joining Scott at the track? Check out MHPDC.

Liked this? Make sure to subscribe so you don't miss new videos!



Follow Rams Eye The Track Guy on Facebook and Instagram!






View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Michael R (@ramseyethetrackguy) on May 21, 2019 at 5:17pm PDT

Michelin PSS vs Firestone Indy 500 - Track Review

A couple of weeks ago, I posted my first impressions of Michelin's PSS vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 tires. I've run PSS's for several years on the Boss, but I'm trying the Indy 500's for the first time. In short, I was worried about the narrower tires (I was running 285/35/18 PSS but could only find the Indy 500 in 275/35/18) and tread squirm, but I was happy with them up to that point just driving on the street. I had the chance to drive on them for three track days now. So what were they like? After my first session, they made an impression that basically persisted for the rest of track sessions on them. Phenomenal, unmatched value. Now, if value is something that stands out above all else, it typically means the compromise between qualities you want and those you don't is less than ideal, but the value is attractive. This is no different. I'll start with the bad, which really boil down to two: ultimate grip and grip longevity.

Grip is noticeably lowe…