2015 Mustang reviews

MAGPIE · 18-09-2014, 08:20 AM

The first 2015 Mustang reviews

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/n...ear-2014-09-17

GT
http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...ngNews20140917

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...?src=soc_fcbks

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...gt_first_test/

Ecoboost

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...23_first_test/

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review

Like this bit from the Top Gear review...

Quote:

Give me more of an idea here. Would the EcoBoost Stang give a GT86 a run for its money?

It wouldn't just give it a run, it would smash its face in. The new Stang has a stack more grip, more power, more torque and is an altogether bigger, faster car.

sbcb · 18-09-2014, 09:53 AM

All sounding very positive and with all the "hero" high HP versions to come they might have a sales success here on the world stage.

Grippy · 18-09-2014, 10:07 AM

A performance pack equipped 5.0 GT sounds like it's going to be an amazing package.

Black F6 · 18-09-2014, 10:53 AM

yep ill be waiting for these, instead of FGX

Outbackjack · 18-09-2014, 03:15 PM

I will be having a white V8 auto I think.... All very positive reviews...

nstg8a · 18-09-2014, 06:43 PM

Ecoboost is only 0.3 slower on the 1/4 that my old fg xr8

Gadgetman · 19-09-2014, 11:22 AM

5.6- 100km/h and a 14.1 qtr for a 4 cyl? Pretty good i reckon. Isnt that quicker than a Boss 290 GT falcon?

Whitey-AMG · 19-09-2014, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadgetman

5.6- 100km/h and a 14.1 qtr for a 4 cyl? Pretty good i reckon. Isnt that quicker than a Boss 290 GT falcon?

Those who can peddle the 290's were getting 13.8 - 13.9 quarter's - stock - for BA and BFGT and many FG owners were getting mid 13's in the 290 XR8's in a car that weighs in at over 1800kg.
So no - it's not quicker.

What's your point anyways........

blackf6 · 19-09-2014, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

Those who can peddle the 290's were getting 13.8 - 13.9 quarter's - stock - for BA and BFGT and many FG owners were getting mid 13's in the 290 XR8's in a car that weighs in at over 1800kg.
So no - it's not quicker.

What's your point anyways........

I think the old Au bashers now bash the Boss 290.

And the Boss 290 owners get ****ed about it too easy.

Black F6 · 19-09-2014, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

Those who can peddle the 290's were getting 13.8 - 13.9 quarter's - stock - for BA and BFGT and many FG owners were getting mid 13's in the 290 XR8's in a car that weighs in at over 1800kg.
So no - it's not quicker.

What's your point anyways........

Im pretty sure that the big manly tough V8 is fractionally quicker than a 4 cyl lol, also 14.1 is magazine times, we all know they go quicker than that

Gadgetman · 19-09-2014, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

Those who can peddle the 290's were getting 13.8 - 13.9 quarter's - stock - for BA and BFGT and many FG owners were getting mid 13's in the 290 XR8's in a car that weighs in at over 1800kg.
So no - it's not quicker.

What's your point anyways........

My point is a Boss 290 or 302 is sheep in wolfs' clothing.

Gadgetman · 19-09-2014, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

Those who can peddle the 290's were getting 13.8 - 13.9 quarter's - stock - for BA and BFGT and many FG owners were getting mid 13's in the 290 XR8's in a car that weighs in at over 1800kg.
So no - it's not quicker.

What's your point anyways........

Let me guess, you own a BA-FG boss 5.4 powered GT? I was just pointing out how great turbo direct injection engines are going in comparison to what we used to and still consider high performance.

blackf6 · 19-09-2014, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadgetman

Let me guess, you own a BA-FG boss 5.4 powered GT? I was just pointing out how great turbo direct injection engines are going in comparison to what we used to and still consider high performance.

Stock maybe. But give it the same mods as the ecoboost? Chuck a turbo on and get the variable valve timing going. Umm... 290 is all motor. And over 10 years old and been superseded. Anyway on topic. Be stuffed if I would be seen dead in a 4cly Stang. NO fn way. Couldn't care less if it was faster down the quarter mile than an old GT.

Gadgetman · 19-09-2014, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teak81

Stock maybe. But give it the same mods as the ecoboost? Chuck a turbo on and get the variable valve timing going. Umm... 290 is all motor. And over 10 years old and been superseded. Anyway on topic. Be stuffed if I would be seen dead in a 4cly Stang. NO fn way. Couldn't care less if it was faster down the quarter mile than an old GT.

I agree, i would have the 8 as well. but the 4 cyl idea is a great one as it will draw people to the brand who would otherwise have considered a BRZ or an 86

Whitey-AMG · 19-09-2014, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadgetman

Let me guess, you own a BA-FG boss 5.4 powered GT? I was just pointing out how great turbo direct injection engines are going in comparison to what we used to and still consider high performance.

Yes i do own one - and proud of it. I Supported FPV and the home grown product.

I just didnt understand why you made the comparison ? The B series GT's are a decade old - they were and still are a great car.
Your comparison to an Ecoboost 4 that will be sold next year makes no sense , unless you are insinuating that legacy GT owners will somehow be enticed to trade up to an Ecoboost 4 cylinder Turbo Mustang ?

If I was to trade - it would be for the 8 - not the 4.
Anyways - we move on....

chevypower · 19-09-2014, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

Yes i do own one - and proud of it. I Supported FPV and the home grown product.

I just didnt understand why you made the comparison ? The B series GT's are a decade old - they were and still are a great car.
Your comparison to an Ecoboost 4 that will be sold next year makes no sense , unless you are insinuating that legacy GT owners will somehow be enticed to trade up to an Ecoboost 4 cylinder Turbo Mustang ?

If I was to trade - it would be for the 8 - not the 4.
Anyways - we move on....

I think the point was pretty clear: 4 cylinder engines have come along way

99AUXR · 19-09-2014, 11:29 AM

Crazy for a turbo four, really want to see one modified.

Vesper Martini · 19-09-2014, 01:11 PM

And its a big car

**Polyal** · 19-09-2014, 01:13 PM

Yeah its just awesome....the 5.0 is just the perfect package.

MAGPIE · 19-09-2014, 01:32 PM

GT
6M
1730 kg
0-60 MPH 4.4 sec
QUARTER MILE 12.8 sec @ 112.2 mph

Ecoboost
6A
1659 kg
0-60 MPH 5.6 sec
QUARTER MILE 14.1 sec @ 97.8 mph

(Surprised the Ecoboost is as heavy as a 2011 GT)

Grippy · 19-09-2014, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

(Surprised the Ecoboost is as heavy as a 2011 GT)

It must be the new rear end adding a little weight.

MAGPIE · 19-09-2014, 01:48 PM

Roush teaser...

Black F6 · 19-09-2014, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Roush teaser...

image

take my money

chopstar87 · 19-09-2014, 02:52 PM

I think his point was that the 2.3litre 4 cylinder 2015 Ford Mustang is nearly, if not as quick as Ford Falcon Fitted with the 5.4litre V8 with 290kws.

Whitey-AMG · 19-09-2014, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chopstar87

I think his point was that the 2.3litre 4 cylinder 2015 Ford Mustang is nearly, if not as quick as Ford Falcon Fitted with the 5.4litre V8 with 290kws.

Yeah - but was a Silly comparison really.
I would imagine then that all those XY , XA and XB GT owners will be lining up to trade up their old 5.8 litre GT's for one of these 4 banger Mustangs as well..... It will be quicker than those too...

The ecoboost Mustang needs to be compared against its modern day rivals from other marques. It will live and die in sales by those comparisons , not by the fact it is potentially quicker than a 10 year old V8.

MAGPIE · 19-09-2014, 03:03 PM

Car & Drivers effort betters the Motor Trend above
Ecoboost
6A
1659 kg
0-60 MPH 5.2 sec
QUARTER MILE 13.9 sec @ 98 mph

(Not sure there is much to be gained by comparing a 2015 4T Mustang to a BA/BF GT, other than to show how far T4's have come)

Gadgetman · 19-09-2014, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Car & Drivers effort betters the Motor Trend above
Ecoboost
6A
1659 kg
0-60 MPH 5.2 sec
QUARTER MILE 13.9 sec @ 98 mph

(Not sure there is much to be gained by comparing a 2015 4T Mustang to a BA/BF GT, other than to show how far T4's have come)

Must have been a better peddler

Road_Warrior · 19-09-2014, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

(Not sure there is much to be gained by comparing a 2015 4T Mustang to a BA/BF GT, other than to show how far T4's have come)

Well, a 10 year age and development gap between the two for a start. What was the bee's knees when it was new doesnt mean it will stay that way forever.

chevypower · 19-09-2014, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Gear

"Give me more of an idea here. Would the EcoBoost Stang give a GT86 a run for its money? It wouldn't just give it a run, it would smash its face in. The new Stang has a stack more grip, more power, more torque and is an altogether bigger, faster car. http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/n...ear-2014-09-17

Absolutely brilliant!

blackf6 · 19-09-2014, 03:38 PM

Yeh maybe. I suppose kids driving around in Fords would be better than all the other econoboxes.