proxemics

You can make any car fast but you can't solve ugly

JHL88

lol

i do like the look of the '13-'14 the best.

It'llrun

That's no argument in the automotive world, as we've all seen ... examples:

Toyota Corolla, one of the most plain, simple and ugly cars ever, which also happens to be the best selling car in history.

VW Beetle and Golf too, super sellers, "cute" car to some, but not at all impressive in terms of performance for their body and there it is, top 10 overall sales for both models

Ford Escort: Ugly, top seller.

Chevy Cavalier: Stunningly ugly for most of its life, but one heck of a seller.

Some think the F-150 is ugly, but it's the 2nd best selling vehicle in history.

Beauty is only in the eye of the beholder and in the case of Mustang, it's clear that many people don't think it's ugly in the 1st place. The new one has strong resemblances to those before it and about 10 million have been sold over that life span.

justin455

I like the new Mustang better. The last gen looked great, but I could never get past that hideous hood overbite.

proxemics

You are right in fact it may grow on me over time who knows, but now I’ll pass

The fact that a car is selling very well doesn’t mean I should like it for example fifth generation Camaro , No thanks

It'llrun

I like it plenty and I'll still pass... that's the point. It doesn't matter who likes it or not or thinks it's ugly or not because it will still sell to some of the millions who just want it. You and I don't want it, at least for now.

I wasn't suggesting you should like it at all. I was saying that your comment had precisely zero merit inasmuch as, it simply doesn't matter if you think a specific vehicle, or every vehicle... is ugly.

Felix C

I agree regarding the overbite. 13-14 models look like some half-assed GT500 front end conversion attempt.

SparkyJJO

iTrader: (11)

I'm not a Mustang guy but I thought they looked ok.

BMR Sales2

iTrader: (40)

Well that is obvious but you aren't going to see too many cars run faster at the stock power level with the very minimal mods that were done.

The car has an automatic transmission.

The new Mustangs are faster than the new Camaros by a good bit (2-3 tenths). An auto 2010+ Camaro will run low 13s which is slower than the factory 2015 Mustang time have been.

We were running the car down at Bradenton. The track prep there is generally good but it does vary a bit. It was decent night as far as weather in Florida goes, if I remember correctly it was in the 70 degree range with not too much humidity. We probably won't see really good air for another month or so but we will definitely take advantage of it while it is here.

Johnnystock

iTrader: (6)

Auto 2010 Camaros are the slowest ever. I suspect the yellow Mustang is a ringer car since its the only car that did 112mph. Time will tell if its a real 112mph car, but its weird that it lost again a 12' Mustang...my money is on the pre 15' Mustang for the 1/4

BMR Sales2

iTrader: (40)

Our 2015 Mustang trapped at a 112mph with the drag radials and skinnies here in Florida so I definitely think it can be done in good air. The 2015 Mustangs make a little more power than 2011-2014 cars but they are also a little heavier. From my understanding that wasn't the best pass that the 2015 Mustang did on that outing. With that being said I would probably still take a 2011-2014 Mustang over the new 2015 Mustang.

It'llrun

I have recently seen more video of these new Mustangs and even the ones in the previous video I saw have run faster than we earlier saw... same night, edited out for some reason. I watched video taken from a completely different camera and it seemed like there were better passes, 1 in the upper 111 and one at the near 112.5 mark... no better ET's though.

Why that happened, I can't say. Seems to me, they'd wanna show their best. On the other hand, maybe they purposely skipped that to make minimal mods look better.

The new GT has better mph outright... but that doesn't mean it will 1/4 mile quicker at all, so we'll just see what happens over the next yr or so.

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

I think this is where CAFE standards are hurting some vehicles' "from the factory" performance. Narrow tires are lighter and have less rolling resistance, netting slightly better MPGs. I know the difference is small, but when you're shooting for a target MPG rating, you take every slight improvement you can find.

In my opinion, Ford went with the narrow tires knowing that people would correct this flaw in the aftermarket. If I were buying a new GT, I can guarantee that new wheels/bigger tires would be my first stop on the way home.

It'llrun

I think you're right, but what I don't get is that Ford knows how these cars are compared and they could just add an extra 1k to the price of the car and simply match the Camaro 1LE tires, netting a decent profit(about the entire 1k) along the way and those, relatively speaking, few cars shouldn't affect the overall mpg rating.

Seriously, it's like they simply do not care and while I don't either, if I were into the "track day" road racing thing and looking for a new car, I'd have to SERIOUSLY consider the lack of outward view before buying the Mustang over Camaro 1LE. To me, that's the only detractor in this situation. Both cars look plenty good enough and the LS is less complicated, should the engine become a broken mess.

That said, I honestly think these cars are closer than we've currently seen and if Ford did use the correct tires, I think the results would be different. If Ford sent a similarly prepped car(same seats, same lack of electronic add ons), who knows how close they'd be. The 1LE may still win... but it would be very close, I believe. Anyway, GM chose the proper tires and Ford didn't.

fspeedster

iTrader: (6)

That's a lot of "if's"..

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

Completely agreed. We even share the same opinion of the Camaro's lack of outward view. I think we're looking at more of a driver's race if both cars have the same tire, and considering how badass the 1LE is on the track, that isn't a bad target/goal for Ford to shoot for with this new car.

Guitar

iTrader: (9)

Again, disagree. Maybe the automatics, but manuals I see breaking into very low 12s and maybe even 11s with the same mods. The older models did it and with these being heavier it will be a lot harder, but if someone wants to go after it they'll get it. I'd say someone gets at least a 114 trap out of one at most, and a low 12.

BMR Sales2

iTrader: (40)

You have to remember these cars have IRS so there is a big difference between launching a manual car with a IRS and one with a solid rear axle. I assure you that you will not see the same kind of success out of the 2015 Mustangs with manual transmissions at the track that you have seen in the past with earlier Mustangs. The IRS is going to be a hurdle that people are going to have a bit of a tough time getting around with the manual transmissions. I think you will see some decent trap speeds but I am not sure that you will see the 60ft times needed to run very low 12s or high 11s on a stock 2015 Mustang with drag radials and skinnies.

Guitar

iTrader: (9)

Um, 03/04 Cobra? With a bias ply tire they actually do pretty well at the track. The strength of the rear is the only thing that's going to come into question, IMO, with launching the manual cars. Sure it's not going to be the same as launching a solid rear car but still not going to be magic.

BMR Sales2

iTrader: (40)

You don't just throw a tire on a 03/04 cobra and make it launch well, it takes more than that. If that was the case nobody would ever put a solid rear axle in those cars. With slicks, shocks, toe rods, bushings and sometimes half shafts you can get them to launch well but you can't compare that to a STOCK 2015 Mustang GT with skinnies and drag radials.