It'llrun

including destination charge. http://www.autonews.com/article/2014...start-at-24425

It lists the base, 2.3L and 5L (and more)... surprisingly low in my estimation, but I suspect this car, with all it's good points, will have a downsize concern... It's NOT going to be as light as people have been hoping, I'm really becoming convinced of that... same length and wheelbase as before, all the upgrades in electronics, extreme weight additions of IRS... there will be some unhappy campers, I'm sure.

The 50th Ann edition... WAY HIGH as far as I'm concerned.

deft

iTrader: (7)

Agreed. I'd really like to see some numbers on performance too. I read that Ford said the GT with the track pack will spank the current boss around a track, but I doubt an IRS alone would make that much of a difference....would it?

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

This, I've been saying this to as well, but people here one rumor and suddenly the car is 400lbs lighter with IRS

It'llrun

IRS alone, no chance... It's not that good, but they did also completely revise the front suspension. Plus, the rear track is like 3" wider and the front is about 1.5" and that's significant because it will help stability and thus, allow for stiffer springs, etc. It's also lower by about 1-1.5" as well as shorter overall(so I've read). The area above the belt line looks quite a bit more narrow, further contributing to a lower center of gravity and better driving dynamics. Supposedly, it also gets notably wider tires, but Iiiii wouldn'tcount on that... All said, I have no question in that this new Mustang will EASILY handle better than the last and I'd just about bet plenty of money on the fact it will be the best ever.

I've read some fairly crazy things about this new model... beats the Ford GT and the GT500 on Nurburgring... the GT500 ran a 7.39 and change... instantly, skeptics arose saying it couldn't have been stock... something about an interior change... it seems it had a roll bar installed.

Right... If it weighs less, FINE... 400 lb less? No... It would literally HAVE to go to Corvette size for that to happen and that, of course, would delete some seating...

Or... maybe that's the big and we'll only know when the production model shows up? Serious note: Any less would be good, but it won't be much.

99z28383

iTrader: (1)

Funny how the 6 cylinder is still the base model and is getting out powered by the turbo 4. They should put a revised SHO twin turbo 6 as an option...

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

That is a great looking update.

Sickness7

Turbo 4 sounds interesting to me.

It'llrun

Turbo 4's have out powered V6's since the 1980's... and V6's over V8's too... nothing new.

Have you ever heard of the 3.8L Turbocharged V6 used in the Buick GN and the Pontiac GTA? That small V6 beat out nearly every V8 of its time.

Were Ford to use the 3.5L(maybe they'll use the 2.7 at some point) as is in Mustangs, it would likely outsell the V8 car and that's the best reason I can think of to never use it.

99z28383

iTrader: (1)

I understand, I was hoping they would step up their game with the 6 cylinder model is all. They already designed the motor, might as well use it in a lighter platform than the SHO and the F-150. That'd be a fun car...

You're correct, but bringing the 4 cylinder turbo out will also reduce 6 cylinder and v8 sales but total units will go up.

big reg

iTrader: (28)

Supposedly the chassis is the real star. Ford claims the GT with performance package will out lap the outgoing Boss 302 LS.

IRS is a clean sheet design unlike the earlier versions that were band aids. Rear track widened 3" and front 1.5" with new front suspension geometry as well.

JHL88

decent price I guess. It will add up with the Brembos (if they offer them) Track Pack etc.

That's one thing I liked about the 5th gens is that Brembos come standard on all SS models.

IDK if you could pay me to have this new Mustang body style though. I will hold my official reservation for when I actually see it in person.

big reg

iTrader: (28)

Brembos are part of the GT Performance pack for 2500 which includes 275 rear tires, different gears and firmer suspension as well. Same 6 pot calipers as the 13-14 GT500.

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

Truth be told, I like the side profile of the car and even the rear is ok in my books. It really is too bad it looks like a Fusion coupe from the front though. My friends that are Mustang don't like the new design at all, just saying.

99z28383

iTrader: (1)

Won't be long till they start offering a hybrid Mustang...lol

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

It'llrun

I'm not convinced overall sales would rise. 1 important factor is ,they're having a Hell of a time building enough 3.5L's already and the 2.7L would've been a better bet from my view. The 3.5L adds far too much competition for the 5L in the eyes of many(not my own) and would pull GT sales because of that, plus Ford makes less profit on it, for sure. The 2.3L adds the 1 thing EVERY manufacturer now has to deal with... economy. The 3.5L couldn't do that well unless the power level was dropped and while it could instantly be brought back up, that's a marketing nightmare.

I'm shocked at the base prices! It's like $1100 over the previous model, which has far fewer standard features and lacks the expensive IRS. That alone, is worth 1k more in pricing, just due to production costs. With that, however, I don't also see a massive weight reduction. A couple hundred pounds will be the limiting edge here, excluding any GT500 or similar, which weigh so much more in general and can afford such a diet.

Many people don't seem to see it, but the resemblance to the current Mustang and the 2015 is MASSIVE! The roof line is different, but man... this thing looks a bunch like the current! There was a pic of the two and it was clear they're different, but the similarities aren't just a little obvious.

The upgraded brakes, etc. are another $1,995-$2,495 more. There's a 6piston caliper available for the GT(Perf. pkg 67G and it's $2,495), but it's 4piston for the 2.3L(67E). The things that popped out to me were the RECAROS... $1,595... cloth OR leather... weird! The Mustang GT will surely top 50k maxed out.

The grille design is very similar, but nobody's going to be confused about these. Too many Ford vehicles are getting that grille design for me, but it does look good on almost all of 'em.
http://image.motortrend.com/f/wot/14...-front-end.jpg

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

No one will confuse them from the side or the back, but coming at you head on while cruising the highway, you won't be able to tell the difference until you see it pass by.

I'm not a fan of making all your cars look the same. Like the new Charger looks like the Dart - WTF?

Anyway, yes people will know they are Mustangs - I was just having a little fun

-Ross-

iTrader: (2)

Yeah. I hate when automakers produce similar looking vehicles throughout their lineup.










Be realistic, guys. All manufacturers do it. Look at Audi, BMW, Mercedes Benz, etc.
It's cost-effective and a recognition tool.

It'llrun

For the record, THAT may just be cool... I mean, look at the performance we're seeing from Hybrids lately... Some of the quickest cars money can buy are Gas/Electric... Done properly, it's pretty kick ***... but not for me, personally.

By the way... if some available numbers are any indication, the 2.3L and 3.7L will be VERY close in weight... like 30 or maybe 40 lb apart. The 3.7 apparently tips the scales at 366 lb or so while the 2.3L is around 335 lb. Still, the 2.3L makes more power and torque so it has obvious advantages. Oh... and I read that the 2.3L taps out around 6200rpm(factory setting of course) and the 3.7L goes to at least 6700 and can break 7k.

It'llrun

We know... it's not just somewhat common... been that way for decades on end, really. Still, I wanna see notable differences, like in the 3 you showed... similar to say the least, but different, obviously.