New Mustang Reviews are in... (Page 1/6)
jediperk SEP 17, 10:35 PM
Just got done reading the reviews of the new Mustang on MT & C/D. In summary, the mustang gained a lot of weight and now weighs about the same as the Camaro, performs the same, has comparable ride and handling due to IRS, and costs A LOT more $$$ than before (loaded GT now tops out at just over $46k). Basically, when the new Camaro debuts on the ATS's chassis, it's going to handily crush the new mustang. Ford should have went turbo diesel in the F150 (like Dodge) and used all that aluminum on the Mustang.
thesameguy SEP 18, 03:27 AM
I think you're exaggerating things *just* a little. The Mustang gained between 28 and 87lbs, which is not exactly a lot of weight and still weighs less than the Camaro. The V6 Mustang weighs the same as the V8 Camaro. The turbo Mustang weighs 150lbs less than the lightest Camaro. While I think it's possible the Camaro will lose some weight once it moves to the ATS platform, it's only going to do that if it costs more. So either the Camaro won't be saving a bunch of weight and will keep legacy materials, or it will use the same magnesium and aluminum components the ATS does and add some cost. My bet is on the former, but who knows. The current Mustang runs from $22k to $41k (MSRP) and the '15 is expected to add $1000-$3000 the base prices - not a huge amount of money and very much inline with Ford's current practice of "make it better, not cheaper." The regular GT Premium topper is $38k vs. the outgoing model's GT Premium at $35k. The $46k car you reference is the limited-production 50th Anniversary edition, of which only 1964 cars will be made. I appreciate your Camaro enthusiasm, but "ZOMG HEAVY $46,000 MUSTANG!" isn't nearly the full story.
jediperk SEP 18, 10:17 AM

quote
Originally posted by thesameguy:

I think you're exaggerating things *just* a little. The Mustang gained between 28 and 87lbs, which is not exactly a lot of weight and still weighs less than the Camaro. The V6 Mustang weighs the same as the V8 Camaro. The turbo Mustang weighs 150lbs less than the lightest Camaro. While I think it's possible the Camaro will lose some weight once it moves to the ATS platform, it's only going to do that if it costs more. So either the Camaro won't be saving a bunch of weight and will keep legacy materials, or it will use the same magnesium and aluminum components the ATS does and add some cost. My bet is on the former, but who knows. The current Mustang runs from $22k to $41k (MSRP) and the '15 is expected to add $1000-$3000 the base prices - not a huge amount of money and very much inline with Ford's current practice of "make it better, not cheaper." The regular GT Premium topper is $38k vs. the outgoing model's GT Premium at $35k. The $46k car you reference is the limited-production 50th Anniversary edition, of which only 1964 cars will be made. I appreciate your Camaro enthusiasm, but "ZOMG HEAVY $46,000 MUSTANG!" isn't nearly the full story.




Uh, no. Read the articles.

"So why isn't the new ponycar faster than the old one, or handle as well given its horsepower and torque bump and new suspension? One word: weight. The new Mustang GT weighs in at 3814 pounds, a 196-pound increase over the last similarly equipped Mustang GT we tested."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/r..._test/#ixzz3Dg0hf9h3

I'm no Camaro fanboy. I am a realist though. When was the last time GM released a new model of a sports car and it was not faster and better in almost every possible metric that counts? It will not be any different for the new Camaro. The new mustang's numbers are basically on par with the current camaro. It won't matter if they use the Magnesium or not. Also, that $46k price is not for the limited edition model either. That IS the price of a fully loaded GT.
2.5 SEP 18, 01:26 PM
I wonder how many Mustang vs.Camaro buyers decide between the two based on weight and performance though. For the ones where it is about looks and branding they will stick with it anyway.
Not saying your thought are not also true.
jediperk SEP 18, 02:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:

I wonder how many Mustang vs.Camaro buyers decide between the two based on weight and performance though. For the ones where it is about looks and branding they will stick with it anyway.
Not saying your thought are not also true.



Only the independents like me (I've owned both). It really sucks though b/c I have always liked the looks of the Mustang better, but the Camaro has always been the better car (at usually a little higher price). I was pulling hard for this car b/c I thought it would finally be on even footing with the Camaro on driving dynamics and performance, and it is with the outgoing model. But, knowing what is waiting in the shoot utilizing the ATS chassis, it won't be for long... Now I'm re-thinking my plans and I think I will stay with two cars, my Buick as the D/D and my N* Fiero as the toy car. Only difference is now, my Fiero will probably be getting some more upgrades over the next couple of years to make it truly elite in terms of performance.
thesameguy SEP 18, 05:28 PM

quote
Originally posted by jediperk:"So why isn't the new ponycar faster than the old one, or handle as well given its horsepower and torque bump and new suspension? One word: weight. The new Mustang GT weighs in at 3814 pounds, a 196-pound increase over the last similarly equipped Mustang GT we tested."[/quote[

Motor Trend is the ONLY source claiming that number. Ford says 87lbs, with a curb weight of 3705. Maybe MT forgot to take the driver out of the seat. Wouldn't be the first time they got the wrong numbers. MT is also the only source claiming the handling is less than brilliant - R&T and Autoblog both agree it's excellent.

[quote[I'm no Camaro fanboy. I am a realist though. When was the last time GM released a new model of a sports car and it was not faster and better in almost every possible metric that counts?



Well, the current Camaro would be an example of that. It's a terrible drive. I won't argue it's faster than the 4th gens, but it's zero fun and its numbers make no sense. I had a deposit on one and was going to trade in my CTS-V, but the V made the same power with less weight even with two extra doors and a roomy back seat, had better visibility, and wasn't down one iota in the dynamics (which actually isn't saying much... the V wasn't terribly dynamic). If you like straight lines, the Camaro is for you - but the last several years of Mustangs were way better on the road (solid axle notwithstanding) and everyone except Motor Trend agrees the '15 continues the trend of the 'stang getting down & dirty in the twisties.

An ATS-based Camaro very well might change that - the ATS is a very good car - but GM is trying to turn a luxury sedan platform into a sports car. I don't see that slipping by the beancounters unnoticed. The Camaro is either gonna get a lot more expensive, or it's not going to benefit from a lot of the fancy stuff that helps make the ATS the nice drive it is.


quote
It will not be any different for the new Camaro. The new mustang's numbers are basically on par with the current camaro. It won't matter if they use the Magnesium or not. Also, that $46k price is not for the limited edition model either. That IS the price of a fully loaded GT.



Of course I had to check. I went to Ford's build & buy, and I got my fully loaded, every option GT Premium Convertible up to $52k! (My fully optioned hardtop was over $48k.)

Care to guess what happens when you do the same to a 2015 Camaro Convertible 2SS RS? $60k! Actually, I stopped checking boxes when it crested 60k, so my build doesn't have an embroidered center console, car cover, or trunk mat.

But, seriously, nobody reports on what fully optioned cars cost. That $46k number ($46,995, actually) is the MSRP of the 50th Anniversary model, not a fully optioned GT. A fully optioned GT (with Recaros!) is much more expensive - both facts you can see for yourself clearly on Ford's website right this second.

Anyway, if you think the 2016 Camaro is going to shed weight, gain power, AND cost less, you're nuts. It can do any two of those things, but not all three. That would violate every rule of automobile economics.
jediperk SEP 18, 05:48 PM

quote
Originally posted by thesameguy:


Of course I had to check. I went to Ford's build & buy, and I got my fully loaded, every option GT Premium Convertible up to $52k! (My fully optioned hardtop was over $48k.)

Care to guess what happens when you do the same to a 2015 Camaro Convertible 2SS RS? $60k! Actually, I stopped checking boxes when it crested 60k, so my build doesn't have an embroidered center console, car cover, or trunk mat.

But, seriously, nobody reports on what fully optioned cars cost. That $46k number ($46,995, actually) is the MSRP of the 50th Anniversary model, not a fully optioned GT. A fully optioned GT (with Recaros!) is much more expensive - both facts you can see for yourself clearly on Ford's website right this second.

Anyway, if you think the 2016 Camaro is going to shed weight, gain power, AND cost less, you're nuts. It can do any two of those things, but not all three. That would violate every rule of automobile economics.



No I'll take the M/T actual weight of the fully loaded all options car with automatic transmission they tested over the Ford number that is most likely a bare bones no options car trying to paint the best picture they can. The price of the Camaro is not relevant to my post as the Camaro is always more expensive than the Mustang b/c it has been the better car. The point of pointing out the cost of the Mustang was this is no longer obtainable for the average working class joe. I think this will cost them sales with independents who are cross shopping this vs a Camaro as normally being $3-5k cheaper was one of its stronger points vs. the Camaro. As for your last comment, I expect it will be 2 out of 3 with the odd one out being a slight increase in price. The bottom line is Ford made a terrible decision to go all aluminum with the F150 when it would have been far more cost effective and beneficial to have made the lower volume Mustang with the lightweight stuff...

Also, having owned and lived with both the S197 Mustang Gt and current generation Camaro I don't need any magazine to tell me which one is the better driving and performing car. It was not even close. The only knock on the Camaro was rear visibility backing out of angled parking lots. Basically, you are blind....

[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 09-18-2014).]

Fiero84Freak SEP 19, 11:06 AM
I think one thing that has to be considered here is that you really cannot go off of what the rags... er... mags are saying about the new Mustang because Ford isn't positioning this car for just the US market; they're trying to get it world-wide.

People seem to think that others in mostly European or Asian countries don't like "American Muscle," but in actuality they REALLY do. Most of the issues the common buyers have in these markets are either heavy importation taxes or other fees and/or taxes due based on engine or similar items.

Take for example in Japan.

There are laws in most all Prefectures (states over there) that apply a heavy tax on vehicles over 3000ccs (3.0L). This is why cars like the Supra, NSX, Skyline, etc, for the longest did not exceed 3.0L. It wasn't really because the Japanese were incredibly apt'ed at making small, powerful engines. It just that they HAD to. They couldn't build something like a Supra or a Skyline with a large 5.0L engine, because Prefectural taxes would have made the cars near "unsellable."

Take for instance an older Mustang - since we're on the topic of Mustangs. Someone whom I am Facebook friends with is Japanese and owns a fox body GT in Japan. He pays roughly $900 US dollars a YEAR in taxes on the car. Think about if you own something like that for 10 years. You would pay nearly $10,000 just in taxes. Just for the right to "own" something. This isn't factoring in parking, or the "Shaken" (Japanese car inspection) which can run $300-$600 each. This is just basic Prefecture taxes due every year.

Meanwhile the guy down the road that owns a newer Corolla or a Civic pays just parking and Shaken. No engine-based taxes.

This makes it very difficult to own "imports" in Japan since many, many American cars have engines over 3.0L. And this is just Japan. Think of other countries that have issues, like in Australia, where you absolutely have to own a right-hand drive car due to laws and not many American-made cars are RHD.

This is also why the turbo four cylinder Mustang is one of THE smartest moves Ford has ever done. They're building the car near-specifically for the export market. Seeing the Mustang plant construct right-hand drive turbo four cylinders here in the US is a sight I didn't think I'd ever see happen. But it is. And it's important for the future of the car.

I think ultimately we're focusing on the "wrong" cars by trying to critic the V6 and V8 Mustangs. The car you should be looking at is the turbo four. And if you don't think Chevy isn't watching then you're naive. the next Camaro will be built on the ATS chassis, and the ATS will have a Cadillac four cylinder turbo. If the Mustang does well, Chevy WILL make a turbo four Camaro. Count on it.
jediperk SEP 19, 12:38 PM

quote
Originally posted by Fiero84Freak:

I think one thing that has to be considered here is that you really cannot go off of what the rags... er... mags are saying about the new Mustang because Ford isn't positioning this car for just the US market; they're trying to get it world-wide.

People seem to think that others in mostly European or Asian countries don't like "American Muscle," but in actuality they REALLY do. Most of the issues the common buyers have in these markets are either heavy importation taxes or other fees and/or taxes due based on engine or similar items.

Take for example in Japan.

There are laws in most all Prefectures (states over there) that apply a heavy tax on vehicles over 3000ccs (3.0L). This is why cars like the Supra, NSX, Skyline, etc, for the longest did not exceed 3.0L. It wasn't really because the Japanese were incredibly apt'ed at making small, powerful engines. It just that they HAD to. They couldn't build something like a Supra or a Skyline with a large 5.0L engine, because Prefectural taxes would have made the cars near "unsellable."

Take for instance an older Mustang - since we're on the topic of Mustangs. Someone whom I am Facebook friends with is Japanese and owns a fox body GT in Japan. He pays roughly $900 US dollars a YEAR in taxes on the car. Think about if you own something like that for 10 years. You would pay nearly $10,000 just in taxes. Just for the right to "own" something. This isn't factoring in parking, or the "Shaken" (Japanese car inspection) which can run $300-$600 each. This is just basic Prefecture taxes due every year.

Meanwhile the guy down the road that owns a newer Corolla or a Civic pays just parking and Shaken. No engine-based taxes.

This makes it very difficult to own "imports" in Japan since many, many American cars have engines over 3.0L. And this is just Japan. Think of other countries that have issues, like in Australia, where you absolutely have to own a right-hand drive car due to laws and not many American-made cars are RHD.

This is also why the turbo four cylinder Mustang is one of THE smartest moves Ford has ever done. They're building the car near-specifically for the export market. Seeing the Mustang plant construct right-hand drive turbo four cylinders here in the US is a sight I didn't think I'd ever see happen. But it is. And it's important for the future of the car.

I think ultimately we're focusing on the "wrong" cars by trying to critic the V6 and V8 Mustangs. The car you should be looking at is the turbo four. And if you don't think Chevy isn't watching then you're naive. the next Camaro will be built on the ATS chassis, and the ATS will have a Cadillac four cylinder turbo. If the Mustang does well, Chevy WILL make a turbo four Camaro. Count on it.





Having spent 9 out of the last 11 years overseas (mostly Europe, some time in S. Korea, some time in the closest thing to "hell on earth") I can confirm everything you are saying about the taxes not just on the displacement but also anything that threatens their respective economy's (y'up folks, the politicians in the other countries actually put tariffs on competing foreign goods to protect jobs in their own country b/c unlike the chuckleheads we keep electing they actually understand global economics). The problem is the review on the turbo 4 mustang was not any better than the V8. Its so heavy that even with the additional TQ and comparable HP it is slower than a 2014 V6 Mustang. After reading the reviews I think its the extra weight that cost the same V6 engines in the new mustangs to take a fuel economy hit. The other problem is Ford did not size the turbo properly b/c it stops pulling at 5300 RPM. That should not happen with a VVT and DI 2.3L Four. GM's turbo fours pull all the way to redline and gains significant HP/TQ bumps with just a tune that raises the boost pressure. That probably will not work on Ford's turbo mustang b/c the turbo is not sized properly and I think they did this on purpose to protect the V8 GT's.

I guess part of my gripe is how you define "Muscle Car". In my mind that is a straight line drag strip romping machine with a "relaxed fit" driving characteristics at an affordable price for the average Joe.. The Camaro and this new Mustang no longer fit that. They have evolved into GT Sports Cars. They are "Muscle Cars in name only" now. Not totally a bad thing, but the pricing is starting to reflect the improvement in refinement and that is going to cost them sales in the US where median incomes have dropped over $4k a year since 2009. B/C I know how much they will be marked up over seas from what they are priced at here I don't think they will sell enough of them overseas to make up the difference in sales lost here. Especially when the new Camaro comes out on the ATS's chassis. Where Dodge is slashing Viper costs $15k a car right now, I see Ford having to do the same thing with this new Mustang at about $5k a car in a year from now.
Fiero84Freak SEP 19, 01:02 PM
I think that's the big thing though and I won't argue with your definition of "muscle car" since everyone has opinions, myself included, on how to define a "muscle car" or any car for that matter. What I think Ford ultimately wants to do is make "muscle car" more "flexible" in a sense. I feel they don't want to fully re-write the meaning of what most take as a "muscle car," but rather they want to expand upon it. They want to be able to say "here, you can have a small displacement four cylinder built in America with styling ingrained in automotive Americana." I don't feel they want to say "well, this here four cylinder is the exact same as a big V8 so it's 'Murica and muscle to the wall man!" Of course both of what I just said can be contrived at first glance as saying the exact same thing, but if read you can see two different intentions there that both lead to what "muscle car" is.

I guess more of what I want to emphasize is don't go all-in taking what every single mag out there is saying as just the defining word. I know that's probably with any car, but for the Mustang in particular and it's engrained history in America it's going to be heavily critiqued in most every single direction possible, not even factoring in the heavy anticipation this car has. They're going to critique weight. They're going to critique power. They're going to critique EVERY SINGLE possible difference. And a lot of that critique may be warranted but don't fall too deep into such critique as going against or for the car. Rather lets wait and see what the public thinks when they get their hands on it. And again keep a real eye on those turbo four cars. Chevy will I assure you.