2015 Mustang have you seen it?

[johngalt]

That little 4-banger produces 305 horsepower and 300 lb. ft. of torque, a lot more power than V8 Mustang GTs had only a few years ago.

They can make all the claims they want on paper. It will still have lots of turbo lag and sound like an outboard motor.

 

[-db-]

Turbo lag is largely a thing of the past. Modern turbo engines are tuned to where it's basically a non-issue anymore. There are a lot of 4 cylinders out there nowadays that will walk all over V8s.

 

[microgunner]

I think the 2015 Mustang is drop dead gorgeous.

 

[sheepdawg]

This was my 50th birthday present to myself in November of 2004. It comes with the ever popular "PAID FOR" option that you can't get yet on the 2015. It did better than my 66 would have done in yesterday's ice storm too.

 

[-db-]

My wife was working at Ford in 2007 and got to bring a Shelby GT home for a day and overnight in order to report what she thought about the car the next day. I think these made only 315 hp but the looks and handling were great. I had some fun with this one later that night.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Nice Shelby! My boss picked up a 662 HP Shelby a few months back and now I am thinking I should get one (2014) also. I am surprised at how many folks like the 2015. I guess Ford made the right decision and those that (like me) that like the older body style or in the minority.

I would not have guessed it.

 

[UncaGrunny]

Seems to borrow a lot from the Fusion in the front-end treatment.

Not a bad looker - not nearly as bad as the high-waisted donk-wheeled "retro" look Chrysler has been grunting out. IMO, their cars look like an old man with his bermudas pulled up to his armpits.

 

[R. G. Amos]

I think the 2015 looks pretty good. It still definitely has the Mustang look. There is nothing wrong with a 4L engine; I have one that develops 500 HP.

 

[BrianE]

I'm more of a notchback fan, but this car ain't all that bad.. its got some curves to it.....

 

[bishopm14]

Just checked out the FoMoCo gallery on the Mustang. I generally don't like redesigns / next generation / whatever vehicles right away at introduction, but I like that one.

I'm a Ford guy nowadays, drive an F150, but have just never cared for the Mustang. I've actually always liked Camaros, never owned one, and likely never will (or any sporty car) due to my soon to be driveway being 1.25 miles of rough dirt road. But I do like this new Mustang.

I don't even consider the grill to be 'branded' on the new Mustang. At least not what I have noticed on all the Ford trucks and most cars having very similar headlights and turn signals since about 2009.

 

[johngalt]

Turbo lag is largely a thing of the past. Modern turbo engines are tuned to where it's basically a non-issue anymore. There are a lot of 4 cylinders out there nowadays that will walk all over V8s.

The BMW dealer told me the same thing before test driving a 328. BMW replaced the naturally aspirated 3.0 I6 with a turbo 2.0 I4. The dealer was very wrong. No low end torque, lots of turbo lag, the power only turned on high rpm, noisy, sounded like a lawn mower. All for a measly 1 mpg. On paper, it had maybe 5 extra hp. In practical use it was a dog. Terrible motor.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I remember the original '64 Mustang. It was a sports car for young guys with little cash. Now you only see old farts driving them. I would not pony up the big bucks for this car.

Excuse me Vito but I am one of those "old farts" of which you wax so eloquently .......

 

[-db-]

The BMW dealer told me the same thing before test driving a 328. BMW replaced the naturally aspirated 3.0 I6 with a turbo 2.0 I4. The dealer was very wrong. No low end torque, lots of turbo lag, the power only turned on high rpm, noisy, sounded like a lawn mower. All for a measly 1 mpg. On paper, it had maybe 5 extra hp. In practical use it was a dog. Terrible motor.

I can't argue with that as I don't know anything about BMWs but I do know there are a lot of 4-cylinders and turbo engines on the road today and they're not the same 4-cylinders/turbos we had 10, 20, 30 years ago. You might recall the 1980s when big honkin' V8s made only 100-and-something horsepower and a car breaking 200 horsepower was a big deal (!), which is why I chuckle at blanket statements regarding their supposed virtue over a smaller engine. It's not really the size of an engine that matters anymore, it's the technology.

There are guys using stock block GM Ecotec 4-bangers to make 1,500+ horsepower knocking on the 5-second door in drag racing today, an incredible feat unimaginable only a few years ago:

http://www.dragzine.com/news/video-ecotec-powered-drag-car-sets-new-4-cylinder-world-record/

WORLD FASTEST 4 CYLINDERS 6.43@214MPH !!!!!! - YouTube

Turbos are wonderful things.

 

[10mmauto]

I've got one of those 328's. And I've got the post about 10 back. I won't claim it's got much torque, but it'll get up and go pretty good.

At least it'll suffice for the winter!

 

[Ranger514]

Sorry. I liked the older Mustang body designs, and the 2015 just doesn't do it for me. This does:

2014 Corvette Stingray: GT Car - C7 | Chevrolet

 

[Fishinfool]

I can take or leave the new style. I think the 2005 / 2013 retro style is a little cleaner, for my taste. Then again, most of my taste is in my mouth.

That 4 banger turbo may get up and go, but a blower / turbo, and high revs puts a lot of strain on an engine. I still like cubic inches for horsepower. Lots of torque without having to rev it like a motorcycle engine.

Engine design / computer management has come a long way though. I remember when if you got 100K miles out of a 60's car, you were doing good. Now, 200K is expected. In 1975, my L-48 Vette had 165 HP, I believe it was, with the L-82 Hi Po motor coming in at under 200.

My 1995 vette, with slight modifications, is 350 hp, will smoke most 60's muscle cars, and do it in comfort, at 26 mpg on the highway. Took a 2013 Vette, with the optional HP motor for a test drive this summer, and it about scared me...

Larry

 

[Nevada Ed]

Ah......... about that big ugly front bumper on the new 2015.......

What's with that?

 

[albiek22]

Peter,
I have a 2012 Mustang and belong to the local Mustang club, Berks County Mustang. The majority of the club does not care for the 2015 design.
Larry

 

[R. G. Amos]

Turbo lag is largely a thing of the past. Modern turbo engines are tuned to where it's basically a non-issue anymore. There are a lot of 4 cylinders out there nowadays that will walk all over V8s.

In my youth I owned a 1979 Porsche 911 Turbo (930). With this car the turbo lag was very noticeable but was forgivable when the rush came on. I now have a 2013 911 Turbo with twin turbos and while greatly reduced the lag is still there. The 1979 with only 260 HP was strangely more fun to drive than the 2013 with 500 HP.

 

[Smitty357]

I'm just waiting on 2017. Just so I can park the 50th anniversary camaro right next to our 67 camaro.

Like father, like son.

 

[Bullet Bob]

Ford has lost me with their current commercials; "something AND something is better than something OR something". You pay an ad agency a few million, and that's the best you expect out of them?

I like the grills on the Focus and others, if you're going to steal a design (from Aston Martin in this case), might as steal something classy looking.

I like Japanese cars, but I don't like the big smile most of them have, or whatever that thing that front end is supposed to be on the new Lexus sport models.

 

[williamlayton]

Now---you pure breads can wax on and on about the old versus new, but from one who has experience with the old and new.
The old do not hold a candle to the new--in performance, handling, ride or design.
I got me a new one 2010 and I will confess that it is worlds apart from the ol ones.
I am 73 and one of those ol farts you disparage so easily---I would really like to talk to you face to face.
As far as being cheep when They first came out---when you were making $400 a month, they were all expensive.
Blessings

 

[johngalt]

I can't argue with that as I don't know anything about BMWs but I do know there are a lot of 4-cylinders and turbo engines on the road today and they're not the same 4-cylinders/turbos we had 10, 20, 30 years ago. You might recall the 1980s when big honkin' V8s made only 100-and-something horsepower and a car breaking 200 horsepower was a big deal (!), which is why I chuckle at blanket statements regarding their supposed virtue over a smaller engine. It's not really the size of an engine that matters anymore, it's the technology.

There are guys using stock block GM Ecotec 4-bangers to make 1,500+ horsepower knocking on the 5-second door in drag racing today, an incredible feat unimaginable only a few years ago:

Video: Ecotec-Powered Drag Car Sets New 4-Cylinder World Record - Dragzine

WORLD FASTEST 4 CYLINDERS 6.43@214MPH !!!!!! - YouTube

Not really an applicable comparison. Those 70s and 80s V8s were being strangled by EPA regulations, it took a while for the technology to catch up and compensate. A turbo 4 isn't even close to a modern V8.

Motors used by purpose built drag racers is really irrelevent to a car intended for daily use.

Put a big turbo on a small motor, and you end up with a package that has no torque and no performance until you get the rpms up. Which means you are constantly mashing the throttle. With the way cars are geared now to run at low rpm for fuel economy, that means the turbo is never spun up. Hence the lag.

In the 328 I test drove, you put your foot down, then nothing, nothing, nothing, then finally the turbo spun up. Once the turbo finally kicked in, performance was ok, but until then it was a dog. And there was no 'moderate' acceleration. If you didn't mash the throttle to get the turbo spun up, there was nothing.

Turbos are wonderful things.

That depends entirely on the motor it is attached to. Another example: my dad has a BMW X5 with the turbo 3.0 I6. It replaced an older X5 with a naturally aspirated 3.0 I6. The turbo takes the motor from about 260 hp to around 300. So not a lot of extra boost. The motor produces plenty of power on its own without the turbo, the turbo is just a little extra. There is still lag, but it isn't objectionable because the performance is good without it.

The 2.0 I4 DOESN'T produce enough power on its own, without the turbo, to provide acceptable performance. Until the turbo spins up, it is a dog.

Aesthetics also matter. I'm driving a car, not a chart on a piece of paper. I don't want to listen to a I4 chattering away like a lawn mower on a long road trip, and I don't want rev the ---- out of it to get decent performance.

Yes the I4 may produce acceptable power on paper. But it is useless to me if only happens at 5000+ rpm.

 

[dcxplant]

It's not really 'current'. Bugatti has had their horseshoe shaped radiator since the 1920s. Don't know when Aston-Martin designed their stylized 'A' grille, but it was some time ago. The Rolls Royce radiator goes 'way back, probably almost to WW I. And the split grill design of the BMW goes back at least 30 years. Readers could undoubtedly come up with other examples.

For sure your right. To me it seems that's true for some of the older Euro makes (you know those crazy Europeans firms love to market how old they are), but a newer trend with US automakers. Who wants the same grill as their pickup truck on their family sedan? Well, I suppose some people do.

I'm sick of seeing that Hoffmeister kink which has been copied more than a term paper at an ASU frat house….

I think most automakers are too conservative, and I don't know if it's the consumer driving this or the automaker trying to maintain it's brand at all costs.

The new Mustang by it's spec should be a real runner, that's for sure. I'm really interested to see how that turbo 4 turns out. If it has a weight advantage over the V8 and V6 it could be a really nicely balanced car, which would be a new thing for Mustangs.

A turbo car can be a heck of a lot of fun to drive. The driver has to learn how to keep the engine on the pipe, which depending on the engine may or may not be a lot of work. Anyone here ever ride a 70's two-stroke 125 dirt bike as a kid? If you got it wrong you lost, if you got it right you flew like the wind! The F1 drivers managed 1000hp turbo cars in the fastest, best handling cars in the world, so we know it can be done. I can't wait to see what the weight balance of the new Mustang is with that engine.

 

[LVSteve]

Not really an applicable comparison. Those 70s and 80s V8s were being strangled by EPA regulations, it took a while for the technology to catch up and compensate. A turbo 4 isn't even close to a modern V8.

Motors used by purpose built drag racers is really irrelevent to a car intended for daily use.

Put a big turbo on a small motor, and you end up with a package that has no torque and no performance until you get the rpms up. Which means you are constantly mashing the throttle. With the way cars are geared now to run at low rpm for fuel economy, that means the turbo is never spun up. Hence the lag.

In the 328 I test drove, you put your foot down, then nothing, nothing, nothing, then finally the turbo spun up. Once the turbo finally kicked in, performance was ok, but until then it was a dog. And there was no 'moderate' acceleration. If you didn't mash the throttle to get the turbo spun up, there was nothing.



That depends entirely on the motor it is attached to. Another example: my dad has a BMW X5 with the turbo 3.0 I6. It replaced an older X5 with a naturally aspirated 3.0 I6. The turbo takes the motor from about 260 hp to around 300. So not a lot of extra boost. The motor produces plenty of power on its own without the turbo, the turbo is just a little extra. There is still lag, but it isn't objectionable because the performance is good without it.

The 2.0 I4 DOESN'T produce enough power on its own, without the turbo, to provide acceptable performance. Until the turbo spins up, it is a dog.

Aesthetics also matter. I'm driving a car, not a chart on a piece of paper. I don't want to listen to a I4 chattering away like a lawn mower on a long road trip, and I don't want rev the ---- out of it to get decent performance.

Yes the I4 may produce acceptable power on paper. But it is useless to me if only happens at 5000+ rpm.

I don't know what you are expecting, but my recent drives of turbocharged cars has shown me how far they have come in the last 25 years. Lag is minimal and you don't need to wring it out to make it go. To say they only have torque and power at high revs is nonsense in my experience. Do they have the initial step off of a big V8? No, of course not, but for 99.9% of driving situations on the public road, the grunt is there.

I owned a Volvo S60 with the 2.5 low pressure turbo and it had plenty of low and mid-range torque. It climbed all the hills on I-15 coming out of California without downshifting. My 3.8 Firebird with the same horsepower (200bhp) could not do that. I recently had a Chevy Cruze 1.4 Turbo rental that I was expecting to be a dog, but it ran just fine.

I think the subtext of your posts on this subject is that you truly detest 4-cylinder engines. I have a co-worker who is the same. Folk are sensitive to certain sounds in cars. I had several passengers say that my 5-cylinder Volvo "sounded wrong". People are the same about CVT transmissions, the vehicle sounds different and many people are incapable of accepting that the performance is the same because the sound is different. My buddy has a CVT Nissan and my "seat of the pants meter" says it goes fine, it just sounds different. Maybe I am weird because I can decouple my ears from my G-sensors.

I will agree that a 2.0 four, turboed or not, is never going to sound or feel as nice as a BMW 3.0 straight six. No other engine does, except maybe some V12s. But to compare it with a lawnmower is a bit of a stretch.

 

[71firebird400]

Independent Rear Suspension, ~200 less pounds, and rumors of a forged rotating assembly in the 5.0- sounds great to me! I just wish they'd drop the problematic MT82 and go to a TR6060.

 

[LVSteve]

Independent Rear Suspension, ~200 less pounds, and rumors of a forged rotating assembly in the 5.0- sounds great to me! I just wish they'd drop the problematic MT82 and go to a TR6060.

I think the 200 less pounds is unlikely to happen. JMHO.

 

[Forrest48]

2015 convertible, manual trans, Ecoboost. Ready for it.

 

[johngalt]

...Lag is minimal and you don't need to wring it out to make it go...

I suppose everyone has different opinions on what 'minimal' means. I've never driven an older turbocharged car, the 328 and X5 were my first. Compared to the 350 V8 in my Tahoe, I found the lag in the 328 to be pretty bad.

I think the subtext of your posts on this subject is that you truly detest 4-cylinder engines.

You are very correct there. I have never experienced a 4 cylinder that I would actually ever spend my own money on. I've been in rentals and friends though. GM 4 cylinders stand out to me as being especially terrible (Pontiac Aztek).

I will agree that a 2.0 four, turboed or not, is never going to sound or feel as nice as a BMW 3.0 straight six. No other engine does, except maybe some V12s. But to compare it with a lawnmower is a bit of a stretch.

It is a real shame what BMW did to the 328/528. Just to save 1 mpg.

 

[LVSteve]

I suppose everyone has different opinions on what 'minimal' means. I've never driven an older turbocharged car, the 328 and X5 were my first. Compared to the 350 V8 in my Tahoe, I found the lag in the 328 to be pretty bad.



You are very correct there. I have never experienced a 4 cylinder that I would actually ever spend my own money on. I've been in rentals and friends though. GM 4 cylinders stand out to me as being especially terrible (Pontiac Aztek).

It is a real shame what BMW did to the 328/528. Just to save 1 mpg.

Back in the day, the lag on turbo cars went something like "stomp on gas, one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi" and then the power arrived. These days anything past one Mississippi is considered very laggy, and most have it down to half of that, or the same lag you get driving most cars with specific California emissions.

If you have the older Tahoe with the LT1 5.7 liter then you will find the step-off of most modern cars pretty soft due to emissions regs. That LT1 was a beast low down, and if you have the 4.1 gear in that truck then you will think almost anything modern has lag.

GM 4-cylinder engines could be pretty nasty for NVH, especially their 2.4 engine in the smaller cars. Japanese and German 4-bangers are generally better in that respect. As for what BMW did for an extra 1mpg, is it really as little as that? I thought the new 328/528 did much better on the highway that the old sixes. Besides, these are EPA numbers that I take with a bucket of salt.

Most motoring magazines can never get near the EPA numbers with turbo cars because they are more sensitive to how they are driven. Drive them like a normal person and the EPA numbers are well within reach with a turbo car, especially on the highway.

My biggest beef with the latest 3 and 5 Series BMWs is they have grown so large. The 3-Series is now at least as big or bigger than a 5-Series from the late 1980s or 90s.