2015 reviews are out

[tt335ci03cobra]

So a fully loaded auto is running 12.8@112.... Ok. A manual less optioned gt will be faster than the 11-14's. Guaranteed.

Is anybody ignorant, wishful or numb enough to think that a fully optioned auto gt matching the boss's 24.7 figure 8 means this generation is a dud? Fail. Blind defeated but hanging on by threads...

Oh, I love how cute and 5 year old mentality some people are being in their selection of excerpts from reviews. Anyone who reads the reviews will clearly see the slant being played and rightly call you a bull sh*tter for slanting the quotes.

Hell, one reviewer who claimed the car was a let down on a road course had 3 total comments, and by the third, can be quoted as saying "I want one... Bad." Same guy tianny or something was his last name. It's in the article.

So a big f*ck off to the bull sh*tters

 

[tt335ci03cobra]

Also, so many people are here spouting performance numbers based of preliminary magazine times to deny handling improvements and no one here apart from one person has driven it yet. Handling and performance are not the same. A miata out handles a corvette everyday of the week. It's slow as sh*t but it's more telepathic to drive fast.

That one person says it's much better than the 14 car but every tom dick and Harry in here saying it isn't claims they are right because they just "know they are" or whatever crap logic.

I'll trust the droves of reviewers who say it absolutely and fundamentally revamps the mustang name and completely ditches the stereotypical mustang handling issues.

For the same reason I never bought a mustang after my 03, the lack of an irs, I can happily say I'm apt and eager to buy one now as it clearly can finally handle.

I spent years getting my 03 cobra to the point where I absolutely love it, but from day one, it handled leagues better than friends sra mustangs and camaros and without the vette tax which is why I bought it vs a c5 z06.

Now, another quick point, prices to value are at all time bests.

An 03 cobra was $32-36,000 in 2003/4. It had a spartan interior, 400hp, and handled pretty good for the time.

Today for $36,500 you can get a track gt with recarro's, 430hp, excellent handling, a much longer warrenty, and leagues more refinement, better mpg, interior, etc.

Hell, a damn v6 mustang at $24,750 or so has about as much power as a $24,000 1996-98 mustang cobra had.

Anyone arguing the price is too high needs to get it together. A loaded gt at $45,000 is maybe two away from m3 territory in terms of refinement, features, options, and performance. An m3 is $75,000 the way you'd wanna compare it to that $45,000 mustang. Let's not forget one road and track editor said he'd take the mustang gt over an m235i any day. Explain that as a fail bozo's.

End rant.

Oh lastly, sra is not gods gift to killing wheel hop. A stock 79-04 sra will wheel hop like a donky cart on a back road until you install a bunch of parts on it.

The 03/4 irs is more capable than a stock 79-04 sra and has less wheel hop stock vs stock. A built sra out launches a stock irs, want a cookie? A built irs can handle 1.3x 60' foots and has done so in 03 cobras to boot.

Big difference is an irs doesn't handle poorly or tie up the rear leading to excessive bucking while limit handling or breaking.

 

[kino]

[QUOTE
Join Date2*(100%)

So a fully loaded auto is running 12.8@112.... Ok. A manual less optioned gt will be faster than the 11-14's. Guaranteed.

Is anybody ignorant, wishful or numb enough to think that a fully optioned auto gt matching the boss's 24.7 figure 8 means this generation is a dud? Fail. Blind defeated but hanging on by threads

/QUOTE]

MT tested a fully loaded GT with recaros and 6 speed. Not an auto. I think the car is at least a 2 run maybe a 3 run hit but I'm not seeing the home run that many of us wished for. Perhaps the next refresh might be more suitable for me but I'll have to wait till then.

 

[tt335ci03cobra]

It was a manual and that makes one of my points invalid, good catch. I honestly thought they had an auto car.

Also, somewhere I had said it finally can handle well, I meant it finally feels like a sports car, not that it finally grips well. We all know the s197's gripped well, they just were hindered by the static weight in the rear and the wheels themselves being tied together.

Most all aix cars that switched from sra to irs trimmed seconds per lap, and that's just fitting the 03 cobras bolt in deal. A true irs chassis is even more so capable.

The new car honestly needs an aluminum chassis, lighter factory exhaust, and some additional weight saving efforts to get back to 3550lbs coupled with possibly di and compression for a healthy 450-475hp. If it had that combo by say 2017, I believe it would more than enough car for basically any new buyer with $35,000 in hand. Likely midto low 12's@115-118, and 1g on a skid pad with the moves to match a well performing m4.

 

[Bob Cosby]

I'd buy a $35k, 3550 lbs Mustang - even at 435 HP. But I can't for the life of me see any scenario in which that happens with this chassis. Certainly not by 2017.

....Handling and performance are not the same....

I tried to let this go, but couldn't help myself. Handling most certainly IS performance - just a different part than acceleration, braking, or whatever other metric you wish to apply. Its semantics, but still...

BTW...You are certainly correct that both an SRA and an IRS can suffer from wheel hop, though I would argue that on the drag strip, an IRS is FAR more likely to have more serious wheel-hop issues. I never had hop issues with my 88 SRA Coupe, 99 SRA Cobra (swap), or 04 SRA Cobra (swap). All you really need is the right tire and air pressure with the stick axle.

And yes, I'm fully aware of the advantageous of an IRS in both daily driving and spirited corner carving. It's just not a big deal to me.

 

[tt335ci03cobra]

Bob, great points. I needed to use the word grip, not performance.

Irs vs sra, all things being generally equal, handle better as I'm sure we both agree. Handling to me is more enjoyable and is more about feel and less about performance numbers. I do like performance though, as anyone can see by my signature.

An sra is stronger for dedicated drag racing. No question there.

An irs is better for a street car IMO. That said, I have no qualms with anyone who disagrees based on their desires. My built irs has handled 920wtq meanwhile my stockish (clutch, flywheel mgw 26spline) t56 had 3/4th gear synchros blow apart. An irs can easily be built to handle power. Most street cars have less than 650wtq which is easily accommodated for. An sra needs mods to handle power as well, and is the big reason why I get frustrated when some people act like it's gods gift to street/strip cars. It isn't, and it's I'll advised to swap one into an irs car imho.

Based on my experience, there is just too much ignorance and regurgitation of incorrect "knowledge" regarding the mustang and irs applications. I posted on this thread after reading 2 pages with comments from black99lightning, the camaro5 flamethrowers, etc.

Bob, I've never thought of you or your posts unfavorably. You generally have a lot of wisdom and knowledge, and express it realistically and communicatively. Cheers.

 

[vergil]

According to Magnaflow 2015 stock GT put down 375RWHP and 355RWTQ.

http://www.svtperformance.com/?p=6756

 

[Bob Cosby]

Bob, great points. I needed to use the word grip, not performance.

Irs vs sra, all things being generally equal, handle better as I'm sure we both agree. Handling to me is more enjoyable and is more about feel and less about performance numbers. I do like performance though, as anyone can see by my signature.

An sra is stronger for dedicated drag racing. No question there.

An irs is better for a street car IMO. That said, I have no qualms with anyone who disagrees based on their desires. My built irs has handled 920wtq meanwhile my stockish (clutch, flywheel mgw 26spline) t56 had 3/4th gear synchros blow apart. An irs can easily be built to handle power. Most street cars have less than 650wtq which is easily accommodated for. An sra needs mods to handle power as well, and is the big reason why I get frustrated when some people act like it's gods gift to street/strip cars. It isn't, and it's I'll advised to swap one into an irs car imho.

Based on my experience, there is just too much ignorance and regurgitation of incorrect "knowledge" regarding the mustang and irs applications. I posted on this thread after reading 2 pages with comments from black99lightning, the camaro5 flamethrowers, etc.

Bob, I've never thought of you or your posts unfavorably. You generally have a lot of wisdom and knowledge, and express it realistically and communicatively. Cheers.

Thanks, and same to you. It's all good dude.

 

[Troponin]

I'd buy a $35k, 3550 lbs Mustang - even at 435 HP. But I can't for the life of me see any scenario in which that happens with this chassis. Certainly not by 2017.



I tried to let this go, but couldn't help myself. Handling most certainly IS performance - just a different part than acceleration, braking, or whatever other metric you wish to apply. Its semantics, but still...

BTW...You are certainly correct that both an SRA and an IRS can suffer from wheel hop, though I would argue that on the drag strip, an IRS is FAR more likely to have more serious wheel-hop issues. I never had hop issues with my 88 SRA Coupe, 99 SRA Cobra (swap), or 04 SRA Cobra (swap). All you really need is the right tire and air pressure with the stick axle.

And yes, I'm fully aware of the advantageous of an IRS in both daily driving and spirited corner carving. It's just not a big deal to me.

and to add, braking and handling can go hand in hand as well. no one likes a car that nose dives and makes the car unstable. There absolutely needs to be balance there.

Regardless, I am a bit disappointed in it as well. I guess maybe I had unrealistic expectations and the numbers are better than they appear at a first look. The performance numbers we see from car rags are not always real accurate and we will have to see once they are in the hands of real world drivers.

 

[13 RaceRed 5.0]

By now I've read all of the reviews and I now appreciate my $28,000 entry level auto GT more and more.

Ditto, I'm sticking with my 13 GT. I'm an "old timer" as well (having owned 9 Stangs the past 35 years), and I really don't care for the loss of 1" in headroom either.

I'm totally shocked at the $45,000 price for a loaded out GT.

I have a Prem GT with no options, and a S550 Premium GT with no options is only $1,800 more. Not bad.

As far as the car magazines go, for the most part they are pretty much in line with real world quarter mile times.

TRUE.

However my 2009 Vette auto ran a bone stock time of 12.15, which was way off the 12.6 times the magazines were getting, however I was running at -1500 DA, which helped out a lot.

Car mags adjust times to a base line figure as it relates to weather conditions and the like, this keeps everything on an even playing field.

Like any car guy, I'm really excited to actually take a test drive and see the interior of the new GT.

Since I'm not really that jazzed up about the exterior, I'm not that interested in checking out the improved interior.

But heh, best of luck to everyone getting a new Stang.

 

[bpmurr]

According to Magnaflow 2015 stock GT put down 375RWHP and 355RWTQ.

http://www.svtperformance.com/?p=6756

They are the second company advertising good gains from doing a cat-back exhaust. It seems the new exhaust on the GT is really restrictive.

 

[Branhammer]

Still people bashing the weight. If it outperforms the 2011-2014 or even just matches it overall, with nicer interior and a more "sports car" feel, I don't give a **** how much it weighs.

 

[Bob Cosby]

...I don't give a **** how much it weighs.

Which is great for you. Not so much for those of us that do give a **** how much it weighs.

Such is life.

 

[thomas91169]

Which is great for you. Not so much for those of us that do give a **** how much it weighs.

Such is life.

It depends on where the weight is at. Sounds like they have it better distributed than before and lower, which would actually be advantageous.

Looking at weight alone is like looking strictly at peak HP numbers.

And what are we talking about again, 100lbs over the '14s when comparing GT to GT?

 

[bexamous]

Still people bashing the weight. If it outperforms the 2011-2014 or even just matches it overall, with nicer interior and a more "sports car" feel, I don't give a **** how much it weighs.

For last 4 years any time Camaro came up the biggest criticism is either its weight or blind spots. Weight was a big deal. But now that Mustang is also 3800lbs its not a problem, why would anyone care about such a silly thing?

Also its basically a given every new generation of a car will be better than the last, that is not an amazing feat. A new platform is best time to make big changes/impovements. They can slowly add a little power every year, it might get a big faster and faster. They can drop in a new direct injection version of coyote and pickup some power. They're not cutting 100s of pounds. MAYBE in a few years they switch to a bunch of aluminum body panels to drop some weight if it becomes economical.

 

[Branhammer]

For last 4 years any time Camaro came up the biggest criticism is either its weight or blind spots. Weight was a big deal. But now that Mustang is also 3800lbs its not a problem, why would anyone care about such a silly thing?

Also its basically a given every new generation of a car will be better than the last, that is not an amazing feat. A new platform is best time to make big changes/impovements. They can slowly add a little power every year, it might get a big faster and faster. They can drop in a new direct injection version of coyote and pickup some power. They're not cutting 100s of pounds. MAYBE in a few years they switch to a bunch of aluminum body panels to drop some weight if it becomes economical.

I never complained about the Camaros weight. Or even the Challengers :shrug:. If a car performs well, it performs well. That's all I care about. If a car beats a GT-R around the Nürburgring, but weighs 4,000 lbs., would you care about the weight?

 

[13 RaceRed 5.0]

For last 4 years any time Camaro came up the biggest criticism is either its weight or blind spots. Weight was a big deal. But now that Mustang is also 3800lbs its not a problem, why would anyone care about such a silly thing?.

hahhahahhaha

People's ideas have turned 180° and it's now become a case of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". ;-)

 

[Todd03Blown]

hahhahahhaha

People's ideas have turned 180° and it's now become a case of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". ;-)

A Fully loaded GT weighs 3800 lbs... The V6 and EcoBoost certainly weigh a lot less than that.

I just checked the base weight of a 2SS on Chevrolet.com and it shows 3935 lbs (not sure if that is a fully load car with all options or not). 130+lb difference between a fully loaded GT with every option.

No doubt the cars are getting heavier...

 

[Branhammer]

No doubt the cars are getting heavier...

And yet still performing better.

 

[13 RaceRed 5.0]

No doubt the cars are getting heavier...

Yes they are, and I know it's largely for good reason (IRS, stiffer body, etc.).

I recall when my new 85 GT was 3,180 lbs. On the other hand, it had exactly 1/2 the hp as well. lol