New performance details released today! - Page 4 - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
SHELBY GT 350 Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
slorydn1's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: New Bern
Posts: 6,081
                 
Garage
And I'll merge it with the existing thread



Hers:2012 Mustang GT Premium,6M,Kona Blue Exterior/Charcoal Interior, 400A, HID/Security Pkg ,Comfort Pkg.
[COLOR="DimGray"][B]His: 2014 Mustang GT Premium,6M,Sterling Gray Exterior/Charcoal Interior,400A, Reverse Sensing/Security Pkg, Comfort Pkg SMR# 3635
slorydn1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
BOSS Member
 
Blazin72's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: Union
Posts: 3,543
           
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by PW_Pony View Post
Gave me a chub, not even going to lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyLHStnfb9E

Gives me goosebumps.

I realize the production versions won't sound like that but they should. They sound absolutely fantastic.

Blazin72 is offline  
PONY Member
 
NoVa5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: Arlington
Posts: 704
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bseiter98 View Post
So, with the 2015 being 435HP, what do you think it will run in the 1/4 mile? I know it weighs a little more than the previous models, is it worth the upgrade?
Who friggin' cares? There's a lot more important performance numbers. I'd be faaaar more interested in 0-60, skid pad Gs, slalom times, and braking numbers.

One of these days, Mustang owners will understand that Mustangs are sports cars, not muscle cars, and they do a lot more than 1/4 miles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediDave View Post
I can't count how many times I've heard people comment that they'd buy a "stang" for themselves or sons/daughters if AWD option was available. I could be wrong....just an idea thought.
I lived in Michigan for 42 years, including S.W. Michigan right on the lake, which sees ten times more snow that you can imagine in Ohio. No one, ever, ever, said "I wish Mustangs were AWD." Ever. Never. No one. Nor have I ever heard anyone, ever, call a Mustang a "Stang", which sounds like a type of sports injury.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediDave View Post
I really think that Ford will lose the top performance crown of the Shelby GT500 to the Challenger "Hellcat." I can't foresee the GT350 putting out anywhere near those numbers. The "Hellcat" numbers released this week by Dodge (707HP) have it at a quarter mile of 11.2 sec (10.8 with slicks), 0-60 mid 3's, and a top speed of 199mph with an MSRP of $60,990. Since I don't track, I purchase this over a Chevy Z28.......but the Shelby GT500 would still be my first choice!
"Top Performance Crown"? Is this some new title only you know about? What, exactly, must a vehicle achieve to be bestowed with your covetous "Top Performance Crown"? Just put down some big numbers and a quarter mile time?

And why do you believe that the GT500 would be the Mustang to represent the side in your fantasy based "Top Performance Crown" competition? Do you believe it's the best Mustang has to offer performance wise?

You know what? I just figured out the biggest problem with Mustangs; Mustang owners. Seems like 2/3rds of them think they're muscle cars, and want to throw wide drag slicks on the back and go to the "track", which is really a drag strip.

2012 GT Premium, Brembo PP, MT82, 3.73s, Blk/Blk. Bama 93R, Koni Yellow Rear Shocks, Hawk Ceramic pads, Luxurious & Plush Floor Mats
NoVa5.0 is offline  
 
BOSS Member
 
Blazin72's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: Union
Posts: 3,543
           
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVa5.0 View Post

One of these days, Mustang owners will understand that Mustangs are sports cars
Not sports cars. Sports cars are generally referred to as two seaters.
Blazin72 is offline  
PONY Member
 
Fatopotomus's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 612
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVa5.0 View Post
Who friggin' cares? There's a lot more important performance numbers. I'd be faaaar more interested in 0-60, Gs, and braking numbers.

One of these days, Mustang owners will understand that Mustangs are sports cars, not muscle cars, and they do a lot more than 1/4 miles.

You know what? I just figured out the biggest problem with Mustangs; Mustang owners. Seems like 2/3rds of them think they're muscle cars, and want to throw wide drag slicks on the back and go to the "track", which is really a drag strip.
Sorry,

The Mustang is not (up to MY2014) and has never been a 'sports car'. Its technically not a 'muscle car' either, but rather a Pony car. The historical formula for this car has been a relatively lightweight coupe with a backseat, RWD, a small block V8 and a relatively inexpensive entry price.

With the above, the Mustang is and has been a blank canvas for each guy to make his own. Some (most) guys want power to shut down other cars at stop lights or to be able to run quicker E.T.s at the strip. Other guys want to make their cars handle. But up to this point, you could pretty much get a V8 Mustang for $30K or less and run with (at least in a straight line) with cars costing much more.

So now Ford is heading a different direction with the S550. It will certainly be a better driver's car, but you cant be all things to all people. Im curious to see how the S550 sells domestically. I have no doubt it will make money for Ford in global sales, but I have a nagging feeling that domestic sales are not going to be crazy like some people think.

Personally, Im not in a position to buy an S550, so Im not all up in arms about it but clearly there is a shift in the direction Ford is taking the car.

Oh and by the way, 1/4 mile times sell cars in the U.S. No one will give a damn if the car stops 25% better if its .2 slower in the 1/4 mile.

2011 Mustang GT M6 3.31s

Matt HONEYCUTT Tune, Lethal Off-Road X, GT500 axlebacks, J&M LCAs, UPR UCA, Whiteline LCA relocation brackets, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs, Koni STR.T shocks/struts, GT500 strut mounts, SR Strut Tower Brace

Best 1/4 E/T (05/18/14 MIR - no tune, X-pipe, or UCA): 12.920 @ 109.40 mph (2.059 60ft)
Fatopotomus is offline  
PONY Member
 
Fatopotomus's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 612
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazin72 View Post
Not sports cars. Sports cars are generally referred to as two seaters.
Yes, sports cars = BRZ/FRS, Miata, S2000, etc.

2011 Mustang GT M6 3.31s

Matt HONEYCUTT Tune, Lethal Off-Road X, GT500 axlebacks, J&M LCAs, UPR UCA, Whiteline LCA relocation brackets, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs, Koni STR.T shocks/struts, GT500 strut mounts, SR Strut Tower Brace

Best 1/4 E/T (05/18/14 MIR - no tune, X-pipe, or UCA): 12.920 @ 109.40 mph (2.059 60ft)
Fatopotomus is offline  
PONY Member
 
NoVa5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: Arlington
Posts: 704
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazin72 View Post
Not sports cars. Sports cars are generally referred to as two seaters.
I don't give a flying **** about back seats, or some Wikipedia retard's definition of "sports car". Mustangs are sports cars; Mustangs accelerate, AND brake, AND corner, AND aren't 4200lb pigs like Challengers.

Challengers are muscle cars. They're huge, and all they can do is go in a straight line. Mustangs are sports cars, they can do everything. Why Mustang owners are wetting their panties about the Challenger is beyond me. They're not the same type of vehicles at all.

2012 GT Premium, Brembo PP, MT82, 3.73s, Blk/Blk. Bama 93R, Koni Yellow Rear Shocks, Hawk Ceramic pads, Luxurious & Plush Floor Mats
NoVa5.0 is offline  
PONY Member
 
Fatopotomus's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 612
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVa5.0 View Post
I don't give a flying **** about back seats, or some Wikipedia retard's definition of "sports car". Mustangs are sports cars; Mustangs accelerate, AND brake, AND corner, AND aren't 4200lb pigs like Challengers.

Challengers are muscle cars. They're huge, and all they can do is go in a straight line. Mustangs are sports cars, they can do everything. Why Mustang owners are wetting their panties about the Challenger is beyond me. They're not the same type of vehicles at all.
Well, that may be, but these terms have generally been accepted and used for 40 years. A Mustang is NOT a sports car, per the accepted definition.

2011 Mustang GT M6 3.31s

Matt HONEYCUTT Tune, Lethal Off-Road X, GT500 axlebacks, J&M LCAs, UPR UCA, Whiteline LCA relocation brackets, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs, Koni STR.T shocks/struts, GT500 strut mounts, SR Strut Tower Brace

Best 1/4 E/T (05/18/14 MIR - no tune, X-pipe, or UCA): 12.920 @ 109.40 mph (2.059 60ft)
Fatopotomus is offline  
PONY Member
 
Fatopotomus's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 612
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVa5.0 View Post
I don't give a flying **** about back seats, or some Wikipedia retard's definition of "sports car". Mustangs are sports cars; Mustangs accelerate, AND brake, AND corner, AND aren't 4200lb pigs like Challengers.

Challengers are muscle cars. They're huge, and all they can do is go in a straight line. Mustangs are sports cars, they can do everything. Why Mustang owners are wetting their panties about the Challenger is beyond me. They're not the same type of vehicles at all.
Here's the other thing: road racing is exceptionally expensive. Most guys cant afford to do it, so they resort to the drag strip. As such, in the U.S., 1/4 mile will always be king as the performance metric which sells Big 3's cars.

Sure, personally, I would never pay $40K for a 485hp Challenger when i could get a 420 hp Mustang GT for $30K (today) or $40K with IRS and better chasis (in a few months).

But 700 hp for a factory street car is nothing to sneeze at. The Hellcat will have long coat tails - meaning it will sell a **** ton of down market Challengers and even Chargers. Its a flagship car.

2011 Mustang GT M6 3.31s

Matt HONEYCUTT Tune, Lethal Off-Road X, GT500 axlebacks, J&M LCAs, UPR UCA, Whiteline LCA relocation brackets, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs, Koni STR.T shocks/struts, GT500 strut mounts, SR Strut Tower Brace

Best 1/4 E/T (05/18/14 MIR - no tune, X-pipe, or UCA): 12.920 @ 109.40 mph (2.059 60ft)
Fatopotomus is offline  
PONY Member
 
NoVa5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: Arlington
Posts: 704
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatopotomus View Post
Oh and by the way, 1/4 mile times sell cars in the U.S. No one will give a damn if the car stops 25% better if its .2 slower in the 1/4 mile.
No, they don't.

Quarter mile times don't sell ****, they're just bragging rights for retards on forums. Pick up a car brochure in a showroom and show me where they list the 1/4 mile times.

Here's your issue; you're caught up in the "tyranny of the forums" and think that forums, members, and their posts somehow represent average American people buying cars, which is a perceptual problem. You spend too much time on forums like this and think they represent reality.

Mustangs are small volume niche cars, as are Camaros and Challengers. The reality is that they appeal to a very small number of people, and most of those are pubescent boys that can't buy them.

So, when car magazines (which reach and influence 1,000,000 times more people than any forums) do tests of Mustangs against BMWs, Porsches and such, and the Mustang equals or betters such exotica, this creates a shift in what Mustangs are. They never have been muscle cars, and "Pony cars" was a made-up marketing term from the 1960s to pit Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds, etc. against one another, and sell units. But in reality Mustangs are just sports cars with tiny back seats......like a 911s, DB9s, M3s, and many other sports cars that have small, useless rear seats.

Unless, you know, you think 911s, M3s and DB9s are "pony cars".

You think that no one gives a damn about handling and braking? Son, the entire reason why the 2011-2014 Mustang was successful, was due to magazine article back in 2010 in Road & Track where a Brembo PP Mustang was as good as a BMW M3 on a track. And I mean a real, actual track, with turns and everything. This was the article that caused Mustangs to be taken seriously, to be looked at as a genuine performance car, and not some rednecks straight-line stormer.

2011 BMW M3 Coupe vs. 2011 Ford Mustang GT Comparison - Motor Trend

So, once again. The biggest issue with Mustangs is their owners, who are stuck in the 1960s and 70s, and think Mustangs are muscle cars and are only good for going fast in a straight line, or think that "pony cars" is a real thing.

ETA: I will agree that Mustangs can be many different things to many different people, but from 2005 on Mustangs have been GT/Sports cars, and from 2011 on they're properly compared to M3s and 911s, not Challengers.

Still not convinced Mustangs are sports cars. How about a direct quote from Ford's brochure for the 1965 Mustang?; "You can choose from over 70 options, and design your Mustang as a hot blooded sports car....."

2012 GT Premium, Brembo PP, MT82, 3.73s, Blk/Blk. Bama 93R, Koni Yellow Rear Shocks, Hawk Ceramic pads, Luxurious & Plush Floor Mats
NoVa5.0 is offline  
PONY Member
 
Fatopotomus's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 612
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVa5.0 View Post
No, they don't.

Quarter mile times don't sell ****, they're just bragging rights for retards on forums. Pick up a car brochure in a showroom and show me where they list the 1/4 mile times.

Here's your issue; you're caught up in the "tyranny of the forums" and think that forums, members, and their posts somehow represent average American people buying cars, which is a perceptual problem. You spend too much time on forums like this and think they represent reality.

Mustangs are small volume niche cars, as are Camaros and Challengers. The reality is that they appeal to a very small number of people, and most of those are pubescent boys that can't buy them.

So, when car magazines (which reach and influence 1,000,000 times more people than any forums) do tests of Mustangs against BMWs, Porsches and such, and the Mustang equals or betters such exotica, this creates a shift in what Mustangs are. They never have been muscle cars, and "Pony cars" was a made-up marketing term from the 1960s to pit Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds, etc. against one another, and sell units. But in reality Mustangs are just sports cars with tiny back seats......like a 911s, DB9s, M3s, and many other sports cars that have small, useless rear seats.

Unless, you know, you think 911s, M3s and DB9s are "pony cars".

You think that no one gives a damn about handling and braking? Son, the entire reason why the 2011-2014 Mustang was successful, was due to magazine article back in 2010 in Road & Track where a Brembo PP Mustang was as good as a BMW M3 on a track. And I mean a real, actual track, with turns and everything. This was the article that caused Mustangs to be taken seriously, to be looked at as a genuine performance car, and not some rednecks straight-line stormer.

2011 BMW M3 Coupe vs. 2011 Ford Mustang GT Comparison - Motor Trend

So, once again. The biggest issue with Mustangs is their owners, who are stuck in the 1960s and 70s, and think Mustangs are muscle cars and are only good for going fast in a straight line, or think that "pony cars" is a real thing.
OK.

The Mustang was not 'succesful' because of a magazine article. The mustang was succesful because Ford gave the car a 100 hp bump over the previous year and didnt really increase price. The S197 is 'succesful' because of the 420 hp Coyote powering it.

If you lined up 100 11-14 GT owners, every single one will be able to tell you that their car has a 420 hp motor under the hood, maybe a handful will even know the C&D article was ever written.

By the way, 'success' is a subjective term. The Camaro outsells the Mustang and has been for quite a while.

2011 Mustang GT M6 3.31s

Matt HONEYCUTT Tune, Lethal Off-Road X, GT500 axlebacks, J&M LCAs, UPR UCA, Whiteline LCA relocation brackets, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs, Koni STR.T shocks/struts, GT500 strut mounts, SR Strut Tower Brace

Best 1/4 E/T (05/18/14 MIR - no tune, X-pipe, or UCA): 12.920 @ 109.40 mph (2.059 60ft)
Fatopotomus is offline  
PONY Member
 
Fatopotomus's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 612
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVa5.0 View Post
No, they don't.

ETA: I will agree that Mustangs can be many different things to many different people, but from 2005 on Mustangs have been GT/Sports cars, and from 2011 on they're properly compared to M3s and 911s, not Challengers.

Still not convinced Mustangs are sports cars. How about a direct quote from Ford's brochure for the 1965 Mustang?; "You can choose from over 70 options, and design your Mustang as a hot blooded sports car....."
Im not sure what you're arguing here. I said earlier that the S550 will be a better driver's car. I might seriously consider one if I could afford it, but I cant and dont want to give up my car to make it happen either.

A 50 year old marketing brochure doesnt exactly prove your point when the whole rest of the automotive community has been using a certain lexicon for the same amount of time.

Lastly, you are being ludicrous is you want to compare a Mustang GT with high end Euro cars. I know Randy Pobst ran a stock Track Pack with an M3 and that is super impressive.

However, my car is a premium GT without track pack or brembos and it came with 235's and 18's from the factory. I will tell you that the handling was woeful until I got better and bigger tires, wheels, dampers, springs, and control arms. Ive driven new track pack/brembo cars and as good as Randy Pobst may be to coax one around a track on pace with an M3, the average guy wont be able to do it as even the track pack/brembo cars are sloppy handlers out of the box with OEM rubber.

2011 Mustang GT M6 3.31s

Matt HONEYCUTT Tune, Lethal Off-Road X, GT500 axlebacks, J&M LCAs, UPR UCA, Whiteline LCA relocation brackets, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs, Koni STR.T shocks/struts, GT500 strut mounts, SR Strut Tower Brace

Best 1/4 E/T (05/18/14 MIR - no tune, X-pipe, or UCA): 12.920 @ 109.40 mph (2.059 60ft)
Fatopotomus is offline  
PONY Member
 
NoVa5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: Arlington
Posts: 704
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatopotomus View Post
OK.

The Mustang was not 'succesful' because of a magazine article. The mustang was succesful because Ford gave the car a 100 hp bump over the previous year and didnt really increase price. The S197 is 'succesful' because of the 420 hp Coyote powering it.

If you lined up 100 11-14 GT owners, every single one will be able to tell you that their car has a 420 hp motor under the hood, maybe a handful will even know the C&D article was ever written.

By the way, 'success' is a subjective term. The Camaro outsells the Mustang and has been for quite a while.
4 years ago that Road & Track article was on the lips of every gear head I know. They were astounded not just by the motor, but by the suspension and brakes of the 2011 Mustang. A Mustang equaling a vaunted M3 on a real track? It was big....huge......a major event.

As far as GT owners knowing the power of their motor, that goes without saying......sort of. A real gear head knows the 2011-2012 cars were rated at 400HP, not 420HP. And they also know that the real numbers were right around 412HP for 2011-2012.

As far as Camaro vs Mustang sales, since the Camaro retuned to the market place, they have been neck and neck, trading the lead back and forth, virtually equal.

Anyways, different people enjoy their Mustangs in different manners. What's pissing me off this morning (not you) is that many Mustang owners really don't realize how good the BPP, Track Pack and BOSS cars are, how they are world class all-around performance cars for fractions of the cost of cars like the M3, 911, etc., etc. To me, that is the real attraction to these cars, the fact that they perform as well as cars costing 2, 3, and 5 times as much.

2012 GT Premium, Brembo PP, MT82, 3.73s, Blk/Blk. Bama 93R, Koni Yellow Rear Shocks, Hawk Ceramic pads, Luxurious & Plush Floor Mats
NoVa5.0 is offline  
PONY Member
 
NoVa5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: Arlington
Posts: 704
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatopotomus View Post
Im not sure what you're arguing here. I said earlier that the S550 will be a better driver's car. I might seriously consider one if I could afford it, but I cant and dont want to give up my car to make it happen either.

A 50 year old marketing brochure doesnt exactly prove your point when the whole rest of the automotive community has been using a certain lexicon for the same amount of time.

Lastly, you are being ludicrous is you want to compare a Mustang GT with high end Euro cars. I know Randy Pobst ran a stock Track Pack with an M3 and that is super impressive.

However, my car is a premium GT without track pack or brembos and it came with 235's and 18's from the factory. I will tell you that the handling was woeful until I got better and bigger tires, wheels, dampers, springs, and control arms. Ive driven new track pack/brembo cars and as good as Randy Pobst may be to coax one around a track on pace with an M3, the average guy wont be able to do it as even the track pack/brembo cars are sloppy handlers out of the box with OEM rubber.
No, they're not sloppy handlers....that's my point. And I own one. Brembo PP cars handle nearly as well as M3s, right off the lot. And the OEM rubber is great....on the Brembo/Track Pack cars.

2012 GT Premium, Brembo PP, MT82, 3.73s, Blk/Blk. Bama 93R, Koni Yellow Rear Shocks, Hawk Ceramic pads, Luxurious & Plush Floor Mats
NoVa5.0 is offline  
Rookie
 
Mustang_Monty's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 35
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCPX View Post
I agree, the 4 cylinder better have great gas mileage to make it worth it! I sure don't want to pay for the premium gas prices just for a turbo. At least my 2014 V6 is pretty close in performance with the newer 2015.
My 2014 Ecoboost Escape doesn't require premium, unless you want peak power all the time.

Mustang_Monty is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1