Jump to content

47 Grand, 0-60 in 4.6: MT Tests Mustang GT PP


El Kabong

Recommended Posts

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now it's a short wait to see how quickly the Camaro can put up some crooked sales numbers...

 

I think it's going to outsell the Mustang, if not at the outset, then definitely gradually over the course of both vehicle generations.

 

As for the Mustang, I think this will be the same platform atleast until D6 gets up and running in 2019. So four years. But it is hard to imagine that GM will really need to introduce a new platform for the next-next gen Camaro. They could easily reuse Alpha, make it even better and get good life out of it.

 

And that's a discussion that has to happen AFTER we get the 1LE replacement, ZL1 replacement, and a GT500 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I will admit that Ford has the game rigged their way for potential sales. When your base model is geared to fleet sales then you have a decent shot at that title. Sad, but the Camry approach often works on that front.

But the lack of development on this car is astounding. I called them out for the live axle for years, but when they finally ditch it they wind up with a car that's SLOWER in a straight line?

C'mon. Ford would have been better off throwing some of those pre-tax profits into making this a fully-baked product.

Edited by El Kabong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just a case of holding back, err what's the right word. Right, bean counting. It works, sometimes really well. Either way, for a 50th anniversary, I wanted more. I think the GT350/R make up for the more, but the market has reacted well enough to this redesign. 

 

Maybe the global launch put a ton of constraints, and making a one-size fits all Mustang probably is what caused some reviewers to comment about it being a little too soft for a GT, and the I think it was Ford saying they tuned the car to attract European buyers as well.

 

I always thought they just took the S197 and just changed the front and rear suspension, not exactly at a shaving all the weight kind of approach but just a solid, somewhat (I can't find the exact word to describe the feeling) conventional approach for the Stang. Not really pushing the limits of the technology, just getting something done on time and on budget.

 

However, my subjective opinion of the styling, I think it's a gorgeous car, and it loses a lot of its musclecar look that I think the Challenger and Camaro still keep. It's more of just a coupe. Just another RWD coupe, leveraging its styling and then the legacy to great affect. Somewhere in there the whole performance message was drowned out, so yes, the marketing team got a win. The accountants were satisfied, and the product managers were told to wait for the next one.

 

It doesn't have the all the performance it should have to back the looks. I'm sure it's competent enough for the lay driver. But even more bloodlust? There's better cars for that purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford's strategy for this car is to move as many of them as they can because it's the only product using the platform. The fact that the product is constrained by price limits how much development they could put into it. And yes, I remember hearing that at least some of the hard points from the old S197 were carryover.

As far as Ford's position in the market and brand strategy goes, this is probably the best they can do in this segment and remain profitable. They are no longer interested in mainline V8 engines, they have little need for RWD, and they have no luxury brand to trickle tech down from.

The problem for Ford is that GM has all these things. And if the Giulia platform has legs, Mopar will in due course.

The previous Mustang was a result of laziness in developing product. This one is the result of limitations in what the company can realistically do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could never imagine spending 47k on a mustsng GT, nor a Camaro SS. SRT challenger? It just feels more right. The other two feel like they should just cost less, and they can be had for less(I know this).

I don't understand all of the bashing as if anybody could drive either of these cars to 10/10ths. They made an overall better vehicle, period. Slower by a tenth or two? Apparently. But overall it's been improved by way more than those 2/10ths.

And while the worst defense of a vehicle or..anything.. Is the "wait till XX comes out" but I don't think Ford will just sit back and allow the Camaro to dominate it performance-wise. I don't think they're going to just go nuts with an update but I see something like they did in '10-'11 and it was kind of a "wait and react" kind of approach. Effective? I don't know. Smart? I don't know. But they've done t before in the Mustang and also the F150 so I wouldn't put it past them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MT sure gushed over how much better the GT is as a daily driving performance coupe.  But yeah, if shaving fractions of a second is your main focus, then buy the chevy and see how long you can live with it.

 

But why did MT have to bloat the Ford with nearly every option to have it gain nearly 100lbs, while keeping the chevy completely stripped?  This Ford already has a big power deficit, at least here. The Shelby owns the road for the foreseeable future.

 

Anyway, Ford seems to have figured out the recipe and sweet spot and is cashing in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not terribly difficult to learn to launch a car to 60. The Camaro SS will do this 6/10 faster than the Mustang GT PP.

That's a huge gap.

Is it easier to do though? I would safely assume it is more difficult to extract 10/10ths out of a quicker car than a slower car, right? So while it definitely has the ability to be quicker it is a safe assumption that it is tougher to do, because it is quicker.

I mean anything over 300hp involves a lot of driver skill, if you have a manual and all the sissy nannies turned off.

That actually makes me curious. I wonder which car performs "better" with all the nannies turned on? Which electronic system is "better" or "quicker" or more adaptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

There's a pretty big number comparison that you just "conveniently" left out and that's the difference in figure-8 times. 25.0 for the '13 and 24.4 for the '16. That is a very good indication of how much the handling has improved over the previous generation.

 

"It's not just about straight-line performance and highway pulls anymore. Muscle cars have entered the era of handling."

 

"If you're searching for every last tenth of an advantage on paper, you may find something that's faster than the 2016 Ford Mustang GT. Maybe something cheaper. But if you enjoy the experience as much as the performance, the Mustang GT is the whole package, with an exhaust that's muscular when exercised, a controlled ride, and an interior you don't have to make excuses for."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why did MT have to bloat the Ford with nearly every option to have it gain nearly 100lbs, while keeping the chevy completely stripped?  This Ford already has a big power deficit, at least here. The Shelby owns the road for the foreseeable future.

 

Anyway, Ford seems to have figured out the recipe and sweet spot and is cashing in.  

I'm sure it wasn't Motor Trend's fault for getting a Mustang with every conceivable option to test. Here's the thing, when you're getting a vehicle from a manufacturer's test fleet, more likely than not it will be a fully loaded model. It's their way of making a good impression on you when evaluating a vehicle. Rarely do you get a vehicle that is either a base or a mid-level trim with a few options.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

There's a pretty big number comparison that you just "conveniently" left out and that's the difference in figure-8 times. 25.0 for the '13 and 24.4 for the '16. That is a very good indication of how much the handling has improved over the previous generation.

"It's not just about straight-line performance and highway pulls anymore. Muscle cars have entered the era of handling."

"If you're searching for every last tenth of an advantage on paper, you may find something that's faster than the 2016 Ford Mustang GT. Maybe something cheaper. But if you enjoy the experience as much as the performance, the Mustang GT is the whole package, with an exhaust that's muscular when exercised, a controlled ride, and an interior you don't have to make excuses for."

I'd be a lot more interested in that quote if:

-I didn't know the Mustang lost its first comparo to the Camaro already-in the same publication that wrote this,

-the interior they're praising was being compared to the Zeta Camaro (a '15), not the Alpha.

The Camaro is just too strong.

Edited by El Kabong
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

There's a pretty big number comparison that you just "conveniently" left out and that's the difference in figure-8 times. 25.0 for the '13 and 24.4 for the '16. That is a very good indication of how much the handling has improved over the previous generation.

"It's not just about straight-line performance and highway pulls anymore. Muscle cars have entered the era of handling."

"If you're searching for every last tenth of an advantage on paper, you may find something that's faster than the 2016 Ford Mustang GT. Maybe something cheaper. But if you enjoy the experience as much as the performance, the Mustang GT is the whole package, with an exhaust that's muscular when exercised, a controlled ride, and an interior you don't have to make excuses for."

I'd be a lot more interested in that quote if:

-I didn't know the Mustang lost its first comparo to the Camaro already-in the same publication that wrote this,

-the interior they're praising was being compared to the Zeta Camaro (a '15), not the Alpha.

The Camaro is just too strong.

 

Why are you assuming that quote was directed at the previous generation Camaro not the one they just had a comparison with, the '16?  I don't see they would compare it to a car not in production when they have a '16 Camaro with them when this was written.

 

I haven't gotten to read a comparion yet(not going to read pictures somebody posted), on what grounds did the mustang lose?

 

I'm not trying to justify that the Mustang is a better car all around or this or that but you're the only person who is attempting to make the Mustang look bad. The writers all like it. Is it the quickest? Nope. Is it BAD? Nope. Is it a car that was VASTLY improved upon from its previous generation? Yup.  Yes, this is the same publication that just rang up a loss for the Mustang to the Camaro. Doesn't that tell you something? Like..maybe..it isn't a POS like you try really hard to make it out to be?

 

IRS does more than just improve handling. It improves the entire ride. If the '14's rode anything like my Mustangs with their SRA they were super choppy over any rough pavement, even in a straight line. Yes, you can tune IRS to do A LOT more. But it is more than just race car-like handling that can be had from IRS. Daily drivability can be made from IRS. Look what the Camaro did with their setup! They transformed a barge into a jet ski over the years with that last generation. They kept tweaking the system because it is so much more flexible.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ccap: I get that IRS improves handling. But who cares about handling if you lose acceleration?

Can't they do like Chevy did, and improve both?

Not if the updated 5.0 is still in progress..

 

Won't argue that I think every Mustang fan alive is disappointed that it gained weight but everybody knows there are economics that are involved and it always involves give and take and something had to give. Weight. Weight stuck around..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you assuming that quote was directed at the previous generation Camaro not the one they just had a comparison with, the '16?  I don't see they would compare it to a car not in production when they have a '16 Camaro with them when this was written.

I'm not assuming. Read the article. He straight-up says it: "Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance. In the Mustang, not so." As for why he never used the '16 Camaro as a comparison point, I have a theory. It's called, because the comparo showed how dominant the Alpha Camaro is.

"I haven't gotten to read a comparion yet(not going to read pictures somebody posted), on what grounds did the mustang lose?"

 

All of them, pretty much. But you'll have to read the pictures to see.

"I'm not trying to justify that the Mustang is a better car all around or this or that but you're the only person who is attempting to make the Mustang look bad."

-uh... Once again, read the pictures. And don't try to make me out to be the only guy taking potshots at the thing. The Interwebs are ablaze with scathing criticism. Styles and tone vary, but the general consensus is that Ford just got royally panted, with no real fix in sight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

There's a pretty big number comparison that you just "conveniently" left out and that's the difference in figure-8 times. 25.0 for the '13 and 24.4 for the '16. That is a very good indication of how much the handling has improved over the previous generation.

"It's not just about straight-line performance and highway pulls anymore. Muscle cars have entered the era of handling."

"If you're searching for every last tenth of an advantage on paper, you may find something that's faster than the 2016 Ford Mustang GT. Maybe something cheaper. But if you enjoy the experience as much as the performance, the Mustang GT is the whole package, with an exhaust that's muscular when exercised, a controlled ride, and an interior you don't have to make excuses for."

I'd be a lot more interested in that quote if:

-I didn't know the Mustang lost its first comparo to the Camaro already-in the same publication that wrote this,

-the interior they're praising was being compared to the Zeta Camaro (a '15), not the Alpha.

The Camaro is just too strong.

 

That article was very half baked. Bringing up the interior of a car no longer in production was just pointless. Compare it to the 2016 to achieve some relevance next time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ccap: I get that IRS improves handling. But who cares about handling if you lose acceleration?

Can't they do like Chevy did, and improve both?

Not if the updated 5.0 is still in progress..

 

Won't argue that I think every Mustang fan alive is disappointed that it gained weight but everybody knows there are economics that are involved and it always involves give and take and something had to give. Weight. Weight stuck around..

But once again you're proving my point. GM was able to do a new chassis AND engine all at once. Why not Ford?

The answer is that GM has the bigger toolbox, and the fire in the belly. Ford does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why are you assuming that quote was directed at the previous generation Camaro not the one they just had a comparison with, the '16?  I don't see they would compare it to a car not in production when they have a '16 Camaro with them when this was written.

I'm not assuming. Read the article. He straight-up says it: "Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance. In the Mustang, not so." As for why he never used the '16 Camaro as a comparison point, I have a theory. It's called, because the comparo showed how dominant the Alpha Camaro is.

"I haven't gotten to read a comparion yet(not going to read pictures somebody posted), on what grounds did the mustang lose?"

 

All of them, pretty much. But you'll have to read the pictures to see.

"I'm not trying to justify that the Mustang is a better car all around or this or that but you're the only person who is attempting to make the Mustang look bad."

-uh... Once again, read the pictures. And don't try to make me out to be the only guy taking potshots at the thing. The Interwebs are ablaze with scathing criticism. Styles and tone vary, but the general consensus is that Ford just got royally panted, with no real fix in sight.

 

Literally from that article (since some did not bother to read it before commenting).

 

"The interior is nice, too. Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance."

 

It was a stupid comparison to make with the 2016 coming out and the 2015 no longer in production.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MT sure gushed over how much better the GT is as a daily driving performance coupe.  But yeah, if shaving fractions of a second is your main focus, then buy the chevy and see how long you can live with it.

 

But why did MT have to bloat the Ford with nearly every option to have it gain nearly 100lbs, while keeping the chevy completely stripped?  This Ford already has a big power deficit, at least here. The Shelby owns the road for the foreseeable future.

 

Anyway, Ford seems to have figured out the recipe and sweet spot and is cashing in.  

That "completely" stripped Camaro has more standard options than the Mustang. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ccap: I get that IRS improves handling. But who cares about handling if you lose acceleration?

Can't they do like Chevy did, and improve both?

Not if the updated 5.0 is still in progress..

 

Won't argue that I think every Mustang fan alive is disappointed that it gained weight but everybody knows there are economics that are involved and it always involves give and take and something had to give. Weight. Weight stuck around..

But once again you're proving my point. GM was able to do a new chassis AND engine all at once. Why not Ford?

The answer is that GM has the bigger toolbox, and the fire in the belly. Ford does not.

 

The didn't produce that engine FOR the Camaro though. They produced it for the Vette's release and it carried down to the Camaro. Obviously Ford doesn't have that luxury of having a Vette-like car to trickle things down from..they just have Lincoln..lol. So, it has its own product cycle to work through.  GM definitely does have the larger toolbox, I won't argue that.

 

You are absolutely correct about the 5th gen comparison. Stupid.  My apologies.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why are you assuming that quote was directed at the previous generation Camaro not the one they just had a comparison with, the '16?  I don't see they would compare it to a car not in production when they have a '16 Camaro with them when this was written.

I'm not assuming. Read the article. He straight-up says it: "Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance. In the Mustang, not so." As for why he never used the '16 Camaro as a comparison point, I have a theory. It's called, because the comparo showed how dominant the Alpha Camaro is.

"I haven't gotten to read a comparion yet(not going to read pictures somebody posted), on what grounds did the mustang lose?"

 

All of them, pretty much. But you'll have to read the pictures to see.

"I'm not trying to justify that the Mustang is a better car all around or this or that but you're the only person who is attempting to make the Mustang look bad."

-uh... Once again, read the pictures. And don't try to make me out to be the only guy taking potshots at the thing. The Interwebs are ablaze with scathing criticism. Styles and tone vary, but the general consensus is that Ford just got royally panted, with no real fix in sight.

 

Literally from that article (since some did not bother to read it before commenting).

 

"The interior is nice, too. Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance."

 

It was a stupid comparison to make with the 2016 coming out and the 2015 no longer in production.

 

And again someone down votes the facts.

 

Fact is that right now, while the Mustang GT is a good car and serves it's purpose well, it falls short in the performance department against a now much leaner and meaner Camaro SS. Neither will have a problem selling in big numbers though and it's a great time to be a fan of these cars.

Edited by surreal1272
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...