Jump to content

Recent CD & MT Mustang v. Camaro Drive Tests


Suaviloquent

Recommended Posts

2016-Chevrolet-Camaro-RS-2016-Ford-Musta

 

 

So there were some recent tests done by MT and CD about the Mustang v. Camaro

 

I wasn't expecting the Mustang to hang close at all...like AT ALL. It even won the MT test, because it performed well, and was more livable. It also got equal FE to the turbo Camaro....which makes no sense at all. Bigger engine, heavier car....worse fuel, stickier tires...which are also bad for FE used in case of the Mustang.

 

But the Mustang did well against the Camaro in the hands of CD, in most objective performance areas it was better, even if it didn't feel better.

 

Gotta give the hand to GM though, they definitely can make some good sounding lower spec'd engines.

 

I found the price points very similar - but advantage Ford. And in that case, even though Ford may market the 2.3 as the mid-level engine - you'd be hard pressed to find in the Camaro whether you want the 2.0T or the V6. The V6 gives no performance benefit over the 2.0T. Only sounds better, and costs more....and anywhere else it'd like a slight benefit.

 

It was kinda weird how the performance upgrade gets the Stang the better tires factory equipped. I mean, tires are a big deal, and they can change a car completely just like a transmission change or engine tune. So getting good rubber, at a lower price point to exceed the competition..while kinda like a band-aid....it worked.

 

Ultimately, the Mustang provided equal performance, equal FE in the case of the MT test, equal FE (1 mpg better, but again) in a heavier car, but also getting the benefit of car that is more daily drivable. It's not like the Camaro was soundly beaten either test. But again, it kinda shows how the cars can be pretty darn close the way they are packaged while being at nearly the same price point, outside of the GT vs SS comparo.

 

I would say while the 2.3 EB is the mid level engine in the Mustang, the cyclone V6 is tired and old....the 2.3 is the better engine, it may not sound all that impressive while doing it. And the Camaro - you might as well get the 2.0T. Same FE, same performance, but lighter feeling car, and then when the stock rubber wears out, get the good stuff.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No clue why the MT article released today tested the Camaro 2.0 on 91 octane and the Mustang 2.3 on 87 octane. 

 

I liked how they were very similarly priced yet the mid engine for the Mustang and bottom engine for the Camaro. Really shows how they are priced. 

Camaro tested: $33,320 | 2LT + RS + Brake package

Mustang tested 32,540 | Premium + Performance Package

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GM's already having a higher base price. Making the same tires as the Mustang an available option on the 2.0T seems like a bit of an oversight.

 

What is interesting though is that most folks or bots buying pony cars do not get the V8s. So in that light, suddenly the Mustang can actually compete, heck tie in an even split between two mags.

 

And the fuel thing.  A weird decision, but we do know the Mustang would have actually been even better on the track if it had premium fuel used for performance testing.

 

It's pretty clear, the base Mustang Ecoboost is not exactly the mid-level engine actually, more of a better alternative at this time to the cyclone V6. Heck it still starts $55 cheaper than the Camaro. 

 

EDIT - The way I feel about the Mustang EB engine - it may seem like the mid-level engine - but in my mind, it's the only base engine worthy of being able to compete against the non-SS or above models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Evans cleared the air on the MT test w/ the 2.3t and 2.0t and said both cars WERE tested with 91 octane California premium. The confusion is because Ford only "recommends" 87 but max performance is w/ 93.  And that is why in the column "recommended fuel" 87 is listed. 

 

I found this graph of two dyno pulls for the 2.3T mustang. One run on 87 and one run with 93 octane.

mUSTANG-2.jpg

Edited by ccap41
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/entertainment/news/a29427/transformers-the-last-knight-bumblebee/

 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a29387/fourth-gen-camaro-was-the-best-camaro/

 

 

Above are two Road&Track articles that define my opinion on the Camaro....Alpha, Zeta and F-Body alike!

 

So yeah....No Trans Am, no problem. Ill take a Mustang please! Right after I take a Challenger!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. I think the Mustang won....but oddly enough, the folks had a hard time picking a winner. Even despite the terrible sound of the Mustang EB.

 

I would say the same. They're pretty close in the lower models.

 

But that's besides the point. The Mustang has its advantages and they are tangible, and useful all the time. You will always benefit from better visibility. You will always like that there's just the smidgen more space...and the trunk is far superior. The Corvette has a bigger trunk than the Camaro. The Camaro is geared towards a higher level of performance, which you have to actually attempt to experience. It may feel tighter. But imagine the Mustang as like the comfort mode drive setting on the Camaro. From there, the Mustang's appreciation for by the buying public and bots is completely explained.

 

The better cars for a specific purpose don't always win.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/entertainment/news/a29427/transformers-the-last-knight-bumblebee/

 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a29387/fourth-gen-camaro-was-the-best-camaro/

 

 

Above are two Road&Track articles that define my opinion on the Camaro....Alpha, Zeta and F-Body alike!

 

So yeah....No Trans Am, no problem. Ill take a Mustang please! Right after I take a Challenger!

That Rumblebee looks terrible. They just did too much to that lower front fascia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. I think the Mustang won....but oddly enough, the folks had a hard time picking a winner. Even despite the terrible sound of the Mustang EB.

 

I would say the same. They're pretty close in the lower models.

 

But that's besides the point. The Mustang has its advantages and they are tangible, and useful all the time. You will always benefit from better visibility. You will always like that there's just the smidgen more space...and the trunk is far superior. The Corvette has a bigger trunk than the Camaro. The Camaro is geared towards a higher level of performance, which you have to actually attempt to experience. It may feel tighter. But imagine the Mustang as like the comfort mode drive setting on the Camaro. From there, the Mustang's appreciation for by the buying public and bots is completely explained.

 

The better cars for a specific purpose don't always win.

Just shows what people value. 

 

The Camry example in sales shows people will purchase the name that's proven itself over time even though I doubt anybody working on today's Camry engineered the first ones that were known to be reliable as F. Some will value trunk space(example) or visibility that might be putting the Mustang over the hump in sales. Maybe a lot of us enthusiasts who do like the Camaro just don't buy them for "life" reasons.. 

 

Like you said, the "better" car doesn't always win. But then there are too many variables to really say one car is "better" than the other. You have to have a pretty specific category or goal in mind. 

Edited by ccap41
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Suave but you should have left your little "op-Ed" about the V6 out of this. The V6 Camaro is better than the turbo four in every way shape and form (half second quicker to the 1/4 for starters).

Other than that, this does not surprise me. It also shoots down the WOT comments about the gas versus performance. The Camaro is the performance champ there while the Stang is the more livable daily driver choice. I have no problem with either's station in automotive life.

My big question is why was the Stang only rated at 275HP when it was indeed running on the good stuff?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Suave but you should have left your little "op-Ed" about the V6 out of this. The V6 Camaro is better than the turbo four in every way shape and form (half second quicker to the 1/4 for starters).

Other than that, this does not surprise me. It also shoots down the WOT comments about the gas versus performance. The Camaro is the performance champ there while the Stang is the more livable daily driver choice. I have no problem with either's station in automotive life.

My big question is why was the Stang only rated at 275HP when it was indeed running on the good stuff?

Where was it rated at 275hp? I mean it performed like it was only putting out 275hp but I don't think Scott or Christian said anything about it only putting out 275hp. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry Suave but you should have left your little "op-Ed" about the V6 out of this. The V6 Camaro is better than the turbo four in every way shape and form (half second quicker to the 1/4 for starters).

Other than that, this does not surprise me. It also shoots down the WOT comments about the gas versus performance. The Camaro is the performance champ there while the Stang is the more livable daily driver choice. I have no problem with either's station in automotive life.

My big question is why was the Stang only rated at 275HP when it was indeed running on the good stuff?

Where was it rated at 275hp? I mean it performed like it was only putting out 275hp but I don't think Scott or Christian said anything about it only putting out 275hp. 

 

You are right. I read that wrong. What I should have said is that according to some readers, if they would have used the cheap gas. it would have knocked it down to 275HP. It was part of this grand conspiracy being brought up by butthurt Ford fanboys that MT rigged the comparo even though they gave the Stang the win. Still means that the Camaro was faster in the 1/4 mile and quicker to 60 with 35 less HP. Seriously, how could anyone go wrong with either car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one place where the V6 is better is that it unlocks the ability to get the incoming 1LE package.

 

But there is nothing about the 2.0T to scoff at. The Camaro performance wise compares to the BMW 3 Series very favourably. There on the 2.0T you can get M Performance parts. Though neither compete directly, the point I am trying to illustrate is that the 2.0T is a worthy engine for a pony car, because the Camaro is based off a luxury car.

 

But I really think if you're buying the non-track special/anything below SS....there the 2.0T is the equal of the V6 on many places. If there is an insistence on the buyer of focusing on the 1/4 miles times, any one of the GM or affiliate warranty approved tunes can match or exceed the V6, for probably less than the upgrade price to the V6. Beyond that...the 1SS is the entry point to greatness.

 

And what's noteworthy is that in the C/D comparo, the Mustang Ecoboost is faster 0-100, faster 0-130, 0.2 seconds faster in the quarter. So, neck and neck in metrics, trading places in others, the V6 Camaro being better in rolling starts.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Suave but you should have left your little "op-Ed" about the V6 out of this. The V6 Camaro is better than the turbo four in every way shape and form (half second quicker to the 1/4 for starters).

Other than that, this does not surprise me. It also shoots down the WOT comments about the gas versus performance. The Camaro is the performance champ there while the Stang is the more livable daily driver choice. I have no problem with either's station in automotive life.

My big question is why was the Stang only rated at 275HP when it was indeed running on the good stuff?

Where was it rated at 275hp? I mean it performed like it was only putting out 275hp but I don't think Scott or Christian said anything about it only putting out 275hp.

You are right. I read that wrong. What I should have said is that according to some readers, if they would have used the cheap gas. it would have knocked it down to 275HP. It was part of this grand conspiracy being brought up by butthurt Ford fanboys that MT rigged the comparo even though they gave the Stang the win. Still means that the Camaro was faster in the 1/4 mile and quicker to 60 with 35 less HP. Seriously, how could anyone go wrong with either car?
In all fairness with the piss poor numbers I wouldn't have doubted it at all prior to Scott chiming in. There's a guy on the escape forum I'm on that ran a 14.55@(I think)97 with just a tune. Basically he would be side by side with a freakin 2016 mustang.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one place where the V6 is better is that it unlocks the ability to get the incoming 1LE package.

 

But there is nothing about the 2.0T to scoff at. The Camaro performance wise compares to the BMW 3 Series very favourably. There on the 2.0T you can get M Performance parts. Though neither compete directly, the point I am trying to illustrate is that the 2.0T is a worthy engine for a pony car, because the Camaro is based off a luxury car.

 

But I really think if you're buying the non-track special/anything below SS....there the 2.0T is the equal of the V6 on many places. If there is an insistence on the buyer of focusing on the 1/4 miles times, any one of the GM or affiliate warranty approved tunes can match or exceed the V6, for probably less than the upgrade price to the V6. Beyond that...the 1SS is the entry point to greatness.

 

And what's noteworthy is that in the C/D comparo, the Mustang Ecoboost is faster 0-100, faster 0-130, 0.2 seconds faster in the quarter. So, neck and neck in metrics, trading places in others, the V6 Camaro being better in rolling starts.

You do realize that there are V6 tunes right? There is a reason why the V6 is slotted in the middle with the Camaro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one place where the V6 is better is that it unlocks the ability to get the incoming 1LE package.

 

But there is nothing about the 2.0T to scoff at. The Camaro performance wise compares to the BMW 3 Series very favourably. There on the 2.0T you can get M Performance parts. Though neither compete directly, the point I am trying to illustrate is that the 2.0T is a worthy engine for a pony car, because the Camaro is based off a luxury car.

 

But I really think if you're buying the non-track special/anything below SS....there the 2.0T is the equal of the V6 on many places. If there is an insistence on the buyer of focusing on the 1/4 miles times, any one of the GM or affiliate warranty approved tunes can match or exceed the V6, for probably less than the upgrade price to the V6. Beyond that...the 1SS is the entry point to greatness.

 

And what's noteworthy is that in the C/D comparo, the Mustang Ecoboost is faster 0-100, faster 0-130, 0.2 seconds faster in the quarter. So, neck and neck in metrics, trading places in others, the V6 Camaro being better in rolling starts.

 

Are U surprised that the Camaro 2.0L compares very well with the 3Series considering it is riding on the ATS's Alpha.. and is lighter?

 

Sidenote and off the cuff.. In terms of lux.. I test drove an SS the other day.. and despite the name.. the Camaro is actually more luxury than a BMW 3Series (barring the M3) in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No not surprised at all that the Camaro is awesome (fer pete's sake, I want one badly, must own one - a blue 1SS with the flowtie and blue interior trim kit are heavenly)

 

The Mustang has fallen off a couple rungs on the performance ladder in its base, EcoBoost and GT variants. It can at times match the Camaro, but never exceed it unless you go to further up the variant ladder. But it makes up in other areas, which are arguably better suited for being a daily driver/roadtrip/rent-a-hertz vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one place where the V6 is better is that it unlocks the ability to get the incoming 1LE package.

 

But there is nothing about the 2.0T to scoff at. The Camaro performance wise compares to the BMW 3 Series very favourably. There on the 2.0T you can get M Performance parts. Though neither compete directly, the point I am trying to illustrate is that the 2.0T is a worthy engine for a pony car, because the Camaro is based off a luxury car.

 

But I really think if you're buying the non-track special/anything below SS....there the 2.0T is the equal of the V6 on many places. If there is an insistence on the buyer of focusing on the 1/4 miles times, any one of the GM or affiliate warranty approved tunes can match or exceed the V6, for probably less than the upgrade price to the V6. Beyond that...the 1SS is the entry point to greatness.

 

And what's noteworthy is that in the C/D comparo, the Mustang Ecoboost is faster 0-100, faster 0-130, 0.2 seconds faster in the quarter. So, neck and neck in metrics, trading places in others, the V6 Camaro being better in rolling starts.

If it weren't for the lack of performance packages I would actually rather buy the 2.0T in the Camaro than the 3.6 because I enjoy torque. Save the $1500 and buy an intake and a tune and you'd be damn close on hp and surpassing in tq by a large margin and still have money left over..aaaaand still get better fuel mileage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

2016 Chevrolet Camaro 2.0T Manual http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-20t-manual-test-review

"A Camaro with an inline-four sounds about as appealing as a tofu salad at a Chicago steakhouse. Judged only by the numbers, though, it’s still respectable. The 2.0-liter four, maxing out at 20 psi of boost pressure, is good for 275 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque. It might have the lowest output available in a Camaro, but the 2.0 is also the lightest version of the car at 3410 pounds, or 59 pounds less than the V-6 and more than 300 pounds lighter than the V-8.

 

With the least amount of mass to wrangle, the four and a quick-shifting six-speed manual pounce to 60 mph in 5.4 seconds. The quarter passes in 14.1 seconds at 97 mph. With the 335-hp V-6, we measured zero-to-60 and quarter-mile times that were 0.3 and 0.4 second quicker, respectively. But the numbers are only part of this story.

 

Fact is, the four-cylinder Camaro isn’t an endearing proposition. Despite the sound pumped into the cabin, the four’s gravelly voice is nowhere near as sweet as the optional V-6’s or V-8’s. The engine is unresponsive, too. It resists revs and feels as if it’s working against a massive flywheel. For the best acceleration, we launched at 4000 rpm and shifted between 6000 and 6500, well short of the 7000-rpm redline. Shifting any closer to the rev limit only wasted time. From its meek tone to its reluctance to play, the four doesn’t have a sporting bone in its block, no matter what the numbers read.

 

Some might argue that the four isn’t supposed to be the sporty choice; it’s the least expensive Camaro, and the efficient one. If only it were more efficient. In our hands, the 2.0-liter sucked down a gallon of premium every 19 miles, short of the EPA’s 24-mpg-combined estimate. We achieved an identical 19 mpg with the V-6, but at least the six happily burns regular.

 

The engine’s shortcomings are especially apparent since the rest of the Camaro is so good. A small, flat-bottomed steering wheel sends clear signals from the road. A stiff ride can be traced to aggressive spring rates and optional 20-inch wheels with run-flat tires, but the structure never quivers or protests. Despite the all-season rubber, the Camaro circled the skidpad at 0.89 g and stopped from 70 mph in 170 feet. Eager and playful, the Camaro practically begs you to spend $1495 for the V-6.

 

Seeing out of the Camaro remains difficult, and the design is a love-it-or-leave-it affair. Camaros aren’t for everyone, but a Camaro with a 2.0-liter turbo is, shall we say, for no one."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^  A few things I found a little noteworthy and surprising.

 

1. 20psi of boost from the factory sounds fairly high for OEM(not bad or good, just an observation). I'm curious what the block and internals can hold up to if you just turn up the boost. 

2. 14.1@97 is right a long side if not in front of most Ecoboost Mustangs tested so far.

3. Sounds like most small turbo motors nowadays... weak top end, good mid range, literal "sounds" aren't pleasing to the ears. 

4. 19mpg. same as their tested V6

5. Premium fuel required?!?!?!? Even with a 2-3mpg advantage(that it is EPA rated) over the V6 it will still cost the owner more to run as premium is $0.60-0.70/gallon more than regular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also interesting in that MT article was the side article they did showing that the EB powertrain has gotten progressively weaker as it has been in production. Seems like Ford hasn't figured out how to do it right yet. When your mid-level ponycar can only make it to 60 in 6.3 you've got issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also interesting in that MT article was the side article they did showing that the EB powertrain has gotten progressively weaker as it has been in production. Seems like Ford hasn't figured out how to do it right yet. When your mid-level ponycar can only make it to 60 in 6.3 you've got issues.

You did read why the 0-60 was so slow, right? 

 

2nd gear tops out at 58mph so you're left to shift for a lone 2mph. It's a very deceiving number to look at. 

 

"Per our testing, the shorter 3.55 rearend actually hurts 0-60 performance, as the engine hits redline at approximately 58 mph, requiring an upshift to third gear before hitting 60 mph and costing time. The longer 3.31 rearend allows the engine to hit 60 mph before the engine hits redline in second gear, resulting in a better 0-60 number. However, this advantage is limited to the 0-60 stat only."

Edited by ccap41
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's more a matter of dialling back the transmission shift parameters, probably to meet claimed mileage figures. In any event, it's nearly a full second drop in little over a year.

Hey, if you don't mind having a 40-grand Mustang that is life and death off a green light to a Civic Turbo that's your decision. Just don't pretend it's no big deal, because it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A direct quote from the article:

"This still leaves us with the underlying question of why EcoBoost-powered Mustangs are getting slower. We reached out to Ford after our most recent test with all our data. A Ford communications representative noted that the quickest manual transmission Mustang EcoBoost we tested (the second car) was a pre-production model and speculated that it may have had a 'different calibration.' He did not elaborate. He also speculated extremely hot weather could cause the computer to pull timing, but when presented with weather data showing the car was tested on a 55-degree day, he said 'it should’ve been making great power.'"

It SHOULD HAVE been making great power.

The gearing DOES NOT explain the slower times.

Ford HAS NOT replied on the issue further.

Ford has almost certainly had to back off on the EB because, as in the trucks, the reality simply couldn't match the hype. Hate if you must, but the only proper way to direct your anger is against the company that allowed this cluster to go down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Reasons why you're a douche.

 

1. Not 40k for an Ecoboost Mustang. You can option both turbo cars to 40k but they do not have to cost you 40k. An Ecoboost mustang can be bought for under 26k.

 

2. Honda Civic Turbo 1.5 has been tested running 15's in the quarter. 

 

3. If you're talking about the ricer Hondas w/ aftermarket turbos... they'll also eat up a bone stock turbo4 or v6 Camaro along w/ Mustangs. That's aftermarket. 

 

4. 14.1 in a Camaro isn't anything to toot our horn at either as a Honda Accord will be next to you the whole way. 

14.2@102 vs the Camaro's 14.1@97 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-honda-accord-coupe-v-6-manual-test-review

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Leaks of privileged information happen.  In this case, Ford pushed these images and pages to their consumer website in a way which was easy for the folks at MachEForum to find. 
      Here are the basics, the best of each spec, the 2021 Ford Mach-E will have up to 300 miles of driving range, run 0-60 in mid-three second range, and have optional all-wheel drive.  You're going to prioritize those specs though because you won't be able to get them all in the same car.
      All models of Mach-E will be able to recharge 47 miles in 10 minute of DC fast charging in a 150-kw charger
      The base model is called Select and starts at $43,895. It is powered by a 255 horsepower, 306 lb.-ft of torque motor in the rear.  You can opt for all-wheel drive which increases torque to 429lb.ft. This model gets an EPA estimated range of 230 miles and a 0 to 60 sprint of mid 5-seconds. If you qualify for the full $7,500 federal tax credit, the price can be as low as $36,395. It's equipped with 18-inch wheels
      Next up is the Premium trim, starting at $50,600. This comes with 19-inch wheels and again in RWD or AWD configurations. EPA estimated range is 300 miles on the RWD model and 0 to 6- remains mid 5-seconds. 
      There will be a trim called California Route 1 which is an extended range rear-wheel drive model. It has an EPA range of 300 miles and a mid 6-second range sitting on 18-inch wheels.
      Then there is the top of the line GT, starting at $60,500. EPA range is estimated at 235 miles and a mid 3-second range. It comes standard with all-wheel drive. 
      For early adopters, there is a Mach-E First Edition. It offers three exterior colors, including and exclusive "Grabber Blue Metallic", interior contrast stitching, First Edition scuff plates, brushed aluminum pedals, and red brake calipers. This model seems to be a happy medium on range and performance with a 270 mile EPA estimated range, mid 5-second 0-60, AWD, and 19-inch wheels. 
      Inside the Mach-E is a large Telsa-like center screen though with a single physical dial at the bottom. A simple dash and slim gauge cluster sit behind a 3-spoke wheel badged with the Mustang logo. 
      Ford will officially share more information on Sunday night, and the specs listed above are subject to change. We'll keep you updated as more information comes out. In the meantime, scroll down to see all of the information grabbed in the screenshots.








       

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Leaks of privileged information happen.  In this case, Ford pushed these images and pages to their consumer website in a way which was easy for the folks at MachEForum to find. 
      Here are the basics, the best of each spec, the 2021 Ford Mach-E will have up to 300 miles of driving range, run 0-60 in mid-three second range, and have optional all-wheel drive.  You're going to prioritize those specs though because you won't be able to get them all in the same car.
      All models of Mach-E will be able to recharge 47 miles in 10 minute of DC fast charging in a 150-kw charger
      The base model is called Select and starts at $43,895. It is powered by a 255 horsepower, 306 lb.-ft of torque motor in the rear.  You can opt for all-wheel drive which increases torque to 429lb.ft. This model gets an EPA estimated range of 230 miles and a 0 to 60 sprint of mid 5-seconds. If you qualify for the full $7,500 federal tax credit, the price can be as low as $36,395. It's equipped with 18-inch wheels
      Next up is the Premium trim, starting at $50,600. This comes with 19-inch wheels and again in RWD or AWD configurations. EPA estimated range is 300 miles on the RWD model and 0 to 6- remains mid 5-seconds. 
      There will be a trim called California Route 1 which is an extended range rear-wheel drive model. It has an EPA range of 300 miles and a mid 6-second range sitting on 18-inch wheels.
      Then there is the top of the line GT, starting at $60,500. EPA range is estimated at 235 miles and a mid 3-second range. It comes standard with all-wheel drive. 
      For early adopters, there is a Mach-E First Edition. It offers three exterior colors, including and exclusive "Grabber Blue Metallic", interior contrast stitching, First Edition scuff plates, brushed aluminum pedals, and red brake calipers. This model seems to be a happy medium on range and performance with a 270 mile EPA estimated range, mid 5-second 0-60, AWD, and 19-inch wheels. 
      Inside the Mach-E is a large Telsa-like center screen though with a single physical dial at the bottom. A simple dash and slim gauge cluster sit behind a 3-spoke wheel badged with the Mustang logo. 
      Ford will officially share more information on Sunday night, and the specs listed above are subject to change. We'll keep you updated as more information comes out. In the meantime, scroll down to see all of the information grabbed in the screenshots.








       
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Ford has announced the name of their upcoming Mustang inspired electric crossover.  It will be called the Mustang Mach E.  The official debut happens on November 17th, after which reservations for the car will be opened for customers wishing to make a deposit.  Deposits are $500 to hold your place in line and later, customization of the vehicle will open closer to delivery time. 
      We've seen from previews of the Mustang Mach E that it will be a rather swoopy crossover with a coupe like roofline. Current rumors put the estimated range at around 370 miles on the WTLP cycle, but EPA cycle will likely be lower. Ford also recently announced the creation of the FordPass Charging network, a way to take the worry out of range anxiety.  We expect we'll hear even more about FordPass Charging Network at the November 17th presentation. 
       


      View full article
  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...