2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 6,247 comments
  • 505,606 views
The facelift better be good. That's all I got to say.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
I wonder what the 201A option for the Ecoboost is? Nearly $6,000 premium over the base ecoboost. Nearly 400+hp GT price. I wonder if it's luxury or performance options. Hmmmm
Click to expand...
Check the order guide HERE.
 
xNEVER-ONEx
Ya wouldn't be surprised if the power figures don't change. I think we'll see updated power in 2016, sort of like how the 2010 redesign pretty much carried over the motors from 05-09 and then they brought new motors in 2011.
Click to expand...

That was with all-new engines (V6 & V8). Not the case this time.

I would think Ford could squeeze at least an additional 10-15hp out of the 3.7 & 5.0.
 
I think they could get a lot more. Especially with what aftermarket builders and average garage builders are getting out of it.
 
TheCracker
So. Just seen the Mustang advertised on British TV for the first time. **** just got real 👍
Click to expand...

Me too, thought I was seeing things. But the last gen Mustang had a bit of a push here too, and further back the Corvette and last-gen Camaro, the latter of which I've seen several of over the years (they were pretty good value for the performance they offered). We really need independent rear suspension for our twisty, pitted roads so the new car makes a lot of sense. All part of Ford's increased globalisation and homogenisation of their brands i guess.

That said, it's not a looker, preferred the last gen personally. Meh.
 
Last edited:
ildd
What did the last gen (2005) cost at launch? Like $26000 after inflation?
Click to expand...
I think so, I did the 2015 Launch prices with the '94 Launch prices with inflation and it turns out the '94s would be a bit more expensive. I will have to get the '05 Prices and play with a inflation calculator.
 
Leonidae@MFT
Track Pack probably.
Click to expand...

They made it sound more like some kind of equivalent to the Titanium trim level for the Mustang. Or, at least, that's what I got out of it.

On the current Mustang, the "Performance Pack" runs $1,995 for the V6 model. I'd imagine similar pricing for the EcoBoost version. Again, walking out the door for a sporty, 300+ BHP coupe for ~$28k is a steal.
 
Indeed it is. I can hardly wait for proper reviews to start rolling in.
 
Everything so far seems favorable.
 
Yikes the 401A Premium is steep. Then again I don't understand what the 400A has and the 401A includes.
 
My god I really want a base Ecoboost now. I cannot wait till the local dealers get one so I can check the back seat size.
 
A guy on another forum:

JakeRadden;2192036
Just sayin, after haggling I went out the door with mine for under 32k.

MSRP was 37xxx, 301A + Track Pack + Recaros
Click to expand...

Edit: This appears to be a 2014 car. My mistake.
 
I'm surprised they didn't decide to put in the 3.5 L Ecoboost V6. It puts out like 365 HP, and would on a power basis sit perfectly between the base V6's 300HP and the GT's 420 HP. I guess the price would put it a lot closer to the the GT though.
 
xNEVER-ONEx
I'm surprised they didn't decide to put in the 3.5 L Ecoboost V6. It puts out like 365 HP, and would on a power basis sit perfectly between the base V6's 300HP and the GT's 420 HP. I guess the price would put it a lot closer to the the GT though.
Click to expand...

Because mileage and cost I'd guess.
 
Zenith
Because mileage and cost I'd guess.
Click to expand...
I think cost would be the big reason. The motor probably costs more than the Coyote for Ford, and they wouldn't be able to sell it for more than the GT without increasing the power significantly. As for mileage, if they get similar numbers to what the Taurus SHO gets, and better mileage than the Coyote, they wouldn't care.
 
Coyote crate motor is 6-7k. EBv6 is closer to 10k.
 
Leonidae@MFT
Coyote crate motor is 6-7k. EBv6 is closer to 10k.
Click to expand...

Yeah we told you this already, EB is more expensive than the dinosaurs you don't like. It's just common sense technology costs > not so technological costs
 
1907348_638928666196506_2218033584741705106_n.jpg
 
They should call it "Eco Twin-Boost" or something
 
Back