Drove the new Mustang today.

Seriously Ford? This is one area that aspiring to BMW is 100% stupid. Uhg.

Trying to decide if ordering a white ecoboost with Recaros and performance pack is worth getting knifed in my sleep by SWMBO

GCooper wrote: Trying to decide if ordering a white ecoboost with Recaros and performance pack is worth getting knifed in my sleep by SWMBO

The EcoBoost will surely outrun her.

Given everything we were led to believe about the new Mustang being lighter than the old one, I do view the 3800-pound curb weight for the GT as a disappointment. No matter how good the car is, it would be a whole lot better if 500 pounds lighter.

Here's the thing that impresses me most:

Let's compare my Mazda 3 to the new Ecoboost Mustang. The Mustang's 2.3L has 310hp. My 3's 2.5L has 160-something. That's nearly double the HP. It weighs about 800lbs more than the 3, yet gets 4 more MPG than my 3, and on regular unleaded fuel to boot. Nearly double the HP and better MPG.

That right there puts the Ecoboost Mustang in the "Hey honey, this is a great economical choice for a car!" territory for me. I've already started marinating her brain with this.

Will wrote: Given everything we were led to believe about the new Mustang being lighter than the old one, I do view the 3800-pound curb weight for the GT as a disappointment. No matter how good the car is, it would be a whole lot better if 500 pounds lighter.

When did Ford ever say it would be lighter? Internet pundits by the gazzillion said lighter, but Ford didn't.

SilverFleet wrote: Here's the thing that impresses me most: Let's compare my Mazda 3 to the new Ecoboost Mustang. The Mustang's 2.3L has 310hp. My 3's 2.5L has 160-something. That's nearly double the HP. It weighs about 800lbs more than the 3, yet gets 4 more MPG than my 3, and on regular unleaded fuel to boot. Nearly double the HP and better MPG. That right there puts the Ecoboost Mustang in the "Hey honey, this is a great economical choice for a car!" territory for me. I've already started marinating her brain with this.

Ummm, yeah...according to Ford's website you have to run 93 octane in the Booster to get those HP/TQ numbers. It's not clear if the MPG numbers are on 93 or 89, but I'd bet on 93.

But I won't tell your wife that....

I wonder what the real world MPGs will look like? I mean, sure if you act like it's a Prius you may be able to eke out really good numbers but at the end of the day it's still a pretty heavy car with a pile of horsepower. Add in the desire many 'stang owners have to dip into the throttle frequently and real world might be less than stellar.

Will wrote: Given everything we were led to believe about the new Mustang being lighter than the old one, I do view the 3800-pound curb weight for the GT as a disappointment. No matter how good the car is, it would be a whole lot better if 500 pounds lighter.

Says 3,705 curb weight for the GT. How one could get the car to 3300 or 3200lbs is beyond me, unless you want to remove the whole interior and replace it with cardboard.

In reply to Harvey:

Car and Drive lists 3810 for the GT manual and 3663 for the ecoboost auto.

that makes me sad. My fully optioned '05 GT is 260 lbs lighter than the Booster with about the same power.

It would probably be lighter if all the whiners hadn't pressured Ford into going IRS.

When i was a kid, i used to tie my shoes together and try to run around because it was fun.

After a while, the fun wore off.

How much weight do you think just the IRS adds verses a stick axle?

I'd love to see two equally prepped cars run a given track - one with IRS and one with the old axle. It strikes me that a 2014 GT vs a 2015 GT might be as close as we ever come to a viable comparison on that idea. I really don't think the difference is that big, but I freely admit I've never driven an IRS in anger.

Swank Force One wrote: When i was a kid, i used to tie my shoes together and try to run around because it was fun. After a while, the fun wore off.

Tht is a hilarious analogy

In reply to ultraclyde:

Been done.....see svt cobra vs roush stage 3 from the 03-04 era.

In reply to ultraclyde:

The 03 Cobra IRS is 150lbs heavier than the GT's solid axle.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to ultraclyde: The 03 Cobra IRS is 150lbs heavier than the GT's solid axle.

But that's not what he's asking. He's asking about the current cars. How much more does the '15 mustang weigh over the '14?

EDIT: Found it here: http://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/17/2015-ford-mustang-specs-435-hp/

V6 Manual is 30lbs heavier, V6 auto is 12, GT(V8) Manual is 87 and GT auto is 54. So we're looking at 12-87lbs?

In reply to Bobzilla:

"How much weight do you think just the IRS adds verses a stick axle?"

We already knew the weight difference between the '14 and '15. He's asking how much more the IRS rearend weighs than the solid axle. I used the '03 as a comparison because I haven't seen anywhere that compares just the rear ends of the new car to the '14. I know what you're saying, but you can't compare a '14 to a '15 in regards to the weight of the rearend, as they are different generation cars and are built differently.

So we're comparing apples and potatoes. Got it. Because the 03 has about as much to do with either the 14 or the 15 as .. well... a potato

Yes, it's a ball park estimate at best. Have anything better?

My ballpark estimate would be 50-87lbs.

Depends. If they went aluminum on the control arms, smaller housing with aluminum case, I could see it actually being lighter than the all iron solid axle diff with steel control arms/panhard rod.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Harvey: Car and Drive lists 3810 for the GT manual and 3663 for the ecoboost auto.

Seem to have a conflict then, because the GT shows on cars.com as 3705.

http://www.cars.com/ford/mustang/2015/specifications/

Wow, a solid axle versus IRS reference! Some things never die, I guess.