Yes. Four Hundred Thirty Five horsepower. Wow. That is only 15 horses shy of the 2001 Dodge Viper my mother once owned. And, I mean, it was a VIPER. This is a Mustang–yes, a GT model, but still attainable for most folks who really want one. It really is amazing how the horsepower race has been racing sky-high over the last decade, has it not? Oh, and the 2015 Mustang itself? Well, I like it!
For those of you just joining in, I once sold cars at Dahl Ford. That did not work out, but the dealership has a great group of people, and its GM, KV Dahl, is a genuine car guy. So I do have to drop in every once in a while.
A couple months ago I stopped in and asked Tim O’Leary when the new Mustangs would be in (that’s actually him in the background!) and he told me November. So on November 8, a brisk but sunny day, I had to pop in and see the new Mustang.
And now, for a little plug for Dahl Ford. When I walked in, a salesman asked if he could help me. He was polite and not high-pressure at all, and was more than happy to show me the bright red GT sitting in the showroom. No plaid-sportcoated hucksters at this place! And the new Mustang is a beautiful automobile.
He invited me to hop in and check everything out, and I took the man at his word. I did not beep the horn, but did play with the HVAC controls. Dual-zone A/C in a Mustang? Pretty ritzy! I also liked those toggle switches a great deal.
The interior was pleasant and the seats comfy. It’s nice to see some flair in a modern car, rather than the bland beigeness seen on way too many new cars. But then, this IS a Mustang.
I liked the Mustang logo and “50 Years” embossed into the seat backs too. Nice touch!
So, I got my pictures and my brochure, and was about to pack up, when I saw my old boss, Gary Mendoza. As it was a Saturday and the dealership was rather humming along, I didn’t want to bother him, but he waved me into his office. I told him about CC and that I intended to write up the ’15 model. He then said, “Well, then you need to drive one!” I responded, “Well, you could probably twist my arm.”
So, I got into the bright red (Race Red in Ford-speak) GT and looked for the ignition. Nope, no ignition, but a start-stop button. It illuminated red when off and green when on. There was a lovely va-room sound when it started! I put the key (well, lock/unlock fob I guess) into the illuminated cup holder, guided it out the front row (where it was sitting next to a black GT coupe) and was off.
As you would perhaps expect with 435 hp and 400 lb-ft of torque, the GT moved with authority through its SelectShift six-speed automatic. And despite its performance, the fuel economy is not bad, considering this is a performance car: 16 city, 25 highway, and 19 combined. No, not a fuel sipper, but pretty good for such a fun, sporty car! The days of 8-9 mpg are over–unless you drive a dump truck.
I really like the nose on these. The grille and its shape, with the chrome spears on either side of the “corral,” remind me of the 1967-68 model, while the LED running lights evoke the 1965-66. But the whole car still remains modern, yet unmistakably a Mustang.
And as previously mentioned, the interior is quite nice. While black would not be my first choice, other, more interesting interior colors are available, including dark brown, red and, yes folks, even white leather (“Ceramic” in Ford-speak).
It does have the TV screen touchscreen common to pretty much all new cars, but I was heartened to see actual volume and tuning knobs for the radio–just as it should be!
This GT had the 50 Years Appearance Package, which includes a special grille with chrome surround, 19″ alloys, aluminum dash trim and plaque above the glove box, and a 50th Anniversary logo on the rear deck, and special upholstery recalling the Comfortweave vinyl seats of the late ’60s Mustangs.
image: corporate.ford.com
In addition to the 50 Years Appearance Package, there is also a 50th Anniversary Model, available in Wimbledon White with black and white interior. Kona Blue is also available, but I would have to have Wimbledon White–an original 1965 Mustang color.
image: corporate.ford.com
Yes, white interiors are back. I want one.
While I didn’t try it out, rear seat space appeared a bit tight. But come on, it’s a Mustang! If you want space, get a Fusion. And at least there’s a decent-sized window to look out of. The Camaro looks to have a reasonably-sized quarter window, but the section that is not blacked out is about the size of a Chiclet. I should know, as I’ve sat in a couple! But on the Mustang, over the shoulder visibility is acceptable when merging onto the Interstate.
The 2015 Mustang is a big deal, the first all-new model since the “heritage” 2005 model debuted a decade ago. Not only is the car leaner and meaner, it has at long last gained an independent rear suspension across the line. It will also be available in Europe.
While I was driving the full-zoot 5.0 GT, the other Mustang members are not exactly slouches either. The standard Mustang comes with a 300-hp Ti-VCT V6 with 300 hp and 280 lb-ft of torque. A Turbo (ahem, Eco-Boost, sorry) 2.3L four is also available, with 310 hp and 320 lb-ft.
There is something almost Italianate in the lines. Mustang Ghia, perhaps?
While the nose reminds me of a 1967-68, the back reminds me of a 1969 model, center-mounted back-up lamp notwithstanding.
No, that is not a fuel cap, but it is meant to recall the real deal seen on 1965-73 models. Note the backup camera above the badge.
I love those taillights!
While I didn’t really “get on it” (I treat cars I am entrusted with as if they were my own), I did step on it a couple of times and the car was loads of fun! I think Ford has a winner. Isn’t it great there are still cars like the Mustang?
White interiors do look cool…new. It would drive you nuts trying to keep it clean. I think they went away for a reason.
Wish this didn’t sound like I was pissing on someone’s parade, but I find it “interesting” that not that long ago car manufacturers were crying about having to meet very strict fuel economy numbers…and yet we are in the middle of the biggest horsepower war ever. Reminds me of the late 60s and I hope we aren’t about to re-experience the 70s, too.
When, the 1st Mustangs were introduced, Wimbledon White did indeed figure big in all the publicity shots…but so did Poppy Red. If they haven’t already, Ford should include Poppy Red in the 50th Anniversary Model package.
BTW, what is the price differential, when converted to 2015 dollars, between that 2001 Viper and a 2015 Mustang GT?
“Wish this didn’t sound like I was pissing on someone’s parade, but I find it “interesting” that not that long ago car manufacturers were crying about having to meet very strict fuel economy numbers…and yet we are in the middle of the biggest horsepower war ever. Reminds me of the late 60s and I hope we aren’t about to re-experience the 70s, too.”
The world is very different then the late ’60s. The current horsepower war is limited to a few “halo” cars that can easily be cancelled and extremely high end luxury cars.
Please see the Ford C-Max, Fiesta, Focus, 4 cylinder only Fusion, base 4 cylinder Taurus, V-6 only Lincoln MKS, etc. for your regularly scheduled CAFE programming.
“Reminds me of the late 60s and I hope we aren’t about to re-experience the 70s, too.”
Just wait… the return of the new Brougham era is just around the corner!
I’ll slit my wrists if that happens.
Ha ha! And to think I considered mentioning your name in my comment above!
+1 suicide pact!
I think there is a very noticeable horsepower creep across the board on all models thanks to technology and horsepower has been going up at a good rate over the last 10 years. In 2004 buying the top of the line Crown Victoria LX got you a 4.9l V8 that put out 239 horsepower. In 2014 buying the base Ford Taurus(the Vicky’s successor) got you a 3.5l V6 with 288 horsepower. (heck even the optional Eco boost 4 cyl gets you 240hp) that is almost a 50 hp increase then the Vic and not only that the engine is smaller and the car gets better fuel economy.
Even the prince of Beigelandia: the Corolla has a 140hp engine in it. I think this is a new golden age for horsepower with cars getting 250-350hp engines and getting 30 miles to the gal.
That’s a valid point, but the outcome of the new CAFE requirements is being felt. Some HP ratings are slipping, and it is coming increasingly at the cost of complex technology that delivers good economy in government tests, and fails in the hands of consumers. Kia, Hyundai, and to some extent Ford have been the poster children for this issue, suits have been filed and mileage ratings have been rolled back.
Most mid-size V-6 engines are gone, and the current Nissan Altima is likely to be the typical review: “The 4 cylinder only with the CVT produces a lackluster driving experience that achieves decent fuel economy at the price of any interest in actually driving it.”
So far, we are reliving the ’70s and ’80s, but without the wholesale reliability problems. But, when things do go wrong, expect to spend $8,000 on transmission problems and another $8,000 on engine issues. That kind of money would have bought the whole car in 1980.
How do you figure? Most of the cars mentioned would have been considered extremely fast and powerful (in their class) as recently as 15 years ago. The Ford C-MAX, for instance, which yields MPG in the mid-40s (or more, with a plug) will also do 0-60 in under 8 seconds. The EcoBoost Taurus and Fusion are even quicker. The four-cylinder Impala isn’t very far off that, either. It’s not just a few specialty cars; everything is getting more powerful, more flexible, more reliable and more efficient – there’s very little tradeoff.
I thought it was Rangoon Red.
Dayum, Tom! These are the best pictures I’ve seen of the new Mustang! It looks great in these shots, even in red which I’m not a huge fan of. I can’t wait to how these sell here in Australia and see them on the roads.
I like it a lot,best of the current retro pony cars though the Challenger comes close.Considering the performance it’s got pretty good MPG,a combination unheard of in the 60s.If I had the money a 2015 Mustang would be mine,though not a tyreburner version
They’re all tire (or tyre if you prefer 🙂 ) versions! I rode in a friend’s EcoBoost Mustang and that car will light up the hoops at the slightest provocation!
Great write up Tom! Totally agree on the radio knobs!
There is a lot to like in the new Mustang, and it is dynamically a better car than the one it replaced. Appearance wise, I like the previous generation a bit better. The 2015 is a world car, and accordingly has a front end that meets European pedestrian crash standards. At least Ford threw away its ’70s Ford heritage with poorly integrated U.S. bumper standards, and did a pretty good job with the European limitations.
+1
Pretty much read all the main stream on line reviews of the new Mustang. This one, by Tom, for me, is the best. The enthusiasm of a car guy comes through and as far as I’m concerned, the photos catching all the neat details of this car are simply the best I’ve seen in the coverage for this new car.
Anyone else see the side profile of the Hyundai Genesis Coupe, especially the 3/4 rear glass, it’s upswept bottom curve and overall roofline in the new Mustang? Still, it looks great in Red. Still, too heavy. But at this point, I’m grateful we still have a Ford Mustang, Dodge Challenger, Chevy Camaro and Corvette. They still stand by the notion that cars should also be fun, not just appliances we get in to go from point A to point B. Long may the pony cars run.
My Dad has always owned Mustangs, so I got to test drive a GT with the manual recently, AND an Ecoboost. The GT was fun, but felt no faster than the ’11 I drove when my dad bought his Mustang (he ended up with the V6). The new Ecoboost is honestly a bit of a letdown. Dad’s V6 feels faster, especially in the upper rev ranges, and his gets over 30 MPG on the highway.
Overall, it’s a nice car though, and an improvement over the last one.
It’s deja vu for me – small displacement fours with turbos were hot stuff in the 80s, but only on the pages of car mags. As soon as a torquey V8s came back, the turbo fours were forgotten. Just like in 1985, they put up impressive numbers, but are peaky and require a lot of driver involvement to wring performance out of them. With gas around $2.50/gal, I predict that the eco-boost Mustangs will soon have some big promotions on them to keep them from languishing on the lot.
I guess the whole Ecoboost thing is a mystery to me. The Ecoboost engines are usually very powerful (look at the F150’s 3.5), but offer no better fuel mileage than their naturally aspirated competitors…more boost than eco.
I’m not sure why they still offer a V6 in the Mustang, since they are comparable in power and mileage to the four. My dad would like a new V6, but they only come in base models, so you can’t get heated seats and stuff like that. Therefore, he’ll likely end up getting the four, since he doesn’t need 435 horsepower to cruise around. 🙂
He does have a 2.0 Ecoboost in his Escape, and it’s a nice engine that gets high 20s on the freeway for mileage.
Ford (and most of the other manufacturers as it turns out) are right now leaning toward the “boost” end, as you mentioned. But it is valid that, for example, the turbo 4 that is the top engine in the Fusion has more power than a lot of V6 models of just a few years ago, with better economy. I’m also guessing (and this is a guess) that maybe a 2.0T is better emissions-wise than, say, a 3.0 V6 even if the fuel efficiency is similar?
If gas prices go back up, we’ll see the “eco” end of ecoboost. In Europe, they now sell a Mondeo (same car as the Fusion basically) with a 1.0 liter 3-cylinder turbo. Yes, a 3-cylinder in a 3000+ lb. car. But with the turbo it probably drives more like a healthy NA four.
I really think we’re on the verge of turbo engines becoming the rule rather than the exception. Hopefully the turbos themselves last longer than their 80’s counterparts though–I seem to recall those guys would often blow up well before 100K miles.
Yeah, relative to current gas prices, the timing of the Ecoboost couldn’t have been worse. Unless gas prices skyrocket in the near future, I can’t imagine the Ecoboost lasting very long, sort of like a modern version of the Mustang turbo four GT from the eighties.
What goes down does come up. We’ll see high gasoline prices again and the EcoBoost engine will be there.
I would rather Ford called it the Mustang Turbo. A bit of retro there and more of a performance sound to it. the word EcoBoost should be reserved for other Ford models.
Agree. I never liked the “Ecoboost” moniker. Just call it a Turbo!
The original moniker was to be Twin Force because of the twin turbos on the V6 models. With gas climbing to that $4 mark before introduction they switched the name to EcoBoost instead. I think EcoForce would have been a good name.
it’s going to be fairly difficult to “feel” the difference between 412 and 435 hp. Plus, if the cars had different axle ratios that could be in play as well.
I thought about performance mods on my ’12 Mustang GT, but as it is I can break the tires loose in 3rd gear. What more do I need?
Plus, the new one is about a hundred pounds heavier, so that soaks up any power gains.
My friend Dave went from a ’13 V6 to an EcoBoost and he says there’s no comparison between the two. He feels the ’15 is superior in every way over the ’13. Did the EcoBoost you drove have the Performance Package? My friend’s does and whoa, what a difference!
I’m no big fan of 4cyl turbos, but with modern electronics and turbo design they really can make them have a fat and flat torque curve. I expect the turbo Mustang probably has a nice torque curve that makes the V6 feel a little weak in the knees at low rpm in comparison.
Other than rentals I’ll be the Ecoboost models will be the big sellers.
Oh, the new one handled great. The power just wasn’t all that impressive to me. The power curve was different though; the four has much more down low, but runs out of breath as it revs, while the V6 is a bit weak off the line, but really builds all the way to almost 7000 RPM.
I love this car! What I also can proudly say is that the Mustang has been consistently getting better with each generation over the last 25 years. I like the more rounded styling of the 2015 – still retaining many of the “retro” elements of the ’05-’14, but not looking like an inflated version of Mustangs of yore (ahem, Challenger, Camaro). It looks far more sexy than any Mustang of recent memory, while still looking brash and tough. I can’t say that this type of car is high on my list, but if I were in the market for an American car (not including SUVs), this would be my first choice!
Obviously, I’m not a Ford man but have always respected the Mustang in varying degrees over the years.
The newest rendition? The Mustang is very nice, but I’m still trying to wrap my arms around the design; from the front it is a Mustang, but past the door, it looks like a Nissan Z car, at least from the side!
To me the design doesn’t blend the two disparate design elements well, but perhaps when I actually see one up close, maybe at our auto show in February, I’ll change my tune.
Actually, it maybe the fact that this almost-64-year-old baby boomer always reverts to the cars I grew up with.
435 HP? Who cares? My car has 300, but this coming from a guy who would be ecstatic having an old 1967 Camaro with a 250 cu. in. 6 cyl. and a Powerglide!
Go figure…
To me the side profile of the Mustang looks like a 2 door Dodge charger.
Agree about the looks. To me the dead on front view resembles an angry large mouth bass. I really like the interior and suspension upgrades and the powertrain choices are really great. The 2005-2010 body style to me looks a lot better. But when your sitting behind the wheel enjoying the performance all is well. Maybe in time I’ll warm up to it’s looks. I thought the Nissan Titan was the ugliest truck ever when I first saw it, and I wound up buying one 10 years ago and I really like it.
I’ve never been a huge Ford guy, but I really really want one of these. I even think my wife is on board with one for next year.
I have driven one and it is a huge improvement over my father’s 03 GT convertible (not really a surprise). This is actually the first Ford since the 2nd gen SHO that I can see myself owning, and it fits right in with my desire for a “decent” sized 2 door with rwd.
Nice to see Ford is acknowledging the heritage of the Mustang. The design keeps getting crisper, and the addition of IRS makes this a contender in the world market. I’d love to see a side-by-side comparison of the different engine options.
I owned a 1989 25th anniversary GT about 15 years ago. White fastback/hatch with gray cloth interior. The car was great fun to drive, but a beast at the same time, with the solid rear axle, a stiff clutch and plenty of power from the 5.0. Living in Maine at the time it became impractical to keep it, since the summer driving season up there is woefully short. With the least bit of slickness on the road, the car really was a pig on roller skates.
Sadly the new 2015 Mustang, with it’s Japanese styling, does nothing for me. It may have performance, but no longer looks like an American muscle car. IMO, the 2005-2009 models were by far the best looking of all the modern Mustangs. All you needed to do was put louvers on the quarter windows and they looked very much like a late ’60s model. The 2010-2014 also look good, though they lack the clean uncluttered styling of the earlier models, The front and rear got a little too complex. Still nice cars. The 2015 looks like a Toyota Supra. Just not my cup of tea. I have a personal interest in the Mustang and Challenger. I may very well buy a late model used one in the not too distant future. Possibly a Camaro, but for some reason, even the base models are not depreciating like the Mustang and Challenger, especially the Mustang. I have to get something I can afford.
You might be sad but most car enthusiests know this new Mustang is a game changer–Challengers and Camaros are designed for North America–this new Mustang will be sold the world over and has world class chassis, interior, engines and styling. What year Supra do you think it looks like? I can’t see any resemblence–at least you didn’t make the “Looks like a Fusion” comment. Unlike a lot of keyboard critics I’m buying a 2015 Mustang not just blither away about depreciation and crap–If you like the Camaro go buy one.
Well JYD, you are right about the similar appearance. I don’t remember the year but it was after 67 so think you are backwards in who was copying who. Always thought the celica (supra?) was a blatant knockoff of the fastback stang.
Good job Tom. I think Ford has hit this one out of the park. I could see myself in one of these. Since my shoulder seems to be joining other body parts in going south, it might finally have to be an automatic to be enjoyable. This takes me back to my youth (before 30) so I suspect I know a big reason I like it. If it goes over big with the youngsters I reckon it will be a hit.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The one thing we can count on at car shows fifty years from now is more muscle cars. And it’ll look like the only thing Ford Motor Company made back in 2015 was V-8 Mustangs.
And brown diesel wagons with a manual.
Well it had better be good Dearborn has cancelled the Falcon down here and even though the ordinary model was very ordinary the Hot ones will be missed so this Stang has big shoes to fill for the local fan bois, is it quicker than a turbo Falcon? Time will tell.
Tom, nice review and pictures. And I’m impressed that your mom had an original Viper. What a cool car!
I need to head over to check out the new Mustang at Highland Park Ford with my son. Weve been waiting for what seems like forever for it to arrive in showrooms. We first saw it at the Chicago Auto Show back in February, but couldn’t get in the ones they had on display. I’m really curious to spend more time with it, and your write-up inspires me.
I’m with you in thinking that Ford walked a fine line very well in creating a car with enough Mustang DNA to be interesting and enough global engineering focus to be relevant. I really like the Wimbledon white with white interior, that would be one sweet GT.
435HP. Let’s give morons who cannot drive even when sober more power. But sweet car!
It makes you wonder when the hp race is going to top out. 800hp? 1000hp?! Crazy.
My 5-cylinder 168 hp Volvo gets around just fine, even passing on the Interstate, and I consider my Town Car very good with 220 hp.
“The car so powerful, if you even *think* about buying one, Mister, you’re under arrest!”
The other day, I was walking through the Ford lot on my way back to work after dropping the pickup off for an oil change. There were three new Mustangs on the lot – a four-banger, a V6, and a GT.
What struck me at that time was how this is the first time in thirty-odd years the Mustang has had the availability of each of these engines.
The overall styling of these has certainly grown on me since first seeing a picture of one; in fact, the pictures don’t quite do it justice. Overall, Ford was smart to design the Mustang to various worldwide standards so it can be sold globally. With the amount of cachet the Mustang name possesses, they should make the most of it.
Great article, Tom.
1986 was the last year you could get a four-, six-, or eight cylinder engine in a Mustang, the 2.3L Lima, the 3.8L Essex, and of course the 5.0L Windsor (actually made in Cleveland 🙂 ). This time around all three choices are good 🙂 .
I don’t absolutely love every angle of the exterior styling, but I do like the way it looks a lot…and certainly more than most new cars. And I am definitely convinced that it is another solid effort from Ford. If I didn’t have a 44 mile (each way) commute through snow country and a couple of children in my near-term future, I’d be seriously considering a V6 base model with the manual right now.
I don’t know whether I like it or not. From some angles it looks like a Dodge. From others it looks like a Mustang. I will vote in favor of the two-tone interior. I want red and white!
I agree, red and white would be at the top of my list though I’d take blue and white over the black and white combo.
Like!
Great write up, Tom. Thanks! I’m a long-time Mustang guy (for the most part), and currently own a ’13 BOSS 302 in School Bus Yellow, which I bought new.
The new S550 ‘stang is certainly a leap ahead in many ways, though I’m not totally enamored with the exterior styling. I still prefer the old S197 (MY ’11-’14) version in that regard. The new interior looks terrific, though.
To me the new Mustang is almost two different cars: from the A pillar forward, and the A pillar aft. The aft part is great…very sexy, lot’s of interesting saying details. The rear end, especially, is just killer. Forward of the A pillars, however, it’s just so-so, IMO.
Anyway, I’d gladly take a 5.0 liter 6-spd GT with Track Pack In Kona Blue, please. Better yet…I’ll take a GT350R went it hits the streets, and tracks, next year. One can always dream, anyway…
Agree with your assessment of the design, both inside and out, with one exception— the plastic panel between the tail lights looks cheap and is a let down since it’s the last detail that you see. Looks even worse in person.
I’ll take the green Mustang in the background of the second picture.
That would be fine with me!!
You’d have thought they’d have at least splurged for whitewall tires. Of course, in this day, those might not be that easy to find, anymore.
You’re right, I had a tough time finding reasonably priced whitewalls for my 85 Grand Marquis. Hercules still makes them priced at $100 each, Canadian.
You’re kidding about whitewalls for the Musteang, right?
No, those old, low-power Mustangs with full wheel covers look better with whitewalls, up until maybe 1969.
A good looking car with some great details. But only 435 hp? After the Hellcat Challenger, anything less than 700 seems piddling 😉
Ummm… ok. But for the price of one Hellcat you can buy 2 Mustang GT’s and have 870 horsepower 😉 .
I like it overall. But I don’t like Ford’s shuffle game with engines with the V6 losing 5 HP to make the Ecoboost look better at 310 and the mysterious MPG loss also designed to make the turbo look better. The Ecoboost also needs premium octane to get that 310 horse number and those MPG ratings. They also are forcing buyers to go with the 4 banger in order to get any kind of options or Premium trim level which is ludicrous. Cheers on finally finally offering some interior colors though I wish it was the entire seat instead of just the inserts.
+1 on the seat inserts. In fact, it’s slightly irritating that all you get for a different color are seat and door panel inserts. Otherwise, it’s the same black interior. It’s a far cry from the good old days when just about everything matched in a different color interior (and we’re talking dash, steering wheel, headliner, etc). And this included strippo, base models, too.
OTOH, in this era of most vehicle interior choices being limited to grey (or maybe beige), well, it’s about as good as it’s going to get. I think Fiat really was brilliant by offering a whole bunch of different color sets on the 500, both inside and out (and it even includes a white steering wheel on some colors).
The green Mustang barely seen in the background of one of the photos is a 67. When my sister was a few months out of college, she bought a 67 Mustang. Her’s was a V8 with automatic, NO power accessories, an AM radio, and a bench front seat. While originally a copper color (with black interior), as soon as she got some money saved she had it painted that same medium metallic green.
As per a previous poster, I imagine Ford has “stacked the deck” against customers who want speed with a minimum of frills.
That Lime Gold ’67 is owned by the Dahls. Their comptroller bought it there new, and in 1989 he traded it in for a–wait for it–Escort station wagon!
The Dahls had to have it, and it’s been in their collection ever since.
Nice write up, I like the CC perspective of a average car guy looking at the dealership as an alternative to the typical magazine test. Seems like a good dealership, I like their trunk sticker. Understated and classy, with the city location clear. New dealer labels are usually gaudy and don’t even say the dealer’s city. They should be proud of their community! Also it helps future car spotters know what area the car came from originally.
As for the new Mustang, I have mixed feelings. I don’t hate it, I know that. As an owner of a 2011 GT, I honestly don’t WANT to like the new version too much because I plan on keeping mine for a long time and don’t want to become discontent. The rumors had been that the new Mustang would be significantly smaller and lighter. Turns out it is very similar to the previous generation in size, weight and to my eyes at least, overall shape. Obviously, the roofline, ends and details are all different, but it really has an evolutionary rather than revolutionary feel. I think they played it kind of safe. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. I hope they sell a bunch overseas and keep or expand their numbers in the US. For now, I am happy with my 2011!
+1 on the earlier comment about making the V6 the bargain basement version only (relative, cause they come with just about everything important standard). They should have all versions available with all engines and not try to force people into the 4. Let it sink or swim on its own merits.
Make mine Guard Green, eco-boost, 6 speed manual, track pack, please…
Some people may not like the new one but I’ve always felt that Mustang is one of those few automotive brands that has brand loyalists and fans that are just as rabid as Harley Davidson.
Delete the rear spoiler, fog lamps, and fender emblems, black-out the grille, and add torque-thrust type wheels and maybe a special, retro-style vented hood, gas-cap, and steering wheel emblem, and you’d have an easy Bullitt car.
Ford could probably do it all in-house, charge less than $1000 RPO, and sell a bunch of them.
2015 Ecobost Fastback – 6 speed manual, performance package (adding 3.55 limited slip axle and blacked out wheels), spoiler delete…
$27,990 on the old Ford build-your-own… the only thing missing is the right wheels and you’ll always need two sets with a sports car so you can keep winter tires around. 🙂
I built one almost exactly like yours and mine came to 31k. That Guard is a sweet color!
Start with the Ecobost regular (don’t pick the premium) and forget the Recaros and you can keep it under $30K.
I sat in a prototype at the Edmonton Motor Show early this year and as a die-hard Mustang fan I was impressed. A few months later I stopped in on a Ford fleet ride and drive and saw some pre-production Mustangs on a closed circuit. Again I was impressed.
Still haven’t seen any at a Ford dealership up here. Since this is a day off perhaps I’ll drop in on a couple of dealerships and see if they have some stock now. One salesman told me a few weeks ago those Mustangs that do come in are all sold and will likely sit out the winter months in their owner’s garage.
We finally got an IRS. So when do we get AWD?
(Not kidding… with 435 hp, awd is a good idea..)
No, no, no!!! Did I mention… NO?!?!?
This is a total 180 for you, T.K. Didn’t think this kinda ride was on your radar at all. That said, you did a helluva job with the pics. All the shots Ive seen so far make the car look like the whole front end is swollen. But its not bad at all. I still prefer the last generation based on pure looks…but this appears to look like a Mustang…even if it DOES have traces of 350Z in the side windows, as was mentioned. I like the idea of the EcoBoost. stock to stock, it and the V6 are pretty well matched but the boosted 4 will allow a LOT of options for tweaking, much like the V8. The V6 is just another base motor for cheaper, sporty transportation. Id still pick the Challenger in a heartbeat but its laying down some pretty impressive numbers. Im just glad we still make cars like this. This is what a REAL American car is supposed to be like.
+1
So why is there a 50th Anniversary Package on a 2015 when the Mustang debuted in 1964?
Cause a.) the car is all new… and b.) the original debuted in April 1964 going on sale just a bit later, much like the 2015.
But honestly I’m still one of those stubborn SOBs who insists that a 1964 and 1/2 Mustang is really just an early model year 1965.
But then I get peeved off at the “concurs” restoration guys that insist on originality and low miles. It’s a car, freaking drive it. If something breaks replace it. If you have a hot rod inclination, then replace it with something better and horsepower adding.
It depends on your perspective. I don’t mind the conours guys so much because in their quest for a perfect, off-the-line, low-miles, original restoration, it provides a frame of reference and it is nice to see exactly how a car was when new.
The issue is the vehicle wasn’t really intended as an object d’art, which is the sole purpose of, say, a sculpture or painting; it’s just a regular production car of which someone hoped they could sell many and make a big profit.
Still, certain models transcend the ‘just a car’ mentality due to their popularity and became a cultural phenomenon. That description would seem to fit the first Mustangs.
I would have to say that I agree with you to a point, and then you have to allow for just how subjective object d’art really is.
To some people that 1970 Mach 1 is their one true car love regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.
“it is nice to see exactly how a car was when new.”
Don’t go looking at concours cars if you want to see what it looked like new! (c:
@Ed, lol… I was thinking of the “1964” K-code convertible that was recently on the auction block on “Fast and Loud” on the Discovery Channel. Some a-holes are likely pouring over it with a magnifying glass as we speak analyzing the factory paint overspray patterns so they can replicate it on their restoration.
I didn’t like these when I first saw the photos…but they’ve grown on me, and for some reason your pictures really make the car look great! (Nice job.) Perhaps they’re one of those designs that have to sort of “wear in” but look great in person.
And that interior? Now *that* I really like. Vintage-inspired seat design…two-tone options…great details. I could see myself spending some time there! Now all they need to do is offer it in a two-tone blue to go with that wimbledon white…
About the only thing wrong is the size–they’re a bit too big in overall dimensions and way too heavy. 3500 lbs+ for the lightest model and almost 3900 for the portliest (GT automatic convertible)–that’s insane. I know modern safety equipment is heavy, but the idea of a two-ton Mustang is just so, so wrong. Trim it up a bit and go with some lightweight materials to get the weight down closer to 3000, and it’d be near perfect.
Figures though. I never really saw myself as a “Mustang person”; I’ve never even driven one. And yet I could see myself buying one of these…except for the small detail that my wife and I are planning on starting a family sometime in the next few years. No two-doors anytime soon for me! Poor timing, Ford, poor timing. 🙂
” my wife and I are planning on starting a family sometime in the next few years. No two-doors anytime soon for me! ”
Doesn’t have to be that way! How many families are you starting? One family car per family should do. Buy an older model one too in good shape for daily grinding, then invest in the car you REALLY want to tuck away for adult times.
Just seems highly inconvenient to have multiple cars that are unsuitable for baby transport. Plus my wife doesn’t like wagons, I don’t like SUVs, and we both hate minivans. I would be perfectly happy with a wagon so that’s probably what I’ll be driving in the future.
Besides, I should have said “no *new* two-doors.” The Volvo coupe is, hopefully, sticking around for a while as I have no good reason to get rid of that one…
I’m hot and cold with the styling, namely up front with the ubiquitous slanted headlights, but these pics are so good I’m liking it. The fanbois who prefer to think the 79-04s never existed and that the Mustang was meant to evolve through a 911 style design evolution “with a few hiccups” seem to hate them, but I personally think the 05-14s looked bloated and awkward, especially the rear of the 10-14 restyle. The 2015 almost looks more like a natural followup to the 2004 New Edge, which I still like the most of all the “modern” Mustangs.
I also like the chrome grill on this edition, I never got why similar treatments were only available on the base V6s in the S197 generation.
I didn’t really “get on it” (I treat cars I am entrusted with as if they were my own)
You should see how I treat my own 🙂
As if it is a surprise from my other posts on this subject… I LOVE the new Mustang! Soon I’ll have my Harley paid off… decisions, decisions…
I am a semi disabled/retired auto mechanic with 36 years in the business, and a lifelong vintage car enthusiast. I am also an amateur drag racer, currently racing a 383 powered Chevy S10 pickup. I may have to give that up soon, as my disability is getting worse, and it’s becoming more difficult to work on cars. My first car was a 1970 base model Challenger, 318, automatic, vinyl top, bench seat. Not a muscle car, but it sure looked good. I have also owned a 1979 Camaro Z28. Emissionized 350 automatic, it was no muscle car either. So, having owned a Challenger and a Camaro (and a ’77 Corvette) I am now seriously considering a Mustang. I will not be racing it. Both knees and both shoulders are bad, so it will be an automatic. It will also be a V6. Maybe a convertible. Insurance on a GT is insane, even at 56 with a perfect record, and while I would love to own one, it wouldn’t really do me any good. What I want is the Mustang look, which IMO it lost in 2015 (though I do think the 2015 looks way better than any of the Fox body Mustangs) So I will be looking for a 2005-2014. That gives me a lot to choose from. As far as the depreciation thing, Mustangs are depreciating faster than Camaros, for some reason. But that is good for me, being in the market for a used one.
I’ve never been fond of mustangs. I had a few GT’s as rental cars over the years and I never enjoyed them. Odd, right? But for me they seemed like I was driving a pig of a car – poor visibility and awful handling. Sure I could spin the tires at a red light but that gets old after a while. When I see these I think that the owner has to make up for other “shortcomings.”
Either way, to each his own. Kudos to ford for making this car in these times of $2.50 gas – I’m just a pessimist and expect that the people at exxon/mobil/BP will eventually come up with some excuse to bump gas prices again and this GT won’t be so much fun any longer.
Excellent pictures and review, Tom!
The new Mustang is kind of like the perfect synthesis of the 1st generation and the Fox body – which are, coincidentally, the only two Mustangs I’ve ever really liked. I thought the retro styling on the ’05 cars was cool, but they didn’t really do much for me beyond that… just a prettier version of a car I wasn’t interested in. I still doubt I’d ever buy one, but they’ve definitely got my interest and admiration.
So… does it still have that wretched, sh*t-eating, Chinese-built MT82 transmission that made me sell my 2011 GT with less than 9k on the clock? The same grindy, nasty pile of poor quality crap that Ford said was “normal”? The same transmission where Ford felt it necessary to tell me I have been shifting “incorrectly” in a Mustang although my previous 7 manual transmission vehicles performed flawlessly over a combined 300k+ miles.?
Pass. Pass on Ford permanently. I’m ashamed I wasted the money buying that car brand new, and they will never get my money again.
WOW, I looked up that transmission…what a disaster! I hope they worked that out before this model came out. China sucks.
First of all I love the ’15. I Like the roof and the quarter windows. It really looks like the roof on my old 280z. I was hoping that the car was going to be significantly smaller instead it was shrink wrapped like Nissan did wih the 370z. Of course the biggest improvement is the addition of IRS finally! Datsun had it all the way back to the 510.
My first car in 1974 was a 66 coupe with the base 289 four speed and true dual exhaust. It had non boosted drums also. I kept it for a year then bought a car I wanted first a 1964 Cad convertible. I then forgot about Mustangs for about forty years. When the 2005 model was released it got my attention. I wanted a convertible GT but I bought an 07 V6 auto coupe for my wife which we used as a family car for about 7 years before we gave it to our daughter. I was really impressed by the 200 hp. V6 with the 5 speed auto. It also had the Pony package which included 17 in. Pirelli p zeros. Highway fuel milage was 27-28 mpgs. with a 110 mph top end. It handled great and didn’t ride too bad. Ford being Ford had to skimp on the quality of the interior and lack of sound deadener. Itis apparent that the interior was upgraded in 2011. I came to terms with fact that the Mustang was just a cheap car not a bad car just cheaply built.
I was used to better my last cars had been a 94 Cad STS and a 94 300ZX.
I ended up buying a 96 GT convert. I think this and the new edge update were a very good interpretation of the evolution of Mustang styling. The smaller size and wedge shaped profile look very conteporary when viewed in the current traffic mix. Although I have enjoyed the 2005 thru 2014 retro style I welcome the further evolution.
Wait a minute- Your mother had a Viper? Don’t leave us hanging- that’s a story I want to read.
Already done. The link is in the article above.
All I want is a sporty 2 door American car. There used to be a lot of those, but today the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger are it. I have owned a ’70 Challenger (base model) and a ’79 Camaro Z28, but never a Mustang. So a late model (’05 and newer) Mustang with a V6 and automatic is a very logical choice.
For those putting down V6 Mustangs, as a car enthusiast, I can understand the attraction of a GT. But given the cost of gas and insurance, it is not a logical choice for me. And there is no way you can use it’s power on the street. I could very easily lose my license in a V6
I wish they would have taken a few inches out of that long hood and made the back seat a bit more useable. It just isn’t. I have kids and my 2002 Mustangs backseat is useable. It is even OK for a non giant adult for short trips. Growing up the family cars were a 79 Z28 and 76 Monte Carlo…so I am familiar with small backseats. This stang just takes it too far IMO.