The 2015 Ford Mustang

I’ve read the lamentations of the Ford Fans that the next Mustang is completely ditching it’s Retro styling.  At first I was myself concerned that Ford had lost it’s mind.  But then I watched a new Mustang roll past (I was sitting in a Wendy’s at the time) and I thought that it had very little Retro look to it anyways.   So not much is lost.  The new Mustangs don’t look like Mustangs and they sound like Honda Accords, so I’m not bothered by Ford chucking it and starting over.  This is ultimately going to be a very good thing for Ford.  The new 2015 Mustang looks sharp.  It looks like a performance car.  It looks like an Aston Martin, but that’s not a bad thing.   I have some optimism about the new Stang… with Ford’s new Engines, some new looks, I see a winner coming.  Especially since Ford has hinted at something the Mustang has always needed.  An Updated Suspension.   There is Hope For America!

All we need now is for Chevy to make the Vette a Mid-Engine car.

12 thoughts on “The 2015 Ford Mustang”

  1. That looks like a new Ford Fusion, so I really hope it’s not the 2015 Mustang’s final styling.

    IMO, the new Mustang does looks like a Mustang (though admittedly not as much as they used to). And as a driver of a Honda Accord, I can assure you that the new Mustang sounds nothing like an Accord. Especially the V8 models.

    1. The V6 Stangs sound too quiet, and the V8’s are not much better. I’m just not impressed with the sound. And the looks? They just look tired to me.

  2. An Aston Martin made to top American standards is a good thing.

    The current Aston Martin roadster is a $160k piece of crap. An uncomfortable ride ( parody sports car suspension, makes a WWII Jeep seem smooth ), a big engine hobbled by a really poorly designed automatic transmission, no headroom ( you HAVE to have the top down unless you are a little European ), windows that make noise when closed, poorly arranged instruments that you can’t read during the day ( indicators are the same color as the dials ), and the damned thing rattles.

    The Lexus factory would have sent it back to be scrapped for new parts.

    1. Krisopher, are you making this into a Ford vs Toyota argument? lol, just kidding. But the Aston is sexy!

  3. The problem with Detroit is they make 500 different models of their muscle re-makes, so there is zero exclusivity to it. A 6 cylinder muscle car? really?
    If I can get a free upgrade to a Mustang from my midsize rental at Hertz, I don’t want it in my garage.

      1. That’s true. I remember the SVT Mustang, a V-4 Turbo. A very UnStang Stang.
        The new V-6’s outperform the old stock 8’s.

        1. The SVT was the 93+ cobra(tuned up 5.0 and then 4.6 DOHC 32v). The SVO was the 4 cylinder. Not a V4 however, it was the built on the same 2.3 that was in the mustang at the time(just turbo). It was the T-Bird TurboCoupe motor in a smaller car. It was never meant to be a super car, but rather a serious upgrade in the handling of the Fox body. The 5.0 made them far too nose heavy and they had a tendency to put their ass where their nose should be on curves.

          While the current V6 Mustang’s numbers look better on paper, they are still lacking next to the old 5.0 .The 5.0 put down 300ft/lb at a paltry 3200 rpm(and held it to about 55-5700) while the newer 4.0 V6 peaked at 240ft/lb at 3500 and then dropped off(the burden of OHC and emission standards). Add in the extra 15HP and the EASE of which a 5.0 could be modified(I’ve personally witnessed 310HP on a stock long block and cam) and the sixer doesn’t hold a candle to the V8.

  4. The 1965 Mustang was 2500 #s with up to 271hp. A sporty car for sure. The first car that I bought was 2400#s and 150 hp and it was a blast to drive; because it was light not fast. The 2012 Mustang weight in at 3700 pounds. Sure, you can get a 650hp motor to make up for the heft if you have $60k laying around.

    What happened to the “light is right” mentality? In 1992 the Mclarren F1 weighed in at around 2300 pounds and went 240 MPH. The Bugatti Veryon finally beat it but weighs almost 4200 pounds.

    Oh, but wait we MUST get better fuel economy and have all of the government add ons (crash beams, traction control, tire pressure monitoring, umpteen million airbags, etc. Oh, and don’t forget the ethanol “gasoline”.

    1. Don’t forget that in ’65 engines were rated by GROSS HP. They took an engine off the assembly line, inspected the internals and then strapped it on a dyno. No accessories, open full length header, the distributor timing curve(weights and springs) along with the carb were tuned to get the most possible out of the engine. By ’75 they went to NET HP which was a much more realistic measurement(straight off the line, all accessories and full exhaust with no “tuning”). The ’70 Caddy 500 was rated at 400HP while the IDENTICAL engine used in ’72(same compression, heads, cam, intake, carb…everything) was rated at 235HP

  5. Mid engines are for F-1 cars sports cars are F/R Geoff Who bought a new Micro-blaster HondaFit S

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *