Patrick Rall's picture

2015 Ford Mustang GT is Slower Than 2014 Models

Those print publications who were the first to sample the 2015 Ford Mustang GT have published their results and while the figures that we are seeing across the internet vary by source, the quickest reported times thus far come from Motor Trend, where they hit 60 in just 4.4 seconds en route to a 12.8 quarter mile – making the 2015 model slower than a similarly equipped 2014 model.
Advertisement


While we are certain to see better stock numbers once the 2015 Ford Mustang GT reaches the hands of owners who have a chance to get plenty of seat time in the new pony car, these first published numbers serve as a great benchmark of the 2015 Mustang performance levels. However, the first reports from some sources might not be the glowing numbers that some Mustang fans were expecting, as the reported figures from some sources are actually slower than the previous generation Mustang GT.

Performance Numbers for the 2015 Mustang GT
The first three drive reviews I have seen for the 2015 Ford Mustang GT come from the three biggest print publications in the industry – Car & Driver, Motor Trend and Road & Track. All three of these magazines tested the 2015 Mustang GT with the 6-speed manual transmission and they turned in the following performance numbers:
(Source – 0-60 – ¼ Mile time)
Car & Driver – 4.5 – 13.0
Road & Track – 4.6 – 13.0
Motor Trend – 4.4 – 12.8

As you can see, Motor Trend turned in the quickest performance figures for the 2015 Mustang GT this far and, fortunately, I was able to find tests for a comparable Mustang from the previous generation. With the 6-speed manual transmission, MT was able to get the 2013 Mustang GT from 0-60 in 4.3 seconds while running a 12.7 quarter mile.

That’s right – the 2015 Mustang GT is slower than the outgoing models.

This shouldn’t come as a huge surprise, considering that the 2015 Mustang GT has picked up almost 200 pounds for the new model year while “only” gaining an additional 15 horsepower. However, some had hoped that Ford had found a way to improve real-world performance even with the added weight.

The 2015 Mustang GT Offers Improved All Around Performance
So based on these first few reviews of the 2015 Ford Mustang GT has gotten a little slower in a straight line. That is a bummer for so many drag racers out there, but there is some good news for those who want their pony car to handle as well as it accelerates. Thanks to the new independent rear suspension setup, Motor Trend was able to get significantly better handling figures out of the 2015 Mustang GT compared to the previous generation.

2015 Ford Mustang Galleries:
A first look at the 2015 Ford Mustang RTR
Live images from the 2015 Ford Mustang Detroit Debut
A look at the similarities in styling across the 2015 Ford Mustang trimlines
The 2015 Ford Mustang in Triple Yellow

First, on the skidpad, MTs 2015 Mustang GT pulled 0.96g’s while the previous models pulled 0.94g’s. Second, in terms of braking the 2015 Mustang GT remained the same even with the added weight, getting stopped from 60 miles per hour in just 107 feet. Finally (and most significantly), the 2015 Mustang GT was able to get around the figure 8 test in 24.7 seconds – almost a full second faster than the previous generation.

In other words, while the 2015 Ford Mustang GT has gotten a little slower in a straight line, the improvements to the chassis and suspension setup have made the next generation Mustang a better all-around performance car that will work to debunk the myth that American cars are only good in a straight line.

Again, I am certain that private owners will be able to turn in better numbers than those posted by the magazines, but the drop in performance of those published numbers from the last generation to this new generation is likely to draw some harsh criticism from fans and, unlike those folks complaining about the looks of the 2015 Mustang GT, these complaints are valid.

Sources: Car & Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend


Sign-up to our email newsletter for daily perspectives on car design, trends, events and news, not found elsewhere.

Comments

My heart is sinking. If they aren't able to get the 0-60 for the GT with performance package down to 4.3 seconds max, I'm not buying. I'd much rather get a 5th gen. I want to see the Ecoboost with performance package and manual transmission with no more than 5.4 seconds. I fear to see what the v6's 0-60 will be like. This is not at all even close to what I was hoping for.
i own a 2011 mustang GT california special. I have the 6spd auto. I can get 0 to 60 times of 4.7 to 4.9 sec if I shift it manually. its a little slower if it shift its self. I just rented a 2015 mustang GT with 6spd auto. I cant get it to 60 in under 5 sec. best time is 5.0 sec. with it in sport + mode . I just read a review i think by car and driver with the same setup hit 60 in 4.5 sec. Not sure how they did it. I wounder avis did somthing to it. by the way im running 91 oct in both
The new GT makes, actually, 431 hp, on 93 octane. Deduct 10 hp for 91... The new car in base form is actually only 85 lbs heavier, while all the mags have tested FULLY LOADED versions, those are close to 200 lbs more. C&D is known for overstating the performance figures of acceleration on purpose to help sell the brand. One must also consider the location of the testing vs where people live, altitude, density altitude, etc. these all will have huge impacts on acceleratin. So too will a 1/4 tank of fuel vs a full one, that's a 80lb difference. Some of the mags do testing on very prepped tracks or surfaces too, this I know as fact. The new convertible 5.0 is a slouch. When I rented one for two days with 900 mi on it, I had a buddy come across me in town at a light in his 2014 Camaro RS. He was able to take me to about 35-40 and then I passed him. On roll runs from 60-100, he kept even till about 85... I was very surprised, and this is near sealevel, in SoCa where power will be at its best. The now-standard performance timer showed a best 0-60 of 5.1 sec in this 2015 convert 5.0, with 1/8 of a tank of fuel. Oh, and I'm only 145 lbs and 5'10"... My old 2014 coupe 5.0 with standard 3.31 gears in the base stick, did a best of 4.7.... So 4.4-4.5 is realistic, on very prepped surfaces, in a professionals hands. But it's truly a bad day when the camaro just runs away from the new 5.0, badly. I've had that run already too. The older mustang autos were slower still. Autoweek has the most realistic, unbiased testing of cars. And they test in an area under 1000 ft above sealevel in generally good conditions on unprecedented tracks that get light use. Nuff for now, but yes, it's sad that Ford rates all their performance vehicles on 93 and especially when you look at how Ford once overrated their performance vehicles in the late 80's and early 90's, seems they're overcooking the numbers again. I.E.: the new Focus RS's original hp number was going to be 325 hp, then 335, then, finally 350 hp. But after numerous folks in the UK dyno'd some new RS's, they came to the conclusion that the RS was at about 342-345 bhp. And about 325-330 btq. Mind you all that is on UK fuel which is about u.s. 94 octane equivalent. Deduct 5 hp for 93 fuel and another 8-10 hp on 91 and we are at Fords origiinal 325 bhp plan. I have heard it is really only about 325-330, and based on seeing a new Golf R walk away from a new RS above 50 mph, there's def a hp deficit in the RS and possibly the Golf R is making, oddly, 300 bhp. Infact, the U.K. Publications say 300 bhp for the their Golf R while the same pubs say the new Focus RS is 340-345 bhp. Hmmmm. I'm in need of another spare car and it looks like Audi or VW will be getting my vote. Sorry Ford. When you over rate your vehicles and do it on 93 fuel and still those vehicles gets creamed by lesser poured vehicles of similar weight but 35-50 bhp less, on 91 fuel, it's ashame.
Well actually I don't think you properly did your research, both C&D and R&T posted identical or better times with the 2015s, Motortrend somehow managed to have a slower time, although that could also be because their car as stated in the article has literally every weight changing option except the lighter Recaro seats. Whether they chose those themselves or its just what they received from Ford is an important question as is whether they tested the cars under identical situations. But C&D posted faster times then their long term 2013 Track Pack GT or their 2011 Brembo Pack GT. R&T to my knowledge hasn't tested a GT since 2011 and of course it was a Brembo Pack one and yet again the 2015 times were slightly better. So you shouldn't really be too disappointed that one publication recorded a slower time, also the 2015 will definitely be much faster in the corners. Idk what ppl are truly expecting, did anyone really think that this car was all of a sudden going to be as fast as Vette or similar sports car, that's ludicrous! This car is still plenty fast, not even mentioning that as always Stangs are easily and cheaply modded to go much faster then stock and even beat out high priced sports cars of similar or even more power.
Thank you. Yeah, I kinda came to my senses a a little while after posting that comment. I'm still very confident that the new 2015 Mustang will be faster in a straight line. This was only the first day of testing. I doubt they got a 4.3 0-60 out of the 13-14 GT on the first day either. That 10.8 1/4 mile certainly wasn't achieved from the hellcat on the first day. I'm really excited for this car. Also, the Ecoboost seems like should be amazing. The automatic was tested at only 5.2 seconds which I think is fantastic, and if the manual can do even better, which I imagine it can, that's a serious bargain for a 25k car.
The auto has been faster for the past several years. Taller gearing + faster shifts means better performance against a clock.
Can you provide a link or some sort of citation for this? Everything I've seen, along with everything I've heard from people who should know what they're talking about, points to the contrary. All the magazine numbers I've seen show the manual Mustangs hitting 60 faster than the automatics as well. Keep in mind, that even if you can make an automatic transmission that shifts absolutely perfectly, and faster than a professional using a very well-made manual with short throws and a very good short clutch, the automatic will still lose out on power because operating the heavier and more complex gear box takes more HP from the rear wheels. So while you'll have the same horsepower at the crank, you'll have less wheel horsepower.
I owned a 2012 gt automatic convertible, took it to a test and tune on a not perfect day and laid down numbers like @ bracket car. 13.53 to 13.59 @ 106. mph. Street tires warmed up. With a stock automatic, you cant load the wheels enough to 60 foot well. tires want to break loose at 1700 rpms on the brakes and even though the auto has a steep first gear launch, the motor just does not make huge low end torque to achieve real fast short times with stock 3.15 gears. I traded that car for a 2014 gt track pack car and all i can say is there is a world of difference in these two cars. The stick car gives you the ability to launch wherever you want and even though the first gear ratio in the stick tranny is less...3.66 to auto 4.12 first gear.... the stick car with 3.73 gears explodes off the line and hops a bit as well. Second gear brings added bouncing as well as tire burning, and third gear provides ample chirp under the right conditions. i think Ford should have used a steeper third gear ratio in the 6 speed...it drops off a bit out of second and in reality is a little to close to 4th in gear ratio... While i have not had the 14 to the track to test times, i am a firm beleiver that the optimal combo for these cars would be a well tuned auto by someone like lund or evoltion performance, with the right gears, 3.55 or 3.73. Throw in a converter to aid the stall and you would be in bracket heaven. I cant, and I dont beleve most drivers cant drive the stick as fast as these newer automatics built like beasts can perform. Too bad ford never offered the good gears in automatic GT. that was a mistake. 3.55 or 3.73 in an auto would be the cats ass. Just my 2 cents
13.5? That's all they can do? I'm surprised. I've run a 13.7 in my old bolt-on + tuned 1999 Mustang GT. (manual)
Please learn and respect the difference between [i]then[/i] and [i]than[/i]. The acceleration numbers are okay for the Mustang; the problem is the fit & finish on the top models is worse than what you get on a car costing a third as much at retail (and often available at a fourth of what Ford's MSRP is for the Mustang). It's a great car both for Mustang sycophants and for insecure babies whose immaturity of physique is satisfied by the pillow-on-a-sled seat height, and for gansta-posers who wear baseball caps backwards or sideways and recline the seat until they can peer through the steering wheel to see over the dash.
I always take published performance figures with a grain of salt. When exploring the ultimate capabilities of a car, track condition, air temp. and humidity, even wind conditions, which can vary minute to minute, almost certainly day to day and most certainly year to year, can make a pretty significant difference, easily a few 10th's if not more. Then there is the consistency of the driver(s).At the track I can't ever remember seeing a driver, professional or otherwise, run the 1/4 or a Road course more than once and have identical times, close, but not the same. I have run several cars at our local track, I consider myself to be an above average driver, and for example, running my Z on a 70 degree, low humidity, calm day, results in quite a different time than running it on a 90 degree, high humidity, windy day. At best published numbers put you in the Ballpark and is only an indication of what she will do.
And thank you too. Just as reassuring. I'm sure the new Mustang is going to be awesome in a straight line, along with around the corners.
The GT is definitely designed to be a Track car out of the box. The only problem is, as I understand it, if you use the Front brake locks to warm up your tires, the warrantee goes out the window. The IRS may be working against it a mite in a straight line, typically a solid rear axle is the better set up for going straight. The gains in handling are probably well worth it, especially in everyday driving. So it's not really surprising that the new gen. has about the same 1/4 times. I imagine, on a road course, the 2015 having the independent rear set-up would be significantly faster.
Ford has specifically stated that simply using the Linelock system would not void your warranty. Participation in a sanctioned race of any kind will void your warranty if they find out, but when they made the comment about how linelock was only for racing purposes and racing voids your warranty, I spoke with a Ford rep who clarified that just using your linelock - say to do a big smoky burnout in your driveway - will not void your warranty. Not being allowed to race is true of all Mustangs and plenty of people still do it...and dont get caught.
"Thanks" for clarifying that. I've seen conflicting explanations of how using the front linelocks may affect warrantee. As to racing in a sanctioned race, does that hold true for all Mfgs? For example the Hellcat or Camaro?
The 2015 Mustang GT is Butt Ugly and looks kind of feminine and Jap boy racer wanabe like, so Im gonna just buy a 2014 GT when Im ready to trade in my 2012 GT w/ Flowmaster Outlaws and American Racing Headers, The 2015 is a Huge disappointment to me, so what if it has rear independent suspension finally like the New camaro it added almost 200 hundred pounds and is Not even faster than a 2013-14 GT, which you Can make Much faster W/ a Bama tune, long tube headers and a mustang chip and aftermarket quality exhaust system and cold air intake system !!! Lol :)
If you don't like how the new ones look and you have plan for a 2014, more power to you! It will certainly get you a faster 0-60 for the money, which is pretty much the point of a Mustang. And I would suggest looking into a supercharger kit for it before spending money on all those other mods. I think you'd probably get more bang for your buck that way. You could make it one wicked machine! But don't let the article fool you. The 2015's aren't slower than the 2014's. On the very first day of testing, the 2015's matched the 2014's 0-60 at 4.4 seconds, and by most sources that's actually beating the 2014. Most put the 2014 at 4.5 seconds. So when, after only one day of testing, the 2015 got 4.4, I was impressed. But then of course torque news takes that writes an article claiming "oh no! It's slower!" based on a 0-60 of 4.3 for the 2014, which I had never seen before. Every reliable auto news source had put the 2014 at 4.4 or 4.5 seconds. At some point, in the perfect conditions, with a fantastic driver, and maybe even a little tailwind, I'm sure it could have done that 4.3 seconds. But then, the 2015 could do the same thing in the right conditions. Just the fact that the 2015 did 4.4 on the very first day of testing no problem, says a lot. So in reality, the 2015 is just as quick if not quicker than the 2014. That's just stock though of course. The fact that the 2014 is lighter and has the live rear axle gives it more potential for sure. And because it's cheaper to get one now, you'll have more money for mods! And that's what the Mustang is all about.
I also have a 2012 GT mustang with nice exausts +CAI, etc. Why would you want to trade your 2012 gt for a 2014GT? What is the reasoning?
It’s pretty much 1994 all over again. The new 2015 Mustang has made some changes for the worst in more ways than one. Call me old school or whatever. Muscle cars don't or shouldn't have independent rear axles. No need for it and never was. Who cares that the car may be a "better all around car", no one really wants that. When was the last time you seen how much faster your car could make a Michigan U-turn then the car next to you!!? Yes good handling is a requirement to some extent these days, but it’s not what True Mustang and true American muscle car guys really want. The 8.8 straight axle configuration that has been in use in these cars since 1986 was one of the most reliable things in Mustangs from the factory from day one they could take a brutal punishment as early as the mid 80's models. And it only got better from 2005 and up cars and they continued to improve the 8.8 with 31ps axles, better posi’s and etc. it just didn’t get any better than the 2011-2015 axle from the factory. The 5th Gens and late model hemi guys can only dream of having such an incredibly realize and very capable straight axle. This gonna now be an area the Mustang guys never had to worry about, and an expensive learning curve is headed their way now. Funny how just because Ford did it, all the predicable critics and magazine guys have to say “finally Ford ditched the live axle”. What a waist! With the IRS it’s gonna be 1999 all over again and exponentially worse because now their heavier than ever, and more powerful too. There was nothing wrong with where the rear end left off on these cars with the 2014 models. How much better handling do we really need? And to top all this off the 2015’s are not performing any better in acceleration. As far as I’m concerned the new Mustang has become like the rest of America; soft and pussified!
YOUR REPLY IS SPOT ON 94 ALL OVER AGAIN ..AGREE 1000%...SHOULD HAVE LEFT SOLID AXLE WITH NEW POWER AND LOOKS .DEFINITELY WOULD PUt that CAR IN STOCK C7 TERRITORY ALL DAY LONG,,,!!
I had a 2003 Cobra with an independent rear and now a 2015 GT. They feel almost identical in a straight line and the 2015 is naturally aspirated. Just wait until I drop some NOS or a blower on this thing. The one concern to me is if the internals can take the boost. I will find out over the next year as I modify it. I will say that the 2015 chassis is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the older models. Including the 2014. So you guys keep on drag racing while I LEAVE YOU on any road with some curves.
Yeah, but who street races on curvy roads? Who cares?
Muscle Cars are for drag racing. Sports Cars are for curves, I'm glad I bought the 2013 GT
ANY drag racing fan will tell you that a car with an independent suspension will be SLOWER than a similiar car with a straight rear end. This has been proven time and again.Well Mustang HAD to have the independent rear-Now it must pay!
You are "Old School"! Remember when you old schoolers complained about fuel injection over the carburetor? There is this thing called "change". Get used to it. Welcome to the 21st Century!
I agree. Let the mustang evolve already! 50years of the same cheap line up. American cars have earned the reputation of being cheaply made with basic designs. Let's show the world we can compete outside a straight line. I test drove two yesterday and they have improved so much. I happened to see an original GT 350 drive by the car lot as I was checking out an ecoboost... it gave me goose bumps! After seeing that, I wanted the GT model. And honestly I think I like the looks of the new body better than even the old gt 350.
Just got one and loving it! Races don't just go straight.......so I hear.
Any REAL car guy knows that when you switch from a solid rear to an independent rear-the car accelerates SLOWER.This has been proven over and over again.Why do you think serious drag racers want nothing to do with independent rear ends. If you want to go around corners in a flash-get a "15 Mustang-If you want to kick ass with acceleration-find a "11 to 14" Mustang 5.0. Jim Dee Jim Dee
I've had mine for a couple of months now and I finally had a chance to drive threw the mountains on a day trip yesterday. These cars handle great with little effort threw the twists and getting 22mpg. The cars in front of you are having to work pretty hard to pull away. Not trying to be a dick and tail gate. Having said that I would also say that they are not a great track car. Too heavy, the auto shifts lousy but I think there is big potential as ford refines the future models. I am also amazed at how many people love the looks of these cars. I've heard a dozen times in the middle of intersections how sick this car is lol. Ford nailed it on this one. And they will get dialed in better yet. FYI... Already added CAI, tune, throttle (yes it did help low speed tq). My track app stock would run [email protected], Just CAI [email protected], throttle spacer same, tune [email protected] spinning 1st&2nd. Mpg increased a little on everything.
Track app is not entirely accurate. Take the car to the track and see what it does.

Pages