Sponsored

2018 Mustang GT 6 Spd Manual Test: Car & Driver

1mic

Banned
2 mph so everybody sees u
Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Threads
25
Messages
1,294
Reaction score
520
Location
Mountain View, CA
Vehicle(s)
God bless America, all 8.4 liters -Randy Pobst
Motor Trend admitted a Premium model optioned with the Performance Package when the tested the 2015's a couple years ago: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/mustang/2015/2015-ford-mustang-gt-first-test/



Their manual 2015 Premium GT with PP optioned in was at 3825lbs and they ran a 12.8 at 112. You'll loose a good 50~60lbs by dumping the premium goodies at least, if not more. I don't see why given the insane 50k price point it isn't the same fully optioned GT setup, which explains why it's so portly.

The 2018 GT tested in C&D was 3878...it doesn't make any sense why it gains so much weight compared to a base model which is still listed on Ford's website at 3705 for all gen 6 mustang manuals, 2015, 2016, 2017 and the new 2018's. Also if you look at the forum fast lists for the Gen 6 SS and current gen GT's (2015-2017), the gen 6 SS's run about .1~.2 seconds quicker than the C&D / Motor Trend results, but not any quicker than that bone stock, so they are close to what the car can do. While the current gen mustangs are running 12.5's and there's even one that ran a 12.3 on his 6A PP GT. That's quite a bit quicker than the test results. I think that's because people are doing what I did, to keep the weight down, just getting a base GT optioned up with only the Performance Package and that's making up another 0.1~0.2 seconds on average, putting it neck and neck with the latest gen SS. The Gen 5 SS's run no quicker than 12.5's stock, so right no par with the 2015-2017 GT's.

A 9 speak audio system alone could add 50lbs for example. Big power speakers require large heavy magnets and a heavy duty amp, period. I think the shaker is a 550 watt system...throw in hefty premium seats etc., some added sound dampening inside the doors / under the body and there's your 100~150 lbs. When were talking 0.1~0.3 seconds difference, 150~175 lbs matters.

You can shave off 42 lbs from the GT just by running some forged for flow formed light weight wheels. I'd expect my GT PP curb weight to weigh in at about 3740 range since it is a base model optioned with the Performance Package and rear park assist only. Nothing else. I'd be surprised if it was in the low 3800 lbs range....
TLDR, any mention of how much gas was in the tested cars? How about how much the drivers weighed when doing the testing? Weather conditions?
Sponsored

 

Grimace427

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Threads
14
Messages
6,470
Reaction score
1,699
Location
NoVA
Vehicle(s)
2011 Mustang 5.0
So take a base GT and option it with the Performance Package only, the base weight will go by only a couple of pounds mostly due to the K-brace / strut tower brace (17lbs) and slightly heavier 19" PP wheels....

Rest of the PP parts are swap outs for stronger variants of the part, so there's no real weight gain.


The biggest weight gain for the Performance Package, besides the 19" wheel and tire package, is the 15" Brembo brakes up front. Those are a significant weight increase all by themselves, close to the weight gained for the wheels.
 

ALUSA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
558
Reaction score
179
Location
Plainfield, IL
First Name
AL
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GTPP, 2017 Cadillac CTS 2.0T AWD
The new cars are heavier no doubt. People say magnetic ride control doesn’t add weight but the supporting modes might. Otherwise how a digital instrument cluster bump the weight up is beyond my imagination. The 19 inch PP wheels are as heavy as they get. 36 lbs for the rears and 33 lbs for the front. Old 2015-2017 gt’s had a suitcase resonator which was 20 lbs more than a borla x pipe. I am guessing the active exhaust with the butterfly valve is also heavy. Maybe Ford also included more sound insulation who knows. Weight gain is certainly not helping the performance at all.
 

Chad11491

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Threads
5
Messages
765
Reaction score
364
Location
Roswell, GA
Vehicle(s)
17 Lightning Blue GT Premium PP
The new cars are heavier no doubt. People say magnetic ride control doesn’t add weight but the supporting modes might. Otherwise how a digital instrument cluster bump the weight up is beyond my imagination. The 19 inch PP wheels are as heavy as they get. 36 lbs for the rears and 33 lbs for the front. Old 2015-2017 gt’s had a suitcase resonator which was 20 lbs more than a borla x pipe. I am guessing the active exhaust with the butterfly valve is also heavy. Maybe Ford also included more sound insulation who knows. Weight gain is certainly not helping the performance at all.
yeah, on my 15 I weighed the stock catback and ARH catback and it was a 30lb difference, and i lost 42.X lb going to lighter wheels and tires (PSS is lighter than Pzero by a couple lb per corner) that's a good way to lose about 75lb off a car. I doubt it'd be hard to lose 100lb off the 15+ cars. A light battery and taking the inflator out of the trunk would probably push it to 85-90lb loss. These cars are just so heavy now, but they handle their weight well at least.
 

thehunterooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Threads
23
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
1,062
Location
FL
Vehicle(s)
2006 Corvette
yeah, on my 15 I weighed the stock catback and ARH catback and it was a 30lb difference, and i lost 42.X lb going to lighter wheels and tires (PSS is lighter than Pzero by a couple lb per corner) that's a good way to lose about 75lb off a car. I doubt it'd be hard to lose 100lb off the 15+ cars. A light battery and taking the inflator out of the trunk would probably push it to 85-90lb loss. These cars are just so heavy now, but they handle their weight well at least.
Rear seat delete, etc, a lot of free weight that can easily be removed for anyone who is really serious/worried about weight.

I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of weight the PP, premium and other options can add though. Of course a fully optioned out car is going to be in the high 3800s :lol:

The Camaro also has a lot more things standard so that is why the weight probably doesn't jump as much as the Mustang.
 

Sponsored

OP
OP
16 GT MM/Auto

16 GT MM/Auto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Threads
10
Messages
525
Reaction score
174
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
2019 KIA Stinger GT AWD
My bone stock '17 base GT ran the exact same in the ÂĽ mile. Guess that's the weight difference.
There has to be corrections made for weather, wind, humidity, etc, to make for a fair comparison. Otherwise, there's too many variables left on the table.

C&D running their '18 .3 seconds quicker with a 3 mph faster trap speed then the 15-17's makes total sense taking into account it's extra 25 hp.
 

Nabush

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Threads
3
Messages
84
Reaction score
22
Location
Eagle, ID
Vehicle(s)
2017 SS 1LE / Corvette C7 GrandSport M7
And also if his time was done on a prepped dragway or on normal pavement as all measures should be done...

Pretty sure C&D test was done on standard pavement.
 

wjones14

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Threads
7
Messages
144
Reaction score
13
Location
Niantic CT
First Name
Bill
Vehicle(s)
2018 Camaro 2SS 1LE; Sold: 2005 Mustang GT
TLDR, any mention of how much gas was in the tested cars? How about how much the drivers weighed when doing the testing? Weather conditions?
C&D always uses a full tank for consistency. See post #6 in this thread if you're interested in what else they do to maintain consistency in their tests.
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
Engine tuning also plays a factor as does fuel. I found a few tests where they were running 87 in the GT (road and track) but 91 or 92 in the camaro...because the camaro user manual says 91+ recommended while the ford user manuals says 87+ recommended. Yet we know even though the gen 2 coyote looses only 5 hp on the top end, it looses nearly 25 ft-lbs of torque in the mid-range at 3k5 and at about 5k. So instead of that nice broad table top torque band that variable valve timing gets you, you get a peak in the middle instead of the table top. That's lost power in each gear that adds up quickly.

There are so many inconsistencies with these review mags it's not funny...even with C&D for example, look at their test spec sheets. For the acceleration test they got 25.4 seconds to 150 in their initial testing...the next time they got 28.6 to 150 in their long term test. But for every other speed in the 40k mile test, the GT was a bit faster after break in as would be expected. Same with the SS, it was slightly faster at 40k miles for every acceleration point. Oh the gen 6 camaro forum lit up with that one, claiming the mustang is 15% slower than the SS to it's top speed because of one 40k mile data point that didn't fit their own initial results nor that of other magazines. R&T got 26.7s to 150 for the SS and 26.4s for the GT. Two different days of course, but much closer. SS power band falls off fast past 6k, more so than the GT's so it makes sense why that last 10 mph takes substantially more time on the SS vs. it's speed to 140 which it was faster by 2s than the GT. The 20 hp power gap adds up. But 29S for the GT when it did 25.4 previously? Maybe a head wind? Some one ran 87?

Road and track had very different results and they were much closer across the board between both cars, with the SS being slightly faster as expect, it has 20 hp more. The real times people run with these cars are quite different than what the mags get and the mags have quite a bit of inconsistency amongst themselves and even within themselves. Maybe their 28.6 (that they rounded up to 29 seconds in a Mustang vs. Camaro comparrison, where their GT suddenly ran 13.2 now that was running 12.8's and claimed the SS was way faster).

I like how they cherry pick the worst results they could get for the GT and then cherry pick the best results they could get for the SS...makes no sense. The 2016-2018 SS is about .3~.4 seconds faster on the 1/4 mile if you compare fast lists between the two (Manual to Manual and Auto to Auto) on the bone stock lists. Were not even talking 2018's which make 25 HP more than my gen GT stock.
 
Last edited:

ALUSA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
558
Reaction score
179
Location
Plainfield, IL
First Name
AL
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GTPP, 2017 Cadillac CTS 2.0T AWD
A base camaro ss weights 3680 lbs with 3 more gallons of fuel in the tank (customer approved on scale). Ford really needs to shave some weight for the next gens. If GM can do it, so can Ford.
 

Sponsored

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
83
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
7,444
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
A base camaro ss weights 3680 lbs with 3 more gallons of fuel in the tank (customer approved on scale). Ford really needs to shave some weight for the next gens. If GM can do it, so can Ford.
As long as Ford doesn't end up with a messed up design like the current Camaro when they change the car to save weight, I agree it's a good idea.
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
Base 2015-2017 GT weighs 3705 lbs. Ford Performance touring and sport exhaust are both 30 lbs lighter than the stock unit.

Viola, your GT is now 3675 lbs or 10 lbs lighter than a base 1SS. By everyone's logic the new 2016-2018 Alpha chassis must be a pig and overweight....S550 chassis isn't as heavy as you think it is and is far better interior design from a practicality standpoint.

It's not the chassis that weighs the GT down. It's actually remarkably similar in over all architecture and design to the Camaro SS Alpha. Same multi-link front and nearly the same rear architecture: https://www.google.com/search?q=gen...hUIRa0KHYi8AGcQ9QEIaDAA#imgrc=z6IQA3-CjQssKM:

GM used two stamped steel lower control arms, ford used a single piece cast aluminum lower control arm...both have vertical links, hubs and upper control arms and adjustable toe links. It would come down to tuning such as damping rates of the struts, spring compression curves and linearity, toe angles, camber angles etc. Those are all adjustable on both cars with part swaps. Their lengths and width, tracks are nearly identical. It's not a magically better chassis if you look at it's architecture, just better tuned from the factory for track applications, but ride quality suffers on the street. Magnetic dampers are supposed to solve that problem, so you can get both. Tuning is EVERYTHING. That's why the GT350 is as fast as it is with just a NA engine that makes 535 hp...there's plenty of cars out there that are FI V8's that make a lot more that aren't too much faster.

All the bloat happens when you start optioning the car and some of the bolt on parts from the factory (not as in upgrades necessarily, but parts that could be made lighter in weight and held to the car by fasteners etc), it just gains and gains and gains like any car would. A 2016 PP GT like mine (no other options) is 3782 lbs.

My PP GT has RTR Tech 7 lightweight 19x9.5" wheels and with Pilot Sport AS3+ tires, they clock in at 54.2 lbs for each wheel / tire. The rear factory PP wheels and Pirelli tires (also brand new) clock in at 66 lbs and the front PP wheels clock in at 61 lbs. That's 38 lbs in tires and wheels and another 30 lbs in exhaust that doesn't need to be there over the base model. Yes your getting more tire than a stock GT with 235's and 18" wheels, however there are some reasonably cost effective lower weight solutions to give you more tire without adding weight.

My PP GT should weigh about 3719 lbs with no other mods. The 2016 1SS that MT tested was 3718 lbs. I've seen them go as high as 3760 lbs for 2SS fully optioned. Not as hefty as a fully optioned GT, but still packing on 75 lbs is a decent gain, so it's not just a Ford thing, GM just does a better job and the LS engine from the Vett makes more power out of the box than the gen 2 coyote.

The SS is still slightly faster, it makes more power and has a little broad power band than my GT, but not by much. If weights are equal, we're talking .2 ~ .3 seconds at best on a 1/4 mile. You can more than make up for that with a Stage 2 or Stage 3 power pack.

2018's would just need some weight control and viola, dead even (the power band on the gen 3 coyote is AWESOME, huge table top power band from 5500 rpm all the way out, broader than the LS by a decent margin). GM does a better job at keep weight gain minimized to maximize performance though, you just have to do a little weight control on your own if you care about that 3%....Their chassis tuning is also more aggressive, the SS drives like a big go kart, making it feel lighter on it's feet than most cars in it's size class. You can do all the same crap to the Mustang (aka the GT350) if you want. That's just not Ford's goal, they are satisfied with 97% of the SS's performance at a slightly lower cost and much better daily drive ability (and far better aesthetics in my opinion).

The sales numbers prove it, for every 1 Camaro sold, Ford has sold 2x as many Mustangs. People like the better balance of daily / performance. For those that want the performance, just do a few carefully chosen mods and the car changes drastically.

Just tires / wheels and a cat back exhaust, which aren't power adders, shaves 68 lbs....that might also explain why my PP GT feels spunky as all get out while others complain their GT's feels sluggish. By pure happenstance (I didn't buy the Corsa, previous owner did and I just happened to keep my light weight RTR Tech 7's from the Ecoboost) of the way things turned out, I'm running a fairly light weight minimalist street setup. Even on 87 it doesn't feel lethargic or sluggish. Not as edgy or responsive, but far from sluggish.

Remember also the K-brace + strut tower brace is another 17 lbs with 75% of that weight coming from the solid steel K-brace as the strut tower brace is tubular and pretty darn light. A 7075 aluminum brace would be quite a bit lighter but offer enough strength to get the task done. But 7075 is pricey...GM doesn't have another Alpha to tap into nor another LS. They have to actually do their own development now, so I would expect any refreshes for this gen to be minor tweaks.

The refresh of the S550 have quite a few changes, a new variant of the coyote, better aero dynamics, more aggressive PP2 option, 10A for drag...I think the 2018 GT's are more like Chevy's 2016 SS. It's a much bigger change. My S550 was more or less a new chassis with a few engine tweaks to manage the weight gain....not an increase in power to weight. At the time, GM had the fifth gen Camaro out which was already 100 lbs heavier than the S550 and nearly 300 lbs heavier than the S197's.

At willow creek their infamous 2014 1LT was only 3 seconds faster than a plain old 2015 GT PP...a $32,000 car was only 3 seconds slower than a $75,000 car and faster than the Charger Hell Cat at 60k. Bang for buck when it came out it was the best of the three.
 
Last edited:

ALUSA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
558
Reaction score
179
Location
Plainfield, IL
First Name
AL
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GTPP, 2017 Cadillac CTS 2.0T AWD
As long as Ford doesn't end up with a messed up design like the current Camaro when they change the car to save weight, I agree it's a good idea.
Honestly, they can shrink the car a little. Just like the camaro but keep blind spots as minimum as they can. I m ok sacrificing some interior space and trunk space in a mustang.
 

smoke_wagon_6g

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Threads
14
Messages
212
Reaction score
112
Location
New York
Vehicle(s)
18 GT
Car and Driver roll thier Mustangs onto the same scale used for every other car. Camaros and hypercars included. The Mustang is simply heavy. I believe C/D's scales over Ford or Chevy press materials.

Different cars, different drivers, different days, different weather, different gas, different clutch and tire wear. Every variable cannot be eliminated but the magazines do try with two-way runs, correction factors, multiple runs and averaging.

But the sad fact is all performance numbers have big error bars. It isn't magazine shenanigans or how fat the tester may be.

And road course times have way more variability than drag times.

Maybe not related but even big diameter rims can hurt straight line performance. This is an interesting article from C/D showing going up in wheel size can cost two tenths in the quarter and 0-60.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/effects-of-upsized-wheels-and-tires-tested

I always thought the Torsen 3.73 in the GT PP was cancelled out by the increase in rotating mass from the 19s over the 18s in a straight line (not on the autocross of course).
 

activeGT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Threads
40
Messages
717
Reaction score
283
Location
South Florida
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT 350 Lead-foot grey
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2018-ford-mustang-gt-manual-test-review

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.7 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 23.0 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.1 sec
Standing ÂĽ-mile: 12.6 sec @ 115 mph
Top speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 155 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 164 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.96 g
So the Camaro SS with a stick is 3/10ths faster 0-60 and 2/10ths faster in the quarter. I keep thinking my GT feels sluggish. Time to put it on a diet.
Sponsored

 
Last edited:
 




Top