2018 Mustang GT 6 Spd Manual Test: Car & Driver

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 ¼-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

Don't care about the times. I care about if it clunks, thunks, juts forward, feels like a rubber duck, if the clutch lasts, etc., etc. Times are beholden to the skill of the driver.

It's a safe bet to say everybody cares about both, especially when it comes to Mustangs.

So either this time is super fast or the Edmunds official C6G time is slow. Doesn’t really make sense.

wildcatgoal said:

Don't care about the times. I care about if it clunks, thunks, juts forward, feels like a rubber duck, if the clutch lasts, etc., etc. Times are beholden to the skill of the driver.

Click to expand...

The problem is it gives trolls and crazies a free pass.

I prefer C&D as they makes use of multiple parameters to maintain consistency.

• fill with gas
• set tires to manufacturers' recommended pressures
• weighed
• measure humidity, barometric pressure, and temperature
• eliminate effects of weather correcting all results to dry air at 14.7 psi/60F
• cancel effects of wind by running all acceleration tests in both directions

That's the short list, here's what they do for every test:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-does-c-d-test-cars

16 GT MM/Auto said:

I prefer C&D as they makes use of multiple parameters to maintain consistency.

• fill with gas
• set tires to manufacturers' recommended pressures
• weighed
• measure humidity, barometric pressure, and temperature
• eliminate effects of weather correcting all results to dry air at 14.7 psi/60F
• cancel effects of wind by running all acceleration tests in both directions

That's the short list, here's what they do for every test:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-does-c-d-test-cars

Click to expand...

I'd agree on all points except that C&D always tests the most bloated mustang version. Ford seems to offer more goodies than GM does on the Camaro. So the base weight goes up quite a bit.

Ford's own website says the base weight for a GT Manual (2015-2017) is 3705. 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. So I would expect a base GT with just the Performance package to be around 3750. Darn close to the Camaro's 3718.

Rest of the PP parts are swap outs for stronger variants of the part, so there's no real weight gain. C&D's mustangs always weigh in well over 3850 lbs while their Camaros tested are at the stated base weight or darn close (the 2016 Camaro they tested was at 3718lbs, GM's site states both the 1SS and 2SS are 3686 lbs).

So you can take 0.1 to 0.2 seconds off their specs which puts the mustang within a drivers race reach of the pricier, uglier and poorer quality competitor.

Also, go look at the fast lists on this site for the current gen mustang and then the fast lists for the 5th gen Camaro, both run as a fastest around 12.5's bone stock (both manual and auto's) with the exception of one mustang GT auto PP that ran a 12.3 bone stock (that's the gen 2 coyote, not the new gen 3 coyote).

6th gen Camaros run a tad faster, 12.2~12.1's due to the power and torque bump and slight weight reduction over the gen 5 chassis which was in the 3850 +lb range. The ATS chassis is a bit lighter, but not nearly as much as what I've seen reported. Fast lists I think are the most realistic approximation of what these cars can do on average because you have a whole mess of drivers, production models, tracks and weather variations.

Why compare the two? Because they are competitors and we can choose either. The new Camaro is a tad faster bone stock, but also costs more and has a lower over all quality according all the quality data I've seen from the big 3. Ford also offers warrantied power packs which I have no doubt will also be available for the 2018's in a year or two.

So use the extra cash and get a power pack, they will run nearly identical times if the drivers are doing their part. GM does not offer any warrantied power packs, they do offer some warrantied bolt ons, but the gains are very minimal.

Case in point: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2018-ford-mustang-gt-manual-test-review

Why is their mustang's curb weight 3878 lbs when the base weight on Ford's own web site is 3705 for the 2018 manual (same as it is for the 2015-2017 manual)? Option it with only the Performance Package and your within 45lbs off that...makes a difference on the paper numbers. So it magically gained 173lbs! That's worth at least 0.2 s on the 1/4 mile...which makes it a 12.4 second car. The Camaro is a 12.3 second car according to them, so nearly identical. It's bragging rights on paper at that point and nothing more.

TheLion said:

I'd agree on all points except that C&D always tests the most bloated mustang version. Ford seems to offer more goodies than GM does on the Camaro. So the base weight goes up quite a bit ...

Click to expand...

C&D's 18 Stang had:

• digital instrument cluster
• power leather seats
• Sync info system
• MagneRide
• GT PP

Their 16 Camaro SS long term car had:

• Magnetic Ride Control
• dual-mode exhaust
• Chevy’s MyLink
• head-up display
• Bose audio
• heated/ventilated front seats
• heated steering wheel
• dual-zone automatic climate control
• blind-spot monitoring

So while the SS is also bloated up, it's odd that the Mustang goes over advertised base curb weight by a significant margin while the loaded SS is only ~30 lbs. over advertised curb weight.

A mystery, to be sure ...

thehunterooo said:

So either this time is super fast or the Edmunds official C6G time is slow. Doesn’t really make sense.

Click to expand...

Edmunds was a base GT on 245 All Season rubber.

SVT-DADDY said:

Edmunds was a base GT on 245 All Season rubber.

Click to expand...

They were 19" wheels with 255 A/S on all four corners.:cheers:

16 GT MM/Auto said:

C&D's 18 Stang had:

• digital instrument cluster
• power leather seats
• Sync info system
• MagneRide
• GT PP

Their 16 Camaro SS long term car had:

• Magnetic Ride Control
• dual-mode exhaust
• Chevy’s MyLink
• head-up display
• Bose audio
• heated/ventilated front seats
• heated steering wheel
• dual-zone automatic climate control
• blind-spot monitoring

So while the SS is also bloated up, it's odd that the Mustang goes over advertised base curb weight by a significant margin while the loaded SS is only ~30 lbs. over advertised curb weight.

A mystery, to be sure ...

Click to expand...

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/

Pricewise, our 2015 Mustang GT Premium tester’s $46,380 sticker represents what would happen if you rolled into your local Ford dealer and ticked every option box. Some of the more notable options include the new-for-2015 Adaptive Cruise Control with Collision Mitigation package, which retails for $1195, and the imaginatively named Rapid Spec Equipment Group 401A, which includes blind spot warning with rear cross-traffic alerts and a premium audio system, for $1795. If it were our money, we’d skip just about every option, instead going for the $1595 Recaro seats, and the GT Performance Package, which is a bargain at $2495 given it includes six-piston Brembo front brakes, different chassis and stability control tuning, a Torsen rear differential with 3.73s, and web spoke wheels. We can live without some of the luxury and tech goodies, but those performance options aren’t to be missed.

Click to expand...

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....

TheLion said:

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. Also if you look at the forum fast lists for the Gen 6 SS and current gen GT's, the SS's run about .1~.2 seconds quicker than the C&D / Motor Trend results, but not any quicker. 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.

A 9 speak audio system alone could add 50lbs for example. Big power speakers require large heavy magnets, 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 lbs.

Click to expand...

they test cars that are sent to them, they have no control on what they get. Also, base weight may have changed in the 18, as Ford just carried old specs over. Until a 18 based is weighed, its only a guess tho.

All these options like stereos are not what are making the Mustang heavy. Have to start from a light chassis - which the S550 doesn't really have. I'm not sure what the weight difference is between the GM LS and the Ford Coyote, but... reducing weight on the front of these Mustangs would be nice. And make the IRS assembly lighter. And what's with the heavy, rusty iron differential casing on the manuals on a sports can that, without it and instead an aluminum one, is still too heavy and averages around $38-43K MSRP. My expectations vs. price are totally wack these days, I guess. But, other than a Camaro 1LE with the ugliest interior on earth, what else is there for a remotely affordable RWD V8 car with IRS that handles than the Mustang? That's why I have one. When I was buying the Mustang, a 1LE was effectivelly $8-10K more than what I was able to get my Mustang for. The Mustang is also more cargo capable - I can fit 4 305 tires/wheels in it along with my toolbox and more. Not the Camaro with it's Lamborghini-sized trunk opening. About a year later, I could have paid less for a 1LE but that interior... what spectacular idiot decided to put AC vents below the radio and right in front of a shifter? The dumbest thing...

wildcatgoal said:

All these options like stereos are not what are making the Mustang heavy. Have to start from a light chassis - which the S550 doesn't really have. I'm not sure what the weight difference is between the GM LS and the Ford Coyote, but... reducing weight on the front of these Mustangs would be nice. And make the IRS assembly lighter. And what's with the heavy, rusty iron differential casing on the manuals on a sports can that, without it and instead an aluminum one, is still too heavy and averages around $38-43K MSRP. My expectations vs. price are totally wack these days, I guess. But, other than a Camaro 1LE with the ugliest interior on earth, what else is there for a remotely affordable RWD V8 car with IRS that handles than the Mustang? That's why I have one. When I was buying the Mustang, a 1LE was effectivelly $8-10K more than what I was able to get my Mustang for. The Mustang is also more cargo capable - I can fit 4 305 tires/wheels in it along with my toolbox and more. Not the Camaro with it's Lamborghini-sized trunk opening. About a year later, I could have paid less for a 1LE but that interior... what spectacular idiot decided to put AC vents below the radio and right in front of a shifter? The dumbest thing...

Click to expand...

I'd agree on the quality of the car. The mustang is by far the better car. For 2016 it won the top quality of any mass production sports car (based on the severity and frequency of issues + initial quality).

But, C&D also tested the premium. It's just heavier when you add in all the options. It gains more weight compared to the Camaro.

While the 2018 specs may or may not be accurate, that does not explain why they list 3705 for the 2015-2017's but are weighing in at 3825 and up.

In the name of parsimony, we started with the V-8 coupe’s Premium trim level for $37,200 (base GTs start about $4000 less) and went light on the extras.

Click to expand...

That was from C&D's 2016 long term test, also a Premium optioned with the Performance Package.

GM seems to do a better job keeping weight low when optioned. Yes the mustang has a slightly heavier chassis, but base model to base model, the new Gen 6 SS and current gen GT are literally only 20lbs apart (3705 vs. 3685)...the Mustang isn't as big of a pig as people make it out to be compared to the Camaro. The Gen 5 Camaros were a good 100~150 lbs heavier.

Add in a Power pack to a based model GT optioned only with the Performance Package, throw on some light weight wheels and you'll edge out an SS for similar price plus have a better quality (and in my opinion, looking) car. Ford just seems to not care about the weight gain when you start optioning it, they probably figure most people buying the GT fully optioned just want a nice fast RWD V8 that they can enjoy driving but don't necessarily care about 0.1~0.3 seconds on a 1/4 mile. Which is generally true. The extra 100~125 lbs won't make a difference on the street, only on paper and at the drag strip for bragging rights. But you can get back those milliseconds if you really want with a little careful planning.

16 GT MM/Auto said:

Standing ¼-mile: 12.6 sec @ 115 mph

Click to expand...

My bone stock '17 base GT ran the exact same in the ¼ mile. Guess that's the weight difference.