Do the Reviews Disappoint or Excite you?

[B Gordon]

I think Ford stepped in it when they stated this GT would perform better than the prior Boss. They set the expectation bar too high.

12:80s - 13:00s are not going to impress anyone when the Boss ran 12:40s and the new R/T Challenger Scatpack is said to run low 12s.

The muscle car wars are underway and I am happy about it.

Personally, I am still in a holding pattern until a road test of a GT automatic shows up, preferably side by side with a GT stick (non PP).

Sponsored

 

[Khell86]

I think Ford stepped in it when they stated this GT would perform better than the prior Boss. They set the expectation bar too high.

12:80s - 13:00s are not going to impress anyone when the Boss ran 12:40s and the new R/T Challenger Scatpack is said to run low 12s.

They never said anything about it performing better on a dragstrip. Strictly a road course, which is what it does. Everyone knows the majority of people do not track their car, but that is now the norm in regards to advertising. You really never see cars mags touting 1/4 mile times alone, unless its the hellcat lol.

 

[Chameleon]

MT had 2.2 60ft time. YES I am very excited.

 

[DHG1078]

I'm waiting to see some actual comparisons of people racing the '15 GT on the track with a boss 302, 1LE, and some german cars as well. The fact that the '15 got significantly better "g" ratings in both the skid pad tests than a boss tells me this should be no slouch around a track. Mr. Pobst, where is your testing? lol

Would it have been nice if it had better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, and lighter? absolutely. The mustang really did need a much better chassis and suspension for the ever increasing power levels, and we finally got it at the expense of being on par in one metric and 100 pounds heavier. IIRC the mustang is still cheaper than its competition.

 

[DHG1078]

MT had 2.2 60ft time. YES I am very excited.

I think that is more indicative of poor driving than performance potential. Other mags have faster times.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

MT had 2.2 60ft time. YES I am very excited.

THIS!!!...that would put their time around 12.6 with a decent driver...

 

[zen25]

Dissapointed. Blame the weight, good engines cannot overcome the weight.

MT has S550 GT slower to S197.
That does not seem good.

EB being on par with WRX & GTI, what about competing with 335i.

 

[Chameleon]

I think that is more indicative of poor driving than performance potential. :headbonk:

Your kidding right? :headbonk:

 

[scottpe]

I think, as expected, it sounds a great improvement in most areas over the outgoing car. Though the apparent lack of improvement (or even decrease) in straight line acceleration is one thing that's a little disappointing, but it's not like that is really any big surprise given that we've known the weight and power numbers for a while now. And yes, I realize that the aftermarket can cure this, but I would like it to be faster right from the factory.

The bottom line for me is that the car hasn't turned out to be quite the slam dunk I hoped it would be in the beginning, and that has left me thinking I may just enjoy my 2012 5.0 (with only 9K miles on the odo, btw) for a while longer and see how things play out with the GT350. And if the price turns out to be astronomical for it, worst case I'll just wait until the end of the model year to pick up a '15 GT with incentives (if they're compelling enough), or even just a bit longer to see what tweaks the '16 model brings to the table.

If I wasn't already driving a 5.0, the 2015 would probably be an absolute no-brainer. And I would encourage anyone that is buying a Coyote powered 'stang for the first time to go for it. But I personally, for the money, am hoping for my next Mustang to be a major leap above of my 2012 in ALL areas, and this one, at least on the surface, seems to fall just a bit short of that. I have a feeling 'the one' that will tick all of my boxes is not far off on the horizon though. If not, I'll probably be content to just get what's currently offered at a significantly reduced price (incentives).

 

[Barrel]

I think Ford hyped it way too much and delivered way too little. Fuel economy got worse. The car got slower. The car got heavier. And of course it costs more.

It's definitely disappointing, especially when competing against a new Chally and a new Camaro next year.

 

[FATTBoss]

And why has no one commented about the price as tested? $45k for a GT??? That is more than I paid for my Boss! Which even MT says is still the best Mustang ever.

 

[scottpe]

And why has no one commented about the price as tested? $45k for a GT??? That is more than I paid for my Boss! Which even MT says is still the best Mustang ever.

Loaded with every possible option. The Premium GT+PP I have on order is.... $37K (invoice). Don't think street price for a new Boss was anywhere near that. And a base GT PP with Recaros, which I believe is optioned more closely to what actually comes in a Boss and thus a more fair comparison: $34K

And don't worry, I think the GT350 is likely to take the 'best Mustang ever' crown from your Boss soon, if you're disappointed that a lowly GT didn't quite pull that off. ;)

 

[Trackaholic]

I was a little discouraged with the MT review, and with one of the reviewers in the R&T review. But other reviewers had extremely positive things to say.

The car does seem to be a big step over the previous GT, but it seems the Performance Pack tuning still needs some work.

It will be very interesting to see the (hopefully) inevitable comparison against the Camaro 1LE.

I do wonder how happy Ford is with the car. It seems like it really gained some weight, and I'm not sure where it all came from. It also seems like maybe there is still some low hanging fruit with respect to suspension tuning, at least for the enthusiast. When I look at the difference between the Camaro SS and Camaro 1LE, it makes me wonder why they even have the SS tuning. It is that much more comfortable? Seems like the SS was widely panned as an understeering pig, yet the 1LE is extremely well regarded. Why then is the GT with PP still somewhat wallowy (at least according to MT)? Is that just to make it more comfortable?

Anyhow, I am still interested in the GT350, and I think the GT will be an excellent platform for some simple, well thought-out mods, but I do think the GT with PP might be missing a little something.

-T

 

[jeebuspwnz]

The reviews have me happy in some ways and a little disappointed in others. However I just don't know how they could have made EVERYONE happy. It's just not possible. The new M3/4 is a great car but you pretty regularly hear in reviews that the steering isn't communicative enough and the engine sounds like crap. The hellcat is a cool car but you regularly hear in reviews that it's a pig to take around corners. The Camaro can be really potent around a road course if you buy the right model but they all suffer from terrible visibility and poor build quality. The BRZ/FRS is a blast to take corners in but you'll regularly hear how lacking it is on power, how little grip the tires have, or how bad the motor sounds.

There is no perfect car. You won't find universal praise for any car in any review.

 

[FATTBoss]

Loaded with every possible option. The Premium GT+PP I have on order is.... $37K (invoice). Don't think street price for a new Boss was anywhere near that. And a base GT PP with Recaros, which I believe is optioned more closely to what actually comes in a Boss: $34K

And don't worry, I think the GT350 is likely to take the 'best Mustang ever' crown from your Boss soon, if you're disappointed that a lowly GT didn't quite pull that off. ;)

Ford themselves targeted the Boss as the performance benchmark, and so far have missed. Although we won't really know until someone gets it to a road course. Lowly GT or not, I can compare it since the Boss was the target.

As to the GT350, it will be priced considerably higher than $45, my estimate is $75k+, and it had better deliver against the Z/28.

Sponsored