Motor Trend Head to Head: 2015 Camaro 1LE vs. new 2015 Mustang 5.0 GT PP

[ParisTNDude]

Looks like Ford created another "secretary car". I'm sure they are working hard on a ZL1 like Mustang which will be much more competitive. Aren't they calling it the GT350? From what I've read, it looks like the Chevy SS would be a pretty good match for the Mustang, both on the track and the drag strip.

I am trading my 06 C6 Corvette, actually today, and had hoped there would be some really good news from Ford on the Mustang as an alternative to the LS powered Chevys. This test kinda confirms my final selection of another used Vette, this time a Grand Sport 6m. Can't wait.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by doc7000

Weight is still unconfirmed!!!!!!!

Ford posted the weight of its new Mustang months ago, there were many different web sites that covered this. Making a big deal at the fact that the car gained weight like it did, you can go to the Ford website and look at the weight of the car.

Also car magazines when they test cars they do often put the cars on a scale with a full fuel load. Granted the Mustang GT with performance package pretty much also had every option which is why it tipped the scale at a bit over 3,800 pounds. Still though, this isn't a case of weight being "unconfirmed" as the weight was first confirmed by Ford and later reconfirmed by the different car sites/magazines.

I had no idea that the "Mustang" guys have yet to "confirm" this..... this is pretty much what it means to be delusional.... Also no one was talking about the weight of previous Mustangs as clearly what is being talked about here is the 2015 Mustang and nothing else.

There seems to be some vagueness or inconsistency in what "curb weight" means to different people and different entities. Perhaps that's what needs to be nailed down a little better.

It's easy enough to find this

Originally Posted by MUSTANG Specifications page, Ford.com

Estimated Base Curb Weight (lbs.) Fastback
V6 Manual 3526
V6 Automatic 3530
EcoBoost® Manual 3532
EcoBoost® Automatic 3524
GT Manual 3705
GT Automatic 3729

but what do they really include, and do those two EcoBoost weights make anybody else wonder if that table was proofread well enough?


3800 lbs for the 5th gen Camaro is just a rough ballpark number for talking purposes, just like 3500 was for the earlier S197 Mustangs and 3600 for the later ones . . . where knowing the weight to the nearest hundred lbs is close enough That's all those numbers ever meant to me anyway.


Norm

[Billy10mm]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

Like someone said dry weight. Remove the anti freeze and oil along with the gas and you are probably looking at his figures.

I've had some time with a Honda motorcycle engineer (I used to be an extensive motorcycle rider/track-day enthusiast) at a track day at Loudon many years ago and we got into a discussion about dry weights. Dry weight is truly dry:

Helium in the tires
OE tires are shaved down from "new" to the wear bars
Brake pads are shaved down to their recommended replacement levels
No fluids of any kind including hydraulic/clutch/brake fluid or oil in the shocks
No paint
No powder-coating
Some others that were equally shocking that I can't remember

[doc7000]

There may be differences as far as individuals on this forum. However for OEM in the us curb weight is standardized and base curb weight is the curb weight at base msrp. Some options add weight and some may take weight away. Would have to look into it to see why the ecoboost mustang with auto is lighter then with a manual transmission. It could be something as simple as being reversed...

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by doc7000

There may be differences as far as individuals on this forum. However for OEM in the us curb weight is standardized and base curb weight is the curb weight at base msrp. Some options add weight and some may take weight away. Would have to look into it to see why the ecoboost mustang with auto is lighter then with a manual transmission. It could be something as simple as being reversed...

I wonder if there is a SAE standard for Curb weight. Yep!

From Edmunds: " The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines curb weight as the mass of a car without driver, passengers or cargo but with a full complement of fluids — including a full tank of fuel. "
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...nd-trucks.html

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

I wonder if there is a SAE standard for Curb weight. Yep!

From Edmunds: " The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines curb weight as the mass of a car without driver, passengers or cargo but with a full complement of fluids — including a full tank of fuel. "
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...nd-trucks.html

Unfortunately, as we're finding with truck Tow Ratings and such, Manufacturers have NOT been following consistent SAE specs and criteria*. I think some of the variance in Weight can be attributed to just how full is "full".

"I don't race my car with a full tank, so why would I weigh it with a full tank?" Truthful? Yes. "Scientific"? No.

Government-certified scales are NOT found in very many auto repair/conversion shops or backyard garages, either.

* Subject to terms and conditions a microscope is required to read. Subject to interpretation. Void where prohibited. AM and FM.

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by SEVEN-OH JOE

Unfortunately, as we're finding with truck Tow Ratings and such, Manufacturers have NOT been following consistent SAE specs and criteria*. I think some of the variance in Weight can be attributed to just how full is "full".

"I don't race my car with a full tank, so why would I weigh it with a full tank?" Truthful? Yes. "Scientific"? No.

Government-certified scales are NOT found in very many auto repair/conversion shops or backyard garages, either.

* Subject to terms and conditions a microscope is required to read. Subject to interpretation. Void where prohibited. AM and FM.

Obviously for trucks their is money to be made on towing and hauling which is why truck tow ratings are what they are. Also it looks as though the big 3 will be slowly adopting better standardization in that area.

Curb weight is a completely different thing as no one really buys a car purely based on curb weight. Also automakers have been using the SAE standard for curb weight for a long time now, so it isn't as if it is new.

For that reason the odds that Ford some how messed up in weighing their Mustang is extremely small and at this point absurd to suggest that the Mustang GT has a curb weight some 150 pounds less then what Ford has reported.

At this point thought this whole conversation is moot because it is the end product that matters and the Mustang GT with PP doesn't perform as well as a 1SS Camaro with 1LE. It would be making a bigger statement if the Mustang GT PP wasn't 3,815 pounds in the test but actually 3,550 pounds (as some have suggested the car weighs).

However the Mustang guys will believe what they will believe so it doesn't really matter what you tell them.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by SEVEN-OH JOE

Unfortunately, as we're finding with truck Tow Ratings and such, Manufacturers have NOT been following consistent SAE specs and criteria*. I think some of the variance in Weight can be attributed to just how full is "full".

"I don't race my car with a full tank, so why would I weigh it with a full tank?" Truthful? Yes. "Scientific"? No.

Government-certified scales are NOT found in very many auto repair/conversion shops or backyard garages, either.

* Subject to terms and conditions a microscope is required to read. Subject to interpretation. Void where prohibited. AM and FM.

Didn't the big three all agree to start using the new guidelines for tow ratings, and payload? Or are they still using trickery

[BaylorCamaro]

At 3:58 said the 2015 Mustang GT PP is "set up for nothing but pure performance." He claims they we running it against "Porsche 911, BMW and Audi's and it will beat cars at least twice as expensive as it." Except the 1LE

[90503]

Originally Posted by BaylorCamaro

At 3:58 said the 2015 Mustang GT PP is "set up for nothing but pure performance." He claims they we running it against "Porsche 911, BMW and Audi's and it will beat cars at least twice as expensive as it." Except the 1LE

Wow....I almost feel sorry for Ford and Mustang....Casually blowing off Camaro and Challenger, and claiming to be in Porsche territory is quite a stretch...

I think they're headed for just paying lip-service to the performance/competition end, and maybe can make some hay with the up-scale interior and street ride feel....Oh well, I was hoping Mustang would really put some pressure on GM with this new Mustang, but it looks like perhaps not....

....I hope GM doesn't fall for this fool's gold interior business and spend it's precious resources on trying to best Mustangs enhanced interior and sacrifice performance and tracking in the process....

[trashmanssd]

Ford must be really smoking something if they think that car can compete with cars twice its price. Hell I love the 1LE but that can't go much past car 1.5 times its price and its better than the new mustang. Only car that truly is a giant killer is the Corvette, and maybe a Z/28 (performance only interior is joke no speakers no nav no a/c) but that cars a very small production number specialty car. Don't know what they are thinking with this we didn't compare it to the Camaro or Challenger BS those are the new buyers you are trying to get. People who own a Camaro or Challenger or are looking at those cars are the buyers you want, insulting them saying there car is not even worthy of comparison to your car is crazy. What do they think the guy looking at a 911 or M4 or S5 is going to be cross shopping a Mustang maybe a few will but the majority are not. It's a very nice 40K sports car with good performance very nice interior IMO nice styling but please dont try sell my that its basically the same as a 80k-100k cars.

[90503]

...For a few years now we've heard that Camaro needs to do what Ford/Mustang is doing with changes and styling to appeal to the European/export markets....

I hope GM sees that going this Mustang route is huge marketing mistake....If Ford has been baking this turkey for the last four years and this is what they come up with, it's pretty sad.

Skipping over Camaro and Challenger to appeal to Euro/Techno-interior buyers with a twice the price statement is pretty easy to see Ford is trying to market a beer car with a champagne label...It doesn't fly, and I hope GM sees this....

[Denis]

i just read through all 18 pages....

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Originally Posted by doc7000

Obviously for trucks their is money to be made on towing and hauling which is why truck tow ratings are what they are. Also it looks as though the big 3 will be slowly adopting better standardization in that area.

Originally Posted by shaffe

Didn't the big three all agree to start using the new guidelines for tow ratings, and payload? Or are they still using trickery

Let's hope their ratings and, more importantly, their advertising quotes the applicable SAE spec and, therefore, standardization IS then in place.

Curb weight is a completely different thing as no one really buys a car purely based on curb weight. Also automakers have been using the SAE standard for curb weight for a long time now, so it isn't as if it is new.

It used to be common practice for manufacturers to supply Curb Weight and Shipping Weight data to the AMA, including significant option weights on an individual basis. From this published information, NHRA for instance could then classify Stock-class vehicles based on lb. per (sometimes factored) hp. The GM Heritage Center site has records going back decades for most Chevrolet products, and a few others. Interesting reading on a dark and stormy night.

https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/gm-...tion-kits.html

E.G. Curb Weight of a 1968 Camaro SS396 L34-Automatic Coupe with Power Windows-Folding Rear Seat-Air conditioning-Console-Power Disc Brakes-Power Steering-HD Battery-AM/FM/Stereo-Rally Sport was 3718 lb., about the same as a 2015 Mustang GT!