2015 Ford Mustang GT new car reviews

The newest generation of Mustang seems to have surpassed the meathead philosophy that everyone appears to associate with the brand. The 2015 Mustang GT sports a 5.0-liter V8, naturally. Not a whole lot new there, though it does churn out a good 435 horsepower these days. The handling and overall feel of the car has become much more sophisticated.

And let's not forget the price point. You can grab a Mustang GT brand new for a hair over $30,000. That's a pretty great bang for the buck.

Other staff views

Tim Suddard Tim Suddard
Publisher

The new Mustang GT is a cut above its predecessor. From its 435 horsepower, 5.0-liter V8, to its redesigned and redefined chassis featuring independent rear suspension, to its totally redesigned interior, the Mustang is now more BMW M4 fighter than pony car competitor.

But despite these new track credentials, the Mustang GT is comfortable, fuel efficient (averaged 25 mpg, in a week of hustling around central Florida) and just damned nice to drive.

From high performance BMW sedans, to all-wheel-drive Subaru wagons, there are a lot of good ways to get around these days. That said, a pony car in general, and Mustang in particular, offers a rather unique driving experience. The style and rumble of that V8 just want to make you misbehave. The Mustang has always offered this level of Hoonigan mischief. But now instead of that crude, raucous aftertaste, it goes down smooth, efficient and comfortable when you want to just sit back and cruise quickly down the interstate or back roads.

Kudos to Ford, for building a car we love to screw around with when we are feeling naughty, and are happy to drive home in when we are being nice.

Tom Suddard Tom Suddard
Digital Experience Director

After driving the convertible GT, I wrote "I still wouldn't order a fabric roof or an automatic, but at least the V8 makes the new Mustang awesome again.”

Was I right? Yep–with a proper transmission and a metal roof, the new Mustang was everything I hoped it would be. Especially fast: It’s very, very fast. And the new rear suspension kept the rear end planted much better than the last generation’s live axle. Don’t worry: this Mustang was still fun, and could be called anything but “numb” or “easy.”

Complaints? Honestly, no. Our test car was too expensive, at about $37,000, but it was also loaded with options I wouldn’t order, like air-conditioned seats and radar cruise control. It was also bright yellow, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Naturally, the fit and finish was good, but not great. You know–like a Mustang.

Join Free Join our community to easily find more articles.

Comments

View comments on the GRM forums
bravenrace
bravenrace MegaDork
11/20/15 1:52 p.m.

Not a whole lot new? Its all new.

Mitchell
Mitchell UltraDork
11/20/15 1:56 p.m.

I read "not a whole lot new," meaning the formula of 5.0 NA V8 being tried and true.

Ed Higginbotham
Ed Higginbotham Editorial Assistant
11/20/15 1:58 p.m.

In reply to Mitchell:

That is indeed how it was meant.

fasted58
fasted58 UltimaDork
11/20/15 2:02 p.m.

Don't have the $30K for a new GT but I'll take a new Coyote for my '05 S197... and howl my ass off.

bravenrace
bravenrace MegaDork
11/20/15 2:05 p.m.

In reply to Ed Higginbotham:

Okay, sorry.

xflowgolf
xflowgolf Dork
11/20/15 2:13 p.m.

I really really want a new Base GT 5.0 with Track Pack and Recaros in that Guard Green.

You can keep your power moonroofs and navigation units and whatever else the Premium models have.

Mmmmmm

ultraclyde
ultraclyde UltraDork
11/20/15 2:38 p.m.
fasted58 wrote: Don't have the $30K for a new GT but I'll take a new Coyote for my '05 S197... and howl my ass off.

Troof.

mblommel
mblommel HalfDork
11/20/15 5:25 p.m.
xflowgolf wrote: I really really want a new Base GT 5.0 with Track Pack and Recaros in that Guard Green. You can keep your power moonroofs and navigation units and whatever else the Premium models have.

I agree. I love the styling and the IRS. As much as I want to really want one I can't get over the curb weight; 3,800 lbs is 1000 lbs more than my '65 fastback. That just blows my mind.

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
11/20/15 6:13 p.m.

Well you're 100lbs high, but it's still way up there.

That's 1000lbs more than my BRZ. Of course it's also got over twice the HP.

mblommel
mblommel HalfDork
11/20/15 8:29 p.m.
z31maniac wrote: Well you're 100lbs high, but it's still way up there. That's 1000lbs more than my BRZ. Of course it's also got over twice the HP.

I've seen various numbers. The interesting thing is the FR-S or BRZ is probably a lot closer to my old Mustang in curb weight, size and power levels (I had a 289 without major mods). A 7/8th scale version of the new Mustang would be about right for me.

boileralum
boileralum New Reader
11/22/15 11:58 a.m.

I bought a '16 GT PP last month. My first V8 in 20-odd cars. My only regret in not getting the Premium is that the base stereo is really bad. Upgrading to the premium setup is looking like $1000+, and swapping in something aftermarket isn't promising at this point either. So now I need to buy an exhaust so I can hear that and not worry about the crappy radio.

Jerry From LA
Jerry From LA Dork
11/23/15 3:47 p.m.

Imagine how great it would perform and how fuel efficient it might be if it weighed 500 pounds less.

Mr_Clutch42
Mr_Clutch42 SuperDork
11/23/15 4:20 p.m.

In reply to boileralum: Are you sure you can't buy good aftermarket speakers for around $400?

xflowgolf
xflowgolf Dork
11/24/15 2:36 p.m.
boileralum wrote: I bought a '16 GT PP last month. My first V8 in 20-odd cars. My only regret in not getting the Premium is that the base stereo is really bad. Upgrading to the premium setup is looking like $1000+, and swapping in something aftermarket isn't promising at this point either. So now I need to buy an exhaust so I can hear that and not worry about the crappy radio.

Interesting thought... didn't think about the stereo. The Recaros negate the availability of heated seats which is the only other "luxury" typical premium option I'd want. I have no desire for power moonroof, and any phone does nav, and I even dislike most auto-HVAC systems, but having a hamstrung audio package does kind of suck.

It's not like 20 years ago when everything came with a din sized radio slot and your options were wide open on high end aftermarket. Getting something properly integrated and aesthetically pleasing can be a challenge on new cars.

I wonder if you'll start seeing take-out upgraded head units that'll be plug and play upgrades from a premium version that work with steering wheel buttons and the like? ...or a clean aftermarket integration option?

Jerry From LA wrote: Imagine how great it would perform and how fuel efficient it might be if it weighed 500 pounds less.

You can say this for 98% of new vehicles though.

It's just the world we live in.

NickD
NickD Reader
11/24/15 2:51 p.m.

I was just disappointed when the new Mustang, with more power, less weight, bigger brakes and a newer chassis than the Camaro (A 5 year old design) got it's tail handed to it. And the Mustang cost $5000 more to boot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTJPDurLEKw&list=PLA97180860447EE6A&index=13

Javelin
Javelin MegaDork
11/24/15 3:10 p.m.

You can buy a new Mustang GT for half the price on the used market, it's called the Pontiac GTO. Seriously. If I blindfolded you and had you drive both cars back-to-back, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They even sound the same. I test drove a 15 5.0 GT with the Brembos/Recaros/Track Pack in blue (which is exactly how I would order it) and came away cold. It didn't feel new or special at all (keep in mind I've driven, raced, and owned dozens of Mustangs). Looks like all the buff books are saying the same thing with the 16 Camaro, that it's just a better car all the way around.

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
11/24/15 3:14 p.m.

In reply to NickD:

I have to admit, that is surprising. I was all ready to dismiss the comparison until they enlisted Randy Probst to do the track work, which definitely adds a good deal of validity to the track times.

And the new Camaro will be smaller and lighter.

While there's plenty to be concerned about in the world right now, as a car enthusiast these are great times.

NickD
NickD Reader
11/24/15 3:17 p.m.
Ian F wrote: In reply to NickD: I have to admit, that is surprising. I was all ready to dismiss the comparison until they enlisted Randy Probst to do the track work, which definitely adds a good deal of validity to the track times. And the new Camaro will be smaller and lighter. While there's plenty to be concerned about in the world right now, as a car enthusiast these are great times.

The new Camaro SS is confirmed as running 12.4 second quarter miles. In stock trim!

bravenrace
bravenrace MegaDork
11/24/15 3:22 p.m.

In reply to NickD:

In the video, the Mustang was faster in the 1/4 mile.

NickD
NickD Reader
11/24/15 3:24 p.m.

In reply to bravenrace:

True. But that 0.1th is almost negligible. Run-to-run variation could make that evaporate, especially with stick cars.

Ranger50
Ranger50 PowerDork
11/24/15 3:27 p.m.

My dad bought one a few months ago and stock it was meh with him driving. Now that he went and put on the FRPP supercharger and programmer along with exhaust and the upgraded axles... He loves the 670hp it now has.... In spades. Lol.

Btw, he paid 28k for a base base basic GT.

bravenrace
bravenrace MegaDork
11/24/15 3:27 p.m.

Yeah, just sayin. I didn't look it up, but wonder what tires each runs. Seems like the Mustang could be improved with shocks and tires. But the cheap interior in the Camaro can't as easily be upgraded. Nor can it's looks, which while subjective, don't compare in my opinion.

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
11/24/15 3:36 p.m.

In reply to bravenrace:

Camaro: 285/35ZR20 Goodyear® Eagle® F1 Supercar® Generation 2 performance summer tires, front and rear.

Mustang: 255/40R19 (F) 275/40R19(R) summer-only tires (brand not listed).

(copied from the respective website specs)

So the Camaro definitely has more tire. Much more than the minimal weight difference and would probably account for the better turn-in mentioned in the video.

NickD
NickD Reader
11/24/15 3:48 p.m.
bravenrace wrote: Yeah, just sayin. I didn't look it up, but wonder what tires each runs. Seems like the Mustang could be improved with shocks and tires. But the cheap interior in the Camaro can't as easily be upgraded. Nor can it's looks, which while subjective, don't compare in my opinion.

I've never found the Camaro interior that appalling, but my standards for vehicle interiors is pretty low, and the styling is conservative but decent (I prefer the '14-'15's more squinty grille). And I prefer the LS motor just for how much easier it is to work on than Ford's DOHC 32V bundle-of-snakes thingy. My only real beef with the Camaro is the terrible outward visibility (I'm 6'3").

Joe Gearin
Joe Gearin Associate Publisher
11/24/15 4:04 p.m.

For those who haven't seen it yet, the 16 Camaro's interior is quite a bit nicer than the outgoing car's. It still isn't top notch, but it's a match for the new Mustang's interior, which is also good, but not great.

With it's size and weight decrease, the Camaro is now a very good alternative to the Ford. I haven't checked dimensions, but the Chevy is now close to the same size....maybe even a bit smaller.

I just wish they'd make the greenhouse larger on the Chevy. It's awfully hard to see out of, and headroom in the outgoing car was extremely lacking. Hopefully there is more room inside the new one.

NickD
NickD Reader
11/24/15 4:11 p.m.

In reply to Joe Gearin:

The 2.0T is 390lbs lighter than the '10-'15 V6, the V6 model is 294lbs (3435lbs) lighter than the outgoing V6 and the SS is 223lbs (3685lbs) lighter and makes 29 more hp and 35lb-ft more torque per GM. (http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/sep/0914-camaro.html)

Size is 188″ L x 75″ W x 53″ H versus the Mustang's 188″ L x 75″ W x 54-55″ H, making it the same size all around, except 1-2" shorter.

And, yes, I hope that the visibility improves on the 6th-gen because the 5th-gen was not a tall man's car, for sure.

STM317
STM317 Reader
11/24/15 6:10 p.m.

Since this is turning into a Camaro/Mustang thread:

First comparo I've seen of the '16 Camaro SS vs '16 Mustang GT: http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/

TL;DR---The new Camaro is smaller, lighter, and more powerful than the Mustang but it's still difficult to see out of, and not as comfortable for long trips. Camaro costs a couple grand more.

boileralum
boileralum New Reader
11/24/15 8:03 p.m.
Mr_Clutch42 wrote: In reply to boileralum: Are you sure you can't buy good aftermarket speakers for around $400?

That is the route I am going to try first, albeit with a set of $100 speakers I am pulling out of my miata this weekend as I tear it down for my Exocet build.

Kreb
Kreb UltraDork
11/24/15 8:54 p.m.

If the Camaro had 100 more HP and was $10,000 less I still wouldn't buy one because of the slit-like windows. They've basically taken my least favorite characteristic of modern cars and pushed it to the extreme.

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
11/24/15 9:36 p.m.
STM317 wrote: TL;DR---The new Camaro is smaller, lighter, and more powerful than the Mustang but it's still difficult to see out of, and not as comfortable for long trips. Camaro costs a couple grand more.

So it basically repeats the Mustang/Camaro comparison of the Fox/SN95 & F3/F4 cars: The Camaro was a better performer, but the Mustang was easier to live with day-to-day. We all know how that turned out...

Nick (Not-Stig) Comstock
Nick (Not-Stig) Comstock UltimaDork
11/24/15 9:57 p.m.
STM317 wrote: Camaro costs a couple grand more.

Did you see the as-tested price? The Rustang was almost $10K MORE than the Camaro. Just shy of $50K.

WildScotsRacing
WildScotsRacing New Reader
11/24/15 10:22 p.m.
Ian F wrote:
STM317 wrote: TL;DR---The new Camaro is smaller, lighter, and more powerful than the Mustang but it's still difficult to see out of, and not as comfortable for long trips. Camaro costs a couple grand more.

So it basically repeats the Mustang/Camaro comparison of the Fox/SN95 & F3/F4 cars: The Camaro was a better performer, but the Mustang was easier to live with day-to-day. We all know how that turned out...

Maybe... I remember back in the late '80s - early '90's, you could get a plain Jane stripped LX 5.0 notchback w/ the T5 and 3.73s that hardly weighed 2800 lbs with a full tank of gas. THOSE stripper notchbacks would (and did) run high 13 second quarters bone stock off the dealer's lot for less than $12,000. Put some 255 or 275 meats on the back, add proper headers, high-flow cats (or none) and a better exhaust, and the would turn low 13's. A few basic bolt-ons like underdrive pulleys, ram air from under the bumper or through the left headlight opening, and an SVO B303 cam and they were into the 12's. Add slicks and solid link quad shocks and they would lift the left front tire and drop another 1/2 to 3/4 second. In short, for a total investment of less than 14,000 you could have a car that was nibbling at 11 second quarters. The F bodies of that era had nowhere near that kind of performance stretch, at least not without spending more money than mere mortals could afford.

JimS
JimS New Reader
11/24/15 11:34 p.m.

I drove 95 z28 6 speed as a dd for nine years and liked it a lot but I do not like the new ones. The mechanicals are nice but the 2016 interior is uglier than the previous and I think the Mustang looks a lot sleeker.

Mitchell
Mitchell UltraDork
11/25/15 2:05 a.m.

On a different note, when is GRM going to get its hands on the ATS-V? I sat in one at the LA auto show, and really liked what I saw. Hope for depreciation?

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
11/25/15 6:44 a.m.

In reply to WildScotsRacing:

Yeah, I guess I was comparing more the F4 vs. SN95. I lusted after the F4 and thought it looked awesome - until I rode in one. Wow, what a difficult car to see out of. Granted, I was coming from my '86 Toyota p/u which had awesome outward visibility.

Flight Service
Flight Service MegaDork
11/25/15 6:59 a.m.

so much want...

Andy Neuman
Andy Neuman Reader
11/25/15 9:15 a.m.

I really like mine so far, no complaints, 2015 GT Performance pack. Ford tends to discount their cars the most compared to the MSRP, only paid $30,200 before tax, tags, title. I have put 5500 miles on since July, cross shopped it with the other 25-40k performance cars and found it to have the best interior out of the bunch, of course it won't be as nice as a 30k luxury car but none of the cars in the segment are. Actually just put my snow tires on it yesterday.

Flight Service
Flight Service MegaDork
11/25/15 9:33 a.m.

In reply to Andy Neuman:

Would you mind listing the options or posting the window sticker?

bravenrace
bravenrace MegaDork
11/25/15 9:42 a.m.

In reply to Flight Service:

+1

Andy Neuman
Andy Neuman Reader
11/25/15 10:14 a.m.

2016 Mustang GT PP currently they have them listed for even less. Base GT with performance pack, no other options.

Over my first 5500 miles I've averaged 20.1 MPG.

Flight Service
Flight Service MegaDork
11/25/15 11:04 a.m.

In reply to Andy Neuman:

The only option I want, and it isn't a deal breaker, is the Recaros. But I can find those...

Andy Neuman
Andy Neuman Reader
11/25/15 12:00 p.m.
Flight Service wrote: In reply to Andy Neuman: The only option I want, and it isn't a deal breaker, is the Recaros. But I can find those...

These are the only two I could find with the PP and recaros.

Option 1

Option 2

Flight Service
Flight Service MegaDork
11/25/15 12:09 p.m.
Andy Neuman wrote:
Flight Service wrote: In reply to Andy Neuman: The only option I want, and it isn't a deal breaker, is the Recaros. But I can find those...

These are the only two I could find with the PP and recaros.

Option 2

I berkeleying hate you...that is 14 miles from the house and Koons snicker has a dealership that is about 3/4 of a mile from my place.

Not a good time to be flat busted broke....I want one in either white or green.

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
11/25/15 1:16 p.m.

In reply to Flight Service:

+1. I didn't think Mustangs would be discounted so soon.

I prefer Option 1, but color isn't that important.

xflowgolf
xflowgolf Dork
11/25/15 2:01 p.m.
Ian F wrote: In reply to Flight Service: +1. I didn't think Mustangs would be discounted so soon.

Agreed!

turtl631
turtl631 Reader
11/25/15 4:00 p.m.
mblommel wrote:
z31maniac wrote: Well you're 100lbs high, but it's still way up there. That's 1000lbs more than my BRZ. Of course it's also got over twice the HP.

I've seen various numbers. The interesting thing is the FR-S or BRZ is probably a lot closer to my old Mustang in curb weight, size and power levels (I had a 289 without major mods). A 7/8th scale version of the new Mustang would be about right for me.

I'm with you, I want to like where muscle cars have been going but I'm a 150 pound guy who just likes small cars and if I were to get into something this long and heavy I'd want it to have four doors a la M3 sedan.

kj0srTxAkYeLVuNMt0m6uapQByGyqsRe