Drove the new Mustang today.

Harvey wrote: unless you want to remove the whole interior and replace it with cardboard.

Yes, I would love to be able to order that.

Here's a picture of the previous solid axle rear:

Here's a picture of the 2015 IRS:

Here's a picture of the '03 IRS, which is 150lbs heavier than the '03 solid axle that is very similar to that of the 2014 mustang:

Both IRS's use some aluminum parts. I don't see how the IRS could possibly be lighter than the solid axle.

So you can't get the v6 with a track pack anymore ? Is the echo blow that much faster than the v6 ?

scottdownsouth wrote: So you can't get the v6 with a track pack anymore ? Is the echo blow that much faster than the v6 ?

Way. Read the main article. 12.5 with a tune, downpipe, 3.73 gears and tires. Yes. Its a very fast car.

http://www.mustang6g.com

kreb wrote: Wow, a solid axle versus IRS reference! Some things never die, I guess.

Historical re-enactments can be fun.

...But there's probably more effective ways to win battles than black powder rifles.

ultraclyde wrote: How much weight do you think just the IRS adds verses a stick axle? I'd love to see two equally prepped cars run a given track - one with IRS and one with the old axle. It strikes me that a 2014 GT vs a 2015 GT might be as close as we ever come to a viable comparison on that idea. I really don't think the difference is that big, but I freely admit I've never driven an IRS in anger.

I watched a video on youtube, http://youtu.be/_oal4FJtfCk Skip to 13:45

The 2015 V8 performance pack is 1 second faster than the base model BOSS, meaning not the Laguna Seca edition. Yeah, IRS makes it faster.

For all the IRS vs. stick, wait for the FRP(?)solid axle kit for the drag cars to come out.

So...My Buick GN ran 12.5 mostly stock and it was 3850 . That was a stock v6 . the Mustangs got a 4 and is lighter. Oh wait, my bad.

Petrolburner wrote:

ultraclyde wrote: How much weight do you think just the IRS adds verses a stick axle? I'd love to see two equally prepped cars run a given track - one with IRS and one with the old axle. It strikes me that a 2014 GT vs a 2015 GT might be as close as we ever come to a viable comparison on that idea. I really don't think the difference is that big, but I freely admit I've never driven an IRS in anger.

I watched a video on youtube, http://youtu.be/_oal4FJtfCk Skip to 13:45 The 2015 V8 performance pack is 1 second faster than the base model BOSS, meaning not the Laguna Seca edition. Yeah, IRS makes it faster.

Yeah, the IRS is the only difference between the two.

Harvey wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Harvey: Car and Drive lists 3810 for the GT manual and 3663 for the ecoboost auto.

Seem to have a conflict then, because the GT shows on cars.com as 3705. http://www.cars.com/ford/mustang/2015/specifications/

The car rags usually go by real weight of the particular car they have to test, the "specifications" from the manufacturer are what cars.com is using. That would be lacking fuel, and traditionally the middle ground on options. Some could be lighter without fuel, some could be heavier.

scottdownsouth wrote: So...My Buick GN ran 12.5 mostly stock and it was 3850 . That was a stock v6 . the Mustangs got a 4 and is lighter. Oh wait, my bad.

Tell me more about the additional boost or slicks you were running.....I've been around those cars enough to know what it took to make them run times like that.

The stock V6 in the GN is easily good for 11s with bolt ons and some sort of sticky tire.

In reply to Bobzilla:

Are you replying to me? If so, please be accurate. I never debated the functionality of the IRS. I own 10 vehicles, and 4 of them are full sized trucks. 5 out of the other 6 have IRS.
I was debating only the weight of the IRS, and was totally consistent throughout the conversation. You on the other hand went from speculating that the IRS was lighter to asking why another 50 lbs matters. I'm saying it's more than 50 lbs. And I'm not nor have I ever said it wasn't a worth while trade off. I just said that if they hadn't put it in the car would likely have been lighter. Please read more carefully in the future.

Edit - I see you deleted your post accusing me of hating IRS suspensions. Good move, Bob.

In reply to Harvey:

I'm well aware of that, usually they up the boost and throw sticky rubber at them while claiming "Mostly Stock" They also liked to twist the unibody if you did that too much.

They've already got the ecoboost stang running a wheelie pulling 12.5 with minor mods.

http://www.mustang6g.com/

yamaha wrote: In reply to Harvey: I'm well aware of that, usually they up the boost and throw sticky rubber at them while claiming "Mostly Stock" They also liked to twist the unibody if you did that too much.

My GN had cracks at the b-pillars, most of them do. The g-body chassis was about as stiff as cotton candy.

In reply to Harvey:

It was as solid as a wet noodle, a 90yo's "erection", a bowl of jello, etc.....too many easy jokes about those things.....and god help you if you happened to have t-tops.

Saw a black one at the dealership yesterday. It was to cloudy to get a good lock at it as I drove by.

Funny, I’ve never agonizing over engine choices until now; one has always been clearly the best for me.

Not the case with the EcoBoost verses the V6 as what the cost spread per gallon over time will be is both unknown and could easily alter my decision.

I got this run chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration website:

They were remiss in not indicating which direction the percent differences were expressed in (IE: 87 being X% less than 91 or 91 being X% greater than 87) so we’re already in some trouble.

To further complicate things, we have a 2003 Explorer that we bought new and it has exceeded all of our expectations so we’ll be rewarding Ford with the purchase of a new one soon and I’d like to standardize the engines if possible. You know…learn one engine, have parts and tools for one engine, etc..

Any thoughts???

our 3.5l edge has the exact same oil filter as the 5.0 mustang... (2013 edge, 2012 mustang gt...) I know this b/c I got home and thought I'd gotten the wrong car when I put the oil filter taht I'd bought for the mustang next to the one I'd bought a few days earlier for the edge....

RX Reven' wrote: Funny, I’ve never agonizing over engine choices until now; one has always been clearly the best for me. Not the case with the EcoBoost verses the V6 as what the cost spread per gallon over time will be is both unknown and could easily alter my decision. I got this run chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration website: They were remiss in not indicating which direction the percent differences were expressed in (IE: 87 being X% less than 91 or 91 being X% greater than 87) so we’re already in some trouble. To further complicate things, we have a 2003 Explorer that we bought new and it has exceeded all of our expectations so we’ll be rewarding Ford with the purchase of a new one soon and I’d like to standardize the engines if possible. You know…learn one engine, have parts and tools for one engine, etc.. Any thoughts???

The way I read that chart is that premium is now cheaper in relation to regular. Back in the 90's it was running 15-20% higher than regular, now it's running 5-10%. That's because gas was so much cheaper then that a $0.20 difference was a much higher % than $0.30 today. I haven't checked that yet though.

With Ecoboost engines, I know Tom Spangler is delighted with the (frankly amazing) fuel mileage he gets on his F150, while we are not as happy with out Lincoln MkC. If Tom chimes in he has some geeky records he's been keeping re MPG based on brand and grade of gas via his OBDII scanner. That may help throw some light on the situation.