TRACK TESTED: 2024 Ford Mustang GT & EcoBoost | New and Improved? | 0-60, ¼ Mile, Handling & More
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มิ.ย. 2024
- The comments on our Mustang First Drive video were filled with requests for performance statistics, so we brought two 2024 Mustangs - a manual GT coupe and an automatic EcoBoost convertible - to the Edmunds test track. In this video, Edmunds’ Clint Simone tells you all about the testing and results, including 0-60 mph and quarter-mile times, skidpad grip and braking. Head to the video above to learn more about the 2024 Ford Mustang’s performance!
2024 Ford Mustang pricing and review: edmu.in/43Jz6jX
00:00 Intro
00:47 Mustang Trims
01:30 Engine Sound
01:43 Track Testing
03:03 The Numbers
Subscribe to Edmunds th-cam.com/users/edmundsv... for the latest car news, car reviews, car comparisons, car shopping and advice.
Visit us! www.edmunds.com - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Did the Mustangs live up to your expectations with their testing numbers? Let us know what you think in the comments.
First, if you do 0-60 and 1/4 mile tests, get a GT fitted with an automatic. Second, get a coupe EcoBoost instead of a convertible since the latter has poor aerodynamics and weighs more. The new Mustangs can do better than that. Stangmode just did 3.9 on a new GT on a regular road with three people in the car
i want to see same gt but automatic trans. thats a decent time but knowing auto is faster im curious. people have short bed single cab f150s running in the 12s with little things like removal of the hitch spare tire etc simple e85 tune u see 11s out of f150. so high 12.isnt to impressive. hell i want to see what the new high output dieael f250 does. the heavier dually f350 ran in the 15s a mile abouve sea level
curious what the lighter non dually f250 can do because i bet it would tie or beat the ecoboost lol
Nope
4.8 second in the GT?!! Nah!!. Test driver did a poor job Guaranteed! I'll wait for @Kurt Niebuhr to launch this GT....Or maybe better times are reserved for the Shelby? 😢 Even the cornering should have 1G or so IMO. Please re-test!
All these Mustang numbers are as GHAY as the host. Another Diversity Hire being shoved down our throats like he does to his BF. NO THANKS. Everyone should Boycott Edmunds like the entire country has boycotted Bud Light over their trans spokesMAN.
If your going to test 0-60 and quarter mile times. Please rerun the GT with an automatic. I've seen 0-60 test times under 4 seconds. Rowing gears on a dragstrip can cost around a second on the dragstrip from inconsistent launches and gear changes. That's why most who drag race the previous S550 use the 10R80 automatic
Why? Real enthusiasts buy these cars with manual especially for track duty. It is sad to see seventh generation doing 4.8 seconds to 60 mph though. These cars gained weight. Apparently Dark Horse is 4000 lbs.
@al151 This driver hit 4.8 0-60. That's why people don't want manual for 0-60 testing, it's too inconsistent.
COmmon practise back in the day to use an Auto for consistency in Bracket (Drag) Racing. And that was back when Automatics were inefficient and slow - but still consistent.
These days, Autos are still consistent, and (especially with Dual Clutch Autos) often faster then Manual Sticks - all without worrying about the tire slipping at your clutch Drop because of changing ambient conditions.
Real enthusiasts? That's so laughable. @@al151
@@layne4376 Stangmode got a sub 4 second time on the street the first time they let people review them.
That 4 banger vert is a elephant, jeez.
Had they used a Ecoboost Hardtop 60 would been in low 5’s. Big price difference for most likely half a sec. Other than loving a V-8, Ecoboost more bang per dollar
yeah mine on my channel was making 433 who. The gt I my makes about 380 whp and has crap low end torque.
And also the Ecoboost hardtop may have had a higher skidpad result and shorter braking compared with the GT.
my 2024 ecoboost hardtop clock in 5.36secs 0-60 but it was far off the 4.6secs they claim it would go
has to be at a high altitude .. these numbers are way off . 2018 mustang gt's are trapping close to 118 stock . These numbers are what the 2011-2014 mustang gt's ran . i get it was a manual tested but trap speed should still be there .
The auto traps that high not the Manual. Manual usually traps at 113-114
We test near sea level but we also use 91 octane - that's the highest we get in CA (yes some stations sell 100 octane but those aren't normal stations). It's worth noting that Ford's power numbers are quoted using 93 octane.
Really enjoyed getting to hear the engines while you tested their times instead of playing your voice and music over them…. Oh wait…
thank you!
I was expecting no less than 4 sec in the GT. I would LOVE to see a head to head between the 2024 GT and a 2023 Scat Pack. Make them both autos or manual so it’s fair.
Autos GT > Scat Pack. Not sure about manuals you don't see many Scat Packs with sticks.
@@MeMyselfI_69 or both automatic. I wanna see apples to apples comparison.
Fastest manual is the camaro. 3.9 to 4 seconds flat.
Stangmode ran a 3.9 with 3 people inside and 6 speed. 2024 GT
Highly doubt that factory in car timer is accurate
Ain’t no way with 3 ppl inside it’s getting that . Factory in car timer is very ambitious on any brand
No that was an Auto. He switched to the Yellow car with an Auto when he did that test.
Swapped to yellow auto with just him and GF !!
Rewatch the video, the timer is delayed. And we've always known not to trust the in-car timer, it's always way off. And to think it could really run a 3.9 on the street with several passengers carrying camera equipment and such, you'd be foolish to think that was an accurate test lol
Would have been cool if Ford resurrected the SVO designation for the ecoboost model and made some subtle changes to the front end to differentiate it from the GT like they did in the 80's!
I bought a pair of SVO emblems (1984-86) and put them on my 2024 ecoboost the same day I took delivery of it. It sure looks great on the slick sided Mustang that Ford sold to me.
Plus, quite a few of these have been dynoing same as the old S550's. So 465 hp crank would seem more realistic.
12.7 for the GT? Does that seem kinda slow to anyone else?...
Unprepped surface. On a drag strip it’s much faster
It the manual can probably do 12.3 or so of your lucky. The A10 might be able to break into 11s
@@jeoffbenzos4959 That's one reason I love my GT-R...it'll rip 3.2 to 60 on the street all day long. Bit more expensive, though. 🤣
@@you_can_fuck_your_own_ass_69 Hahaha...yea man. For sure. Good car. AND you don't have to worry about it. 🤣
Yes, even the EB is horribly slow lol (probably on reg fuel) but 95 mph at 14.2 . Yeah. Both can probably do way better. Trap speed in the GT is also very low
Edmunds did 13 flat at 110mph with a 2011 GT….
12.7 is ok for a none prep surface but
112 mph is slow for 486 hp…
91 octane in the test would be my guess. 93 is required for max performance on both engines.
They are approaching 4,000 lb though !!
@@arkhsm3750 lbs for the MT GT here.
111 mph is low.
Heck , even the ecoboost is trapping low at hardly a 95 mph.
Thats putting both at 400 and 240 hp respectively, approximately. (You can estimate hp with trap speeds).
I wouldn’t take these results too seriously. Both surely can do way better.
I did 115mph in my 425whp mustang on a prepped track and weighing in at 3400lbs.....I'm not understanding why people are bashing the numbers
115 mph with 425 whp and 3400 lbs is very slow.
My 1985 mustang GT, at terminal island and also Carlsbad ran a best 14.2 (only crank pulley) Stock HP for 1985 was 210hp. The pulley gave around 15hp so 225hp. Almost 38 years later and im ran the same time. I don't care if its a 4 cylinder its puts out 315hp. (todays price for that $12k car , with inflation and others would only be, $34k dollars, muchhhhhhhh less than the $50k+ for a 2024 eccoboost mustang. smh
4.8 seconds must be a typo the HPP ecoboost s550 does 0-60 in 4.7….
Edmunds have always had bad numbers. Way of from factory and off from other testers. That's why everybody uses motor trends numbers
@@thomasj1026 To get fake numbers...
The reason its a little slower for the gt(as people r saying), its manual in this video not a dct
That’s 2011-2014 GT 0-60 and 1/4 times!! Something is not right! 🤔
that gen M
Yup and lost tq from the previous gen 3. With that new intake system I would be willing to say that the tq is more linear and hits later in the band which may contribute idk.
Keep in mind the S197 5.0 was quicker than the Gen 2 5.0 . The Gen 3 manual 5.0 is a hair quicker than the s197 5.0. It’s the auto Gen 3 that’s considerably quicker than all of em .
My 2 cents- I'd love to see the return of the 6-speed manual with the 2.3L EcoBoost. Not sure deleting it was a good idea by Ford.
My bet is that they discontinued it due to low sales volume vs the auto. I personally don’t see many Ecoboost ‘Stang buyers that anyone would define as “enthusiasts”. More like enthusiast posers.
@@danmyers9372 So poor people are posers? The reason the take rate was so low because the figures are skewed by rental fleet sales.
@@inyoface1641 im 28 and will never buy another automatic, I would rather have my 1998 Sentra that has a manual than an automatic anything
You'll be singing a different tune when you're 70 and legs are starting to give out. @@fortheloveofnoise9298
Do one last head to head Camaro SS Vs this new Mustang GT . Auto vs auto and manual vs manual . Maybe even a Dark Horse vs . SS 1LE ?
+1
I'm more disappointed in the fact y'all used a 6-speed GT and a heavy convertible for the ecoboost
We tested the vehicles we had available to us at the time.
More disappointing to see people complaining about a manual transmission Mustang...
Another boring auto guy😂
How can the 4 cylinder weight more than the V8??
I remember when the coyote first came out in the 2011 models with 412hp, I was watching an edmunds test, and the numbers were almost identical to these… I don’t understand.
Added weight, 4th gear is now the 1 to 1 and they probably got a boat load of torque management in the Ecu to nerf the fuck out of it. What a dog though this thing should of been mid 12s with the stick and high 11s with the 10 speed at a min like the 2018s-2023s are
If you want to run bottom 12s stock it’ll have to have the 10R80
Because that motor is no better
@@HioSSilver1999 Better than your bolt-off 11 second LS6 by a country mile
@@HioSSilver1999 PS. Why does the C8Z run a 10.4 @ 130+ and the base C8 only runs low low 11s in the low 120s when torque wins races?
C8Z - 460 lb-ft - 3774 lbs - 10.5 1/4
C8 - 470 lb-ft - 3647 lbs - 11.2 1/4
“Bubububut tOrquES wInS rAcEs hP iS jUsT mAtH” 🤤🤤🤤
It’s been out for a bit, gt numbers are 3.9 0-60 and eco pills around 4.8
Automatic I’m guessing ?
Fastback, automatic. And the eco pulley more or 4.5.
My 22 GT runs 12.0s in the 1/4 mile at 117.
I'm guessing with an auto
Rollout?
U drag ideas!!
Ecoboost vs gr86/brz
Ecoboost vs older ecoboost/v6
Ecoboost vs Hyundai N
Ecoboost vs Supra 2.0
Ecoboost vs Type R
Ecoboost vs Corolla GR
GT vs Z
GT vs Last GT
GT vs Camaro SS
GT vs Supra 3.0z
GT vs Type R
GT vs Nismo Z
GT vs 718 base/S
Darkhorse vs M2
Darkhorse vs 718 GTS
Darkhorse vs Corvette base
Keep it manual vs manual and auto vs auto. Make separate entries for auto and manual entries.
Thanks!
Wow that’s quite the list, we’ll see what we can do. Thanks @juan5149
@@edmundscars It’s a long list so you can choose depending on what you have available during the shoots! No one expects every match up, Sorta like casting a wide net and hope you catch something type of deal. Forgot to add the new v Cadillacs but add them in there!
Unless you're a "hotshoe" (and the tester ISN'T) an A10 is much quicker than this. Smh
The GT must be using real small horses! The Charger Scat Pack did 12.3@116 and it is hundreds of pounds heavier with 1 less HP. Either Ford is lying about its power or the Scat has a HUGE torque advantage. This is very underwhelming
Both scatpack and camaro has the torque advantage.
It's manual in this video. Automatics must be faster
Is that Grabber Blue or a different shade??
Grabber blue is growing on me me but cant decide matching grabber blue brembos or not
That's Grabber Blue.
It’s accurate. The numbers weren’t corrected for mineshaft air density like some of your other test outlets.
We also do not quote the 0-60 number with rollout. In case anyone is interested, using rollout dropped the time from 4.8 to 4.5 seconds..
Two great looking cars but they are slow. I have a Mustang GT 2019 Ten speed STOCK I do zero to 60 3,9 seconds 460 hp. Great show thank you from Sydney Australia 😊
I'm guessing people are disappointed by the numbers because this wasn't done on a prepped surface.
No, it is slow for that power ratio on a STREET surface. 4 tenths and 4mph slower than a Charger Scat Pack did in Car and Driver test also on a non-prepped surfaace
The car is slow
@@jtc1964x FYI you're comparing the numbers of a Mt-82 6 speed manual to an 8 speed auto, for refrence you should compare it to the 10 speed auto to be a closer comparison :)
That ecoboom is slower than my 2018 f150 5.0 crew cab 😂
I thought it would be quicker as well.
Heavy ass convertible doesn't help... my 2011 5.0 single cab was quicker 😂
Edmund's doesn't know how to do performance tests. Most 60 times will be in the high 4s to low 5s for the Ecoboost, just like the 2018-2023 models.
These numbers are booty but these are the worst examples of both cars lol. A heavy convertible vs a Manual
That ecoboost turbo is half baked! The numbers on it is not good considering it's horsepower and torque numbers
Stangmode got a 3.9 sec run to 60
With the 10R80
yeah the GT is a 4 second car for sure lol maybe it’s the added weight in
comparison to the 6 gen. And the ecoboost is a 5 second car, 4.9, do your research 😆
and yes with the 10 speed of course, you nuckleheads keep using that lousy stick lol
The tremec in the dark horse is cool though
Factory in car timer!! Highly doubt that 3.9 seconds by Stangmode is accurate
Ya, you're right. I took a look at the stangmode vid and it was a 10R80 with in car timer.@@fasttime823
@@fasttime823how does your logic make literally any sense
All these haters on here talking crap until they're everywhere. The best thing about a Mustang besides its name, is how customizable it is. It maybe slow today for some, but tomorrow it it'll "Drop The Hammer" on your ass.
Um Ford jacked up the price without adding any significant performance. Not everyone is going to drop 50k on these to mod them.
It's hating to point out these numbers are all terrible in 2023? Nope. That's just reality.
@@nunyubizness5483
That's your opinion. But the sales numbers won't lie. Enjoy drinking your hater-ade, kick rocks, and have a blessed day.
@@jp23x Name one New car that hasn't jacked up the price? I'll be waiting.
@@twany442 historically the mustang has only gotten better with every new generation, or hell even every refresh. The refresh from 17-18 was night and day. Why are you sitting here arguing with me haha you're content with oems jacking up the price and not offering anything more?
I would like to see track numbers on the Tesla Model Y Long Range but with the acceleration boost upgrade. I have not been able to find numbers I trust with this on what the actual performance increase is, and how does it impact range etc. Is it a cheap cheat to blow away ICE mustangs or a rip off?
It should do it in 4.2 seconds or so. Doesn’t not affect range.
Is it a fair comparison using a convertible vs hardtop? In the past the convertible mustangs were a lot slower than the hardtops
Not really a comparison, just giving you the numbers!
The base Eco is 315 hp, but you claimed you tested the PP version? Doesn't the PP version have 335 hp? Or did you not test the PP version? I'm confused...
The new PP version doesn’t have a power bump this year
@@ScienceOnBears58 costs more and is slower? wow. sad stuff.
Comments below saying that the 2.3 is "slow", but there's less than a full second difference on the 0-60, which must mean that the coupe 2.3 would be closer still to the GT time (given the considerable weight of the convertable). Not sure about you, but I think those GT times are really disappointing. I own a 2020 GT and was considering trading in for a new one...but none of the reviews of this latest model set the pulse racing for me.
Wow. It’s no faster than the S550 it replaces, and quite a bit more expensive. My 2016 GT put up those numbers
Damn, my dad would have launched that thing harder!
And hes DEAD!
ecoboost are way slower in convertible and much heavier i use to race my friends tuned 2018 ecoboost convertible with my blacked out 2020 eco and beat him back to back with it so not the best to squeeze out real numbers
agreed, absolutely! wish it was the fastback
Yes, convertible is heavier but still these numbers are terrible lol even for the GT.
Look at those curb weights!!!! Ridiculous!!! My 17 gt always felt
Big and clumsy around the track even after money spent on suspension couldnt imagine how
Akward this would be, once u go light weight you just dont go back.. and then there is the price lol
my ecoboost i had on my channel I got below 3500 lbs and had it pushing out about 50 more hp than a stock gt not to mention it had waaaay more torque down low. it felt like driving a different car in the turns compared to a gt.
@@4touchdowns1game29 3500 is not bad at all now a days
@@gigi9467 yea just crazy how 3500 is considered light nowadays. Gts are getting close to 4000 and then you got chargers and such that are over 5000.
@@gigi9467 funny when you talk to non car people about older cars and they seem to think that cars back in the 70s were heavy boats when they weighed a fraction of modern cars. Was looking at motor options for an aw11 mr2 that I'm prob gonna buy and it's funny cause 200 hp in that thing is a rocketship because it weighs about 2000 lbs.
@@4touchdowns1game29 redicolous man. I had a mustang gt and it was cool even with suspension work it just felt like a fish out of water, my miata on the other hand geez
My 2019 pp1 does 3.9 seconds lol
Does 3.9 sometimes...Perfect launch etc..Stop light to stop light you likely get as many 4.5-4.7 as 3.9 just to be fair
Does the Ecoboost convertible really weigh 3943lbs? Or was that an error where the 9 was supposed to be a 6?
That is not a typo.
yeah she's a piglet at near 2 tons.
That must be a tonneau cover from the F-150😅
Convertibles are heaver than s coupe because of the extra bracing required to keep the car from shaking where as the coupes top handles that issue. Earlier convertibles Mustangs would rattle and shake and handling poorly where the new version is more solid in most every area. The S650 convertible weighs 3932 lbs with a manual transmission and 3993 lbs with an automatic.
That is the correct weight!
Surprised the GT is lighter than a convertible with a smaller engine
Operator error, did you see that granny style launch? Motortrend got a 5.1 second 0-60 out of a 3v back in 2005. My prediction is a good driver will be able to hover around 4 seconds flat with a manual.
The launch shown was not the actual launch, just random footage. I was the operator and there was no error.
@@kurtniebuhr4160 no offense, but there’s no way that car only did a 4.8 second 0-60 if it was properly driven.
@@kurtniebuhr4160 back in 2013 Motortrend got a 0-60 time of 4.3 seconds with a 420hp Coyote paired with a MT82 6 speed.
I don’t understand why people cry about times being all over the place. It’s rwd, which will always be dependent on how good the driver is. Especially a manual. I’ve yet to meet a person to run times their car should be capable of on actual street tires or even drag radials. Slicks, yes. There are very few people capable of driving their rwd cars to its capabilities. The average driver can’t get any car lower the 12’s no matter how much power it has.
@@Jedi391Hot day, not broken in, 91 fuel, unprepared surface, maybe not accounting for roll-out. I’m sure they did multiple runs & that was the best. Unfair to compare best times ever gotten, to something like this.
Wow terrible acceleration numbers for the gt damn
A supra will dust it.
You guys must be confused...those are 10 year old Mustang GT numbers. I get that it's heavy but where's the 486 horsepower at the end of the quarter? Hope people like the screens....
the screens suck, its why I'm keeping my '23 HPP/HP and not buying a new one.
I bet those GT 1/4 mile and 0-60 times drop dramatically with the automatic transmission.
what no u drag? -closes fridge-
Give us time! The cars just came out :)
Give them likes to all channels you people have so you don't watch the video twice😂
The 2.3 is very slow for 315hp. A GTI with 230hp is quicker
Weight.
Convertible weighs more than the V8 hardtop
Results here are not the best you can get lol
I mean, 94.6 mph?
Theres are multiple ppl doing 13.4-13.7 sec at 100-103 mph in the eb, of course running premium fuel. This is just one bad vid for both cars here.
That Ecoboost trap speed is unusually low. I wouldn't be surprised for it to do 100mph+ on other reviews.
Flavors?? ....well then they need to spice it up because I am NOT a bit impressed......the 2012-2013 Boss 302 is Superior!
Damn.... Slower than a Nissan Z😅. And I thought that was a let down😅
What the heck? Those are lousy numbers for GT!. It has more horsepower and its slower? It should be a tad under 4 seconds.
The pre 2015 models did it at 4.4 seconds with 60 less HP!!
Calm down. Of course the new one is faster. Only problem is the driver is a fkin idiot that can't shift gears to save his life.
The only thing I can think of why it's slower is gearing, weight, driver, and possibly tires.
It has 2lb feet or torque less than the previous generation
HP doesn’t mean faster 0-60, it just means it gets to top speed much quicker
Pound feet of torque is what determines a faster 0-60
More horsepower on same drivetrain can make take offs a little more difficult because of more wheel spin. That’s probably why 0-60 is a little slower and it’s a manual transmission.
The car gained weight. Dark Horse is almost 4000 lbs. Torque is also lower.
A 6 spd with good skills, nope. Seems close to the 4.68 I saw another guy get with a base 6spd. The new car gained 200-280 lbs and lost torque, torque is all 0-80, hp is above that. Plus Ford over rates their power using 93/94 octane vs everyone else using 91. I'd expect a base 5.0 auto to run about 4.3 sec with low fuel for weight.
Such disappointing numbers for the Gt. Maybe your test driver is not good with manuals, I hope...
Why the hell a 4 cylinder has brembo brakes for 😂😂😂😂😂
Did ANYONE pay attention TO the very "Weak" launch during the 1/4 mile test!??? Utterly horrible!! and bogged on top of it all! 🤔
@stangmode did 0-60 in 3.9 secs ain’t no way this is accurate
The previous manual GT ran 12.6-12.7 so this ain’t really surprising . The mph is though 111 mph ? Something ain’t right. Plus the eco being that slow is surprising . Thought it would at least be 5 flat and a 13.6 @102.
yeah, both these cars weigh more than the previous generations, so slower now too...
@@michaelfried3123 how much they weigh ?
@@michaelfried3123 says the Manual GT has a base 3730 Lb curb weight and auto has a 3752 Lb weight so basically the same as the S550 .
@@carltongray3302 its a facelift to the S550, so everything will be similar. Ford lied when they said it was ‘all new’.
@@carltongray3302 that vert weighs 3850 and that GT weighs 3800. about 200 lbs heavier, yeah.
I'm first wow lol
4.8 and 12.7 really aren't great numbers for the GT. Definitely needs a tune.
It was a manual transmission. The auto will be low 12s for sure
Great numbers? 8 year old camaro with manual does 0-60 in 4 seconds flat. These cars are getting heavier and heavier with torque going down.
4.8 is a reflection on the driver's (in)ability to shift/launch properly.
They can’t drive worth of shhh, StangMode ran 3.9 with 3 people in the car and it was a Manual in the GT 😂😂
@@al151 Oops. I left "aren't" out of my comment. I meant to say they aren't great numbers. I corrected my comment.
Slower than my 2018 mustang GT 10 speed that I’ve had for over 5 1/2 years. Why the hell would I buy this?
Can we please get rid of the thought That manuals are faster than automatics… I understand manuals are fun but you cannot outperform a machine spec for spec. 10 spd auto ftw
No one has the thought that manuals are faster, they're just more fun period
Way back when 3 and 4 speed slush box automatics competed against 5 speed manuals that was the case, but that is 30+ year old thinking! If someone still has that impression, they've been under a rock for quite a while.
@@mistamaog there’s definitely a audience of people who think that. Maybe not as many as there use to be but they’re still out there
Only few cars are faster with their manual transmission version. I know GR86, BRZ, and Miata are quite faster with the manual.
@@mistamaog MOST people who drive manuals thinks their faster then the automatic! what rock are you living under… Very rare will you find someone who admits their manual is inferior to the bad ass 10sp automatic in every way except for the “fun” driving experience and the more traditional connection you can only achieve with the M. Ultimately it’s personal preference but If you want speed and the full performance the manual is the wrong choice.
My wife’s Tesla Model Y costs less than the GT and will smoke them both. Under the circumstances, who cares about “performance.” Get the convertible and just enjoy the ride would be my approach.
Model Y is not as fun as a Mustang GT. I know, I had both.
The y performance does 11.8 with Edmunds behind the wheel. The mustangs numbers seem real world realistic. I have owned 8 stangs ( 2017 Gt 350, mighty 04 cobra and 2012 Boss302 ) just to name a few and none of them can touch my y performance 0 to 60 nor the quarter mile times. Still I loved driving them all because the exhaust sounds made them feel fast!😂
No way the gt 0-60 is 4.8 sec and ecoboost 5.6 cause 0-60 for eco definitely 5.1 or 5 on the dot.
Yeah I saw some other guy drive the GT in 105 degree weather and hit 3.9 on a regular road
The numbers are way off here, for both cars lol
The screens are so epically awful
Those numbers are pathetic. The 420-hp 2013 GT Track Pack got tested back then and it put down 4.3 0-60 and 12.7 in the 1/4 ... 11 years later, 66 more hp, and the car is slower 0-60 and the same time in the quarter? You guys either need a better driver or the car is a huge disappointment
That's slow a/f
Either I finally subbed an they drop this garbage or Ford dropped some garbage. I’ll stick to my ‘18 I guess lol
I have an 18 as well and have been saying that I bet these won't run as well as a 3rd gen coyote. They dropped the compression. Won't respond to E as well either
Interesting to see it against the Mustang Mach E
Want to laugh at a 4 cylinder mustang, but at least it’s not an EV!
Bro , Ecoboost engine on a mustang has been around for almost 10 production years. Have you been laughing all this time?
Need something else to laugh about by now 😂
@@M4B21S88 Yep. Been laughing. But, like I said, at least it’s not an EV.
Jesus so my stock MK8 R with DSG will smoke the GT all day.? I did a 12.4 at 110 mph. I expected more out of the GT. I know the 10 speed is much quicker for sure
Its just one video dude lol
Im sure if you were lined up next to this Mustang and they recorded your times also, youd be nowhere near youre very best #s of 12.4 at 110 mph.
@@M4B21S88 Lmao why not? I ran that 12.4 at 110 mph myself in my car at our local race track. Unless they are at high elevation and in some extreme heat when it was ran I don’t see your point
@@mqbr22 am yeah bc DAs affect performance.
You aint running your best time all day every day. If you believe that you is a noob.
@@M4B21S88 I don’t believe that. I understand how DA works. That’s why I said if it was in elevation and heat the DA would have been shit. My run was done in 500 DA. Magazines will sometimes correct to 0 DA so all cars get the same baseline
@@mqbr22 you dont believe what? Thats youre NOT running your best time all day everyday?
Well , dont know what to tell you about that… other than WRONG.
But whatever makes you happy lol
✌🏻 out
Sadly, neither one of those sound like a Mustang :(
The new mustang looks like a big bulky brick.
FORD IS THE “RECALL KINGS” wouldn’t touch one they are guaranteed to have issues and resale on them is horrible too. OVER PRICED CRAP.
You guys should really think twice before posting these slow ass times to the world. You keep doing it over and over.
Too slow way too slow especially at that price
My A90 Supra has nothing to worry about 😊
Your Zupra will get smoked! Trust me!
Just don’t go against a camaro ss 1le around a road coarse 😁
Lol, we'll have to wait and see.
@@al151 my Supra isn't stock though. Keep in mind the SS 1Le is track hardware and tires and one can add the same thing to a Supra
Convertible smh
For years, Mustang trounced the Camaro in yearly sales. Ford Design Team: Hey, let's copy the ugly-ass Camaro!! DUHH WTF were they thinking?
SLOW!!!! I'm disappointed.
Because of manual! 🤦♂️Wait for 10r80…
Stangmode did 3.93sec with a passenger and full tank of gas. These guys just launched bad
@@user-id6wm3vu9fit's a manual stangemode had an automatic
@@user-id6wm3vu9fI was JUST saying THIS!! He launched it as if he was pulling out of a parking spot! As a True Stang man, I DON'T approve these messages!🤔
What else did you expect? They've been slow forever
No more Camaro so mustang will go back to being slow😮
Ford The Recall Kings. Wouldn’t touch one.
*Dam that's slow , instead of buying a Mustang GT you could just buy a 2008 Corvette and have faster times, these Mustangs are just getting too heavy*
lol those are weak times come on now
Its pathetic American cars have such bottom of the barrel efficiency in the second decade of the 21st century when a 2L turbo can smoke this no problem and get 35 mpg too. 4.8 sec for a 5L 500hp engine on a coupe? LOL what a joke and they want $65k for that piece of crap, you can get an S4-S5 for that.
Sooo, my Challenger “boat” is faster. On Goodyear Eagle Sport tires, I’ve managed a 3.9 0-60, and a 12.3 quarter mile. And my best cornering has reached 1.03 G’s. And yes I lost some traction in first and second gear on my straight line runs. I actually wanted a Mustang, (as I do feel there is more technology for the money), but I fit better in the Challenger.
Of course it might just be the drivers and not the Mustang.
It’s the driver and the fact that it’s manual.
Everyone forgets the GT got heavier with all the tech crap and amenities. Sure the hp got bumped up but it lost tq. Watched the dark horse video yesterday the best they got 0-60 was 4.2 sec. And they want like 70k for the dark horse. 10k more for this GT than the old GT I believe. Yep everybody hates on the boat saying it’s so slow but stock the 392 puts down the power much earlier in rpm as does the hellcat. Personally I feel it’s the better car. Iron block bge only way to roll.
@@joshreynolds729 I agree. After I bought the Challenger and outrun my friends Mustang, I realized that I had made the right choice for me. The Mustang engine has too much going on with the overhead cams and chains and double throttle bodies. When I open my hood, I smile at the simplicity when compared. Sadly, the Mustang is going to be the only game in town soon.
@@justpray365 yeah it’s very sad. Hopefully dodge and Chevy pull their heads out their asses and start making ice after Biden is removed and the epa gets stepped on. Then maybe we can have what we want.
Line up, you won’t win though
Smh. Stangs are slow.
Numb uncommunicative steering and slower performance than previous gen... 🤔
So the Tesla Model Y Performance spanks both Mustangs.
So the Shelby GT500 humiliates any Tesla on a roll race
Probably not the Plaids @@jet2135
@@jet2135not the Plaid!
@@ehsanmafi6546 th-cam.com/users/shortsyCe5gb-lxUU
Still not as fun as a Mustang. I have had both.
they couldn't make an uglier car.
Those 0-60 times kinda suck