I personally like the new Mustang GT convertible. When they 1st came out I was hesitate about the look. Rented one for a few days couple weeks ago in nice beach weather and it handled great and took bumps decently. Fuel economy was great for a V-8 and for a busy town. Most rental places didn't have a Mustang in stock except for a boatload of Cameros, Corevettes, and similar.
+TechNation thats nothing, I find the clutch to grab too high up in the travel. COME ON 392 HEMI CHALLENGER!! (with the 6spd, none of that automatic kaaakaaa)
5.2 to 60 and 13.5 quarter don't look too good. One of the reasons I got one is that it's faster than my other car, a 2003 Evo. But looks like my Evo and Mustang are about the same, Evo maybe a little quicker. Bu then I heard the video they used regular fuel when you should be putting premium. Maybe that would explain the bad performance?
The regular fuel, which cuts down hp and torque, is my guess as well... I'm also guessing they left it in "normal" mode instead of switching it to sports or track mode. The automatics run better times than the best drivers with a manual these days. The coupe runs 12.7-12.8 quarters at stock, I really doubt the convertible would be 0.7-0.8 seconds slower
+jodl73 Did a little research as this was bugging me, in sports or track mode the S550 convertible GTs should be 13.0-13.1 quarters at stock, or roughly only 0.3 seconds slower than the coupe. The reviewer definitely left it in "normal mode".
Fuel economy dropped for V6 and V8 models, compared to the last generation. Power is also down for the V6, just so buyers can choose the 2.3 Liter EcoBoost Engine.
No it's not. Ford used the lower octane fuel rather than premium used in previous tests. Slight of hand from Ford to make the turbo 4 look better. They also discontinued the premium package on the V6 to slow sales. It worked and the V6 has been dropped.
To Ford: raise the cars side profile lines at the rear. Could you lower the hood height a little? Thankfully they didn't put ugly black wheels on this test car.
Davis is sports car nuts! All he wants to show are $100k sports cars instead of what the REAL motorists are driving and that would be mostly SUVs and Pick up trucks.
Let face it the fun days of the Mustangs are Gone As if you look closely the Mustangs look like over sized Nissans and is sad 3900 pounds at that Wow what a Limo and they say 5.0 Naw Naw the 5.0 was a 4.00 bore by a 3.00 stroke Not a 3.63 bore by 3.63 stroke Really Ford Sad but True Truely Thinkin Ford got Nissan into play As the last Truely Fun Mustang was 2004 and the Cobra was a Work of Excellence but Gone Forever 😢
@2:46 The infamous "new" Ford chime noise lol
I personally like the new Mustang GT convertible. When they 1st came out I was hesitate about the look. Rented one for a few days couple weeks ago in nice beach weather and it handled great and took bumps decently. Fuel economy was great for a V-8 and for a busy town. Most rental places didn't have a Mustang in stock except for a boatload of Cameros, Corevettes, and similar.
I had no idea that Lawrence Fishburne worked for Motorweek!
Look Ma, I'm on Motorweek!
Was the seat belt comfy? Lol
+Ernesto Andre lol. Honestly, not really.
+TechNation thats nothing, I find the clutch to grab too high up in the travel. COME ON 392 HEMI CHALLENGER!! (with the 6spd, none of that automatic kaaakaaa)
BMan100 I've actually driven the manual Ecoboost Stang and I definitely agree about the clutch.
TechNation Vs the Challengers which is nice short and progressive. I am still kicking my butt on selling the 2012 SRT I had @_@
Well i guess my 2015 gt 6mt vert 12.5s 1/4 mile time is not to bad (pp2 plus corsa extreme exhaust cat back)
I like the roof lines better on the convertible compared to the fastback.
Same!
Mustang GT not Ford GT. Ford GT is a supercar
They're both amazingly beautiful.
400 lb/ft of torque is low??
Low compared to what's?
the 5.0 and GT emblems don't work. put back the round cap on the panel between the taillights.
What gear ratio did this one have the 3.31 or the 3.55 or the 3.73?????
Michael Meyer probably 3.15
Is it me, or is there grass growing on the 1/4 mile track?
I noticed as well
5.2 to 60 and 13.5 quarter don't look too good. One of the reasons I got one is that it's faster than my other car, a 2003 Evo. But looks like my Evo and Mustang are about the same, Evo maybe a little quicker. Bu then I heard the video they used regular fuel when you should be putting premium. Maybe that would explain the bad performance?
The regular fuel, which cuts down hp and torque, is my guess as well... I'm also guessing they left it in "normal" mode instead of switching it to sports or track mode. The automatics run better times than the best drivers with a manual these days. The coupe runs 12.7-12.8 quarters at stock, I really doubt the convertible would be 0.7-0.8 seconds slower
Yes sport mode makes a big difference.
+jodl73 Did a little research as this was bugging me, in sports or track mode the S550 convertible GTs should be 13.0-13.1 quarters at stock, or roughly only 0.3 seconds slower than the coupe. The reviewer definitely left it in "normal mode".
the reshaped backend looks better and less girly than the hardtop.
Fuel economy dropped for V6 and V8 models, compared to the last generation. Power is also down for the V6, just so buyers can choose the 2.3 Liter EcoBoost Engine.
No it's not. Ford used the lower octane fuel rather than premium used in previous tests. Slight of hand from Ford to make the turbo 4 look better. They also discontinued the premium package on the V6 to slow sales. It worked and the V6 has been dropped.
To Ford: raise the cars side profile lines at the rear. Could you lower the hood height a little? Thankfully they didn't put ugly black wheels on this test car.
I can see a 13 second pass convertibles are heavy
slowlsj 170 lbs heavier then the coup
still testing at 75&80 I see.
COOL MotorWeek | Road Test: 2015 Ford Mustang GT Convertible
People balking at the price crack me up. Its not 195,6,7,8,9s any more. Also this car is way more car than those cars Out the door.
Davis is sports car nuts! All he wants to show are $100k sports cars instead of what the REAL motorists are driving and that would be mostly SUVs and Pick up trucks.
Needs rollover bars and the top cover On the camaro looks better
Title FAIL this is not a Ford GT!
I would expect better than 5.2 to 60 and 13.5 in the 1/4th.. I know this thing is heavy, but it's not like it's 4,000lbs.. oh wait.
thought you Unsubscribed
I did.
+Laweeze Morton
The 6 speeds with a skilled driver are pulling mid to high 12's. Throw some DR on there, low 12's.
I kinda feel the new convertible mustang looks kinda like a Z4 with a back seat that nobody can sit it
I don't know if I'm the only one I'll shut up
Title should say Mustang GT
Where do the back seat passenger's knees go? :)
GT should be $28k and vert should be $32k
that's not a ford gt
0:14 Tan fail.
Grass on the track looks like the rest of Detroit, neglected and worn-out.
Jack Gleason This isn't filmed in Detroit dumbass
Nothing like reviewing a car 6 months after its debut.
Always a complaint towards the Mustang. Not just from Motorweek but from every magazine nitpicking like woman is a no no
challenger rt is better. my opinion
Let face it the fun days of the Mustangs are Gone As if you look closely the Mustangs look like over sized Nissans and is sad 3900 pounds at that Wow what a Limo and they say 5.0 Naw Naw the 5.0 was a 4.00 bore by a 3.00 stroke Not a 3.63 bore by 3.63 stroke Really Ford Sad but True Truely Thinkin Ford got Nissan into play As the last Truely Fun Mustang was 2004 and the Cobra was a Work of Excellence but Gone Forever 😢
Automatics suck.
Automatic? That's lame.
these mustang are ugly looks the same as 2014 s197