2015 Ford Mustang GT

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

so much want...

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.

In reply to Andy Neuman:

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

In reply to Flight Service:

+1

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

Ian F wrote: In reply to Flight Service: +1. I didn't think Mustangs would be discounted so soon.

Agreed!

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.