2015 Ford Mustang Weight-to-Power Ratios Explored

19
2015 Ford Mustang Weight-to-Power Ratios Explored
Share this Article

The 2015 Ford Mustang promises to be a better car in just about every measurable way compared to the outgoing model. It’s got extra power, a much more advanced chassis and loads of advanced technology. But how will it perform? Let’s explore this car’s weight-to-power ratio.

WEIGHT, WEIGHT… DO TELL ME!

Much to the relief of enthusiasts everywhere the car is NOT dramatically heavier; you could almost hear the internet release a collective sigh of relief when the numbers were posted. Sure it’s put on a few pounds but you might have gained more this year than the Mustang has.

The fastback model with an EcoBoost engine and automatic transmission should be the lightest. They’re expected to check out at 3,524 pounds, which is just six pounds more than a similar six-cylinder 2014 Mustang, its closest competitor since obviously a turbo-four is not currently offered.

2014-2015 Mustang Comparison

The greatest mass delta is found when comparing GT fastback models equipped with manual transmissions. The 2015 car is expected to gain 87 pounds compared to today’s version. Accordingly it should weigh 3,705 pounds. If you prefer an automatic transmission this variant should check out at 3,729 pounds, a 54-pound increase.

SEE ALSO: 2015 Ford Mustang Ride Along

The base V6-powered Mustang coupe should gain anywhere between 12 and 30 pounds depending on transmission. Cars with the manual gain more but weigh slightly less. Total mass should measure 3,526 pounds with the manual and 3,530 with the self-shifting gearbox.

Pony Power

2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-42.JPGWith the exception of its base V6 the 2015 ‘Stang is gaining a lot of oomph. The new 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-banger promises to put out a stout 310 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque. With a dual-scroll turbocharger, direct fuel injection and careful tuning it should sound pretty good and offer abundant low-end responsiveness.

But the engine you really want is Ford’s freshly tweaked Coyote V8. The five-point-oh-my-gosh is set to deliver 435 hp and 400 lb-ft of twist. The engine incorporates lessons learned from the Boss 302 program. It features new intake ports, larger valves, more aggressive camshafts and charge-motion control valves in the intake manifold to promote swirl for better drivability and cleaner emissions.

2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-33.JPGBy comparison the 5.0-liter V8 in today’s Mustang delivers a still-impressive 420 hp with 390 lb-ft.

The 2015 car’s entry-level engine remains a 3.7-liter V6. It should put out an even 300 horses and 280 units of twist, five fewer ponies than today’s car. That drop is attributable to a redesigned intake manifold that was necessitated by the hood, which has been lowered by something like 35 millimeters.

Pounds Per Horsepower

One of the best metrics for evaluating a vehicle’s performance capability is looking at its weight-to-power ratio. This is a measure of how many pounds every pony has to lug around. The more mass each equine is saddled with the more blunted the performance should be.

2014 V6 Mustang Numbers

A 2014 Mustang with the V6 engine and a manual transmission weighs about 3,496 pounds. Dividing that figure by 305, which is the car’s horsepower rating, results in 11.46 pounds per horsepower. Not too shabby.

2015 EcoBoost Mustang Numbers

A similarly equipped 2015 model weighs 3,526 pounds and brandishes 300 ponies. Doing the math that works out to about 11.75 pounds per horsepower, slightly worse. An EcoBoost fastback with a stick weighs 3,524 pounds and has 310 horses, numbers that work out to 11.37 pounds per pony, slightly better than the 2014 car can muster. That’s progress, albeit a baby-step forward.

2014 Mustang GT Numbers

Shifting our attention to the 2014 Mustang GT with a manual, it strains the scale at a burly 3,618 pounds. Dividing that figure by 420 results in a rating of 8.61 pounds per horsepower, which is significantly better than either the V6 or EcoBoost models.

2015 Mustang GT Numbers

The 2015 equivalent should clock in at 3,705 pounds, which means each one of its 435 ponies is saddled with just 8.52 pounds. That’s a better power-to-weight ratio than an Audi R8 V8 Spyder (8.82) or a Porsche Cayman S PDK (9.16), two very well-respected performance machines.

2004 Mustang Numbers

Looking way back in the rear-view mirror it’s incredible how far the Mustang has come over the last 10 years. For a little perspective a 2004 GT coupe was powered by a SOHC 4.6-liter V8 that delivered just 260 hp, 40 LESS than the new six-cylinder engine despite having almost a liter’s worth of additional displacement! With a curb weight around 3,006 pounds this decade-old car had a weight-to-power ratio of 11.56, only slightly better than the 2015 base model.

1965 Mustang Numbers

For an even more dramatic comparison, check out a 1965 Mustang’s specs. Hardtop models weighed around 2,556 pounds. If customers sidestepped the standard inline-six and opted for the available 289 V8 instead they were treated to 220 horses. Crunching these numbers results in a rating of 11.61 pounds per pony, not as far off as you might expect thanks in large part to the car’s feather-light curb weight.

GALLERY: 2015 Ford Mustang Performance

2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-12.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-14.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-15.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-10.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-04.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-07.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-01.JPG

2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-09.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-16.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-18.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-17.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-20.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-21.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-26.JPG

2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-32.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-37.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-31.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-28.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-30.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-34.JPG2015-Ford-Mustang-Performance-40.JPG

Discuss this story on our Ford forum.

  • R&D rockets

    They should have made the eco boost power a little higher. only 10 more than the v6. Probably could have gotten it to 350. then it wouldnt have had a lower power to weight ratio.

  • ChristianWilliamson

    the biggest point your missing is the 2015’s numbers are officially posted on 93 octane whereas the 2011-2014’s numbers were officially posted on 87 octane. its not really an honest comparison when you understand that ecu the way mustang enthusiasts that own a 2011-2014 do. Allow me to explain.

    speaking specifically to the v6 (as thats what I own and race). These engines are constantly trying to advance timing. They do so, and then when they start to detect conditions that show signs that knock is coming (lean afr) it pulls timing. So even a stock car doesnt make 305 HP with an untuned ecu if you put 93 octane in it. it makes more because it can.

    the other factor here nobody is talking about is that for both cars. these are numbers “at the crankshaft”. these arent “on the dyno numbers”. not for the 2014, or the 2015.

    now, if you do some simple googling you’ll find stock baseline dyno runs for the gt on a dynojet dyno on mustang forums are between 350 and 368 rwhp for stock 2011-2014’s on a dynojet dyno. That puts the gt between 420 and 430ish hp at the crankshaft. thats exactly in line with what the new gt is claiming. As it shoud. But the v6 is more telling.

    stock v6’s are dyno’ing right around 245-255 rwhp. that also puts it right in line with the with the stock claimed 305 hp claimed at the crankshaft for the 2011-2014.

    now this is the part thats more telling. if you look at american muscle and bama performances initial testing video on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adSx7MGTecE ) you can see that the v6 alone gains 5h rwhp on average just by puting 93 octane in a stock car. which is more like 7 hp at the crankshaft. So for all extents an purposes, the stock 2011-2014 v6 doesnt make 305 stock on 93 octane. it makes more like 312 at the crankshaft.

    so when they say the new v6 makes 300 on 93 octane, it begs to wonder why the v6 lost around 7hp in a direct comparison, same octane to same octane. the answer is most likely a combination of weight + driveline loss. But it still doesnt change the fact that when you look at the math of actual real word testing, assuming ford’s 2015 published numbers are accurate that these care are either no faster than the 2011-2014, or they are slower.

    i just really dont like how these conversations are happening on auto blogs right now. they dont seem as researched as they should be in my opinion. So thanks if you actually took the time to read this.

    – Christian Williamson

  • Martin McManus

    The thing is, any decent tuning company will be able to remap the ecoboost engine to at least 370 HP. That’s a fairly modest 19%, which isn’t pushing it on a forced induction engine. That’s with everything else stock. That gives it a ratio of 9.52, which on a drag strip means it MAY be a bit slower than the GT (I say may, as who knows what the torque figure would be!), but I would say it would be quicker on the twisty bits, as 205lbs makes a big difference to handling!
    So, taking in to account that an ecoboost is likely to be several thousand dollars cheaper, and a remap only costs a few hundred dollars………….

  • onlycodered

    The article states why the V6 lost power. It’s due to a re-designed intake manifold because of a hood that’s 35 millimeters lower than the 2014.

  • nopeyup

    Here we go again, a another modded car versus a stock car comparison. If you have to mod your car to try and keep up with the stock car, you’ve already lost.

  • twobitcoder

    That was a lot of words to make the case for 7 hp. Who cares if the same Ford testing center did the 2014 and 2015? Who cares?

  • twobitcoder

    The Ecoboost 3.5L-TT makes about that (365hp), so the 2.3L-T isn’t going to see those numbers without a ton of upgrades, and then you’ve got extra cost, and you might as well buy a GT.

  • Doug Larsen

    All of these numbers forget one thing the weight of the driver………..

  • Andrew

    The 2004 Mustang GT was quite a bit heavier than 3,006 lbs

  • Ed

    Very interesting. These are the kinds of articles that I like: facts.

  • Norm Peterson

    Power to weight is the easy metric for dragstrip-oriented comparisons. But for street driving situatioons, autocrossing, and road course running I’d also like to see torque and gearing vs weight. You’ll be running at or near peak torque a lot more of the time than you’ll be at peak HP.

  • Fabian

    Not absolutely because weight is effectively an important factor. Of course you could buy a GT and make it lighter also. Then you have the cost.

  • David Wiles Kucera

    The only problem with this article is that they use weight to power ratios based on flywheel HP. What is really important is the W/P ratio based on rear wheel HP. Using the GT manual as an example the ratios based on flywheel HP are 8.61 for the 2014 vs 8.52 for the 2015. A very small difference. But when you factor in the unknown increase in drive line losses because the 2015 has Independent Rear Suspension it probably is going to be a “wash”. The 2015 may very well be a faster car in the track, but I doubt that it will be any faster than the 2014 on the street or the drag strip.

  • Dr. Chim

    Is this saying a 2004 Mustang GT is faster than a new 5.0. Interesting.

  • Jojo

    That 2004 weight is totally wrong.

  • Brett

    It can’t be correct, I managed to walk a 2004 GT in my 11 v6

  • Clayton Morin

    But, but, but, reports from ford state the new Mustang will shed something like 400 pounds off, this means your whole story here is moot

  • Scott

    You are contridicting you’re own point here. Yow say the 305 and 300 hp #’s for the V-6’s are crank hp then you say the drop from 305 to 300 is due to weigh and drive line losses – these will be evident in the RW hp #s but not the crank #s.

    Scott

  • ChristianWilliamson

    theres a difference between a contradiction and a typographical error.

    but never mind internet sherlock holmes, you clearly can read minds. btw, what was that song that was stuck in my head all day? i cant place it, maybe you can?