2015 mustang gained 200-300 lbs? - Page 3 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2015 Mustang GT



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 06-09-2014, 11:06 PM   #71
Registered Member
Regular
 
NewMtang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Region: Indiana
Posts: 1,951
Just quit Supersizing You Mickey D's and a couple of months you won't notice a thing.
__________________
2013 Silver V6 Premium, Ford Racing Handling Package, MGP Black Caliper Covers, Airaid CAI, Bama Tuner, BBK Catted X-Pipes, Corsa Sport Axle-Back Exhaust, Alum One Piece Driveshaft, BBK Ceramic Shorties, Whiteline Adj. UCA, Whiteling ADJ. Lower Control Arms, Whiteline Adj. Pan Hard Bar, Upgraded Rotors (Cross Cut and Drilled), Ceramic Pads, J&M Stainless Steel Brake Lines (Front and Back), 18" Staggered Chrome Bullitts, MMD Eleanor Side Scoops, Side Scoops, Roush Front and Lower Grilles and Super Snake Stripes.
NewMtang is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-09-2014, 11:31 PM   #72
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Texas
Region: Texas
Posts: 182
I was hoping for less weight because for those that do track their cars, weight not only penalizes performance, but costs you more in consumables like brake pads and tires. The 1LE is a great track car, but not cheap to operate due to its heft.

I was never expecting Corvette weight, but if its substantially over the weight of the current mustang I'll be very disappointed.
BadCon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 09:01 AM   #73
It's not me, it's you.
Regular
Supporter
 
primer2tone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Corpus Christi
Region: Texas
Posts: 6,752
I read something yesterday that the new GT fastback weighed in at 3,704lbs.
I'll try to find the link and post it.
primer2tone is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-13-2014, 09:03 AM   #74
It's not me, it's you.
Regular
Supporter
 
primer2tone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Corpus Christi
Region: Texas
Posts: 6,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMtang View Post
Just quit Supersizing You Mickey D's and a couple of months you won't notice a thing.
**** you! I like my fries supppasized!!!
Lol, jk!
primer2tone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 09:05 AM   #75
It's not me, it's you.
Regular
Supporter
 
primer2tone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Corpus Christi
Region: Texas
Posts: 6,752
http://jalopnik.com/the-2015-mustang...nds-1590194961
primer2tone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 09:26 AM   #76
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
So much for the 300 pound weight reduction as I figured it was all B.S.
gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 10:00 AM   #77
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladiatoro View Post
So much for the 300 pound weight reduction as I figured it was all B.S.
It being NA, Still going to be faster than a supercharged 3v

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 11:24 AM   #78
Registered Member
Regular
 
mikeygaga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Long Island
Region: New York
Posts: 556
Well at least it's not 300lbs. I can deal with 80 on the GT.
__________________
2016 GT- Lund tune, jlt intake, mbrp catback.
2014 3.7 - SOLD
mikeygaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 11:57 AM   #79
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
So Ford made the Mustang lighter, then added an IRS. Makes sense. I still wish they would drop the weigh considerably- but the mostly aluminum probably won't come around until the next refresh.

Sent from my XT1049 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 07:19 PM   #80
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
It being NA, Still going to be faster than a supercharged 3v

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Highly unlikely 3700+ pounds roughly 440 hp hmmm... My 3v V8 makes
540 HP intercooled running 10psi with my V3 Vortech and weighs 3550 with 20" rims and a centri which by the way are super light , you do the math.
Unless the S555 has a blower it will be no contest they are heavy pigs.
It's all about power to weight ratio you should know that.
gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 07:20 PM   #81
ME Bloodhound
Staff
 
Soccerluvr4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento/Bay Area
Region: California
Posts: 14,672
Rapinator...... Don't respond, it's not worth it.
__________________

Bullitt build paused pending graduation

HID end all thread
Soccerluvr4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 07:22 PM   #82
Registered Member
Regular
 
V6 stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 2,252
2015 mustang gained 200-300 lbs?

I think gladiator is right...
Mwahahahahhahahah

*sets down gas can*
__________________
"Hp sells cars, Tq wins races" - Carroll Shelby... RIP
2012 Mustang GT Convertible
Roush Exhaust

2003 Mustang GT (Sold)
1999 35th Anniversary V6(SOLD)
V6 stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 07:52 PM   #83
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,588
Keep it civil. There is also a lot more than "I make X power with Y weight, I'm faster" which anyone who has ever been to a track will understand.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 10:23 PM   #84
Registered Member
Regular
 
Bear376's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Stillwater
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 351
The weights are essentially the same as previous generation. No weight advantage, but since the weight is more in the rear, it should improve handling and performance. I suspect that future models will lose weight from advances in materials over the next few years.
__________________
2013 MCA Edition-Sterling Grey
Roush body kit - Splitters/hood scoop
Whiteline suspension w/Koni shocks
Bear376 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 06:03 AM   #85
Registered Member
Regular
 
Clink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Florida
Posts: 567
If it out performs the Boss who cares if it gained a few lbs? I thought only women complained about weight...
Clink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 07:15 AM   #86
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Montreal
Region: Canada
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadCon View Post
Thats sad, really sad. Makes me happy with my 2012. What do you get when you take a GT mustang, give it independent suspension and an extra couple hundred pounds? A Camaro SS....

Good luck Ford. The new Cobra better have over 700hp lol.
+1

I bought my 2012 with a critical weight criteria. It had to be lighter or equal to my previous cars. It made it barely (5 pounds lighter !!!). I am glad I made the move, because it seems that it crossed the line now. I had 2 transams, but I may not purchase a second mustang. I am very satisfied with my Mustang as it is now.
__________________
2012 GT 5.0 - MT82 - 3.55 rear axle ratio - Air aid CAI - Hypertech programming set to premium fuel - Borla ATAK exhaust system - BBK 90 mm TB - one piece driveshaft from DSS
*previous 2002 Trans Am GT 5.7L LS1
*previous 1994 Trans Am GT 5.7L LT1
*previous 1990 Taurus SHO 3L Yamaha Shogun
*previous : life was boring !
UP North is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 08:16 AM   #87
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by UP North View Post
+1

I bought my 2012 with a critical weight criteria. It had to be lighter or equal to my previous cars. It made it barely (5 pounds lighter !!!). I am glad I made the move, because it seems that it crossed the line now. I had 2 transams, but I may not purchase a second mustang. I am very satisfied with my Mustang as it is now.
I had a 95 Trans Am GT Lt1 5.7 L with the corvette engine I liked the car but the engineering was horrible changing the spark plugs was an all day affair ( very tight fit ) and once my fuel pump went and the rear axle had to be dropped to get to it what a joke.
gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 05:05 PM   #88
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladiatoro View Post
I had a 95 Trans Am GT Lt1 5.7 L with the corvette engine I liked the car but the engineering was horrible changing the spark plugs was an all day affair ( very tight fit ) and once my fuel pump went and the rear axle had to be dropped to get to it what a joke.
Please enlighten the rest of us on this "Trans Am GT". Also every V8 Camarobird came with the "Vette engine".
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 05:18 PM   #89
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,252
.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1402784325843.jpg
Views:	110
Size:	63.5 KB
ID:	159251  
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 05:24 PM   #90
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,588
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 08:23 PM   #91
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Montreal
Region: Canada
Posts: 63
lol, it is true that GM have abused of the 350 cubic inch block. That pic may just as well show a very old pickup with a GM 350 in it. It boasted 160 HP, a formidable powerhouse for the time

The Transam's from 93 to 2002 all had corvette engines. The engine previous to the present corvette engine. While my 94 had the LT1 V8, the LS1 was in corvettes. It is true that the early models had several flaws, but then my 2002 was a fine sports car, with most problems fixed. I bought one of the last cars produced, plant was just 50 miles from my home. In 2002, the engine was the LS1, one of the engines previously offered in corvettes. LS engines are still widely used in race cars (nascar style, there are many series and I am less familiar with these).

Camaro's of that era used the same V8 engines as the Transam's, but with diferent setups (factory ram air for example). I did not opt for these, but you could get the same for transams in aftermarket parts and some hood cosmetics.

Nonetheless, The LS1 was more than 10 years old when I bought my coyote, 2 years ago. Still, it is a favorite for moders and race teams even now. It is a 350 cu.inch V8, pushrod. Mine had 400 HP, but I am not a radical with power, it could give much more and has, in other machines. That engine is also a star in custom planes (civil projects).

True, changing the spark plugs was an adventure : you had to remove the conditionned air components to access spark plug #8, which was basically in the gloves compartment !
__________________
2012 GT 5.0 - MT82 - 3.55 rear axle ratio - Air aid CAI - Hypertech programming set to premium fuel - Borla ATAK exhaust system - BBK 90 mm TB - one piece driveshaft from DSS
*previous 2002 Trans Am GT 5.7L LS1
*previous 1994 Trans Am GT 5.7L LT1
*previous 1990 Taurus SHO 3L Yamaha Shogun
*previous : life was boring !
UP North is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 08:26 PM   #92
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,252
It's not a "corvette engine" there are differences. Might as well call the 5.0 in the f150 a mustang engine then.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 08:28 PM   #93
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,252
That's what me and scottydsntknow where getting at with his " corvette engine " comment. the ls1 in the camaro/firebird is not the same as the ls6 in the c5 z06. Just as the ls1 in the base c5 is not the same as the one in the camaro/ firebird

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 12:07 AM   #94
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Charlotte, NC
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
That's what me and scottydsntknow where getting at with his " corvette engine " comment. the ls1 in the camaro/firebird is not the same as the ls6 in the c5 z06. Just as the ls1 in the base c5 is not the same as the one in the camaro/ firebird

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
That's not exactly true All 97-04 regular C5's had the exact same LS1 that the 98-02 Fbodies had. Over the years the cams changed slightly but the engine itself is the same. Although obviously the engine accessories were different (intake manifolds, EGR, TB's, Intake manifolds, exhaust, etc). With the exception some late model 02's had a LS6 block instead of the LS1 block.

The HP rating difference between F bodies and Corvettes (305 base F body, 320 F body with ram air (which doesn't do anything unless your going 120+), and 345 C5) has been proven to be manufactured numbers for GM to sell more of the expensive cars. Its been dyno proven time after time that any stock LS1 regardless of year puts down roughly 300 to the wheels. Only difference is the 01+ models with the LS6 intake put down slightly more.

With that being said I never understand why people refer to their F bodies as having "Corvette engines" while its the same engine as the corvette its the stock engine that came in their car from the factory. From the way some people say that it can almost sound like GM offered a F body LS1 and a Corvette LS1 and they paid for the Corvette LS1 in their F body which isn't the case.
StarzTA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 12:18 AM   #95
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Charlotte, NC
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by UP North View Post
lol, it is true that GM have abused of the 350 cubic inch block. That pic may just as well show a very old pickup with a GM 350 in it. It boasted 160 HP, a formidable powerhouse for the time

The Transam's from 93 to 2002 all had corvette engines. The engine previous to the present corvette engine. While my 94 had the LT1 V8, the LS1 was in corvettes. It is true that the early models had several flaws, but then my 2002 was a fine sports car, with most problems fixed. I bought one of the last cars produced, plant was just 50 miles from my home. In 2002, the engine was the LS1, one of the engines previously offered in corvettes. LS engines are still widely used in race cars (nascar style, there are many series and I am less familiar with these).
The LT1's and LS1's were in both F bodies and Corvettes. The first year GM introduced the engines they were only offered in the Corvettes but after that it was the same engine (regardless of what car). And for what its worth the LS1 is not 350 c.i. its only 346 and is basically a different engine from a standard Chevy 350.

92-96 Corvettes = LT1
93-97 F bodies = LT1
97-04 Corvettes = LS1
98-02 F bodies = LS1
StarzTA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 06:20 AM   #96
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Montreal
Region: Canada
Posts: 63
Thanks for historic info regarding GM's V8, I have just learned why my summer 2002 Transam was so much different. It also had a lighter, much stronger driving shaft to actually use the torque and power, too (larger, empty aluminium shaft, racing style instead of the tiny steel shear pin). A good thing, because I had lost 2 driving shafts before that. Also lost 1 transmission on each transam (with the new shaft), and 'bent' the 1994 (not rigid enough for the increased power, driver door would not close, windshield cracked ).

Production plant at BoisBriand Qc was shutdown at the end of august 2002.

But they could keep the weight at roughly 3575 lbs, all along.

The Mustang has always been a light car, and it was even lighter in those days. This is why a less potent engine did not prevent them from being as quick as the stronger Transams, although the latter had higher top speeds, with few add-ons.

The Mustang had already gained back some weight in 2011, but the coyote was a clear win and compensated, so that I consider the 2011-2014 Mustang to be the current defender for the best pony car around. When I was shopping, I rapidly eliminated the chryslers (good cars, but 2 tons !!!!).

Now, the Mustang is apparently catching up weight (closer to 2 tons ...) , and I feel like the present Mustangs will be missed and become a want-to-have item on this market. If the weight gain does not come with independent rear suspension, The Mustang will not prevail as the best choice, which it is currently.
__________________
2012 GT 5.0 - MT82 - 3.55 rear axle ratio - Air aid CAI - Hypertech programming set to premium fuel - Borla ATAK exhaust system - BBK 90 mm TB - one piece driveshaft from DSS
*previous 2002 Trans Am GT 5.7L LS1
*previous 1994 Trans Am GT 5.7L LT1
*previous 1990 Taurus SHO 3L Yamaha Shogun
*previous : life was boring !
UP North is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 08:16 AM   #97
Registered Member
Regular
 
GrabberMeBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Somewhere
Region: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,710
The LT1 in the F-Body had 2 bolt mains. The Corvette motor had 4 bolt mains.
__________________
2012 Grabber Blue V6 Convertible
1995 Red Trans Am Convertible
1979 Gold Trans Am
GrabberMeBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 09:30 AM   #98
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,252
Which makes it different and not a " corvette engine" like I said then if that's the case f150's have " mustang engines " lol. I think it's stupid to say it has a corvette engine

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 09:45 AM   #99
Registered Member
Regular
 
GrabberMeBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Somewhere
Region: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
Which makes it different and not a " corvette engine" like I said then if that's the case f150's have " mustang engines " lol. I think it's stupid to say it has a corvette engine

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app

I would agree, and I own a '95 T/A. Never have I ever told anyone I have a Corvette engine. As much as I would like to add fuel rail covers, the only ones you can even find anymore say Corvette on them. First, they don't fit the F-Body LT1, second, even if they did, I wouldn't put them on since they don't say Trans Am, Pontiac, LT1, or something else specific to my car.
__________________
2012 Grabber Blue V6 Convertible
1995 Red Trans Am Convertible
1979 Gold Trans Am
GrabberMeBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 12:44 PM   #100
ME Bloodhound
Staff
 
Soccerluvr4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento/Bay Area
Region: California
Posts: 14,672
How did this go from the Mustang gaining weight to GM engines?
__________________

Bullitt build paused pending graduation

HID end all thread
Soccerluvr4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 01:12 PM   #101
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccerluvr4 View Post
How did this go from the Mustang gaining weight to GM engines?
Bc mustang lol.

Yet they Said it's barely a 100 pound weight increase.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 03:26 PM   #102
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
I believe it's 20-80 depending on which one.

Sent from my XT1049 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2014, 03:30 PM   #103
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Image from Jalopnik.com

For saving only 9 pounds, I'll keep/take the v6. I do wonder how the new badging will go.

Sent from my XT1049 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1402864151656.jpg
Views:	109
Size:	83.2 KB
ID:	159309  
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 09:31 AM   #104
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
So after all the heated arguments about the styling, ecoboost, front end, rear end, interior, euro design...all that mattered was the weight? This is ridiculous! So Ford could have re-released the 76 Mustang II that was 750 lbs lighter than the 2014 and there'd be a line around the building to get one.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 09:34 AM   #105
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,588
If Ford re-released the fox notch with updated tech and the engine/trans combos in the current Mustangs you bet your *** there would be a line around the building to get one.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2015 Mustang GT

Tags
2015 mustang

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2015 Mustang sells for $300,000 at Scottsdale auction elkk 2015 Mustang GT 0 01-20-2014 10:58 PM
200,300 miles on my GT Sharky97 1996-2004 Mustang GT 2 02-04-2011 08:02 AM
What's the approximate HP gained to my Mustang 08 these mods? charly General Mustang Discussion 4 03-20-2010 03:18 PM
Tq wrench... inch lbs or foot lbs SpectorV The Bar 11 11-28-2007 08:53 AM
300 Second Trailor of 300 bluemustang The Bar 7 03-05-2007 08:15 AM

» Like Us On Facebook



04:34 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.