2024 Mustang GT/EcoBoost Performance Track Testing: 0-60 MPH, 1/4 Mile, Braking & Skid Pad

[5.0S550]

The main point is the s550 and s650 look to be the same weight and we know they are the same gearing. So it most likely should be a little bit faster no matter the transmission simple as that.

Sponsored

 

[VaporGT]

StangMode got some interesting times here:

The 3.93 is a very good time for a RWD 4000 pouds stock GT… Pure Coyote power!

 

[Zcarmenb28]

Squabbling over tenths of a second and a 1mph trap delta is like the cornerstone of forum discussion

What's puzzling to me is... what was everyone expecting? Same gearing, same overall tire footprint and compound class, 8% peak power difference, 2% peak torque difference, same basic chassis with a <100lb difference in curb weight

Testing conditions and driver capability would make a bigger difference

I think people were expecting it to be faster than a 2010 Camaro SS M6 (111 mph) or a 2011 Mustang GT M6 (110.6 mph).

 

[OppoLock]

I think people were expecting it to be faster than a 2010 Camaro SS M6 (111 mph) or a 2011 Mustang GT M6 (110.6 mph).

It’s one test

It’s also been hotter than Derrick Lewis’s balls for the past month

 

[Dub347sbf]

I think people were expecting it to be faster than a 2010 Camaro SS M6 (111 mph) or a 2011 Mustang GT M6 (110.6 mph).

Yeah it will be no doubt. It will be very comparable to a 2018+ S550 with a little more weight and a little more horsepower. The laws of physics still apply, and magazine numbers differ from rag to rag.

 

[IceGamer]

That's what I'm saying, putting final judgement into this test is just setting yourself up for disappointment. 7th gen should be very similar if not a little better in the quarter mile and 0-60 than the previous gen, as we've seen with other reviewers. One subpar review from them and everyone starts getting their panties in a bunch lol. I mean just above someone said the Ecoboost is close to the GT and that's just blasphemy because we all know that's not true. It's just like the steering issue with Throttle House. I think we're all being or prepared to be very critical on the car and we haven't even gotten real testing for the car yet. It's just a first drive.

Do you just want some unreliable numbers or is this some sort of wishful thinking?

This was not "just a first drive"... You can say that about any other literal first drive, including stangmods biased run... Independent means to use third party instruments and not Fords implemented software to measure things.

Real world numbers are:
0-60 mph or 0-100 kmh (will be 0.2 slower)
Unprepped surface
No bullshit rollout
Stock car

Besides:
MT is slower than the AT
The claimed 486hp are at the crank (theoretically, I don't trust these marketing numbers and would like to see some real dyno numbers, whp might be almost exactly the same as S550, ~425hp)
The car was most likely brand new


There will be better times in the future but with regards to independent and reliable numbers those are it. The At might get it down to 4.2 or 4.3 but those are the real world numbers... I would love the car to be much faster but Ford essentially just refreshed the S550 and without AWD we won't see many improvements as the car is struggling with traction.

 

[josaycuervo]

I think the S650 GT's lack luster times are really just bad manual gearing, carried over from the S550 update. A 2016 Camaro SS (also manual) with less horsepower but more torque did a 0-60 test at 4.0s flat. That was on Goodyear Eagle F1s from 7 years ago.

Ford probably kept the tall gearing to keep the EPA Gods happy.

 

[Zig]

They simply didn’t use GoGas.

 

[Tursey]

StangMode got some interesting times here:

Anybody trusted he wasn't downhill??? xD

It's amusing how many people are blaming the car vs the actual drivers and setups in this "review". As we said, Stangmode got it down to 3.8 with the A10 which means the car is still plenty potent and powerful. We all know the manual is slower, but for it to be a full second slower proves to be more of a skill issue than anything else. Let's wait and see true instrument testing from other reviewers before we put all our eggs in "Edmunds".

That was downhill for sure

 

[Zig]

89 octane?

 

[Zig]

So seems to be they may be implying one should really be cautious with any convertible that’s willing to give you a drop-top head start? Lol. 6-7 seconds ain’t bad but that’s an eternity when 0-60 is concerned.

 

[DannyJ7]

Of course they pick the heavier convertible Ecoboost to test...

Right? Give us the hard top numbers!

 

[Zig]

Ask them this: did you burn the clutch? If not, you didn’t find the limit. Doh.

 

[Snakeman]

I’m trading in my Performance Tesla that hits 60 in 3.5 seconds for a GT. I’d rather drive something that’s more engaging.

And doesn't look like a golf cart!
Just saying

 

[t_ice14]

Here are the Edmunds track test numbers and they are as slow as expected:

GT 0-60 in 4.8
1/4 mile in 12.7, which is decent.

Ecoboost convertible
0-60 in 5.6
1/4 mile in 14.2

here is the video:

I think those numbers are far off some speculated 3.6 or 3.9 seconds and I don't think the DH will be any close to that... My guess is 4.1 if we're lucky.

Embarrassingly slow. I had a 2015 MT that ran 12.60's. My 2019 AT ran 12.50's when I got it and runs 12.13 with a tune. Sounds like this is a step backwards even with more HP.

Sponsored