The big news this morning was that the 2015 Ford Mustang would start at $24,425, including its destination pricing. The big news this afternoon is, well, bigger.

Mustang6G.com has come up with what it claims is pricing info for the entire Mustang line, rather than just the V6. That means we know all about the EcoBoost and GT prices now, which, when combined with the dealer order sheets we reported on last week, gives us our clearest look yet at how the Mustang can be outfitted (we're still a bit short on pricing info for some standalone options, like paint premiums and such).

The base EcoBoost starts at $25,995, while the GT rings up at $32,925.

The base V6 wears the code-name 050A, while the base EcoBoost is 100A and the base GT is 300A. All prices include the $825 destination charge.

We already know the most basic, V6-powered Mustang, the 050A, starts at $24,425. The upgraded V6, which Ford identifies as 051A, costs $25,420 and adds 18-inch wheels, LED foglamps, a six-way power drivers seat and a body color spoiler.

The base EcoBoost starts at $25,995, while the GT rings up at $32,925 (a $1,715 increase). Regardless of engine, the Premium trims, code-named 200A and 400A, respectively, are virtually identical. They add selectable drive modes, a number of interior styling bits (ambient lighting, aluminum foot pedals, etc.), a nine-speaker stereo in place of the standard six-speaker setup and an eight-inch color display with MyFord Touch. Moving from the EcoBoost 100A to 200A drives the price up to $29,995, while upgrading the GT from 300A to 400A ups the ante to $36,925.

The Premium models themselves have an extra equipment pack, code-named 201A on the EcoBoost and 401A on the GT. Regardless of engine, this package adds a 12-speaker Shaker stereo, HD radio, memory seats with two settings and blind-spot monitoring. The EcoBoost 201A costs $31,790 while the GT 401A costs $38,720.

The GT Performance Pack, which adds a whole wealth of performance-oriented options including a strut-tower brace, a larger radiator, a stiffened suspension, six-piston Brembo brakes, 19-inch wheels and a 3.73 rear end, will cost $2,495 (identical to the 2014 GT Performance Pack's price). It's not entirely clear if the EcoBoost Performance Pack, which offers essentially the same options, is priced the similarly (although it seems reasonable to assume).

Other standalone options include navigation ($795), Recaro leather seats ($1,595, the same as 2014), an Enhanced Security Package ($395) and floormats ($85). The destination charge, which we included in all the prices above, is $825. Last, but certainly not least, the Fiftieth Anniversary Mustang GT will start at $46,995.

So, loyal readers, what do you think? Does this pricing strategy seem reasonable? Now that you know what each trim level costs, which would you choose? Have your say in Comments.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this story included GT Premium 400A pricing that did not include destination and delivery fees. The source story has been updated to reflect this omission, and we have followed suit by changing our text to reflect pricing of $36,925 instead of $36,100.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 152 Comments
      asharp-gclef
      • 7 Months Ago
      sadly, it's more than i can afford, but i want one SO SO SO badly! I love the updates and if the interior pictures on the website are to be believed, heated and cooled seats are available, which is pretty damn awesome on a car of this type and living in new england where i would want both of those, it'll be on my checklist when i finally save some green to buy the car of my dreams. i can't wait!
      SethG
      • 7 Months Ago
      When I saw the HP/Torqe/mpg estimates on the Ecoboost I didn't get the value proposition. Premium price for incremental increases in power and a negligible efficiency gain that probably disappears under spirited driving. However, looking at the pricing it makes a little more sense now. They didn't split the difference between the V6 and the V8. The Ecoboost is much closer to the V6 price and, once the options sheet gets clouded by packages, you really have 2 base engines and the V8. Ford is going to do their best to shift the mix toward the Ecoboost option because it helps their CAFE number. But that might be challenging because the V6 really is good in the Mustang and it's pretty efficient to boot.
        XT6Wagon
        • 7 Months Ago
        @SethG
        The 2.3L will have a massive torque (and thus HP) advantage across its powerband. You only see the peak numbers in this release. Performance is based on the avg HP put out across the rpm band used. This is why the 4cyl is far better despite only "5" paper HP difference.
          SethG
          • 7 Months Ago
          @XT6Wagon
          It remains to be seen how the 2.3L will do in the Mustang. We've had some initial reports but no real tests. We do know that these engines can be great but only when properly matched. For example the Ecoboost in the Explorer is pretty awful. You need to really push it to get any response and then you end up with mileage that's no better than the V6. The question is how satisfying it will be to drive the Mustang with this new engine? How hard you will need to work it to get reasonable performance? An what is that going to do to the real world mpg numbers?
        Bassracerx
        • 7 Months Ago
        @SethG
        i think in the next 10 years we will see the v6 get some turbos and replace where the GT is now leaving the four cylinder as the base engine and the v8/gt whatever they will call it will come in either two breeds something like two flavors a leguna seca like track/performance car and a fire breathing Gt500 with ridiculous power. Maybe for a while they will sell the NA 5.0v8 alongside the turbo v6 like the do now with the nav6 and the turbo4 mabe there will always be room for a NA v8 mustang? who knows
      Avinash Machado
      • 7 Months Ago
      Excellent.
      psurrena
      • 7 Months Ago
      I think this is all wonderful but my real interest in the Ecoboost Mustang is how it will affect the 2015 STI. I know they aimed at different audiences and serve a different purpose but I'd love to see the expect HP from cars in the $25k-$27k range hover around 300. That way, the STI should bump to 350ish to remain compelling. I need a new family car! And since we don't get the Falcon...I'd like the STI
      Maor Roffe
      • 7 Months Ago
      This is where I get confused. The GT performance pack adds some sweet hardware for the casual trackday enthusiast but which will likely be wasted on the street. Does this mean trackdays won't invalidate the warranty from now on? Dealers in Miami are so quick to refuse any warranty assistance for any reason they can find and on a new $40k toy, this would be a concern of mine.
      BipDBo
      • 7 Months Ago
      The article makes it sound like there are two V6 engines, a regular and an upgraded V6. I think, though that there is just one V6, but there are two trim lines available with the it a base (with steel wheels) and an upgraded trim with alloys, LED fog lamps, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong.
        carguy1701
        • 7 Months Ago
        @BipDBo
        You are correct. The V6 is just there to keep the price of entry low.
        Sean
        • 7 Months Ago
        @BipDBo
        There are two trim lines for each engine. The premium trim is required in order to get leather and the upgraded IP (replaces the admittedly shitty button stack with a larger screen, knurled dials, and semi-polished toggles).
      James
      • 7 Months Ago
      Buying a 2015 Mustang is like pouring 30K down the drain. I bet every white trash person in Michigan dreams about owning such a vehicle. And, with the overpowered engine, imagine how many white trash will be killed racing on the streets. A true death machine.
        Sean
        • 7 Months Ago
        @James
        You could've at least put some effort into it if you're going to troll.
        Finklestein
        • 7 Months Ago
        @James
        Being white trash gives you 30k of disposable income? Sign me up!
        Moreno636
        • 7 Months Ago
        @James
        BOOOO! That is some of the laziest trolling I have ever read! Surely you can do better than rehashing hacky stereotypes.
      A A
      • 7 Months Ago
      why buy this when you can buy a $32k mazda3 SKYACTIVE
      psarquis
      • 7 Months Ago
      Best of all, it's not made by GM!
      Dwayne Hicks
      • 7 Months Ago
      Mustang GT, M4 Killer..
        Matt
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Dwayne Hicks
        And a $10k sportbike would "kill" a Mustang GT in any kind of race at a third the price. ...but it doesn't matter, because they are different vehicles with different purposes.
          Dwayne Hicks
          • 7 Months Ago
          @Matt
          Actually your reasoning doesn't work. The M4 Coupe and the GT Coupe both inhabit the same sphere of performance and handling. The GT is penciling out pretty close to the M4 performance wise yet costs $40K less.
          graphikzking
          • 7 Months Ago
          @Matt
          You are nuts. Everyone knows 2 wheels are faster than 4. If you have an Ariel Atom that is faster than a Mustang or M4 as well. Mustang GT and M4 are both rwd, 4 seater coupes that are focused on speed and handling. In the old days, muscle cars handled like garbage (for the most part) and once the twisties started the muscle cars would fall behind. That isn't so with the newest advances and focus on lighter weight with the Mustang. The price difference between Mustang and M4 is not due to electronic gadgets, more refined ride and more luxurious feel. If they were both the same price, obviously the BMW would be my choice. At their current price differences, I'd have to pick a Mustang. $40k with a good amount of options and I just saw an article on here with the M3 at a tested price of $89,000!!! WTF! ALmost 100k (especially with taxes) for an M3!! That's insane. I like the M3 character but the high cost of initial entry and the INSANE prices to maintain once off lease just turned me off of them many years ago. I bought a 2004 350z roadster for a cheaper price than the M3 off lease at the time. It was just as fast and had all the "gadgets" of the time. Heated leater power seats, navigation, bose sound system etc etc. Back then the M3 had a cloth top and terrible interior that looked dated beyond belief.
          Gorgenapper
          • 7 Months Ago
          @Matt
          Did you read the M3 article? As tested nearly $90k. Base price is $62k plus $925 destination, let's say $63k. What else do you need on that? It comes with cloth seats, a MT, and whatever no-cost color option it is (Alpine White) at $63k...a far cry from the $90k fully optioned price. Granted it's still $30k more than a base Mustang GT, but let's at least read the article first.
          Matt
          • 7 Months Ago
          @Matt
          Dwayne, "Muscle" cars have always offered similar performance to M/RS/AMG cars for half the price, yet the Euro beasts continue to sell. That's because buyers of M/RS/AMG cars aren't just looking for the most HP/$, they are looking for a certain level of prestige, refinement, exclusivity, yadda-yadda. I can appreciate both the M4 and Mustang for what they are. If it was my money, I'd probably get the Mustang. But if I had the funds, I'd probably opt for the European car. And maybe a Mustang too.
          domingorobusto
          • 7 Months Ago
          @Matt
          They are both front engine RWD coupes with 4 wheel independent suspension. Dimensions between the two are shockingly similar. Power is very similar. Performance is very similar. The BMW has a better interior and superior handling from the factory. That's about the only difference. It's very hard to find two cars from differing manufacturers that are more similar on a physical level. Hell, the M4 is far, far more similar to the Mustang than it's two supposed rivals, the Camaro and Challenger. They have the same purpose.
        me
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Dwayne Hicks
        Mustang GT won't be in the same performance stratosphere as a new M4 other than straight line acceleration. Chris Harris said it was 1 sec slower than 911 GT3 on Portimao circuit, last M3 was 4.5 sec slower.
          xxmixedxtapexx
          • 7 Months Ago
          @me
          I don't think so, IRS will definitely change the driving character of the Mustang substantially. All of Fords new cars have great handling, and I'm sure it'll be the same for the Mustang.
          domingorobusto
          • 7 Months Ago
          @me
          Until you spend a quarter of the price difference between the two cars on some upgrades for the Mustang and completely obliterate the M4 on any track you like.
        thequebecerinfrance
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Dwayne Hicks
        We dont know yet since the car has not been tested. I hope they don't do a bogus comparison like last time where they use the perfect environment for the Mustang (road course without a blemish on it) and then declare it as good as an M3. I'm hopeful the Mustang will fare MUCH better because of finally having an IRS.
        carguy1701
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Dwayne Hicks
        I wouldn't compare the too. They'll have similar specs on paper, but they're intended for different clientele. That said, I don't doubt that Steeda and Roush will develop parts to make it give a stock M4 a run for its money.
          carguy1701
          • 7 Months Ago
          @carguy1701
          *the two. ******* hell, man. How'd I make that mistake?
      mikeam91
      • 7 Months Ago
      Coming soon to a rental car lot near you!... Levity aside, the hp for the money is good, the exterior is okay, but the interior is awful. Its so cluttered and yet, amazingly boring. Plus, a soda comes in nicer looking plastic. Interior = deal-breaker!
        Doug Utz
        • 7 Months Ago
        @mikeam91
        Seeing that every interior that's typically been shown has been one out of a pre-production vehicle, you shouldn't be so quick to judge. Pretty much every article written has noted this fact when mentioning fit and finish, appearances of some panels, switches and such.
      NeO
      • 7 Months Ago
      I had a 99 mustang, it didn't age well at all just like American women lol
    • Load More Comments