2015 Ford Mustang ConfiguratorIt's here; it's finally here. No more speculating or looking at dealer order guides, the configurator for the 2015 Ford Mustang is finally online. That means you should put down whatever you're doing and build your new 'Stang. Weight data for the new model has also leaked out, and while there is an increase, it's less than previously rumored.

The basic V6 coupe carries a base price of $23,600, plus an additional $825 destination charge for all models. Upgrading to the 2.3-liter Ecoboost costs $25,170, and the Ecoboost Premium is $29,170. If you need a V8 in your life, the Mustang GT is $32,100 or $36,100 with the Premium package. That puts the starting price up about $1,000 over the previous generation for the V6, but the turbocharged four-cylinder starts about $1,400 less than the V6 Premium, which is no longer available. Prices for both V8 models jumped about $1,000, as well.

If you need the convertible Mustang, the V6 starts at $29,100, excluding destination, $1,590 more than last year. The Ecoboost Premium 'vert is $34,670, and the GT droptop is $41,600.

In other positive, Mustang-related news, a leaked dealer manual, according to Mustang 6G, is revealing the official weight for the new model. It shows manual vehicles weighing 3,526 pounds for the V6, 3,517 pounds for the Ecoboost, and 3,704 pounds for the GT. Also, automatic models weigh 3,529 pounds for the V6, 3,512 for the four-cylinder and 3,727 for the V8. If accurate, it means increases of less than 100 pounds across the board. That's much better than the earlier 300-pound gain rumors. Now, get over to that configurator and start building. Have fun.


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
  • 202 Comments
      Eddie Dwyer
      • 6 Months Ago
      Great day. Looking forward to my Guard GT w/ performance package.
      ffelix422
      • 6 Months Ago
      Ford should consider all the Mustang variations over the last 50 years and bring some back. -Boss vs M4 -GT500 vs ZL1 -GT500 KR vs Z06 -V6 vs 370Z Bullitt vs Z28 Do what Porsche does with the 911. Something new every 6 months.
      NoBoost
      • 6 Months Ago
      Not sure why people are so surprised about the difference in price between the EcoBoost and the V8. I'd guess that the V8 will have a different transmission, driveshaft, differential, half shafts, stainless steel exhaust, fuel pump, etc. Plus you'd need to include the price differential between the EcoBoost and V8 engines. Does anyone remember the 2011 Mustang V6's that had driveshaft failure? The non-GT models seem to have parts that can't stand up to the abuse that the GT model gets.
        carguy1701
        • 6 Months Ago
        @NoBoost
        The only reason the V6 driveshaft failures happened was because idiots removed the speed limited and didn't think that something might break.
      That Guy
      • 6 Months Ago
      Typical Ford incompetence. They need to hire some engineers with actual skill. Imagine if Ford had skilled engineers. Then they wouldn't have to lie about fuel economy and the sports cars would weigh less than much larger family sedans. Ford has a monopoly on incompetence.
        That Guy
        • 6 Months Ago
        @That Guy
        And stylists with an ounce of talent would be nice too. Ford needs to get back to making cars and trucks that don't induce vomiting in all who look at them.
          merlot066
          • 6 Months Ago
          @That Guy
          The Fusion is the best selling domestic car in its class, a class that has been completely dominated by foreign models for the better part of 20 years, a class that has unusually high owner loyalty (more accurately referred to here as blind stupidity). The Fusion continues to gain sales (record sales month last month) while at the same time slowly reducing those fleet sales that get your panties so twisted up.
          Dean Hammond
          • 6 Months Ago
          @That Guy
          and yet they still rule the market segments.....sad to say Matt, Im betting this will lead its segment as well...you must absolutely HATE that Fords doing so well.....well what am I saying, its obvious you dont like it...
          That Guy
          • 6 Months Ago
          @That Guy
          The fusion is a solid 4th place. The mustang has always been outsold by the camaro. The expedition is a joke and outsold by the Tahoe and suburban. The only market ford leads is trucks, and that's due to fleet dumping.
        Dean Hammond
        • 6 Months Ago
        @That Guy
        agreed, they should have hired all the GM engineers....oh wait.....
        Chris
        • 6 Months Ago
        @That Guy
        Typical comment one would expect from someone referred to as "That Guy".
      Ducman69
      • 6 Months Ago
      Still too heavy.
        Dean Hammond
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Ducman69
        the only way down that road is exotic materials....and with that comes substantial costs...
          Ducman69
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          Even a Subaru Forester SUV weighs 3400lbs, which by no stretch of the imagination has sporty intentions. Regarding cheap, the new Mitsubishi Mirage is well under 2000 lbs and one of the cheapest cars available on the market. And that's a four door car which also happens to be extremely aerodynamic. Why? Because it was a primary design goal from the outset to make it lightweight, aerodynamic, with best in class fuel efficiency. You have to ask yourself, what should a Mustang be? If your answer is an entry level luxury vehicle with extremely low NVH levels and a smooth ride at the sacrifice of being heavy with ho-humm performance, then by all means the Mustang is for you. If you believe the Mustang is first and foremost a sports car with a big engine in a light compact chassis, this current design is a failure. What the Mustang should be is subjective, but what we got isn't. Its not a sports car, it just looks like one, and for many posers that will be enough.
          Chris
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          Please explain Ducman69. Cars have been getting progressively heavier with each generation now since the 1980s. What are these cheaper, light weight design philosophies you speak of, and why haven't they been used to their fullest potential. I'm not saying I don't like lighter cars, but am just stating that there are many other factors that come into play when designing a car such as various consumer demands and government regulations. Unfortunately, these things tend to add to a cars weight, not subtract from it.
          Ducman69
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          Absolute nonsense. The only way down the road is a design philosophy change. Lightweight doesn't have to be expensive, and in fact can be cheaper.
          Chris
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          Ducman69, You're talking about entirely different vehicles with completely different purposes than the Mustang as the Mustang is not about fuel economy and utility, but instead fun, affordability, and curb appeal. I'd be curious to see how those weight saving methods would effect a more performance oriented car like the Mustang. All of those upgraded performance parts and drive trains tend to push price and weight upward. And are you actually implying that Ford should have taken styling cues from the Mitsubishi Mirage when designing the next generation Mustang? If they had, you and maybe two other people would be in line to buy one. Lastly, the Mustang is not a sports car or an entry level luxury car. It is a pony car. There's a difference. And "hohum performance"? Compared to what? A Camaro SS, 370z, Challenger SRT8, an M3? To the best of my knowledge, the current GT can hold its own on a track and handily beat some off the line, which I forgot to mention is another key elelement in what defines a pony car.
          Ducman69
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          LMAO, yes that's exactly what I'm saying, that the Mirage is a competitor to the Mustang. *facepalm* If you still don't get it, its because you don't want to. Luxury cars are heavy for a reason. Sport cars are lightweight for a reason. Its all about compromises. The Mirage if you've driven one has very little sound insulation, which is why its under 2000 lbs, and its crazy noisy on the highway. In the interest of economy though, it was part of the design philosophy. The Mustang has turned into a cruiser, a Toyota Camry with sporty styling. That's not necessarily a bad thing if your goal is to project the image of performance while cruising on the highway eating the french fries you just picked up at the McDonalds drive through. If you're a performance enthusiast though and were hoping for an inexpensive American sports car, this is a huge disappointment. The Subaru BRZ btw is ~2700lbs. The 370Z is around 3200lbs. The Lotus Elise is ~2000 lbs. The Miata is ~2200lbs. The RX8 ~ 3000lbs. As long as you don't want a sports car or pretend this is a sports car, fine. I was hoping for one, so this is sad news that its overweight, that's all. No need to make excuses, it is what it is. A grand touring cruiser with a reasonably powerful engine.
          Jason Mosery
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          At 45K for a loaded GT there's already substantial costs.
          Chris
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          Okay Ducman69, Again, you are trying to lump the Mustang in with cars that it was never meant to compete directly with. I mean, 3 of the 5 that you mentioned are two seat sports cars, and all of them are designed with different ideas in mind than the Mustang. The Lotus Elise may be a much smaller, lighter car than the Mustang, but it is also a two seat sports car that costs around $55k. That's almost $20k more than the 2015 Mustang GT will cost. The Subaru BRZ is purely meant to be a driver's car, and with less than half the horsepower of a Mustang GT, and a 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds and quarter mile time of 14.9 seconds at 95.5 mph, it's not even in the same league as a Mustang GT in terms of performance, and isn't meant to be. The Nissan 370z is a two seater with a V6, so it should come as no surprise that it weighs less. Being a two-seater, it's of a different segment altogether. Mazda Miata? Seriously? Mazda RX-8? What about it? It was discontinued two years ago due to faltering sales, and could not meet more stringent global emissions standards. To top it off, many would agree that it wasn't a particularly attractive looking car, and never could hold a candle to its predecessor, the RX-7. While we're on the topic of sports cars and performance cars, let's talk about the Nissan GT-R shall we? At nearly 5 inches shorter in length than the Mustang, it tips the scales at a whopping 3,840 lbs. It's funny how I don't hear anyone bringing up its curb weight constantly. With that said, the Mustang is what it is and always has been in that it is not some Asian or European sports car, no matter how bad some of you wish it would become that. No, it is a pony car. The main defining characteristics of a pony car are something that is based on a RWD, midsize platform, has a back seat, two doors, a long hood, and a short rear deck, and is at least offered with a V8. Today, they are the closest link to the classic muscle cars of the 60s and early 70s, and are often referred to as such. For those of us who are still fans of those classics, the Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers of today are greatly appreciated. If you don't get it, then go away. There are 3 pony cars to choose from and several more sports cars currently being offered, so I'm not sure why people like yourself are so offended by cars like the Mustang.
      Cubanaso
      • 6 Months Ago
      A Mazda6 sedan with 4 seats, 4 cylinder, good quality interior and tech comes in at 3200-3350 yet Ford couldnt get the Turbo 4 within 200 pounds of a 4 door family car????? BTW, the Mazda6 starts at 22k...Im sorry, but American car companies like our people...are grossly overweight. LAST WORD...it has 5 star crash ratings so NO, thry dont cut out safety. Turbo 4 3000 GT 3400 Big fail on their part. IMO
        Dean Hammond
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Cubanaso
        Does the Mazda come with sound deadening glass ( thicker ) ? Additional sound insulation ( please not most imports are duly noted as letting more road noise into interiors )...does the 6 come with 19 inch and bigger wheels?....and are you REALLY comparing the Mazda to the 420 plus V8 GT?...if THATS not sqewed nothing is...THATS a fail for sure
          Cubanaso
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          So, Dean...on a SPORTS CAR, we want it MORE silent than a family sedan? We need thicker glass? So...then we add big exhuast systems to make them MORE silent? Yes actually, it does have 19's as an option. Also, please read again...Im comparing the Turbo 4 "sports car" to a 4-cyl 5 passenger family sedan, NOT the GT while I did give a weight I felt ot should have been as a "sports car". So yes, IMO....the "spoets car" known as the Mustang or heck Camaro is a fat cow. They will perform great, but IMO Im very disapointed in the weight of the new Mustang.
          Chris
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          Jamie, when has a Mustang GT ever weighed less than a base Mustang? Performance variants of cars almost always weigh more than their base counterparts. Bigger engines, superchargers, turbo chargers, wider tires, bigger wheels, beefier drive shafts and the like all tend to add weight.
          Dean Hammond
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          @Jamie...with a bigger V8?.....without REALLY expensive composites that wont happen....then waht....complaintts about price...its a no win...
          Dean Hammond
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          @Cuban, you dont relize you are comparing apples to Oranges no?..........the comaprison of your Mazda and the Gt should be interesting...wonder which will outperform the other?......wierd comparison my friend, just wierd....how does the Mazda compare with a Corvette?...and why it isnt as fast.....thats wierd too.
        domingorobusto
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Cubanaso
        The Mustang is just as big if not slightly larger than the Mazda 6. It is not at all a small car. And the Mustang has larger brakes, a beefier transmission, heavier engines at every level, more drivetrain being RWD, and a host of other factors that contribute to the weight.
        Chris
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Cubanaso
        Let's see a Mazda 6 do 12s in the quarter mile, and go from 0-60 in under 5 seconds. Comparing a FWD family sedan to a RWD performance car is just plain silly.
        Hoale
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Cubanaso
        The BMW M3 and Hyundai genesis coupe are about the same weight as the V6 and ecoboost...370Z's are a little lighter but they don't have back seats...why are you comparing this to a mazda6?!
          TooManyCars
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Hoale
          It's not really a fair comparison.. The M3 is almost twice as much $$$$ as the Ford.... And unfortunately, you get what you pay for... Specifically a carbon fiber roof and other weight saving goodies that you probably can't put into a car that only costs $30k ish....
      Hazdaz
      • 6 Months Ago
      Its weight still went UP, not down. And for a model that is supposedly smaller in quite a few dimensions, that's not a good thing.
        SquareFour
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Hazdaz
        Pretty sure the only dimension that decreased is height. The rest either stayed the same or grew.
        EXP Jawa
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Hazdaz
        It is lower, but has a wider track. Wheelbase is the same. So, there really isn't a significant physical size difference. Factor in that the switch to an IRS adds a fair amount of system weight, the fact that they were able to manage the car's overall weight to be only slightly higher isn't too bad.
          Chris O.
          • 6 Months Ago
          @EXP Jawa
          IIRC, the '03 Cobra IRS to solid axle weight difference was only about 65 pounds. At that point it's more a matter of how much you want it to cost, since you can take up to 20 pounds out of that figure by using better materials and manufacturing methods (without resorting to something really exotic).
          Chris O.
          • 6 Months Ago
          @EXP Jawa
          I was just referring curb weight difference before and after swapping out the rear suspensions (Cobra IRS to S197). I have no idea what a full on S95 Cobra weight was.
          carguy1701
          • 6 Months Ago
          @EXP Jawa
          Plus with the Terminator, there was some weight gained, what with the iron block, supercharger, and the associated plumbing.
      TooManyCars
      • 6 Months Ago
      3700+ lbs is still too freakin heavy
        Dean Hammond
        • 6 Months Ago
        @TooManyCars
        wake up call...........The 2013 BMW M3 DRAG COEFFICIENT 0.31 Cd, CURB WEIGHT 3704 lbs.
          TooManyCars
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          Why are you comparing a 2013 M3 to a 2015 Stang? Wakeup call. Some people actually can afford a 2015 M3.. And that would. 3540lbs....
          Dean Hammond
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          @Toomanycars....little judgmental no?...I will attempt not to stoop, and yes, I could afford one...does that answer the question....fact is your comparison of a stock GT with a limited production M is fundamentally flawed, and the chest bumping "some of us can afford" leads me to believe otherwise, get over yourself...laddie.....PS, theres been 4 BMW products in my past...two words...never again....so continue jumping top conclusions...
          Dean Hammond
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          guess how much one could shave off the Mustangs weight for the $25000 more the M3 is charging....and I wouldnt be so judgemental as to accuse ANYONE they couldnt afford the entry price...then again having someone compare a "mainstream" $37000 domestic, with a limited production $62000 Bimmer with exotic materials is somewhat curious as well....seems the Mustang is being compared with some pretty big hitters...
          domingorobusto
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          And? The M3 is too damn heavy too.
        SCOTTM
        • 6 Months Ago
        @TooManyCars
        Yeah, that's just the base model. Wait until they add in the weight of the Performance Package - bigger brakes and tires and suspension pieces. Add 50+ pounds to that 3704.
      Alec Mac Aodhagáin
      • 6 Months Ago
      Too heavy. For example the 2.0T ATS is 3400 lbs.
        Chris
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Alec Mac Aodhagáin
        When you consider all of the factors that went into designing this car, simply making it lighter is much easier said than done. It not only has to meet consumer demands such as styling, creature comforts, performance, and affordability, but also government safety mandates. Sure, I guess they could have implemented more light weight materials, but then people would be complaining about how much it costs. They could have made it significantly smaller, but again sacrifices would have to be made there that people would complain about, like it being more cramped than the previous model, or that it's ugly or doesn't look like a Mustang. That said, you can't please them all which, luckily for this car's detractors, there are plenty of other choices out there. Personally, I love this new design, and when considering all the factors at play here, I think Ford did a good job.
      stonehunte
      • 6 Months Ago
      The weight went up and not down. Guess I'll pass on this generation. Thanks Ford...
        chonnes
        • 6 Months Ago
        @stonehunte
        Don't hurt yourself as you gasp and fall to your knees in a puddle of tears. Though hara-kiri is still a reasonable option. It's a shame this generation of Mustang offers no other benefit over the previous generation from your melodramatic perspective.
      PatrickH
      • 6 Months Ago
      So for years we were told the Mustang was losing weight. What a crock of sh*t. What's underneath the back seat of these ponycars, a solid 6 inch sheet of lead???
        carguy1701
        • 6 Months Ago
        @PatrickH
        No, we weren't. The weight loss rumors were just that: rumors. I'm not entirely happy about it either, but come on: is this anything to be worried about?
        ChrisH
        • 6 Months Ago
        @PatrickH
        maybe they left the solid rear axle in there, just in case
      BlueVistaGT
      • 6 Months Ago
      Yep, as everyone has stated, the new Mustang has slowly gained a ton of weight over the years. My 2006 Kenne Bell Supercharged Mustang GT with M/T weighed 3359 lbs from the factory compared to this hefty 3704 lb new car - that's a 345 lb weight advantage. A 1992 Mustang GT weighed 3160 lbs - I previously owned a '92 LX 5.0L weighing slightly less. A 67/68 Fastback GT with big block, 4 speed and deluxe interior with a/c,p/s,p/b was about 3300 lbs. Until the new Mustang stops looking like the Fusion's big brother and loses some serious weight, I will not be interested.
        Chris
        • 6 Months Ago
        @BlueVistaGT
        And yet the new Mustangs do everything one would expect from a lighter car better than previous generations in that they handle better, are much quicker and faster, and get better gas mileage. That 92' LX 5.0 you had and the 67/68 Fastback you described come from times when a lot less was expected in terms of regulations and creature comforts, and yet it'd still dust both of those cars off the line, through the 1/4 mile, and around a track. It'll do all of that despite being bigger, several hundred lbs heavier, more comfortable, and more refined which I would say is an impressive feat in engineering in and of itself. Car companies are up against a lot more from governments and consumers today than they were 25 years ago, so they're in a situation where they have to try and accomplish more with more. It's unfortunate, but that's just the nature of the beast these days.
          Chris
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Chris
          Okay to the useless idiots who voted, explain why!! Which part of my post to you haters and rice trolls not agree with? You don't think it's quicker, better handling, more fuel efficient, more comfortable than a Fox Body or 1967 model? I'd love to know, but unfortunately none of you left a reply which tells me that your hate is irrational, and you yourselves don't even understand the reason for it.
        carlotta
        • 6 Months Ago
        @BlueVistaGT
        IT' has that unfortunate Fusioned front. Why? Ford is putting that fishface on everything from he lowly Fiesta and Focus to the once dashing Mustang. Why?
    • Load More Comments