By on January 22, 2007

comparo.jpgThe recipe for the original Ford Mustang was simple enough: a low price car with a trim, athletic body wearing the same sort of sexy, svelte sheetmetal of a contemporaneous European sports coupe. If you park a ’07 Ford Mustang GT next to its 1960’s counterpart, it’s clear that Ford missed the point by over two hundred pounds. But don't think of this retro-mobile as just another FoMoCo bloated barge; it's slim by Gran Torino standards. Think of the Mustang GT as a portly pastiche of pony cars past, present and yes, future.

For readers who remember life pre-SUV, the automobile business used to concern itself with a little something called aerodynamic design. Like the equally self-conscious Chrysler 300C, the latest Mustang's tall front fascia cheats the wind with all the finesse of a jackhammer cutting a stick of butter. One look at the truck-friendly side mirrors and it’s obvious that Ford didn’t give their Mustang DNA design a reality check.

mustanggt06_091600.jpgNor, for that matter, did Dearborn's darlings put the 'Stang on a much-needed low-carb diet. Sure, the Mustang still has tasty long hood/short deck proportions. But its obese dimensions make the grille-mounted Pony emblem a half-truth; the Budweiser Clydesdales’ harnesses would make a more fitting setting for such noble ornamentation.

Who wants a vehicle that looks like its predecessors yet displays none of their refinement (such as it was) or overall good taste? Plenty of people! And yet I can’t help but find details like the Mustang's plastichrome "gas cap" deeply offensive. Its non-functionality is proof that retro design isn't a warm reminder of past greatness; it’s de-evolution.

oldtimer.jpgAside from the upper half of the Mustang’s dash, the same desecration lies within. Hard-molded plastics and dull, flat black panels are at every corner, every turn. Options like the [new for ‘07’] stitched vinyl dash top, Technicolor gauge cluster and fake aluminum trimmings are quite dandy by themselves. Slapped on the Mustang's low-rent interior, they’re like a dorky kid dating the head cheerleader. 

While the Mustang GT’s seat comfort and ergonomics are respectable, it’s clear from the intrusive center stack, shotgun-sized parking brake handle, steroid-fed speaker grilles and limited rear visibility that Ford's latest Pony Car desperately needs a personal trainer.

Under all that flab, the Mustang GT still delivers the goods. Soak up the Shaker 1000 stereo's clear and competent frequency responses (for those who care) and its prodigious twin-driver subwoofer enclosure (for those who don't). Then again, all necessary aural pleasures come from the Mustang GT’s 4.6-liter, eight-pot underhood boombox. Like the sound of Frank Bullitt's fastback on your home theater?  It sounds even better underfoot.

mustanggt06_091600.jpgWith 320 lb-ft of twist and 300 horses in the corral, effortless acceleration is always on tap.  The accurate shifter has longer throws than the buzz-cut handle implies, but it’s up to the task of full throttle power shifting. Drag Racing R Us.

The ‘Stang’s ride is firm but choppy; a genuine disappointment considering the longish 107 inch wheelbase. For a large coupe, the Mustang behaves like a small hatchback. Every disturbance the rear tires encounter (like gravel) ricochets directly into the passenger compartment. It’s an unwelcome throwback to a simpler, stupider time.

True to Pony Car form, the GT's handling places fun over finesse. The chassis serves-up an ideal balance between understeer safety and power-on oversteer hoonery. Ear-to-ear grins are just a mid-corner throttle stomp away. The GT’s live-axle suspension hugs the road better than previous ponies– far better than it ought to– while giving up none of its, um, durability.

While wheel spin is cool, enough is enough; even part throttle application saps momentum. There simply isn't enough tire to go with the modest suspension, powertrain advancements and extra weight. But even the right rubber can’t cure the uninformative turn-in due to the Mustang's extra mass. What’s worse (for the GT’s target market), the 235mm all-seasons look small against the GT’s bulky sheetmetal.

mustanggt06_141600.jpgFord has announced that this self-same chassis will provide the foundation for style-conscious sedans aimed at people who normally avoid Ford products like the plague. So the Mustang is now the official change agent for a lackluster FoMoCo. But its heft makes an upscale, quasi-lux, two portal vehicle (i.e. Mercury Cougar) completely unnecessary. Before it spawns, the Mustang must die(t).

Before the loyalists reach for their guns, let me add that I've always adored the Mustang's charms and shortcomings. Factoring in the modest asking price– $29k for a nicely loaded example– you can’t deny the fact that the Ford Mustang GT is a terrific performance car value. But this generation's extra bulk, blunt force trauma facade, choppy ride, road noise and dulled driving dynamics combine to make a vehicle no better than its 25-year-old, Fairmont-based predecessor. It’s true, and it ain’t pretty. At least not to me.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

116 Comments on “Mustang GT Revisited Review...”


  • avatar
    bestertester

    retro as such is bad enough. but it can be sustainably successful in the market, and justifiable philosophically, when retro style is combined with up-to-date engineering (as in the case of the mini).

    but when you combine retro style with substandard technology: isn’t this something a car maker should be ashamed of?

    at the end of the day, aren’t we in it for the drive and not for the statement?

  • avatar
    UnclePete

    Well said Sajeev! Hopefully you don’t have to go into hiding from the Ford posse now!

    I had the opportunity to trade off and drive an ’06 Mustang GT that a friend of mine bought. He drove my ’06 GTO. While the Mustang had nice acceleration, I agree that the weight of the car in the turns ruined some of the fun. While the GTO is no svelte vehicle either, my friend was impressed how much further he could get into turns compared to the ‘Stang (part of which is due to IRS vs live axel.) Though he liked my car, he said he still preferred the Mustang as it was better looking.

    That is the bottom line – most people buy this car for the nostalgia. At some point the whole retro-mobile thing will reach its high water mark; I hope the Mustang is the pinnacle, and we can move forward rather than back.

  • avatar

    UnclePete:

    The Camaro’s developers couldn’t disagree more.

  • avatar

    I’m with you on the Mustang, as the car has not ever really suited my personal tastes. The same old criticisms have received the same old responses from Ford, more of the same. In the end, they know the car will sell, as this is apparently exactly what the car’s target market is asking for. If I were shopping domestic pony cars, I’d be much more likely to wait and see how GM executes the new Camaro than to pick up a GT.

  • avatar
    Captain Tungsten

    Regarding the size of the Mustang, I saw the Camaro convertible at this years Detroit show, and the Challenger at last years and had the same observation regarding their increased size compared to their ancestors. Say what you will about styling…both cars appear much larger than their 60s ancestors. My first reaction was to blame it on the increased structural requirements today vs. the 60s. But there are plenty of nicely designed cars (Mazda 6 was the first that came to my mind, but there are others) that are probably pretty close in footprint and interior space to the original (and best) ponies. So, I’m figuring it actually is possible to get them closer to the original proportions. Wonder why the designers opted to go large?

  • avatar
    philbailey

    In the microcosm of my little world, every single one of my clients who owns a Mustang is a lady. I think I read somewhere that a large proportion of Camaro owners were also ladies.

    Is this significant?

    Only in the sense that the ladies require a different set of attributes in their vehicles. If you turn this car into a Rocky Balboa, would you lose a bunch of customers?

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    philbailey:

    I think it already is a Rocky Balboa – bulky and blunt. And I’m pretty sure someone is driving one up a a bunch of steps in urban Philadelphia right now.

    Anyway, some statistics from a few years back showed that women buy most of the <30k coupes in general – Accord, Solara, Cougar (when it was still around), Celica (same), Hyundai Tiburon, IntegRSX, and so on.

  • avatar
    Dream 50

    I hate reading posts that start with, What (insert compay’s name here) needs to do is… but allow me to be a hypocrite just once.

    What Ford needs to do is follow the plan that made the original Mustang a great car. The original was popular because it was stylish and and was built on a platform that was as good as any other in its day. If Ford had a nice IRS RWD sedan in its lineup, they could put the retro duds of the Mustang on top of it and have a hot looking coupe with the underpinnings to match. Platform sharing would keep the sticker down. Instead they make a one-off (for now) chassis that is hopelessly outdated. Almost every review of the Mustang I read says, “handles great for a solid axle car.”

    Doesn’t anyone else find it strange that Ford is stuffing an IRS’s under a number of truck based SUV’s but letting their performance car suffer on an old school solid axle? OMG, WTF.

    As for complaints about weight, I have yet to see a car reviewer explain how companies can affordably keep weight down. The expensive NSX has a heap of aluminum, as do the expensive Audis and Jags. The great valued but still expensive Vette has a plastic body. With strict American crash standards demanding airbags and door beams and customers asking for more and more goodies (what do you reckon the ‘Stang’s woofer and 1000 watt amp weigh?) it is going to be difficult to keep it a featherweight at an affordable price.

    Shit, even a Civic tops 3000 lbs, if I’m not mistaken.

    Oh, and bestertester, maybe we are in it for the drive, but lots of folks are in it for the statement. See: Hummer.

    Keith

    Keith

  • avatar
    1984

    Has anyone driven a 60′s mustang? The only reason that the 60′s mustang was a hit was because the way it looked and the get-up-and-go. Everything else about the car was awful because Ford based the whole thing riding on a 4 year old rental car chassis shared with the Falcon. The car was a fluke and thrown together at the last minute.

    To wish that the new mustang was more like the 60′s mustang is a bit strange to say the least but in a lot of ways isn’t the basic recipe there? Not really a great chassis but cheap, fast and looks good. At least the new mustang has more room for luggage and receives good collision safety (things that it has never done).

    I have been in a new GT and the ride quality, comfort and rigidity of the cars structure are better then it’s ever been before. Not to say it’s the best it could have been but leaps and bounds better than the FOX chassis.

  • avatar
    HEATHROI

    ford probe anyone? If ford had given flipped the graybeards, fixated of their mustang-camaro battles at Riverside off and fitted a rally 4wd drive system, a manual and a turbo then it would might out WRX’ed the rex, instead of merely a ‘WhipmoBile’ .

  • avatar
    1984

    Ford was going to use the Probe… Then people who buy Mustangs found out that they wanted to change it to a 16yo girl’s car… To avoid Dearborn from being burned to the ground, Ford promptly returned to “Coke Classic”.

  • avatar
    ash78

    The Mustang ISN’T a 16-y-o girls’ car? Could have fooled me, but maybe I’m not looking hard enough ;)

  • avatar
    Lesley Wimbush

    What’s all this nonsense about “ladies’ cars”? Anyone of you wanna go head to head – road course, drag strip, auto slalom… go kart track… let me know.

    Sajeev – I agree wholeheartedly, nice piece. I’ve driven most of the lineup, and while the GT500 is fun in an automotive BFH kinda way, it would get old real fast. Bloated was the exact term that came to my mind too.
    I love the lines of the original fastback mustang, having fallen in love with a 65 that I rode in most of my 11 & 12th year. And my older brother owned a Mach II.
    Sure, it may be a primitive car but it got under my skin despite its foibles (much like those aforementioned british cars).

  • avatar
    1984

    The 6 cylinder one is. If you buy them the V8 than your looking for insurance money or just an irresponsible parent.

  • avatar

    Where are the reviews of the STi, 350Z, audi TT, etc calling them oveweight pigs? They’re all within 100lbs or so of a mustang GT.

  • avatar

    z31: You may be looking at the curb weight of the V6. The GT weighs another 100+ pounds, for a total of 3,500. Still a couple hundred less than the Pontiac GTO. And far less than anything of similar size from Germany (i.e. BMW 650Ci, the Bavarian pony car).

    1984: I’m with you. The current car remains true to the traditional formula. I’m not seeing any decline in refinement or tastefulness here.

    My site’s page for the Mustang, for price comparisons and real-world fuel economy information:

    http://www.truedelta.com/models/Mustang.php

  • avatar
    jurisb

    some changes could save the pony-
    get those side mirrors painted, otherwise they give a cheap imprression.side repeat signals could be installed in mirrors.
    change front headlamps with xenon blue light. or gas discharge lamps with focusing lens.
    add a version with led backlights as an option.
    live rear axle should be no option in 21st century.
    air conditioner shift knobs should be replaced by more expensive with shift buttons and a digital screen (as in fusion, or european s-max).
    add a version with leather wrapped dashboard with french seams.the steering wheel should have red leather inserts, the center kettle lid removed and replaced with more aligned panel to the steering wheel .
    the console between front seats should be leather wrapped, plus chrome lining around shift lever bay.
    hand brake should be worked into console with chrome button.
    three spike steering wheel should be fatter. the spikes from polished aluminium with aligned lines into steering wheel.
    radio with more precise finish and chrome accents.
    better fitting panels. less gaps.( around glovebox, etc.)

    thinner, darker, semi flat, precisely cast gaskets around the door frames ( where visible from outside- between the door and side windows).
    at least some lines should be alligned to dashboard- either from doors or from chrome gauges.
    install suspension setting mode as an option.
    don`t be afraid to increase the price. people want better cars more than the best discounts.

    lunatics@inbox.lv

  • avatar
    dwillms

    Shit, even a Civic tops 3000 lbs, if I’m not mistaken

    The 2007 Civic runs from 2586 lbs (DX Coupe, MT) to 2945 lbs (Si Sedan, MT).

    Back in ’95, you could get a Civic HB with a curb weight of 2094 lbs.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    Great piece, Sajeev. I lived with one last year for four days. During that time I had a blast lighting-up the rear end with the traction control off and hefting it through corners. I was also disgusted by the crap quality after two pieces from the interior broke off during normal use.

    Additionally, I am now sick of the ubiquitous Mustang’s styling. Its familiarity has drawn my contempt. Niche market cars can get away with avant-garde styling and slow update cycles. Mass-produced everyday cars cannot.

  • avatar
    1984

    The mustang GT already under steers into corners. IRS would make it worse. You would have to change a lot of things with the front suspension also to make it work… and then the whole car would be heavier, more expensive and arguably not have as much potential for strength upgrades to the rear axle.

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    I wonder if Ford’s allusion to building a sedan based on the Mustang doesn’t actually mean putting a new body on the Lincoln LS? Not a bad idea, IMHO.

  • avatar
    skor

    Fact is that your average American doesn’t really like sports cars. Americans like “sporty looking” cars with whiplash inducing straight-line acceleration.

    Handling, braking, build quality? Who needs it?

    The original Mustang was built off plebeian econ-box platforms from the very beginning and the only time the core market demographic complained was when they couldn’t get the car with a truck engine — Mustang II — and when Ford was considering producing a Mustang with modern engineering — Ford Probe.

    BTW, the IRS controversy goes all the way back to 1964 when Ford engineers developed an IRS for the Falcon/Mustang. Ford management came to the conclusion that an IRS would not earn them any extra sales, and they’ve been right — for forty years.

  • avatar

    skor:

    I strenuously disagree that Americans don’t like “real” handling.

    Thirty years ago, sure. Back in the day, the term “living room on wheels” was considered a compliment.

    But an entire generation of drivers has grown up driving small(ish) transplant sedans. They know the joys of communicative steering, dependable brakes and reasonable chassis control.

    This is doubly true for the sporting drivers amongst this general generation.

    I would also argue that building a comfortable car with excellent handling AND the looks the public wants would qualify as “exceeding the customer’s expectations,” not confounding them.

  • avatar
    John S

    Okay, fine, it’s not the car for you. Spend your $29,000 on something different. The Mustang’s a rough-around-the-edges, over-the-top throwback. You want refinement, buy an Accord. I’d like to see your reviews emphasize how well a car meets it’s target market (without disparaging that market segment). In that sense, your review has pro & con points but they’re overshadowed by your disdain. Seriously, “no better than its 25-year-old, Fairmont-based predecessor.”? Come on, stop baiting us.

  • avatar

    And one of my favorite reviewers here falls into the same trap as so many others. I am depressed.

    While taking issue with the Mustang GT’s weight, provide, please, examples of other 4-place V8 coupes currently in production that weigh considerably less.

    (tick tick tick tick tick tick)

    That’s right folks…there are none. Even coupes that cost considerably more-and thus could justify expensive materials to bring the weight down-are hung up between 3600 and 4100 lbs. While Ford could save weight with an aluminum 4.6, it’d add a large chunk to the bottom line.

    My advice? Check out the Bullitt motor being shown at Left Lane News and Blue Oval News today…I think that’ll be a happy addition!

    One last thing: no better than the Fox-based cars? I’ve driven many on both sides of the ’05 line, and I cannot imagine how you could compare the current chassis to the “sit on, not in” cars of previous years.

  • avatar

    Michael Karesh:
    January 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 am
    z31: You may be looking at the curb weight of the V6. The GT weighs another 100+ pounds, for a total of 3,500. Still a couple hundred less than the Pontiac GTO. And far less than anything of similar size from Germany (i.e. BMW 650Ci, the Bavarian pony car).

    According to autos.yahoo:
    Mustang GT: 3450
    350Z: 3346
    TT (225): 3384
    STi: 3351
    650i : 3814

  • avatar
    acx

    Ahahaha a bunch of people who would not buy the mustang can bash the mustang all they want. 166,000 sold this year.. What coupe sold more? It is a budget platform with sacrifice, and has more character in the name than arguably any car on the road. Let's add IRS for the sake of it, and price the v6 out to lunch. Perfect. A new (far more blasphemous) GTO owner calling the mustang heavy? Grade 1 called, it wants people to know most cars over the last decade or so on average have gotten heavier. Is the civic heavier than it was? I think so. I wonder what critics will say when the 400hp DOHC bullitt variant comes out as the road racer.. (see stangsunleashed for details)

  • avatar
    Johnny Canada

    At the Detroit show, Ford had their petting zoo stocked with 3 versions of the Mustang available for public examination. I’m sure the seats and door pins are replaced every night on these vehicles. The publics enthusiasm for the Mustang was unbelievable.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    Sajeev –

    To quote the Godfather, “Fredo, you broke my heart.”

    The Mustang has grown on me over the past 3 years. This “retromobile” bs is just that….it’s a modern design with a nod to the past…as “retro”, perhaps, as the 911, Corvette, Mini, or TT (Bauhaus design). Unmistakenly, you know what it is.

    For it’s price point, what a tremendous value. ANY car can be improved. I wish the plastics were better. A IRS option would have been nice. Steering wheel audio controls is now an entry level item on a Kia, for crying out loud.

    But for all these “girly” comments, keep in mind that the Mustang and BMW 3-series have just about the same percentage of women buyers.

    Meanwhile, I’ll defer to Jonny’s review of the GT convertible some time back – it’s the look, it’s the V-8 burple, it’s the attitude…..and there isn’t a 4-place convertible that has the Mustang’s presence.

    Call me shallow, but I look forward to buying one later this year.

  • avatar
    bear

    this car is junk and is a disaster to what Americans believe to be a sports car.It still has sloppy handling and has no power from it’s (lazy) V-8.I’ll admit it might be o.k. to go retro as long as the public will buy (in this case it worked) but look at the dismal failure at the Thunder Bird and U can clearly see why this car was a sigh of oh my God did it work?! I believe this car to be a car for people who only settle for mediocrity and nothing else because assides from a corvette U cant get much better performance than that!!!!! I say this because if U look at the 350Z and it’s performance U can see that a V-8 isn’t needed and it handles much better and is bulit better with fit and finish as well as body ridgity and crash protection.
    This is a so so car with good looks but nothing else..I would say a woman may look good with sexy clothing but if she can’t be good in bed why pretend to be something that’s not?

  • avatar
    frontline

    demensions and proportions are crucial to architecture, just fractions of an inch can effect an auto design. I was relieved when I saw the size of the new Mustang….it is reasonable. I was sickened by the size of the 08 Camaro, for Gods sake , it is bigger than the old 69! why ? I would buy the Corvette if they could down scale it by an inch or two.

  • avatar
    New2LA

    Uh-oh…I think this is the first time I’ve had to disagree with the great TTAC pundits.

    I love the Stang’s styling. They hit a home run. I see them all over the road, and I still can’t take my eyes off them. Retro or not, who cares.

    As far as the car’s excessive weight – that’s clearly a cost-cutting problem. They couldn’t figure out how to create a lighter, more nimble car without charging more money. But then again, Mustangs were never really about being nimble.

    Handling: who cares. This car is all about style and V8 power. Just keep the car pointed in a straight line and take a stab at the go-go pedal from time to time. You’ll be happy enough.

    WHERE THE CAR FALLS DOWN:

    I totally agree about the ride and the interior though. The car is about the same size/weight as a BMW 3-Series and many other, similar cars. Yet I am assuming it rides more like a 1974 Mustang II.

    Hands-down, the interior is one of the worst in the biz. It looks like a giant kids toy (ages 8 and under). For those of you die hard American car fans who think our cars beat the competition, you should know that the reason why I have NEVER considered buying a Mustang includes the worst interior quality this side of a 1990 Cavalier. I just can’t spend 1-2 hours a day cramped up inside of all that plasticky goodness.

  • avatar

    New2LA:

    Uh-oh…I think this is the first time I’ve had to disagree with the great TTAC pundits.

    Before you condemn us en masse, have a look at our previous reviews of the Mustang GT

    Mustang GT Convertible by Jonny Lieberman
    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1981

    Mustang GT by Robert Farago
    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1397

  • avatar

    Hmmmm… this review – does not bode well for the soon-coming Challenger and Camaro!

    Yet I think a major point for why these retro-rods are coming is that the Japanese, or Germans or even Koreans – could never make these cars. EVER!

    They are quintessentially American – yes even in there crudeness and bulk!

    I for one think this is a good thing, and a smart play by the 2.5. Many Mustang buyers (and I assume Challenger and Camaro buyers do too!).

    Put this GT up against anything with 2 doors from T or H or even MB, and it immediately screams “I am not one of those!”. So here we have a defensible niche that makes sense on many levels. And this car continues to sell far beyond all the retro-naysayers who said its life would be short-lived.

    Sajeev – I hate to admit it my friend, but methinks IMHO your review would have been better served by placing the GT in its rightful marketplace context. This would have offered your readers a more balanced outlook.

  • avatar
    ash78

    Yep, just like the 300, Challenger, T-Bird, and several others on the way, this car is sold mostly on image and marketing (as CarNut stated).

    Fine with me, it seems to mirror everything else about the US economy–ie, when you can’t cut it long-term on the world stage with engineering and manufacturing efficiency, you move toward intellectual property and service. Despite any competitive shortcomings, these cars sell the “US brand” pretty well and there seems to be no shortage of buyers.

  • avatar
    Hutton

    Why is everyone begging for the Mustang to be put into some kind of context? As if the people who bought the Mustang are actually saying, “Hmmm, I want a large coupe that seats four with a V8… I wonder which car will best suit my needs…” No way. The Mustang has no target market. Nor should it. It’s a Mustang. The reviewers are calling on Ford to improve the Mustang. A lighter Mustang would be a better Mustang. Why are people fighting that truth by saying the Mustang’s weight isn’t bad compared an to AWD 4-door sedans? Who cares? Make it lighter, make it better.

  • avatar
    Steve_S

    The Mustang is working as intended. Again, The Mustang is working as intended.

    Could the Mustang have been better? Better interior, IRS, lighter? Of course it could have but then it would have been a lot more expensive and that just won’t do. The purpose of the Mustang was attractive, cheap fun and it does exactly that. I have yet to find a 2+2 for less than 30k or even just over it that has great looks, great power, great handling, and a great interior. You can find 2-3 of these but not all of them at this price range. Remember the Mustang is made to be a volume seller and what sells is good looks, price and power under the right foot.

    If you think I’m wrong look at the sales of the Mazda RX8 (Less than 10,000 unit in all of 2006) and Subaru STI and also look at the main factors that people look at when looking at performance cars, HP, 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times. Most buyers don’t purchase on finesse, lightness and handling. They buy on show and go and the cheaper they can get the show and go the better.

    I’ve said it before here and I’ll say I again. The Mustang is doing exactly what Ford designed it to do and it’s doing it quite well.

  • avatar
    ejacobs

    I’m sure plenty of people buy the STI and RX8 for handling, as well as their power. Who buys a Mustang for handling? No one who has driven a car that actually handles, would be my guess.

  • avatar

    Hutton:
    A lighter Mustang would be a better Mustang. Why are people fighting that truth by saying the Mustang’s weight isn’t bad compared an to AWD 4-door sedans? Who cares? Make it lighter, make it better.

    As if the people who bought the Mustang are actually saying, “Hmmm, I wish this weighed 500lbs less so I could pay an extra $5k for it…”

  • avatar
    Michael R.

    I don’t think I have anything new to add to the “retro” styling debate, other than noting how the later “New Edge” SN95 Mustang has aged into a very appealing car.

    The brakes are subpar, the chassis is flexible, and the rear suspension design is ludicrous, but these problems can all be fixed relatively cheaply from the aftermarket.

    Perhaps the “New Edge” car looks good in only in comparison to the new retro design, or perhaps the ’99-’04 cars are a more effective transliteration (rather than translation) of the original Mustang concept. I suspect a little of both. Now, though, a lowered ’99-’04 GT with Bullitt wheels will turn my head every time.

  • avatar

    I don't know about you guys, but I teach my kids that good enough isn't good enough. Just sayin'. Oh and I've banned the commentator knows as acx, after warning him for calling Mustang critics "mongoloids," following an email requesting me to do so (ban him, not call anti-'Stang people names).

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    i would love to buy a stang, i think they are very cool looking, but driving them is very unrewarding. The it needs to be flogged to within an inch of its life to be any fun, using prodigious amounts of gas in the process… this is a car that needs to go really fast in a straight line to be any fun at all, then once u do it a few times, it gets kinda boring, not to mention injurious to your license and insurance rates.

    Pity. Driving this thing is what i think charging into the fray with a full coat or armour on. You are well protected, impressive looking, but really uncomfortable. So, i like looking at them when they drive by, love the engine noise, and am spared the tedium of the drivers seat. Good for me.

  • avatar
    yournamehere

    i cant recall the show at the moment but i remember seeing a piece on the previous gen mustang. the one line that sticks in my head is “the mustang is a great platform for modification, from the factory everything is so horrible bad that any upgrades make a huge improvement”

  • avatar
    ejacobs

    jerseydevil, I’m with you there. They look cool and different, sound sweet, I’m glad they’re on the road, but glad I don’t have to drive one everyday.

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    Thank you all for reading.

    As for complaints about weight, I have yet to see a car reviewer explain how companies can affordably keep weight down.

    Dream 50: Shrink wheelbases, lower beltlines, put smaller wheels…basically take a knife to everything you see these days and tone it down. It may not make a huge difference because of modern safety systems and gadgets, but its gonna help.

    Has anyone driven a 60’s mustang? The only reason that the 60’s mustang was a hit was because the way it looked and the get-up-and-go.

    1984: Yeah I drove a ’65 stang one. It was tiny and felt somewhat tossable; a stark contrast to my ’65 Galaxie. The new one is much too close to a Crown Vic for my tastes.

    The mustang GT already under steers into corners. IRS would make it worse. You would have to change a lot of things with the front suspension also to make it work…and then the whole car would be heavier, more expensive and arguably not have as much potential for strength upgrades to the rear axle.

    Oh come on, that’s a simple fix. Considering this was a clean sheet redesign, there are several suspension variables for R&D testing to balance the chassis.

    If people on the Ford Taurus forums can switch between 5+ different rear swaybars available at junkyards ($20 a pop) to dial in a little passive rear steer on a FWD car, Ford has the $$$ to build it right from the start Mustang.

    I can go either way on IRS vs. live axle debate, but you don’t hear C4, C5, C6 Corvette guys bitching and moaning about breaking axle shafts all the time. If you’re THAT serious about drag racing, the aftermarket has plenty of 8.8″ and 9″ solid axles for your needs.

    I wonder if Ford’s allusion to building a sedan based on the Mustang doesn’t actually mean putting a new body on the Lincoln LS?

    guyincognito: The LS is dead. The Mustang is based on a global Ford/Mazda platform called S197.

    I’d like to see your reviews emphasize how well a car meets it’s target market (without disparaging that market segment)….seriously, “no better than its 25-year-old, Fairmont-based predecessor.”?

    John S: I am the Mustang’s target market. I only drive V8, RWD cars. I’ve driven both vintages and the older Mustang was lighter and had crisper turn-in. Not to mention the ride and NVH is no better than ye olde Fairmont. How am I supposed to be impressed with this car?

    Being the only game in town ain’t gonna cut it. Nope. Not for me.

    I cannot imagine how you could compare the current chassis to the “sit on, not in” cars of previous years.

    Zanary: I’ve driven plenty of foxes, the seating position is the same. Most everything is the same. I was expecting more content/quality from the S197. Simply put, the new Mustang feels about the same as the Fairmont Mustang, just fatter and boxier. Bigger is not better. The 3V Modular is good, but it would be even better in a lightweight Fox-ish Mustang.

    As far as the car’s excessive weight – that’s clearly a cost-cutting problem.

    New2LA: maybe. But I think a shrinking of the Mustang’s dimensions (lower beltline, shorter wheelbase, etc) will net a respectable decrease in mass.

    Sajeev – I hate to admit it my friend, but methinks IMHO your review would have been better served by placing the GT in its rightful marketplace context. This would have offered your readers a more balanced outlook.

    CarNut: You could be right, balance was overridden by passion this time. Marketplace context? I think my point about the big Mustang making a new Cougar pointless is a big problem.

    The market could easily sustain a “small” Mustang (3200lbs maybe?) and a “large” Cougar (3500lbs).

    I’ve spent many years messing with Mustangs and the new one disappoints me. Too big, too clumsy, too cheap inside. This is NOT the spirit of the Mustang.

    you can’t cut it long-term on the world stage with engineering and manufacturing efficiency, you move toward intellectual property and service.

    Ash: Wow, that would have been a good angle for the review. Granted the Mustang is still fun to drive, but its less of a Mustang and more of a Gran Torino.

    There I said it. Its a Gran Torino. (Starsky and Hutch theme song, please!)

    “Hmmm, I want a large coupe that seats four with a V8… I wonder which car will best suit my needs…”

    Hutton: You just told everyone why Mercury needs to get off their collective asses and make a Cougar. See where I’m going with this?

    “the mustang is a great platform for modification, from the factory everything is so horrible bad that any upgrades make a huge improvement”

    yournamehere: At least that hasn’t changed. God Bless America.

  • avatar
    Steve_S

    ejacobs:
    January 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
    I’m sure plenty of people buy the STI and RX8 for handling, as well as their power. Who buys a Mustang for handling? No one who has driven a car that actually handles, would be my guess.

    I agree people do buy the RX8 and STI for handling (I’m one of them, 06 Shinka). The RX8 for looks, handling and price, the STI for Power, handling and price. However these are fairly niche cars, just look at the volume of sales compared to the Mustang. People say alot but then really vote with their wallet and they have chosen the Mustang over the RX8, 350z, GTO, STI, Evo, MS6, etc combined and then some.

    The point I am making is you can bash the Mustang for it shortcomings of which their are many you can’t really bash Ford for making it the way it is. Why? Because its one of the best examples by the domestics of a targeted product that has done exactly what it was intended to do.

    If Ford does anything right it’s the Mustang and the F series truck.

    If the GTO had been alot better looking it would probably be doing about 80% of the sales of the Mustang GT. But its not so it didn’t. If the RX8 had a 230hp 4 and a turbo 300 hp 4 it would have sold in droves, but it doesn’t

  • avatar
    JSForbes

    I think they Mustang would look worlds better just by putting on a better hood. The current hood makes the front of the car look fat in stark contrast to the slim lines of the original.

    I wasn’t alive when the original Mustang was released, but from what I have heard from my father the factory customization of the car was an important selling point. Is this true?

    If so, why do this for the current car? It seems to work for Scion…

  • avatar
    1984

    Sajeev Mehta,

    Google: Mustang Cobra wheel hop (Cobras have IRS)

    Z06 Corvettes and CTS-Vs eat axleshafts like candy. Boom!

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    Saying the car is no better dynamically than a Fox chassis may be taking a bit too much literary license. However, if one adds a few key aftermarket pieces to a Fox car, namely weld in subframe connectors, strut tower braces, and a torque arm/panhard rod combo, the old car will perform as well or better than the new one, while still weighing less.

    Stock for stock, though, the new S197 car is quite a bit more refined and leaps and bounds faster than a stock SN95 GT, despite the extra weight.

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    Google: Mustang Cobra wheel hop (Cobras have IRS)

    The Cobra’s IRS was a band-aid design at best. Do it right and they are pretty durable.

    The C6 Z06 recently got an improved axle shaft (I saw one break firsthand) which is more like the C5s axle. I’ve seen modified C5s and C4 ZR-1s run 10sec timeslips in the quarter, they don’t break very often unless you are more than a recreational drag racer.

    Hell, even turbo Supras run insane times on an IRS with drag radials. Full on racing slicks are a different story.

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    Saying the car is no better dynamically than a Fox chassis may be taking a bit too much literary license.

    By then I was also throwing in the fox-y ride, fox-y NVH controls, cheap interior and boxy styling into the mix.

    I probably need that license renewed anyway.

  • avatar
    Bob Elton

    Reasons to buy a Mustang.

    1. It looks good. Retro or not, Mustang is not only distinctive, it is good looking. And, with all due respect to Sajeev, I don’t think he knows what he is talking about when it comes to vehicle areodynamics. In a ground vehicle, a blunt front end makes almost no difference, especially when the air management is handled as well as the Mustang does it. Note the completely blocked off grill, for example.Besides, aero is at least as much about lift and stability as it is about drag. Until I see some numbers, I will assume the Mustang is at least average, and probably better than average.

    2, The top goes down. (Convertible models only).

    3. It fits 2 people very well. Normal size, 50+ year old people can sit in it like human beings.

    4. There are lots of advantages to a solid axle. Only with a solid axle can you get a signifigant amount of anti-squat, eliminating the “motorboating” feel of FWD and IRS cars. Plus, there are no untoward camber changes, and the rear axle steer is much more predictable.

    5. It sounds good. (V8 version only).

    6. It drives good. Stiff structure, good ride, good steering, good brake feel, decent handling and stability. Lots of cars should aspire to be this good. Even if it’s not he best, it’s a pretty good balance of all these qualities. Sajeev’s comments about brake shortcomings (in an earlier review), may very well have been caused by a mis-build, a V8 car with 6 cylinder brakes. (What? You don’t think that could happen?) Sure, it could be better at any one of these things, but as a balance, it’s pretty damn good, and probably the best balance for the price out there.

    7. Mustang is a car for grown-ups. Not boy racers, not yuppies, greenies, Rambos, or anyone else that tries to make an outrageous statement with their car.

    This is why the Mustang is a success.

    Bob Elton

  • avatar
    Bob Elton

    Sajeev,

    The S197 platform is not shared with Mazda, or any other Ford. It is unique.

    I wrote a whole TTAC column about it a while back.

    Bob Elton

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    Bob, I read somewhere that the GT500′s cd was .38. Even if the GT musters up a .35, that’s far from good use of modern day technology. Thunderbirds from the 1980s did that well, and they had sealed beam headlights!

    You’re gonna have to explain to me how the Mustang manages air so well. Because with all that frontal area and mediocre aerodynamics, I sure as heck don’t see the light.

  • avatar
    1984

    Sajeev,

    Mustang air management sucks.

    From experience @ 120 MPH the hood starts buffering and feels as if it is going to fly off. (Ironically we where racing a Crown Vic Interceptor that you unjustly compared the handling to)

    The GT500 hood has vents to release the pressure.

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    Thanks for sharing. I thought the hood vents were for cosmetics and extra cooling.

    Yeah, my Crown Vic reference was harsh for no good reason. But the ’65 Mustang/new Mustang vs. ’65 Galaxie/new Crown Vic shows how much better large cars are these days.

  • avatar
    1984

    Thanks for sharing. I thought the hood vents were for cosmetics and extra cooling.

    Me too until I saw what happened to a regular GT. It’s no wonder why the 08′ is rumored to receive the GT500 hood.

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    Ok, I’m dying to know…how badly did the Mustang beat the CVPI?

  • avatar

    I drive a 2001 Mustang. It was fun for the first couple of years, but the joke has worn very thin. Sure this new Mustang is improved over mine, but I say not nearly enough.

    Crap brakes – still an issue
    Overweight – even more so
    Axle shudder over rough surfaces – not totally eliminated
    Low rent detailing – check

    To get me into another Mustang I would need a revolution, not more of the same thing in a prettier skin.

  • avatar
    1984

    My friend was in the CV and I was in the Mustang with another guy. We both rolled on the throttle from 75 MPH, after 85 the GT walked away at about a 7 MPH difference in gaining speed. At 120 the hood shook violently and then slowly let of the gas and it stopped at about 115. Changed my underwear at the next off ramp.

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    At 120 the hood shook violently

    where are u people able to regularly go 120 mph?

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    jerseydevil: ever been to Texas?

    But seriously kids, speeding on public roads is stupid and dangerous.

  • avatar
    Lesley Wimbush

    I think this is great – that there are so many different opinions and that people are passionate about them. It bodes well for those of us that love cars… that there so many people willing to get emotional about them.
    It’s not a perfect car, and it’s not for everybody, but I’m glad that they built it. At least it’s not another generic, banal, driving appliance devoid of any emotional response to it whatsoever.
    I could tell you about my friend’s Omni, and a lot of you might comment on what a turd it is… yet all the rally-cross fans would be salivating (it’s a GLH).
    There aren’t many out there that are perfect (although the A4 Quattro S Line I have this week comes mighty close). But a lot of them make up for it with character.

  • avatar
    1984

    A flat and strait 5 lane expressway… pick one away from a city early in the morning on a weekend. I never said it was a wise idea.

  • avatar

    “But a lot of them make up for it with character.”

    Unfortunately Dederer’s take on “character” applies to the Mustang.

  • avatar
    Lesley Wimbush

    Sure, and here’s a quote from it:

    “Cars with “character” must have at least one good feature– go like hell, turn on a dime, look like sex, “

  • avatar

    jurisb: I’ve seen body-colored mirrors with embedded turn signal repeaters available for the Mustang in Japan. Foldable mirrors are required there and would be a welcome requirement in the U.S.

  • avatar
    Maxwelton

    $29K = modest? Time to crawl back under my rock, I guess.

  • avatar
    86er

    Robert Farago:
    January 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
    I don’t know about you guys, but I teach my kids that good enough isn’t good enough. Just sayin’.

    Oh and I’ve banned the commentator knows as acx, after warning him for calling Mustang critics “mongoloids,” following an email requesting me to do so (ban him, not call anti-’Stang people names).

    Holy macaroni, “mongoloids?”

  • avatar

    From the scribe:

    Zanary: I’ve driven plenty of foxes, the seating position is the same. Most everything is the same. I was expecting more content/quality from the S197. Simply put, the new Mustang feels about the same as the Fairmont Mustang, just fatter and boxier. Bigger is not better. The 3V Modular is good, but it would be even better in a lightweight Fox-ish Mustang.

    As far as the car’s excessive weight – that’s clearly a cost-cutting problem.

    The Fox ‘Stangs are Flexible Fliers next to the current one, and I invite you to see my statements on weight earlier. Where’s the V8 2+2 that weighs signifigantly less?

    Hell, the 350Z has two less cylinders and is right behind it….

  • avatar
    ejacobs

    Steve_S, thanks for the clarification. After first reading your comment, I actually thought you were claiming that people who buy the STI and RX8 were not buying them for handling. I agree that for what the Mustang is trying to be, it seems to be faithful to its mission (and the early Mustangs and muscle cars weren’t exactly laden with fine materials, either)…

    That said, anyone seen the Mustang commercial where the GQ-looking guy has his Stang delivered to Germany and is asked why? He responds with something to the effect that he couldn’t find a fast enough speed limit in the states. Pretty funny in its irony. I’d predict a Mustang wouldn’t be a wise choice for the Autobahn. The drag strip, however, absolutely.

  • avatar
    Bob Elton

    Sajeev,

    Remeber the boxy Chevy Caprices? They had exactly the same amount of drag as the “aerodynamic” Caprice introduced in 91. The 89 version of the boxy Caprice had a grill that was mostly blocked off, a hood that was very well sealed at the base of the windshield, a chin spoiler underneath the bumper, flush headlights with rubber gaskets around them, and so on. Those details made the difference in drag.

    The 2006 Mustang that my wife has (and loves) has a completely blocked out grill, excellent sealing with double seals at the back of the hood, covered headlights, a huge chin spoiler, engine colling air sucked up from under the bumper, and so on. These things make more difference than the shape. The mirrors at the base of the A pillar often don’t add anything to the drag force. In fact, removing them from the 91 Caprice actually added a little to the drag.

    As far as the hood fluttering at high speed, this is more a function of a lousy hood construction than anything.

    Thunderbirds from th 80s had composite headlights. Ford paid out millions in warranty to replace headlights that turned yellow before the warranty was out.

    Back about 90, the inconsistancies in measurements betweendifferent wind tunnels was alo pointed out when GM, and SAE, sent the same car around to many different tunnels in the US and Europe. The same car had results that differed by over 30%. The only reliable wind tunnel data comes from comparisons made in the same tunnel, preferably on the same day.

    Bob

  • avatar
    adrift

    My main impression of the new Mustang is just bulk. Way too much bulk.

    Why can’t the same look be executed with less bulk?

  • avatar
    1984

    Bob,

    Is your wife’s car a V6? The Mustang GT has an open grill…

    Here is the car:
    http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL83/535553/9860301/140616581.jpg

    I agree with just about everything you say about the stang but I have to disagree about its aerodynamics (GT). Really it’s a non issue, the car really is never driven near 120 and I doubt it will ever see it again. The wind noise is low and the loud exhaust is quiet when cruising.

  • avatar
    Ryan

    I’ve never been able to completely warm to the Mustang’s looks. I suppose from the a-pillar back, it’s a pretty decent looking car, but the front is just a little awkward. The way the headlights come to a point at the outer corners, it just looks permanantly sad, like an automotive Sylvester Stallone. Mostly though, I fail to see how it qualifies as a modern design. It is absolutely nothing more than a chubby ’68 Mustang that’s been cleaned up a bit. No creativity.

    As for the lack of IRS, I’m a little disappointed in that. I don’t doubt the solid rear axle is cost-effective and durable, but at the same time, if the Mustang is meant to do nothing but go fast in a straight line, it becomes a bit of an anachronism. Given that the Mustang and LS are at least mildly related, I can’t help but wonder how much work it’d be to switch a Mustang over to the LS’s IRS (if it’s possible).

    Mind you, the Mustang is still an impressive car, as is shown in its sales figures. It’d just be nice to see Ford aspire to more for what is basically their flagship, instead of allowing it to do no more than cash in on past glory.

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    Thunderbirds from th 80s had composite headlights. Ford paid out millions in warranty to replace headlights that turned yellow before the warranty was out.

    Bob,

    Sajeev was referring to the original 83-86 Birds that had quadruple conventional square sealed beams.

  • avatar
    Bob Elton

    1984

    My wife buy a V6? Surley you jest. She would be more likely to walkon the moon than have a 6 cylinder car.

    All this talk of “girly cars” would get her very angry. She has a shelf full of racing trophies from her younger days, racing sports cars.

    The grill is almost completely blocked off. There is a little bit of an opening near the foglights.

    Ford tried for years to make a Mustang out of the LS platform, and failed. That’s why the Mustang has its own platform, and originally, it’s own engine. (Since shared by the F150).
    A while back I wrote a TTAC piece about just this subject.

    Bob

  • avatar
    willbodine

    Ah, the Mustang. Plus ca change…
    I have a 64 1/2 260 convertible that I have owned for over 25 years. When I (rarely) drive it, I am time-travelling back to high school. The original was about style and affordability, period. The first baby boomers were just getting their licenses, and the age of the personal car was upon us. After the bad luck of l’ affaire Edsel, FoMoCo got incredibly lucky. The first ‘Stang just clicked with the American public. Remember the other run-away fad of Spring 1964? The Beatles. Both obsessions were national attempts to forget the JFK assassination nightmare of the previous November.
    The Falcon-based Mustang was unbelieveably crude. It didn’t ride and it didn’t handle. The super light steering was loose and ridiculously low-geared, even with assist. Didn’t matter. It was pretty and and it was cheap, with a huge personalizing option list, made possible by Ford’s new mainframes. It was the right car at the right time, and between April 1964 (when my car was built) to the end of the 1966 model year Ford sold 1,288,557 first generation Mustangs. A record unlikely to ever be broken.

  • avatar
    allen5h

    Sajeev: The first picture takes my breath away! (Juxtaposing both era ‘stangs in fire engine red.) I am using it as my new default desktop picture. Thanx a bunch!

  • avatar
    thetopdog

    This is my first post on TTAC. I came across the site a few months ago, and I’m consistently impressed with the quality of reviews and commentary from the readers.

    I have a little story I’d like to share with you guys about the Mustang.

    My daily driver is a 1999 Lexus GS400. I’m 23 now, and I’ve loved that car since I was in high school. I still remember the first one I saw, a white GS with the factory spoiler. I was on the way to a David Copperfield show with my mom and sister. I was blown away by the car’s styling (although it can be polarizing) and I’ve been a GS fan from that moment on.

    I was fortunate enough to be able to buy one upon graduation last year. I had a job lined up for August but I needed the car to get to and from work, so my parents lent (with interest, no spoiled brat here) me the money to buy the car in June before I started working. They said they weren’t going to lend me money to buy a sports car (I wanted a C5 Vette) so I ‘settled’ for the GS. Little did they know it had 300hp ;)

    About a month ago, an idiot ran into the side of my rear door. She was found at fault, so her insurance has to pay for my repairs and for my rental car while my car is in the body shop. I went to Hertz and told them to give me the nicest car they had since I wasn’t paying for it, and the other party’s insurance agreed to pay for a rental car ‘comparable to my own’. They were all out of luxury cars at the time, so they gave me the keys to a new bright yellow V6 automatic Mustang.

    I wasn’t that thrilled to get the Stang because after all, the GS has 90 more hp, is much faster, and has better slalom, skidpad and braking numbers too. I kind of grew out of the Mustang and Camaro phase when I graduated high school. Not to mention that I was dreading having to go from Lexus luxury to an interior that I have heard described as anywhere from ‘barely adequate’ to ‘dreadful.’ Not wanting to trade my GS for a Hyundai Azera (Hertz’s definition of a luxury car) I decided to give the Mustang a try though, and I was blown away!

    Maybe I can’t appreciate interior quality as a 23 year old male, but the interior of the ‘Stang is more than adequate in my opinion. My rental didn’t even have the fancy fake aluminum trim you see in those pictures up top, the dash was black all the way through. Even so, I honestly don’t miss any part of the Lexus interior apart from the heated seats (it’s actually starting to get cold in Boston these days) and the all leather steering wheel (the plastic faux-aluminum spokes on the steering wheel almost gave me frostbite a few times after the car had been sitting outside all night). The seatbelts are also very far back and hard to reach while you’re at anything other than a complete stop. The car is also about 5 inches too wide for the terrible Boston roads I’m forced to commute on. Those are about the only bad things I have to say about the Mustang. I don’t know if I’m just uncivilized, but I really don’t care about the quality of plastics, or how supple the carpet and headliner are. If you don’t sit in the car and look for faults, you probably won’t find any egregious violations of interior quality.

    I even liked the switchgear. It’s so much easier to turn a knob to turn the heat from warm to hot than it is to have to press ‘up’ 20 times in the Lexus to put in a request to the automatic climate control for a little more heat. I couldn’t care less if the switchgear has a substantial feel. I don’t want to watch my favorite pornstar reciting Shakespeare, and I don’t need my switchgear to feel as precise as a swiss watch. It does its job, and that’s good enough for me

    Despite the live rear axle, I honestly think the car even rides better than my GS. I don’t know if it’s the higher profile tires on the base Stang or what (my car is wearing 245/45/ZR17s, I’m not sure what tires the V6 Stang comes with), but I actually think the ride is more supple in the Mustang. The Mustang is a little overweight, but compared to my 3700lb GS, it’s reflexes are Boxster-sharp. The steering even feels more precise.

    I don’t know if it’s typical automotive-journalist cynicism, or if it’s just me being unable to appreciate the finer things in life at my tender age, but I think you guys are way too hard on the car. I realize my Lexus is 8 years old, but Lexus saw it fit to sell the car virtually unchanged all the way until 2005 (which is coincidentally the first year of the new Mustang), so I still feel my comparison is valid. Not to mention the fact that in 2005 a GS430 loaded with similar options to my GS400 cost close to three times the price of the stripper, rental-special base Stang. My car’s been in the shop for over a week, and I’m not anxiously anticipating its return. If I was a Mustang guy (the C6 Vette is more my style, I’ll hopefully pick up a slightly used model in the near future) I would definitely be happy with the package.

  • avatar
    rtz

    Needs less weight, more power, and lower price. Infinite refinement. The car will never be good enough or perfect. It’s still not the ultimate.

    How much does a bare `05-`07 Mustang Unibody weigh?

    http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1142/2outlaw41js.jpg
    http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/3766/2outlaw31tp.jpg

    A blast from the past:

    http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9721/mustangad23ac.jpg

    1965 Mustang curb weight? 2556 lbs!
    2007 Mustang curb weight? 3373 lbs!

    It’s been proven time and again that for every 100lbs reduction in weight results in a 1/10th less in the 1/4 mile. Easy speed, just build them light.

  • avatar
    1984

    Bob

    I’m sorry if you are insulted buy something I said for some reason. I’m not trying to upset anyone; I’m just asking a question.

    I referred to the mustang as a “16yo girl’s car” only if Ford had used the probe platform in the late 80′s. And the reply to ash78 obviously was a joke if you read the last sentence.

  • avatar
    ash78

    thetopdog
    Thanks for the assessment, nice insights. I’m sorry you discounted the Azera, that is a surprisingly nice car (I’ve only sat, never driven, though. Weird styling). And I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who prefers dial-thermostats to the push-button “luxury” ones…I think that is one of the most misguided and overrated upscale features in many cars.

    YES, I am just playing around about Mustangs for girls. But it is true if you cruise the local high school in my area that you will see loads and loads of base V6 models with young girls driving them–it’s a style thing, which nobody can deny is a major selling point on the car. Their daddies are nostalgic boomers, so it’s a perfect choice. My sister-in-law fits this to a T. FWIW, if we’re just being superficial, I drive a “middle aged woman’s car” based on the local clientele here (Passat). Don’t take it personally!

  • avatar
    cheezeweggie

    The problem I see wit the new Mustang is – What will it evolve into ? The retro T-bird rotted on the vine. Is the Stang next ? Can you take a classic design and sell it for 10 years witlhout a decline in sales ?

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    Well, Porsche has been doing it for 40 years. It’s all about consistency…something that Ford hasn’t been able to grasp.

  • avatar
    1984

    I wonder that also with cars like the MINI and PT Cruiser.

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    Bob, the other half of the story is frontal area. I saw a Mustang up close yesterday: the bevels and tight gaps help airflow, but that’s still a lot of frontal area (a large part of aerodynamic drag, frontal area x Cd) to do battle with. That’s the unanswered question in my mind.

    And I’d really like to know the GT’s Cd, even if the numbers are inconsistent over testing time and locations. While trying to google the number, I found the GT500′s cd (.38) ties into a Ford product of the aerodynamic past: the Aerostar Minivan. Yowza! :-)

    Well, Porsche has been doing it for 40 years. It’s all about consistency…something that Ford hasn’t been able to grasp.

    Sometimes you have to wonder if Ford (the company, not the people) has been more lucky than anything. First the Probe debacle. Then there is Bob Elton’s brilliant article on the life of Chris Theodore:

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=635

    Its a great read. Sad, but great.

  • avatar
    1984

    Wow that is a great article. It should be bumped to the top, I do not think it has the views it deserves.

  • avatar
    tincanman99

    I am still not getting this car. All these boomers wanting to relive their youth is fascinating. I had an original 69 Mustang Mach 1 in high school when these were considered just old junky car and not collectables like now. You could buy them for next to nothing, which is how I ended up with one. As a so-called Gen X’er this car was not built for me.

    Regarding all these people that look back fondly on their Mustangs, please, these were not great cars. They were not even good cars. What they were was DISPOSABLE CARS. They were not meant to last or even run good. They were designed to be bought, used and thrown away when you got older. That was their target market.

    Even though me and my Dad restored the car in my neighbors garage I never got the whole Mustang “mystique” thing. It was a hunk ‘o’ junk even after the restoration. The engineering on the car was primitive at best. I remember driving down the road and watching screws unscrew themselves from the dash due to vibration. AC – nada, heat – kind of worked, doors that sagged – definitely, treacherous in bad weather and rain – absolutely (I remember having to put 200lbs of sand in the trunk for the winter or this thing could not go up even a modest hill and that was with snow tires), manual DRUM brakes – can you say they don’t stop. I remember having endless problems with the transmission and that was after replacing it 2x, I remember the front end having to be welded due to cracks that developed in the chassis.

    What I remember most is the car costing me endless amounts of money. As a poor student this car was killing me. One of the happiest days in my life is when I sold it to someone else and it became someone else’s problem. Went to a sporty front wheel drive car and never looked back.

    I am amused about how rear wheel drive is making resurgence in cars again due to its so called performance advantage. Yeah on a track maybe. Here in the northeast you can take that rear wheel drive car and park it till spring. I see all kinds of Mercedes, BMWs (IX not withstanding) and all manner of rear wheel drive getting stranded and not being able to move. I will take front wheel or all wheel drive ala Audi, thank you very much. Front wheel drive has torque steer in some cars but not all cars. In some Audi’s you are not even sure which wheels are driving.

    For people to say they want a new modern car to have the spirit of the old Mustang is a joke at best. So what you are saying is you want the new Mustang to be is a hunk ‘O junk and be thrown away after a few years. You also want it to ride like an ox cart? The interior, you got to be kidding. Its straight out of an econobox. This is not a cheap car by any means. A plain VW Golf has a better interior.

    I think the design of the car is nice looking but it looks fat. Kind of like most Americans nowadays. They are kind of portly. You think Americans aren’t portly because we are ALL portly. Go to Europe and let me know how fat the people are and you will come back and say we are all hogs. Same with cars. I think the over all design is nice but its not a small nor compact car by any means. Its big like the SUV’s and all the other cars today. Some of it is because of safety but lots of it because the cars in general have grown in size.

    Ford is not the only one though. For example look at BMW – take a look at an old 3 series of 15 years ago and compare it to a current 3 series. You will be shocked at how big a 3 series is now. A 3 series today is like the size of a 5 series 14 years ago.

    As for the chassis, you got to be kidding me that this thing still has a live rear axle. What year is this again? Frankly I don’t care how much horsepower it has. What I am more interested in is how it drives. Does it handle nice, is it comfortable to sit in. Does it work like a MODERN car.

    Ever since my first Mustang I would not be caught dead in an American car. I have had both German and Japanese cars and have to say its not just the engineering which is better the cars are just better thought out. Sure they have their quirks but there is no way on this green earth that someone after owning a Honda is going to go back and buy a Ford. Like everything else this is not 100% true but I would say it’s a very high number.

    Ford wants people to buy cars, well build modern cars that behave like modern cars and people will come. Oh and make them reliable, please.

  • avatar
    ktm

    tincanman99, RWD is not constrained to just cars, lest you forget that a majority of trucks and vans are RWD. While RWD vehicles are treacherous to drive in the winter, a good set of winter tires and careful driving will get you far. Hell, I grew up in Alaska driving a 1979 VW Rabbit diesel and a 1983 VW Vanagon (manual, manual steering, RWD).

    I lived in mid-south Germany for a while as well and was driving a 1979 Mercedes 200, a 1984 323i, and 1972 Porsche 911 Targa. I managed to drive these over snow-covered roads.

  • avatar
    1984

    I am still not getting this car
    ORLY?

    Ok, I’ll bite…

    So you base your assessment of the new mustang (I’m sorry “American” cars) on a half disassembled second hand 30yo piece of junk with a cracked sub-frame – OK?

    Someone sold you something that should have been scraped… and now you’re mad… at Ford… or 2.5… or something… idunno.

  • avatar
    geeber

    tincanman99: I am still not getting this car. All these boomers wanting to relive their youth is fascinating. I had an original 69 Mustang Mach 1 in high school when these were considered just old junky car and not collectables like now. You could buy them for next to nothing, which is how I ended up with one.

    If you bought this Mustang for “next to nothing,” it had probably been nearly beaten to death by that point. I wouldn’t condemn the quality of one car line – let alone an entire corporation – based on one well-used (and well-abused) example.

    It was also a Mach 1 Mustang (the performance version), which means it was probably thrashed to within an inch of its life by the time you had it.

    I grew up in the late 1970s, and remember that street racing was quite popular at that time (probably more so than today). Old muscle cars and pony cars were bought by eager young men especially for that purpose. They were available for very little money, as you noted.

    Plus, you describe yourself as a “Generation Xer,” which means you were born after 1964 (the end of the Baby Boom). Assuming that you were born in the mid-1960s (which would make you one of the older Generation Xers), this car was over a decade old when you were able to drive (given that someone born in 1965 could not legally drive until 1981, assuming a 16-year-old driving age).

    tincanman99: Regarding all these people that look back fondly on their Mustangs, please, these were not great cars. They were not even good cars. What they were was DISPOSABLE CARS. They were not meant to last or even run good.

    ALL cars are built as disposable cars. EVERY car company – American, German, Japanese, Swedish, French, Italian, Korean – wants you to eventually buy a new car. That is how they stay in business.

    Mustangs from the 1960s were good cars – not great ones, to be sure, but good ones.

    And as far as reliability and durability – they were better than 99 percent of the imports available at that time, especially imports at that price point.

    Japanese cars in the 1960s were rust buckets and extremely difficult to start in cold weather; VWs had engines that wore out at 60,000 miles (but at least they were easily replaced) and were a handful in crosswinds and dangerously slow when entering freeways; while French, Italian and British cars were reliability nightmares (the parts availability was even worse).

    tincanman99: Even though me and my Dad restored the car in my neighbors garage I never got the whole Mustang “mystique” thing. It was a hunk ‘o’ junk even after the restoration. The engineering on the car was primitive at best. I remember driving down the road and watching screws unscrew themselves from the dash due to vibration. AC – nada, heat – kind of worked, doors that sagged – definitely, treacherous in bad weather and rain – absolutely (I remember having to put 200lbs of sand in the trunk for the winter or this thing could not go up even a modest hill and that was with snow tires), manual DRUM brakes – can you say they don’t stop. I remember having endless problems with the transmission and that was after replacing it 2x, I remember the front end having to be welded due to cracks that developed in the chassis.

    Until I know the quality of the restoration done by your father, I’m not going to use your experience to accurately judge the quality of 1960s Mustangs.

    I’ve seen several amateur restorations at numerous Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) shows and Carlisle Production events, and the quality of the work ranges from superb to abysmal.

    Now, if your father owns – or works for – an outfit such as White Post Restorations, that is different. But given that he restored it in your neighbor’s garage, I highly doubt this.

    From the beginning of your post, it was apparent that this particular car had been well-worn even before the restoration. It would have required the replacement of numerous parts to be rebuilt properly, including new structural components.

    tincanman99: Went to a sporty front wheel drive car and never looked back.

    And how many of those sporty front-wheel-drive cars from that time are still on the market?

    tincanmam99: I think the design of the car is nice looking but it looks fat. Kind of like most Americans nowadays. They are kind of portly. You think Americans aren’t portly because we are ALL portly. Go to Europe and let me know how fat the people are and you will come back and say we are all hogs.

    I was in Germany last year to visit relatives…they are pretty much as fat as we are. Now, in Italy, they are slimmer, but they also smoke like chimneys compared to Americans, which may be one reason they are thinner.

    timcanman99: Ever since my first Mustang I would not be caught dead in an American car. I have had both German and Japanese cars and have to say its not just the engineering which is better the cars are just better thought out.

    Drive what you like, but I must take with a grain of salt the opinions of anyone whose main experience with American cars appears to be a well-worn 1969 Mustang Mach 1.

  • avatar
    tincanman99

    I guess I hit a raw nerve.

    My family had lots of American cars. My dad went through 2 Oldsmobiles that were taken back by GM because of various issues. The first one used to have the paint fall off in quarter sized chunks. The second used to leak when it rained through the back window. Apparently when they welded the car together the frame opening was not true. I dont know how many times they took the car in to try to close it up. Finally GM took it back too…

    I dont agree with your assessment that Mustangs were good cars. I know lots of people who had the later ones which had many of the same problems as the earlier ones.

    Like I said this car is not targeted at me and never was. I came of age after the boomers. Different generation. I have noticed that the majority of the drivers of the new Mustang are 50-something year olds. Not all but most.

    As for the American car company’s problems. They mostly did it to themselves as always. Typical American business management – focus on the short term, make as much as possible and screw the future. They are not the only ones that do this. The airlines come to mind as well. I can almost guarantee when these companies collaspe and they will collaspe the executives will parachute out even richer than they are now. Thats how it works.

    At this point in time the car companies are living off the subsidies of the taxpayer without providing big returns on the benefits they enjoy.

    Once all these companies finish sending manufacturing to the 3rd world country of their choice will these still be considered “american” products? A bigger question is should these companies be entitled to all the perks they had when they employed zillions of people here?

    Lots of people dont get these cars. Different strokes for different folks.

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    i owned a mid 80′s mustang, dear god what a POS. My mechanic pronouned it dead at abiut 75000 miles. Pretty, tho. Got the attention of lots of – shall we say – interested parties.

    I get the poster who says its an adult car, i understand, but there’s no sunroof – i like a sunroof. For the same money you can all sorts of adult cars… oh well, i dont wanna beat that dead horse…

  • avatar
    korvetkeith

    Cd is independent of frontal area. To get an idea of how aerodynamic a car actually is, multiply it’s Cd by it’s frontal area.

  • avatar
    coppola77

    I have owned a BMW 3 series, a 350Z, and a few other “performance” cars. I bought an 05 GT about 2 months ago. This is a great car for the price. I understand that the Stang is not for everyone but to say this car is crap is rediculous. Raw power, exceptional performance, comfort, and amazing looks are a lot to squeeze out of 29K. Obviously, if you’re a Lexus lover the Stang will feel a little heavy to you. But if you have a jones for quality, American muscle, then you can’t go wrong with this sexy ass car. Just my .02 :)

  • avatar
    Mack

    bear:
    January 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    this car is junk and is a disaster to what Americans believe to be a sports car

    See I thought those are muscle cars not sports cars, lazy V-8′s, well I’m pretty sure the 0-60 time for mustang is 4.9, but yet the 350z is 5.4, well those lazy v-8′s eh. But remember you should maybe know your products you are going to talk about first, it might make you look a little credible, here’s some food for thought.

    -In a press conference that opened the first Media Day at the 2005 CIAS, AJAC announced that Ford’s all-new Mustang took both the coveted Canadian Car of the Year and the Best New Design awards.
    -MotorWeek announced the selection of the Ford Mustang as “Best of the Year” for the 2005 MotorWeek Drivers’ Choice Awards.
    Other Ford Motor Company vehicles taking home MotorWeek honors include: Best Performance Car: Ford Mustang
    -The Ford Mustang was recognized as the most accessory friendly new vehicle today at the California International Auto Show in Anaheim, capturing the first of three SEMA Vehicle Design Awards.
    -The Ford Mustang won a landslide victory as the Consumers’ Most Significant Vehicle of the Year for 2005. In a solid second place was the Chrysler 300 sedan, which was selected last fall as the Edmunds.com Editors’ Most Significant Vehicle of the Year for 2005. In third place was the Chevrolet Corvette.
    Now that’s the truth about cars

  • avatar
    bear

    everyone here is the scoop, it doesn’t matter how many rewards or recognition or trophies or anything else relating to Motor Trend, Car and Driver, or any of likes for that matter PERIOD!
    What really matters is that this vehicle personifies itself as a muscle car and or a sport car and that is just not the case….
    What this car really is is a “wanna be sports car or muscle car but nothing else”! Why U ask?
    it’s simple folks here is why
    #1 it’s over weight
    #2 it’s not that fast for a “muscle car” 0-60 U say @ 4.9 sec. where and when….. U can’t get those #’s on a consistent basis anywhere but the track with cooler temps and a more controlled situation along with a semi-professional driver U would B lucky 2 see just under 6.0 sec but not below 5.0 sec.
    #3 the handling is just plain chitty! this car has a truck axle for Pete’s sake….how many true sports cars have this???? none!
    #4 this cars motor is weak for the size and engineering to todays standards…this is more like a 80′s V-8 if U ask me….
    #5 cheesy interior with awkward sitting positions only….it looks as though if U are constipated when U sit in this car.
    #6 loose body, too muck flex and weak structural
    design make this car poor in design and crash worthyness.
    #7 too much slop in the drive train with gear whine in the maunaul transmission.
    #8 suspension is too loose and too much body roll.car handles extremely poor!!!!!
    #9 come on it’s a Ford, remember really high in recalls and unreliable and gets extremely poor gas mileage once again but no efficiency.
    #10 is this the only sports car besides a Viper and Vette! GTO was a poor and dismal failure..
    I would hardly say the 300C or any Mopar SRT-8 is a sports car….once again a Mustang with 4 doors and a little more power.Trans Am A.K.A.( fire chicken), Fire Turd,and Crapmaro are all gone and was junk as well……these cars R telling us something……. looks only get so far and with little time but in the end, reliabilty, true handling, and a real car that can actually do more that just go in a straight line is what people really want! Oh by the way another dismal failure is the Thunderbird!
    what I am saying is that no one else can practically afford the other brands and so therfore the Mustang or Dodge Neon SRT-4 R the onlt affordable cars availalbe to the American market in our own country…U get my point and hopefully U will not allow personal feelings get in the way of the truth…And that is the truth about cars my friends no frills no bull just the way it is….. If U think otherwise U R in denial just like the majority of the people R in our country…. but that is a whole diff. subject that I won’t get into…

  • avatar
    Mack

    Hey bear, what do you drive anyways? And have you even driven the new mustang, but wait, if that # of 4.9 sec is unreal well then must be the reviewed # for the 350 must be more too. Kinda like EPA ratings, they are all judged the same. But lets just let the import cars rate their HP at the flywheel while domestic cars are at rear wheels. And the nice SIMPLE engine of a V-8 is not weak since there isn’t all that crap that can go wrong with it like a smaller more tuned engine. Drive one for a week and tell me it’s uncomfortable. Speaking of recalls I believe it was Toyota that had more recalls than they sold cars last year. By the way gear whine is only in the V-6, that kinda makes me feel like you didn’t drive a GT probably because it was just too much car for you, maybe you should just stick to your mini-cooper. Truck axle, geez, learn how to drive a car for what it is, and kick that rear end out around a few turns, it’s the full feel enjoyment plus it’s what gives it more of the retro feel. What other stock car can get around 5 sec’s anyways? Well at least under $50000, or how about under $40000. Overweight by what 480 lbs? thats how much heavier it is than a subaru WRX. And I thought they are bringin the Camaro back anyways? Fuel efficiency, well if you have to ask then don’t buy a fast car, buy a smart car. Fuel is the price of life, big deal. Do you really know how much more it will cost you in a year? Do the math one day.. And you are telling me some 4cyl turbo isn’t going to be just as bad on gas when you pin it everywhere. What did you mean about what recognition and awards don’t mean anything? That usually means that professionals have reviewed those cars, you know people who aren’t just talking trash, or who read a few blogs on the internet. Well it has been around for a few years and has proven itself, name how many cars have been around that long. Now the only people who talk trash like that are people who haven’t driven them, just hate Ford, or just don’t know how to drive a real car, AKA rear wheel drive pure and raw power.

  • avatar
    coppola77

    Bear,

    Like I posted previously, I owned a 350Z before I got my GT. The Z was a great car and I loved it. The thing is – it’s in a different category. Of course a small, sporty, V6 coupe is going to handle better than a Mustang. What I love about the mustang is that it BARELY handles worse than the Z, and it’s a full sized muscle car. (And believe me, it beats the Z in a 1/4 mile any day) If you think the V8 feels “lazy” then maybe you were driving one with a broken vacuum hose or something. This car hauls ass – plain and simple. Another thing a lot of people don’t know about this car is that it’s one of the few cases of over-engineering out of the Ford line. This car is built on the S197 (same as the Jaguar S-Type) platform, and it definitely feels like it. Speaking of weight, the GT only ways a couple hundred more pounds than the 350Z. The power to weight ratio is the same. (If not better) I wanted to go back to my “American muscle roots” when I bought this car, but I was pleasantly surprised to see it is much more. Reliability, looks, and exceptional performance – and I didn’t even spend 30K. How can POSSIBLY knock this car?

  • avatar
    bear

    coppola77 and Mack, I’m sorry U feel that I am bashing the Stang based on my previous posts, but I feel compelled to tell U and anyone else that is reading about this car.U mention owning the 350Z and then trading in for the Stang? why would U do that, very silly!Yes the Stang is slightly quicker in the quarter based on pro drivers because it simply has a little more torque.Now that that is out of the way lets compare these 2 cars shall we?
    1. handling = 350Z
    2. looks = tie depending on who U ask
    3. quality fit and finish = 350Z
    4. straight line acceleration = Stang even pulling a boat because of truck motor V-8
    5. Xenon headlights = 350Z not avail. on Stang
    6. L.E.D. tail lights 350Z not avail. on Stang
    7. Independent rear suspension = 350Z not avail. on stang remember all high performance cars use ind. rear suspensions!
    8.Ridged body and structure = 350Z stang cant take a hit and body flexes alot.
    9.Gear whine = Stang because sound of V-8 drowns it out and why does the V-6 whine?
    10.Interior = tie depends on who U ask,but quality fit and finish is better on 350Z,Stang has too many quirky plasticky components
    11.Ride quality = tie, 350Z for handling and go fast turn ( fun factor), Stang if U like the boat ride and excessive body lean without go fast turns ( slow turns only)
    12.Rear end = tie both have limited slip
    these are just some of the examples that U should concur with, if not we aren’t being fair and U favor your Stang.The 350Z can get sideways just as easy as the Stang and didn’t need an axle to accomplish this,and by the way the 350Z is alot more predictable because it handles better as the suspension is better equiped to do so and drifitng is alot more fun in the 350Z because U can get sideways and keep it that way with predictable handling and feedback on the stock suspension,U can’t do that on the Stang because of once again exccessive body roll and too much flexing in the body and the suspension is too soft.Over engineering you say
    big deal on the Jag S-type it’s a piece of junk….ask anyone who owns one they R over priced,over rated and extremely unreliable as per the professionals….Ford needed to buy Jag because if U remember all 3 domestic lines were buying up the other premium brands remember? G.M. bought Saab,Hummer, Olds is gone.Chrysler has Lambo,and now it is Daimler ( A.K.A. Mercedes-Benz),Ford well it owns Volvo,Jag.,Aston Martin,Mazda (partner)….and by the way Astin is up for sale as well as Volvo and Jag.,because Ford says it is loosing money.What do U say about that?Here is my opinion, secure and take care of your own back yard before U go out and tackle on other projects and learn about them as well before U get over commited, do U get what I’m saying here.Ford is in trouble, that is no secret and lets face it the only 2 real products that R going strong is the F-series trucks with Diesels, and the Stang.Oh and by the way I woldn’t B surprised if the Stang and F-Series trucks shared the same axle LOL!O.K. all b-sing aside you get the drift….. O.K. lets compare domestic to domestic shall we…..
    Shelby GT 500,Corvette Z06,and last but not least Viper.
    Shelby =500 horse power,weighs more than the other two, has a solid truck axle,and can’t handle as well as the other 2,and is alot slower than the other two.
    the Vette and Snake both have 500 h.p. respectively, R lighter,have independent rear suspension, weigh less that the Stang, and is both significantly quicker,handles better and has better equipment all for about the same.I know it is a little more but I think when U get in this category price won’t matter.U get the drift.Did U want to compare the regular vette and stang? let me guess they R not in the same category right?
    O.K. so there U have some of the facts, and U say the Stang is a muscle car,well with performance like this and can barely beat a 350Z
    which by the way is only a 3.5 V-6 compared to a 4.6 V-8 on the Stang and is maybe .2-.3 sec. quicker in the quarter mile,is by no means a muscle car, so tell me where is the muscle?!I’ll tell U what the stang really is, as long as U don’t get offended, O.K. It is in fact the only V-8 powered car that is under 30K in which delivers only mediocre performance and is cheaply made and personifies to the general public as a muscle/sports car but is in fact a Crown Victoria …think back to the early 80′s remember the Dodge Aries K car?this is by no means a muscle-sports car because it is fat, bloated and all show and noise but no go…tell me what good is it to have a car that sounds mean (with exhaust of course),is trying to look fast, and can’t perform to to task??? why even try to look the part?This car is an example of the over paid,over rated staffing at Ford motor co. with no new sight.Remeber a company who can’t put themselves in the path of progress will fail miserably!
    Oh by the way the 2000-2004 Cobras tried to use and independent rear axle borrowed from and get this out of all things the rear end came from the crappy Thunderbird,also another failure and when people took these cars to the track and put slicks on them they guess what SNAPPED!wow what a joke….remember vettes run 9′s with slick on their ind. rear ends and don’t break!!!!
    U should B very careful in saying that I don’t know much about cars,I’ve been in the business along time and I eat,sleep,and shit cars all the time,and don’t bother making a smart-azz remark about that statement.No I don’t drive a Mini Pooper or even the S-type.
    Do U really wan’t 2 know what I drive?
    I’ll give U a hint,It has twin-turbos and is not an exotic or a domestic,and it will pull away from any of the domestic 3 mentioned above and
    dynos at the rear wheels 527 @6700 R.P.M.
    can out handle the top Domestic 3 and will flat outrun them until I run out of gearing all of this with only a 3.0 litre V-6 and stock internals!
    And by the way all of the cars R rated at the crank not the rear wheels unless they specify it to be.

  • avatar
    coppola77

    Bear, Everything you claim as "wrong" with the mustang is purely a matter of opinion. The car is a success and hords of people agree, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, then you just don't like it. If you don't like the Mona Lisa, it doesn't mean it's garbage.

  • avatar
    bear

    coppola77 My car by the way is a Nissan 300zx twin turbo with TD-05 16G turbos with external wastegates,Trust intercoolers,dual pop charger intake,Nismo 555cc injectors with E-prom upgrade,Koyo racing radiator,Earls auxilliary oil cooler,HKS H-pipes,and a stainless Borla exhaust, and an Apexi electronic boost controller.Bat mobile hardly, Mustang beater definately. If a Mustang GT is fast than the world is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth.

  • avatar
    Mack

    Well that isn’t stock now is it, I’m in the business as well and thats why I am so surprised you talk down about other manufacturer’s like that. But hey it’s ok, since a 350z costs over $10000 more. How do you compare corvette with mustang GT thats a bit larger than a 10k price difference isn’t it. That would be more like comparing Saleen more than just a GT Mustang.
    But let me ask you this, you keep mentioning that the mustang only gets those times with a professional driver well then the later times of the 350z would also have been driven by a professional driver too, so then that would be then compensated again, right…. anyways you get the point

  • avatar
    coppola77

    Hey Bear,

    If you took how much you invested in your Nissan and put that same amount into an 05 GT, what do you think would happen? Just food for thought.

  • avatar
    bear

    The total money invested in this set up is as follows: 5500.00 for turbo kit and hard pipes incl. the external wastegates,1500.00 for the pair of intercoolers,550.00 for the eprom upgrade,400.00 for the dual pop charger upgrade,850.00 for the Nismo injectors,and 1200.00 fot hte h-pipes and Borla exhaust….
    Total for this 500 plus h.p. package is 10K !
    Now that U have the dollar amount thes are all based on the prices I paid for this set-up almost
    8 years ago! the time today for these prices are actually lower now but I put on here what I paid.
    We can now look at the 05 Mustang GT and see what results are in.O.K. U can currently buy a supercharger kit for this car at approx.6-7 K…
    This alone with a 9 p.s.i. kit will yield over 500 ponies at the rear wheels!That is great, however I have to allow the other readers to understand something.It would take at least 2-3 tmes the amount of money to get the GT to where the 300ZX twin turbo is at, so let me explain.
    The first thing that most people don’t know is that the 300ZX’s engine is well built with all the necessary hardware from the factory to take forced induction!There is too much info. on the engine itself, but suffice it to say that this engine can take over 700+ horse power and the stock internals can handle it……trust me and believe me on this there are numerous cars out there to substantiate this evidence.
    The Mustang however cannot continue this power output without having to fortify the internals itself, i.e. forged crank, connecting rods, larger injectors,moddified heads,lower compression pistons, baffled windage tray,intercooler,e.c.u. reprogram or upgrade, and also a strong main and girldled caps, etc,etc,etc, as you can imagine the list of goodies would ad up quickly!Now that that is covered the Mustang is the only car on the American market until the Camaro is built as well as the Challenger.Remember though both of these cars are still big and heavy and will require v-8′s to satisfy most, because U R right the v-6 will not yield satisfaction.These cars are nice looking to a select crowd, but please understand that performance pays big dividends for those who wish to go into that hole$$$$$.
    As far as the Stang itself I must still say that the 350Z is only about 1500.00 dolars more for a base model and that is still with power windows,locks,mirrors, and even a c.d. player.
    A base Stang GT can be had for 25k and change with manual windows,locks, and mirrors I believe and a base 350Z can be had for 26kK and change..
    as these options to the Stang and you can see that the small differnece can be credited for the power options and you still get a better handling car that has more refinement with better quality fit and finish and has a better feel when it comes to spirited driving….The only reason you see more Mustangs on the road today is because the Stang also come in a V-6 option and less equipment and can be had for around 20K….this is well within the general publics affordable price range.So now that I have covered thae basics lets also put in the professionals opinions shall we.Remember earlier when I stated that it didn’t matter what Road & Track and the likes didn’t matter? I still feel that way becuse until the actual person owns these that is where the opinions matter but because people do feel the pro’s opinions matter let me interject something..Look at the issue of Road & Tracks Dec. 2006 article and U will see your proffesional results as per your request.
    The 350Z was voted the best sports car under 30K,
    what do your feelings tell you now about the professionals opinion? Enough said!

  • avatar
    bear

    capolla 77 to your response if I took the small amount of money in comparison to what it would take to make the Stang as good can’t compare.I would have to start with a new chassis, new block, heads, tranny……..man i don’t want to type everything so lets just say I would need a whole new car!But to B fair if I just spent 10 large on the Stang you wanted to know what would happen?O.K. I’ll tell U.It would go something like this.As I mentioned about the supercharger, I would have fun for the first few runs and then the motor would blow up,and when I did hit the accelerator I wouldn’t B able to stop very well because this car has terrible brakes!I would have to spend at least 3K on a brake upgrade.that is the answer on what would happen if I spent the 10K on the Stang.How would U spend 10 large on this car to compete? Food for thought has been eaten.

  • avatar
    coppola77

    Bear,

    First of all, the you cannot get a 350Z for 26K. Not brand new anyway. I got my 04 with the “enthusiast” package in August of 03 and it was a MONSTER deal for 29200 before T&L. Secondly, the more you compare the two the more I understand your disliking of the Mustang. I love both cars, but for different reasons. If you are an absolute Nissan buff, like you are, of course you won’t like the Mustang. You say the Z one some “best sports car” award. Well, great. How many times have the Z and the GT been directly rated on the same comparisons? It’s apples and oranges my friend. Oh look! Here’s one now!

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0506_compact_sport_convertibles_comparison/

    Did you notice the part that said:

    “As you might expect, the Mustang GT and 350Z are two entirely different experiences on the road. “The Z-Car is the carver and the Mustang is the cruiser,” says Motor Trend road-test editor Neil Chirico. Think of the Mustang GT as Jake LaMotta, a punch-drunk heavyweight making a comeback from the brink of retirement. With a 300-horse V-8, it still packs quite a wallop. The 350Z, on the other hand, is Jackie Chan, kickboxing the competition with faster moves, quicker reflexes, and a more animated personality.”

    Here’s how it ends:

    “But the Mustang GT is still the favorite with classic good looks and the rumble of V-8 power. This Ford offers tremendous bang for the buck, and judging from the admiring looks, walkups in parking lots, and unsolicited thumbs up from a wide cross section of the population, young and old, the Mustang is a crowd pleaser. So good, in fact, that some folks will buy this car without ever taking it for a test-drive. That makes the Mustang GT the better icon.”

    My point is, the Mustang is a great car but you don’t have to like it. Just stop throwing all these rediculous claims about how crappy every square inch of it is and how it will “blow up” after a few supercharged runs. You have no solid evidence or proof on the matter. You just don’t like it. And that’s ok.

    P.S. I think some of those Motor Trend road test numbers might surprise you a bit.

  • avatar
    evohappy9

    Bear: Holy smokes! You hold quite a bit of vitriol for the domestics. I completely agree with you though. The reason our auto manufacturers are in dire straits is because they peddle trash to the public and have been for 40 years now. The difference now is that more people are aware of foreign machines and their capabilities and they want to experience it. The domestics were killed by their own propaganda.
    I agree with you also on the posted times for the Mustang – I have ran with 4 of them and each one was smoked. My car is not that fast to begin with. Forget about the country lanes!!! – those poor mustang owners were thinking they had a high performance machine!!!!

  • avatar
    coppola77

    “they peddle trash to the public and have been for 40 years now”

    What a rediculous, over-simplified statement. I had a BMW 3 series that was an absolute nightmare a few years back. Does that mean anything? There is quality and garbage on both sides of the ocean. Leave the lame, “broad stroke” statements out of the discussion, please.

  • avatar
    bear

    Lets face the facts on the jist of things shall we. All of us know that this vehicle is under the microscope because it is currently the only domestic on the market this side of 30K.That being said people tend to gravitate towards looks on vehicles because for most we as human beings want to look and feel good period. This vehicle affords itself to many because of its pricing and looks with what feels to most a decent amount of performance for the money, right? Well with that being said,lets just say that this vehicle is what it is.Forget about domestic, foreign, or even alien lets just look at what really matters. The point of this whole quarrel is that everyone can easlily pick everything apart if they wanted and mind U there is no such thing as the perfect car,unless U can build the Starship Enterprise (Capt. Picards of course) but if U recall the registry was 1701-D…. hence the lettering for improvement and evolution…Capt. Kirk had Enterprise 1701-A…hahahaha imagine if he was still alive to see Picards ship eh? my point is this, everyone should attempt to better the previous generation did as our ancestors and fore-fathers did for us because that is what it is really about.The Mustang should also take light in the same manner and become "evolutionary" in any way that it can….. however the vehicle has remained stagnant and hasn't moved forward in many ways.Sure the vehicle has good looks to some but once again the vehicle has not changed much in terms of technology or refinement, and unfortunately this is the case for this vehicle…. In so saying I have to admit I may have been a little critcal about certain aspects on this car but then again I don't apoligize for the shortcomings on this car either….. Ford has had many years to delegate this problem and hasn't done much in the long time frame it has had!I fear what will happen if and when they roll out the Camaro and Challenger this late in the game and tips the sales of the Pony car……In short Ford will be in even bigger trouble than it is in now and by then it will be too late for Ford to redeem that status.Pitty and a shame because if Ford would have listened they could have continued to corner the market. In so stating these things that is why we live in America with the freedom of speech and opinions…..whether these statements are opinions or facts one will still remain quite certain, there are other choices and for most educated people aware of the ins and outs of these vehicles one thing is for shure.For those that can afford a better vehicle we drive them or have chosen them allready, and we ultimately know the truth about cars and we don't need anything else other than what we know to be true….never mind people who are unaware of quality, refinement, and technology… if the people want a certain budget car than look no further than the Mustang, if you want something else you know what to get anyways and are probably driving it.I just wish more people had the same thoughts on machines for bettering the overall experience and not compromising certain aspects of a vehicle and trying to make it what it really isn't.

  • avatar
    Yellow PT

    The Ford Mustang is absolutely first class. First there is a terrific design. Next, the engine and transmission are really good. They don’t have a lot of noise, harshness or vibration. Then, you have the tuned suspension. The ride is really good and the seats are comfortable. American cars can be great and this is a fantastic example of one.

  • avatar
    bytes

    The more reviews of this kind I read, the more I love my 07 GT. I’ll be the first one to tell that I don’t know much about the 60′s Mustangs (and neither does the author of this piece) but I owned 97 and there is a huge difference on the plus side. All this hatred makes me think I’m on to something.
    All these talks about “I smoked 58 Mustangs” blah blah, 50 was probably a V6, 4 was parked and the other 4 wasn’t even racing you.
    Eat me.

  • avatar
    moosestang

    Why is everyone in love with IRS? I’m sure it’s slightly better for cornering, but it ain’t worth shit in a straight line.

  • avatar
    Sajeev Mehta

    The more reviews of this kind I read, the more I love my 07 GT. I’ll be the first one to tell that I don’t know much about the 60’s Mustangs (and neither does the author of this piece) but I owned 97 and there is a huge difference on the plus side.

    Except I have driven several 60s Mustangs. They were light, tossable and compact. And they used a lot of soft vinyl instead of today’s rock hard plastics.

    And that gas cap in the back was real.

    You are right, the 1997 Mustang GT has the 215hp 4.6L (lousy heads) and the new GT will absolutely cream it.

    Sorry I still don’t buy into the overweight size and mediocre dynamics of the new one. Maybe if it was smaller and sleeker none of that would matter.

  • avatar
    stanger

    Geez….pretty harsh article. I love the new mustangs…own a 2000….I think the writer misses the whole point of why those who want one buy one.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States