By on December 13, 2008

It’s easy to have mixed feelings about the 2005-2009 Mustang GT. It’s handsome, for the money you paid you got pretty good V8 power and it was fast enough. Where the (suddenly) last-gen Mustang falls down is the lowest bidder interior, questionable handling and non-track day brakes. “Listen baby I had a great time, but don’t lose any sleep sitting by the phone.” But hey, Ford’s prepped a (kinda) all new steed for 2010 and you can bet Mullally’s golden ‘chute that Mustang engineers have been hard at work addressing the above issues. Well, except for the brakes.

If you have an internet connection and a passing interest in cars, you’ve already sick of seeing the redesigned ‘Stang. But in person, it’s much better looking than in 2D. The detail that struck me hardest were the three creases on the hood. It’s an intriguing, complex surface. The side mirrors are painted body color (yay!) and the antennae has been moved to the rear. And you know, I like the more geometric rear end with the three-bar taillights. I also like the resculpted face. Sure it has some Camaro cues (hooded lights, downhill curve) but they’re good cues and segment appropriate. The only body panel they didn’t change is the roof, but sitting on the fatter (er, more muscular) haunches it reminds me even more of the ’68 Fastback. Which is good. And you really got to see this baddie in Grabber Blue.

Ford got halfway to the promised land with the interior. Gone are many of the more egregious examples of IQ insulting penny pinching. For instance the bulk of the dash is now covered in actual aluminum. The gauges are not only crisper but Mustang exclusive. The leather seats sport oversized, contrast stitching and a stylish accent stripe. But there’s hardly any bolstering and after more than an hour, they hurt your back. Another example of almost but not quite: Ford placed soft  leather inserts into the doors. Nice. But above ‘em is the same lousy plastic as last year. Pity.

Put your foot into the throttle and you’ll bang your head (against the headrest). Power is up for 2010. Up to Bullitt levels. That’s 315 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque. And check this: should you choose to fill up with premium gas, the ECU makes the torque earlier between 1,000-3,000 rpm. Also like the Bullitt, engine noise is piped into the cabin. Literally. While the sound isn’t quite as sweet as the car McQueen inspired (blame thicker sound proofing), the grunt is better than before. 0-60 times are probably in the 5 second flat range, just like the Bullitt. In certain interior packages, you can even shift gears with the Bullitt’s knob. If you’ve guessed that Ford benchmarked the Bullitt when designing the new car, pat yourself. Why? The Bullitt was the best Mustang Ford ever built.

The Bullitt made great strides in addressing the standard car’s handling issues. The 2010 Mustang GT crosses the finish line. More bracing, tighter spring rates, more damping, thicker sway bars and greatly improved aerodynamics work together to create the first Mustang in memory that thrives in the twisty stuff. Stick your head between the mufflers and you’re still greeted by a thick live axle. Ready for the truth: so what? After seven hours of constant, aggressive driving I encountered exactly one patch of asphalt that upset the rear end. But it was so cruddy that an IRS car would’ve spazzed, too.

I took the GT up and over some of the most challenging, technical canyon roads Southern California has to offer. The new ‘Stang excelled. I could go hard into essentially every corner and confidently blast my way out (some of the uber tight, near-180 degree guys require a soft entry). Like wow, man — a Mustang that’s actually confidence inspiring on windy roads. The steering is a bit over-boosted and the 19” wheels could use souped up tires, but I’m splitting hairs. Finally we have a Mustang that handles the way every 14-year-old assumes it does. Except for those brakes…

Instead of being an also-ran, value proposition in need of lots-o-mods, the “evolution not revolution” 2010 Mustang is a good performance car right out of the box. For those requiring a bit more brawn, there’s the $1,400 Track Pack  that gives you Pirelli P Zeros, stiffer shocks and sways — plus upgraded brakes. The real question though, is whether you should buy a Bullitt right now for several grand off sticker, or wait a month and grab the 2010 Mustang. Probably at full price ($27,000 or so). Tough choice. If forced, I’d say that the Bullitt sounds better whereas the new GT drives better. Meaning this is the best Mustang ever. For now at least.

[Jonny Lieberman attended a manufacturer’s press event. Ford paid for gas, insurance, food and one night of hotel accommodations]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

78 Comments on “2010 Ford Mustang GT Review...”


  • avatar
    Point Given

    Jeez, one call from Mulally and you guys are happy campers.

    In all seriousness I look forward to seeing it in person based upon your review. I was very intrigued by the last generation mustang’s exterior but found the interior very lacking.

    Brakes…must upgrade… brakes….

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    @Point Given:

    He ain’t never called me. My opinion is that Ford makes some (some) very competitive products, which makes it easier to review them. The Focus on the other hand…

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    Jonny,

    Did any of the cars have the Premier trim option that added a leather stitched dashtop to the 2007-09 cars? Wonder if that will be a carryover option….

  • avatar
    Jonny Lieberman

    Doc V8 — didn’t see any…

  • avatar
    seoultrain

    A ‘Stang that handles? Ford must be on their game. I guess we can thank the Camaro for that.

    Would it be a stretch to say that one could reasonably cross-shop this car with the 370Z (which you’ve also driven)?

  • avatar
    p00ch

    Decent car but as with the MINI, the interior looks like something only a mother could love…

  • avatar
    Jonny Lieberman

    p00ch — I’m no mother

    Seoultrain — you can cross shop the Mustang GT with the 370Z, no problem

  • avatar
    kamikaze2b

    Nice review. Does it still have the dopey 1980’s mast antenna? I thought that it did, but it appears to be photoshopped out in all of the pics.

  • avatar
    KnightRT

    I may buy one of these if the handling is as good as you say. Save for some looseness out back, I thought the previous model was a hoot to drive. If this version can maintain some pretense of civility when the road goes to pot, it may be pedantic to dwell on the rear axle design.

    http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/firstdrive/2010/ford.mustang/10.ford.mustang.gt.act.prf.2.500.jpg

    It helps that it’s more attractive than the Camaro. Edmunds managed to grab a shot of the car in deep blue. What a stunner. The antenna is still there, but it’s been removed or retracted for the press shots. That black nubbin on the rear right is the base.

  • avatar
    Brett Woods

    Ford sure has it together! With access to armloads of Cosworth blueprints, years of RS ralley racing and NASCAR development, they have increased the V6 output by 25 horses and tinkered with the ECU to raise the RPM redline by 500 revs, while still improving fuel efficiency by 3 mpg in combined city/highway driving. Stopping distance is decreased by 7ft from 70mph and by improving the the ball joints’ vertical pivot position to reduce the height of the front roll center by 26mm, Ford has decreased fluctuations in the vertical loading on the outer wheel during cornering maneuvres. Torsional rigidity in the convertible is improved with an aluminum strut tower brace and overall weight weight is reduced by 80lbs thanks to a half mm shaving of some chassis components and a slight re-design of the soft top lifting mechanism.

    The V6 now comes with a forged cranks shaft, fully floating pistons and re-designed valve springs for snappier response. Rather than play with lipstick, Ford has thankfully left the popular look of the car virtualy unchanged with only a revised front air dam and small hood louvers to reduce front end lift at highway speeds. Ford had considered an all aluminum hood for the V8 and this may still be part of an upcoming performance package along with a revised synchromesh for the manual transmission. The revised interior upgrad now offers substantial improvements to the base model and includes tuned enclosures for the Shaker sound system. Ford is calling this an “evolution not a revolution.” Expect to see the revised Mustang in showrooms by October 2010.

  • avatar

    doctorv8: the “leather-stitched” IP top in the 2008s is actually stitched vinyl. Still greatly improved the interior.

    Jonny: are we sure the leather on the doors is real leather, and not a convincing imitation? The latter is common.

    On the reliability front, the 2005 and especially the 2006 and 2007 have been doing well in TrueDelta’s Vehicle Reliability Survey:

    http://www.truedelta.com/latest_results.php

    Hopefully we’ll have results for the 2010 4-5 months after they reach dealers.

  • avatar
    factotum

    I’m impressed. The car looks tauter and more in proportion than the last model. Are the door windows frameless?

    I like the up-spec interior, too, but I hope that “Sync by Microsoft” plaque is removable.

  • avatar
    Areitu

    I’m glad ford decided to evolve than try to innovate. We complain about how American companies dump a good thing in search of another instead of steady improvement. So far, this seems like a good step forward for Ford.

  • avatar
    factotum

    According to the order guide (PDF), the IP is “one piece soft touch”. So maybe it is leather/pleather.

  • avatar
    1169hp

    Thanks for the review JL.

    I want one of these.

  • avatar
    Robstar

    Looks interesting.

    Do GT’s really go for just $27k? Last time I looked (a few years ago) I couldn’t find anything for under $30 here. With the way Mustangs around here depreciate this seems like it might make a great used car. Get it at a huge discount & replace the abused parts. It sounds like for $1400 the trac pac is a no-brainer upgrade.

    Also, no mention of the gearing, the shifting, or anything else. Did you drive anto ? stick ? how many gears?

  • avatar
    mcs

    I saw a V6 version in Allen Park making a left from Oakwood onto 94 west. I wasn’t impressed. When is Detroit going to learn to not make the low end versions look like crap and letting everyone within a 1000 ft know you could only afford the stripped down car.

    I live in New England and spend a lot of time on twisty winding roads with occasional little surprises in the pavement. The last Mustang just was scary on these roads. It was hard to push it because of the size of the car and rear end would hop if there was roughness.

    My own personal preferences would have been for a smaller lighter vehicle. I’m used to BMWs and would have liked something the size of a 1 series with irs. I realize the main use of the Mustang is to haul morbidly obese baby boomers to the local all-you-can-eat buffet where they can brag about the specs on their car to their friends. It’s a world where horsepower numbers, straight line acceleration, and cylinder count rule. They’re just not intended as serious driver cars.

  • avatar
    rudiger

    “Listen baby I had a great time, but don’t lose any sleep sitting by the phone.”All that really need be said.

    As to the mushy brakes, well, I’m not sure Ford can be held entirely at fault on this one. It’s been a while but wasn’t there some sort of federal mandate that ended up with all the manufacturers going to much softer brake pads, something about brake pedal force requirements?

  • avatar
    Rev Junkie

    Man, that is amazing. A Mustang with a premium interior. Hopefully, this is only the start. Next up is the Fiesta, the Euro Focus, the Mondeo (probably sold as the next Fusion), and hopefully, the Fiat 500 clone Ford Ka.

  • avatar
    powermac1234

    $20K and up for a car with plastic door panels? Not in my lifetime. This is part of the problem with American vehicles, cheap parts. I realize it is cheaper to manufacture and install but pop for the extra $200 and cover it with something nice. My 88 corolla FX has nicer feel to the interior that my friend’s 2007 Mustang (subjective? yes but it is my money the car companies want) I will not even look at a car with trash interiors. It is the most viewed portion of a car, make it worth looking at.

  • avatar
    umterp85

    powermac1234—–agree on the plastic door panels—but instead of comparing the Mustang to your ’88 Corolla—-I think you should head down to your local Toyota dealer and check out the line-up—-last I checked—the $30K+ Camry Hybrid had the same plastic door panels. This is not just a Big 3 thing….just sayin.

  • avatar
    1169hp

    For the love of God!!!

    It’s a 27k-30k Mustang, not a Bently. The interior isn’t going to be lined in the softest leather, mahogany wood, and cashmere. JL said the interior is an improvement of the last generation. That’s a good thing.

    I borrowed my father-in-laws Highlander to move a TV. Mr. Price (as in Fisher Price) would be quite proud of this vehicles interior.

    Just sayin +1

  • avatar
    Point Given

    @Justin

    Indeed they are improving. Ford looks well positioned in the near future. I think they’ve finally got it, “product, product, product” Then build the finance programs around that.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    I cannot understand why any reasonable, rational person would buy this car. It has carry-over engines, carry-over ox-cart suspension, and carry-over transmissions.

    Why is it that Hyundai can get 375HP out of their 4.6 V8…but the Ford 4.6 V8 puts out an extremely limp-wristed 315HP?

    Same car…different wrapper. PASS.

  • avatar
    BobO

    It’s sure a nice looking car, except for those rear side windows. It’s almost like someone had to fulfill some sort of window requirement and figured out a cheap/cheating way to bring the count up to six. The ubiquitous black edging on a window that small is an insult to my eyes.

  • avatar
    boredlawstudent

    I recently rented a V6 Mustang for a weekend. Put probably 200 miles on the thing and I had a blast. Sure, it wasn’t a speed demon, but it went down the road far better than any other $20K (with discounts) car.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    I assume the twisties in question are the immaculate Hollywood hills, who’s asphalt has never felt the cold tingle of a single snowflake? Try that live axle in the Ozarks and get back to us.

  • avatar
    benders

    P71: The power differential between the Ford and Hyundai 4.6L V8 is probably due to the extra valves on the Hyundai (4/cyl vs. 3/cyl). The torque from both engines is pretty similar (324 ft-lb vs. 325 ft-lb on regular gas) so the power is probably due to the Hyundai getting more air to the cylinder and maintaining higher amounts of torque at high RPM.

    And the 2010 Mustang wasn’t intended to be a total redesign; it’s a mid-cycle refresh so it’s logical that it’s the same car in a new wrapper.

  • avatar
    romanjetfighter

    I haven’t driven either, but a few things stick out.

    Once the 2010 Camaro comes out with the new V6 with 300 hp comes out for 23k and more eye-catching retro styling, what’s the point of this car? Ford seems to have decided to invest more in its family sedans and small cars rather than this performance car. Which is nice. :)

    And the interior wasn’t THAT bad for the 2005-2008. :/

  • avatar
    rudiger

    For those with who can wait, I believe the 2011 Mustang is tentatively scheduled to receive an updated series of engines more in line with what the competition is offering.

  • avatar
    KnightRT

    I cannot understand why any reasonable, rational person would buy this car. It has carry-over engines, carry-over ox-cart suspension, and carry-over transmissions.

    This, from someone who seems to like Crown Vics? The irony pains me, it does.

    Why is it that Hyundai can get 375HP out of their 4.6 V8…but the Ford 4.6 V8 puts out an extremely limp-wristed 315HP?

    The car is quicker than an Evo. What more do you want? The Genesis coupe doesn’t get Hyundai’s 4.6, so what difference?

    Once the 2010 Camaro comes out with the new V6 with 300 hp comes out for 23k and more eye-catching retro styling

    There’s no doubt that the Camaro has a better platform than the Mustang, but to my eyes, the Mustang is the better-looking car. The Aztek was eye-catching; that trait isn’t necessarily a good thing. I find the Camaro too low, too ostentatious, and too aggressive. It’s exactly the sort of car I expect to see with 22″ rims and subwoofers. While it’s nice to make a statement (of what, I wonder) at times, there’s no Camaro color that allows for “understated cool,” a trick the Mustang pulls off with far greater ease.

    The Camaro also weighs 300 lbs more than the Mustang. Contrary to some posts, the V6 version is not a competitor to the Mustang GT. The same engine in a Cadillac CTS (200 lbs heavier) was only good for 0-60 times around 6.5. The Camaro is expected to yield around 6.0, and the V8 version, 4.8. The V6 Mustang is around 6.8 by comparison, and the GT about 5.1. These numbers trail the Camaro numbers by a proportion roughly equal to each car’s price.

  • avatar
    toxicroach

    You don’t buy a Mustang because its a rational choice.

    If people only bought rational cars, everyone would be driving Civics.

    315 is not anemic. For a daily driver/sports car driven on public roads, its MORE than enough to get your drivers license revoked.

  • avatar
    Luther

    How can they screw up brakes? This is one of the easiest systems on a vehicle and advances over 150 years should make it a cinch…A big ol pad clamping down on a big ol rotor…How difficult is that?

  • avatar
    JG

    I’m fortunate enough to own a Bullitt and drive it every day.

    I concur with the prior comment wrt. the engine’s output. This car scoots. Thanks to the short first gear, the 3.73 axle ratio, and a fairly lofty redline (compared to my old 5.0) you can rip up to the cruising speed in town in an eyeblink. That old tech rear axle hooks up very well even with the somewhat hard KDWS rear tires. More power would only further endanger your drivers license. OK I’d rather have a DOHC 5.0… but I don’t. Serenity now!

    The brakes are fine for street duty, I think if you were to take this car on a circuit you’d want to upgrade, but you’d better do some other work too if you want to run laps like the Challenge cars. Besides, this way I don’t feel too bad burning the rear rotors to cinders doing brutal brakestands in deserted areas.

    Mustangs are for rolling both side windows down, dropping the clutch, and tearing it up in 2nd gear somewhere with tall buildings so you can hear the glorious racket from the tailpipes echoing in your ears. If you want better interior quality and more refinement, pick up a GTI. Your boyfriends will love caressing the dashboard and door panels and playing with the doo-dads.

  • avatar
    KnightRT

    Your boyfriends will love caressing the dashboard and door panels and playing with the doo-dads.

    Is this addressed toward some particular female among the commentators above?

  • avatar
    seoultrain

    Way to defuse the joke. It was a gay jab at the VW.

  • avatar
    allen5h

    But there’s hardly any bolstering and after more than an hour, they hurt your back.

    Every reviewer’s take on seats should always include a disclaimer. It is not only that what is comfy for some is not so comfy for others. More telling, what is comfy for one 5′ 10″ 180 lb. male is not so comfy for another 5′ 10″ 180 lb. male.

    If possible, it is always a good idea to drive (for several days) any model that is competing for your hard earned new car dough.

  • avatar
    KnightRT

    Obviously. I don’t care for the tone of contempt.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    “This, from someone who seems to like Crown Vics? The irony pains me, it does. ”

    I like V8, RWD cars…and at the time, the CV was/is a great car for the money. It is not my fault that Ford builds anemic V8s.

    And believe me, with all of the latest problems that Ford cars and trucks are having, and the senseless problems I have had with my car, I will NEVER buy a Ford again. Too much of a gamble.

    I will buy from a company that builds actual exciting, reliable, fun to drive, quality cars that I don’t have to worry about breaking down.

  • avatar
    Phil Ressler

    SVT and modifiers pointed the way to this 2010 Mustang’s attributes during the 1990s when the aftermarket for the FOX and SN95 bodies exploded. I built a few SVT Cobras, and after some careful experimenting, found that SVT’s formula of “controlled compliance” could be improved upon if one wanted more sports car and less GT. With reasonable penalties in NVH, it was possible to make a 1993 SVT or the later 4 cam 1996+ Cobra capable of confounding Porsche, M3 and Corvette drivers in SoCal’s twisty canyons. I was followed into gas stations more than a few times by drivers querying “what the hell is that thing?” along with requisite head scratching, when the driver was unable to either lose the lowly Mustang or outrun it.

    The key was stiff hollow front sway bar with high-rate springs up front, and soft coils out back. Yeah, real stffies, like 800 – 1000 lbs. per inch on the nose, and merely 160 lbs. per inch aft. Poly or aluminum and Delrin bushings in the suspension added incisiveness. Aircraft bearing control arms on the rear stick axle gave it near-IRS road-conforming qualities. Add Bilsteins on all four corners, and keep the SVT-spec capable PBR binders. Focus on the right bits and accept the factory power — especially on the magnificent SVT cars — and a corner-carver you could build, irrespective of the weight bias, 57%/43%, tilted front.

    Early mod wisdom was ignored by Ford, for violating factory NVH notions and because many early mod formulas were ill-thought-out. But gradually the crowdsourced wisdom leeched back to Dearborn, and the Bullitts emerged with front springs stiffened a bit, and the rear relaxed. Brakes were excellent on SVT cars, and it was a simple matter to upgrade them further.

    Want a little Euro road feel precision in your steering? Pop in aluminum steering rack bushings in the set-up, and add camber/caster plates to dial-in 5 – 7 degrees of caster, along with sweet-spot camber. Complete the stance with real grip-hungry but driftable tires and you were all set. By 2000 you could even install an SLA front suspension to replace the stock McPherson.

    2008 Bullitt almost completely iterated the formula from a factory mindset, though a little less radically and more simply. Ford particularly kept bushings soft enough to maintain low NVH, and of course the current car locates the rear axle with a cleaner linkage and a Panhard rod.

    Now the 2010 brings the old domain of amateur modifiers into the factory realm for the mainstream GT. You really can make a modern stick axle muscle coupe into a sports car with very little effort. Add a Torsen diff, maybe a little shorter gear set in the pumpkin and a machined short-shift kit, and suddenly you have a Mustang that drives smaller than it is, has its classic factory push tuned out, and proves baffling to many drivers of technically more advanced cars.

    Phil

  • avatar
    changsta

    I think the changes to the Mustang make it a much more appealing car. The interior is improved, the exterior is improved, and the driving dynamics have apparently improved greatly. This is all great news.

    I don’t see why people keep comparing the Mustang to the Camaro. People that buy Mustangs will NOT buy a Camaro. And there is also a key difference between the Mustang and the Camaro: Ford has always made money on the Mustang… the Camaro tends to do well out the gate and then languish on lots. Yes, the new Camaro looks fantastic. However, I still suspect that the Mustang will outsell the Camaro by a large margin.

    I am happy to see that Ford is actually following through with their plans to significantly re-model their cars mid-cycle! GM and Chrysler have yet to do so, and I would argue that Ford’s recent makeovers have gone a lot further than those from Honda and Toyota, which usually consist of new brake lights and front facia.

  • avatar
    JG

    There’s the internet, a little tongue in cheek stereotype humor gets taken for contempt. Maybe the former doesn’t exist? I apologize, KnightRT. We Mustang owners are always a bit crude, eh?

    I’ll stick to Polak jokes from now on. Maybe I’ll be insulated from criticism if I make clear my descent.

    By the way, I drove a 2D GTI M6 during my new car search this summer. It was fantastic! I’m not completely backwards.

  • avatar
    powermac1234

    umterp85- I have never looked at a Camry since the early 90s and thought it was worth the money on aesthetics alone, and the newer ones are atrocious. Nissans are in the same boat as far as I am concerned. I am not asking for real fake wood, just something above the entry level vehicle when I am asked to pay more.

    We are now looking at above 300 hp out of 4.6L, something that “couldn’t” be done in 1996 when Ford gave up the 302 in the Mustang. This is progress. The car is much safer than the Fox bodies many of us grew up with. This is progress. The old door panels out of the 87s and up were cardboard with vinyl padding, and now we have plastic panels like an 84 F150. I stand by my statement, I will not buy a car (even a lust worthy Mustang GT) with plastic door panels for more than $20K.

    changsta: people will always compare Mustang vs Camaro because they are direct competitors and have been since the 1966 release of the Camaro. There has always been key diffs between them but they have been head to head in every publication. But now is the most competitive time because these v8s don’t hold the market for hps, i.e Maxima v6, Hyundia v8,etc.

    Does anyone want to guess the sale rate for the v6 version of the Camaro and Mustang? When gas goes above $3/ gallon, these rear wheel drive fun rides are not going to look as good.

  • avatar
    kamikaze2b

    Does anyone know whether the mast antenna can be deleted? I’m hoping the navigation package removes it.

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    well,concerning the gay jab, i can tell you my boyfiend has a BMW M, and looks at mustangs with a mix of amusement and consolation – and looks at me that way when i say that i want one – like i’m breaking his heart – dont i really want something – anything- else?

    Well maybe a camaro. I saw a challenger on the street the other day, its so large – i was suprised. Looks good tho. Maybe one of them.

    PS – the GTI is a killer app – not knowing that makes me wonder. You may not like it, but it is killer. It is on my shortlist with the stang and the camaro, and the STI for sheer automotive bliss. Oh, and I’m a Jersey boy- i’m sure you have comments about that too.

    Also, Johnny, I drive a DTS for work, it is quiet and composed at 70 mph. Is the mustang quiet too at speed? I dont always want to be a bad boy.

  • avatar
    Maxb49

    Nice car, but it should have featured an engine with more naturally aspirated power considering the class it’s entered in. It’s disappointing to see a maker of quality vehicles such as Ford to throw in another underpowered engine. For around the same price, Dodge and Chevrolet will have this car outgunned. In this class of vehicles horsepower isn’t everything – it’s the only thing.

  • avatar
    davey49

    dopey mast antennas are the best antennas possible, some of us like to listen to the radio without the annoying interference caused by amplified “stubby” or windshield antennas.
    Especially when trying to listen to long distance AM stations.
    P71- because the Mustang is beautiful, no point buying a car because it’s numbers are better than the other.
    The Camaro is uglier than the Aztek

  • avatar
    kamikaze2b

    dopey mast antennas are the best antennas possible, some of us like to listen to the radio without the annoying interference caused by amplified “stubby” or windshield antennas.

    Huh? My “older” 2007 Honda doesn’t have an exterior antenna and I get perfect reception. Do you live in the cornfields of Iowa? And what percentage of the population under age 50 listens to AM radio?

    I’m O/C, and the antenna is a deal breaker for me. There’s no reason why a 2010 model car that costs more than $10k should have one.

  • avatar
    thetopdog

    Only on the internet do you hear things like “people never cross-shop *insert 2 vehicles with similar performance*” I’m used to it now, but I have never heard something more wrong than the idea that Mustangs and Camaros don’t get cross-shopped. That’s like saying nobody cross-shops Accords and Camrys

    Pretty much any car that’s in the same price range with a similar layout will get cross-shopped. When I got my last car I was cross-shopping (used) Mustangs, Camaros, Trans-Ams, 350Zs, Jag XKs, Jag XJs, 330cis, Cadillac STSs and Eldorados. I ended up with a Lexus GS400

  • avatar
    KnightRT

    We Mustang owners are always a bit crude, eh?

    You’re allowed to be crude, provided your comments are actually humor and not indicative of a deeper malevolence toward gays. Too many people reference homosexuality as a synonym for bad. If it’s not clear from a post that you’re on our side, the amount of leeway I concede approaches zero because ignoring subtle discrimination is akin to condoning it.

    That aside, this fag looks forward to terrifying grandmothers and children with that glorious V8 racket.

    i can tell you my boyfiend has a BMW M, and looks at mustangs with a mix of amusement and consolation

    Be sure to look at his maintenance bills with the same expression. I’ve been eying E46 M3s for years, but the probability of spending $3000 or more each year on parts and consumables is always too high to bear. Upkeep for ordinary BMWs is already two or three times that of a comparable Ford. The M cars double or triple that number again.

    If you like the DTS, you’ll love the Challenger. The platform borrows liberally from the 1995-2002 Mercedes E-class. It won’t canyon-carve worth a damn and there’s a lot of slop in the drivetrain, but it’s said to be very composed in more sedate driving.

    I like V8, RWD cars…and at the time, the CV was/is a great car for the money.

    The CV is crap for the money. We’ve had a 1991, a 2000, and a 2001. We’ve also had a 2004 Camry. Unless towing is high on the agenda, just about every prospective owner would be better-served with the Camry. It’s quieter, smoother, more spacious, safer, cheaper, more reliable, far more fuel-efficient, and just as dull-witted. Having discontinued the consumer version of the CV, Ford apparently agrees. The only current vehicle with the Panther platform is the Lincoln Town Car. At 46K, it’s overpriced by a factor of two.


    Phil, that was an excellent post about Mustang history. I saved it for future reference.

  • avatar
    Maxb49

    The CV is crap for the money. We’ve had a 1991, a 2000, and a 2001. We’ve also had a 2004 Camry. Unless towing is high on the agenda, just about every prospective owner would be better-served with the Camry. It’s quieter, smoother, more spacious, safer, cheaper, more reliable, far more fuel-efficient, and just as dull-witted.

    It’s clear to me that you have no idea what you’re talking about with respect to the Crown Victoria. The Camry is crude, unibody little family car. The Crown Victoria is an excellent, balanced, smooth riding full sized car that can out handle, outpull, and outmaneuver any Camry at a better price in more comfort. I’ve never had good success with Toyotas and always hated the ride. The Ford Crown Victoria is the far sturdier vehicle.

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    antennae is the plural of antenna, but only if it is part of an insect. If a car has more than one antenna, they are antennas.

  • avatar
    JG

    @JerseyDevil: I tried to remove my foot from my mouth with another post, in which I mentioned I do like the GTI. Just saying. Got nothing against New Jerseyites, got a good friend living there, want to hit the area and hang out sometime, been too long.

    I’m not Johnny, but I’m sure the new Mustang is as quiet or quieter at cruise than my car. I only hear the stereo if the throttle isn’t opened up.

    I’d test out an SRT-8 Challenger though, that thing is fearsome. The engine bay looks like something out of the 60’s with that huge orange lump in there. I like everything but the wheelhop!

    8)

  • avatar
    KnightRT

    It’s clear to me that you have no idea what you’re talking about

    What part of “I owned three of them” do you not understand? I wrote two reviews of the damned things.

    The Camry is crude, unibody little family car. The Crown Victoria … can out handle, outpull, and outmaneuver any Camry at a better price in more comfort.

    Bullshit. My base model Camry was such a step up from the CV that I wondered why anyone would bother with a Lexus. It’s like riding on pillows. No creaks, no chassis flex, no engine roar, no wind noise, and literally 17 MPG better mileage. The CV should be so fortunate.

    They both handle like shit. The only way to praise the agility of the CV is to compare it to something with tracks. While the towing capacity is above most unibody cars, I’d sooner try a crossover these days.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    I borrowed my father-in-laws Highlander to move a TV. Mr. Price (as in Fisher Price) would be quite proud of this vehicles interior.

    Amen. Our base Highlander makes me cringe. But it gets the job done. My Saab’s brittle plastic IP is ridiculous for a $45k car.

    If you want better interior quality and more refinement, pick up a GTI. Your boyfriends will love caressing the dashboard and door panels and playing with the doo-dads.

    Lighten up, Nancy. I’m very gay-sensitive, and I laughed real hard.

    The Camry is crude, unibody little family car. The Crown Victoria … can out handle, outpull, and outmaneuver any Camry at a better price in more comfort.

    Price point maybe, but the Camry is a far superior platform that has evolved/replaced numerous times since its 1983 inception, while the CV rides a platform from 1979. I can’t imagine anyone cross-shopping the two. Ever.

  • avatar
    davey49

    I installed a metal antenna on my Audi because the windshield one was poor. I’d likely do it again on a new car. My Saturn already has one.
    The Camry is a better car than the CV, the Avalon is a much better car than both.

  • avatar
    Buckshot

    Number of mustang reviews on TTAC; 12!!!
    You guys must really love mustangs, or do you have a sponsor contract that says that your reviews must be x% mustangs?
    Do people really buy those cars in usa?
    Here on the other side of the pond, they´re a very rare sight.
    I suppose they´re alright if you like retro cars.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    The CV platform was heavily modified for 2003. Hell, the CV had the shocks mounted outside the frame before the F-150.

    The CV will get 30MPG on the highway. I have seen it and done it.

    The CV is a real car…no shoddy unibody here.

    The CV will tow 5K pounds with ease…no Camry will do that.

    The CV is RWD…which is the proper way to transfer power to the ground.

    The CV is proven. There is NO WAY ON THIS PLANET that a delicate Camry could do 100K of severe police use…and then go on to do another 250-300K of taxi use…with only ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. Toyota can only dream of a reliability and durability record like that.

    The CV can be had, completely loaded, for between $10K-$15K. How much does Toyota overcharge for their appliance?

    The Camry may be a more modern platform…but really it is the Cozy Coup of the automotive world. Bland, boring, uninspired, and dull.

  • avatar
    Dave Ruddell

    Can you still pick your own colour for the back light on the gauges? I thought this was a silly (but fun) thing to have.

  • avatar
    rudiger

    Maxb49: “The Camry is crude, unibody little family car. The Crown Victoria…can out handle, outpull, and outmaneuver any Camry at a better price in more comfort.”Unfortunately, it’s going to be rather difficult to find a new, 2009 CV as US sales have now been relegated to fleet-only.

    It will be slightly easier to get a version of its twin, the Grand Marquis. However, due to slow sales, 2009 retail GMs will not be stocked by Mercury dealers and can only be obtained on a special-order basis, and then only with a few, limited options (there are a total of six). Sadly, one of those options is still not the patiently awaited ‘de Sade’ edition.

    I know of no such restrictions on locating and purchasing a Toyota Camry…

  • avatar
    KnightRT

    Everyone has a baby. The CV used to be mine. In 20/20 retrospect, however, it isn’t and never was what you propose it to be.

    On my Camry, we had to replace a window regulator at 60K. On the CV, it was the alternator and the transmission. The car had perpetual shifting problems. Our Marquis was fine, but 1 for 2 isn’t a set of odds to admire. It’s not that the cars are so inherently reliable; it’s that there isn’t much to break and parts are cheap. There’s no CV on earth that would survive the duty cycle you propose with “routine maintenance.”

    For both the CV and the GM, mileage was lackluster; something like 22 MPG on the highway and 13 MPG around town. Insofar as I can tell, the Camry doesn’t even use fuel; I fill it up and it doesn’t need attention until 600 miles later, no matter how hard I thrash it. It’ll do upwards of 33 MPG on the highway and 20-odd around town.

    The only CVs that could tow 5000 lbs were the models before the 1998 redesign. Ford’s progressively lowered the tow rating to 3000, and now to 2000 lbs, and that’s only if you spring for the transmission cooler and other heavy-duty parts. Otherwise, you’re liable to drop pieces on the highway with loads of no more than 1000 lbs.

    RWD is utterly irrelevant unless the car is pushed. The CV’s lone advantage over the Camry is superior front-end grip. Otherwise, as before, they both handle like shit.

    Finally, we bought the Camry new, off the lot, for 17K. At that time, Ford had raised CV prices to 22K for the base model and up to 29K for the one with toys. I’m sure they’d be even higher now, given that the Town Car is well into the 40s. No amount of squinting would ever make that a bargain.

  • avatar
    noreserve

    What’s up with that crooked InSync Microsoft badge? And the center console panels not lining up? Maybe just the picture. Gotta love the “Antenna not installed” on the nav.

    There’s some crazy talk in some of the above posts – “The CV is a real car…no shoddy unibody here.” WTF? Someone needs a reality check. And a bit less Ford old-school Kool-Aid. And what’s with the real men have mast antennas? And gay talk? What started out as a Mustang tidbits devolved into something that ended up with Crown Vic towing specs.

    Jonny, I like your review, but I’d like to see a poll on TTAC regarding the arbitrary word length. It’s simply not enough detail. I know you have more to say. I’d like to hear it. And I’d even be willing to scroll down to read it. Or trade a few dozen paragraphs on crazy shit about Fiat for it.

  • avatar
    ctoan

    With the CVs, I’m pretty sure the 300k mileages aren’t all on one engine. Taxi companies swap out engines routinely.

    As for the other stuff…
    You might see 30 on the highway occasionally, but I doubt you’ll do it consistently, and the city mileage is going to be abhorrent no matter what you do.

    Do you really think it’s safe for the average Camry driver to drive a RWD car? There’s a reason that non-enthusiast cars have moved to FWD.

    And what’s so shoddy about unibody construction? It’s stronger and lighter. It’s good enough for planes, after all. If you’re in the habit of hitting things, or are carrying heavy stuff, then a body-on-frame might be better, or at least cheaper.

  • avatar
    RogerB34

    Very nice but 10 years late. Won’t work. The future is light weight (<3000), low CD (<.3), direct FI, solenoid operated valves. The Bullitt is dead on and the only Detroit muscle car I’d consider. Market took car of consider.

  • avatar
    Johnson Schwanz

    You guys are talking about Crown Vics? How old are you? I bought one of those for my grandfather three years ago before he died.

    Back to the topic.

    This Mustang GT will be mine upon release. I HAVE to HAVE ONE!!! Sure it’s the polar opposite from my C300 Benz, but that is a part of the fun!

    Therefore, I will have the best of both worlds: over-engineered German sedan, coupled with an American pony car built for straight-line performance and V8 exhaust eargasms.

  • avatar
    kamikaze2b

    ^^LOL @ eargasms. When is this car supposed to hit dealer lots?

  • avatar
    Matthew Potena

    Jerseydevil, as a fellow resident of the Soprano State, I recommend you take a look at the R32. I went to look at a GTi a few weeks ago, but they are discounting the R32 severely. Also it is eligible for low rate financing from VW Credit. The interior of the R32 is even nicer than the GTi, and the 4 wheel drive is a bonus. I now have 1200 miles on my car and took it out today to play a bit. Man o man, the sound of that engine as it shifts at 6000 is SWEET! Give it a try!

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    Way to defuse the joke. It was a gay jab at the VW.

    Whic is to the point as he was addressing the person who said the Mustang was “limp wristed” only putting out 315 hp.

    I like the interior based on the provided pics, but I’ll reserve judgement until I can check one out at the local Ford Dealer. I also have a hard time calling the Mustang’s 4.6L engine weak or underpowered. The one I test drove a couple of years ago certainly felt strong enough to, as others have said, put my license in danger.

    Mustangs are for rolling both side windows down, dropping the clutch, and tearing it up in 2nd gear somewhere with tall buildings so you can hear the glorious racket from the tailpipes echoing in your ears.

    You should have heard the sound from the tailpipes of my wife’s 68 Mustang with the modified exhaust and headers, that thing sounds absolutely brutish, and we both like it.

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    Do people really buy those cars in usa?

    In very large numbers.

  • avatar
    SupaMan

    I’m still laughing at how this Mustang review devolved into a Camry vs Crown Vic fight.

    Nice review Jonny. I’ll admit that the Mustang does look leaner and more substantial in its 2010 guise, but the Challenger and Camaro ultimately look better and have more powerful engines. Ford did great in making the Mustang meaner but it still pales in comparison to the other muscle cars now in play. I hear in 2011/2012 Ford will revamp the engine lineup for the Mustang. Any word on whether the 3.5 V6 and new 6.2 V8 get the nod?

  • avatar
    Blobinski

    Just what the doctor ordered, a slightly revised V8 muscle car that costs over $30K loaded (Base 2009 Premium GT is $29,160). It will achieve a lowly 18mpg, seat two adults and squish in a couple of kids. It has ~315Hp out of a big V8 when cars with half the displacement make 280.

    This will be just another Mustang with rave reviews and and little real world sales appeal with the current economic conditions.

  • avatar
    Johnson Schwanz

    Blobinski:

    Ford can go ahead and update it’s sales count for this one. I WILL buy one. New.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Too bad they carried over the old 4.0 liter Cologne V6.

  • avatar
    skygreenleopard

    Whaa? No fake air scoops on the hood? On the sides? I refuse to believe it. There’s gotta be one hidden somewhere. It wouldn’t be a post-94 Mustang without at least 2.

  • avatar
    wronat

    i just ordered a 2010 sunset gold ford mustang gt with electronics package, rear video camera, 3.55 ratio, black over the top stripe and 19 inch rims.

  • avatar
    Broadsidejohn

    I’m new to this site. I appreciate the creative and intelligent contributors. First, I am a baby boomer and Eagle Scout. This means that I have somewhat fond memories of the Detroit muscle cars, with all their faults. Here in the People’s Republic of California, we cannot hardly modify our vehicles unless they are over 30 or so years old. I have not owned an older Ford Mustang, due mainly to the horrid seats that felt like barstools. But I love the new model for its looks. I only test drove a GT and enjoyed it. The seats are the first that are comfortable. Ford should have used the 3.0 Duratec V6 in the Escape, at the very least, in the base model. More modern design and better mileage with more power. But Ford has done nothing to develop the Cologne V6 as they could have. I am no tech guy, but a few improvements would have gone a long way to improve the breed and satisfy the Mustang base, as it were. Direct injection, improved breathing, etc. I suspect this has been a marketing decision by Ford. After all, If they put the new 3.6 Duratec in it, that would bring the V6 too close in performance to the V8, less of a reason for buyers to go with the V8. Just my opinion. As to the European readers, the whole idea of “retro” to them would mean great cars of the past, such as the MG GT, Triumph Herald or Hillman Avenger, probably. Unless they want to go back to the ’32 Standard Swallow. Not much to like from the 60’s and 70’s. Now, I know and work with many good homosexual guys and you won’t see political correctness from me, and if you are a Mustang or performance car owner or buff, you won’t be PC and “going green” either (you would all be driving Prius’s), but the militant radical culture that exits in West Hollywood and San Francisco hates heteros. They call us “breeders,” among other things. And they try to destroy the Boy Scouts and churches. I don’t want to turn this into a political forum, so I will say that I really like what Ford did in ’05 with the new Mustang. Just a gorgeous design. And with tweeks here and there, mainly engines and interiors, it will continue to be a successful vehicle and keep its fan base. But I do hate the Italian design studio future mule on display. It should not be turned into another swoopy and squinty car like a Celica. The current Mustang look needs to be kept and nurtured, not re-designed to “compete” with the Camaro or the bloated-but attractive on the outside Dodge Challenger. This Pony can stand on its own. The others were brought out to complete with IT. All new cars are fatally overweight, IMHO. Excess weight affects handling and mileage. I drive a Cad CTS ’03 and love it (3500 lbs). They now tip the scales at 4000. Since the safety requirements were met years ago and cars have had power steering and air conditioning, I don’t see a good reason for this, except that it is more expensive for the manufacturers to to work on lightening up. I’m sure smarter people here can comment on the weight and design issues.

  • avatar
    gibbleth

    I’ll weigh in. I drove a Camry rental car once (but only once). It was a horrid car. It was large, spacious, handled badly (constant torque steer or understeer, tendency to dart left or right rather than go straight) and basically had no soul. There was nothing there to make me want the car. Of course, Camry people are going to say I needed to have bought one new, and I guess it is a valid argument, but this car was nearly new with only 600 miles or so on it. It can’t have been that messed up.

    I’ve had literally thousands of miles in the various big rear-drive Fords. I’d rather a Caprice or Roadmaster for my time, but the big rear-drive fords handle reasonably well, carry a lot, seem to have fewer stupid problems in general due to their simplicity, and have provided excellent value if you don’t care too much about fuel mileage.

    That being said, I drive the last big, useful body-on-frame vehicle, the Chevrolet Suburban. I bought it for a lot of the same reasons people bought the old rear-drive sedans and wagons, which include simplicity, reliability, longevity and carrying capacity. The rear-drive sedans and wagons went away not due to the smaller imports but due to the fact that you can get nearly that level of fuel efficiency out of a much larger body-on-frame SUV, with a half-ton of carriage and (in my case) 7400 pounds towing.

    So, I’ll guess I’ll end by saying the Camry and the Crown Vic (and the Caprice, et. al.) were never in the same market segment, so arguing if one was better than the other is arguing at cross purposes. However, if you compare the Camry to the new Malibu or to the Mazda6, it’s a very different story, in which the Camry comes out looking like the bland pile of metal it actually is.

  • avatar
    dgran14

    The 2011-2012 mustang GT is supposed to be slated with a new 5.0L with 400HP and 400lb-ft of torque. The v6 is supposed roughly the same as the 2010 Taurus SHO with the 3.5L turbo with 360 horsepower. The new 5.0L powerplant has a codename of Coyote. Just google new Ford 5.0L and you will find it. By the way the 2010 mustang that is reviewed here does a 0-60 in 4.9 seconds with the track package. That’s over a half second faster than the Evo and the hyundai genesis coupe. The mustang isn’t fat weighing in at 3550 pounds fully loaded with all the electronic crap they offer. It’s at least 300 pounds ligter than the camaro ss and 400 pounds lighter than the challenger srt8. All youd need to do is drop 300 dollars on a short throw shifter and another 300 on a tuner and you can say goodbye to both the challenger and camaro.


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