By on March 29, 2010

“Hey there!”

“Excuse me?”

“Ain’t that one of them Ay-cord koops?”

“Why, yes it is. Aren’t you sporting the hairstyle commonly referred to as a ‘mullet’?”

“I sure am! Good enough for Brian Bosworth, it’s good enough for me. Is that Ay-cord fast?”

“It has 271 horsepower.”

“Well, shucks! Mah Mustang here done got Three. Oh. Five. Guess it’s faster, cause I don’t think it weighs more than a touch ahead of what you got.”

“Well, the Accord is also rated for twenty-eight miles per gallon on the highway. Much better than that Mustang. It’s important to conserve the planet’s resources.”

“Aw, hell. Guess you’re right. I mean, I’m only GITTIN’ THIRTY-ONE! YEE HAA!” And we close with the sound of a Flat Rock-fashioned burnout. End scene.

Forget the Challenger V-6. It’s heavy, crippled by an antiquated transmission, and severely down on power. And forget the Camaro V-6; the car once championed as the musclecar for the smart set looks distinctly porky at nearly four hundred pounds above the Mustang’s curb weight of 3,459. Ford’s after bigger game, and while the Accord Coupe was mentioned early and often during the media briefing, I suspect the real target of this stalking horse is the Hyundai Genesis.

The Genesis has proven to be rather popular with young people who don’t much care for the eight-cylinder engine and its attendant social baggage. It’s the ponycar for the twenty-first century, as important to some people as the original Mustang was in 1964. Except, of course, for the fact that this new Mustang is superior in virtually every respect, from interior quality to high-speed handling.

Oh, yes. I would disappoint the fine readers of TTAC if I didn’t run out to America’s mean streets for a bit of the old ultraviolence, and I do not mean to disappoint. I aim to misbehave. And I certainly did, aided by a six-speed manual, a 7000-rpm redline, and a limited-slip differential.

The results were more than surprising. After forty-plus years of being a consolation prize, the six-cylinder Mustang has finally found its voice. No, it’s not a charming engine, at least not compared to the bellowing five-liter with which it will share showroom-floor space, but it revs with abandon and chirps the rear wheels in third gear. Triple digits are less than fourteen seconds away at any moment.

When it’s time to slow the car, I’d recommend using your time machine and going back in time to choose the Performance Pack, which adds the suspension and brake pads from last years’s Mustang GT Track Pack. No car at this price level ($22,995, since you asked) will have brakes that are truly good enough. If you want twenty fade-free laps of VIR, I’d suggest purchasing a Boxster 2.7. Just be careful when you see the Mustang behind you on the long back straight., because you won’t have the pull to hold it off.

Through the infamous canyon roads surrounding Los Angeles, I regularly stretched out my perception and ran this Civic-priced Mustang at a pace traditionally reserved for the likes of BMW’s 335i. It’s plenty fast, and the light nose makes it a subtle handler. Ford’s introduced EPAS this year in the Mustang, and while some of the wannabes in the press will no doubt criticize the feel at the wheel, there’s enough information to do fast work.

Through undulating high-speed sweepers, I identified the pony’s biggest problem: lack of rebound damping. It’s so damned fast, and the front end bites so well, that it’s possible to really unsettle the rear and send it skyward. It’s not the fault of the axle, because the five-liter doesn’t suffer from the same issue. Come to think of it, the Performance Package car, which I couldn’t drive under identical conditions, might not have the problem either. On the positive side, the car rides well enough.

To get the most from your Mustang, you will want to punch the option chads until you clear the $30,000 mark. Doing that will obtain such goodies as Bimmer-style brown leather seating, a full aluminum interior which would probably cost five grand in a 911, and Ford’s sublime SYNC system. Thirty Gs for a six-cylinder Mustang? It sounds crazy, but the Hyundai isn’t much cheaper, and a similarly equipped Camaro actually costs more.

This car is not everyone’s cup of tea, and it’s ridiculous to think that the emotional needs of Accord Coupe buyers can be met by a snorting pony. Still, for those willing to look beyond the stereotypes, the Mustang is rapid, economical, and amusing to drive. It’s worth a look for almost any $25,000 import intender out there. If your neighbors worry that you’ve become Joe Dirt, show ‘em the EPA sticker and explain that you’ve become, ahem, Al Green.



Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

136 Comments on “Review: 2011 Ford Mustang V6...”


  • avatar
    mtymsi

    It’s good to hear how well it performs. The 4.0L V6 it replaced was way overdue for an update. Surprising the turbo version isn’t available, especially in a Mustang.

  • avatar
    Contrarian

    Impressive. This could be my next car. And as an added bonus, they didn’t snort up taxpayer coke like their domestic competition.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    If your into performance better not wait too many more years like say until 2015 to buy a car like this. Because thats when the big brother CAFE 35 MPG rules come into affect and power will be a nasty word. It will be just like 1980 all over again!

    • 0 avatar
      porschespeed

      Don’t worry man.

      All those “musclecars” from the 60s and 70s would be humiliated by a C6 or top line Mustang/Camaro/Challenger. Which pollute almost zero by comparison, and you may actually survive in an accident.

      It took a minute for the domestics to suck it up and spend some money on R&D, but performance came back. Better than ever.

  • avatar
    tjoseph2000

    I’ll take the MazdaSpeed3 GT for the same price = better brakes, leather interior, better cornering ability, 4 doors, more luggage space, and just plain faster to boot.

    Oh wait, I already have a Speed3…

    • 0 avatar
      protomech

      Ahem. MT would like a word with you.

      0-30 mph: 1.9 / 2.1
      0-40 mph: 2.8 / 3.2
      0-50 mph: 3.9 / 4.2
      0-60 mph: 5.1 / 5.6
      0-70 mph: 6.7 / 7.1
      0-80 mph: 8.5 / 9.2
      0-90 mph: 10.5 / 11.4
      0-100 mph: 13.1 / 14.2

      And to help you figure out which is which, here’s the respective EPA efficiency ratings: 19/29 and 18/25.*

      * In fairness, two different axle ratios were used for mustang’s acceleration and economy testing, which most publications are happy to gloss over. How ’bout being an outlier, TTAC?

    • 0 avatar
      dankru

      the v6 stang with perf package turns in 13.7 seconds in the quarter, 5.1s to sixty and .96g on the skidpad. to the MS3′s 14.1, 5.7, and .91g. Oh, and they are tied for braking performance at 104ft from 60mph. Prices are within $1000 of each other (MS3 and V6 stang w/ perf package).

      in terms of full disclosure i am a current RX8 owner and have never owned an american-made car in my life.

  • avatar
    Brian E

    Impressive. The Mustang has gone from a retro affectation to a serious performance machine for not much dough. I’ll take mine with the spoiler and graphics delete boxes ticked.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    It is the sign that enough is enough. The V-6 gets to 60 in 5.8 seconds. Honestly, why does anyone need anything faster than that?

    Apples to apples (ie, SAE gross vs net) this 6-cylinder Mustang has more horsepower than any V-8 Mustang made in the first 35 years of production. Yes, more than a 427 cammer.

    The advances made in the six are the death knell for the V-8. Not just for the Mustang, but for the automobile in general.

    The horsepower wars have gotten ridiculous. Thank Jebus they’ll be gone in a few years.

    • 0 avatar
      toxicroach

      Need? Who was talking about need?

      If it was all about need, nobody would drive anything besides Dodge Caravans. Need ain’t got sh** to do with it.

    • 0 avatar
      Sinistermisterman

      @toxicroach

      +1 Amen!

    • 0 avatar
      Paul Niedermeyer

      “Yes, more than a 427 cammer”
      Please show the numbers, because my memory tells me otherwise.

    • 0 avatar
      noreserve

      5.8 seconds is a long way from the feel of 4.0. There is a huge difference between this Mustang and a C5 Z06 for less money, for example. And the gas mileage is not as far off as most think. However, I do really understand that the interior and exterior styling are brand-new and very well done on the Mustang. Hell, the 2010+ model makes the 5th gen look dated, especially in the tail lights. Still, just depends where your priorities lie. I think I’d order a stripper V8 model in black, rip out some weight, add some intake/exhaust and misc mods and be off to a good start. Gotta get that 250 lb weight difference between it and a Corvette down somehow.

      Are you really looking forward to the death of the V8? Sacrilege! The sound of the Mustang V8 has always been the very essence of that car. That burbling rumble either wakes you up or confirms your walking dead. Put down that egg salad and grab a steak.

    • 0 avatar
      Wheeljack

      The 427 SOHC was never installed as a production option. If memory serves you could order it through the parts department and install it yourself, but Ford wasn’t going to do it for you.

    • 0 avatar
      modemjunki

      @eggsalad said: “It is the sign that enough is enough. The V-6 gets to 60 in 5.8 seconds. Honestly, why does anyone need anything faster than that?”

      Honestly, no one needs to. I jibe, however, that you may be a heretic, and suggest we collectively get the Comfy Chair out and seat you in it…

    • 0 avatar
      Loser

      Wheeljack is correct.
      From what I remember you could buy the heads/other parts needed to turn an OHV 427 into a SOHC but this was an over the counter deal. The engine was intended for NASCAR use (but never used in NASCAR) and it would only fit in full sized Fords.

    • 0 avatar
      skor

      The 427 cammer was rated at 616HP and 515ft/lbs with single four barrel. The dual quad version was rated at 657HP and 575ft/lbs. The engine listed for $2350.00(about $14K in today’s dollars) in the 1968 parts catalog. It was banned by NASCAR before it could be raced, after howls of protest from the Mopar crybabies.

  • avatar
    protomech

    “And forget the Camaro V-6; the car once championed as the musclecar for the smart set looks distinctly porky at nearly four hundred pounds above the Mustang’s curb weight of 3,459.”

    The Camaro v6 is heavy, but I don’t think it weighs in excess of 3800 pounds.

    • 0 avatar

      Yahoo puts the curb weight on the v6 camaro with the manual transmission at 3,780 pounds.

      http://autos.yahoo.com/2010_chevrolet_camaro_ls_coupe-specs/

    • 0 avatar
      86er

      Jack is still apt in pointing this out.

      While the Mustang is still true to its pony car roots, which it invented (for all intents and purposes), the Challenger and Camaro are based on full-size RWD car platforms and the weight penalty is apparent.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      Starting from 3728 lbs (LT model), based on official specifications on chevrolet.com. That makes the difference 269 lbs (in the Mustang’s favour).

    • 0 avatar

      I think Ford should play this up for all it’s worth… “our car is on a dedicated American sports-car platform, designed for this purpose. Compare that to the porkish old-school Mercedes frame under the Challenger, and the Australian-Canadian bastard mix that is the Camaro.”

      They could accompany this with a slogan along the lines of, “Mustang: An Unapologetically American Musclecar, from an American company that still believes in betting on itself… and not taxpayer bailouts.”

      I’m just sayin’…

    • 0 avatar

      Sure, if you don’t count the billions in DOE loans and other government money Ford has accepted under-the-table and chronicled here on TTAC, but I digress.

      That and the Mustang’s all-American platform is a bit old (no matter how many times Ford reheats it in the microwave) compared to GM’s ultra-modern billet monocoque from the land of Down Under (and RWD with IRS).

      The Mustang feels pretty old behind the wheel, the Camaro feels pretty teutonic. It’s a matter of preference.

    • 0 avatar

      @TriShield: Good point there… though I’d argue the DOE money was ostensibly for development of new technologies, and not solely to rescue a failing business. The latter is what I take issue with — government interference in the Darwinian free-market system.

      Spot-on about personal preferences, though IMHO, the IRS in the Camaro comes at too high a price, but to each his own.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      … and the Australian-Canadian bastard mix that is the Camaro.”

      The Zeta platform is still awesome, despite GM’s best efforts with the Camaro to make it average.

      A proper Zeta-sedan would eviscerate the SHO at thousands less, so Ford shouldn’t start smack talking.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Saying the DOE loans were taken ‘under the table’ implies some sort of dubious intent, as if Ford were trying to defraud the government or the public. In reality, Ford never tried to hide the fact that it received the DOE money, and said money was available to any automaker who could get through the approval process, something that GM and Chrysler couldn’t because they happened to be insolvent at the time, despite taking billions in government money in failed attempts to stave off said insolvency.

      It can’t be stated enough that there is a huge difference between accepting the DOE money, which is basically a grant to help foster more fuel efficient vehicles, and which makes very good business sense as the same people handing out the money are the ones who are continually accelerating the requirements for fleet efficiency, and taking the bailout bucks, which were nothing more than a last ditch effort to maintain an impossible status-quo in the way GM’s and Chrysler’s businesses were being run. It’s the difference between a set of parents offering to help their child through college and paying a child’s bail money because he was arrested for possession of heroin for the third time.

      Ajla –

      You are right, the Zeta platform is good. The G8 was a great car, and deserved to live on as a Chevy available to the public, and probably should have underpinned the new Caddy flagship, or at least helped replace the STS. The GTO’s V platform was also good, and for that matter, so was the Kappa platform underneath the Solstice and Sky. GM’s fault has never been an inability to develop a good car, it has been an inability to continue that development past the first generation and over time iron out the wrinkles to make a good car a great car, then eventually a wonderful car and a legendary car. What the Japanese have done so well, and what Ford has finally learned to emulate, is that improving and perfecting a vehicle over time is just as, if not more important, than coming out with a short lived flash in the pan moment of greatness.

      GM could improve the Camaro considerably by addressing a few interior quality and ergonomic issues. Improving visibility, finding a way to make the car feel lighter than it is, and reworking the interior to break up the acres of grey plastic and oddly placed gauges would pay huge dividends in the average owner’s experience with the Camaro. At the end of the day it’s nothing new, the Camaro has for generations had a great engine and a willing chassis let down by poor ergonomics compared to the Mustang, and for the most part has suffered in sales compared to the Mustang because of it. Horsepower bragging rights will only get you so far. On a mass-market car, even a performance based mass-market car that has a lot of enthusiast takers, you can’t alienate the general population and expect it to be a success.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      @Nullomodo:

      Yeah, the Zeta-Camaro’s ergonomics and visibility seem to have been inspired by a Maserati Bora, while they looked to the Cobalt for material quality. Then one has to deal with the comically huge wheels. Driving it, there just isn’t any ferociousness in it.

      Also, replacing the new Camaro’s steering wheel with a rabid badger would be an upgrade.

    • 0 avatar
      JeremyR

      Is the rabid badger a factory option?

  • avatar
    Facebook User

    Boy, the EPA ratings for new American cars just get healthier and healthier. First the Fusion Hybrid, then the Chevy Equinox, now 31mpg for a 3.7l, 305hp, rear-drive pony car. I hope I’m not the only one not buying it.

    • 0 avatar
      protomech

      I hope you are the only one not buying it ;) The more people buy these, the more they’ll depreciate and the faster they’ll fall into my hands..

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      Considering they’re all being gamed, er, run to the same standardized testing, if one is lying so are the rest. Conversely,if they’re all lying, at least the proportions are correct.

      Ain’t it a bitch when the Americans get something right?

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      As we all know, the Equinox figures are apparently not realized in the real world.
      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/why-the-chevy-equinox-epa-mileage-numbers-dont-add-up/

      I suspect the same is true of the Fusion.

      Considering they’re all being gamed, er, run to the same standardized testing, if one is lying so are the rest. Conversely,if they’re all lying, at least the proportions are correct.

      I believe that is wrong.

      Keep in mind that the EPA tests are not actually performed by the EPA, but by the manufacturers themselves, with a small percentage of cars potentially retested by the EPA. Have they retested the Equinox or the Fusion Hybrid? And if they fell short, would we actually ever hear about it?
      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/why-the-chevy-equinox-epa-mileage-numbers-dont-add-up/

      Many vehicles do meet or exceed their EPA’s, but there are egregious cases of the opposite, see Equinox et al.

    • 0 avatar
      Irvingklaws

      Both my last F150 pickups (a ’98 V6 STX, and an ’04 FX4) got significantly worse mileage than the minimum stated on the sticker. The FX4′s sticker said 14-18mpg, but it always got 12mpg…or less. I dumped it after gas spiked at $4.50/gallon. If it sounds too good to be true…

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      “Both my last F150 pickups (a ‘98 V6 STX, and an ‘04 FX4) got significantly worse mileage than the minimum stated on the sticker. The FX4’s sticker said 14-18mpg, but it always got 12mpg…or less. I dumped it after gas spiked at $4.50/gallon. If it sounds too good to be true…”

      That’s because there are not different fuel ratings for different rear axle ratios.

      Ford can get away with these numbers by fitting the Mustang or F-150 with a “green” axle ratio…even though they know that to get any sort performance or towing out of their appliances, you have to go with a decent rear ratio…killing fuel mileage. That’s why F-150s average 12MPG.

    • 0 avatar
      Bancho

      @Irvingklaws and @z71_silvy:

      That’s great but that’s also before the change to the EPA ratings back in 2008. Those F150′s were certainly not the only vehicles living up to their EPA estimates.

      And, while Z71_silvy is correct about the axle ratios, Ford is certainly not alone in offering multiple ratios without corresponding EPA ratings for each one.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Bancho:

      The EPA change does not matter…

      Lets say that the 2009 F-150 has the following axle ratios available…2.73, 3.09, 3.42, 3.73, 4.10.

      Now, to do any sort of towing…or have any sort of tolerable performance, you will need AT LEAST a 3.42 gear or shorter (bigger number) and the result of that will hurt your fuel mileage…drastically.

      But when the F-150 was tested, the test truck had the 2.73 gear in it to maximize fuel economy…even though Ford knows that the vast majority of trucks sold will have the 3.73/4.10 gears. Thus, those owners will NEVER see mileage numbers anywhere near the EPA figures.

      And it’s the same thing for the Mustang. The Mustang now has a “fuel economy” rear gear…but any vast majority of cars sold will have a shorter gear to maximize performance potential.

    • 0 avatar
      Bancho

      @Z71_silvy:

      I beg to differ. The EPA change was to help correct a broken system where real world driving habits didn’t mesh with EPA tests and they revised them. Depending on the motor, Irvingklaws mileage with the FX4 (which had a 5.4L motor) was within the revised EPA estimates so there’s no foul (the 5.4L revised estimates for 2004 were 11city/15highway which are pretty darn crappy).

      As far as axle ratios go I stated quite clearly that your point was valid, but that Ford is not alone in picking a specific ratio to achieve better EPA results. Are you suggesting that other companies would do otherwise and choose a ratio that would do *worse* in the EPA tests but represent a more real world number? I’d love to believe that a company would be so altruistic but that would be ignorant and foolish.

  • avatar
    RGS920

    The question I would have is whether the V6 Mustang with all the right boxes checked is comparable performance wise to a base Nissan 370Z.

    Admittedly, I would rather have a lightly used Lotus Elise for 25K than the mustang V6. Although, I suppose it would be nice to have a useful trunk :(

    • 0 avatar

      Have you ever driven a Lotus Elise? A totally different sort of car that I personally find unsuitable as a daily driver.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      You’re cross shopping an odd mix of cars – the Mustang is a practical 4 seater, the 370Z is a two seater with very limited luggage room and the Lotus is absolutely unusable as a daily driver – it’s a track car only.

    • 0 avatar
      mtymsi

      I have a 2010 Mustang and the last thing it is is a practical 4 seater. I can’t even use the rear seat floor space to store things because the front seat backs are within inches of the rear bottom seat therefore I can’t access the rear floor from the front seat. The only passengers that would fit in the back would be small children.

  • avatar

    The V6 is a huge improvement, but long live the 5.0 ;)

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    I regularly stretched out my perception and ran this Civic-priced Mustang at a pace traditionally reserved for the likes of BMW’s 335i

    That’s the important point: this car costs as much as the Civic Si. Would you really buy the Civic Si over this (or the Camaro LS)? Really? And if you say “gas mileage” even this dedicated greenie will have to smack you, because if that’s what matters you’d have been better to buy a Fit and a decent set of tires.

    Ridiculous bargains, both these cars.

    • 0 avatar

      I like the Civic Si, but there is no way I’d buy it over this. If I had kids and needed a back seat I’d be buying a MazdaSpeed3 or GTI.

    • 0 avatar
      Wizerud

      There are a number of reasons I’d rather buy an Si over a Mustang:

      - I need 5 useable seats (2 kids)
      - I need FWD (75 mile roundtrip and it’s snowing today, for instance)
      - I trust Honda more than Ford on the reliability front (not that I would suspect the Ford of being unreliable though)
      - Handling takes priority over power for me
      - Pricing a base Stang, no options, spits out an Edmunds TMV of $23k even. Civic SI sedan (no nav) comes in at $20.8k.

      Admittedly the price differential will come down over time, but right now that $2200 would be a factor.

      I also highly doubt the Stang would be able to beat my Si’s mostly-highway mpg of 31 but hey, y’never know. The 31mpg EPA of the Mustang also only applies to the automatic. Manual yields 29mpg highway (allegedly).

      Having said all that it does sound like a very nice car and I can see it appealing to a wide demographic.

  • avatar
    Quentin

    What gears were in the one you tested and what was observed fuel economy (when driving like a sane person, presumably)?

  • avatar

    I take exception to the mention of the Genesis coupe in this article. Yes, it seemed to set the online fanboi crowd alight during it’s pre-release hype but the sales numbers have been flacid since it hit the streets nearly a year go.

    Hyundai doesn’t break out sales numbers between the sedan and coupe, but overall month-to-month Genesis sales numbers are low and stagnant. Ford and GM sell many times the amount of Mustangs and Camaros as Hyundai sells the entire Genesis line, so whomever wants the Genesis coupe, they are few and far between.

    The real target for the Mustang’s new powertrains is the Camaro, make no mistake about that. It may not have the finesse or teutonic feel of the Camaro’s aluminum fully independent suspension but at least on paper the Mustang has similar numbers now (and an equally similar high MSRP if you want any toys with that). Also note that the Mustang isn’t quite as light as it was in 2005. Road and Track tested a 2010 GT Track Pack last year and it tipped their scales at 3,700lbs, not too far off the Camaro.

    Rest assured GM and Chrysler won’t take Ford’s update sitting down. GM is working on enhancing the Camaro’s powertrains. The LSX architecture is rumored to be getting a healthy dose of power and VVT. Chrysler has the new Pentastar V6, 392 HEMI (formerly a Mopar crate engine) and interior update in the works for the Challenger.

    The choice in muscle cars still comes down to whether you are a Ford, Chevy or Mopar man. Ford fans are getting more for their money now but whichever one someone chooses they win really, all are great and unique cars.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m with TriShield on this one: the Genesis Coupe is far from the game changing car that the original Mustang was.

      At the same time, I have a hard time thinking of the Mustang as a sports car. But then the Genesis isn’t a sports car, either.

      Reliability has been a Mustang strong suit. It has done well in TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey:

      http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php?stage=pt&bd=Ford&mc=92

    • 0 avatar
      N8iveVA

      TriShield,
      you keep referring to the Camaros “finesse or teutonic feel”, y6et AB had this to say:

      Not to overstate things, but the four-wheel independently sprung Camaro felt prehistoric compared to the lighter and more sprightly Mustang. Actually, the Camaro’s ponderousness helped it out on Ford’s track, as it was a second gear affair (meaning nothing but quick turns and big braking zones), but even on the broken asphalt the cars were running over, we much preferred the Mustang’s moves and prowess to the frankly clunky, chunky Camaro.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I’m not sure I would use the term teutonic to describe the Camaro either, but to each their own. The AB review actually had a nice quote from one of the Mustang engineers, something along the lines of ‘We had the option to give the Mustang a mediocre independent rear suspension, or the world’s best live axle, and we chose the latter’. I like that philosophy, and given that every single review of the Mustang has stated that it handles very very well, I think it is time to put the myth that the live axle is somehow an inferior suspension setup to rest.

      As far as the one-up-manship goes, I certainly expect it to continue. Similarly to how GM announced numbers on their HD trucks slightly after and slightly higher than Fords, they will likely push it up a bit higher for the next model year Camaro. Ford will of course bump it a bit above Chevy for their next models, whether they be heavy duty trucks or pony cars, and so on and so forth. It’s nothing new, and certainly not limited to the auto industry. Intel vs AMD, ATI vs nVidia, Comcast vs DirecTV, McDonalds vs Burger King, etc, anywhere you have two heavy hitters there is going to be some competition for bragging rights. In the end the consumers win from the competition.

    • 0 avatar
      jplane

      TriShield,

      Your comments were better than the review itself and more informative too. I guess I am more of a GM man, because having driven these two in the recent past, the Camaro was much more sporty.

  • avatar
    JeremyR

    I had a ’94 Mustang Cobra, and I’d bet this would run circles around it. Pretty impressive.

    • 0 avatar
      Lumbergh21

      My wife has a 95 Cobra and we were surprised at how well our (finally running) ’68 Mustang with a 289 accelerated; so, I looked up the pertinent info on the Cobra and the 68. Both the hp and torque per weight ratios favored the 68 for one simple reason, the 68 weighed approximately 1,000 lbs less. Assuming the engine hasn’t lost too much, that 68 should out perform the Cobra in the quarter mile without any of the modifications that we are planning for the future. Now handling is a totally different matter. As bad as that Cobra is, the 68 appears to be even worse. I feel like I’m floating down the road in the 68, which makes me wonder (fear?) what the car will surprise me with next.

      My wife is looking to replace her Cobra. Maybe I can convince her to at least try the 6 cylinder consolation prize. Mmm, probably not. No matter how good it is, it’s still not a V8 in the mind of a Mustang fan(atic).

    • 0 avatar
      David Sklover

      this is in reply to Lumbergh21′s reply: you said: ..68 weighed approximately 1,000 lbs less.. and ..Assuming the engine hasn’t lost too much, that 68 should out perform the Cobra in the quarter mile..

      your 95 cobra weighs ~ 3500, no weigh (pun intended) your 68 only weighs ~ 2500, the difference is about 450 pounds. the early 68′s still had the 289, but almost all of em were 302′s, though no real performance diff. the 95 will do ~ 14.5ish at 94ish. no way the 68 will come close. stock 302 (or 289) were 16 second cars, in the 80′s trap.. even the k code 271 bhp stangs weren’t under 15 seconds.. even the 306 bhp shelby’s weren’t 14 second cars.. the old stangs were stones.. don’t even mention handling..

  • avatar
    Dukeboy01

    I personally wouln’t be surprised if GM announces that the 2011 Camaro LT will make 306 or more horsepower by the time it hits showrooms this Fall. Incremental gains like that are pretty easy in this day and age of ECU programmers and what not. If they don’t go ahead and do it for 2011, you know they absolutely will for 2012.

  • avatar
    NickR

    So, does this spell the end of the Cologne V6? Geez, I feel like holding a wake. There are probably plenty of readers here who weren’t born when it first emerged from a factory.

    I must say, this sounds like a nice car, and plenty fast for a V6. Of course, the Coyote 5.0 powered version appeals more but I have a pragmatic gene or two. They occasionally rear their head.

    One of the few cars out there now that would motivate me to ‘buy new’.

  • avatar
    MSil34

    First off, love the Firefly reference. As for the car, looks great, though not a fan of the huge spoiler in the back. The much milder decklid spoiler on the current version is better. As for how it drives, sounds fantastic as well. Maybe I should trade in my current one for the new one…

  • avatar
    tbp0701

    Wait, it’s not going to have the live rear axle in favor of an independent suspension? And it’ll be available with a manual transmission with a stick shift? (Hopefully dealers will stock them). If so, and the steering doesn’t feel like a detached computer controller, I may have to step foot in a Ford dealership after all.

  • avatar
    MarcKyle64

    All that horsepower doesn’t mean a thing when the speed governor makes it’s presence known. Car & Driver says it kicks in at 114 mph. 114. My Accent goes faster according to C/D. My horsepower / top speed calculator says the V-6 Mustang should be able to top out at 160. What’s the point of all the power if you can’t use it?

    • 0 avatar
      Stingray

      Man, someone outside the happy land of the stealership can unlock the beast.

      Down here people unlock Explorers, Mustangs, Impalas, Cavaliers, you name it.

      I’m sure the aftermarket has a tool for that (if not, it’s in development). Also naaaawwwzzz and some supercharger to increase the fun factor.

      Don’t worry about those puny 114 mph.

  • avatar
    stationwagon

    can you tell me more about how the car felt taking a corner and body roll? also how is the steering feel and feedback? and how is visibility? I would love to buy a v8 but my budget wants me to decide between a premium trim v6 or a base v8.

    • 0 avatar
      mtymsi

      I have a 2010 base V8 (GT), it came standard with full power accessories, speed control and tilt wheel. I am completely satisfied with the accessories and standard level of trim so I don’t think you’d feel the standard model was bare bones or missing anything that was essential.

  • avatar
    BigDuke6

    “At the same time, I have a hard time thinking of the Mustang as a sports car. But then the Genesis isn’t a sports car, either.”

    OK, in 50 words or less, tell us what a sports car is. And please don’t say something that looks “sporty” the lamest adjective in autodom………..

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      It’s a gray area, and one can set the bar wherever they wish. After spending some time in something like an Elise, the Mustang might seem too cushy and isolating to be considered a true sports car in relative terms. I personally consider a manual-transmission V8 Mustang to be a sports car, as I believe it sacrifices enough practicality for the sake of sport to qualify, but the 4.0L automatic 2006 Mustang convertible my mother once had provided a far less sporty drive than even my 160 hp Mazda3, and I don’t consider my car to be a sports car. Yet some might even call that convertible Mustang a sports car. Give it a V8 and a manual, and I’d still have trouble referring to it as a sports car with all that chassis flex!

      I do remember MK describing the Genesis as more of a grand tourer, so I dug that review up:

      “In terms of agility and feedback, the Genesis coupe is no sports car. But the same is true of every competitor save the Mazda RX-8. Considered as a grand tourer, the Genesis coupe handles well.”

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2011-hyundai-genesis-coupe-2-0t/#more-345410

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      What’s a sports car? An MG/TC/TD/TF. Once the MGA started messing with roll up windows, it all went downhill.

      C’mon, face it. I seriously doubt there’s anybody here who’d consider a traditional sports car a daily driver. A few messages back we had someone saying that a Lotus Elise is unsuitable as a daily driver – yet it (supposedly) has all those creature comforts that no one will live without anymore. Plus all those safety nannies.

      Bottom line? A two-seater drop-top with manual transmission(aka, Mazda MX-5. Corvette, etc.) automatically defines sports cars. Adding to that list (Miniscule rear seats? Well, Porsche has them. Automatic transmission? Show me one make that doesn’t offer one.) starts complicating the list.

      40 years ago, nobody considered a pony car a sports car. Traditional sports cars were common. Today they’re not. Gradually, the definition of a sports car is changing.

      The one thing that never changes: Driver enjoyment.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    What sucks the most about the new pony cars is that you can’t order them with the big engines and associated performance hardware in a base model, like back in the day.
    There was a time when you could get the biggest engine and heavy duty driveline components without having to get all the bullshit bells and whistles like on the new cars.
    I wish I could get a base model challenger, rollup windows and all with the hemi. Then I could use the extra cash to add speed parts, plus have a lighter car that would be even faster.

    • 0 avatar
      stationwagon

      +1 all I want is a v8 with a good suspension and only the driver’s seat to be leather. I don’t need power windows or air conditioning or sat-nav or a car radio or a car alarm or backseats and I especially don’t need onstar, but I don’t think backseats were a delete option. I would like a performance exhaust, and a heavy duty drivetrain.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Back in the day, the difference between a luxury car and a basic one wasn’t huge in terms of content (and what there was did make a different in mass, what with everything being heavier), and with assembly being pretty bespoke you could get away with a lot of versions without increasing production costs much.

      You can still get a race-ready Mustang today, but you will pay a lot for it because of economies of scale.

      The other point is that modern luxury amenities really don’t weigh that much in the grand scheme of things. The mass is in the bodyshell, drivetrain, wheels and seats. Everything else is electronics and software, which weigh next to nothing; you’d save more in mass getting ceramic brakes and spider-spoked alloys (and seats, and maybe a few CF body panels) than you’d ever achieve by deleting things like power windows and, since only a handful of people would go to that extreme there’s not a lot of point to it, not when you could achieve the same effect and charge a fortune for the aforementioned weight-saver parts.

    • 0 avatar
      stationwagon

      I just realized I want a v8 miata. @psarhinjinian not wanting those components is about price, weight(I believe every pound counts) and just the lack of need or want for them, and the want for cheaper factory performance. I don’t want to have to mod my own car to get better than average stock performance. getting rid of electric components and the AC frees up horsepower, this is from http://www.aaroncake.net/rx-7/efanmyth.htm

      “Electric fans draw quite a lot of current. Most pull surges of 35A or more to start up, then run at 8A-10A. This puts extra load on the alternator. Ever pedaled a bicycle with a generator powered light? If so, then you will know that as the electrical load on a generator/alternator increases, the generator/alternator becomes harder to turn. Suddenly, all that “free” HP you just freed up is once again being used.”

      talking about electric fans and how they DON’T raise horsepower, well radios and sat-navs need current especially if they have touch screens and microprocessors. just my two cents.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      You can get a GT mustang in fairly basic trim. No, you can’t get crank windows, a delete AC option, or no stereo, but you can get it without leather, without a sunroof, and without heated seats, subwoofers, power passenger seats, etc, but by and large, people want those options.

      You can still buy a Focus with manual everything, transmission, crank windows, no central locking, no remotes, no power mirrors, etc. We keep a couple on the lot, and no one buys them until someone with such poor credit comes along that it is the only thing they can afford.

      Furthermore, cars costs more these days than just the adjustments for inflation, making a lot of the options much less of a percentage of the cost of the total car. The days of the stripper special that an average joe can pick up new as a second/weekend car are pretty much gone. Any new vehicle, aside from some toys for the ultra-wealthy, needs to be able to make a case for itself as a daily driver. Unless you live in the upper-reaches of the north AC is a must have for almost everyone, power windows and locks are a pretty big deal to most people, and people will laugh at your car if it doesn’t have a CD player and cruise control. The government also mandates a ton of safety equipment that cars didn’t used to get saddled with, and to keep up your company’s safety cred you likely have to cram in even a bit more.

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      NulloMondo,

      Yep. And those of us who prefer to open the windows to turning on an air conditioner; and happily drive with the radio off all the time; are such incredibly weird bastards that they don’t appear on anyone’s sales charts. So we’re out of our minds if we expect the manufacturers to build such cars for us.

      I’m starting to understand why my entire driveway is verging on being eligible for antique plates.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Syke –

      Hey man, you said it yourself. Don’t feel too bad though, we all have our quirks. I love oddball colors on cars. Give me a bold metallic green, an acid-trip purple, or a cornea-burning yellow over plain old white, black, or slate grey anyday, and while you’re at it let me have some two-tone interior leather in colors other than black, tan, or grey, or some fabric seats with some paisley print. Yes, I get the occasionaly bone thrown in the form of Ford’s Grabber Blue, Dodge’s Plum Crazy Purple, or VW’s plaid GTI seats, and the lot of you who enjoy minimalist cars get a nod from the likes of Lotus or Honda’s SCCA versions of vehicles from time to time, but for the most part, whatever our particular automotive perversions, we have to admit that mass-market makes the rules.

  • avatar
    rudiger

    At long last, the 1968 Roadrunner that all those geezer motorheads have been pining for all these years has returned.

  • avatar
    Wheeljack

    The V-6 Challenger switched from the ancient 4-speed slushbox a model year or two back in favor of the efficient Mercedes derived 5-speed automatic. Sure, it doesn’t have 6+ gear ratios but it’s still a good trans and absolutely transforms the driving experience vs. the old clunky 4 speed.

  • avatar
    joeveto3

    This strikes me as a fantastic car. It’s so cool to have a base engine that’s worth a darn, so much so that it gives the enthusiast pause before automatically checking the bigger engine box.

    So long Secretary car…

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m interested to see how the Mustang V6 performs against the Genesis Coupe 3.8L and Camaro LT acceleration-wise.

    The Ford is lighter than the Camaro, with roughly the same power, but the Mustang only gets wimpy 2.73 gears in base form, while the Chevy gets 3.27. It could be closer than people think.

    The Mustang V6 with the upgraded 3.31 gears should take down the Camaro V6 just fine, but the Genesis Coupe has a similar curb weight and 3.54 gears, so the Hyundai should still have the edge.

    I wish Ford would offer the new V6 with 3.73 gears just to see how the new car really compares to the old 4.6L GT.
    _________________________
    And while I’m giving requests to Ford, please put the Ecoboost 3.5L in the Mustang.

  • avatar
    threeer

    5.8 to 60 isn’t THAT far off from the Challenger SRT-8 I drove last week. And that was with 425 HP! I’ve been looking forward to seeing the new V-6, although now that I’ve had to assume custody of my sister-in-law’s two kids (that she abandoned…how does a mother do that??) and I’ve been buried in legal fees, a Mustang is very, very far from reality. I’ll be lucky to afford another beater in a year or so…

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      There’s a karmic balance to life. Somewhere, there’s one of these Mustangs with your name on it; if only to reward you for what you’re currently doing. Just have a bit of patience.

    • 0 avatar
      threeer

      @Syke,

      Thanks, but unless somebody gives me the winning Powerball numbers, or the Donald miraculously turns out to be very philanthropic towards men who adopt their in-laws abandoned kids, a new Mustang (even “lowly” V-6) aren’t anywhere near in my future. I run two households due to my work being in Alabama, while the wife and (now) two kids are in South Carolina. Been living that way for well over a year, and I won’t even begin to mention what the legal fees are for assuming custody of kids these days.

      So, I’ll just live vicariously through TTAC and daydream of a sunny Sunday morning romp through the backroads…

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Psarhjinian, while things like power window motors are lighter than they were in the past, when a car is loaded to the hilt with all that stuff, including things like ac compresser, power steering pumps and so on, it does add up. And there’s more to what I was saying besides weight savings. All that stuff adds up to a lot of dough.
    The idea of the old school performance buff is a car that is as inexpensive as possible to begin with, which gives him more money for speed parts to make the car quicker without all the unneeded luxury stuff.
    If they offered these cars like this then they would sell a lot more of them to the guys that bought them that way back in the day.
    Most of these people (including myself) can’t afford to pay thousands extra for the top of the line model just to get the big engine.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      I understand your point, but you’re barking up the wrong tree.

      Railing against “power everything” as the source of weight and power-robbing drag is misguided as the reason cars are heavy isn’t something you can really cure by stripping them down to the frame. It’s reactionary and luddish thinking, and doesn’t “work” anymore.

      Cars are heavy primarily because they have to meet safety regulations (frame, seats) and because people expect a certain base level of performance (engine) and luxury (sound deadening, frame, seats, wheels). Stripping all the electronics out would not only save very little weight, it wouldn’t really reduce the price much as it’s adding another level of complexity to the manufacturing process, which is where the real cost piles up—especially since you’d strip out so much from the car that hardly anyone would buy it.

      Again, you can buy a factory-built stripped Mustang racer, but it’s something like twice the price of the GT. What worked as a philosophy in the 60s doesn’t work any longer.

      What you’re describing works for bespoke vehicles like, eg, a Caterham, but not in a modern production car. You’d be better served (and you’d end up with a faster car) by buying a Mustang and putting a CF hood and trunk, lightweight racing seats, lightweight wheels and such than by trying to rid it of electronica.

      Or you could buy that aforementioned Caterham.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Goezinger, I remember reading an article in a magazine a few years ago, can’t remember which one it was, but the writer talked about his dad swapping a 4 cylinder chevy11 engine into their family VW bus.
    It was pretty interesting, I don’t recall how he got a radiator to work in that thing, but he did it. he said the van would easily cruise at around 60-65 with no problems.
    loser, you are correct about the SOHC. Ford had to widen the 67 stang to even fit the FE engine, it would not fit between the shock towers of the earlier models.

  • avatar
    Durwood

    I wonder what the true HP of the V6 really is. They dyno tested the 5.0 V8 and claimed it was closer to 430 hp then the 412 Ford claims. Could it be the v6 might have even more then the 305 it is rated?

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    I’ve driven the V6 Camaro and an ’05 Mustang V6 and wasn’t impressed.

    But this review intrigues – time to give Ford a shot. I’m very much fan of the (very different) RX-8, but the Mustang seems more practical and maybe more appealing as a daily driver.

  • avatar

    Is it just me, or do other people think with a bit of luxing up, and four doors this would be an excellent restart for Lincoln? (Especially if they finally can the crappy Lincoln stylists)?

    The retro styling and associations turn me off, but if the performance and handling are there, a 3-series fighter for Lincoln should be the next stop on the menu. Axle be damned.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      The Mustang’s platform is actually a highly modified and very decontented version of the DEW98 that saw life as, ta-da, the Lincoln LS.

      Which, despite handling better than the E39 5-Series, did not sell well and cost Ford a mint to make.

    • 0 avatar

      I was unaware of the LS connection. Of course, Ford has always screwed Lincoln with poor styling, poor marketing, and basically zero commitment. Plus, frankly, Lincoln just does not have the cache to go after the 5. the entry level 3, despite being a tough market, would be more brand building.

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      @akatsuki: I kind of like your idea for an upmarket Mustang, not as a Lincoln but as a Mercury Cougar revival. But it seems to me Ford is intent on letting Mercury fade away, I doubt very much that a revival of the cat would take place. Bummer for me, as I very much loved the original Cougars.

  • avatar
    B.C.

    The first and last pics are actually of the 2011 GT Cali Special package and not the V6, but damn it still looks good.

  • avatar
    Qusus

    Indeed this is a very good lookin’ car, but does anyone else prefer the more minimalist (relatively speaking of course) design of the previous gen Mustangs? This certainly looks more modern, but I have to imagine the previous gen will better stand the test of time.

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    Well, it’s about time Ford does something right…

    We have been saying for years that the V6 Stang needs the 3.5/3.7 with 6-speeds.

    Now, get to work fixing the awkward rear and bland interior/exterior.

    • 0 avatar
      Z72_Silvy

      Well, “doing something right” is open for speculation, but let’s face it, this car won’t deliver the advertised power figures nor fuel economy. Do hand it to Ford to at least attempt to compete against the Camaro.

    • 0 avatar
      Bancho

      Yes, they should raise the beltline more and chop the top so it can look even more like a wicked parody of a hot wheels car. I think the Mustang looks better than the Camaro and the Challenger simply because they haven’t gone totally overboard to look like something I’d see on the hot wheels aisle in toysrus.

      BTW, I hear the 2012 Camaro will come with a periscope as a standard feature to help improve visibility.

  • avatar
    newcarscostalot

    I would prefer a review from a more impartial source.

  • avatar
    newcarscostalot

    And before anyone blasts my comments, Jack Baruth has stated his preference for Ford vehicles. This is fine, but I really wonder if the review is impartial. I want the Mustang to be all that he says it is. I hope I am worrying for nothing. Someone, please put my mind at ease here! Thnx!

  • avatar

    All I can say, it’s good to have Jack “The Brute” Baruth back.

    We missed you. At least I did.

  • avatar
    niky

    Sorry… all the impartial sources online are currently drooling over the Mustang. You’ll have to wait a while for an updated kick-ass Camaro to get a fair assessment. Until then, please hold on this line.

    -

    As for the power rating… Edmunds has the Mustang V8 dynoing higher than the Camaro. Motortrend claims that they have the magic drivetrain loss number and are going with 435 hp, but then we know how they (censored) up the GT-R numbers, right?

    It’s fair to say, the Mustang V8 either makes more power than the Camaro V8 or has less drivetrain losses or both. The Mustang V6 may be similarly healthy, but until a back-to-back dyno test of both Mustang and Camaro V6s, we won’t know.

    -

    One question: Jack: Does it still sound like a vacuum cleaner?

  • avatar
    rasmusdf

    “I aim to misbehave” Kudos, sir!

  • avatar
    JohnAZ

    The new V6 Mustang has opened up a very large hole in the bottom of the Mustang market for a Turbo 4 for the traditional “secretary” and fleet buyers. I suspect we will see an Ecoboost Mustang kicker next year as Ford marches forward to the all new 50th Anniv Stang in 2014.

    • 0 avatar
      seadave70

      I agree with you, but only to a point. Dropping a 2.3 – 2.5L four pot Ecoboost could open the Mustang to shoppers that may not even cosider a V6 or V8 engine. I do’t think fleet buyers would be needed, as autocross & street racers would line uo ti fet a 250 -275 hp ‘Stang with improved weight distribution. The current Ford 2.3/2.5 L is based on a Madzda design…like the one that’s in base Ford Ranger’s. My company as owned dozens if the of these 4 pot Rangers abd THEY WILL NOT DIE! CRANK UP THAT BOOST!

  • avatar
    VanillaDude

    Rest assured GM and Chrysler won’t take Ford’s update sitting down.

    They better! I’m not allowing them to take more of my money via this government!

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    psarhj………I wouldn’t expect you to understand, so I’ll leave it at that.
    But I would not expect a stripper mustang to sell to the type of person that I am referring to. The reason being that ford rodders don’t mess with the mod motor because of the ohc design. It’s far too expensive to modify and a bi–ch to work on, and does not give the same results as the old pushrod motor. That is why about 99 percent of the ford guys at the dragstrip run the old stangs with the windsors.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    One more thing that I will add…. is that all you have to do is look back to the 80′s-early 90′s. Most ford racers preferred the strippo LX mustang notchback to the gt due to the lighter body.

  • avatar
    IronEagle

    How far we have come. I remember my sister’s 86 Mustang LX. 96bhp 2.3 4 cylinder and 4 speed manual. Kudos to Ford and the competition that gave these power and quality increases. Darwin was right.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Around here they always called 4 and 6 cylinder mustangs “poontangs”.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    People keep talking about the camaro’s poor visiblility, but what camaro fan cares about such things as outward visibility, rear seat and trunk room, smooth ride? etc. Not even the fat secretaries that drove the 6 cylinder models cared.
    I do find the writing by the author a bit conflicting. No red neck worth his 12 pack of budweiser would be caught dead in a 6 popper stang, camaro or challenger.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Even if Camaro loyalists don’t care about bad visibility and poor ergonomics, they are going to care that both versions of the Mustang are faster than their car.

      GM needs to either find a way to reduce the car’s weight or go with the nuclear option and drop in the LSA.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      The problem is that sales to Camaro fans aren’t enough to sustain the model. That is what killed the last F-body. People who just wanted something sporty and “different” weren’t willing to put up with those compromises on a daily basis.

      It is the six-cylinder version that has kept the Mustang viable, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this new six only makes it more appealing. And lots of people who want a sporty car don’t want something with the “red neck” image. That image was another factor that hurt F-body sales.

      I see lots of middle-aged, middle-class buyers in Mustang convertibles who don’t dress like red necks and, if they ever wore a mullet, probably did so in the early 1980s at the latest…a really good six-cylinder engine will only strengthen the car’s appeal to people who don’t want to pay the higher insurance premiums that come with the V-8.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      “The problem is that sales to Camaro fans aren’t enough to sustain the model. That is what killed the last F-body.”

      But the Camaro outsold the Mustang every month it has been on sale in 2009 and so far in 2010.

      So is the Mustang in jeopardy?

      Actually, the Mustang is in jeopardy but not because of it’s poor sales….it’s because of the silly “One Ford” scam…and without a GWRD platform, the Mustang may not be too long for this world.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Z71-Silvy: But the Camaro outsold the Mustang every month it has been on sale in 2009 and so far in 2010.

      So is the Mustang in jeopardy?

      No, because the fact that the Camaro outsells the Mustang is completely irrelevant as to whether the Mustang is viable as a model. The F-bodies didn’t go away because they were outsold by the Mustang; they went away because sales were declining, and GM wasn’t willing, for whatever reason, to invest money in a new generation at that time.

    • 0 avatar
      protomech

      @Z71_Silvy

      Don’t forget that the 2010 camaro sales had 8 years of pent-up demand behind it. The 2010 mustang refresh refined the interior, but did almost nothing to touch the drivetrain. I don’t know how much effect the rumors of the 2011 drivetrain refresh had on slow 2010 mustang sales.

      Let’s see what a full year of 2011 mustang vs 2011 camaro sales looks like.

    • 0 avatar
      rudiger

      “GM wasn’t willing, for whatever reason, to invest money in a new generation at that time.”The answer to that one can be found in two, 3-letter acronyms: SSR and GTO. The development costs for those two vehicles were no more (and likely less) than tooling up a brand-new f-body. So GM gambled that SSR and GTO sales would be at least as good as any new f-body. The GTO (a Holden Monaro with a different nose), in particular, was an easy and cheap replacement for a new Firebird.

      While that scheme didn’t really pan-out, I’m sure GM also calculated that renewed f-body sales after a several year absence would make up for it.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    The LS series gm engine is very mod friendly, so if the stang is quicker off the showroom floor it would take very little to change that fact.
    The last gen camaro died because fans of the earlier models did not like it. I believe they will love the new one though. And I do agree that the lower performance versions of the stang have helped to keep the model alive by appealing to older, middle class buyers, as well as women. That kept the car moving so that they could continue to build the performance versions for the guys that desire them.

    • 0 avatar
      Loser

      I think the new 5.0 is great but I wouldn’t want to be the owner of one of these in a few years when it needs simple repairs or preventative maintenance. This has been my gripe with Ford for quite some time, they make everything complicated and difficult to work on, more so than other manufacturers. Ford loves to pack a physically big engine into a small engine bay. Many folks call GM’s OHV engine outdated but it still returns a lot of power, good MPG, very simple and reliable. IMHO Ford should have updated it’s old OHV V-8′s like GM did, specifically for it’s trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      srogers

      Yes, or better yet, they could have kept building the original Ford flat head v8. A monkey could rebuild one of those with a stick and a handful of dirt.

    • 0 avatar
      Loser

      @ srogers,

      Sure, if the flat head can compete (identical power, torque, mpg’s and pass emissions)why not.
      Nothing wrong with old tech when it does the job just as well as the latest and greatest. No point in making things more complex than they need to be.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Judging by what I remember hearing from most camaro fans when the last gen camaro was made, their biggest complaint was that it did not “look like a camaro.” While many camaro fans have died out over the years I believe there are still plenty enough of them left to make the new car a sales success.
    I do not think that the mustang will ever die, it seems like nothing can kill it. The mustang11 did not even kill it off.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    I appreciate ponycars of all makes. First gen camaros (my brotherinlaw owns 2). 69-70 mustangs, 71-73 mustangs. And I love the 67-8 cougar. When I was a kid the lady next door had a white 67 cougar with blue interior that was stunning. (the owner didn’t look bad either).
    I like javelins, bandit trans ams, and of course the challenger and cuda. There is not one pony car that I do not like, at least from certain years. I wish that they were all still around. And if it wasn’t for the mustang we would not have had any of the others around to appreciate.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      I agree with you, except on the 1971-73 Mustangs. They really were big, bloated and ugly. That generation of Mustang was completely outclassed by the post-1969 F-bodies.

  • avatar
    Matthew Danda

    So you drove the car and it was fun. That’s about it, huh? What about the interior? Seating position? Back seat? Are the ergonomics the same? How about visibility? How does the exterior design compare to the previous model? Do you have any engineering notes on the engine? There is a story behind why it took so long to upgrade the V6, right? How well does shifter compare to previous models and competitors? Fit and finish?

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Geeber, I agree with you that many people find the 71-73 mustang bloated and ugly. But in mach 1 trim, and with the right engines, like the 351 cleveland and 429 cobra jet I think they are awesome.
    In plain jane trim they are ugly, there is no denying that.

  • avatar
    MarcKyle64

    I had a friend in high school with a ’73 Mach 1. His brother had a ’68 Mustang with the 428 SCJ. He wrapped the SCJ around a tree and parked the carcass in their backyard. My friend and his brother took the FE motor & tranny out of the ’68 and put it in the ’73 and it fit easily – which shows you just how big they’d become. The Mach benefited from the extra power over the original 302. It looked stock so no one checked the engine numbers. It passed the inspections every year until I lost track of my friend in college.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    skor, the reason that ford didn’t enter the SOHC in nascar was because shortly after itroduction of that engine, nascar mandated that engines used in the series had to be available in a production automobile, which chrysler happily obliged in 66. Ford didn’t want to go through with the trouble and expense.
    But in top fuel racing they have no such mandates, why didn’t ford go that route? As far as I can tell no one will ever know.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    srogers, and your point is?

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    The flathead was long gone before the mustang came along. like almost a couple of decades.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    oops, make that one decade. still, lol.

  • avatar
    HollowScar

    The first car I really ever appreciated was a blue Ford Mustang when I was 14. For a guy that did not know anything about cars, the Ford Mustang kept me interested, and intrigued. However, over the years they have faced criticism for being heavy, slow for power, not good in snow, too large for convertible, etc. Even after all that, I still love this car. The car with its Pony Package V6 costs me about $26,499 for 2011 model. The worrying aspect is that this car might not be all that great due to its massive size, and lack of balance in the snow.

    I have three cars in mind. The Mustang, Eclipse, and GTi. I am torn between which to pick.

  • avatar
    iceman34572

    I find it awesome (and disturbing) that the new V-6 Mustang has more horsepower than my 2001 Mustang GT had. It’s nice to see some V6 power increases. Glad they brought back a monster of a V8 too!

  • avatar

    Chevy is gonna get left in the cold on this one. They don’t get it. They are still thinking that having more HP on paper will win the customers. WRONG. Its not enough HP to make up for the weight difference, so the Stang still comes out faster. Whats this mean in the end? It means that while Chevy gets to post slightly higher HP ratings on the website, the customer is going to stumble across page after page of “Mustang vs Camaro” youtube videos, with Camaro losing the races EVERY time.

    Really, what do you think is going to influence customers more?

  • avatar
    HollowScar

    I think Ford has been strong with good tactics. It will survive.

    When it comes to the 2005 Mustang, it was a mini revolution because it attracted buyers who were more into looks, than performance. They stopped the Cobra version, and kept the puny V6 version. They did not have to make significant changes in power until the Camaro came out.

    Remember that the Camaro already made appearance in a big blockbuster movie, and seemed to be a better looker than the Mustang which lost its uniqueness due to huge number of cars on the road. The Camaro looked more mean, and certainly came with a lot of power back then. Ford immediately took action.

    However, the Camaro had several problems. Too many blind spots, cave like interior, interior quality, and so forth made it seem like a car of appeal, but not a car of value. Compared to the new Mustang, Camaro need heavy refining to do. My vote is still for the VW GTi.

  • avatar
    onlyrock

    This is my favorite V6 Mustang review. AND NOT just because of the awesome Clockwork Orange Reference (“America’s mean streets for a bit of the old ultraviolence”). I Can’t believe nobody else has picked up on that.


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

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India