In addition to my day job, I’m also a jazz pianist. Recently, after playing an hour of cocktail music for a swank black-tie occasion, I spied an automotive anomaly while walking to my car. The familiar face of a 1968 Mustang broke up the row of elite (or elitist?) German and Japanese iron in the valet lot. “Ah,” I thought poetically, “an oasis of sincerity in a desert of automotive pretense.” But then I noticed the rectangular grill-mounted fog lamps and the lack of a pony emblem. Drawing closer, I realized that I stood before the height of Sixties automotive fluff: a 1968 Mustang GT California Special. The “sincerity” part of my previous thought immediately sprouted hooves and sauntered away.
Compared to the ’68 model, the 2009 Mustang California Special is more California, less special. The LBJ-era car, built exclusively for Southern California Ford dealers, consisted of a garden-variety GT with a graphics package, special interior trim and sequential turn signals. The new one loses the sequential turn signals and it’s built for everyone, including those yearning for an open car like the one I recently sampled (‘68’s were hardtop only).
Although the current-generation ‘Stang shares its good looks with the original, the California Special treatment adorning today’s example seems more like a dealer-installed profit-booster than the “Shelby-for-less” appearance package of yore. The cheap, fake plastic hood scoop and rear spoiler available on lesser GT’s compliment the cheap, fake plastic side scoops dedicated solely to the CS model– quite well, actually. Except that they’re cheap, fake, and plastic. When the new Camaro starred in Transformers a few years back, Ford stylists must have visited the movie set, because they ganked a piece of wild, robot-looking “satin silver” plastic and used it for the fuel door on this Superflustang. Nonetheless, the unique front and rear air dams look decent, and the bright chrome exhaust tips are so righteous you’ll never notice the “California Special” badge between the taillights.
By contrast, the interior has no bright spots. Well, actually, it has several, but like the atrocious fuel door, they’re made of fake, satin-silvery plastic that looks like the chrome spray paint I used on model cars as a kid. From the steering wheel spokes to the automatic shifter to the door latch levers, I kept thinking paint might come off on my fingers. Overall, the interior doesn’t look bad, but functionally, it disappoints. For instance, the two-halved, econo-crap hand brake handle threatens to come off in your hand. And although the two-tone black and “dove” leather seats look like legitimate sporting buckets, they’re neither comfortable nor supportive.
The function-follows-form theme continues with the optional cloth convertible top. Sure, it looks a thousand times more upscale than the standard vinyl affair. But it’s not appreciably quieter when up. That ’s a real shame, because the Shaker 1000 sound system doesn’t sound too bad (shaker, not stirred).
The real music in any Mustang should come from under the hood. In this, thankfully, the California Special succeeds. Initially, the new-for-’05 electronic throttle wasn’t the most responsive unit on the market. Now, it’s flawless; I felt like my right foot was connected to a perfectly-calibrated mechanical throttle linkage (how kinky is that?). The Stang’s 4.6-liter engine has never owned the low-end torque of Ford’s famous small-block V8, but this latest iteration brings on the fun stuff a lot sooner and smoother than any of its cammer predecessors. And although the California Special’s five-speed automatic trans isn’t the snappiest thing on the street, you’d have to leap back at least 35 years (to the crisp, old C6 three-speed) to find a Mustang automatic less slushy than this.
The same can (not?) be said of the California Special’s ride. Maybe it’s a compliment that a car can wear Z-rated performance rubber and not relentlessly proclaim the depth of every pothole to its driver. Still, you have to wonder what happened to the chassis that felt so modern and composed under the now-defunct Lincoln LS. Oh, wait…a live rear axle happened! God bless the beancounters. Or not.
Although the California’s numb steering feel is decently weighted (go figure), mid-corner road undulations undo the car’s poise enough to conjure-up the mirage of a hood ornament five feet ahead of you. Get too fast in a corner and dirty old Mr. Understeer slides into second base. But you probably won’t get too fast too often, because the brakes are less reassuring than a politician’s tax promises.
But who cares when you’re riding California-style? Be safe, adhere to the Mustang’s straight-line performance heritage, and you’ll probably have just as much fun by cruising around town, waxing adolescent-driven imports at stoplights, and – maybe – by showing up as the “different” one at your next black-tie event. Maybe even in a good way.
54 Comments on “Review: 2009 Mustang GT California Special...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
waxing adolescent-driven imports at stoplights,…
O RLY??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRK2Lg-P_QY
Not a bad car, in all, but the side graphics and hood scoop can leave anytime they like.
Ford nailed it with the Bullitt: inconspicuous but capable. At least this isn’t as tacky as the GT500 and it’s ilk.
John R:
Good point, but I was thinking more along the lines of inexpensive, unmodified imports teenagers typically drive. As opposed to, say, built-to-the-hilt 12-second drag cars whose drivers cut a four-tenths better light than the bolt-on-modded Mustang in the next lane of the dragstrip. (Good video, though.)
psarhjinian :
The entire time I drove the CS, I was thinking that it is as much of a “fluff” version as the Bullitt is a “substance” version.
Don,
Gotcha. That’s what I was thinking. Just keepin’ ya honest.
Did the tested car have the Interior Upgrade Package, which adds an aluminum trim plate to the IP? It helps.
On the reliability front, the current generation Mustang has required few repairs so far:
http://www.truedelta.com/latest_results.php
For 15/22 mileage I’d rather have an F150 (15/19).
No, really, why is the gas mileage so horrible?
It doesn’t weigh THAT much (~3300 lbs) considering the F150 weighs ~4700 lbs. Or is it just the big v8?
Michael Karesh :
Yeah, it did have the interior upgrade package, and compared to ‘Stangs I’ve seen without it, it does look better (but feels no less cheap when you touch the bright fakery).
GeeDashOff :
When I saw those mileage numbers, I thought it may have had the 3.55 or 3.73:1 rear axle ratio, but no, it had the taller 3.27:1 rear gear. It could just be that the automatic’s “performance” shift logic didn’t agree with the antiquated EPA testing procedures. Or maybe the ultra-responsive throttle caused heavier injector cycling throughout the test? Who knows?
My brother has the California Special coupe. It’s his second, he wrapped the 1st around a guardrail while it was raining and the rear broke free.
The interior is definitely chintzy, and the gauges, while cool looking, are hard to read quickly. The engine and styling are the car’s best attributes. The five speed manual is pretty good as well. Smooth through the gates, with a predictable clutch. The live rear axle definitely lets the handling down though. Take a bump in a curve and the rear end steps out. I did appreciate the cushy ride, but the seats felt like they belonged in the Town Car.
All Ford needs to do for 2010 is button down the rear end, upgrade the interior a bit, and add a six speed manual to all the models.
I really don’t get all the Mustang reviews that critique the finer points of the Mustang’s handling portfolio. I mean honestly, who cares? Certainly not Mustang owners; if they wanted a car that can go around corners, they’d get one. That’s really not what the ’stang is about – it’s about a glorious, bellowing V8, big smokey burnouts, and the whole hairy chested male stereotype thing.
Mrb00st:
The year is 2008. There is no excuse for outdated technology in a car like this. Ford has and can put a real suspension in this car to make it handle, but they don’t. That’s why. And it’s a damn shame because yes, there’s more to life than a straight line.
GeeDashOff :
October 31st, 2008 at 9:43 am
For 15/22 mileage I’d rather have an F150 (15/19).
No, really, why is the gas mileage so horrible?
It doesn’t weigh THAT much (~3300 lbs) considering the F150 weighs ~4700 lbs. Or is it just the big v8?
Curb weight is a bit elusive… I can’t find it in Ford’s specs (shitty pdf) or anywhere on their unimpressive website. From an Internet search, it appears that the curb weight of the convertible GT model is around 3,614 lbs. The regular GT is around 3,483. It’s no Corvette, so they have to shore up that topless chassis to keep it from becoming jello.
Mileage is 15/23 with the manual GT. A tall sixth gear would help that highway MPG.
This particular model is tacky. And white doesn’t do it any favors to my eyes. I’ll just close ‘em and listen to that incomparable V8 exhaust note (that the Corvette should have had).
And back to the topic of stability control from yesterday’s sedan comparo… If there was ever a vehicle that could benefit from it, this is it.
Looks like a 2010 replacement is coming. Should be interesting. I’d like to see a race-ready, gutted, roll-caged specimen offered that is hell-bent on saving weight and providing a good platform for entry level racers.
The live-axle may be outdated but there is an excuse for it; it’s cheap.
Besides, it handles pretty well (yes even in turns) as long as the road is smooth. Unfortunately, real world curves are often not.
Still, I think the car drives superbly, and not just in straights. (Well… mostly in straights.)
Also, the 2010 isn’t a replacement. It’s just a refresh. No chance for a “race-ready, gutted, roll caged specimen,” if anything the 2010 will undoubtedly add weight to what is frankly a pretty lightweight car compared in today’s terms.
And sorry, there’s just no chance that a platform this large could be a serious entry level racer imo. It’s great for aesthetics, proportion, and ride comfort but the size and length is just too prohibitive for real racing. (Of course, I hear Mustangs apparently post good track times with minimal modifications.)
I agree, of all the Mustang special editions, this is the one I dislike the most. Nothing functional about it, and what is decorative detracts, rather than complements the design. I always hated faux special editions like this.
I am still hoping that Ford will one day produce a Boss 5.4 version of this that sells at relatively modest premium over the GT.
Does anyone other than me find it bad that your (Ford’s) interior is so horribly bad, that you have to offer an “Interior upgrade Package”?
The year is 2008. There is no excuse for outdated technology in a car like this. Ford has and can put a real suspension in this car to make it handle, but they don’t. That’s why. And it’s a damn shame because yes, there’s more to life than a straight line.
I’m not a Mustang apologist–I’d never, ever buy the car–but I’d like to make a few points:
* A solid axle car can handle quite well. What it can’t do is ride well at the same time. You lose a modicum of body control, that you notice only when hitting a bump under power.
* The Mustang is very cheap for the power it puts out. I’d imagine Ford is making quite a bit more money on this car than GM or Chrysler make on their respective pony cars
* For a four-seat car with this kind of performance, it’s quite light. Again, the Camaro and Challenger will likely weigh a lot more.
For what most owners ask it to do (ad-hoc drag-racing, light track use), it’s a good choice. If you want the Ultimate Cornering Machine, you’ll need to give on power, price and/or reliability.
Where the Mustang falls down, comparatively, is in it’s powertrain. Ford’s engines just aren’t as strong as it’s competitors. If GM survives long enough to punt the Camaro out the door, this is going to be painfully obvious. Ford’s only hope is to keep the price and the mass down, and that live axle helps both.
psarhjinian :
I can’t agree with you more about the role that value (performance per dollar) plays here.
Think of the icon the original Mustang was and is. Now, remember that Ford built that original Mustang on the Falcon platform – the company’s cheapest entry level sedan. Could you imagine if the current Mustang sat atop the Focus chassis?
The point is that the car has evolved to the extent that it’s now being compared to an entirely different class of vehicles – and unfortunately, it finds itself outclassed by almost all of them.
My problem isn’t that I want the Mustang to actually compete on the level of vehicles like the 3-Series or 350Z, but rather that Ford could have brought it a lot closer to that level with a relatively minimal investment (i.e. better interior and IRS).
“the crisp old three-speed C6″
The C6 had the dubious distinction of being the most inefficient slushbox ever built – up to 60hp was lost between its input shaft and output shaft.
The C6 had the dubious distinction of being the most inefficient slushbox ever built – up to 60hp was lost between its input shaft and output shaft.
Which was the most efficient? Please say 727 Torqueflite and not the TH350.
Paul Niedermeyer:
Right you are, Paul, but I was making the comparison relative to other Mustang automatics.
Power hog that it is, a bone-stock C6 in a big-block late-’60’s or early-’70’s Pony will provide firmer, more positive-feeling shifts than any of the crappy AOD-derrived automatics Ford stuffed in the car during the twenty odd years of the Fox-platform Mustang. Not to mention the advantage the C6 has in reliability.
Interestingly, the Mustang’s current 5R55 line of auotmatics do not have dip sticks. Ford recommends that the dealer perform fluid checks via a method that involves removing a tube from the side of the trans and inserting your finger, or some nonsense like that. At least one aftermarket trans pan includes a dip stick kit, but get ready to shell out over four bills for it.
The live-axle may be outdated but there is an excuse for it; it’s cheap…
While this is certainly true, there are two more reasons for the live axle. One, it is anvil reliable. It can take a lot of abuse, and it can be upgraded to handle even more power. Two, a large amount of the Mustang faithful prefer the live axle because of the advantage it provides in drag racing.
Still, I really would like to see a proper independent suspension for all around improvement in ride and handling. Make a live axle available as a “drag pak” option.
Regarding the transmission issue, I can’t vouch for efficiency, but the Torqueflite 727 was a legend in reliability. Even the “lesser” A904 was a really good unit. Even more could be said for the 3 speed FWD transmissions-these usually outlasted the car (save the snide “that should be easy in a POS car comments, please). The 604? Well, that would be the waterloo of modern transmissions…
I share the non-love for the California Special, it doesn’t look especially different, and there aren’t a ton of upgrades to justify the price. The Bullitt (which btw comes in cheaper than the CS) is a better buy anyday.
I have never considered the Mustang interior (of the current generation) to be bad however. Yes, there are some cheap parts (the auto shift handle and the parking brake as noted have obvious mold lines, which I do find unacceptable), but the seats have always been the perfect blend of support and comfort for me (I will admit I am larger than your average man), the aluminish dash is straightforward and nice looking, and the gauges are a good compromise between style and functionality. Really, all Ford has to do is fix some mold lines, replace or recoat areas currently covered in hard plastic with soft touch or leather, and hide some obvious transitions from plastic to carpet, and the interior would be top notch.
Can some engineer (or accountant) in the audience please explain exactly why a live axle is cheaper than an independent rear suspension. Is it a matter of number of pieces in the puzzle?
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of Mustang buyers (those who buy the V6 secretary specials) won’t know or care about the advantages of IRS over a live rear axle. To them, the Mustang is sporty (at least in appearance) and inexpensive, and those have been the Mustang’s main claims to fame since the model’s introduction some 45 years ago.
Ford learned this through experience when they tried to introduce IRS on the old Thunderbird (the one before the retro two-seater) and quickly found out that the expense wasn’t worth it to the intended market demographic.
As an aside, does anyone know what live axle components (if any) the Mustang shares with other vehicles (such as the Ranger or Crown Victoria)? The cost savings of sharing major components would almost certainly be a significant contributing factor in Ford wanting to retain a live axle in the Mustang.
The bottom line is that Ford has plenty of justification and legitimate rationale for retaining the archaic live axle setup in the Mustang.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of Mustang buyers (those who buy the V6 secretary specials) won’t know or care about the advantages of IRS over a live rear axle.…
Would you say the same for the “secretary” buyer of the Accord Coupe? You know the one who might have bought a Mustang but (for valid reasons or not) purchased her Accord instead? Perhaps then Honda should have saved some money on the base Accord by installing a rear beam axle instead. Of course, thats not the Honda way, or wait…didn’t Honda delete the rear discs and put drum brakes on the rear of volume selling Civics to save some pennies?…Soichiro Honda should be turning in his grave…
As an aside, if find it funny that important improvements in design like the items above get the beancounter knife, yet worthless crap like electric parking brakes or keys that aren’t keys become must haves…
Last item, going back to the IRS for the Mustang. It was supposed to have IRS instead of a live axle for the original introduction. Ford killed it to save a few pennies, but it was completely designed. In HOT ROD Magazine (a “dirty hands” publication), they ran a story about a guy who got their hands on the original design documents and built the original IRS that was intended for the Mustang. As best as I can recall, this story ran about 6 or so years ago. He installed it in a ’60’s car and went for some test drives. There were plenty of photos of both the design document and the completed product he built. They brought an unmodified car for some back to back comparisons. The difference was like night and day. Another opportunity squandered. Ford could have been known as the maker of cars that handled better than all their competitors. All lost in the short sighted eye of the accountant. The more things change the more they stay the same…
I think you guys are underestimating the cost of an IRS… it’s not “pinching pennies.” I don’t believe Ford’s 5k to the price of every car argument, but there’s no doubt the cost is substantial.
Wasn’t there a Mustang back in the late 90s/early 2000s that had IRS? The Cobra? I also remember that it was very expensive for a Mustang.
The North American-market Ford rear-wheel-drive cars that came from the factory with IRS were:
1985-1989 Merkur XR4Ti
1988-1989 Merkur Scorpio
1989-1998 MN-12 cars (T-Bird/Cougar/Mark VIII)
1999-2004 Mustang Cobra
2000-2006 Lincoln LS
2002-2005 Thunderbird
(Not to mention two non-car Fords: the current Expedition and Explorer)
Am I missing any here?
The Mustang’s current S197 platform is basically a modified version of the Lincoln LS/2002 T-Bird/Jaguar S-Type DEW98 platform, which was born with IRS – the Mustang is the only version with a SRA setup.
Yes, all of the vehicles on the above list were probably less profitable because Ford spent (invested) the extra money on an independant rear suspension, but to many of the people who owned them, the expenditure was very much worth it, and a better consumer perception of Ford’s ride and handling characteristics was the highly possible result.
Hey Don,
I was under the impression that the S197 is not that closely related to the Lincoln/Thunderbird/S-Type platform. While this was the initial plan, Ford scrapped it because they thought it would be too costly and only the floorpan made it over. Am I wrong?
Okay, I should have probably said that it was a “heavily-modified” version of the DEW98 platform, but my source for that was a Ford engineer I spoke with back in 2005 who actually used the term “DEW98-S197″ when referring to the chassis and didn’t make too big a deal about the differences.
Interesting. Thanks for the info Don.
You bash the silver fuel door so much but then your (stock) photos don’t show one. My friend’s 2007 CS doesn’t have this either. I think yours had a dealer-add on fuel door, the photos here prove it isn’t part of the package.
golden2husky, you don’t know what you are talking about in regards to Hondas. Civics did not have rear disks until the 90’s, and then only on the SI’s, and later added them to the loaded EX’s. And still only the EX Accords (and a few oddball LXs) have rear disks. I have owned numerous Civics from ‘82 model up, and none of them ever had rear disks. I believe Mr. Honda was alive and well (and in control) at the time.
By the way, Civic & Accords didn’t (and don’t) need rear disks either. On a normal street Honda with economy tires and no ABS you can easily lock the rears with drums if you try. The drums provide more than adequate braking force for the rear on a Honda.
rodster205 :
I never said that the (100% bash-worthy) silver fuel door cover came with the CS package…but I suppose I didn’t make the distinction that it was optional, either.
Regardless, the offensive piece of crap was an honest-to-goodness factory option (listed on the sticker) on the CS convertible I had.
This could be one of those “factory options” that is shipped with the car (in the trunk) and then installed during the PDI process at the dealership. I’m pretty sure it’s also sold as a dealer-installed accessory that can be retro-fitted to any Mustang should the buyer suffer such an aggregious lapse in judgement as to want one.
Nonetheless, it’s horrible, regardless of which variety of Mustang it happens to infect. It warranted mentioning, however, because its superfluous nature dovetailed perfectly with everything else about the California Special package; it just took the theme of superficiality a little further.
@nullomondo and anyone else who thinks the Mustang “upgraded” interior is all that:
Have you sat/drove in one of these Mustangs after it had 10-15k miles on it? All that chincy aluminum paint wears really poorly. So the “brightwork” around the gear shift shows marks quickly. The gear shift looks car-rental abused from any rings on the driver’s hand or occasional contact. The door handle also looks like garbage quickly. Not to mention the black, hard plastic door panels show every accidental shoe mark.
A used Mustang interior is not pretty and I would think hurts the resale of the car substantially.
netrun- I doubt the wear is any worse than any other car in that price range
How many things can you sell to the same market segment? While this one strikes me as being the wife’s car, still, it sits in a driveway with an F-250 and the Harley is in the garage. But, that demographic isn’t getting younger, or richer for that matter, and the kids may not be into the same stuff. Meanwhile, the grandparents are buying Hyundais (the last Buick being such a POS, they aren’t doing that again), and the kids? Who knows, but the Mustang Fill-In-The-Black probably isn’t it. This is a dead market. Oh, you clear coat that silver on your models and it doesn’t come off.
Rodster205:
I guess I did a poor job of making my point, that being Ford is not alone in these accounting over engineering decisions. Ford, in my opinion, deserves some heat for sticking with solid axles. I chose to pick on Honda to point out that others make the same cost driven compromises. I will concede that I am hardly a walking library of Honda’s past configurations, but most cars didn’t have rear discs before the early 90’s. By the early 90’s, many cars had them, and some were pretty pedestrian, like the 92 Sable that I used as a station car. (As an aside, Ford cheaped out and eliminated them on later Taurii) I don’t understand your statement that “Accords and Civics don’t need” disc brakes and you give the ability to lock the Honda’s drum brakes up as a justification of your assertion. Isn’t the prime reason for discs over drums the ability to resist fade after repeated heavy braking, not locking up the wheels? And if Hondas don’t “need” discs, how come the Honda enthusiast boards are loaded with “how-to” postings on drum to disc conversions? Lastly, DISC, not disk! Such a mistake would be forgivable if this was not an auto enthusiast site.
guys, I am 60 years old and really yearning for the old days when I had a 66 GT, of course without the throaty mufflers. I need that sound again and am wanting to buy the GT. Is that Cal Special really so bad—I mean for only $1895, that’s not much more when I am spending 30 grand on the rest of the car. Am I just an old fool for buying this?
old tom cat :
You’re certainly not an “old fool” for wanting a car like the Mustang C/S; however a carefully-optioned regular GT Convertible would probably represent a much better value. The loaded car I tested stickered at $40,530…the money you’d save by passing up on the C/S package and several of the other options this vehicle came with would more than pay for a good aftermarket cat-back exhaust system.
Hi Don,
What is a “cat-back” exhaust system? When I was in my youthful days, we installed what was then called “glass packs”. Don’t these 2009’s come with that throaty muffler system already installed? I followed a fellow around town for 15 minutes last week, just listening to him going through the gearbox so I could hear the mufflers. I was hoping that mine would come with the same sound.
A “cat back” system is the generic term for any of a number of exhaust systems currently available in the automotive aftermarket for late model vehicles. They attach just past the catalytic converters so as not to disrupt the function of the engine’s emissions system. Generally, a cat back system consists of the exhaust pipe(s), muffler(s), and in some cases, cross-over (”X” or “H”) pipes to improve performance and sound.
Most, if not all, cat back systems include baffled “turbo” mufflers of some type. These mufflers are different from the media-filled mufflers that come stock on most new vehicles and have for years. Instead of stuffing media (such as the fiberglass in your “glass packs”) into the muffler housing to disrupt and absorb some of the sound waves, modern “turbo” style performance mufflers (so named because they were originally developed for turbocharged engines) use a specially-designed maze of baffles within the housing to cancel out many of the sound waves the engine produces – they’re usually louder than their media-filled counterparts, but they decrease backpressure and therefore allow the engine to breathe better and make more horsepower.
The C/S doesn’t come with any special exhaust system (though I think the Bullitt does, and I know the Shelbys do), but all Mustang GT’s have a slightly aggressive exhaust note. Ford has an “axle back” exhaust system for ‘05-current Mustangs available through dealer parts departments and other Ford performance parts retailers (for about $500) that would probably give you everything you’re looking for. But shop around and you may find similar systems from other major exhaust system manufacturers for even less.
The best advice I could give you would be to visit some of the larger online Mustang owners forums and see which exhaust systems are the most popular.
thanks Don,
That about sums up everything I need to know about getting some exhaust sound.
I appreciate your time.
Tom
Hi Don,
Just thought I’d let you know that I ordered a C/S this past Tuesday. Just like the pictures above-same white color, same interior color scheme. Same exterior options, etc.
I thought I better do this while Ford is still in business. My friends at work think that I am nuts and have gone crazy. There is no justification, other than the fact that I had Mustangs years ago and once you’ve had the fever, it never goes away………. By the way, my wife is totally supportive–she is happy that it is a car rather than another woman ( and it is cheaper too!).
I am getting the Ford dealer to install their axle-back exhaust system as it sounds a little more deeper than stock GT.
Thanks for your help. Tom cat
Congratulations, Tom. I hope you enjoy your new Mustang and that it turns out to be a safe, dependable vehicle. And I’m glad you got a white one. The one I drove was red, and the CS graphics just didn’t stand out enough.
Just tell me one thing: Did you opt for the silver plastic fuel door cover?
Thanks, Don. I know that I am going to enjoy it. I am getting antsy now. The dealer told me to expect 6 weeks until delivery and it has just been one lonnnnnnnnnng week already.
No I did not get the “chrome” fuel door cover. It stood out “too much” and really did look cheesy. My wife also did not like it; she called it “nasty” and that kinda made me feel skeptical too. To be honest, I have not seen one live on a car, but from the pictures, it just looked out of place and interrupted the smooth lines of the car.
I usually choose white whenever I buy a new car, as that color generally makes whatever the make of car is stand out as being larger than the other colors do. My favorite color though is red, but in this case you are correct, the C/S decal striping does not stand out very well against a darker color. The white with black trim decals and top is just simply outstanding, as you can see from the pictures above. Plus, it seems that red Mustangs are everywhere these days. I have yet to see another white C/S car in the Raleigh NC area, so for a while, I will be the only one around.
By the way, when we rented a Mustang convertible a couple of years ago, it took forever to fill the fuel tank because the auto nozzle kept cutting off whenever I tried to increase the flow rate. I actually had to slow the flow down to a trickle. The gas station attendant said this was typical for “those cars” and I wondered if we had a defective filler line to the tank?
From everything I’ve read on online message boards, the gas fill issue was a common problem for ‘05 and ‘06 models. However, the 2007 Shelby GT-H Mustang convertible my wife and I rented in Maui earlier this year had the same problem. I’m sure there’s a Ford Technical Service Bulletin out about it, though, so check with a service advisor or the service manager at your local dealership.
Not to be disrespectful, but whoever wrote this lousy review on this particular car is an idiot. I personally own a 2007 GT/CS (white convertible). It rides extremely well, drives extremely well, handles extremely well, etc etc. I will note that mine did come with the interior upgrade, comfort group, limited slip axle, basically every usable upgrade you could add. I also had my dealer add Ford’s performance upgrade which gave it a more “throatier” sound without being overbearing like the x-pipe, and a cold air intake. This gave it a little more than 350 hp total, and was well worth the cost, especially since at that time this particular performance upgrade came with Ford’s standard 3 year warranty that came with the car. I will NEVER get rid of this car!
Oh yes, and I have NEVER had any gas fill issue as reported here. Basically, I’ve never had ONE single problem with this car, and based on my experience, if you can find one (I live in Oklahoma and my dealer had to go to Missouri to find mine), get the convertible with the bun warmers (heated seats) and the performance upgrades, its like riding a motorcycle!! QUITE FUN!!
Lastly, I don’t know where you got one fully loaded that stickered for 40k, but fully loaded with all the upgrades, etc., mine was 33k and well worth the money!!!!
Dear nl1357 and Don:
I just took possession of my brand new 2009 GT/CS–exactly like the pictures shown here: white with black top and the black/dove gray interior–hood scoop and all. I was incredibly lucky to get one of the last ones made–the dealer told me that Ford has now ceased production of the ‘09 and is retooling for the 2010.
This is one SWEET ride…………….the power is so much more awesome than my HP289 ever was.
I have a couple of comments:
1. I don’t find the seats uncomfortable at all and in fact they sit really good to me, especially after all of the adjustments with the lumbar support. I have an Escape, so anything is comfortable after riding in that covered wagon. The interior passenger side is sparse, but it looks better than GM’s cars ever did.
2. nl1357, please give me details on what that Ford performance package is that you mentioned. I have the Ford Racing Performance mufflers getting installed this weekend (ordered them from Ninosport). The CS package was supposed to include a larger air intake (I don’t know what the stock on looks like, so I must assume that Ford did add it on). Is there something else included in this dealer-installed package besides the mufflers? What do I ask for when I talk to my dealer? If it gives an additional 50HP, then I would like to do this. By the way, how much did it cost?
Lastly, don’t be too hard on the reviewer—he was just stating his opinion. Personally, I am so overjoyed at getting this limited edition jewel that I can’t yet see any flaws.
Let me know as soon as you can–if possible before Saturday.
Thanks,
Tomcat