Many years ago, it became quite fashionable to refer to The Clash as “the only band that ever really mattered.” Chevrolet borrowed this evocative line for the introduction of the soft-top C5 Corvette, calling it “the only convertible that ever really mattered” in a two-page color-rag spread. Truth be told, though, those are both pretty tough cases to make. And you don’t have to be a Beatles-obsessed Boxster owner (as I am) to argue the contrary. It’s far easier to apply the phrase to the Mustang: the only ponycar that ever mattered. Consider the competition. Camaro, Challenger, Javelin . . . hell, Celica and 200SX. Some shone, some sucked, none have gone the forty-five-year distance. The Mustang was the first ponycar on the scene, the best ponycar available for much of its history, and the only one to not disappoint its fans with periodic disappearances. And now we have a new “new Mustang,” arriving just in time to spoil the Chevrolet Camaro’s tardy coming-out party.
The 2010 Ford Mustang’s exterior restyle visually trims the car. The design incorporates certain elements of the Giugiaro concept while retaining the previous roof stamping. The real news is inside. Ford’s been turning out some thoroughly decent interiors . . . lately. The Mustang is another hit in the parade, providing a tactile experience that feels a solid class above what’s found in the Challenger or Camaro. Even Infiniti and BMW “intenders” would be well-served to at least take a seat in the ‘Stang before making their final purchases. The Mustang’s tactility borders on the European.
The same is true, ironically, for the powertrain. The three-valve, 4.6-liter “mod motor” can’t match the Chevrolet or Dodge entries on displacement, torque, or power. But it has a rev-happy, broad-shouldered feel that’s immediately familiar to anyone who’s driven one of the smaller V-8s from Audi, BMW, or (whisper it) Porsche. Modern drivers raised on a diet of four-cylinder Hondas will find the light-flywheel Mustang far more to their liking than the strong but ultimately breathless HEMI or LS3 competition.
What a shame all that sweet-sounding power is fed through a crummy old cart axle, eh? There’s just one problem with that analysis: it’s very close to being completely wrong. Our Hocking Hills test loop revealed the big pony to be a competent broken-pavement runner. Yeah, it steps sideways on corner entrance under ABS and it steps way sideways when you apply the power under bumps. But the steering’s linear predictability makes catching the slide utterly trivial.
Here’s the drill: Get your braking done hard in a straight line. Let the tail wag its way home until it’s time to turn in, then use patience to dial the steering until you feel the outside sidewall start to slip. If you’re lined-up at this point, feed the power slowly past the clipping point. If you aren’t, boot the throttle as the clipping point appears level with the Mustang’s nose, and rotate past the midcorner for your exit.
You can trust this car. It will do what you ask it to, and nothing more. The mod-motor’s broad rev range is a massive help here, allowing you to hold gears to the exit without the upshift you’d need in an old “five-point-oh.”
Our test day featured temperatures well below freezing, with plenty of road salt to spoil the party. It was still possible to hustle the Mustang without reducing one’s life expectancy. Yes, you’d probably be faster in a Lancer Evolution. But it wouldn’t be nearly as much fun.
The revised Mustang is so good on side roads that one eager mainstream journalist who attended the media preview wrote an entire article praising the effectiveness of the limited-slip differential and “Track Pack” upgrades . . . on a car which didn’t have either. In fact, it was the same car we had as a tester, and I can tell you that although it didn’t have an LSD neither did it really need one.
I’d like to give this Mustang a five-star rating. It feels like a five-star car to me: solid, well-made, completely comfortable in its own skin. There’s just one problem, and it’s this: Ford’s built the ultimate ponycar around an engine which is seventy-five horsepower short of the competition. During the ninety-five percent of the car’s life in which the throttle isn’t flat to the floor, the Mustang satisfies in nearly any way one can imagine.
But late in a Saturday night stoplight-drag session, when the moon is full, the streets shine with neon reflection, and that sexy, slightly slutty girl in the halter top is watching, this cultured, tasteful, character-laden ponycar will have to yield to some Bowtie-mounted moron who actually refers to his car as “Bumblebee.” And that just ain’t right. Because this right here really is the only ponycar that has ever mattered.
86 Comments on “Review: 2010 Ford Mustang...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
These cars are usually more affordable than either the Camaro or Dodge cars. That money is spent on numerous engine upgrades, including a blower. At the end of the day the ‘Stang is still the one to beat.
Excellent review, Jack. Thoroughly enjoyed your description of what it’s like to drive the car. Surprised to hear it likened to the Germans–now I really want to drive one myself.
So does this render the new Camaro irrelevant?
On the reliability front, the previous Mustang has been requiring a low (2006 on) to moderate (2005) number of repairs based on responses to TrueDelta’s survey:
http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php?stage=pt&bd=Ford&mc=92&email=Guest
More participants needed for all models.
Great review. I’m looking forward to the convertible version.
Bully review, Jack.
Another review that makes me want to go out and test out the car for myself.
You’re 2 for 2 lately.
“…yield to some Bowtie-mounted moron who actually refers to his car as “Bumblebee.” And that just ain’t right.”
Ha! Not for the the reason you cited, but Bumblebee will ALWAYS be a Beetle. Screw GM’s Micheal Bay.
The styling is a definite improvement, but I don’t see anything to rave about regarding the interior.
I’d still have the Camaro, with a far superior engine and suspension.
I wonder what would have happened to the Mustang if they had stuck with the aluminum prototype Mustang I, which had a mid-mounted Taunus V4 and was a real 2-seater. Probably, it would have seen the same mass-market success as, say, the Fiero. Ford was much more interested in selling cars, not sports cars. There were way more teenagers than tweedy MG owners. The world has been a happier place as a result. Now, if Ford hadn’t lost their way with the awful
PintoMustang II, which was like the TBird of the day in being a wannabe Continental…@ John R: I’m right there with you! Bumblebee was a VDub Bug, and always will be in the minds of those of us that grew up with the original Transformers! Do you remember what the name was of the red one, though?
As for the Mustang, we have a 2009 and although it certainly has its shortcomings, it’s a nice car. It has predictable handling, is put together reasonably well (despite the imperfect interior), and in day to day driving is completely liveable. It’s pretty much a no compromise pony car. You can’t touch another RWD car for the price, and who want to drive a boring FWD Honda?
Somebody needs to do a Genesis Coupe review stat!
I am so torn!
Just a minor correction: all V8 mustangs have a clutch style limited slip differential. The press cars was probably just burned out; the clutch elements have a finite lifespan under heavy abuse. You then do a cheap/easy/greasy rebuild with GT500 parts and go again!
The Eco-Boost turbo V6 is going to be in the Mustang soon right? That will be exciting.
Looking forward to the Bullitt version, with a little more go.
The interior looks like an improvement. I’m looking forward to sitting in one at our regional auto show this weekend.
Exterior changes are so subtle that you’ll need to take a good look to tell the difference on the street. Or maybe the more pinched nose is more obvious in the metal. The revised tail-light shape is an easy giveaway, but I’m not sure I like the look.
Doesn’t the 370Z render all of these cars irrelevant?
the only one to not disappoint its fans with periodic disappearances.
I think we all would have been better off if it had disappeared during the Mustang II era.
I’m sure they’ve got the solid rear axle well sorted. But I’d still prefer an IRS that would not step out on bumps, and would have an improved ride.
Jack,
Thank you for pointing out that a properly sorted axle isn’t as much a hindrance as it may sound. I can say from personal experience that I am faster in a vehicle that I trust that is more predictable than one that I cannot because it is not as predictable. The close-minded assumption that an independent rear is infinitely superior in all things even or rough just burns my burgers. :)
Give yourself credit Jack..you’re actually making people who’d otherwise choose a Camaro (me) or Challenger have to at least take the Mustang for a spin BEFORE putting pen to paper on either of the other two.
Great review!
@Superbadd75
Cliff Jumper, I think.
In the last model, didn’t an intake and required chip crank up the power pretty well?
I guess the problem with mods is that, all things being equal, the guy with the bow tie is going to have intake/exhaust too.
More likely at the drag strip than the stoplight, maybe.
Wasn’t crazy about the Guigiaro design, and not sure I like this as much as the outgoing. Saw some early shots of possible redo’s and like them better, although they seemed to copy the Camaro. I’m a long time Mustang guy, but think the Camaro looks awesome (if a little huge).
Very good review, but I think we need a back to back. Could add the Hyundia and a 370 to the mix as well, although the Nissan is only a 2 seater.
Word on the street is that the 4.6l v8 is only going to be kept for the first year.
Rumored new engines include the return of the 5.0 in the form of a 5.0l DOHC v8. I believe this engine is called coyote and built off the BOSS/HURRICANE architecture. Rumors are citing somewhere around 400hp. Furthermore they are saying the all-aluminum block will be lighter too.
I was really looking forward to the camaro, but the reviews haven’t been all that. Count me in the Mustang camp
The Camaro is such a better car. The 2010 Mustang is a horrible re-skin. A slightly changed exterior with the same anemic powertrain, and suspension underneath.
For $22K you can get a 210 HP Mustang with ox cart suspension, or a 300+ HP Camaro with modern suspension.
Hmmm…………..
Is the back seat any bigger?
@ superbadd75
Cliffjumper
@superbadd75
Yeah, it’s Cliffjumper. Allegedly, Cliffjumper was a 924 turbo. Not to be confused with Jazz, who was a 935 turbo. VAG…err…PAG had Transformers all wrapped up.
For $22K you can get a 210 HP Mustang with ox cart suspension, or a 300+ HP Camaro with modern suspension.
That is a problem. I can live with the suspension, because it’s arguably a feature and serves a purpose, but that engine is a waste. Ford really needs to put the either a blown four or a more modern six into this car. Stat.
It’s like the RX-8’s dilemma, but in reverse: you can excuse the RX-8’s power deficit because of it’s brilliant chassis, but as it ages that excuse weakens. With the Mustang, you could excuse the chassis because it was cheap and powerful, but as the engine ages, it’s harder to excuse.
Ach – the 370Z is a very different car to the Mustang. It is a much more focused sports car but also has all of compromises that come with such a performance design including a claustrophobic interior, poor visibility, intrusive road noise and not really enough trunk space for much more than one small piece of luggage.
Nothing wrong with that if that is what you’re looking for but that was never the intention of the Mustang. Unlike the 370Z, the Mustang was always designed to be enjoyed on the road more than on the track.
For $22K you can get a 210 HP Mustang with ox cart suspension, or a 300+ HP Camaro with modern suspension.
The Camaro has a Playskool interior. Seriously.
I don’t see lots of people cross shopping the three. I think most folks are either Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger people.
And don’t hate on the Mustang II. Looking back, sure, it makes us puke. But as they planned for ‘74, the ‘71 Mustang had grown fat and weak and increasingly unpopular. They knew from research there wasn’t much of an immediate future for ‘pony cars’, but rather people wanted ‘personal luxury’ cars. Deciding to trim up the model, they struck gold when the car was introduced right as the oil taps were shut off.
Finally, keep in mind the Mustang II made the ‘79 Fox-bodied Mustang look positively brilliant.
carguy:
A better riding IRS would help enjoyment on the road. The supposed excuse for the solid rear axle is that drag racers wanted it.
But late in a Saturday night stoplight-drag session, when the moon is full, the streets shine with neon reflection, and that sexy, slightly slutty girl in the halter top is watching, this cultured, tasteful, character-laden ponycar will have to yield to some Bowtie-mounted moron who actually refers to his car as “Bumblebee.”
Does this really happen? I mean, poetic license and all, sure, but my best luck was after rides home in a taxi cab.
I’m glad to see Ford taking the incremental change approach to heart and it seems like the rear suspension is less and less of an issue for handling now.
Ach :
April 1st, 2009 at 11:48 am
Doesn’t the 370Z render all of these cars irrelevant?
No, the Mustang is much more well rounded and easier to live with. Not to mention much cheaper.
i love these cars. I am also plenty afraid of mileage in the teens. That was one of my complaints about this car. The other was the wal-mart interior. One down, one to go.
About the camaro and chalenger: No ragtop, or even a cool as ice glass roof.
About the new Z car: Beautiful rocket. The ragtop looks great. However, no back seat, little cargo room. I actually use my car as daily transportation. A modicum of utility is necessary.
About FWD hondas: these care are fun to drive! The SI’s are great, so is the Fit. Shoppers who like mustangs should drive one of them – totally different driving experience, but grins all over the place. There’s a reason all the 20 somethings like them.
But I agree that the mustang is the only one that matters. They are stunning.
I don’t know how you could choose the Genesis Coupe’s bland, melted Tiburon-like looks over a Mustang.
If Ford would give the Mustang V6 the 255-270hp it deserves there would be plenty of room for a larger, more powerful V8. I know the current V6 is cheap, but it is also archaic and has terrible power output. Time for something more modern that will allow the GT to move up in power.
Jack, Great review. I can officially stop pretending I’m “not really a Mustang guy.” You see, I went from a Supra to an ‘08 GT on a whim (and a really good price) thinking it’d be just OK — my only previous Mustang experiences were from the late 80’s, which were ergonomic and handling nightmares. I’ve ended up secretly loving my ‘08. It’s solid, 100% trouble-free, returns 24mpg in mixed driving and a hoot to drive without much compromise — far better than I imagined. It’s even decent in the snow, I kid you not! Sitting in 2010’s they seem to have fixed the small gripes I do have (armrest, so-so interior materials.) Can’t wait to get one. . .
I dunno, the solid rear axle sounds well-sorted and seriously, I prefer at least an element of skittishness. Keeps you alert and makes you feel like you are working at it.
In terms of styling, I think the Mustang has one advantage and that it seems to look good in all the pictures I have seen. I saw a silver Camaro today and it was a little underwhelming.
The power deficit is a problem though, not so much for me but considering it’s potent competition.
down on power? don’t worry, there will be bolt on parts a plenty.
Just a heads-up, guys; I just drove the 2010 Shelby Mustang today. Driving impressions are embargoed until Monday, but I think it’s not stretching the bounds of propriety to say: hold on to your hats.
Live axles are cheap, and apparently this one works well enough. If it had a more sophisticated suspension, the car would either be more expensive, or be decontented in some other department. Sure, the Camaro is new and exciting, with modern engines and suspension, but people seem to like the Mustang, and Ford makes money on them. I don’t claim any knowledge of GM’s finances, but I rather doubt they’ll make any money on the Camaro before it gets cut.
So does this mean we can expect a 5 star rating when Ford swaps in a better v8 next year?
BTW I love all the schmucks out there bitchin about the LRA despite all 2010 Mustang reviews claiming it’s not bad and the Mustangs success in road course racing.
Good review overall and I expect that once again the Mustang will be the last pony rolling in a couple of years.
If you have never driven a Mustang, I AM SORRY, you do not know what you have missed. Young, old, boys, girls, everyone/anyone will wave, give you a thumbs up, or just look. The V6 is for the posers, kids going to school, my wife you know what I mean. Now independent rear suspension is for the tuners and ricers, just gimme HP, gimme a straight road and gimme a V8 with 300+ HP, you can bolt, chip it do what ever you want or like me just do NOTHING, the car is fast enough and handles well enough to cruise around with the top down just obey the posted traffic laws (wink). My brother has a 65 Mustang 289 Convertible, I have 1995 5.0 GT Convertible and a 2005 GT Convertible, cannot wait to get the 2010’s in our showroom in April, might have to add another to the stables. Yes we sell Ford’s so we are biased, but hey we gotta make a living. It is the family business.
The 2010 looks to have a nicer interior than the 2008-2009, but I don’t like the exterior styling as much. I still like it better than the Camaro.
The Mustang is still not really my cuppa, but it’s getting there.
The live axle versus IRS is in some ways as much a psychological issue as a technical one. A well-located live axle isn’t that inferior to a mediocre IRS in handling, and it does have certain advantages — you can design in more anti-squat with a rigid axle. There was a reason why companies like Alfa and Rover stuck with the live axle, rather than going for swing axles or semi-trailing arms (which allow camber changes as the wheel moves through its travel, and can have problems with jacking). You have some sacrifice in ride, because of the unsprung weight, but the difference probably isn’t as vast as it might seem on paper.
I’m a little surprised they went with a Panhard rod, rather than a Watt’s linkage. Panhard rods can cause the kind of odd motions on bumpy surfaces that Jack describes, because the rod causes the axle to transcribe an arc as the wheels move through their travel. It can cause binding and geometry shifts in bumpy corners.
@argentla: I had a Watts-link mount plate snap off a few years ago on a Lotus Seven clone. Exciting, to say the least. :)
Ole Stang:
The V6 is for the posers, kids going to school, my wife you know what I mean.
My wife has a ‘95 Cobra, and wouldn’t even think of buying a V6 (or an auto for that matter). She would love a GT500, but will probably have to “settle” for one of the new Mustang GTs within the next few years.
The Mustang was the first ponycar on the scene
Despite being massarced sales-wise, the Plymouth Barracuda did start selling 2 weeks before the Mustang back in 1964.
Today is the 45th anniversary of the ‘Cuda, actually. It came out April 1st, 1964.
P71_CrownVic
You can’t get a base Camaro for $22k, plus the interior of the base model is horribly cheap feeling. You have to step up to the high end model to get the interior that’s only tollerable.
A better riding IRS would help enjoyment on the road. The supposed excuse for the solid rear axle is that drag racers wanted it.
That’s true, I worked on the S197 Program when the decision was made to ditch IRS for the Live Axle.
I can’t wait until people start drag racing the Camaros and trashing those shitty Mando gear sets. I can see Live Axle Retro Fit Kits being good business on the Camaro.
Lumbergh21
Sorry than your wife is a real WOMAN, keep her!
Hope she lets you drive it! Sorry to all the Ladies, you get the idea. the “muscle cars” are about cruising, value and above all FUN. Most Mustang lovers get it, the detractors can but something else, entil you drive one for a week, heh, don’t knock it, have fun guys, you just might cracka smile. Sorry for the commercial, life is too short, everyone should have a few toys!
While I’m glad that Ford addressed many of the shortcomings of the previous generation (shortcomings that stopped me from buying one), I cannot fathom why anyone would purchase a 2010 when they could wait a year and get significantly more hp for their money.
Lumbergh – You and your wife should look around local Ford dealers to see if there are any leftover Bullits. We have an ‘08 Bullit (in highland green, was there ever before such a perfect color for a car…) on out lot that I am incredibly surprised has remained unsold given the amount of cash on the hood currently. Yes, it wouldn’t be the latest and greatest, but it is still a damn fine car and would hold her over until the new engines come out for the new body style and have a chance to get some discounts on them.
Regarding the ’10s – We have a lot of people asking about them, and I know they will be big sellers when they come in (nice thing about living where it has never snowed is that a RWD V8 ponycar is a viable daily driver). The 2010 Ford model blitz is getting lots of press, but us at the dealerships are starved for new cars. We had a single 2010 Fusion Hybrid show up and it sold the day it was backed off the truck. Today I had two people drive up to look for 2010 Mustangs, and a third who was looking for a Taurus SHO. I just hope the excitement lasts until there is actual inventory on the lots.
Why the Genesis?
I test drove one. It just feels great. The Mustang is insanely fun in some respects, but the 09 I test drove didn’t feel to special otherwise. The Genesis just feels great in all respects, from cornering to acceleration.
As far as the looks go, have you seen a 4 or 5 year old Mustang? They always look dated and shopworn even when they are in good condition. There’s something about the styling that just does not age well at all even though (perhaps because) it looks so great when its new. I’m hoping the blandish (and not so bland in person) looks of the Genesis won’t age so badly. Also, its very non-Stangness is kind of a plus because the Mustang has so many positive and negative emotions attached to it, while the Genesis would fall a bit under the radar. I just want a powerful and comfortable daily driver, I don’t especially want to impress and/or cause speculation about the size of my junk.
Also, paddle shifters.
The V6 is for the posers, kids going to school, my wife you know what I mean. … Yes we sell Ford’s …
Ouch! Guess when I buy my V6 convertible I’ll go to the dealer in the next town down the freeway, huh? But seriously, I won’t be buying the V6 until they get rid of the (Ranger truck) 4.0 and replace it with the 3.5 or 3.7 EcoBoost.