By on March 30, 2016

2016 Ford Mustang and Boeing 747, Image: © 2016 Seth Parks/The Truth About Cars

2016 Mustang GT Premium Coupe

5.0-liter, DOHC V8, CVVT (435 horsepower @ 6,500 rpm; 400 lbs-ft @ 4,240 rpm)

Six-speed Getrag MT82 manual transmission

15 city/25 highway/19 combined (EPA Rating, MPG)

19.4 MPG (Observed)

Tested Options: GT Premium Trim, Ruby Red Paint, 401A Equipment Group, Performance Package, Enhanced Security Package, Navigation

Base Price: $37,200

As Tested: $43,665

All prices include $900 destination fee.

The automotive press expends much effort (present company included) telling OEMs what they should and should not do. Automakers may not always take action, much less seem to care, but they value your opinion. Otherwise they wouldn’t have given me a car for a week in hopes of influencing your next buying decision.

I’m thankful they did. The 2016 Ford Mustang contains a long list of items the fourth estate has been asking for: contemporary design, competitive interior, independent rear-suspension, and a roaring V8. And this from a nameplate that’s been near death multiple times, almost been forced to go front-wheel drive, and was inches away from shedding cylinders in favor of forced induction.

Thankfully, none of those doomsday scenarios came to pass. This is now the pony journalists have been asking for in Mustang reviews from the last decade.

The 2016 Mustang is largely a carry-over of the all-new Mustang introduced last year. That’s not a bad thing. You’ve seen the new car and, apparently, you like it. Ford sold 129,000 Mustangs in the U.S. and Canada last year, close to a 50-percent increase over 2014. The segment is known for sales volatility, as consumers reach for the most fashion-forward model or the fastest quarter-mile, but this Mustang offers more than new paint schemes and hood vent mounted turn signals. This is a mature design with immense capabilities. And thanks to the push for continuous improvement at Ford, the year after a complete redesign is the vintage you want.

2016 Ford Mustang at Mojave Air & Space Port, Image: © 2016 Seth Parks/The Truth About Cars

Exterior

This is the best looking Mustang in decades. The bloat of the fourth- and fifth-generation Mustangs is styled away by lithe sheet metal, tighter wheel gaps, and larger wheels. Yet its athletic presence has little to do with size; this car is no smaller than its predecessor. The only dimensional change of note is its width, where it grew almost two inches between 2014 and 2015.

Critiquing automotive styling is a subjective exercise. Proportions, on the other hand, follow a more established pattern. Thankfully, this car continues to boogie with the same date that brought it to the dance in 1964. The long dash-to-axle span and short rear deck helped build the Mustang’s visual DNA, and both elements are preserved in the sixth generation car.

Every Mustang gets HID headlamps and sequential tri-bar LED taillamps. Mustang spotters have probably discovered dual exhaust is standard across the range. GTs can be identified from the rear by the prominent GT badge centered on the deck lid. Lesser Stangs get a galloping horse. From the front, GTs are distinguished by small hood bulges housing the new driver-facing turn signals, as well as subtly revised upper and lower grilles with angled vertical elements.

There is no such thing as a bad angle, particularly when equipped with the generous 19 inch Luster Nickel-Painted Aluminum Wheels in 40-series summer rubber. The ebony black wheels look great, too.

2016 Ford Mustang Dash, Image: © 2016 Seth Parks/The Truth About Cars

Interior

Unlike previous generation Mustangs, where the dual cockpit design was overwrought, the subtle dash-top twin-binnacle is neither forced nor retro. More soft-touch materials are in evidence and the car gets some fun non-parts bin switch gear. Features and layout are sector competitive, but a pair of objections remain.

First, as a driver’ car, the steering wheel should get more attention. The one in this premium coupe, for example, should be thicker with higher grade leather. Second, hard plastics still abound. The cowl stretching from the base of the center stack to the center arm rest is particularly egregious, both for its expanse of tactile severity and its lack of adornment. Quality can be punctuated by simplicity, but simplicity for the sake of cost savings is a blight on an otherwise improved interior.

The back seat of this 2+2 is more than capable of family duty. My two- and four-year olds took no fewer than a dozen rides in the Mustang, their smiles nearly as wide as mine. If you are a parent of young ones and this is the car you desire, get it. But consider leasing, because at some point those children become kids and what’s cozy today is cramped tomorrow.

2016 Ford Mustang Center Stack, Image: © 2016 Seth Parks/The Truth About Cars

Technology

New for 2016 is SYNC 3, integrated with voice activated navigation and a new 8-inch touchscreen. The system transitions between functions rapidly, allows pinch to zoom navigation, and can update itself via Wi-Fi. It’s feature laden but can be cumbersome. For example, when searching for an addressing using voice command, users no longer need to indicate the state. However, the convenience comes at a cost. Queue up an address search using voice command and the system responds with an 18 word (eight second) set of instructions, every time. It’s like your friend’s voicemail recording that unnecessarily describes how voicemail works.

The 401A Equipment Group nets several valuable items, including the Blind Spot Information System (BLIS). Get it – no matter how fast you drive, you cannot outrun those C pillars. 401A also comes with the Mustang’s top-end audio system. This 390W 12-speaker Shaker Pro Audio System is the proper emotional sound-mate to this extroverted car.

2016 Ford Mustang and Phantom, Image: © 2016 Seth Parks/The Truth About Cars

Drivetrain

The Coyote V8 received a new valvetrain, cylinder heads, and intake manifold for 2015. Horsepower increased from 420 to 435, both at 6,500 rpm. Torque increased from 390 to 400 pounds-feet, both at 4,250 rpm. An exceedingly experienced tester may notice the difference in the Coyote between the ’14 and the ’16, but that would miss the point. This rev-happy 5.0 puts out 87 horsepower per liter. That exceeds the specific output of some well-respected smaller displacement engines such as the 2.0-liter mill in the 2016 Mazda Miata (78 hp/liter) and the 2.4-liter four-pot in the 2015 Honda Civic Si (85 hp/liter). Hell, the Coyote outperforms the turbocharged 4.7-liter beast found in the 2015 Mercedes-Benz E550 (86 hp/liter).

This Mustang has a lot of engine. Without falling back on the old Detroit habit of swelling displacement, Ford has incrementally increased its output from 412 horsepower at launch in 2011 to 435 today. Well done, Dearborn. Now in its sixth model year, the Coyote is ready for the direct injection we know it was originally designed to host (Do Not Buy a 2011 Mustang 5.0).

2016 Ford Mustang on Angeles Crest Highway, Image: © 2016 Seth Parks/The Truth About Cars

Drive

The GT is competitive in a straight line, reaching 60 miles per hour in 4.3 seconds and running the quarter-mile in 12.9 seconds at 112 miles per hour, per Car & Driver. Adding the $2,690 GT Performance Package with strut tower brace, expanded radiator, larger rear sway bar, Brembo front brakes, 3.73 Torsen axle, and other enhancements turns the 2016 Mustang into a true canyon carver.

A blast up Angeles Crest Highway north of Los Angeles confirmed the car’s handling prowess. A 22-mile section from La Canada Flintridge to Upper Big Tujunga Canyon Road traces the crest of the San Gabriel Mountains through more than 100 turns. Corners are dispatched in a rapid confident succession. The six-piston fade-free Brembos bleed speed easily. The steering feels a little numb, but turn-in is crisp and exits explosive. But watch the RPMs. The Coyote does not howl in submission as redline approaches – it wants to keep going. The short-throw shifter is a joy to row and the clutch no longer provides an excuse to cancel your gym membership. This is no tractor-cum-coupé like its ’80s and ’90s forbearers. This is a real sports car with a broad portfolio of capabilities.

2016 Ford Mustang at Firestation, Image: © 2016 Seth Parks/The Truth About Cars

Pricing

The Mustang lineup is familiar. The car comes in two forms — fastback coupé and convertible — and two trim levels — standard and premium. Select from one of three engines, 300 hp 3.7-litre V6, 310 hp 2.3-litre EcoBoost four-cylinder, or 435 hp 5.0-litre V8, in any roof and trim combination. Except the base V6 fastback, which starts at $24,145 and cannot be spec’d in premium trim. There are also limited edition Shelby GT350 and GT350R models slotted above the GT.

The GT Fastback starts at $32,395 and with Premium trim moves up to $36,395. My tester carried a $43,665 MSRP. Were I getting a Mustang, this is nearly the car I would spec, save the premium paint ($395) and enhanced security ($359). Not only is it refined, but at 15/25 miles per gallon city/highway, it’s no gas hog either. During a hard-driving, 474-mile test loop, this car achieved a respectable 19.4 mpg. Cross shop the other pony cars, the Nissan 370Z, and even the BMW M235i. You will discover why Ford finally let the Mustang out of the corral and into international markets.

Disclosure: Ford provided the vehicle, insurance, and a tank of gas for this review.

[Images: © 2016 Seth Parks/The Truth About Cars]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

139 Comments on “2016 Mustang GT Review – The Vintage You Want...”


  • avatar
    FreedMike

    MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, tasty…

    If the guys who styled the Camaro were in feudal Japan, they’d all have committed sepuku by now.

    I’d go with Comp Orange, though.

    Nice job on the photos, too.

  • avatar
    JCraig

    I test drove one of these in white and it had one major problem – it didn’t feel fast. Don’t get me wrong, it’s plenty fast (faster than the 5.0 powered sedan I drive now) but there was nothing exciting about burying the pedal in the floor. It didn’t break my neck or scare me etc. Don’t know why that is but it just wasn’t the muscle car thrill I was expecting.

    • 0 avatar
      Loser

      I felt the same after a drive. It lacks down low torque, I still prefer “old tech” OHV engines to the OHC. Very nice car otherwise.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Blame it on weight and the soft torque curve. The 5.0 really doesn’t hit off the line like the bigger cube offerings from FCA and GM unless your willing to leave with the tach displaying around 3000-3500 rpm where the coyote wakes up and starts to shine.

      Per the author’s suggestion they could add a bit of bottom end and mid-range by going to direct injection but IMO there are durability issues associated with that and with a car that tends to be heavily modified by its purchasers (finding a bone stock Mustang, especially after the initial owner is less likely to happen than getting struck by lightening aboard a boat while being tossed in the water and attacked by a shark while learning you’ve just hit the largest lottery in US history only to be immediately crushed to death by a meteor) it creates an unneeded layer of cost and complexity.

      Ford has had some pretty good results with high compression and port injection as the Shelby offers another 1/2 to full point of compression over the regular GT so its not like they couldn’t take advantage of that with a port injected engine and build some more power across the rev range.

      Again IMO If I were Ford I’d figure out how to bring down the cost on the Shelby mill and port the 5.2 over to the GT. It doesn’t need the flat-plane crank or the 8k+ redline but the added displacement and better flowing heads along with the higher compression of the Shelby would do a lot for the GT (such an engine would easily be competitive with the liter larger mills from GM and FCA)

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      I don’t know what you’re expecting, and I was there in the Malaise Era, when a 210 hp V8 in a sporty cars was a rockin’ good time. 435 hp was unimaginable in a factory ride. But that old V8 had around 300 lbs/ft of torque, to this Gt’s 400 lbs/ft.

      Then add maybe 500+ lbs extra in weight, vs ’70s/’80s rides, and it’s a wonder it’s as fast as it is. Thank the efficiency/performance of modern gearing too.

      But I’m not sure this GT doesn’t retard the output in 1st and 2nd gears to save the drivetrain bits, past the flywheel, even with T/C off.

      • 0 avatar

        Back in ’88, when my Shadow was new, the 5.0 liter Mustang packed a whopping 205 horsepower and my Turbo Dodge just a scratch under 150. I could run with those guys on the highway, if I minded the shifts and kept the boost up, but on the drag there was just no way. When the light turned green they dug-in and went. They were soooo fast off the line.

        435 horsepower in the new Mustang? Holy Sh*t! I can’t even wrap my head around how much power that is.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        we’re just a bunch of spoiled brats if we actually whine that a 435 hp car doesn’t “feel fast.” I’m old enough to remember Cadillacs with 500 cubic inch engines which could only wheeze out 180 hp, or when the Mustang regained a V8; a 5.0 with a whopping 140 hp.

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          Ya, but that 500CI engine had what, 520 ft/lbs of torque at 1800 rpm?

          Unless you track your car, HP is fun to talk about but people drive torque. The GT has torque but you have to wring it out a little to get to it.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Going from 140 hp V8s to 435 hp isn’t as dramatic as it sounds. 1st those old V8 made most of their power “down low”.

          2nd, “HP” is an arbitrary figure based on where on the rev band the power ‘hits’. In comparison, a 140 hp, 4 cylinder Nissan Sentra makes its power “up high” and is no comparison to a 140 hp V8. Not even in the same ballpark.

          Mostly, Malaise Era V8s were handicapped with slo, ‘econo’ gear sets in the rear end. Whole other animals with 3.73 gears and such.

          This is partly why 435 hp seems like such a letdown. The others are torque management and the shear weight of newer cars.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        Probably to keep that Chinese built transmission alive i would think.

      • 0 avatar
        JCraig

        It has to be the torque. At the time I was driving a ’15 Genesis 3.8 V6 that felt faster than the Mustang GT even though I knew it wasn’t close to being as quick. The V6 was just torquey right off the line so you felt the power. The GT had to rev and that’s the opposite of what I’d want from a muscle car.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      I felt that way driving a 2014. But I also felt that way driving the 2014 Camaro SS.

    • 0 avatar
      Hydromatic

      I drove one as a rental, albeit with an automatic. I didn’t get the same feeling of it not having enough low-end torque – putting the “GO!” pedal to the floor was still very much an explosive experience, as far as I was concerned.

      Then again, my daily ride had a mere 170 horses on its first day of existence and I suspect a good many of those have galloped off into the sunset over the years.

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      Do you remember if it had the 3.31 (3.15 in the auto) rear? The 3.73 option (standard on the Performance Pack) makes a big difference to your butt dyno. The first time I drove an ’11 with the 3.31 I thought “meh” as well. It’s a (comparatively) small displacement NA engine that needs revs, so the more aggressive gearing helps. It makes first gear near worthless though.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        3.31 cogged cars are actually faster in the 1/4 in combination with the oh-so-meh Getrag MT82 and its steep 1st and 2nd gearing as that trans forces a shift into 4th gear with the optional 3.73 gears even with the coyote’s high redline.

        I haven’t looked at the Tremec’s gearing in the Shelby (the model number escapes me) but the Shelby’s even higher redline works better with the 3.73 gear that comes standard although I bet the gearing in the Tremec isn’t as steep as in the MT82.

    • 0 avatar
      LXbuilder

      The answer to that is a 392 Dodge, you’ll have to put up with the added mass but you won’t be missing torque that’s for sure.

  • avatar

    I understand Mustangs are supposed to be “sports cars”, but I’d really like to see what would happen if there was a luxury interior option for them – Lincoln’s materials.

    Insides are so blocky and boring they look like they were designed in Minecraft.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Ford could use it, I remarked elsewhere that Ford needed its international sales to get some volume out of a dedicated chassis and supposedly somebody who works for Ford (I guess I ticked them off, probably just a widget putter togetherer or a troll trolling) replied that Ford “chose” to sell the Mustang abroad.

      While Mustang has been a sales success overall GM even before the introduction of the 6th gen Camaro was nearly matching or matching Mustang’s total production with Alpha. I don’t think the new Camaro is going to sell as well as the 5th gen did (probably wrong) but that would pretty much double the alpha chassis’ volume if it sold as well giving GM a big edge when it comes time to replace an aging car as well as introducing higher performing variants at better price points.

      I’m not sure how well a Lincoln derived car would sell (IMO just use the Shelby bits and retune for luxury as a jumping off point along with that fine new 10 speed auto) but any added volume would surely help the S550 car.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        Yeah but the Camaro was new for 2010 after a long-ish absence, while the Mustang at that time was a lightly warmed-over version of the car they’d been selling since 2005. Mustang had the problem that everyone who wanted one had one, and fewer were deciding to upgrade.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Lincolnize it.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      +200

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      it would need a serious re-design to pass muster as a Lincoln. The frameless glass doors are too clattery for a supposed luxury car.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      And add the 6.2L.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        you think that monster will fit?

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          I doubt it, the 5.0 is crowded in the engine bay as it is. The S550 bay is tighter than the previous S-197 engine bay and while the 6.2 fit there it wasn’t big enough to make it production friendly.

          Honestly I think outside of a turbocharged V6 if Ford does another GT500 style Mustang with a V8 they will have to supercharge it.

          A lot of numbskulls will point to aftermarket turbo kits for the new Mustang but they either place the snails down low where they are susceptible to road debris and all the stress of being splashed with cold or cold and salty water or up high wedged in between the engine and the cooling/AC components where they will fry all that plastic and rubber over time and add additional heat load to the cooling and AC components there despite enough heat shielding to prevent burning up during an uncontrolled reentry into the atmosphere.

          Ford really needs to ditch the MOD engine tooling and allow better bore spacing on their V8’s so they can get a wider range of displacements and take advantage of the inherently better breathing a bigger bore offers when swapping bore for stroke (going from the Coyotes 93mm or 94mm bore to a 100mm or 101mm bore would allow the same cylinder heads to pick up a fair amount of flow probably on the order of 15-20 cfm without even touching the basic design of the intake ports and valve diameters although a big increase in the bore would allow Ford even more freedom in designing the intake system compounding that advantage). The engine would grow in length as well as width but probably only moderately so as they could certainly lop off deck height as they shortened up the stroke and pull the cylinders in decreasing width.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “And add the 6.2L.”

        Ummmmmm…. I’ll be in my bunk.

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        A nice smooth and torquey 3.5L EcoBoost V6 would be far more fitting in a Lincoln “personal luxury coupe” based on the modern Mustang.

        A truck engine is not f itting in a Lincoln just because it’s the biggest V8 on the parts shelf.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          I personally consider the current 3.5EB to be a boring “truck” engine (while the 6.2L is an exciting “truck” engine).

          I think a PLC needs to have presence and an engine with some character (this isn’t grandpa’s Town Car) so I’d prefer the 3.0EB or something with 8 cylinders.

          I believe there is supposed to be a new version of the 3.5EB out soon. Maybe that one will have some more vigor to it.

          • 0 avatar
            derekson

            Yeah I probably should have said the 3.0 EB. That was just a goof, but I don’t think it changes my overall point.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            what’s “exciting” about a 2V cast iron lump?

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            It revs out way better than the 3.5EB (in fact almost as well as the 5.0 but the higher displacement moves the entire torque curve up compared to the Coyote), its power band explodes from 3500-5200, and it sounds better than the 3.5EB.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          love, just love the 3.5 eco in my 2010 MKS. Power and smooth. I have driven a lot of cars…but this takes me back to the real detroit days, big, heavy, powerful.
          and averaging 23 MPG is simply gravy…but you gotta know who to drive this engine

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @derekson – truck and car engine designations don’t mean much. If one goes back far enough truck engines i.e. commercial (not pickup) were popular for racing applications.

          The 5.0 Coyote was designed for double duty in pickups and cars. That has been standard fare at Ford since the late 80’s.

          The 6.2 in the Chevy pickup is standard small block Chevy.

          The hemi in the Ram and its derivatives have found their way in all of FCA’s performance cars.

          An engine is an engine.

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          No V6 with less than a 120 degree bank angle is nice and smooth without some Band-Aid fix like counter balance shafts.

          That truck V8 already has the V6 beat in the balance arena since it only requires a 90 degree bank angle to be inherently balanced without the need for additional drag inducing parts.

          Plus said V6 will need to be turbo or supercharged to match said V8’s output and while the Turbo brigade claims modern turbocharged engines do not suffer from lag and have hoodwinked everybody into thinking that they offer all the throttle response and better economy of their larger naturally aspirated kin they do not.

          A V8 would be a better all around choice for a luxury sport coupe for Lincoln.

          The EB V6’s real advantage is that it appears “hi-tech” since its a smaller engine using direct injection and turbocharging which gives owners something to bench race about compared to a “dumb” port injected V8.

  • avatar
    mikey

    Odd, that nobody has pointed this out before. If you lower the drivers, window, the noise/buffeting , even at urban speeds, is unbearable.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      I’ve never heard that. It might have been something with the particular one that you drove.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        I own a 2015 2.3 T, with the premium package.If its just my car that has the problem, I can live with it. If you drop the passenger window a bit, it goes away.

        The fits all look good. With the windows up, zero wind noise. No way am I going to let the dealer adjust a door, or a window.

        • 0 avatar
          S2k Chris

          So the problem is you can’t open ONLY the driver’s window, have to open passenger’s too? Then the problem goes away? Okay, no problem.

        • 0 avatar
          Coopdeville

          I believe this is a physics problem and not a Ford problem but I can’t back up with science. I’ve had this problem in any coupe I’ve owned (the 2-door definition, not the stupid British definition wherein 4-doors can also be coupes.)

          Even in a 4 door, only one window down will create buffeting in my experience. Solution: I always crack the back window if I lower my driver window.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Same thing with the GMC Terrain, it’s an absolutely useless vehicle if you can’t roll a window down.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy67

      This is a known trait of all Mustangs (my 2008 has it). The salesman called it the ‘helicopter noise.’

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        YES…a helicopter noise…exactly. I had an 08 convertible, I usually drove top down. I don’t think I had the noise issue with the window down.

        • 0 avatar
          BuzzDog

          I’m like you…the top is always down on my ’12 when the windows are lowered.

          But I’ve experienced the “helicopter noise” on many of my non-convertible vehicles; just from my totally unscientific sample of personal experience, I’ve noticed it more on lower, more aerodynamic vehicles.

          The worst by far was a mid-80s Porsche 944.

    • 0 avatar
      Ion

      Sedans will make the helicopter noise if the back windows are down. I haven’t noticed it in the mustang. but I do always lower the windows in pairs. I do think the wind noise is noticeably higher than my 13 was.

    • 0 avatar
      jhefner

      My Durango and Spirit (that I used to own) does that as well with the rear window down. When the topic of driving with the windows down was discussed awhile back, it was pointed out that it is caused by air being trapped inside the back of the passenger compartment, where is swirls around, causing the helicopter noise.

      I have noticed that cars that have a vertical cut to the rear window edge, like the Durango and Spirit, do this. Those that have a slanted cut, like the rear window of my Taurus, do not; I assume because some of the air spills out and stops the helicopter noise from being created.

      Your Mustang has a vertical cut the rear edge of the windows, so that would go along with my theory.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        Jhefner,
        My Aerostar did the helicoptor BAD if you didnt crack another window. My Taurus sedan doesnt do it at all. Its just one of those things you have to live with, or do something about, but it certainly shouldnt be a deal breaker (and Im not suggesting anyone implied it was).

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        It isn’t swirl, it’s like blowing air across the mouth of a bottle. Your interior has become a Helmholtz resonator. The frequency of the thrumming depends on the interior volume and the size of the window opening.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      mikey, this issue was identified in pre-production models. It (whether it was the buffeting or general sound, I’m not sure) was proved to be less than a Camaro and it would probably have required substantial body changes. Issues like this normally get in front of some important ‘decision makers.’

      It brings a lot of pride to me that you own one of these Mustangs :)

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        @Tres…….I took a little flack , from some of my former colleagues . Of course a huge percentage , of my fellow retirees , drive Silverado/ Sierra, Crew cabs. I just ask them ” can you show me the Union sticker, on your Mexican built truck ? “…. Or the guy that used his new car retirement voucher, and is still driving the, one ,and only, new vehicle he ever owned. I just mention the nine new GM. Vehicles I bought.
        The 15 Mustang checks all the boxes for me….I loved my 2008…. and I’m really liking this one

        • 0 avatar
          Mojo_Mike

          Mikey, trust me on this one. Get a Cobb Accessport and then have Adam Brunson to supply one of his E-Tunes. The transformation is amazing. The car just comes alive.

    • 0 avatar
      FromaBuick6

      See, I don’t think the buffeting is that bad, at least below 45 mph, but that’s probably because the wind attacks your face if you try to drive my Accord sedan above 25 mph with the driver’s window open. The Mustang in comparison is rather pleasant…

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Have the same problem in my truck, and have had it in other cars. Just gotta crack another window.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      The solution is to crack open the passenger window. With only one opening, the interior becomes a large resonant cavity.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I like it. Scratch that – I love it.

    Yes the back seat is useless but it always has been. My 1967 model got a 1.5 in increase in length over the original and most of that went into the rear seat.

    Guess what? The rear seat is still fairly useless.

    I’ve got a vintage ‘Stang and someday I’ll own an new one. I’m itching for a modern Mustang done up in the Bullitt style.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Makes insurance cheaper over 2-seater, yeah?

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      From my experience, pony car neck seats have never been expansive. Usually they’re good for small children. You can put an adult in back, if you must, but I wouldn’t want to be back there for any extended length of time (extended meaning longer than 30 minutes).

      As you say this is nothing new. When growing up friends had Fox body stangs. Girlfriend (now wife) had a Z/28. Other friend had a gen IV Camaro SS.

      On all of these cars, the back seat isn’t built to provide comfort for an average sized adult. They work for kids. They work for adults in a pinch.

      If you need a true backseat, these aren’t the cars to choose. I’d be nice if the sundry and salty commenters on the previous Camaro review could understand this.

      • 0 avatar
        MrIcky

        To be fair, the Challenger’s rear seat is usable by adults (true full size human beings too). I guess that’s the upside to being a full sized sedan that’s been shortened.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        Both the new Camaro and this current Mustang have useless back seats if the front seat is moved back even part way. I tried and failed to fit in either car at the Feb car show. The Stang feels a tad less claustrophobic and is a little easier to see out of but neither car does either of these two things well.

  • avatar
    Fordson

    Decision is pretty much in on this Mustang generation…about 70% love and 30% like.

    Nobody in his right mind seriously hates them. That’s a win for Ford.

    “Cross shop the other pony cars, the Nissan 370Z, and even the BMW M235i.”

    You mean cross shop the 2016 Mustang GT and the 2009 Nissan 370Z?

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      I agree, Z is too aged to be competitive.

      • 0 avatar
        Macca

        I’ll just leave this here. Note, these are all Car and Driver test results.

        Car Base C/D Price Engine Transmission
        1. 2015 Mustang GT $32,925 $45,885 5.0 6spd Man
        2. 2015 Mustang V6 $24,625 $27,700 3.7 6spd Auto
        3. 2009 370Z $30,625 $33,625 3.7 6spd Man
        4. 2009 370Z Auto $31,950 36,890 3.7 7spd Auto

        HP Trq 0-60 1/4 mi @ RH 70-0 Weight
        1. 435 400 4.5 13.0 113 0.95 149 3810
        2. 300 280 5.5 14.1 102 0.86 164 3588
        3. 332 270 4.8 13.4 107 0.98 167 3360
        4. 332 270 4.6 13.1 108 0.91 161 3368

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          So what you’re proving is that a lighter car needs less power?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I want the opposite.

          • 0 avatar
            Macca

            @dal20402

            Corey’s statement was “the Z is too aged to be competitive.” I posted some basic buff-book performance stats that indicate that a ’09 370Z achieved acceleration times within a tenth of a second to the ’16 Mustang GT, which today is $2k more expensive (base vs base).

            My question: Are the Z’s performance stats ‘not competitive’ with a new ‘Stang GT? I understand this is bench racing and all, but I am genuinely curious as to how the Z is deemed uncompetitive. Worth noting, while bench racing, beyond 100 MPH the Mustang would get significant separation.

            If the premise is that no one is shopping the Z against the Mustang simply because it’s a 2008ish car against an all-new Mustang, then I agree with that. That the Mustang sells at year’s worth of Z’s per month is telling enough.

            All this said, I’m a huge fan of the sixth-gen Mustang and I am scheming on how to go about convincing my wife that I need both my Z and a GT350, as the kiddos can’t ride in my Z.

        • 0 avatar
          johnny_5.0

          That 6 mph trap difference is quite large. It’s the same trap delta between a V6 Accord and the Z.

          • 0 avatar
            Macca

            Best versus best from Car & Driver, I see a 5 MPH trap speed difference, but interesting observation.

            Worth noting that Road & Track recorded a 13.2 sec ¼ mile @ 110 MPH (4.7 sec 0-60) and Motor Trend achieved a 12.9 sec ¼ mile @ 110 MPH for the 2016 Mustang GT. The same auto mags had trap speeds around 107 MPH for the Z. The best the Z can muster looks to be about a 2 MPH trap deficit (best versus worst).

            My understanding of the quarter mile is that the trap speed is mostly a function of power-to-weight. Given that the Mustang GT has the advantage of 8.8 lb/hp versus the Z’s 10.1, the trap speed and separation at higher speed are obvious results. But uncompetitive?

            Here’s a good comparison: the tests I’ve seen of the Camaro SS versus the Mustang GT show that the GT has about a 4 MPH trap deficit – so is the GT not competitive with the SS?

            Re: Accord V6 – This presupposes that I don’t find the Accord’s performance to be ‘competitive’, no? The best C/D numbers I’ve seen on the ’16 Accord Coupe V6 manual are 5.8 sec 0-60, 14.2 sec ¼ mi @ 102 MPH, 0.84g RH, 190’ 70-0 braking. These are very impressive numbers for a 3393 lb FWD car with a 278 hp 3.5L V6, while at $31,745, it’s more expensive than a base 370Z (also more functional with a rear seat).

            I’m sure in skilled hands the Accord could perform well against a Z (a la Baruth in a Camry) but the margin of difference between the Accord and Z’s overall performance seems greater than the Z and the Mustang GT.

            The only reason I’m keeping up with the argument is that it was posited that the Z is uncompetitive with the Mustang, which the performance specs don’t bear out. Pitting a 7.5 year-old car versus the new GT doesn’t seem to have the intended effect. Am I missing something? The only folks I’ve encountered on TTAC who parrot the “ancient Z sucks” meme clearly have no idea of its capabilities. When asked to expound, *crickets*.

            I’ll repeat that I’m immensely impressed with what Ford has done with the new Mustang and I’d love to own one.

          • 0 avatar
            duffman13

            @macca

            I know we’ve noted the weight difference on the Z several times, but I’ll hammer one thing home in addition to what you posted. If we get away from drag racing and start talking about road course or autocrosss performance, The Z starts to shine. In particular the short wheelbase helps it change directions faster, and the lighter weight makes it nicer on consumables. Assuming both cars have proper cooling mods done, the Z will outlast the Mustang on track and cost less doing so with the smaller brake pads, slightly narrower tires, etc. As of right now, tire rack doesn’t even carry any extreme performance tires in the Mustang PPs size.

            That’s been one of my key decisions in keeping my S2000 – it’s light weight and low consumable cost keep me competitive in everything except for a straight line, and all the necessary items for the track (proper tires and pads) are available for purchase easily.

          • 0 avatar
            Macca

            @duffman13

            All good points, but harder to quantify of course. I’m just a humble bench racer, but I’m sure the Z could hold its own assuming the track was fairly twisty.

    • 0 avatar
      SomeGuy

      Yeah bad comparison there by the author. Otherwise, the review was good to read.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    Man I really want one of these. I just don’t know if my wannabe-yuppie self can stoop to owning a Rustang, but oh man, do I want to try. I don’t like the new TLX that much anyways.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      Same boat personally, especially since I have a back seat passenger now. My guess is I only have another year or 2 in the S2k left before my wife starts trying to make me get rid of it, and the Rustang is a good compromise.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    What’s the ride quality like on normal roads?
    Love the styling, and love the multi-spoke wheels. Very similar wheels are available on certain Focus trims (?) and I like them on that as well.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    “Every Mustang gets HID headlamps and sequential tri-bar LED taillamps.”

    every *North American* Mustang, that is. RoW requires amber turn indicators so they don’t get sequentials.
    ——————————————————–

    Try as I might, I couldn’t bring myself to like the new Mustang enough to trade up my 2012 for one. I just don’t like the styling up front. The global-compliant nose just ruined the car.

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    Ya, going to dissent on this one. Not a fan of the way the regular GT looks, particularly the front end and the ‘ford design language’ front hexagon with the bumper running through it. Plus the double swells on a really long hood that then swoops down at the end. Just meh.

    However the GT350 with the fender ridges reminiscent of the original and the hexagon being broken at the bumper with a wider intake below, plus the generally lower hood with the less severe drop off in front fixes all of this. Regardless of the performance advantage, the GT350 is a much better looking version and the regular GT leaves me cold.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    It would be nice to see a review of a less optioned Mustang. Every car has the performance pack and the requisite manual, and every car is a premium version. Let’s hear about the button-heavy standard model. Are the cloth seats any good? How well does the non-PP model drive? What about the automatic?

    Having test driven a few of these, PP and non-PP, I am not a fan of the manual transmission in this car. I actually preferred the automatic version I drove, in contrast to the Challenger and Camaro. Maybe it’s the gearing, or maybe it’s the crummy Chinese-built Getrag in the Mustang. It’s telling that the Shelby goes with a Tremec unit instead of the Getrag of lesser V8 Mustangs.

    Oh, and I want a sunroof. I don’t want to hear about how Mustangs don’t have sunroofs, or how it will cut into headroom. The Challenger and Camaro have that option, so there’s no reason for Ford to be unwilling to charge me $1200 to cut a hole in the roof.

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      One of my biggest hangups about the Mustang is the lack of a sunroof.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        I’m usually the sort of person who keeps the windows up, and the sunroof open. I hate it when sunroof availability is tied to a specific trim (GTI) or not even an option.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        The shape of the roof doesn’t exactly lend itself to a sunroof. The Camaro and Challenger have flatter tops. There was a fixed glass roof on the previous gen, though.

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          That’s true, but the 5th-gen Camaro also had a slightly flatter roof stamping for models with a sunroof. There’s no reason the Mustang couldn’t do the same, and it would be easy if the glass slid back over the roof (like the GTI) instead of into it.

          • 0 avatar
            Featherston

            Interesting about the Camaro. That sounds like the type of variation that 21st century manufacturers avoid like the plague.

            I’m curious as to what percentage of sunroofs are outer-sliding these days. In addition to the GTI, the Lexus NX has one as well. I feel like the pocket-door type is far more prevalent.

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        Depends upon your definition of “sunroof”…

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      Agreed on the sunroof. What’s crazy is the previous gen had an option for a glass roof.

      Just about every performance oriented car offers a sunroof option. Off the top of my head, the ones that don’t are the Cayman, FRS/BRZ, and the U.S. spec Golf R.

      Then you have the Mazda6. I know, probably not a true performance oriented sedan, but why, on the lower trim models, do you need to choose an automatic transmission to get a sunroof option?

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        The glass roof was a ridiculous option. I’ve seen maybe 1 of those cars in the wild. All the glare of the sun, but none of the fresh air. Oh, and it’s more top-heavy and expensive, to boot.

        I can see, on the Mazda6, it being a volume issue. Maybe they think people who won’t pay for the automatic won’t pay for the roof either. I’m not a fan of the way Mazda is doing this these days either. I think on the 3, the roof is now tied to the trim level, instead of being a standalone option. The Mazdaspeed cars just never had the option of a sunroof. Like, going fast and fresh air are totally incompatible.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do think Ford with this Mustang has done a fine job. The Mustang along with the global Ranger and the introduction of the Transit into the US are the best moves by Ford over the past several years or so.

    Ford finally realised that a live axle assend is very 19th Century and decided to drop in an IRS. This has made a huge change in the vehicle, almost European in driving dynamics and not retro from what I’ve read.

    I stopped in at our local Ford dealer and had a look at a 5 litre Mustang in the showroom. It looked impressive, until you were closer and you can see the build quality of the vehicle could improve. But, for a Big 3 US built vehicle it was okay and you can see the effort the US manufacturers are placing in an attempt to build exportable global vehicles.

    I would like to see one more Mustang, along the lines of a BMW/Audi/Porche/etc. That is a tweaked Lion powered Mustang with several hundred horse power and a lot more hundreds of torque. I wonder how this would sell in the EU?

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      I don’t think anyone wants a Mustang that’s built to German luxury specs, with German luxury prices. You can drive off in a new Mustang right now for 1/2 the price of a modestly equipped 328. That’s the way it should be.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      A diesel powered Mustang? It would sell like garbage because people don’t want a lazy, boring diesel in a sports car.

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    Is this platform able to support a compact sedan? I’d really like a lincoln w/ these available powertrains.
    Separately, I really think they should offer a v6 performance pack ,as that motor has a good aftermarket and strikes a good handling/power balance for those of us who aren’t interested in a 4cyl pony.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      GM uses their muscle car platform for a compact sedan, and everyone gives them non-stop crap for the existence of the ATS (aka, Cimarron Type R). No reason for Ford to follow that mistake.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The theory of the ATS is fine, it’s just the execution and pricing that screws it up.

        • 0 avatar
          derekson

          As far as I can tell, the biggest issues with the ATS are:

          Not offering a separate luxury suspension and performance suspension, with both using magnetic dampers..

          Not paying attention to details like cheaper plastic parts and the gauge cluster and such.

          Not paying attention to interior packaging because engineering was too concentrated on chassis dynamics without appreciating other concerns.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I’ll take one in Guard Green, please.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    I am glad Ford has made this the world class car they were always capable of making it.

    But for my money, that M235i just has a sweeter sound, much less weight, roomier interior/trunk (!!!!) and less space taken up in my garage. Snob factor doesn’t hurt either. But I can’t hate on anyone who gets a Mustang GT, even over a Camaro SS.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Nothing against the sound of a N55, but it blows my mind that anyone would prefer it to a Coyote. The Coyote may be the best-sounding engine on the market now that the Benz M156 is gone.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      And that BMW will cost $20K more similarly equipped, so it’s not going to be a factor for most people.

    • 0 avatar
      Shawnski

      While I do get where you are coming from, I have compared the GT to the M235. I ended up ordering a ’16 GT to replace my ’12 135i Cabriolet. In terms of space; the trunk of the Mustang is actually bigger (longer – that extra body length being actually use-able here) and the rear space is comparable except for headroom; much better in the 2. Front space, the GT has more sprawl space (elbow room), albeit with less outward visabilty, especially over the hood.

      Of course the m235 has a superior 8-speed auto, but I order manual anyway. The bottom line is, for the money (228 money that is) the GT has it all over the M235; its sexier, faster and has better turn in response IMO.

  • avatar
    Ubermensch

    I want to like this car, but even as sophisticated as it has become, it still can’t shake it’s bubba red-neck demographic. It really does taint any emotional attachment that I could have to it, which for a car like this is somewhat important.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      (One of the many reasons there needs to be a Lincoln Mark version.)

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      The Bubba label is in the rear view mirror, starting with the 2005 Mustang. A few more years and it won’t exist.

      I do wish it had a sunroof option though. Otherwise the convertible will have to do.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        What is it with you people, wanting sunroofs in cars designed to be jumped around San Francisco…. :)

        More seriously, I’m not Shaq by any means, but any sunroof robs precious headroom in cars. And they do add hard edges that hurt to bang ones head into, when “performance driving” on undulating roads.

        • 0 avatar
          Dave M.

          WHAT DO YOU MEAN “YOU PEOPLE”? (shakes fist)

          Life’s too short to not have a sunroof. At 6’3″ I’ve had a few cars where the sunroof robbed some valuable headroom. But it’s worth the slight discomfort if the seat adjustment doesn’t take care of it. My Trooper is the best – I could wear a top hat…

  • avatar
    FromaBuick6

    Re: The steering wheel criticisms. If you want a fat, flat-bottom steering wheel, get a Camaro or GTI. The relatively thin, deep dish wheel on the Mustang is kinda charming, one of the few blatantly retro things about the new car. I don’t have the numbers to back this up, but it feels smaller and less cumbersome than my 2011 did. Other than requiring freakishly long thumbs to comfortably reach some of the buttons (ironically the same problem the 2010-11 Camaro had), it’s a perfectly comfortable tiller.

    The “leather” on the wheel is definitely a joke, though. On the other hand, it’ll probably look less worn after two years than the higher grade leather on some of the other leather wheels I’ve had.

    • 0 avatar
      Boff

      You can now get a GT350 or 350R wheel with a flat bottom and alcantara. I think the rim is a shade thicker. It is surprisingly inexpensive and an easy swap.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      The new car does, the adoption of the IRS and better front suspension did a lot for the car in terms of turn in, lane changing and so on.

      The older car could be made to stick pretty tenaciously but it was slower to respond and didn’t like changing direction as readily.

      The only downside to the new car is that it has become less dramatic in operation meaning you have to push it harder in order to get the same thrill but that’s a common complaint as the Mustang has evolved. Dial back to a fox car and you’d swear you were going through turns 10 mph faster will actually going 20 mph slower.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Ford seems to have a habit of holding back on new designs, as if to purposely leave room for the mid cycle updates. The Coyote still doesn’t have DI, there is still cheapness in the interior, The V6 is base only. So now that the new Camaro SS has 475hp Ford will unleash the DI on this motor for and the V6 for 2017, and let the power grow across the board. So we need the V6 back over 330, the 2.3T at 375, and the 5.0 at 485. Then the GT350 can go to 550. And then we can have a nice GT500 at 725.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “The Coyote still doesn’t have DI,”

      does it need it?

      “there is still cheapness in the interior,”

      The car starts at $25k USD, and the 2015 got a lot more expensive to make. what do you want? What is it with people who expect the car companies to give stuff away? This is already a really low margin business, and now people whine that they can’t have a $40k car for less than $30k.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        “does it need it?”

        not really when Ford is capable of making a higher compression engine using port injection (see the 5.3 Voodoo compared to the LT1)

        I know its not as simple as that as DI allows engineers to take advantage of more aggressive timing curves in conjunction with high compression but DI is not the panacea that people think it is (not to mention DI generates more particulate pollution)

        GM’s 475 horsepower (estimated I believe unless GM has released a real number as the website still says “455”) is less a function of its DI and more its 6.2 liter displacement.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        It’s amazing how so many are expecting 50 grand level interiors in 25-30K pony cars like this and the Camaro. I have been in both numerous times along with many friends and all of us agree the interiors are fine for there price point.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          It would be interesting to see one of our numbersmiths do a comparison of the MSRPs of the Pony Cars of old with the current Pony Cars. No one complained about a cheap vinyl interior in a base Mustang back in 1964.

          • 0 avatar
            Macca

            Check out this Road & Track review of the 1965 Mustang: http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/reviews/a5041/performance-tests-first-drives-1965-ford-mustang-r-and-t-archive-drive/

            They mention a fully-loaded price ‘under $3,500’, and $3,500 in 1965 would equate to roughly $26k in today’s dollars. The base MSRP was $2,368, which would be $18k today.

            Interesting to see their nitpicks of the car that only gets looked at through rose-tinted glasses today. Also might be the first of several decade’s worth of calls for an independent rear suspension: “to be made competitive with the present Corvette Sting Ray…the rear end redesigned with a good independent suspension system…”

            For another price comparison, when Car and Driver tested the Boss 302 in 1969 at an as-tested price of $3,958, that would equate to approximately $25,500 today – more in line with the entry MSRP of $24k on a new one today.

  • avatar
    ilkhan

    Mine is a Guard GT.

    Love this car. Even at 13 mpg. It won’t be economical in another 5 years, which is why I’m putting down a deposit on a Tesla 3, but its a hell of a lot of fun in the mean time.

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      I hit 19 mpg a whopping three times in 3 years/30k miles. My best was 19.9, and I was really trying to hit 20 that tank. I only averaged 17.4. Much sideways was had.

  • avatar
    kmars2009

    Making a Lincoln version is being considered. I’m not sure what they’ll call it….the Lincoln Capri? …or the Lincoln Mark IX. They are returning to traditional names, from what I understand.

  • avatar
    427Cobra

    …nice to see one WITHOUT black wheels… the “murdered-out/plasti-dip” look has been SOOOOOO overdone in the past few years.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    This is a rather terse review.

    But it appear the GT Mustang can and should possibly do a little more work on it’s suspension.

    An interesting, but short read.

    http://www.drive.com.au/what-car-should-i-buy/performance/ford-mustang-gt-v-holden-commodore-ssv-v-chrysler-300-srt-comparison-review-20160202-gmjjg0

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      They do, Mustangs get the performance pack as standard I believe in export trim and its still a fairly cushy ride.

      Ford needs another horizontal option (perf pack plus tighter springs, dampers and better rubber) for a tighter handling car in between the GT and GT350.

  • avatar
    rcx141

    I got my V8 in December 2014. Can not believe what a great car it is for the money. Absolutely love it. No problems at all.

  • avatar
    Boff

    I’ve loved a lot of cars I’ve had over the years, but none of them with the intensity as for my 2015 GT. It just nails the sweet spot between luxury GT and rambunctious hooligan.

  • avatar
    Buckshot

    Another booooring mustang. zzzzzzzzz

  • avatar
    Heather

    Have a 2006 GT with 71k miles on her. Custom sapphire metallic paint, white (painted on) racing stripes, positive track rear end, Hurst speed shifter, hydro-static clutch, bored headers, massive air-induction system, Shaker 1000 stereo system, Flowmaster pipes, 15% tint (yeah yeah I know) and logo etched on top front windshield, top-end pristine leather interior etc. Takes me 11 hours to do my definition of a complete detailing and she’s Grand National show worthy.

    As long as the VIN# tells my insurance company she only a V-8, I’m gold.

    She’s built for racing and barely, just barely, street legal and has the computer to convert her to blow your doors off on the track. Paid 40k back then, WITH the mods installed at the dealership before she left the lot.

    I took a 50th anniversary edition in her. Gods what a rush! Will post a pic after she gets a pollen detailing.

    (I’d bet she could still take the doors off one of these even modified)

    The 2016’s look HOT! Must have Pony package though and a few ahem..slight modifications

  • avatar
    TheEndlessEnigma

    Call me a heretic but within the last 2 weeks I went from a 2013 V6 Mustang to a 2016 Fiesta ST. I took a Mustang out for a test drive and a Fiesta ST. Compared to my 2013, the 2016 Mustang actually felt sluggish and a bit unwieldy – not saying it’s a bad car (it’s a beautiful car!), but the handling and engine actually felt like it didn’t compare well to the 2013 model.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • thegamper: Doubt that is going away. All about number of clicks and ad dollars I suspect.
  • thegamper: I concede that I am a bit biased as I paid real money for a 2019 Accord 2.0t (10 speed). I really cant...
  • Hummer: Exactly what Jack said, for both ends of the spectrum. There are ZERO small SUVs Along with ZERO capable...
  • PeriSoft: “How much more inexpensive would they be if they had fewer “standard” options or to Sajeev’s point,...
  • PrincipalDan: The Trailblazer’s styling is actually decent. It will be interesting to see what...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States