My local falafel joint has the world's smallest parking lot: just three spaces. The other day, I pulled in for supper and parked my sore-thumb standout Grabber Orange Mustang GT Convertible next to a Toyota Prius. The Prius owner was seated on the patio, munching his shawarma. The disparity between our two rides could hardly have been more stark. His: a futuristic, planet-saving, spaceship-looking personal statement. Mine: a retro-tastic, oil-burning, bright orange throw-back drop-top. Sure, Prius person only has to visit the gas station once a week to my thrice, but c’mon, it was no contest. Unless you’re an accountant, the right brain wins every time.
Strange to say, I’ve heard it said that the new topless ‘Stang isn’t all that. The front-end is supposedly a slavish copy of the original pony and the convertible roof allegedly makes it a “chick car.” Rubbish. The GT’s front end is as perfectly evolved as a shark snout and despite Steve McQueen's best efforts, Mustangs have always looked better sans top. The new GT is no exception.
Top down, side-on, the model’s balanced proportions are as obvious as Lt. Bullitt’s turtleneck. There's about a foot of sheet metal between the door-cut and the wheel well, emphasizing the Stang's sporty RWD-ness and providing a perfect perch for the big, chrome GT badge. The wheel arches nearly go through the hood (much like that equally charismatic American, the Dodge Charger) and the front overhang can be measured with your thumb and index finger. Out back, who doesn't like twin pipes? And Grabber Orange is the best of all possible colors for such a shiny showoff.
The GT’s interior is… not so well executed. A horizontal line runs across the GT’s dash. Everything above the line is milled, stitched and cool. From the vinyl dash cover to the deep-set instrument cluster, style-conscious drivers who keep their head up will be well pleased. As soon as their eyes dip down to get Sirius, they’ll be disappointed. Yes friends, once again we’re mired in cross-platform, cross-model, cross-brand parts binnage. While the Mustang GT doesn’t dip into the bottom of the Focus-barrel, it shares HVAC knobs with the Five-Hundred (and plenty of others). The bean counting makes no sense in this application, especially as the top part of the GT’s dash is already beautifully bespoke. The interior’s split personality is lazy, sloppy and cynical.
On the positive side, it must be noted that the ability to change the colors of the gauges is one of the hippest features found on any car. While the seats need a bit more side bolstering, the warm leatherette is plenty comfortable for Grand Touring. The ‘Stang’s rear-seat is ideal– for passengers who favor the Lotus position. The trunk can swallow three proper suitcases and, better yet, remains the same size (9.1 cubic ft) come rain or shine.
To determine whether the Mustang GT convertible is a sharply focused sports car or a floaty-drifty boulevard cruiser, I took her across Decker Canyon. The twisting two-laner serves up nine tortured miles of sheer drops, 100-degree turns and constant elevation changes. With the Mustang’s traction control switched to off, I quickly realized I was driving a pig. Understeer rode shotgun. The brakes faded faster than our government’s excuses for invading Iraq. The GT has so much low-end torque (320 lbs at 4500rpm) that powering out of a corner quickly leads to squealing, smoking, pants-shitting oversteer. Wild stuff, but the GT’s shoddy brakes and ancient suspension make it about as safe as condom-less group sex.
“Fun” over, I cruised over to the Pacific Coast Highway to let an ocean breeze cool the brakes. With the top folded and 300 honest horses braying in my ears, little things like cowl-shake and clumsy handling took a back seat to Zen. Mush the gas until the tach reads four-thousand – the engine's sweet spot – and this convertible can run with all but the best of them (albeit in a straight line.) While the GT is not a track day superstar, the Mustang is ideally engineered for long, lazy stretches of highway. How can you argue against 80mph at 2,250rpm with your iPod plugged in, a gentle summer sun warming your noggin and the sparkling Pacific Ocean as a backdrop? Sorry Mr. Gibson, but for an hour on Saturday, I owned Malibu.
My mother wants a convertible and intends to buy American. "Do you think the Cadillac XLR is cooler than the Mustang?" she asked. "Hell no," I replied. In fact, once I got to Santa Monica, I was surrounded by Porsches, Bentleys, Bimmers and Maseratis. Yet everyone was looking at me. All that fun, beauty, attention and acceleration for $32,000? Sold. Of course, getting Mom to go for Grabber Orange could prove to be a bit tricky.
[Ford provided the vehicle reviewed, insurance, taxes and a tank of gas.]
Are you talking about the Falafels Drive In on San Carlos in San Jose ?
The Bapcha Man.
Bapcha,
No, this joint called Spitz on Colorado in Eagle Rock.
San Jose is 350 miles from me.
I thought TTAC writers weren’t allowed to review their own cars.
Why not drop in an after-market suspension kit? and brake upgrades? then you will be hittin the twisties with precision.
Nice review. They certainly got the design of this car right.
And if your mom wants an American-built convterible, there’s always the BMW Z4.
Why would anyone name a joint that serves food Spitz? Another great read Jonny!
Nostalgia is great – until you have to live with it! Just finished a restoration on a ’66 Mustang coupe; it’s gorgeous, turns heads like you wouldn’t believe … but I didn’t remember them driving so badly. My 30 year old Toyota truck handled better! I was hoping the new Mustang would be more competitive dynamically. Oh, well.
I like the Prius vs. Mustang contrast – try this: I pulled our Smart For2 into a gas station in BC next to a chopped, candy-apple red ’50 Mercury sedan (complete with full fender skirts and suicide doors) that looked about 25 feet long. Exact outrageous opposites – I wonder if they cancel each other out?
(The Mercury looked like this.)
mdanda:
I do not own this car.
Neither does anyone I am related to.
Yet.
Nice writeup! The ‘stang sounds like most American cars that aren’t SVT, SRT, etc tuned…at least needs a beefier rear swaybar before it handles with authority. Luckily there are plenty of aftermarket shops to fix this problem on a Mustang for a few hundred dollars.
I wonder if the droptops have different, less aggressive suspension bits…ya know, to keep owners from flipping them, killing themselves, and their families suing Ford.
I haven’t driven the convertible, but my driving impressions of the GT coupe mirrored yours. This is definitely a seniors car for those that couldn’t afford a muscle car when they were 20 yrs old. I’m 53 and muscle cars never impressed me and they still don’t. I find this whole retro thing a little dismaying. That Prius you parked next to was designed by people with a vision and, even though I am not about to buy a hybrid, I appreciate the fact that someone is making the effort to evolve personal transportation. Retro cars are built by those who can’t see to the horizon let alone over it. It is a deadend tread designed to wring the last dollar from a nostalgic market segment. For those who think “the world as gone to hell in a hand basket”, this is the car for them. I have two teenage boys, and I’ll be sorely disappointed if they don’t demand more in a car than a friggin Mustang.
Sajeev,
I’m going to probably anger LOTS of people here, but… I like it how it is.
For the pure joy of cruising, nothing beats it.
By a Corvette if you need the handling.
Oil Burning?
You mean Ford is offering a Diesel option in the Mustang ragtop! ;)
–chuck
rohman:
I guess I wasn’t clear enough in my driving impression — I love the Mustang Convertible. Decker, the road I took it on, is insane. I believe it is the most dangerous road in California in terms of deaths per mile. The only cars I’ve ever had handle it are my various WRXs and the Boxster (which was stellar).
But neither of those cars scream “ROAD TRIP!” the way the Mustang does.
I am going to force my mother to buy one (It’s between this, a Sebring and the Caddy XLR), and well… while the Prius might be a “vision” of the future, I’ll take the headless Stang everytime, thank you very much
I haven’t driven one, but they seem unbeatable for the price. Hard to fault the Jag S-type derived chassis, and it FINALLY has a decent rear suspension after decades of Fairmontastic engineering.
You hit it right, the Mustang GT Vert is a boulevard cruiser and I think that was its intention from the beginning. The average buyer of such a car will probably never drive it more than 6/10ths of its limited abilities and will never notice the brake fade or handling deficiencies. However, it does a pretty good job for what it is and for its price; I for one like that grabber orange, nice to see something other than gray, silver and freakin black cars on the road.
That’s quite a road you picked to test the ‘stang’s agility. I’ve seen motorcycles have a tough time getting around Decker in one piece. Nonetheless, I like the new design. Its good to see that Ford is at least aware of the visual aspect of (some of) their cars these days and not just cranking out convertable Crown Vics.
Lieberman is absolutely right….enjoy the Mustang for what it is…and buy a Corvette if you want handling….and conveniently enough, the base or F55 suspension Vettes are great cruisers as well, with ride quality rivaling the Mustang, albeit at a higher price point.
PerfectZero,
Yeah… that road is too much. There’s a much less insane road near my house that I usually take the cars on — the Mustang was great on that. But, I love Decker, and since my little WRX can do it…
But the Mustang on Decker… the brakes were gone about half-way down. Which freaked me out. Like, the pedal was too the floor before anything happened. I was really cooking it ,though.
Almost t-boned a bright yellow H2, too.
That would have been a sight.
Jonny, can you give us a little more info on how to find the Decker. I travel in CA on business. My favorite drives in the State so far have been the #23 from Thousand Oaks to the PCH (too much traffic the last few years), the #198 from Coalinga to the #101 (not much traffic but broke-up in a few places due to land slides) and the #168 east of Big Pine to the #266 into Nevada (fantastic with no traffic and lots of twists). I have driven all and many more in everything from trucks, to a 2001 Jetta, a 2003 Acura CL-S Type, numerous rentals and my favorite – a new 2006 G35 6MT coupe just purchased. That first set of rubber didn’t last long. Sorry, I just don’t like the retro thing on principle. It is a good thing to check the rearview mirror once in awhile but usually only when slowing down or backing-up.
I lived with a convertible Mustang (6 cylinder, not GT) for 4 days last December. Like you I loved the exterior looks. Unfortunately, 5 years from now when Ford still has not updated the Mustang I will hate it. Stick with Porsches, Bentleys, Bimmers and Maseratis if you want head-turning charisma that endures.
I have 5 words to describe the disappointing interior: Cheap. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap. It is laid out in classic Mustang fashion but Ford utilizes some of the worst feeling plastic components I have seen since I drove Chevy’s awful Classic. Children’s toys use better plastics than the Mustang gets. My car had 13K miles on it. Already missing was the lever on the back of the driver’s seat that allows access to the back seats. On my third day with the car the lever that adjusts the tilt of the passenger seat came off in the hand of one of my passengers. A blue oval sticker on the window read “Ford: Quality is Job #1â€. How ironic. Apparently Ford needs to learn from Hyundai how to build a quality interior inexpensively. The crappy interior did lend itself to the retro-authenticity of this vehicle. The primitive plastics are not so different from the interiors of 30+ years ago.
I have a 06 GT hardtop 5 spd. The car does what it does, looks good and has lots of power for cheap. As far as the refinement (or lack there of) well it’s sort of the point really. It’s not really meant to be all that refined especially when you can pick one up for well under 30K. I got mine out the door for 23.3K! The handling is actually better than expected for the weight, lack of independent rear suspension, and size of the car. Of course this is what I experience from the hardtop GT which is a bit lighter.
Apparently Ford needs to learn from Hyundai how to build a quality interior inexpensively. The crappy interior did lend itself to the retro-authenticity of this vehicle. The primitive plastics are not so different from the interiors of 30+ years ago.
LOL! Then Hyundai’s need 300 HP V8’s… ;-)
rohman:
The 23 between Thousand Oaks/Westlake and Malibu is Decker Canyon.
Hell of a road, huh?
The 198 is really, really fantastic. And i was on just a few months back and with the exception of the F250 in front of me for three miles, the road was in great shape.
Great review on a great car .let the tree huggers and wussys drive the PRIUS and the HYUDAIS.ain`t nothing like an american rag top.Top down and freshly washed and sparkling clean my aging 6 cyl FIREBIRD rag top wil turn more heads than any German ,Japanese out ther at twice the price.
Jonny, thanks for the reply. How about that, now I know. I discovered that little piece of driving nirvanna about 10 years ago while staying over in Oxnard for a weekend. I went out for an early morning Sunday cruise and stumbled on it while lost! It is a shame that it is becoming so built-up now. On one memorable drive east towards Thousand Oaks a couple years ago, an F-150 came around a corner in front of me. He was obviously traveling too fast for the vehicle’s abilities and had drifted into my lane. He saw me, overcorrected and drove the truck straight into the side of the hill. His sharp turn caused his dog, a large black lab, to come flying out the window. Thank God the dog didn’t appear to be hurt. The truck was a mess and the driver looked a little sheepish but unhurt. I didn’t know wether to laugh or cry. If I had been travelling a little faster, it would have been a head-on.
By the way, I was treated to an anonymous preview of the facelifted (presumably) 08 Mustang at a consumer research clinic, and it looks great….growing hips like the ’69, with unique front and rear fascias that are both more stylish and aggressive.
HEY ROHMAN!
Better not let your teenage boys have a peek at the new camaro it gonna kick ass an its retro dude!
Very nice review.
I’m a little disappointed about the handling at speed from something that’s supposedly the “performance” version of the car (though I realize to really live up to that it better say Shelby or SVT on the back), but all things considered, it doesn’t sound bad at all!
And for all the people banging on retro – personally, I don’t mind it at all. I grew up seeing all these awesome cars on TV or in magazines when I was growing up, and I’ll probably never get a chance to sit in a real Shelby Cobra, a Stingray, or a 409. But, in talking with several of my friends (all of us within 5 years or so of 30 in either direction), we agreed that the ‘retro’ Mustang looks pretty nice, all things considered, and is certainly more affordable for us than going to the Porsche or Audi dealer would be.
But, Johnny, I have to ask – given your passionate defense of the Solstice, and now this article…which one wins if you stuck them head to head?
doctorv8:
Will the 08 ‘Stang bring back the Boss 351? :-)
Going up against the LS2/LS4-equipped Camaro, it’s going to need something!
Another good road is CA 74 from San Juan Capistrano to Lake Elsinore, on the Lake Elsinore side.
At my previous employer, the receptionist’s boyfriend dumped his Aprilia on Decker Canyon. He slid into the hillside and broke both legs.
BZArcher:
I don’t even consider this Mustang Design “Retro.” It’s basically the same as the 911 — Evolved.
As far as this vs. the Solstice…. does the Solstice come in Grabber Orange?
ktm:
A fourth-grade friend of mine lost both her parents on Decker.
I of course grew up in the passenger seat of my Dad’s 280Z on Decker, so…
JL:
No grabber orange, but I have seen a few in the same “Tweety” yellow they used for the C06 driving around town.
…OK, point taken. :D
mikey, let me clarify. I don’t necessarily want my kids to adopt my generations cultural icons. The Mustang, Camaro and others don’t belong to their generation. Detroit needs to offer them product that they can identify as their own. Retro cars, including the Beetle and the Mini, are a cop-out. And I am not criticizing the appearance of these vehicle. They look fine, but we (or at least I) have seen it all before. Show me something new – please.
It is what it is. Concerning the cheap plastics, it is my understanding that a redesign for ’08 is going to alter the exterior and greatly upgrade the interior. Remains to be seen.
I’m hoping to get one next year. I have mulled over my choices for 2 years now, and I narrowed it down to two: the GT and the Mini. Ultimately, although I loved slinging the Mini around, I took into consideration room (for the kids), cargo (for the road trips), reliability (Mini ain’t no Ford, which ain’t no Honda….), and finally, what the hell would happen should I meet a Suburban.
The Mustang wins.
BTW –
“The GT has so much low-end torque (320 lbs at 4500rpm) that powering out of a corner quickly leads to squealing, smoking, pants-shitting oversteer. Wild stuff, but the GT’s shoddy brakes and ancient suspension make it about as safe as condom-less group sex.”
I haven’t laughed that hard in a while. Thanks.
rohman says;
“mikey, let me clarify. I don’t necessarily want my kids to adopt my generations cultural icons. The Mustang, Camaro and others don’t belong to their generation. Detroit needs to offer them product that they can identify as their own. Retro cars, including the Beetle and the Mini, are a cop-out. And I am not criticizing the appearance of these vehicle. They look fine, but we (or at least I) have seen it all before. Show me something new – please.”
I agree 100%
The Nissan 350Z is evolved from the original.
“While the Mustang GT doesn’t dip into the bottom of the Focus-barrel, it shares HVAC knobs with the Five-Hundred (and plenty of others).”
Really? The stereo controls look like they’re straight out of my ’05 Focus ZX3.
The head unit may be related, though not identical. The Mustang’s says “Shaker” while the Focus’s says… cheap plastic.
And if you look at what you quoted, I was talking about the HVAC knobs — which are not as awful as the stuff found in last week’s Mariner.
I’m 19 and my generation loves these cars. There not retro to us. They are just an evolution of American style. For the past 30 years American cars just copied Japanese and euro designs. This is what OUR cars are supposed to look like. Driving in serene comfort is just as appealing as hitting apexes BTW.
well said 2006300c, well said.
Now, if your generation could only figure out how to use your real names for internet-posting, we’d be all set.
Remember the article a few weeks ago about the four most popular colors? What were they, Black, White, Blue and Silver (which really just a form of Grey, aka “Light Black”, aka “Dark White”), and then the second-tier colors, Dark Red, Dark Green, and Dark Blue.
Johnny, I hate to break the news to you, but I feel I must…they weren’t looking at the Mustang. They were merely looking at an unusually bright orange colored convertible that HAPPENED to be a Mustang.
Glad you liked the car, although it’s not my cup of tea. Give me a Miata or a Z3/Z4 anyday!
PS – As for pseudonyms, I use them. For good reason.
I can’t speak for others, but I use a pseudonym on the web to protect my privacy and also for my personal safety. Scary past experiences with threats and more. Beyond that, I’d rather not go detail.
My real name is recorded in my profile, which I expect should be readable by any of the site administrators. I promise to always be thoughtful and abide by the forum/site rules.
2006300c – Though your comment about domestics trying to copy Japanese and Euro designs has some merit, I don’t consider it much of an improvement when they try to copy themselves. As a young American car enthusiast, ask yourself one question – “If I were to design a car for me from the ground up, would it look like a Mustang?”
ZoomZoom — But the Grabber Orange made the car.
It wasn’t like an orange Aztek — this paint looked good.
Very, very good.
“Jonny Lieberman: I’m going to probably anger LOTS of people here, but… I like it how it is. For the pure joy of cruising, nothing beats it. By a Corvette if you need the handling.”
Or if you want better handling with the power and price of the Mustang, you could get a 350Z (coupe or convertible). MSRPs are similar but of course Ford gives you more of a break under it and more incentives. Both the ‘stang and the Z are still almost half the price of a ‘vette.
Good point, lzaffuto.
Though, just going on looks alone… the Mustang wins hands down.
As Jeremy Clarkson said, “The 350Z is an excellent car in every imaginable category — and I’d rather chew my hand off than own one.”
And the Mustang is more powerful. Especially in the Torque department.
I’m tell you, this is a terrific convertible.
Looks are always subjective. I like both, and my Z gathers just as much attention as you described with its Ultra Yellow. The ‘stang does have more torque but it is also heavier, they are about even for power to weight and run about the same numbers. I don’t take much stock in what Jeremy Clarkson says… he’s good for a laugh or two, but most of what he says is for comedy rather than actual review. Top Gear magazine gave the Z “Car of the Year” despite his nitpicky criticism. Besides, what kind of review do you think he would give the Mustang considering his unbridled hatred of everything American?
All that being true, and having driven both, I’ll take the GT drop top in a walk.
….and Johnny Lieberman clearly demonstrates that car buying is not strictly about performance numbers. There is a huge “gotta have it” factor, contrary to whatever financial or performance driven evaluations indicate.
I liked the Mustang concept car, and then FordMoCo made it look like it has Downsyndrome with its droopy-eyed headlights. I still liked the new Mustang when it was first released, however, now that every secretary, mid-life crisis Baby-boomer, and inner redneck embracing boy racer has traded in their older Mustang for the new one, I see them everywhere.
The same can be said for the 350z, but at least the 350z body shape still holds your interest (if it did in the first place – talk about a polarizing design), even after 3 years.
The new Mustang is like running into your high-school sweet heart at your highschool reunion. At first she looks great, but then you see those not-so-slender thighs and areas that are drooping that shouldn’t. Sure, its great to remember yesteryear, but its another thing to try and relive it.
lzaffuto: Clarkson would rip it apart. Of course, I don’t blame him considering the dazzling number of problems he had with his ford GT (something like 4 trips to the shop in a month). He eventually got rid of it for a refund.
I agree with the idea that ford and gm need to come up with something for “my” generation if they want to be appealing in the long run (if they’re going to be around at all, that is). the retro’s are fine, but realying on the golden years for inspiration is basically saying they’ve made no design progress in the last 30 years. Many of people my age are going to consider german and japanese models more iconic than anything the big 3 have to offer with the way things are going.
What? Weren’t 3-series, Celicas, and Integra/RSX’s the cars for the youth of the 90’s?
What kind of review would Jeremy Clarkson give the Mustang? This kind:
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1794313,00.html
They haven’t made any progress in the last thirty years. When people in the dark ages wanted inspiration did they look at their own time? No. Retro inspiration allied with modern engineering will lead to their renaissance. Also, cars are sometimes compared to women. Question: who is sexier, Paris Hilton or Marilyn Monroe? Thank you. Retro rules.
2006300c – The dark ages arose partly because of a lack of progressive thought. And I would hope you are not suggesting that Paris Hilton is a retro improvement on Marilyn Monroe. The original rules.
NO NO NO NO ! !! I’m saying that what is considered attractive today is far inferior to the standards of the past. I believe that the auto makers should take inspiration and confidence from their past and adapt it to today’s thinking and standards.
You have to go back a long ways before car styles were attractive. The 1970s and 1980s were the Dark Ages of automotive styling save for a few examples.
I understand what you are saying and I agree with it to an extent. However, the manufacturers need to look at the cars they produced in the past to gain inspiration for future models, not simply ‘reproduce’ cars they produced in the past ala the new Mustang.
Designs can evolve over time and still pay homage to their past. Nissan’s 350z, though a pig compared to its great-great-great-great grandfather the 240z, took some styling cues from the car.
The Corvette still has the same general shape for its back window that its had since the 1960s. You can line up all of the Corvettes over time and see the gradual transition to the car today.
To me the Mustang epitomizes what is wrong with Ford. Sure, the new Mustang has been selling pretty well and has been getting reasonably positive play in the automotive press. However, I suspect that this latest iteration will not have much staying power — particularly if gas prices continue to climb.
This new Mustang’s saving grace is that it is easily the best looking of the breed since, oh, 1969. Alas, that isn’t saying much: For many years (particularly with the Fairmont platform) Ford pissed away some of the early Mustang’s most timeless design elements.
The new design attempts to make up for lost time with what strikes me as an overly literal interpretation of the 1960s Mustangs. But that in and of itself wouldn’t be a deal breaker. The greatest weakness of the new Mustang, much like the Dodge Challenger, is it was placed on a platform much too large and heavy for a credible “pony car.” The result: The new Mustang looks like an overweight middle-aged guy who struts around in a skimpy speedo, a gold chain, and an artificially deep tan. Like, how cool is that?
Whatever else one can say about the Fairmont-based Mustang, it at least was appropriately sized. Ironically, if Ford had kept that platform — as aged as it was — the Mustang might be better positioned to weather high gas prices with a range of four-, six- and eight-cylinder engines.
Okay, so this didn’t happen. I hope, however, that Ford will see the handwriting on the wall and invest in a “compact” rear-wheel-drive platform (e.g., shared with Mazda’s sports cars). If Ford’s bean counters continue to insist upon depriving us of independent rear suspension, so be it. But please, no more milk cows, okay?
2006300c – I agree with your last statement. I disagree that the new Mustang is a result of either inspiration or confidence. In fact, the entire retro movement displays a lack of confidence – a fear of departing from the mainstream and offering something unique and perhaps even a little radical.
Steven T — you are insane.
The new mustang is a fantastic car — I just spent 500+ miles with one.
You read my complaints — fix the interior and don’t take it on the most challenging road in Southern California.
Besides that? It rules.
From credible sources, the reskin will happen in fall ’09 as a 2010 model, there will be some special edition performance cars in ’08 and ’09 to keep the interest level up.
While the Mustang can be considered retro, I think of it as a more evolutionary design, as mentioned before. At the same time, this car has the history and had a continuous evolution.
I don’t think the 350Z is a fair comparison, at least in Canada it is over $10,000 more, and add to that if you want a track pack. Ditto for the G35
The reason it sells the way it does is the car has such broad appeal. The brakes and suspension are more than adequate for the street and maybe an autocross. A set of Hawk pads and an FRPP suspension kit would probably make those tougher roads easier to navigate.
I bought an ’05 and absolutely love the car. This car has a universal appeal rarely found. I’ve had everyone between little kids and reitrees give me a thumbs-up.
Just to add one more thing,
My one gripe is the lack of an IRS, at least as an option. Especially on the Shelby
You guys are spoiled on the coasts. The rest of America drives on a grid pattern: Straight line. 90 degree turn. Straight line. 90 degree turn. I’m sure the Mustang is just fine for that.
Steven T
The new mustang has just about the same wheel base to the old Fox chassis, if you park them next to each other, they are both about the same size. The weight of the original 60’s mustang fastbacks where about 3500 lbs which is about the same as the current GT hardtop.
The Charger / Challenger are biased off a 4 door luxury platform where as the new mustang was biased off the smaller 2 door Lincoln LS. The new mustang is in no way dimensionally similar to its Chrysler rivals.
So… yeah…
8 years ago I was looking for a sports coupe in the mid 20s. All I had to pick from was the mustang, Camaro/firebird and Mercury Cougar. It needed to have some room for four even if limited and I wasn’t much on the styling of the Ford or Chevy so I went with the Mercury (also a ford I know).. And now we have a fair number of cars to pick from that are sporty in either 2 or 4 doors.
Straight line performance on the cheap: Mustang GT
Good looks and good performance with two seats: 350z
Good looks and great handling and real room for four: RX-8
Slap happy grip and power with a Pug’s looks: Evo or STI
They all have the pros and cons but at least we have some variety today.
there is just one problem spending all of this time on products like the mustang and the solstice. These cars good as they are, will never replace the revenues ford lost trashing the number one selling taurus. The pony car segement which used to support a much larger piece of the automobile marketplace is just too small to be hugely profitable. It would be much better to say the Ford 500 is so good with a worthy engine and interior that people are trading in camry’s and accords by the droves. Why can’t ford and gm establish and maintain momentum where they need it, and use these niche products to enhance their image of being the bread and butter car builders fo America? Other than the chrysler 300, these new models ala ford 500, hit the ground limping good platform poor interior rough engine, by the time they get around to the engine and interior people are off to somebodys newer and better iteration of the family car. Time and time again, we get half a loaf from the bakers of American cars.
gearhead455 writes:
“The new mustang has just about the same wheel base to the old Fox chassis, if you park them next to each other, they are both about the same size. The weight of the original 60’s mustang fastbacks where about 3500 lbs which is about the same as the current GT hardtop. ”
Ummm…no.
The new S197 Mustang has a 107″ wheelbase, and my 1991 LX coupe was 100.5 inches. Furthermore, the new car is 8 inches longer, and while the weight may match that of 69-70 model, the original 1965s and my 91 were 300-500 lbs lighter.
Park a new S197 in front of my beloved Fox Notchback, and it totally eclipses the old car.
Also, the Lincoln El-Esses all have four doors, not two….unless you were making a veiled reference to the Thunderbird. It is still a heavy luxury platform, though admittedly smaller/lighter than the ponderous Chryslers.
Finally, you mention Charger/Challenger in one breath, but the Charger IS a 4 door variant of the Chrysler 300C, not a 2 door-ectomized version like the Challenger.
Steven T is on to something. Imagine the dynamic performance of this hardware on a 1979-ish Mustang 2-dr Sedan chassis! From the original, the Mustang II, and the Fox Mustang, the best sellers were always small. Now that Detroit’s all but abandoned larger touring coupes, the Mustang must fill the void at all price points and sells well because of it.
Maybe the new Mustang HAS to be a tank, but its size kills any chance of an upscale Mercury Cougar counterpart. And a Lincoln Continental Mark Series counterpart above all.
Mustangs should be smaller, as Lincoln-Mercury needs upscale Muscle cars so bad it hurts.
Tank? 3,700lbs. convertibles are hardly tanks.
She’s just big-boned.
Jonny, I don’t know about Steve’s sanity, but I really wonder how you find the Mustang as likable as you do.
After a few hundred miles in a ‘Stang myself anything beyond ‘adequate’ isn’t there – at least until you drop it and some ducats off at the tuner’s shop to fix Ford’s cost savings.
On the bright note, for 5-15K you can address most of the car’s shortcomings.
Don’t get me wrong – all I wanted was for it to go, stop and turn with a bit more alacrity. It’s a domestic pony car – I harbor no illusions of a decent interior, tolerable ergonomics, or style that is sophisticated.
The Mustang should have been better, and for a few more dollars (in manufacturing terms) it could have been.
It’s all a matter of perspective. 3700 lbs may not be much for a sedate luxo cruiser, but Ford clearly markets the Mustang as a performance car. As such, its weight, and worse yet, how that weight is distributed is unacceptable. Among “performance” cars….yes, 3700 lbs is a tank.
At the NY auto show press preview last March, Hau Tai Tang and Carroll Shelby talked of the upcoming GT500 as a Corvette competitor. What a joke….with another couple hundred pounds on the nose compared to the stock porker, it’s no surprise that the initial magazine tests are showing the acceleration times to be no quicker than the outgoing SN95 Cobra, with 100 less HP.
Now, add a twin screw blower and some serious boost…they will be terrors in a straight line. And that’s fine for me….but they really shouldn’t even mention the word “corvette” in their marketing spin….it is just embarassing to those of us that know better!
I have a 2003 mustang parked next to my car right now… the wheel base is only marginally longer (you can barely tell unless you had a tape measure) and the car is only slightly longer (mostly the plastic shark-like fascia). Anyway my point is that people perceive that the new mustang is a big fat tank and it’s not. Until you really park it next to the last gen mustang you would not believe it until you see it. It looks a LOT bigger but the truth is it’s only a little bigger.
My wife just bought a black GT coupe – it does handle like a Fairmont and stops only slightly better than a Granada, but it goes great in a straight line and looks and sounds great. It’s also tighter, smoother and roomier than the 2002 shitbox one she had before – now that was a Fairmont!!
The car is not an athlete — I believe I call it a pig in the review.
And I am not talking about the hard top.
But the convertible GT is a very cool car indeed.
I sugest you all scroll up, enlarge the photos, and breathe the Grabber Orange in.
Steve T writes:
>>The new design attempts to make up for lost time with what strikes me as an overly literal interpretation of the 1960s Mustangs. But that in and of itself wouldn’t be a deal breaker. The greatest weakness of the new Mustang, much like the Dodge Challenger, is it was placed on a platform much too large and heavy for a credible “pony car.†The result: The new Mustang looks like an overweight middle-aged guy who struts around in a skimpy speedo, a gold chain, and an artificially deep tan. Like, how cool is that?
I think the style is great, but I agree completely with the rest of this. I don’t understand why they don’t get the weight way down on these cars.
gearhead455: Park an SN95 Mustang next to a Fox and it will also dwarf the mini-Fairmont.
gearhead 455….sorry if 6 or 7 inches in wheelbase doesn’t seem like much to you, but trust me, it’s HUGE. That’s the same difference you would have between a standard Chrysler 300C and the stretched version, and MORE than the difference between a BMW 750i and the stretched 750Li version.
Also, the huge rear end adds to the sense of girth….this will be remedied by the upcoming restyle that I got to preview recently.
Of course the 94-04 SN95s were still bigger than my petite 91 Fox, but I can’t help but imagine the superior suspension geometry and rigidity of the current car with the dimensions of the 79-93 Fox bodies.
Having said all that…I like big comfy cars….and the Mustang is on my short list of new affordable cars that I often recommend to friends.
Come on guys! The new mustang GT coup is only 3,600 lbs compared to the perceived “lightest” of the GT’s (the old notch back) at 3,300 lbs. The new GT can run a 13.9 QMT and the “light” notchback only ran a 15 flat due to its 220 HP engine.
Hey Lieberman, next time your mother takes you out for a ride, ask if you can sit in the front seat.
gearhead 455,
The old notchback was an LX, not a GT, and mine weighed 3300 with my 180 lb body and a full tank of gas. No one is contesting that the new car is fast for the money, but the only 15 flats run in the 87-93 LXs were run by the clods at Road and Track/Motor Trend in 2.73 geared cars. There were plenty of low 14 sec and high 13 sec bone stock LX notches back in the day, even on the 7″ wide gatorbacks….and really good drivers were deep in the 13s…not much slower than today’s car that sports 80 more hp and a 3.55 gear instead of the old cars 2.73 or optional 3.08s!
What’s the old drag racers saying? Every 100lbs saved in weight nets you an extra tenth in the quarter?
But the same clods at Road and Track/Motor Trend are testing my car too!
Ok well according to that argument I can put a 4:10 gear (available at the dealer I might add) in my car and change the tire size and will probably run a 12.xx.
The old notchback was only .8 inches shorter in wheel base than the SN95 BTW.
gearhead wrote:
“Ok well according to that argument I can put a 4:10 gear (available at the dealer I might add) in my car and change the tire size and will probably run a 12.xx.”
No, I am talking about STOCK for STOCK….the Foxes had tall 2.73s or optional 3.08s….some SN95’s had 3.27s, and the portly S197 now has 3.55s…..STOCK.
As the cars got bigger and heavier, they added power and shorter gearing to compensate….sound familiar? It’s 1971 all over again….and the next Mustang may well be the modern day equivalent of a Mustang II….we already know a RWD Focus is doable, right!
Ok I understand that but you stated you could modify the notchback rear axle ratio / tires and run close to new GT numbers. I’m just saying if that was the case I should be able to do the same (upgrade the rear axle ratio) to make an even comparison. It’s not my fault Ford chose a 2.73 axle on the notchback cars.
The automatic is 3.55 and the manual is a 3.75 for the new GT.
Gearhead writes “Ok I understand that but you stated you could modify the notchback rear axle ratio / tires and run close to new GT numbers”
Please reread…..I never said that. By running gears and tires, I would spank a new GT.
Ok, if I ran “gears and tires” against a notchback with “gears and tires” I would spank the notchback…
So what is your point? LOL
I’m trying to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges here.
sigh…..I give up.
Let’s return to our regularly scheduled program….Jonny L and I both like cruising in porker GT’s.
Absolutely — the GT convertible is a very comfortable, relaxing car.
Top down, cowl shake and V8 rumble massaging you in the warm sun… it doesn’t get much better.
Moreover, you can smoke the tires whenever the mood strikes.
And compared to all but the earliest Mustangs, the new one doesn’t make you look like a dork.
A big plus in my book.
And it’s orange.
Damn, Jonny…here I am supporting you, and you imply that the Fox Mustangs make me look like a dork? :-)
Guess I take dork over pork any day…I have an 87 GT Vert too, and Vanilla Ice never would have sounded right saying “rolling in my 4.6.”
Foxes rule! They are the cars that put late model EFI performance on the map. If I’m gonna have top down fun with a dose of cowl shake, V8 rumble, and crappy handling….at least I didn’t pay $30k to get it.
Again, the handling is not crappy.
Just stay away from race tracks
As someone else said its a car for older people that wanted one when they were new. I had noticed this a while ago, every single driver of a new Mustang I have seen is an older guy. Nothing wrong with that mind you but thats the reality.
Personally I am not buying it nor getting it. My very first car was a 69 mach 1 and it was the biggest piece of junk rolling. Granted when I got it was already like 15 years old but please the engineering on it was a joke. It was a bucket of bolts and anthing that could break did break. 2 new trannies, 2 axles, a rear end, cracked chassis in the front, electrical problems and on and on. The grand finale was the screws that would unscrew themselves from the dash as you drive along. Oh yeah and it swilled gas.
I honestly dont get the nostalgia for them. They werent that great even in their day. Sure they were fast in a straight line but treacherous in the turns and the brakes were a joke. Lets not even get into the inclement weather – snow, rain you would be all over the street.
From this I went to VW and have never looked back. Since than I have owned only VW and Acura. After the endless repairs and treacherous handling in bad weather I will stick with my front wheel drive foreign cars thank you very much.
I look at the interior of my coworkers brand spanking new 44K Mustang GT and I am like that cost 44K? Please it looks like the same cheap plastic like 1969.
“I have an 87 GT Vert too, and Vanilla Ice never would have sounded right saying “rolling in my 4.6.—
Hey don’t add weight to the “dork” comment by getting Vanilla Ice into this…
Foxes hands down do rule but… But my porker wants to eat your baby. Get in my belly!!! ;-)
tincanman99
I am 29.
Drawing a comparison from a clapped out 15 year old car from the 60’s to the new Mustang is silly.
I traded in my Jetta 1.8T for the Mustang and “I’m not looking back”.
Unless it’s a GT 500 no Mustang has a MSRP near 44K.
I paid 23.3K.
A Mustang on Decker?!?! That was a really optimistic choice of road for a Mustang.
Nathaniel — given better brakes, it would have been OK.
Again, I nearly rammed the side of a bright yellow H2, which, besides the injury and death would have been hysterical from an EMT’s persepective, happened because this front heavy cruise goes into understeer almost immediatley — but, i was able to save myself because once the back tires find purchase, here comes the oversteer.
OK, fine, I’m an idiot. Happy?
I liked the review Jeremy Clarkson gives this car (linked by jdizzle). He fell in love with it despite himself. It’s pretty funny how he’s talking about its handling and build faults, and then says he can’t help but love it anyhow.
Although I much prefer the “clapped-out 15 year old version” — reviews like Jonny’s are what keep me coming back. I love to know that there are other kindred souls out there whose emotions are stirred by the cars they love.
As for those who are ruled by slide rule and pocketbook, there are publications like Consumer’s Report…
Thanks, Lesley!
And for what it is worth, Clarkson’s review essentially says what mine says — only he has more than 800 words.
And is a better writer, etc.
As much as he puts me in mind of a mysoginist, brit version of Fred Flintstone… I just love Clarkson.
And (blushing) I meant “clapped out 30-year old version”. My bad. There are very few things I wouldn’t do for a 65 fastback.
gearhead455: tincanman may be in Canada. Add a few options and a GT convertible will MSRP at $44k easily.
44K Canadian?
Cause mine was an automatic transmission past fully-loaded and it was $36.
That is including the $50 Wheel Locking Kit (What?), the $575 Comfort Group (Consisting of only heated seats), the $395Premier Trim Package (Black Floor Mats, Pony Center Cap(?)), $160 for theConvertible Boot Cover.
“Wild stuff, but the GT’s shoddy brakes and ancient suspension make it about as safe as condom-less group sex.”
Some great lines Mr. Lieberman. I’m a keen reader of yer lines.
A 280Z is nothing to be ashamed of BTW. Was it a targa? Then I can fully understand your love for this yellow Stang :hehe:
Flooring it is not always the way to do the twisties. If you use your feet a little more delicately you’ll soon find there’s more than on / off mode down there. You’ll also notice an immense improvement in the cars handling ;)
Try leftfoot braking . . . now that’s fun.
Cheers, Dink.
Going from Ford.ca
Base price, 2006 Mustang GT: 33k
Tack on some options, then add in sales tax (6% federal + provincial depending on province) and 44k is quite plausible if tincanman’s friend went to town on the options.
Dinkel — I am in no way ashamed by the old man’s 280Z.
He used to describe it as “an engine with seats.”
Oddly… it was orange, too. Not Grabber, mind you…. more copper.
That’s 317,000 Peso
The new Mustang is expensive!!!11111
;-)
Jonny,
It strikes me that the old Motor (before the 1,000 stop signs were put in) between Pico and Venice would have been a great stretch to drive this on. Not too crazy in the turns, but enough to have fun on.
Withnail:
My sister and brother-in-law-to-be live right there off Pico.
There are some very cool roads around there — especailly at night.
Quote 1:
“I quickly realized I was driving a pig. Understeer rode shotgun. The brakes faded …powering out of a corner quickly leads to squealing, smoking, pants-shitting oversteer…….the GT’s shoddy brakes and ancient suspension…..etc, etc..
Quote 2:
“My mother wants a convertible and intends to buy American….All that fun, beauty, attention and acceleration for $32,000? Sold”
erm..Jonny…is there a trust fund set up in the event? Let’s protect this poor woman from her scheming son…
Zipper69
Very nice selective quoting.
You have a wonderful future in law and/or politics.
Just remember the mustang was always a feel good car for a price. In 1964 mustangs started at 2500 and a falcon from which it was derived cost $2000. The reason ford made most of the $500.00 they charged as profit was that there was no more content in the mustang then the falcon. The six cylinder was aweful, the floor pans rusted out even faster than everything else (which was bad enough in the 60’s) and the handling and ride were well economy like. The new ones should improve on a legacy that was all looks and of course the price is now 10X what it was 40 years ago. Yes the new one gives you the old ones looks and an undercarriage equal to any of ford’s best modern products. The problem is that all of their stuff is at least one generation obsolete in an ever faster moving marketplace.
“I was surrounded by Porsches, Bentleys, Bimmers and Maseratis. Yet everyone was looking at me. ”
probably wonder why is this crappy Ford here haha
I have one on order, does anyone know how to identify (confirm) the installation of the 3.55 ratio rear axle on the 5 speed manual? I ordered the option, but the whole order process leaves you wondering what will actually be assembled. Yes, for the money, it seems like quite a car! Nostalga, retro, mid life crisis? Call it what you want, I can finally afford a new one, and I dare to to come up with an affordable alternative. I’ve driven bla for years, too. I’m tired of bla (Honda this and that)
Bill