July's Car and Driver pits a new Ford Mustang against a new Dodge Challenger and joyfully proclaims "it's 1970 again!" Wrong. It's 1973 again, the year of the Arab Oil Embargo. This time there's plenty of gas at the pumps, but its price has thrown the U.S. car market into the same chaos/doldrums that afflicted it the year FedEx was born. Back then, the Mustang's pony car competition rolled over and died. Today, the Mustang faces new challengers with a convertible that gets 17/26 mpg. How great is that?
Aesthetically, not so much. The Mustang is the best looking 2+2 convertible you can buy at its price-which tells you more about the competition's eye appeal (New Beetle, G6, Eclipse, Eos, Solara and Sebring drop-tops) than the ‘Stang's. OK, the MINI. Both cars work depend on their retro-vibe to pull in the punters, and do so with clever updates on yesteryear detailing.
The base ‘Stang's bulging hood, concave grill and menacing headlights are irresistible styling cues. From the side, aggressive fenders and a high waistline accentuate the Mustang's muscularity. The rear's three-headed lights and squared-off tail also project the requisite machismo. Top up or down, from any angle, the '05-era Mustang is so not a secretary's car it Hertz.
The Mustang Convertible's interior materials are a massive upgrade from the previous "New Edge" Mustang; which is like saying a new McDonald's is a classier place to dine than the building it replaced. The smell of cheap plastics infusing the Mustang's cabin is worse than burger fat. The olfactory assault is so persistently noxious that leaving the top down to air out the cabin is futile.
The Mustang's seats, especially the head rests, aren't particularly comfortable or well positioned. I found my entire arm hurting after leaning on the window sill's Klingon plastics. While the power vinyl top is easy enough to operate, the driver's side windshield latch on our tester didn't line up exactly with the roof. Oops. Top down, at any speed above 45 mph, the wind roar is deafening. On the positive side, the Mustang's rear seat offers a suitable space for a second golf bag or a brace of Ewoks.
The Mustang's interior is a success, though. It extends the exterior's retro-ness. The long hood ahead is pure nostalgia (I know, it's technically not the interior, but you're still inside the car). The three-prong steering wheel and the dude-ranch font on the speedometer are great touches. It's a lesson in coherence that was evidently lost on the designers of the 2009 Dodge Challenger.
This Mustang packs a 4.0-liter 210hp V6. The engine combines all the power of a Japanese I4 with all the fuel consumption of a German V8. To make up for this incoherent compromise, the Mustang's throttle tip-in is ferocious. Whatever meager output the mill can summon is unleashed at the first press of the pedal, making wheel-spin both ridiculous and ridiculously easy.
The Mustang's exhaust note is surprisingly, delightfully virile. Dropping the car's auto into third gear at 70mph, the pedal-related noises became fierce. But in the end, the V6 Mustang Convertible is all mouth and no trousers. It was easily defeated by ascents in the hilly Austin neighborhoods of Spicewood and Jasper. And yes, it got spanked by anything with a Nissan badge and a 3.5. Still, weak as she was, the Mustang never felt dead or unenthusiastic under the hood.
Dynamically, the Mustang drives like a lowered pick-up truck. At almost any respectable speed, every turn unleashes a cacophony of tire squeals, suspension creaks and near-instant-incontinence. Front-heavy and sprung too softly for anything remotely resembling sporty driving, the Mustang's ancient underpinnings are instantly obvious.
That said, it's a boulevardier. And like all 70's-era Detroit iron, a properly-executed apex down a mountain road requires the kind of skill and courage that Miata drivers will never, ever know. Performance tires inflated to (at least) 35 PSI alleviated much– but not all– of the "YOU friggin' turn" stubbornness of my personal 2002 model Mustang Convertible. (Note: that is not as much of a recommendation as it may seem.)
The V6 Mustang ‘vert is not the best-in-class at anything save, perhaps, looks. But it's not the worst, either. If you want rear wheel-drive performance, it's got some. If you want interior space, it's got some. Reliability? Some. Let's face it: the MINI's the only standout in this field, and it's way too small and far too dopey for most folk.
The V6 Challenger and Camaro drop-tops will be the Mustang Convertible's first competition in a long time. But they're not here, and neither is the new car market. If Ford can refine this model ahead of the economic recovery, they'll ensure that the Mustang can, once again, outlast the bastards. What are the odds?
If I were a betting man I’d put my money on the Mustang. Odds are the Mustang will survive just as it always has throughout it’s history.
There’s really no reason to get a V6 in a car like this though. Like Richard Hammond wrote in Top Gear magazine it’s like going into a dragon shop and coming out with a poodle, it’s for idiots to buy.
I also know if you don’t goose the V8 at every stoplight you’ll average nearly 20mpg per tank overall. The same as this V6 but with real torque and 300hp.
The Mustang is one car Ford does right. It has it’s iconic, stylish and distinctive looks that make it instantly recognizable and stands out from the grey jellybeans on our roads, it is rich with heritage, it’s honest about what it is and what it isn’t, it’s affordable and it’s infinitely modifiable.
“And like all 70’s-era Detroit iron, a properly-executed apex down a mountain road requires the kind of skill and courage that Miata drivers will never, ever know”
As a Mazda tech and Miata owner, if you have the right car and it performs as it should, you shouldnt NEED courage and skill to keep yourself between the white lines on ANY road.
I drove a GT convertible before I bought my GT coupe and I felt it was too soft and too expensive.
There are a few weeks out of the year when I think I should have gotten a V6 convertible. But most of the time I’m glad I spent the premium on the V8 and stiffer suspension instead.
My GT can easily average around 20mpg per tank… more if I’m being careful and usually as good or better than my friends’ V6s.
All that being said when I took my GT in for service I kept glancing over at a Vista Blue convertible with the pony package…
What are the odds?
Quite good I’d say, although much will depend on the looks of the new Mustang…
And arguably the interior quality. Ford have shown with their Euro models and the occasional US model that a US car manufacturer can actually built an interior where you’re not confronted with hard, cheap sounding/smelling/feeling plastics.
For this one they got away with interior cheapness (if you forget hits to brand value, which might well be why they decided not to officially export it to Europe) because as the review rightfully points out, at that price point it doesn’t really have competition, but now that changes they’ll have to hold something over them and I think a quality interior might be the way to go.
I think this Mustang is great value, and I like the styling, especially taillights and the hood. I hope for the new one they change that V6, make a better interior and export it to Europe via official channels, I’m sure they’ll sell a bunch of them, cause right here if they keep it between EUR 30-50K (depending on country) it won’t have any competition either IMO (Who really wants an ungainly looking french folding hardtop?).
In fact, the Mustang is way more of an icon here than the Challenger and the Camaro, so it will have the advantage on them too.
One thing I always hated about lesser (non-V8) mustangs is that they were incredibly pedestrian compared to the V8 ones, or even their V6-equipped F-body nemesis. Late 90’s V6 Mustang examples could barely outdo a Corolla, while a 3800 V6 in the Camaro/Firebrid was within inches of their V8 cousins.
Ford should either stuff a proper V6 in there, or just go with a turbo 4-cylinder like everyone else. Or better yet, build a smaller, cheap, 3.5-liter-ish high-revving V8 with cylinder deactivation. That’d be swell.
Thank you for this review. I need a new car, and i want a convertable, and the two top picks are this car and the mini cooper. I would like the V8 stang, but the milage goes from bad to ridiculous. Shame, too.
My friend has a base mini drop top, and its a plenty fun car, teeny back seat, but maybe useful for an additional overnight bag, loads of fun on the twisties, but its so small… i dunno… Its cool in its own way, maybe mostly in its almost 40 mpg rating… You can take it out on a nice afternoon and play with it all day for less then a hundred bucks in fuel…
but the mustang is stunning to look at. I am thinking about this car with the 5 speed, the upgraded suspension, delete the rear spoiler, delete the front additional light package, black out the chrome horse on the grill, delete the side stripes, upgrade the wheels and tires, and make it metallic green or blue with a black cloth top. Maybe less fun in the twisties, but better on long interstate trips.
Truthfully, I will not be buying anything until gas prices settle down, and by then the camaro and challanger might be available. I want to see what they do with their smaller engines. If either of them puts a cool high revving fuel efficient engine in their cars, with no downgrade in handeling, i could be swayed. We will see.
How many more years can Ford make a ’68 mustang? I think they need to decide how much longer this tired look can go on.
GT 5.0 Mustangs were known to get 27 or 28 MPG with the 5 speed and 3.03 rear end gears. This car should be no different.
What can the aftermarket do with the handling of these cars>?
As a Mazda tech and Miata owner, if you have the right car and it performs as it should, you shouldnt NEED courage and skill to keep yourself between the white lines on ANY road.
Terry – I think the point was that the Mustang in no way handles as well as the Miata.
I think the Miata is the perfect roadster. But I also wish it had a back seat for those of us who needed additional passenger space.
@GS650G: I didn’t think you could get IRS on this generation ‘Stang.
I would argue that the Saab 9³ convertible is the best looking 2+2 out there.
The V6 Mustang is a good car. Fix the suspension up (I think there’s a factory package) and it’s as good as the GT for most people.
The Mustang’s likely to survive the fuel crisis. Unlike the Camaro or Challenger, it’s cheap to make, relatively lithe and (subjectively) well-styled. I think Ford could, conceivably, put the non-turbocharged 2.3L Mazda four and it’d sell well enough; an EcoBoost (what a stupid name) four would certainly do well.
It’s worth noting that, even in prior generations, the Camaro always tested better than the Mustang, yet the Msutang always outsold it (and the Firebird) every single year.
Psarhijinian –
I don’t think the non-turbo Mazda 2.3 is a good match. I’ve got one in the 2800+lb Mazda3, and it’s just enough oomph. In a 3400+lb mustang, I think it would be asthmatic.
It really needs a new V-6, but that easy for us to say without seeing the budget sheet. Ford’s obviously saving some cash on this one.
The Mazda3 2.3l moved plenty well, however it struggles a little more in rental Fusions I’ve had. I don’t think the Fusion is much heavier than the 3 and probably a little lighter than the Mustang.
I think the new 2.5l DISI motor would do pretty well in the Mustang, it’s 2.3l replacement and has a bit more power and torque.
I think that even the 3.0l DOHC V6 would have been a better match, in a higher tune it moved the LS quite well.
Price is the reason this 4.0 liter V6 continues in this car. The sort of natural choice would be the 3.5 liter V6 that’s in many newer Ford cars with 250ish horsepower. Plenty of torque, plenty of MPGs, and best of all, it’s smooth as butter.
Also I doubt anyone would complain except die hard V8 folks (that might include me, alas) about no V8 but a turbocharged EcoBoost V6 instead with some 400 horsepower in this car.
Call me crazy, but if a 210-hp V6 is inadequate in this vehicle, I have my doubts that a 156 hp four banger will be any better. It sure wasn’t in the 80’s with that twin-spark four pot.
What can the aftermarket do with the handling of these cars>?
Plenty, Rousch, Steeda, Saleen, and Ford Racing make suspension kits for the Mustang, to name a few.
How do you make a 4.0L V6 with only 210 hp? Why do you put it in a ‘muscle’ car?
I don’t at all think the 210hp six is inadequate, and considering that the majority of Mustangs (and certainly the convertibles) are bought as cruisers, a ~160hp four would probably do about as well.
I wonder if the 4.0’s career in the Mustang will be extended now Explorers aren’t there to soak them up as they come out of Cologne. Or will the Explorer’s rapid decline mean a new base engine will arrive that much quicker? I’m hoping for the latter.
The V6 Mustang Coupe weighs 3,350 pounds with a manual transmission. Now, I know the weight would drop a bit, but seriously, with about 160 horsepower on tap that gives you a laughable 20.9 pounds per horsepower.
I rented an 05 v6 convertible stang from hertz for $90/day. It’s the best rental I’ve ever had. I really enjoyed it even though everything in the review is accurate. Ran out of steam at 5k revs. Bouncy squishy suspension. Steering feel non-existant. Near impossible to accurately place the front tires. And yet I absolutely loved it. Just cruising with the top down it was as about as fun as any car I’ve driven. So if you live in a nice climate where you can take the top down more often than not, you really could do a lot worse. Oh and donuts….mmmmmmm donuts they’re quite doable and tasty.
I would argue that the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited is the best looking 2+2 out there. It will go where no Mustang will go.
With my own Jeep, I prefer to take the top off when I’m out in God’s country to enjoy the view under the sun and stars.
The reason people get the V6 is obvious – price! It’s a big jump to the GT, enough that people who don’t feel they need the power stay away, even if there are other reasons that the GT might be a better buy. I wish it were a smaller car though. The old Mustangs were small, and didn’t seem much tighter on the inside… what happened? The new car’s just too big and bulky for me.
And what’s with the tip in? A lot of small SUVs have the same “feature” and it just makes them frustrating to drive. How could anyone design it that way on purpose?
I think most Mustang owners will tell you that if you buy the V6, you’ll find yourself slapping your head at some point in the future and saying “I could’ve had a V8.” The mileage really isn’t that much different. I also question Ford’s choice of V6 for this car. The V6 in my ’04 Mazda6s provides essentially the same horsepower and torque while returning 30 mpg on long highway cruises and 20 mpg in strictly short hop, in-town driving. If a person’s buying a V6 Mustang, it’s probably for the lower price and increased gas mileage (as little as that may be). They’re not going to be getting the V8 rumble anyway; so, why not put a more fuel efficeint, higher revving, more modern engine with the same-or even greater-hp under the hood?
The thing that I hated most about the Mustang convertible (at least in the 2001 Cobra that I had) was Ford’s legal department screwing with the top switch. In order to be ‘safe’, the parking brake had to be engaged to lower/raise the top. Ostensively, this was to prevent top operation while the vehicle was in motion, even if that motion was very low.
This meant that if someone wanted to hop in and lower the top while taking off from a standing start, or begin lowering it as one slowed to a stop, it technically wasn’t possible. I got around it by pulling up on the emergency brake just enough to get the brake light to turn on, but I had to do some contortioning to pull up on the e-brake and operate the top switch at the same time.
Regardless, it was a major PIA for no reason and that, alone, is enough reason to choose something like the Miata instead, one of the few remaining convertibles where the top can be manually raised or lowered at any time (with one hand yet), whether the vehicle is in motion or not.
Likewsie, I had previously owned a late nineties’ Cavalier convertible and, although the rest of the car was a pile of crap on the highest (lowest?) order, the top operation of that car was a simple, entirely one-handed operation that could be done at any time. It’s the one aspect of that car where GM did their homework and it literally rivaled Mercedes in its simplicity and practicality. If GM can do it in the nineties, why can’t Ford do it now?
Until Ford can get to the same level of accomplishment with the Mustang’s convertible top operation, I’ll have to pass.
The Mustang is a Boomer nostalgia item. In a few years, every Boomer who ever lusted after one but couldn’t afford it when he was a kid, will have bought one. That will be the end of it.
What can the aftermarket do with the handling of these cars?
Mustangs can be inexpensively modified to perform to handling levels unrecognizable to critics of the car’s simple, straightforward platform. The Ford Racing Parts catalog is but one source to mine.
The recipe is simple: Mustangs need stiff springs up front and relatively soft springs out back, with highly-damped performance struts and shocks all around. The car’s ride quality is determined largely by the rear suspension. Saleen-spec Bilsteins do nicely in the damping role. Add camber/caster plates to dial out the serious factory understeer and add some on-center stability to the steering. Upgrade the rear axle lower control arms to reduce or eliminate sideways drift in the axle location in prior platform Mustangs that didn’t use a Panhard rod, preferably with robust units that use bearings, not urethane. Nah, the NVH gain isn’t what you fear it will be. This will also allow the current car’s Panhard-located stick axle to rotate more freely around its roll center, without flopping around. Replace the weak front suspension “sway bar” with a stiffer tubular unit mounted in polyurethane bushings. Consider upgrading the squishy rubber front control arm bushings with any of several stiffer alternatives. Adjust the steering rack location to match the new, slightly lowered ride height resulting from the new springs. And for that little extra, replace the Ford friction clutch limited slip differential with a Torsen. An upgrade to factory rubber wouldn’t hurt. If you have a convertible, welding in stronger tubular subframe connectors and jacking rails is worth the small weight penalty. If your car didn’t come with a strut tower brace…well, that’s a cheap and effective addition too.
There…a Mustang that can make disbelieving Porsche drivers wonder why they can’t lose that Pony in a canyon.
Read the many complimentary comments about the Bullitt’s and the Shelby GT500KR’s handling, and you’ll see Ford and Shelby went down this road to greater or lesser degrees. You can do it yourself (or have it done) for surprisingly little green and get even better results, depending on the specific mix of handling and NVH you prefer. Many Ford dealers will be happy to accommodate you.
I agree; get the 4.6L V8. The torque and power transform the car, and fuel efficiency with the stick can better a Subie STi or Mazda RX-8.
Phil
The Mustang will easily outlast the new Challanger and Camaro for two reasons:
1. Timing. Ford hit the sweet spot for the retro muscle revival when introducing the new Mustang. Chrysler and GM’s products will hit the market very late in the game during a $4/gal economic downturn. Automotive fashion have changed and small cars are now the “it” thing.
2. Price. Ford has always priced the Mustang be affordable to a wider range of customers. Both Chrysler and GM will find it hard to compete with their more expensive models. Also Ford has already managed to get their money back on their last major redesign and will find it much easier to compete in the ensuing price muscle car price war.
Everyone keeps trashing the V6 in this car, and I agree it is not a good engine but keep in mind this is the same 4.0L Ford uses in the Ranger. Really old, quite reliable, and very very cheap to produce… unlike the pricier more modern 4.6L aluminum block V8 in the GTs. If they used a more modern engine the cost would go way up. Plus, there’s plenty of torque and 0-60 runs are in the mid sixes with the coupe.
And this Mustang is much more than a boomer nostalgia item. Any car that looks good and goes real real fast at a low price is gonna have mass appeal; young and old. Simple.
Isn’t the mustang the way Ford always does things. You bring out a drop dead gorgous body with an obsolete drive train. The in line six’s of the first mustang were also not up to the job. If you can get the weight and size down, you can go to a high output four or six that will feel performance oriented. The six popper mustang is totally inferior to the new Taurus, which finally mates a strong six to six cogs in the autobox and some chassis improvements to perform well and use less gas than the mustang. It is not just keeping cost down as the taurus is priced starting at 20K. It is the inability to get the entire product right from the get go. Note, the new Taurus is a rehash of the failed 500 model. It is the ford 500 the way it should have been introduced three years ago. Will the Detroit gang ever get it right from the beginning?
The Mustang is a Boomer nostalgia item. In a few years, every Boomer who ever lusted after one but couldn’t afford it when he was a kid, will have bought one. That will be the end of it.
If that would be the case they’d sell about 3 of them each year by now…
Seeing as though it still sells quite decently while there is a new model on its way for next year I think the Mustang has proven it has a wider customer base than that.
Another reason that Ford offers the V-6 is because of insurance costs. It costs less to insure the V-6 version, which is a big deal for young drivers.
Supposedly this car will get either the 3.5 or 3.7 V-6 in the future.
People forget that while the V-8 models may claim all of the glory, it is the lowly six-cylinder models that make the Mustang viable. It has been that way since the very first one rolled off the assembly line in 1964.
Enthusiasts deride the base models as “secretary specials,” but those secretaries are why the Mustang keeps rolling along, while the more focused cars, such as the GTO, Barracuda/Challenger and Camaro/Firebird, have fallen by the wayside.
Judging by what I’ve seen of the upcoming Camaro and Challenger, I think that history may repeat itself…
If the V6 comes out of Cologne, Germany, wouldn’t that make it a really old, inefficient, and expensive engine?
The Ford Mustang is the quintessential “American” car. Although it may remain popular today in many ways it is (I hope) the last of a dying bread born out of “just good enough” philosophy of building cars.
Once you get past the questionable good looks of this car and scratch below the surface you find the Mustang is that chick that looks like a good bet at first but turns out to have bad breath, soiled undies, dirty fingernails, and an IQ of a house plant.
Unless you are simply a Mustang fan that is blindly willing to put up with a lot of shitty BS for the sake of a few burn outs and dounuts the first and last thought after a drive in one of these babies is; “what a crude POS!”
Once you remove the v8 from the equation you have NO car left whatsoever to talk about. Equiped with the v6 this car is best described as cheap and poorly build. 3 days in one last summer left the impression that Ford was building these things to go directly into the rental fleets.
Once you consider how crude the car is the price is NOT a bargin in any way. For $27,000 you get non-folding side mirrors, a fixed cheapo rod antenna, a non-locking gas filler door, interior speaker covers that are molded into the door panels, a antique truck engine, a live axle, etc, etc , etc.
This is parts bin car in which Ford used the cheapest and the worst junk they had lying around. I bet the the profit margin is quite good on these things. What that means is that Ford is still aiming for costumers that are NOT very savvy but implusive!
It is funny to read folks here talk about what Ford should do to make the Mustang better. You guys just do not get it! The whole point of this car is to be cheap and good looking! This car is NOT meant for folks that care about “quality”. This car is meant for dudes and chicks that buy and drink 64oz of super gulp corn syrup soda simply becasue they get more without ever giving a thought as to what they are getting more of.
psarhjinian : “The V6 Mustang is a good car. Fix the suspension up (I think there’s a factory package) and it’s as good as the GT for most people.”
I have done just that. Upgraded the suspension, brakes and wheels to GT levels (E-Bay is a great source). I have a 5 speed, get decent gas mileage (28 highway / 22 combined)—and according to Car and Driver from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds…this car is pretty quick folks.
BTW—there are MANY ways to upgrade the interior to acceptable levels—the aftermarket on these cars is unbelievable
Job1 for the 2010 Mustang is in early February next year. Just FYI. Your improvements are coming.
I’m not crazy about the 4.0L, the 3.5/3.7 should have gone in the base Mustang a long time ago.
That said, Ecoboost is a joke. That motor will be more expensive to make over the 4.6L and promises to destroy what everyone loves about a base Mustang: affordability, low maintenance and durability.
And nobody wants a top of the line Mustang with Ecoboost. The Mustang SVO was proof that you can’t class up this chassis and expect people to pay a premium for it.
I feel like pointing out that 210 net hp is better than a large percentage of past small-block V8 Mustangs. The fact that it’s out-muscled by 3.5 Altimas says as much about the Altima as the Mustang — does the world need 270-hp FWD family sedans? At least it’s not grievously underpowered like past four- and six-cylinder Mustangs.
My conflict about the Mustang is this: if I were willing to accept the pony car trade-offs, I would want V8 muscle to make up for it (at least, I would if regular unleaded were not closing aggressively on $5/gallon). The six-cylinder ‘Stang does not offend, but for the money, I’d rather have a tidier, lighter, four-cylinder coupe.
Unfortunately, with the Prelude, Celica, 240SX/Silvia, MX-6/Probe, and Integra/RSX dead, and the Eclipse transformed into even more of a bloated boulevardier than the Mustang, the options are pretty thin on the ground right now. If you don’t want a Civic coupe, a Scion tC, or a Cobalt SS, you’re pretty much SOL.
I’d be plenty happy with a GOOD four cylinder if they would build one and put it in the Mustang. Everybody is complianing about the V-6 and the car’s weight. A 1st gen CR-V weighs 3300 lbs and has a good 146HP four cylinder. It’s ain’t fast but has returned 25-26 the entire 160K miles we’ve driven it no matter what we do to it.
That has always been a complaint of mine since the mid-80s when I started caring about cars. The imports could get the same power out of their four cylinders as the domestics could get out of a V-6. I’d rather have that better four cylinder. Wait – I already said that…
I’ve seen — and had — my share of Mustangs in rental fleets, and I have to admit that while I am a “sensible shoes” kind of driver and car buyer 99% of the time, the thing managed to get a wide, stupid grin firmly planted on my face.
The look of the current generation Mustang really caught my eye, and it’s not boomer nostalgia I assert, because I’m not a boomer. The kind of parts-bin, cheap-and-cheerful engineering that goes into the base model really seems to be part of the fun, and as long as it does not result in horrid reliability, I’m actually willing to give it a pass. Cheap but durable is fine by me.
I also gather that there are rather more refined OEM versions of the Mustang out there, for those with the coin, and an aftermarket route to enhanced suspension and performance for those who want to go down that road. For those who just want to take the car out for a fun (but not too taxing) whack every now and again, while having an affordable daily commute and some semblance of fuel economy, I can really see the appeal here. If this were graded on a “how well does it fit its mission” scale (like the Renault/Dacia Logan was a few weeks ago), rather than an “absolute measure of car goodness” scale, I honestly think it deserves an extra star.
I also think that it would generate good niche sales in Europe if brought over, but the prevalence of narrow, twisty roads argues for an upgraded suspension and corresponding bump in sticker price. Still, with a venerable V6 and the ferocious tip-in described above (and experienced personally), it’s probably the kind of old-fashioned Americana that still has a silent following in Europe.
One final note: A 210 hp engine mated to a ~3500 pound car may be weak by the standards of (1) today and (2) the 1960s, but compares favorably to the things we all had to live with in the 70s, 80s and even early 90s. (The 1994 Lincoln Town Car, to pick a shocking example, mated a ~210 hp engine to a ~4050 pound car.) For the bargain-basement trim-line, in a world were oil-shock prices are returning once again, I see no shame in that.
The V6 Mustang is a good buy as a used car. You can pick up moderately used former rentals pretty cheap.
Robert Schwartz :
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
The Mustang is a Boomer nostalgia item. In a few years, every Boomer who ever lusted after one but couldn’t afford it when he was a kid, will have bought one. That will be the end of it.
You wouldn’t believe how many girls I know that love the Mustang. I mention good four-cylinder Japanese sports cars but they’ll hear nothing of it, they only care about the Mustang.
And they’re only eighteen years old.
I want one
I’m OK with the V6 though fuel mileage stinks
I want a V6 with Pony Package and the Warriors in Pink package
The Luigiian :
“You wouldn’t believe how many girls I know that love the Mustang. I mention good four-cylinder Japanese sports cars but they’ll hear nothing of it, they only care about the Mustang.
And they’re only eighteen years old.”
Well…your anecdotal observations are validated by research data as well. TRU (Teen Research Unlimited) in its 2008 omnibus study of all things teen—shows the Mustang as the most favored “attainable car” among teens (both girls and boys). The Mustang finished just ahead of the Civic, Accord, and Beetle
Well…your anecdotal observations are validated by research data as well. TRU (Teen Research Unlimited) in its 2008 omnibus study of all things teen—shows the Mustang as the most favored “attainable car” among teens (both girls and boys). The Mustang finished just ahead of the Civic, Accord, and Beetle…
Thank God for that. Perhaps the newest generation of drivers doesn’t buy the “Nip or Nothing” attitude that seems so pervasive with 25 to 40 year olds. Then again if I learned to drive on a Chevy Citation maybe I would feel that way, too. I have to add that while all the aftermarket support is great, how come some of the cheaper upgrades did not come from the factory?
For better or worse, the character of the six fits the character of the car.
And the Mustang will outlast the others because the price is lower and the styling isn’t cartoonish. Time after time GM makes the Camaro much swoopier than the competing Mustang, and finds that this narrows the market.
The current Mustang is virtually bulletproof. Owners have been reporting few repairs on TrueDelta’s survey.
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
As someone who once drove a Mustang with only 88 bhp, I would have killed to have 210. Of course that POS 1980 Fox-body Mustang was, what, a 1000 pounds lighter than today’s car.
As for the review of today’s Mustang, though I don’t normally put much importance into the quality of the interior, even I thought the thing reeked of cheapness. I hate the old-school typeface used for the gauges. And, for such a big car, that the cabin seemed no roomier than my Probe was very disappointing. I’m not expecting limo-class comfort, but a couple more inches of legroom would be dandy, at least for anyone with legs.
If Ford is listening, put in the 3.5 (under an aluminum hood), install IRS, and I can live with everything else.
My friends and I are all in our 20s.
I own a modern GTO, two of my other friends have modern GTOs, another three have new Mustang GTs, another friend with a Charger R/T and so fourth.
Those of you who think this car or muscle cars only appeal to boomers are way off on that assessment. People of all ages love these things and at the Mustang GT’s price all sorts of people can afford them. Look around on muscle car specific sites, a huge percentage of the active community are young people.
When you have a car that performs well, is affordable and styled like nothing else on the road you have a item people want. That’s why the Mustang sells so well.
The current model is starting to show it’s age so Ford is going to go through it with a comprehensive freshening including a new interior, new powertrains and styling tweaks.
It will likely retain it’s live axle. Look into a Ford Racing Suspension upgrade, it’s worth every penny and completely changes the character of the car.
“I would argue that the Saab 9³ convertible is the best looking 2+2 out there.”
I have to say nay to the 9-3 being the best looking convertible.
I will say that it is the best rounded convertible. Size. fuel economy, legroom.
But my mother owns the 2007 MINI Cooper S convertible, and I have to say. Near 30 mpg average. (28-29 per tank) and it is likely one of the best handling fwd cars on the road! and it’s composure is amazing! no squeaks, rattles or cheap plastic!
I hate those things under the hood. Hopefully I’ll never have to work on one.
Ford’s got a bunch of sadist designing stuff these days. Stripped down though; the motor is real nice:
http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3405/91mm20sohcml1.jpg
F them and the horse they rode in on concerning how these cars are off the assembly line. What a nightmare and hell on earth when it’s being worked on. When you take your car in to get the head gaskets replaced and they want $1500; I would too considering the likes of the car when stock. Nothing fun about it. Hypereutectic pistons? Worthless.
Twenty one years ago today I took delivery of my first new car, a Scarlet Red 1987 Mustang GT. I was 20. I wouldn’t buy one of these, I rented one in Hawaii and it was OK. The GT on the other hand…
rtz- wha? No one here has a frame of reference to what you’re saying.
In response to those bashing the 4.0L Cologne V6, folks remember this is the Entry Level Mustang we’re talking about here, starts at $19990, remember? No the 4.0L is not as advanced as the newer Duratecs but it ‘aint bad either’. The Manual 5 Speed runs 0-60MPH in 6.5 Seconds and the 5 Speed Auto runs it in 6.8 Seconds, how many other Entry level Cars at $20K can boast that? That’s right, none.
Also for those of you who didn’t know, the 4.0L V6 is bulletproof, comes from the factory with Forged connecting Rods, and responds well to aftermarket power upgrades-Superchargers can push 350HP with this Motor! So you see, the factory 210HP is not bad at all. Eventually Ford will push the 3.5L or 3.7L Duratecs into the Base Mustang but the Cologne 4.0L has it’s own merit.
For what it is, the V6 is durable and bulletproof (although agricultural sounding to some…myself included). I wouldn’t hesitate to buy one if the GT was somewhat out of my price range, but best believe, I’ve heard good things about supercharging these motors as they respond well.
That said, now that the new Challenger and Camaro are right around the corner, I can compare apples to apples.
The 4.0l is a great motor, even though it is considered old it’s much better than the larger V6 motors that Ford was selling previously. It has pulled our Explorers just fine, even with a trailer, through Utah/Idaho/Wyoming. Not overloaded of course, but still managed just fine. And does well in town too. No real need for a V8 in the Explorer. So, I’d imagine this V6 does nicely for the Mustang.
The Duratec would be a nice change though, maybe take a little weight off the front-end…that can do alot for balance and handling.
I think the Mustang is great, especially when you consider its price/performance ratio, and I agree that it’s not going anywhere. But I don’t understand people who buy a V6 with a slushbox. You’re spending a pretty penny on a new car; why half-ass it?
Though personally, I’d probably go for a MINI or Miata instead.
TOP GEAR on how to save gas:
The simple fact of the matter is this; To save fuel, all you need to do is think ahead. Way, way ahead.
– If you see the lights ahead are red, take your foot off the throttle immediately. If you wait and then use your brakes you are simply wasting the fuel you used to achieve a speed you didn’t need. Remember, a modern engine uses no fuel at all when itâs coasting in gear.
– If your car has cruise control, ignore it. Cruise control is a blunt instrument for Americans. Rely on something more sensitive: your foot. Speaking of which, don’t drive in big shoes. They take away the sensitivity you need.
– Think carefully about what electrical appliances you need. Even Terry Wogan takes a dibble of power from the engine. And that’s power which is costing you £1.18 a litre.
– Never use your heated rear window unless you can’t see a thing. It’s the same story with your headlights. And don’t use the air conditioning either. Switch it off and in a normal family saloon, your fuel consumption will drop by as much as 12 per cent. Thatâs a big, big saving.
Don’t use your headlight how about Day time running light.
BEAT, what does that have to do with the Mustang?
I agree with coasting to stop, however I disagree greatly with cruise control usage.
The computer does a better job at making minute throttle changes…especially with electronic throttle control like many newer cars have. People tend to accelerate and decelerate too much while driving and do not keep a consistent speed. Which then becomes a domino effect of others not being able to keep a consistent speed and using cruise control. Finally, we have more open interstates than in Britian.
HID and LED lights consume far less energy and are being equipped in more and more vehicles. My Mazda3 was one of the first compact cars to be equipped this way. Many DRL mechanisms are just high-beams powered at 30% of their maximum output. Still using energy. Having an LED DRL would be much better, and probably more visible.
Sorry, but TOP GEAR is far from being the end-all of automotive knowledge.
A friend of mine with a 2001 Cobra Mustang Convertible (what a sweet sounding engine that has) gets 31 MPG calculated when highway driving.
With that type of numbers why settle for a V6 in this, let alone muscle cars disappearing entirely. if made correctly.
Sorry I posted that because the Mustang is one of my beloved American car and to prove to top gear that CRUISE CONTROL is all about saving gas it is not about being blunt instrument for Americans.
It actually gets a LOT better with a relatively cheap upgrade for the V6 called the Pony package, adding a GT front sway bar and a rear bar, 17″ standard GT wheel and tire pkg, a new grille with fog lights that look better then the GT’s, and different dampers. Of the 30 V6 mustangs we stock, only 2 or 3 DON’T have the package, so its out there in force and not a hard-to-get option.
Also, If you order the premium trim package you can get the stitched dash and different arm rests bringing the interior way up. I’ve also owned 2 Miata(one supercharged no less) and an RX7TT, along with 9 Mustangs. The current GT can easily be modified to go well beyond 1G on the skidpad, its just the stock stuff is frumpy-dumpy, but Ford knows owners will change it no matter what you do. There isn’t a part on the car you can’t find at least 40 upgraded versions online.
besides the convertible this is a piece of crap. Come on here, we have a 4.0 liter v6 that only dishes out 210hp, and we had people writing bad reviews regarding the new Acura TSX above….The article said this Mustang packs a 4.0 210hp V6. They’re making is sound so good….hahaha….there’s I4 out there that packs more ponies…..
A V6 Mustang is like an Ipod nano, a cute toy for teenage girls but nothing a grown man should be seen with. On a side note I was just in those same Austin neighborhoods with a Charger RT, nothing but Nissan 3.5’s in the rearview(damn those things are popular down south). I didn’t miss having a matching retro interior one bit. MPG was about the same as this ‘stang.
Airhen:
With my own Jeep, I prefer to take the top off when I’m out in God’s country to enjoy the view under the sun and stars.
With gas prices at their current levels, divine intervention is required to keep a calm head each time the Jeep pulls up to a gas pump….
casper00 : “besides the convertible this is a piece of crap. Come on here, we have a 4.0 liter v6 that only dishes out 210hp, and we had people writing bad reviews regarding the new Acura TSX above….The article said this Mustang packs a 4.0 210hp V6. They’re making is sound so good….hahaha….there’s I4 out there that packs more ponies”
Apples and Oranges my friend. The TSX costs 50% more than the base Mustang ($20k vs. 30K)—not a fair comparison. Also—there is no car under $20K that packs more than 210 horses–the Mustang is alone.
Jeep Wranglers don’t get horrible mileage, about 18 average. Plus you wouldn’t typically drive them 100 miles at a time.
The biggest difference between the Mustang and the TSX is that the Mustang is beautiful, the TSX isn’t.
The Mustang is the best looking car that isn’t made by Italians.
umterp85- The Cobalt Supercharged and ION Redline came close. 205 HP They were lighter than the Mustang too. Prices are similar
HorsePower doesn’t tell the whole story either
The Mustang V6 has 210HP@5300/240Torque@3500
The Taurus has 260HP@6250/245Tq@4500
The Mustang might actually feel stronger.
Personally I’d like to see the base Mustang with the Australian I6 260HP/288torque plus it probably has a nicer sound than your typical V6
I am amazed at how horsepower crazy we’ve become when 210 hp is considered inadequate. When I was in high school, the 1987 Mustang GT convertible with the improved 5.0 enbgine was one of the hottest things going and in top spec had 225 hp and 300 lb-ft of torque and weighed the same as this new model.
I know that minivans these days come with 250 hp and cars have all gotten heavier, but come on, seriously, do you have that big of an inferiority complex?
As a base model, this is a lot better deal than the 85 hp 4-cylinder option you had instead of the 5.0 back then. Yuck.
I own an 05 convertible. Sure the 4.0 V6 has only 210 hp, but it has 245 ft. lbs of torque that peaks at only 3200 rpm. You can cruise around in these cars all day long at less than 3k rpm and be completely happy with the power and get good mileage too. If you are not happy with the power, you can always spend a few thousand (using the $$$ you saved from not getting the v8 + insurance $$$ saved) and get a smog legal supercharger (there are at least three) and make 350-400hp all day long. All of those Nissan 3.5l V6’s need to be rev’d a lot higher to reach peak torque and hp and don’t forget about the torque steer from their front wheel drive too.
I have always wanted a convertible. I rented one of these for a week’s vacation in Williamsburg, VA. I drove it from NY to VA. Last year I ended up with a rental Sebring. Sufficed to say, the Mustang made me want a convertible even more. Sebring, not so much.
As of now the plan is on trading in my 2006 TSX and ordering a 2009 Mustang GT convertible with a manual in February. Even though the TSX is paid for, something about the Mustang convertible makes me “want” car payments again (sort of).
I’m thinking silver on the outside and a red and black interior.
I think there is a big dillema on this car. If Ford fits it with a techy v6 or i4 to get better power, it would lose some of it’s character. Mustangs should all be v8s. In any case, I’d rather have the choice of a small and a big v8 engine, like a 3.5l v8 short stroke easy revving v8 or a MASSIVE 5.5L high torque one. Fuel consumption is completely dependant on what you do with your right foot, and a 3.5 well engineered v8 can give good mpg’s, and keep the escence of the car.
Look, I own a 4.0 Mustang and with a few simple engine mods, it hustles the road really nice. It has even embarrassed some V-8s out there. In reality there is no place to use 300-400hp out on the roads today. 200 plus HP will get you in all the trouble you need and you can believe that! The V-6 Mustang is the best of both worlds with a decent price,body style, and performance. That 4.0 is a rock solid engine and with a set of 4.10 rear end gears, you will scream off the red lights. What a great car! Ford did it right on this one! I know that most people love the body style and it’s sporty look. There are a million things you can do to this car because it’s so easy to modify the exterior as well as the interior and engine. Have Fun! I sure am.
Greetings,
I am an owner of a 2008 Vista Blue Ford Mustang V6 convertible with side white stripes. Sure, it is not necessarily the “most wanted” Mustang out there, but know this: people talk and drool over it!
I enjoy the car, sunny days and warm weather are scarces in Southern Ontario Canada and I plan to enjoy as many days with the top down as possible.
In four words: I love my car.
Long live the Mustang – any and all of them!
Here in Southern California, the V6 Mustang is Hertz’s bitch. Literally 85-90% of the Mustangs I see on the street have that little rental car barcode sticker on the left rear window.
It’s absolutely destroyed the brand, IMO. I’m considering a V8 Mustang as my next car, but the profusion of stripper V6s driven by sunburned tourists makes me cringe… Wonder if Ford has any concerns about this or if they’re happy with any sale they can get.
PS, love how it says “Mustang” on the side in case you forget what kind of car you’re driving…
Stripper Mustangs? The Mustang lineup has always had strippers built into it. They started out with a 170 C.I. six in addition to the 260 C.I. V-8. Even once they started producing the GTs with four speeds, 289 Hi-Po engines, limited slip rear-ends and a/c you could still get 200 C.I. six cylinders with 3-speed manual trannies and no options (my first car was a ’66 six/3 spd with no options).
No, I like the stripper Mustangs. I’d make them two in only two versions though. Some MPG getting Mustang combo with manual and auto tranny. Coupe, convertible and 2+2 coupe. They also need some sort of Hi-Po arrangement as well. A variation of the Honda EX and LX model divide. Limited options in each category. Let the dealer do the accessory installations.
At least Ford didn’t didn’t make a four-door version like Chrysler did with the Charger. VBG!