Many years ago, it became quite fashionable to refer to The Clash as “the only band that ever really mattered.” Chevrolet borrowed this evocative line for the introduction of the soft-top C5 Corvette, calling it “the only convertible that ever really mattered” in a two-page color-rag spread. Truth be told, though, those are both pretty tough cases to make. And you don’t have to be a Beatles-obsessed Boxster owner (as I am) to argue the contrary. It’s far easier to apply the phrase to the Mustang: the only ponycar that ever mattered. Consider the competition. Camaro, Challenger, Javelin . . . hell, Celica and 200SX. Some shone, some sucked, none have gone the forty-five-year distance. The Mustang was the first ponycar on the scene, the best ponycar available for much of its history, and the only one to not disappoint its fans with periodic disappearances. And now we have a new “new Mustang,” arriving just in time to spoil the Chevrolet Camaro’s tardy coming-out party.
The 2010 Ford Mustang’s exterior restyle visually trims the car. The design incorporates certain elements of the Giugiaro concept while retaining the previous roof stamping. The real news is inside. Ford’s been turning out some thoroughly decent interiors . . . lately. The Mustang is another hit in the parade, providing a tactile experience that feels a solid class above what’s found in the Challenger or Camaro. Even Infiniti and BMW “intenders” would be well-served to at least take a seat in the ‘Stang before making their final purchases. The Mustang’s tactility borders on the European.
The same is true, ironically, for the powertrain. The three-valve, 4.6-liter “mod motor” can’t match the Chevrolet or Dodge entries on displacement, torque, or power. But it has a rev-happy, broad-shouldered feel that’s immediately familiar to anyone who’s driven one of the smaller V-8s from Audi, BMW, or (whisper it) Porsche. Modern drivers raised on a diet of four-cylinder Hondas will find the light-flywheel Mustang far more to their liking than the strong but ultimately breathless HEMI or LS3 competition.
What a shame all that sweet-sounding power is fed through a crummy old cart axle, eh? There’s just one problem with that analysis: it’s very close to being completely wrong. Our Hocking Hills test loop revealed the big pony to be a competent broken-pavement runner. Yeah, it steps sideways on corner entrance under ABS and it steps way sideways when you apply the power under bumps. But the steering’s linear predictability makes catching the slide utterly trivial.
Here’s the drill: Get your braking done hard in a straight line. Let the tail wag its way home until it’s time to turn in, then use patience to dial the steering until you feel the outside sidewall start to slip. If you’re lined-up at this point, feed the power slowly past the clipping point. If you aren’t, boot the throttle as the clipping point appears level with the Mustang’s nose, and rotate past the midcorner for your exit.
You can trust this car. It will do what you ask it to, and nothing more. The mod-motor’s broad rev range is a massive help here, allowing you to hold gears to the exit without the upshift you’d need in an old “five-point-oh.”
Our test day featured temperatures well below freezing, with plenty of road salt to spoil the party. It was still possible to hustle the Mustang without reducing one’s life expectancy. Yes, you’d probably be faster in a Lancer Evolution. But it wouldn’t be nearly as much fun.
The revised Mustang is so good on side roads that one eager mainstream journalist who attended the media preview wrote an entire article praising the effectiveness of the limited-slip differential and “Track Pack” upgrades . . . on a car which didn’t have either. In fact, it was the same car we had as a tester, and I can tell you that although it didn’t have an LSD neither did it really need one.
I’d like to give this Mustang a five-star rating. It feels like a five-star car to me: solid, well-made, completely comfortable in its own skin. There’s just one problem, and it’s this: Ford’s built the ultimate ponycar around an engine which is seventy-five horsepower short of the competition. During the ninety-five percent of the car’s life in which the throttle isn’t flat to the floor, the Mustang satisfies in nearly any way one can imagine.
But late in a Saturday night stoplight-drag session, when the moon is full, the streets shine with neon reflection, and that sexy, slightly slutty girl in the halter top is watching, this cultured, tasteful, character-laden ponycar will have to yield to some Bowtie-mounted moron who actually refers to his car as “Bumblebee.” And that just ain’t right. Because this right here really is the only ponycar that has ever mattered.
These cars are usually more affordable than either the Camaro or Dodge cars. That money is spent on numerous engine upgrades, including a blower. At the end of the day the ‘Stang is still the one to beat.
Excellent review, Jack. Thoroughly enjoyed your description of what it’s like to drive the car. Surprised to hear it likened to the Germans–now I really want to drive one myself.
So does this render the new Camaro irrelevant?
On the reliability front, the previous Mustang has been requiring a low (2006 on) to moderate (2005) number of repairs based on responses to TrueDelta’s survey:
http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php?stage=pt&bd=Ford&mc=92&email=Guest
More participants needed for all models.
Great review. I’m looking forward to the convertible version.
Bully review, Jack.
Another review that makes me want to go out and test out the car for myself.
You’re 2 for 2 lately.
“…yield to some Bowtie-mounted moron who actually refers to his car as “Bumblebee.” And that just ain’t right.”
Ha! Not for the the reason you cited, but Bumblebee will ALWAYS be a Beetle. Screw GM’s Micheal Bay.
The styling is a definite improvement, but I don’t see anything to rave about regarding the interior.
I’d still have the Camaro, with a far superior engine and suspension.
I wonder what would have happened to the Mustang if they had stuck with the aluminum prototype Mustang I, which had a mid-mounted Taunus V4 and was a real 2-seater. Probably, it would have seen the same mass-market success as, say, the Fiero. Ford was much more interested in selling cars, not sports cars. There were way more teenagers than tweedy MG owners. The world has been a happier place as a result. Now, if Ford hadn’t lost their way with the awful Pinto Mustang II, which was like the TBird of the day in being a wannabe Continental…
@ John R: I’m right there with you! Bumblebee was a VDub Bug, and always will be in the minds of those of us that grew up with the original Transformers! Do you remember what the name was of the red one, though?
As for the Mustang, we have a 2009 and although it certainly has its shortcomings, it’s a nice car. It has predictable handling, is put together reasonably well (despite the imperfect interior), and in day to day driving is completely liveable. It’s pretty much a no compromise pony car. You can’t touch another RWD car for the price, and who want to drive a boring FWD Honda?
Somebody needs to do a Genesis Coupe review stat!
I am so torn!
Just a minor correction: all V8 mustangs have a clutch style limited slip differential. The press cars was probably just burned out; the clutch elements have a finite lifespan under heavy abuse. You then do a cheap/easy/greasy rebuild with GT500 parts and go again!
The Eco-Boost turbo V6 is going to be in the Mustang soon right? That will be exciting.
Looking forward to the Bullitt version, with a little more go.
The interior looks like an improvement. I’m looking forward to sitting in one at our regional auto show this weekend.
Exterior changes are so subtle that you’ll need to take a good look to tell the difference on the street. Or maybe the more pinched nose is more obvious in the metal. The revised tail-light shape is an easy giveaway, but I’m not sure I like the look.
Doesn’t the 370Z render all of these cars irrelevant?
the only one to not disappoint its fans with periodic disappearances.
I think we all would have been better off if it had disappeared during the Mustang II era.
I’m sure they’ve got the solid rear axle well sorted. But I’d still prefer an IRS that would not step out on bumps, and would have an improved ride.
Jack,
Thank you for pointing out that a properly sorted axle isn’t as much a hindrance as it may sound. I can say from personal experience that I am faster in a vehicle that I trust that is more predictable than one that I cannot because it is not as predictable. The close-minded assumption that an independent rear is infinitely superior in all things even or rough just burns my burgers. :)
Give yourself credit Jack..you’re actually making people who’d otherwise choose a Camaro (me) or Challenger have to at least take the Mustang for a spin BEFORE putting pen to paper on either of the other two.
Great review!
@Superbadd75
Cliff Jumper, I think.
In the last model, didn’t an intake and required chip crank up the power pretty well?
I guess the problem with mods is that, all things being equal, the guy with the bow tie is going to have intake/exhaust too.
More likely at the drag strip than the stoplight, maybe.
Wasn’t crazy about the Guigiaro design, and not sure I like this as much as the outgoing. Saw some early shots of possible redo’s and like them better, although they seemed to copy the Camaro. I’m a long time Mustang guy, but think the Camaro looks awesome (if a little huge).
Very good review, but I think we need a back to back. Could add the Hyundia and a 370 to the mix as well, although the Nissan is only a 2 seater.
Word on the street is that the 4.6l v8 is only going to be kept for the first year.
Rumored new engines include the return of the 5.0 in the form of a 5.0l DOHC v8. I believe this engine is called coyote and built off the BOSS/HURRICANE architecture. Rumors are citing somewhere around 400hp. Furthermore they are saying the all-aluminum block will be lighter too.
I was really looking forward to the camaro, but the reviews haven’t been all that. Count me in the Mustang camp
The Camaro is such a better car. The 2010 Mustang is a horrible re-skin. A slightly changed exterior with the same anemic powertrain, and suspension underneath.
For $22K you can get a 210 HP Mustang with ox cart suspension, or a 300+ HP Camaro with modern suspension.
Hmmm…………..
Is the back seat any bigger?
@ superbadd75
Cliffjumper
@superbadd75
Yeah, it’s Cliffjumper. Allegedly, Cliffjumper was a 924 turbo. Not to be confused with Jazz, who was a 935 turbo. VAG…err…PAG had Transformers all wrapped up.
For $22K you can get a 210 HP Mustang with ox cart suspension, or a 300+ HP Camaro with modern suspension.
That is a problem. I can live with the suspension, because it’s arguably a feature and serves a purpose, but that engine is a waste. Ford really needs to put the either a blown four or a more modern six into this car. Stat.
It’s like the RX-8’s dilemma, but in reverse: you can excuse the RX-8’s power deficit because of it’s brilliant chassis, but as it ages that excuse weakens. With the Mustang, you could excuse the chassis because it was cheap and powerful, but as the engine ages, it’s harder to excuse.
Ach – the 370Z is a very different car to the Mustang. It is a much more focused sports car but also has all of compromises that come with such a performance design including a claustrophobic interior, poor visibility, intrusive road noise and not really enough trunk space for much more than one small piece of luggage.
Nothing wrong with that if that is what you’re looking for but that was never the intention of the Mustang. Unlike the 370Z, the Mustang was always designed to be enjoyed on the road more than on the track.
For $22K you can get a 210 HP Mustang with ox cart suspension, or a 300+ HP Camaro with modern suspension.
The Camaro has a Playskool interior. Seriously.
I don’t see lots of people cross shopping the three. I think most folks are either Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger people.
And don’t hate on the Mustang II. Looking back, sure, it makes us puke. But as they planned for ’74, the ’71 Mustang had grown fat and weak and increasingly unpopular. They knew from research there wasn’t much of an immediate future for ‘pony cars’, but rather people wanted ‘personal luxury’ cars. Deciding to trim up the model, they struck gold when the car was introduced right as the oil taps were shut off.
Finally, keep in mind the Mustang II made the ’79 Fox-bodied Mustang look positively brilliant.
carguy:
A better riding IRS would help enjoyment on the road. The supposed excuse for the solid rear axle is that drag racers wanted it.
But late in a Saturday night stoplight-drag session, when the moon is full, the streets shine with neon reflection, and that sexy, slightly slutty girl in the halter top is watching, this cultured, tasteful, character-laden ponycar will have to yield to some Bowtie-mounted moron who actually refers to his car as “Bumblebee.”
Does this really happen? I mean, poetic license and all, sure, but my best luck was after rides home in a taxi cab.
I’m glad to see Ford taking the incremental change approach to heart and it seems like the rear suspension is less and less of an issue for handling now.
Ach :
April 1st, 2009 at 11:48 am
Doesn’t the 370Z render all of these cars irrelevant?
No, the Mustang is much more well rounded and easier to live with. Not to mention much cheaper.
i love these cars. I am also plenty afraid of mileage in the teens. That was one of my complaints about this car. The other was the wal-mart interior. One down, one to go.
About the camaro and chalenger: No ragtop, or even a cool as ice glass roof.
About the new Z car: Beautiful rocket. The ragtop looks great. However, no back seat, little cargo room. I actually use my car as daily transportation. A modicum of utility is necessary.
About FWD hondas: these care are fun to drive! The SI’s are great, so is the Fit. Shoppers who like mustangs should drive one of them – totally different driving experience, but grins all over the place. There’s a reason all the 20 somethings like them.
But I agree that the mustang is the only one that matters. They are stunning.
I don’t know how you could choose the Genesis Coupe’s bland, melted Tiburon-like looks over a Mustang.
If Ford would give the Mustang V6 the 255-270hp it deserves there would be plenty of room for a larger, more powerful V8. I know the current V6 is cheap, but it is also archaic and has terrible power output. Time for something more modern that will allow the GT to move up in power.
Jack, Great review. I can officially stop pretending I’m “not really a Mustang guy.” You see, I went from a Supra to an ’08 GT on a whim (and a really good price) thinking it’d be just OK — my only previous Mustang experiences were from the late 80’s, which were ergonomic and handling nightmares. I’ve ended up secretly loving my ’08. It’s solid, 100% trouble-free, returns 24mpg in mixed driving and a hoot to drive without much compromise — far better than I imagined. It’s even decent in the snow, I kid you not! Sitting in 2010’s they seem to have fixed the small gripes I do have (armrest, so-so interior materials.) Can’t wait to get one. . .
I dunno, the solid rear axle sounds well-sorted and seriously, I prefer at least an element of skittishness. Keeps you alert and makes you feel like you are working at it.
In terms of styling, I think the Mustang has one advantage and that it seems to look good in all the pictures I have seen. I saw a silver Camaro today and it was a little underwhelming.
The power deficit is a problem though, not so much for me but considering it’s potent competition.
down on power? don’t worry, there will be bolt on parts a plenty.
Just a heads-up, guys; I just drove the 2010 Shelby Mustang today. Driving impressions are embargoed until Monday, but I think it’s not stretching the bounds of propriety to say: hold on to your hats.
Live axles are cheap, and apparently this one works well enough. If it had a more sophisticated suspension, the car would either be more expensive, or be decontented in some other department. Sure, the Camaro is new and exciting, with modern engines and suspension, but people seem to like the Mustang, and Ford makes money on them. I don’t claim any knowledge of GM’s finances, but I rather doubt they’ll make any money on the Camaro before it gets cut.
So does this mean we can expect a 5 star rating when Ford swaps in a better v8 next year?
BTW I love all the schmucks out there bitchin about the LRA despite all 2010 Mustang reviews claiming it’s not bad and the Mustangs success in road course racing.
Good review overall and I expect that once again the Mustang will be the last pony rolling in a couple of years.
If you have never driven a Mustang, I AM SORRY, you do not know what you have missed. Young, old, boys, girls, everyone/anyone will wave, give you a thumbs up, or just look. The V6 is for the posers, kids going to school, my wife you know what I mean. Now independent rear suspension is for the tuners and ricers, just gimme HP, gimme a straight road and gimme a V8 with 300+ HP, you can bolt, chip it do what ever you want or like me just do NOTHING, the car is fast enough and handles well enough to cruise around with the top down just obey the posted traffic laws (wink). My brother has a 65 Mustang 289 Convertible, I have 1995 5.0 GT Convertible and a 2005 GT Convertible, cannot wait to get the 2010’s in our showroom in April, might have to add another to the stables. Yes we sell Ford’s so we are biased, but hey we gotta make a living. It is the family business.
The 2010 looks to have a nicer interior than the 2008-2009, but I don’t like the exterior styling as much. I still like it better than the Camaro.
The Mustang is still not really my cuppa, but it’s getting there.
The live axle versus IRS is in some ways as much a psychological issue as a technical one. A well-located live axle isn’t that inferior to a mediocre IRS in handling, and it does have certain advantages — you can design in more anti-squat with a rigid axle. There was a reason why companies like Alfa and Rover stuck with the live axle, rather than going for swing axles or semi-trailing arms (which allow camber changes as the wheel moves through its travel, and can have problems with jacking). You have some sacrifice in ride, because of the unsprung weight, but the difference probably isn’t as vast as it might seem on paper.
I’m a little surprised they went with a Panhard rod, rather than a Watt’s linkage. Panhard rods can cause the kind of odd motions on bumpy surfaces that Jack describes, because the rod causes the axle to transcribe an arc as the wheels move through their travel. It can cause binding and geometry shifts in bumpy corners.
@argentla: I had a Watts-link mount plate snap off a few years ago on a Lotus Seven clone. Exciting, to say the least. :)
Ole Stang:
The V6 is for the posers, kids going to school, my wife you know what I mean.
My wife has a ’95 Cobra, and wouldn’t even think of buying a V6 (or an auto for that matter). She would love a GT500, but will probably have to “settle” for one of the new Mustang GTs within the next few years.
The Mustang was the first ponycar on the scene
Despite being massarced sales-wise, the Plymouth Barracuda did start selling 2 weeks before the Mustang back in 1964.
Today is the 45th anniversary of the ‘Cuda, actually. It came out April 1st, 1964.
P71_CrownVic
You can’t get a base Camaro for $22k, plus the interior of the base model is horribly cheap feeling. You have to step up to the high end model to get the interior that’s only tollerable.
A better riding IRS would help enjoyment on the road. The supposed excuse for the solid rear axle is that drag racers wanted it.
That’s true, I worked on the S197 Program when the decision was made to ditch IRS for the Live Axle.
I can’t wait until people start drag racing the Camaros and trashing those shitty Mando gear sets. I can see Live Axle Retro Fit Kits being good business on the Camaro.
Lumbergh21
Sorry than your wife is a real WOMAN, keep her!
Hope she lets you drive it! Sorry to all the Ladies, you get the idea. the “muscle cars” are about cruising, value and above all FUN. Most Mustang lovers get it, the detractors can but something else, entil you drive one for a week, heh, don’t knock it, have fun guys, you just might cracka smile. Sorry for the commercial, life is too short, everyone should have a few toys!
While I’m glad that Ford addressed many of the shortcomings of the previous generation (shortcomings that stopped me from buying one), I cannot fathom why anyone would purchase a 2010 when they could wait a year and get significantly more hp for their money.
Lumbergh – You and your wife should look around local Ford dealers to see if there are any leftover Bullits. We have an ’08 Bullit (in highland green, was there ever before such a perfect color for a car…) on out lot that I am incredibly surprised has remained unsold given the amount of cash on the hood currently. Yes, it wouldn’t be the latest and greatest, but it is still a damn fine car and would hold her over until the new engines come out for the new body style and have a chance to get some discounts on them.
Regarding the ’10s – We have a lot of people asking about them, and I know they will be big sellers when they come in (nice thing about living where it has never snowed is that a RWD V8 ponycar is a viable daily driver). The 2010 Ford model blitz is getting lots of press, but us at the dealerships are starved for new cars. We had a single 2010 Fusion Hybrid show up and it sold the day it was backed off the truck. Today I had two people drive up to look for 2010 Mustangs, and a third who was looking for a Taurus SHO. I just hope the excitement lasts until there is actual inventory on the lots.
Why the Genesis?
I test drove one. It just feels great. The Mustang is insanely fun in some respects, but the 09 I test drove didn’t feel to special otherwise. The Genesis just feels great in all respects, from cornering to acceleration.
As far as the looks go, have you seen a 4 or 5 year old Mustang? They always look dated and shopworn even when they are in good condition. There’s something about the styling that just does not age well at all even though (perhaps because) it looks so great when its new. I’m hoping the blandish (and not so bland in person) looks of the Genesis won’t age so badly. Also, its very non-Stangness is kind of a plus because the Mustang has so many positive and negative emotions attached to it, while the Genesis would fall a bit under the radar. I just want a powerful and comfortable daily driver, I don’t especially want to impress and/or cause speculation about the size of my junk.
Also, paddle shifters.
The V6 is for the posers, kids going to school, my wife you know what I mean. … Yes we sell Ford’s …
Ouch! Guess when I buy my V6 convertible I’ll go to the dealer in the next town down the freeway, huh? But seriously, I won’t be buying the V6 until they get rid of the (Ranger truck) 4.0 and replace it with the 3.5 or 3.7 EcoBoost.
Jack,
The Mustang was not the first ponycar. I believe the Barracuda was available on April 1, 1964 and the Mustang went on sale two weeks later.
# Jack Baruth :
April 1st, 2009 at 7:26 pm
@argentla: I had a Watts-link mount plate snap off a few years ago on a Lotus Seven clone. Exciting, to say the least. :)
I once went around a corner in a Volvo 142 and the panhard rod bracket broke away from the unit body due to rust. The trailing arms were sturdy enough to avoid complete disaster but the rear end wiggled as I drove home. I got out the torches, some 1/8″ scrap steel, brazed it to tack the pieces back together and then used coat hangers as welding rod to gtive it some strength.
John R :
Ha! Not for the the reason you cited, but Bumblebee will ALWAYS be a Beetle. Screw GM’s Micheal Bay
So True, just as Optimus Prime will always be a 80s COE rather than a Pete 379 Pimpride.
@CommanderFish and Ronnie:
Gentlemen, you are absolutely correct and I apologize for making that mistake. Definitely a glossing-over on my part; of course the Barracuda arrived first.
I could argue the point that the Barracuda didn’t quite deserve the ponycar tag, but let’s be honest: I plumb forgot about the timing.
Even if the Barracuda was on the market first by a couple of weeks, there’s a reason ponycars are called ponycars, not fishycars.
This old dinosaur with an old cart axle.
Who wants it?
Who needs it?
Noone on this side of the pond.
Reviews like this one are the reason I read this site. Very nice job.
I’ve never been a Mustang guy, but the 2010 seems to be really top-notch in almost every way. Looks great too.
Not to mention the fact that the 1st gen Cuda was butt ugly (and I am a mopar guy) and the most powerful engine in year of launch was a 273 with a meager 180hp.
@ Buckshot: I was in London this past week. Amazed to see a street parked left hand drive 08 Mustang there. I guess at least one person wants it. I took pics of it because it was so funny to see it there. As for the ox-cart – every review you read of the car says it is well sorted. I haven’t driven it myself, but wouldn’t speak on it until I had.
“…the most powerful engine in year of launch was a 273 with a meager 180hp.” Yep, if you wanted big-block performance you still had to go to the B- or C-body car.
Saw a new orange Challenger the other day. The proportions are off…too tall a beltline. 70 Challengers and new Mustangs both look better to me.
P71_CrownVic :
April 1st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The Camaro is such a better car. The 2010 Mustang is a horrible re-skin. A slightly changed exterior with the same anemic powertrain, and suspension underneath.
For $22K you can get a 210 HP Mustang with ox cart suspension, or a 300+ HP Camaro with modern suspension.
Hmmm…………..
So I take it you have driven both?
In the article, Jakc mentions other pony cars: Consider the competition. Camaro, Challenger, Javelin . . . hell, Celica and 200SX…200SX??? Obviously a typo; he meant 240SX. The 200SX was a Sentra.
I’ve owned a ’95 Mustang Cobra w/ hardtop convertible now for 6 years. In this time I have driven several cars of its “competition” and have found all of them lacking. Those of you who point out the power difference, I will tell you that any Camaro guy I’ve met over the years, drools over my 9″ rear end with locking rear differential coupled with a stroked 302 small block.
Starting in the ’80s, Ford knew that they couldn’t do big block power anymore and still maintain fuel economy and powertrain longevity. The first HO 5.0Ls were rated at 225 HP, not much except you actually got nearly all that HP at the rear wheels, unlike the competition. Add to that the massive amounts of torque and the Mustang was deceptively quick off the line, where the majority of races at the stoplight are won.
I can’t wait for the blown six and the new 5.0L to be available. Imagine being able to sing, “Rollin’, in my 5-point-Oh”, again.
Loser: So I take it you’ve driven both ?
Of course not—the author of this comment cannot think of one good think Ford has done. Clearly, Ford is not perfect—-but Mulally continues to do much more good than bad….and according to Jack’s review—the 2010 Mustang is one of the good things.
I look forward to driving one when they get to my dealer in a few weeks !
I’ll take the V6, be a poser and save the $5K-$8K
Because you really need a more powerful car to rear end the guy in front of you even harder.
I could not agree more davey49.
I enjoy my 2005 Mustang V6 with 210 horses and 240lbs of torque thrown against rear wheels with a manual—if thats makes me a poser—so be it.
All I know is the cars is just as fast as my ’89 Mustang 5.0…and saved me thousands of dollars (compared to the GT) that I have thrown into brake, suspension, wheel, and interior mods.
you car guys need to do your homework. The Clash were always “The only band that matters.” Never past tense.
Guys, guys…
Neither the ‘Cuda nor the Mustang are the first pony cars.
The first pony car went on sale in late 1963 – a half a year before the Barracuda. It was…
Pontiac GTO.
A 389 with a 6-pack stuffed in a small car. Brought to you by the very man who, decades later, would design, release, and ultimately fail at making, the Back to the Future car, DMC-12.
alex_rashev
wasnt the GTO a muscle car rather then a pony car?
If I had something cool, I’d listen to ‘Rumble’ by Link Wray. But coming from my boring daily driver, well, I’d just feel silly.
@higheriq: This will reveal how old I am, but the 200SX is sure as hell not a Sentra. At least not until the bitter end :) There were three generations of rear-wheel-drive 200SXes. My first car was a two-tone silver-and-grey 1983 200SX liftback five-speed, a car which at the time struck me as possibly the coolest vehicle ever made.
The first-gen 200SX was a Celica-alike; the second-gen, which I had, was a sharply-styled wedge; the third-gen was a hidden-headlight car available with a turbo and later, a VG30 (I think) six-cylinder.
The fourth-gen 200SX because the 240SX, leaving the 200SX name open for use on a two-door Sentra.
@punkviper: You’re talking to a guy who listens to the Pat Metheny Group on a daily basis. If the Clash hadn’t been on MTV I’d have never heard of ’em. :)
alex_rashev :
The first pony car went on sale in late 1963 – a half a year before the Barracuda. It was… Pontiac GTO.
Nah, not buying. Not the ‘Cuda angle, either. Ponycar and sedan types don’t cross-shop, despite the arguable overratedness of the former and the proliferation of highly entertaining examples of the latter.
@higheriq: I remember the 200SX fondly. My uncle had one when I was much younger and it was a beauty. Back then, your choices of a Japanese “pony” car were pretty good; 280ZX turbos, Celica Turbo Supras, and the Honda Prelude , which with its four banger really didn’t qualify and resembled a lump of cheese that evolved into a car. However, I would like to point out that your car was technically still a Datsun. My ’86 300ZX 2+2 still had a Datsun tag on it next to the much larger Nissan logo.
The GTO is technically not a Pony car, but a muscle car. It did begin the HP wars and opened the door for low budget sleepers with huge displacement. As I understand it, a Pony car is defined as a highly stylized coupe that in its lesser form, is bought primarily for its looks and fits a “secretary’s budget”. Low power ratings, high mileage and low maintenance was key selling points. In higher forms, thanks to Carrol Shelby, it becomes a street racer with enough mods to take it from its original form. The GTO was in essence, a Tempist with a large engine and was never considered a Pony car.
And to all, the Clash was the only band that mattered, after the Pistols, before the Smiths and Dinosaur Jr.
@dolorean
Do like your taste in music!
But this review really got me thinking. Living down here I’ll never be able to buy any of these dream machines but…
I loved the Challenger’s design. Thought nothing could beat it. But the interior…
The Mustang has got the interior bit down so…
The Camaro. Never been a GM guy. To me it’s ugly. So…
I’d get the Challenger (in orange no less, yes call me weird) and call it a day (though I’d always have lingering second thoughts that I shouldva got that Stang!!).
people who want a mustang only want a mustang
to me this comes down to a few pertinent facts
challenger = 4,000lb
camaro = 3,750lb
mustang = 3,550lb
clearly these cars show where their roots come from… the challenger is all mercedes benz with the weight and footbrake
the camaro is all VE commodore with the Alloytec v6 and LS3
the mustang is all mustang… live axle and all
i wonder about this all new 5.0 litre DOHC v8… is it a destroked 5.4 litre V8 like in the Australian Falcon?
be that as it may I think the track pack mustang is a wonderful thing… they need to make the ‘new’ Bullitt in the dark green again
i wonder about this all new 5.0 litre DOHC v8… is it a destroked 5.4 litre V8 like in the Australian Falcon?
I assume it’s the same 5.0L DOHC engine you have been able to buy from Ford Racing for a couple years now. That engine is a bored 4.6 block.
http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=6787
Although it is almost all rumors at this point, I believe the upcoming 5.0 (if it does debut) will be an all new design, hopefully a DOHC, 4 valve per cylinder, all aluminum block and heads, design. At the same time, I am hopeful that the 5.4 remains for Shelby and other high performance duty, as that engine has tons of headroom (making over 700hp easily in certain Shelby applications) while remaining durable and relatively inexpensive (at least when compared to European V8s of similar output).
Right now my favorite thing on all the new pony cars are the LS Camaro’s retro look steel wheels.
i actually checked out the new chevy site on your recommendation and you are right… the basic Camaro LS with the steel wheels is the best looking new Camaro.
The body is less fussy and the chrome ring black steels look awesome.
Too bad they do not give you the LS3 option because that would be massively good. A basic V8 coupe without all the frills you don’t need in a pony car.
Quote: Ach :
April 1st, 2009 at 11:48 am
Doesn’t the 370Z render all of these cars irrelevant?
Your kidding surely. Not only is the 370 ugly as sin, it’s interior is even smaller and suffers from rock hard “sitting on stone slab” seats, it has a V6 that sounds like a V6 even it is has good performance and it’s quite pricey to boot. That and Nissan’s less than steller reliability make this a limited taste car for the ricer sports car driver that will never buy an American car.
Quote: jerseydevil :
April 1st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
i love these cars. I am also plenty afraid of mileage in the teens. That was one of my complaints about this car. The other was the wal-mart interior. One down, one to go.
About the camaro and chalenger: No ragtop, or even a cool as ice glass roof.
About the new Z car: Beautiful rocket. The ragtop looks great. However, no back seat, little cargo room. I actually use my car as daily transportation. A modicum of utility is necessary.
About FWD hondas: these care are fun to drive! The SI’s are great, so is the Fit. Shoppers who like mustangs should drive one of them – totally different driving experience, but grins all over the place. There’s a reason all the 20 somethings like them.
But I agree that the mustang is the only one that matters. They are stunning.
The best place for Honda Fits is second place in just about any race they get it. It is pretty sad when FWD family cars and minivans can beat them in a drag race. Where is the fun I have to ask?
“The best place for Honda Fits is second place in just about any race they get it. It is pretty sad when FWD family cars and minivans can beat them in a drag race. Where is the fun I have to ask?”
Because drag racing is important(and legal?) somehow?
Only speed= fun?
How old are you?
About FWD hondas: these care are fun to drive! The SI’s are great, so is the Fit.
The only decent Honda I’ve driven was the last model Prelude Si with the four wheel steer. Sweet ride. Other than that, Honda’s to me are like driving an empty Pepsi can around, especially the Fit (was the Honda Spasm or Seizure already taken??). For Japanese cars, give me a Mazda. Love the new Miata – just wish I could fit my tall ass in one comfortably – and the Mazdaspeed line.
Back to subject. There’s a lot of balloon juice going round bout Ford’s use of the “ox-cart” rear axle vs. IRS. Having a Mustang for years now, I have to say I like the ox-cart axle. Yeah you have to put up with a little axle hop and the handling suffers some (helps if you change out the lower control arms and replace the rubber bushings with urethane). However, my little Cobra gets 98% of its horsepower and nearly all of its torque to the rear wheels because of the solid rear. Also, a Stang can’t be beat for straight line launches, again for what it was originally intended to do.
THANK YOU!!! This review is excellent. I am so tired of hearing about how the Mustang needs IRS. First off, automotive journalists are obsessed with handling, as if that were the sole reason anyone would purchase a car. Its great, dont get me wrong, but we dont always push our cars to their g-limits in corners, not even our performance cars. And second, the car does handle great even with the solid axle. It puts more power to the ground, and still handles great. Ford has shown great leadership in sticking with the solid axle despite the whine of the idiot never-smart-enough-to-be-an-engineer-so-I-became-a-journalist throngs.
You know, there is another car out there that has a major flaw in design, its called a Porsche 911. What idiot puts an engine in the rear? Yet, with proper refining, the thing works great. That is what we are seeing in the mustang, the refinement of flawed design that does, in the end, produce a great car.
The HP thing is moot. Chevy has 100 more horses, AT THE CRANK, yet looses many of them through the craptastic IRS they were peer pressured into designing. And then, the camaro is 500 pounds more than the mustang, so… its something of a wash. The Camaro is a bit faster stock, but thats what the aftermarket is for. And when the new 5.0 comes out, even this will no longer be an issue.
For a review on the Hyundai Genesis coupe with the RS3800 306 horsepower V6 vs the 2010 Mustang GT I beleive motortrend has a full comparison and the Mustang destroys it by outhandling it in every category and being at least a half a second in the quarter mile and 0-60. For 2grand more you can get the stang and roast the hyundai. yeah people will always modify, but when it comes to horsepower there’s no replacement for displacement.
2010 Ford vs Chevy. I remember growing up in the 60’S people would fight over which was better. The tee shirt business made a bundle sell shirts bad mouthing the other brand. will the debate still be gong 10 years from now?