TTAC writer Samir Syed was on the lamb last night, cooked by yours truly. To honor the dead sheep’s spirit, Sam brought by a rented Ford Mustang GT. For some reason, I never got ’round to driving Ford’s latest Pony Car, what with the world’s largest bankruptcy looming on the editorial horizon and my step-daughter’s after-school activities ending for the term. Anyway, the car in which I was about to go roaming in the gloaming embodied its designers’ desire to re-infuse the ’Stang with some understated classicism—while attempting to add a bit of visual drama (swage much?). Other than a hideously overwrought rear, there’s nothing particularly wrong with the result. Not to put fine a point on it (so to speak), the new Mustang doesn’t give me wood. Still, personal fertility and automotive blue pill issues aside, there are plenty of reasons to be cheerful.
The new Mustang’s new interior is pleasant enough. If that sounds like I’m damning the ’Stang with faint praise, it’s because I am. The Mustang’s cockpit is an excellent example a car cabin where pleasing shapes and ergonomic excellence try their level best to hide the fact that Polly Pocket’s Playhouse is fashioned from finer stuff. Pushing and prodding the Mustang’s IP, grabbing a shifter whose solidity is beyond reproach (and not in a good way), it was not the last time I was left thinking, well, at the right price, I wouldn’t complain. Much.
Right off the bat, the ’Stang lacks the one thing that renders any critical judgment moot: the burble. It’s what made Christine evil. It’s what made the last gen M5 Bavarian crack. It’s what entices you out of the office and onto the road. Not here. Sure, poke the Mustang’s 4.6-liter V8 with a stick (or better yet, the gas pedal), and the Ford powerplant growls soon enough. In fact, too soon. Like a V8-engined AMG product, the Mustang roars at the slightest provocation, a couple of beats before the car can pick up its skirts and run. The new Mustang only sounds like it’s fully realized at full chat. And how often is that going to happen?
Hopefully, not often. I say this knowing that there are those of you who will enjoy caning the new Mustang GT for the same reason I wouldn’t recommend it: the car is a handful. By that I mean, the new Mustang wants to jump sideways. An experienced driver can feel it even at slow speeds: the live rear axle’s disinclination to keep all four wheels on the ground at the same time, all the time. Cane the Mustang at speed over a badly broken surface and you’re pavement surfing; sawing at the wheel has about as much impact on your direction as your choice of interior lighting color. Rendezvous with a large bump mid-corner and it’s like country music line dancing—only you’re hopping towards objects that can kill you dead.
Real men and experienced Mustang GT drivers know the drill: sit it out. When it’s over, recover your confidence by applying copious quantities of horse power in more grip-friendly situations. Short of doing the right thing—fitting the pony car with an independent rear suspension—Ford’s engineers have done a good thing. The new Mustang GT feels significantly stiffer and more predictable (i.e., better at not scaring the shit out of me) than the old one. It’s also better built. More comfortable. Slightly better looking. But taken as whole, I found the new Mustang GT a distinctly underwhelming experience.
Don’t get me wrong: the new Mustang GT does exactly what it should do. It’s an authentic continuation of a popular model that delivers significant bang-for-the-buck. Owners of the previous generation will make the switch to the new car and revel in what Ford under CEO Alan Mulally has wrought. And now that the Dodge Challenger and Chevrolet Camaro are being built (or not) by bankrupt companies, the way is clear for the Mustang to continue and extend its reign as the last muscle car standing. And yet . . .
Ford seems hell bent on being a jack of all trades, master of none. The new Mustang GT reminds of nothing so much as the Honda Accord coupe: a car that does everything you expect it to do without ever doing anything that makes you really want it. Driving around in the GT, I can almost hear Ford engineers ticking off boxes on a muscle car check list. What Ford in general and the Mustang GT in specific need is a gotta-have-it killer app. It could’ve been the interior, or the engine sound, or the handling, or a paddle shift transmission system or something. Something that would appeal to the Mustang GT’s driver’s nether regions. As it is, the Mustang GT’s a hit without a hook.
On the lamb? Is that legal in your state?
Methinks you mean “on the lam”. One of the disappointing things about web journalism is that, well, anyone can be a writer regardless of their command of the language.
Literary gaffs aside, I do enjoy the site.
KnowItAll
It’s a pun. A joke. An intentional mistake. [NB: In the UK, they say “Are you on the red or the white?” referring to wine consumption.]
Of course, you knew that, right?
Puns are all well and good, Bob. I guess I just don’t get this one. Sorry to hear about the ‘Stang. I had high hopes.
2009? Does anyone really care about the 2009 Mustang when I have had my 2010 ordered in Feb and if not for being in Iraq, it’d be at my home already?
Puns are all well and good, Bob. I guess I just don’t get this one.
On the lamb, as in he was eating lamb. Not on the run.
Why does it say 2010 when the pic is of a 2009?
This has been Ford’s SOP forever. Introduce the current base level of excitement and build intermediate changes over the next 4 years before the next model makeover. When was the last time that Mustang was released with all of the “What If’s” filled in? You have aftermarket power houses waiting in the wings to offer their appropriate conversions and options, allowing Ford to continue to provide base model pricing, while sponsoring Shelby, Roush and Steeda at the showroom level. It’s worked for over 45 years, why quit now. Many mustang owners like the predictability of the SRA, and this is one of the key product enhancements between recent Cobra releases vs any other Mustang. All said and done, I’ll keep my Mustangs and continue to enjoy the reliability and fun they provide.
Million Dollar Query: Is the interior (a) a little better, (b) same; (c) worse; or (d) a lot better than the previous generation? I went and looked at a 09 GT convertible and was very disappointed by the interior.
Also, I understand it is still stuck with a five speed. Probably better for performance but hurts fuel economy not to have an extra gear.
Yeah, small problem, that’s not a 2010.
The farago pun is often a mid-atlantic creature best understood with a foot in both camps. I take the position that if I don’t ‘get’ his word-play it’s my lack of cryptic cognition. Having grown up in the UK I fare better than most in the ‘getting it’ stakes – but barely having set foot in Blighty for 40 years I still appreciate the ‘as the Brits say’ heads up.
Does anyone really care about the Mustang anymore? I’ve driven a couple, a 6 cyl. mush-mobile and the 1st gen. Bullitt which I loved – for an afternoon.
The whole muscle-car thing is faintly embarrassing, based as it is on antidiluvian technology. As the Brits say, (or used to) the Mustang is a little agricultural (as in reminiscent of a farm implement).
Cheers.
Right off the bat, the ’Stang lacks the one thing that renders any critical judgment moot: the burble.
Other than the Z06, I can’t think of any car under $100K that actually makes some good noise at idle. Everything anymore requires some gas to start singing
Considering the Mustang’s displacement, I think it sounds alright.
If you don’t want to wait for Ford to offer an IRS, you can always bolt in an after market unit for about $6500.
http://www.mustangirs.com/
I’ll throw my support behind joemoc1.
All through the eighties enthusiast magazines promoted GM’s 5.7 V-8 F-body the 5.0 (sorry, 4.9) V-8 in the Mustang.
So spoke the enthusiast body.
In the marketplace? The underpowered Mustang V-8 (Not to mention the punier four cylinder option) typically outsold the Camaro and Firebird combined.
Ford struck lighting in a bottle with the original Mustang, and they have been very successful guardians of the formula ever since. Even the maligned Mustang II more than doubled sales over the previous year, proving it was the right car for the moment, if not the era. Unfortunately for us, they build Mustangs for the marketplace, not enthusiasts.
I can live with the so-so interior, it’s not supposed to be a luxury car and it isn’t priced like one either.
the 2010 is nearly a great car – give it IRS and the new 5.0 and it would be. However, Ford is clever by doling out improvements over time as it not only keeps their development costs down but also keeps interest in each successive revision high and keeps the car media talking about it.
I really do like it. Is SYNC available in the Mustang?
Strike two on the pics… heh.
Ford shouldn’t be making the Mustang (too)refined or luxurious. That’s not what a Mustang is; they could make the Cougar again and charge 1.5 times the price. Or make an entirely different car and call it something else. The Taurus SVO/Lincoln variant. I’ll say it here; I think Fords pricing for the GT is creeping up into dangerous territory, but there’s no way around it. The era for this car is closing anyway, I guess.
The S197 chassis has been successful on (smooth) tracks. On the street, you’ve got to know what you’re doing to avoid rear steering over bumps. The bottom line is any time I want I can throw the car sideways and torch the tires, or do a 2nd gear brakestand and fill the interior with smoke… even get out of my own way.
The Mustang doesn’t need a hook, it just needs to remain focused on what it’s always been, because that has obviously struck a chord with buyers. Cheap, dirty fun every time.
This wood be sweet with the 3.5L twin turbo V6
I submit that the 2010 Mustang’s bloated, “Rrrrrrrrrrrrrruffles have ridges” style hood matches the bloated, skyhigh hindquarters quite well.
To Jordan Tenenbaum:
Yes the Mustang is available with SYNC…I sold one yesterday with it
After saying that I would never buy another new car, after seeing the 2010 Mustang, I bought a new GT. I worried that I would have buyers remorse, but I have to say it was the best thing I have done in a while. I absolutely love the car and can’t wait to drive it to work everyday. For anyone wanting a fun car, give the new Mustang a test of your own. You will be surprised.
When I read this sentence, “Anyway, the car in which I was about to go roaming in the gloaming embodied its designers’ desire to re-infused the ’Stang with some understated classicism”, I read it “Spooneristically” (scary to neologize in such literay company), bringing to mind the BK 2 of the Detroit 3.
I read it as “underclassed statism”. I kill me!
This 2010 Mustang seems like such a half hearted attempt at making the car seem “new”. Sure the interior is slightly better, and the exterior had been tweaked…but the bits that matter, are the same, underpowered junk that the last car had.
Why does this car have a 4.0, 210 HP truck engine for a base engine rather than the vastly superior 3.5?
Why does this car still have the boat anchor 4.6 V8?
Why does the car still have a log for a rear axle?
Why does the car still have 5 speeds when most all other Fords have 6?
This car, and many of the other so-called “new” cars from Ford prove that the bean counters are still alive and well at FMC.
the next version with the coyote 5.0 v8 (400hp/400ft-lb) and the tremec 6 spd manual will be something special
P71_CrownVic :
As I stated earlier we will see a list of new and (Ford) Blue items appearing first as option and then as standard over the next 4 years I find it interesting that you list 4 concerns. All of which require New Tooling and greater additional expense. Maybe this is why Ford has been able to keep the BK at bay and not requested any TARP. Just because something could be nicer or more advanced does not mean it is necessarily broken, and if it ain’t broke don’t try and fix it. Now is not the time to be spending money you don’t have. This is a foundational car and as long as there is a consumer passion to purchase this car and then personalize it to your wants for an affordable price. They must be doing something right. I find it interesting that Ford is introducing more and more hybrids, that you can buy today and have proven track record. It is also very interesting that not that long ago you could contact Ronele and purchase a Mustang E300 with 1000# of Torque at 0 RPMs with a 55/45 weight distribution. I was actually attempting to get one of these when they fell of the internet map. Even the ph# was disconnected. Hmmmmm
@ Mach1
This wood (sic) be sweet with the 3.5L twin turbo V6
Or the 4L Turbo I6, 6 speed and IRS we get in the Australian Falcon.
@ KnowItAll : “One of the disappointing things about web journalism is that, well, anyone can be a writer regardless of their command of the language. Literary gaffs aside, I do enjoy the site.”
“Literary gaffs”? Do you mean “gaffes”?
Yet another wonderful thing about the big wide web is that anybody can criticize everybody about everything. Bleah …
All of which require New Tooling and greater additional expense.
Bull.
Ford is releasing a whole new range of engines for the 2011 car.
So…what financial sense does it make to design a car to work with one set of engines and transmissions…and then one short year later…spend ton of money making the car work with a whole new set of engines. How does that save money? Wouldn’t it make MORE sense to just design the car to work with the new engines from the get go? Or is Ford just providing busy work for their so-called “designers” and “engineers”
Ford is lazy…period.
P71_CrownVic,
Ford is not lazy, they are simply waiting their turn. Why go all out and design an entirely new Mustang with the new engines when GM and Chrysler are hoging the media with their “me too” pony cars. All that new engineering would have been for nothing. They could be simply letting GM and Chrysler to go belly up so that when the smoke clears, up comes the last American pony car standing with a new powertrain
How did you cook the lamb, RF? Any mint jelly with it?
Oh! The ‘stang? Too high a CG to be anything but a handful. Fast as all stink, but could Jack Baruth thread it through the accident-prone lanes of Florida’s highways at hell-bent-for -leather speed?
My bet is not!
Next question.
P71_CrownVic,
Ford is not lazy, they are simply waiting their turn. Why go all out and design an entirely new Mustang with the new engines when GM and Chrysler are hoging the media with their “me too” pony cars. All that new engineering would have been for nothing. They could be simply letting GM and Chrysler to go belly up so that when the smoke clears, up comes the last American pony car standing with a new powertrain
How would it be for nothing? They are doing that exact same thing in 2011.
What advantage (competitive or financial) does the Mustang have now that it launched with the boat anchor engines, uncompetitive transmissions, and ox cart suspensions?
Financial? Nope…costs more to design a car to work with one set of engines/transmissions/suspensions and do all of that work over again 1 year later for a whole new set of engines/transmissions/suspensions.
Competitive? Nope…the base Camaro has almost as much power as the Mustang GT…the Mustang needs a “track Pack” to get close to the Camaro’s handling numbers. The Mustang GT gets the same mileage as the 6.2L, 420+ HP Camaro.
So, what exactly does launching the Mustang with a fancy new skin do for Ford? It makes their car look like crap.
I wonder who is the most reliable Mustang modder? Roush?
@P71_CrownVic:
Ford’s plan is to replace this current Mustang with a FWD coupe powered by the 3.0L V6 and a CVT transmission. This car will be called “New Mustang.”
Of course, everyone will hate it. Therefore Ford will get rid of “New Mustang” and replace it with the 6-spd, 5.0 V8 powered “Mustang Classic.”
Ford will make millions!
Hey Ford. The rear solid rear axle on the Mustang called. It said if you can do a 37mpg Ford Fusion Hybrid, then you can certainly give it some independence.
GM with their 4 speed automatics and Ford with crap like the rear suspension on the Mustang –
– GM still milking the pushrod for all she’s got.
Good Lord.
The 4.0 V6 is no doubt much cheaper to produce than the 3.5 DOHC V6. And it feels torquier at low RPM, so it isn’t entirely a bad match.
Most reviews of the 2010 Mustang have been surprisingly positive. Haven’t driven one myself yet.
Recently updated TrueDelta’s reliability stats for the 2005 through 2008. Generally on the line between “average” and “better than average.”
http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php?stage=pt&bd=Ford&mc=92&email=Guest
@P71_CrownVic:
the engineering cost to put the existing drivetrains into the freshend body is quite minimal. the cost to put theoretical new engines into the same body is not insignificant. if you are seeking to minimize engineering spending and/or are constrained by how many people you have to work on things, you might end up with the situation you describe. it’s not optimal for some aspects of spending, but sometimes the perfect solution isn’t possible, esp if you’re trying to get your cost structure under control and keep the enterprise (somewhat)viable.
The 3.5 V6 was designed for FWD transverse engine applications. It’s not as quick, cheap and easy as you might think to re-engineer for RWD.
The cost to switch from 4.6 and 5.4 V8s that currently exist in the Mustang, to the 5.0 (and possibly 6.2 in the Shelbys?) shouldn’t be too much, as both of the new engines will be designed to bolt into place in the same engine bays as the outgoing models. Why? Easy, the 4.6 and the 5.4 are being replaced in the F150 as well.
Even with the current engines though the Mustang is selling well. When I have a customer ask me about the hp deficit compared to the Camaro I ask them one very important question, that is ‘how many hp do you need, are you going to be using this as a daily driver, going to the track, the dragstrip, etc?’ most people are just looking at a daily driver, and 315hp is more than enough for that. The 4.0 V6 is ballsy down low, but does quickly lose steam. I’m not sure if the 3.5 would feel much better, however, if Ford can offer the 4.6 2 valve as the base engine in the F150 and still sell the base truck for just over 20K, perhaps after the engine refreshes the 4.6 2 valve will appear as the base Mustang engine.
As far as being a jack of all trades goes, there is a certain beauty in that. Very few people want to pigeon-hole themselves into one very specific vehicle type. Offering a wide range of talents and benefits, even if certain narrow-focussed competitors do one or two specifics better, can attract a lot of buyers. The 2010 Mustang does easily have the best interior out of the Camaro/Challenger/Genesis Coupe bunch (never been in a 370Z so I can’t comment on that one) has handling that bests the Camaros even with a live axle, and at a lower price, even with the track pack, has great looks, a huge aftermarket, and the stability of a viable and solvent company behind it. In these days that can mean a lot.
very pretty car, i like looking at them on the street, the convert is very very nice, i’d like one.
What Ford in general and the Mustang GT in specific need is a gotta-have-it killer app
The retro-tastic look is, or rather was the Mustangs ‘killer app’. But after 4+ years and several hundred thousand current generation stangs on the streets, the Mustang is now almost as invisble as a plain jane Accord.
I keep reading reviews about how great the revised suspension is on the 2010 Mustang, how well it handles. I test drove this car and couldn’t disagree more. On curvy roads it’s downright terrifying in the handling department.
The engine and shifter (and looks) were great, but I crossed this off my list after realizing just how lousy it corners.
the issue is the ‘good’ mustangs aren’t that cheap any more
$30k?
i can see why people don’t wanna pay premium prices for 315hp, 5spd and a live axle
it’s a pity Ford Australia has been ignored for so long. a Mustang based on the current FG Falcon with its IRS and turbo’d inline 6 would be a sweet combination
Robert,
So it’s a three star car then?
I strikes me that perhaps the options list, specificly the Premium Interior Pack or the Track Pack might provide you with the tingle missing from your jingely jangelies?
If not that then perhaps the new engines due next year might do the trick.
@V6:
A straight six ‘Stang with an IRS would be the bee’s knees.
The lamb was delicious, by the way.
The 2010 Stangs interior is indeed better than the outgoing 09’s. Ford will attend to the engines shortly with the new 5.0 400 plus HP V8 and the 365 HP Ecoboost V6 which gives V8 power and V6 fuel economy. I like the exterior styling tweaks too on the 2010. Ford is going in the right direction with this car.
Paul Niedermeyer wrote:
The 3.5 V6 was designed for FWD transverse engine applications. It’s not as quick, cheap and easy as you might think to re-engineer for RWD.
Ford is rumored to have a RWD version available for the 2011 model year. Sources say it will be rated at approximately 400 hp and more than 400 pounds-feet of torque
http://fordnewsblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/another-report-coyote-v8-and-ecoboost-v6-engines-on-horizon-for-f-150-mustang-sunset-for-46l-and-54l-v-8s/
So the Mustang is still missing X, or Y, or Z.
Somehow I doubt Ford management care.
Mustang is about style.
Mustangs sell.
Ford profits.
From Ford’s perspective that adds up to a win. If they started with the technology in hopes of turning it into a proper sports car or something, costs would go way up and no way would they “win” according to everyone no matter how much neat stuff they crammed in. Are all the blog comments about, oh, say, the Nissan GT-R universally positive?
As for the sound part, I submit that prospective Mustang owners who care about how it sounds are perfectly willing to buy a cat-back system if the stock system isn’t good enough. There has to be a little hot rodder in you to appreciate a car like this, right?
This marks the only negative review I’ve seen of the 2010 Mustang. Sure they all note the LRA or the weak and super old 4.6 but the reviews remain positive across the board none the less. Does this mean the rest of automotive journalism has gotten it wrong?
It could mean, King Bojack, that opinions differ.
The 2010 Mustang does easily have the best interior out of the Camaro/Challenger/Genesis Coupe bunch (never been in a 370Z so I can’t comment on that one
I’ve been in the 370z and its probably got the best interior in its class if you get a touring model. I still have yet to see a cloth one in person (it doesn’t have the same materials though).
The 370z touring model, has suede lined inner doors, suede and leather seats, and a leather lined center console, with soft touch dash. Sadly the interior in it is nicer than a G37s if you really sit in them back to back (luckily a friend of mine has an 2008 g35 that i’ve sat in for extended period of time to compare with).
So I’m doubting the 2010 mustang’s is as good, then again the touring 370z starts at $35k and a mustang GT is a bit cheaper.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/coupes/2010_chevy_camaro_ss_vs_2010_ford_mustang_gt_2009_dodge_challenger_r_t_comparison_test+page-4.html
and yet it still wins comparos and at worst, comes a closely won 2nd place
one wonders why the Challenger keeps coming last
the problem i have with the ‘new’ mustang taking the australian ford falcon chassis is that it’s also gonna take the weight
the new one with the coyote alloy motor should do it under 3,500 pounds
Y’know, I keep wishing Ford would revive the original Mercury Cougar concept — same powertrains and basic shell as the Mustang, upgraded interior and perhaps IRS. You’d end up with something like an American Infiniti G37 coupe or Hyundai Genesis Coupe, which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.
I haven’t been on the site in a while, but with the GM deal and the seemingly clairvoyant nature of the Deathwatches, I figured I’d see what’s going on…
While here, I read this review, and at first I was thinking…’ok, decent car. Ford’s trying hard to pull it out’. But I kind of got the feeling that this was a bit of a soft-ball review for RF. I mean, he didn’t love it, but he certainly didn’t flame it in the usual RF style.
Then I saw the fancy flash-like Ford Mustang 2010 banner ad across the top of the page today.
I remember a few years back when RF was so conflicted about the impartiality of the site, he actually seemed to be losing sleep over it. He basically refused to accept ads from car makers.
Then auto accessories creep into the ad rotation… no biggie, I thought. Got to pay the bills somehow (since TTAC subscriptions seemed to flop). But now, a well placed, expensive looking ad for the exact thing being reviewed…seems a bit anti-RF/anti-TTAC.
Now personally, I’m all for Ford recovering. I think they can. But whether RF soft-balled the ‘Stang review or not, I don’t know. I know I can’t help but wonder – and that small seed of doubt, to me, having been gone from the site for a while, seems to be a very large chink in the TTAC objectivity armor.
… the ’Stang lacks the one thing that renders any critical judgment moot: the burble. It’s what made Christine evil. It’s what made the last gen M5 Bavarian crack. It’s what entices you out of the office and onto the road. Not here. Sure, poke the Mustang’s 4.6-liter V8 with a stick (or better yet, the gas pedal), and the Ford powerplant growls soon enough. In fact, too soon. Like a V8-engined AMG product, the Mustang roars at the slightest provocation, a couple of beats before the car can pick up its skirts and run. The new Mustang only sounds like it’s fully realized at full chat. And how often is that going to happen?”
………………..
That’s too bad if true. I was responsible for establishing and meeting the Sound Quality Targets for he 2006 Model Year Mustang GT. Then the car was tuned to have a strong Air Induction contribution – stronger than the SN95 which was a tailpipe dominant sounding vehicle.
Of note, if the tailpipe presence is high during idle and light throttle, low engine speeds it will in all likelyhood have too much presence at hwy crusing speeds and conditions. Not good. So a balance must be struck. I recall performing this operation on a turbo I4 SN95 Prototype, the Ford of Australia Falcon & Ghia, the Volvo XC90 and benchmarking various vehicles to determine how they created the Interior Sound under WOT conditions)
Whether or not the current balance is optimized I have no idea since I’m no longer in the employ of FoMoCo.
I do know that in 2007 or so the Mustang product line did receive some refinement in which the sound was toned down a bit. That would likely endear the car to a wider audience and I applaud that even if I personally would want it more aggressive. Either way the car still sounded great.
I’ll have to give ‘er a test ride to see what has been done.
Hans007:
I’ve been in the 370z and its probably got the best interior in its class if you get a touring model. I still have yet to see a cloth one in person (it doesn’t have the same materials though).
The 370z touring model, has suede lined inner doors, suede and leather seats, and a leather lined center console, with soft touch dash. Sadly the interior in it is nicer than a G37s if you really sit in them back to back (luckily a friend of mine has an 2008 g35 that i’ve sat in for extended period of time to compare with).
Yes, but the real question regarding the 370Z is have they fixed the interior layout from the 350Z? Is there any place to put a map, gloves, etc. that is usable and reachable when needed? Is it still a mish mosh of cubby holes that fit nothing and are nearly unusable?
Solid axles are a benefit at the drag-strip and to bean-counters. The V6 isn’t that bad, and it’s nearly indestructible. For the market they’re after, using any other V6 would probably take away sales of the V8 models. The interior has been getting better steadily, so should at least give them credit for that. At least it doesn’t look like the Camaro’s interior. I’m sure anyone who has driven a ’99 era Mustang would attest to the improvement there.
Stunning looking car but the problem we all have within the UK is that the cars are just not built for going round corners!
I hope this has finally been built with this in mind.
umm…this article ate my balls.