mmarshall

Thanks, Russ. I know you've already looked at a Shelby.

Ordinarily that is the case, because of the Mustang's triangular rear-quarter windows, which are a departure from the solid-sheet metal and/or slats of the original '67-68 and 69-70 versions.....done obviously for safety/visibility reasons. Several cover-up kits, though, are available for that rear-quarter window for those who want a more authentic late-60's look, and, of course, when those are in place, the rear-visibility won't be much, if any, better than the Camaro's.


A 3.55 LSD was an option on the first one I looked at....the special-order Kona Blue one with the saddle-brown leather, but, for reasons I stated in the review, I wasn't able to test-drive it. I'm not sure if you can get a 3.93 or 4.12 from the factory (I didn't see one listed on the web site), but I would doubt it. Those kind of final-drive ratios were common back in the late 60's, but, back then, you weren't dealing with gas-mileage or emission requirements. This car is EPA-rated at 26 MPG highway....I don't see how you are going to do that on a big V8 with a 4.12, even with today's overdrive 6-speeds. You might (?) do it with cylinder-shutdown at cruise, but the Mustang 5.0L doesn't have that feature like the Dodge Challengers's non-SRT 5.7L Hemi.

As to my phrase "frustrating in the lower gears" that you quoted, I was not referring to the final-drive ratio, but to the (IMO) poorly-designed, too-narrow shift gates, making accurate shifts tricky, and the fact that the shift-lever, in coming back out of first, sometimes would up in second and sometimes fourth, depending on the whims of the spring-loads on it. It seemed, at times, to have a mind of its own. Ford acknowledges a 1-4 skip-shift (by-passing 2 and 3) to improve fuel-economy at light-throttle, but that feature, on my test car, seemed unpredictable when it worked and when it wouldn't, allowing normal 1-2 and 2-3 shifts.

mmarshall

Thanks, Mike. I'm labelling my own reviews (MM Review) now, to distinguish them from the 1SICKREVIEWS you do and the many other reviews that Hoovey2411 and others are now posting.

Well, a couple of things. Although some cost-cutting is still noted in the Mustang's design (I noted those in the review), it is clear that the Mustang is not the piece of junk it was some years ago in the 80s and 90s. Ford is now serious about using better-quality materials....and, like with Hyundai/Kia, those better materials cost a little more. So, Mustang prices, like those of Hyundai and Kia, have risen a little to reflect that. It also has to be noted that V6 versions start just over 22K, with a 305-HP engine. That's not a bad deal for the money. On the other hand, though, because of supply-and-demand markups, the prices that Ford dealers are getting for Shelbys are, IMO, preposterous. Like Chevy with the Camaro SS, Ford just doesn't build enough Shelbys to meet demand, artificially raising the price.

I don't know how the the 37K on the particular car I static-reviewed (the one I actually test-drove was a little less, because it lacked a few of the options) would actually hold up in the final-sale, because it was special-ordered as a factory-program car, and, accodring to the service manager, was eventually headed for a specific customer. But, in general, Ford sells a lot of both Mustang V6 and GT models, usually have an adequate number of them in stock, and the impression I got was that they would deal some on the actual selling price.

The car, as you note, does kick some a**, but its 5.0L up against a somewhat more-powerful 6.2L in the Camaro SS and 6.1L Hemi in the Challenger SRT. And the manual transmission, IMO, for reasons I've already noted, definitely needs work.

mmarshall

Sure...anytime. More coming.


The Camaro, of course, had its brother Firebird in the ring, too, up until 2002. And, when I was in high school in the late 60s, there were several more pony cars than just the "Stang and Camaro/Firebird. There was also the Mercury Cougar, AMC Javelin/AMX, Plymouth Barracuda, and Dodge Challenger......plus, of course, all of the other American muscle-cars derived from sedan/coupe platforms.

The new 2011 Mustang is a nice car (except for the 6MT shift-action), and the big 5.0L does out-torque the M3, but it is not, IMO, in the same general class.....there are reasons why an M3 costs twice as much as a Mustang GT. I've seen some of the faux-comparisons in the press, but I disagree with them. However, (admittedly), my opinion may (?) be out of date...I'm basing it on the 2-3 year old M3 I reviewed in the spring of 2008, not the latest version....but the latest version, of course, should be even more impressive, and even more difficult for the Mustang to compete against.

Where the Mustang DOES beat the M3, IMO, is in its paint-job, interior quality/trim, sleek pony-car good-looks, much-easier-to-use dash controls (no I-Drive in the Mustang) , engine torque, more-reliable electronics, and, of course, Ford's vast dealer-network for service/repairs.

The numbers, as you note, do seem to be there in the full-track conditions the magazine tested in, but I myself didn't drive them in track conditions (I rarely do), so I can't comment directly on the published numbers. But I can (and will) comment on my personal impressions in some moderately-hard driving in street-conditions.

Is the M3 worth twice what a Mustang GT costs? For my personal money, no....I personally would find it hard to justify spending more than about 38-40K for a new car, but that's just my personal opinion and policy. A person with an unlimited bank account may feel otherwise.

As far as the difference in handling between the two cars you mention, the Mustang GT does very well for an American live-axle pony car, but it's not M3-sharp. With the M3, though, its suspension, despite the well-known and noted ability of BMW engineers to produce ideal ride-handling compromises, is, to my senses, too stiff for street driving on rougher roads. It does best on a glass-smooth track....the 335i, as I have noted on CAR CHAT numerous times, is a better car, IMO, for daily-driving (and a better dollar value) than the M3.

As far as performance goes, though the difference was not huge, I was more impressed with the Camaro SS's torque than with the Mustang GT's, and feel that the SS would give the Bimmer a better run for its money in 0-60 or 1/4 mile times (though I didn't press either one all the way, because of their brand-new engines). The GT had good, but slightly less-noticeable torque than the SS, and the SS had a markedly better 6MT shift-action that allowed better use of the available torque....you will obviously get better acceleration times if you aren't screwing around with the shift lever trying to find the right slot all the time.

(Of course, in my comments about performance, I don't condone street-racing, and I noted, in my review, the large number of teens and young people that have been killed while drag-racing Mustangs).

Fizzboy7

Great review! It's nice to see the Mustang fare well with it's competitors after lagging for so many years. If I were into retro cars, I'd choose this in V6 flavor.
I agree about the headrests. I can't for the life of me see how this passed production. It's so uncomfortable it's not even funny. My dad's Santa Fe was like this too. And those WERE adjustable! They just didn't go back far enough.
About the body-side moldings... most modern cars no longer come with them. I know they may seem helpful, but you are going to be let down a lot in the future due to the fact they will not make a comeback. Like mudflaps, curb feelers, hood visors, door edge gaurds, and PepBoys reflectors, body side moldings are a 1970's and 80's eyesore, do not gell with today's swoppy side profiles, and are not wanted by the masses.

Lil4X

Thanks Mike, for another great review. I can relate to the "boomer" generation, being an early boomer myself. I even owned a '67 V8 Mustang and still consider it one of the finest cars I've ever owned. I bought it as a graduation present when they first came out in October of '66, having placed the order the previous month. Then I decided to go to grad school and my finances tightened up considerably. Ah well, I'd just move to a basement apartment and eat rice and beans for the next year - but I wasn't about to give up my Mustang.

Then things got worse. I was drafted. Ouch.

It turned out that chick-magnet I purchased for tooling around the Austin hills became a very competent highway flyer. Within a year I was engaged to a woman in Austin and commuting between San Diego, Virginia, or Florida and Austin for the next three years to carry on perhaps the worst tri-coastal relationship in history. Out on the slab, the Mustang ran straight as a die, gobbling up the miles with a panache I might have expected from a luxury car less suited to my performance-oriented automotive tastes. It was powerful, tight, smooth, and dead reliable, a quality totally unknown to owners of "performance" cars of the day.


1967 Mustang in Moss Green . . . almost identical to mine - less the cheesy hubcaps (Photo Courtesy Mustang Attitude)

My only issue with the car was the OEM Firestones that came on it. After a playful chase with a car full of young ladies in a matching Cougar that continued from El Centro to Gila Bend at speeds touching 120 through the desert, I discovered the next morning in Lordsburg NM, I had four flat tires. Yep, my high-speed run had separated the plies on every one of those OEM tires, and I limped across Texas, stopping to re-inflate them every fifty miles or so, never exceeding 50 mph. In Austin several hours late, I replaced the shoes with a set of GY Wide Ovals and never had another tire problem. Those OEMs were just too cheap.

Remember this was the late '60's when we were just coming out of the doldrums of "economy car" consumerism - when Ford introduced the Maverick that could be serviced with a pocketknife and a coin or two. The pony car revolution was just underway and 271/283 Mustangs were rare - most of us had to do with the dual or quad carb versions. Fuel economy wasn't bad, considering the small-bore 283 V8 driving through an excellent automatic. What? Why would you order an auto-box? Because if you wanted delivery within the next nine months, that's what you took. You have to sacrifice for your pleasures. It turned out to be a good choice, because it calmed my driving down to the survival level, and although it didn't allow the involvement of a stick, my first automatic didn't hurt performance that much and probably preserved the rest of the drivetrain.

Too many times I heard it said that the Mustang was just a Falcon with a body kit - which in many ways it was. But Falcon had introduced the limited-production Sprint in '63, unknown to us motorheads, as a test mule for the following year's Mustang introduction. Yep, with the 271/289 engine, with the "Cobra Kit", big four-speed transmission, and locker rear end. It was the Q-ship of economy cars, regularly blowing off heavier 'vettes at the stoplight grand prix. All of that automotive goodness, including the suspension mods, driveline, and steering was migrated directly to the Mustang the following year. It may have been a Falcon, but it was a good one.


Sire of the Mustang, the 1963 Falcon Sprint (Photo Courtesy West Coast Falcons)

mmarshall

Thanks, Fizz.

While, of course, not a perfect replica, this is about as retro as anything you will find on the market today. It combines strong touches of both the 67/68 and 69/70 Mustangs.


Like I said a couple of posts ago, this seems to be primarily a cost-cutting move. It's obviously cheaper to do fixed, tilt-forward headrests than to do what Saab and Volvo do with the inter-seat weight/lever/pendulum assembly.


Maybe true (time will tell), but, if so, another sop to cost-cutting. If enough people complain about them, they probably will come back. Case in point....German manufacturers resisted cupholders for some years, but were finally forced, by consumer pressure, to put them into their American-market vehicles. That's one area that doesn't affect me personally, as I don't drink coffee, sodas, juice, or anything else while I'm driving, but the American public, as a whole, demanded them.

And, BTW, with many of the people I go car-shopping with, body-side mouldings are one of the things they notice, too, or ask about. You mentioned Pep Boys...they do a pretty good buisness selling stick-on aftermarket mouldings....Trimbrite mouldings are some of the best and most popular (I've used them myself).

mmarshall

Sure, Lil...anytime. I'm sure, by your post below, you remember the original Mustangs well....like I do.



As a ponycar, it was hard to beat the 60's-vintage Mustang's looks, even by its competitors, but, in actual service, the Plymouth Barracuda had more durable engines, automatic transmission, and torsion/leaf suspension. Later Barracudas (and the Dodge Challenger) kept the durable drivetrains, but their overall build quality deteriorated rapidly after 66/67, and by 1970, bordered on junk.


Yes, we know you had quite a time in the Navy, aboard carriers.

I went to high school in Austin for a year (67-68)....A.N. McCallum High School. (then finished in Northern Virginia, where I graduated). Austin, as I remember it, was a real nice town then. The hills you speak of are along the Balcones Front, an escarpment which ran along the western edge of the city (and just west of I-35) and separated the Gulf Coastal plain to the south and east from the Texas Hill Country north and west. Lone Man Mountain and Little Twin Sister peaks, near Wimberly, and Enchanted Rock, further off to the west, were some of the noted hills.

As far as the Mustang being being a "chick magnet" goes, most of the girls I remember from McCallum in Austin were pretty ladylike and well-behaved....not much given to automotive trysts. That was definitely not the case when I got back to NoVA. Austin was just a different, more conservative culture.




Most of the high-performance Mustangs of the period, as you'll remember, had red-striped Uniroyal Tiger Paws on them, which prevented a lot of the tire problems you just mentioned....they were designed for higher speeds.


I actually liked the Maverick, and its general build quality, but its small, front-bench seat was a joke (as with most entry-level cars of the time), and could quickly give you a backache. Its 6-cylinder 200-cubic-inch engine, of course, could not compare with the Plymouth/Dodge 170/225 Slant-sixes in durability either.

Yes, the first Mustangs were essentially redone Falcons. But I agree that the Mustang-Falcon comparison, though true, was somewhat overhyped. Plymouth did essentially the same thing.......to an even greater extent. Plymouth, for 1964-66, didn't even bother to use a different body for the Barracuda, like Ford did for the Mustang. The Barracuda was almost totally a Valiant with a big, fastback glass rear window and a Formula S option with a small 273, 4-barrel V8. Not until 1967 was the Barracuda made into a subtantially different car...with bigger engines.

Rash

iTrader: (1)

I adore this car, especially in blue!

mmarshall

THIS blue? (Grabber Blue). If so, I agree with you. This was the color of the one I actually drove....with black leather interior. There is also a darker, Kona-Blue.



But, as I stated in the review, IMO, Ford screwed up this year by eliminating the yellow, orange, and lime-green that was on the plate before.

mmarshall

I'm hoping to be able to review the Hyundai Equus in a few weeks....depending on how Hyundai markets it, and if they allow traditional dealer test-drives (they may market it in a unconventional way.....taking it to peoples' homes for sale). I've got a number of Equus review-requests from CL, and am anxious myself to see how it compares to the upper-level Lexus products it is aimed at.

Rash

iTrader: (1)

Yes this blue, it's very amazing! makes me jealous every time I see it.