MM Review: 2011 Ford Mustang GT Coupe
10-21-10, 09:23 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
MM Review: 2011 Ford Mustang GT Coupe
By general CL interest, a Review of the 2011 Ford Mustang GT.
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/
In a Nutshell: Well-built, good quality, dynamite super-retro looks, and a good chassis, but frustrating shift linkage in the lower gears.
There has been a lot of general CL interest in the new 5.0L Mustang GT, and, of course a lot of hype about it in the general automotive press and enthusiast magazines. After a LONG wait for an unsold, review-available Camaro SS, I finally got that review done a few weeks ago. At the Ford shops, I'm still waiting (by CL request) for the all-new 2011 Explorer, which won't be introduced for maybe another month or two, and the all-new 2012 Focus, which won't be introduced until (at least) January of next year. Likewise, I'm also still waiting (by CL request) for the all-new Hyundai Equus, which the Hyundai people tell me will be released next month (though the Equus dealer-marketing/test-drive policies are unclear), and for the Annual Holiday Review coming up in December (I won't spill the beans on that one now, but I'm sure you guys will like it).
So, with some time on my hands today (actually, with my watch, the time's not on my hands, but my wrist), after my daily morning swim, I figured that, after the recent Camaro SS review, I had to check out the new Mustang GT, the SS's arch-enemy, and see how much of that media-hype was justified. I knew, from being at Ford dealerships for other reasons lately, that Mustang GT's, unlike the Camaro SS, were in reasonably good supply. An unsold brand-new Camaro SS, particularly with a 6-speed manual, is harder to find today than a Republican who is behind in the polls. That's not necesarily the case with new Mustangs, though, even with the GT, because Ford, wisely, decided to build enough to meet demand, instead of just a few thousand like GM does with the Camaro (you will likely, however, find supply/demand problems and dealer-price mark-ups with the more-expensive Shelby GT500 and Super-Snake Mustangs).
The Mustang, of course, is a quintessial All-American icon; the original Pony-Car, and still the only pony-car to see continual production from the 1960's to the present without an interruption, though the small, wimpy, emasculated mid-late 1970s versions (essentially redone Pintos) were nothing short of an embarassment, and many of the 1980s/1990s versions had some serious build-quality/reliability problems. The history of this car is so well-known and documented that I won't go into the details here.......most of you reading this are already aware of it, so let's skip that long littany and get to the 2011 model.
Actually, before we get to that, there is one more thing I do want to bring up........something significant, that I am very concerned with. All drivers, of course, can't be lumped into the same mold, and, of course, that applies to Mustang drivers as well. But, over the years, I have noticed one disturbing trend. I admittedly don't have hard data for crash death/injury for every single auto model. But, from what I myself, with my own two eyes and ears, have noticed, is that more teens and young people seem to have been hurt or killed in the D.C. area in V8-powered Mustangs than in any other single make/model vehicle, primarily by drag-racing. That also seems to be the case with those young, immature, aggressive drivers who do foolish things on the roads and take unnecessary chances. BMW drivers, years ago, to some extent, used to be like that, but that is no longer the case....they are still sometimes on the aggressive side, but clearly don't do the kinds of silly and dangerous things I see with Mustangs. I've seen guys in Mustang V8s (SVTs, Cobras, GTs, Shelbys, etc...) do ridiculous things like pass at triple-digit speeds on the shoulder, weave in and out of traffic passing people, and make last-second swerves in front of others.....not to menton drag-racing each other, and Camaros. Yes, for some drivers, insurance is high on these cars, and, yes, there's a reason. And, while yes, there ARE many careful Mustang drivers (I do want to point that out), there's something about Mustang V8s that just attracts aggressive drivers and drag-racers like a magnet (one reason Ford still uses a live-axle rear on the non-Shelbys, but we'll get into that later).
OK.....for 2011, here's the latest Mustang line-up: Two body styles are offered...a convertible and hardtop-coupe. 5 production trim-versions are offered from the factory...V6, V6 Premium, GT, GT Premium, and Shelby GT500 (not counting the very limited-production Shelby Super-Snake, esentially a street-legal track-car, and the numerous aftermarket-tuner Mustang versions). All factory versions, surprisingly, come in both hardtop and convertible models, even the Shelby GT500....that's a big one-up on both the Camaro and Challenger. V6 models get a potent 305 HP 3.7L V6 with 280 ft-lbs. of torque. GT models get a new 5.0L 412 HP V8 with 390 ft-lbs. of torque......potent, but not quite up to the Camaro SS's 6.2L V8 with 424 HP and 420 ft-lbs. of torque. The Shelby, of course, gets the most-potent engine (which will handily dust off the Camaro SS)......a 5.4L Supercharged V8 with 540 HP and 510 ft-lbs. of torque. An even more powerful (600+ HP) Super-Snake version is available, but is special-order, not part of the regular Mustang line-up, and is generally intended for track use only...it doesn't even come with a factory warranty. (Chevy, BTW, has a Camaro Z28 planned which would equal or exceed the Shelby GT500, but GM's bankrupcy has that project still on hold). All V6 and GT Mustangs come with a choice of a conventional 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic transmission....the Shelbys get a more heavy-duty Tremec 6-speed manual.
V6 and GT models, at the current time, seem to be in pretty good supply, at least in the D.C. area, where I live. The Ford shop I was at today, admittedly one of the largest ones on the East Coast, had a number of V6 and GT models (both manual and automatic), and even one or two Shelbys, available on the lot. For the review, I chose a nice Kona (medium/dark) Blue GT Premium Coupe model with the 6-speed manual, optional Saddle (Brown) leather interior and some nice optional packages like a 3.55 rear-end and upgraded headlights...it listed for a little over 37K, though base V6 prices start down around 22K. GT models are easy enough to find that this Ford shop was not asking for a mark-up on it, though the Shelby, not surprisingly, did have one.......they wouldn't quote just how much without serious price negotiation. I did the normal static-review, inside and out, on the one I picked out. Then, when I went inside to get the key and get my Driver's License Xeroxed for the test-drive, the sales manager checked his roster and said that that particular car had been special-ordered as a factory-program car and was not available for a test-drive......and it would soon go to a specific customer. So, I went back out on the lot, found a Grabber-Blue regular-GT Coupe model with a 6-speed manual and black-leather seats inside (that bright Grabber-Blue color will knock your socks off), came back inside, got the key, and did the test-drive. It was the same drivetrain as the GT Premium I wrote up on the static-review, with the exception of lacking the 3.55 LSD differential and the metal underhood cross-brace between the two strut-towers, so, of course, it listed for a somewhat less.
I was particularly interested, of course, to see how the new GT stacked up against the new Camaro SS, which I already had reviewed several weeks ago........and to compare my views with the (many) others that have already been written up in the auto press and magazines. The GT, IMO, was clearly better in some areas...not as good in others. Details coming up.
Model Reviewed: 2011 Ford Mustang GT Premium Coupe
Base Price: $32,845
Options:
Electronics Package: $2340
Security Package: $395
3.55 Ratio Limited-Slip-Differential: $395
HID High-Intensity-Discharge Headlights: $525
Destination/Freight: $850
List Price as Reviewed: $37,350
Drivetrain: RWD, longitudinal-mounted 5.0L Ti-VCT V8, 412 HP @ 6500 RPM, Torque, 390 Ft-lbs. @ 4250 RPM, 6-Speed Short-Shift manual transmission, Limited-slip, live-axle differential.
Exterior Color: Kona Blue
Interior: Saddle (Brown) Leather
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City / 26 Highway
PLUSSES:
Good overall assembly quality.
Dynamite-looking (IMO), super-retro exterior styling.
Well-done chassis/suspension, despite the live rear-axle.
Quick steering response.
Flat cornering.
Firm but not harsh ride.....not bad for the level of handling.
Strong engine (but not as strong as its rivals).
Smooth clutch.....but can be a little tricky.
Good wind/road noise control.
Better-sounding engine exhaust (IMO) than before.
Fairly good underhood layout.
Decent rear-vision, by pony-car standards.
Fairly good cargo-area finish.
Well-done paint job.
Good exterior/interior hardware.
Good exterior color paint choice...but with some recent colors missing.
Decent front headroom (without sunroof)....much better than Camaro's.
Almost-Killer stereo sound.
Well-done interior trim (much better than its two rivals).
Optional multi-adjustable dash/gauge lighting system.
Super-retro but clear/legible primary gauges.
Complete secondary-gauge set on the dash, without idiot-lights.
Fairly easy-to-use dash buttons/*****/controls (without NAV).
Vast number of dealer/factory/aftermarket accessories and graphics.
Aftermarket-tuner versions available (Roush, Rentech, Saleen, etc....)
Vast dealer network for service/warranty/repairs.
Much better supply/demand availability (at the current time) than the Camaro SS.
MINUSES:
Poorly-done shift-gate/linkage (IMO).
Smooth but sometimes tricky clutch.
Torque not quite as strong as the Camaro SS.
Somewhat spongy brake pedal not as strong as Camaro SS Brembo brakes.
Prop-rod for the hood.
Typically useless pony-car rear seat.
Too-small, Munchkin-size trunk opening.
Hulk-Hogan parking-brake handle.
Temporary spare-tire.
No locking gas-filler cap.
Engine top-components hamper some access.
Rigidly-mounted side-mirrors do not swivel.
No body-side mouldings for nick/ding protection.
What happened to the yellow, orange, and lime-green paint-color options?
High insurance rates for some drivers.
A rolling coffin for teens and young people?
EXTERIOR:
Like with the Camaro and Challenger, the 2011 Mustang's exterior is vintage 1967-1970.....bring on Jimi Hendrix, psychadelic music, Woodstock, Vietnam, campus riots, and the Age of Muscle Cars all over again (and I thought I had finally forgotten all of that). With the exception of not having chromed bumpers any more, or the classic red-striped UniRoyal Tiger Paw tires, the exterior of the 2011 model is very close to that of the 3Gen 1969-70 model, and the interior is very close to the 2Gen 1967-78 model. One noted concession to safety, though, on the new 2011 model, is the rear-quarter window that allows much better vision out the back, from inside, than with the new Camaro. True Mustang retro-freaks, though, can even have that covered up, with a window-kit, that makes the rear-quarter even more like the 69-70 model....if they are willing to sacrifice the visibility, of course. Although a few recent Ford models are still not impressive in this area, for other Ford/Lincoln vehicles, the quality of the sheet metal, paint jobs, trim, and hardware has improved markedly in recent years....and the new Mustang is clearly one of them. The sheet metal on both of my test cars was solid-feeling, the panels were well-mounted, and the paint job was smooth, even, and well-done, with virtually no orange-peel. The exterior paint colors offered were, IMO, pretty good.....a mixture of the usual black/silver/white with some standout blues and reds.....the Grabber Blue, as I indicated above, is especially nice. But what happened to the nice Lemon Yellow, Orange, and Lime Green that was offered before? Come on Ford.....when you offer nice colors like that, you have to stick with them. Graphic/paint-stripe packages are offered, if desired, to make the paint jobs look even bolder....and, of course, are standard on the Shelby models. Ford also, unfortunately, slipped up in a few spots on the exterior, besides the loss of some bright paint colors. The rigid-plastic side-mirror housings don't swivel. There are no body-side mouldings to ward off parking-lot dings. The circular gas-filler flap-door doesn't lock to prevent fuel-siphoning, though the Mustang does use Ford's patented no-twist-cap fuel system that eliminates the possibility of driving off after leaving the cap on the fuel pump. You would be surprised how many people do that.....I see it all the time. The rigid side-mirrors, of course, without integrated turn-signals, the no-lock filler-door, and the lack of body-side moldings are simple cost-cutting....I disagree with those who say that eliminating the mouldings is a styling issue.
UNDERHOOD:
Open up the fairly solid, well-constructed hood, and a nice insulation pad lines the underside, but no springs or gas-struts to hold the hood up, you must, on this $37,000 car, fumble with a simple, cheap rod....another sign of cost-cutting. I fondly remember the chrome, race-type hood-pins on the 1969-70 Mach 1, Cobra Jet, and Boss 302/429 Mustangs, but Ford, for all of its retro-styling, elected not to use them on the 2011 GT (a new Boss 302 Mustang is planned for next year...and we'll see if that retro-styling touch is brought back then or not).
The basic underhood layout is pretty good, considering the big 5.0L longitudinally-mounted V8 in there. Like with the 6.2L Camaro SS V8, the compartment seems designed for that engine in mind....not just stuffed in with a shoe horn as an afterthought. The engine fits in with at least a little room around the front and sides to reach components (in the 1969-70 model, I heard stories of the big 429 and 428 Cobra-Jet motors having to actually be loosened or removed to change spark plugs and do a tune-up, which, in those days before electronic ignition, you generally did every 10,000 miles or so)....don't know how true those stories were. The slightly more expensive Kona Blue model had a big metal cross-brace running between the two front strut-towers (a fairly common practice with peformance/sport-oriented vehicles, for added chassis-rigidity)....I don't remember seeing it on the other GT I looked at. The engine-trim pieces and fuel-induction hardware, on top of the engine, block some component-access, but, overall, considering the size of the big (by today's standards) motor, underhood-access room isn't that bad. I forgot to check the location/access of the oil dipstick, or even if it has one instead of oil-sensors (I guess age is creeping up on me now), but the reservoirs, filler-caps, and most of the other components underhood seemed easily-accessable, including the uncovered battery, back and on the left.
INTERIOR:
Inside, it's Deja Vu all over again, too.....with some signs of modernness, of course. Only this time, inside, instead of the Third-Generation 1969-70 Deja Vu on the outside, it's 1967-68 instead, like the Second-Generation model. Directly in front of you are super-retro '67-68 style primary gauges, yet still clear and easily-readable....I disagree with the reviews that say that they are not as legible as modern gauges. A Mustang option (and one I would consider) is the color-adjustable system that allows you to choose between any of some 125 different dash-light colors. Between the two primary gauges lie a nice set of smaller (but still legible) gauges for oil pressure, fuel, voltmeter, and engine-temperature, with no idiot-lights (those gauges, IMO, should be standard in all vehicles). The Mustang, IMO, is way ahead of the new Camaro here....the Camaro offers the same gauges, but, like the retro 1969 Camaro it copies, puts those gauges down on the floor at the front of the console, where they are markedly out of your eye-range when you're trying to drive and keep your eyes on the road. The Mustang's steering wheel is more-or-less retro (it has to have an air bag stuffed in, of course, unlike the original), three-spoked, and with nice silver-painted plastic trim that somehow doesn't look or feel cheap. The steering column has a manual-tilt (but not telescoping) lever. Overhead, there is adequate headroom for tall people if you don't have the sunroof (noticeably more so than in the Camaro), and the sun-visors and headliner both have a nice soft-fabric covering.
Recent Mustangs, up to just a year or two ago, were criticized for their cheap, overly-plastic, poor-quality interiors, and the Ford designers apparantly listened. Both the 2010 and 2011 models have not only vastly-improved interior-trim quality over their predecessors, but the 2011 Mustang's interior, IMO, simply blows that of both the Camaro and the Dodge Challenger out of the water. The dash trim is a superb patterned-gray-metallic texture that looks and feels very close to real carbon-fiber. The black plastic monotone door panels, wih fabric inserts, look and feel a little plain for my tastes, but are well-constructed and attached. The leather seats are comforable and well-shaped for large Americans (the car is aimed, of course, at us porky 50-60-year-old Baby Boomers), and the leather-grade seems fairly nice, though the side bolsters could use a little more support for the car's good cornering (more on that later). Cloth seats, of course, come in the lower-grade Mustangs. The stereo-sound quality, IMO, was super-good, almost a killer (just the thing for a late-60s Jimi Hendrix concert and his famous electronic-feedback guitar). In my non-NAV test vehicles, the stereo and climate-control *****/buttons/levers were all rather simple and easy-to-use. Satellite radio comes with the package.
Was there anything I didn't like about the interior? Yes. The rear seat, in true Pony-Car tradition, was useless for anything but children and as a package-shelf. The rear-seat-folding straps (to increase cargo area) were a very awkward reach back into that virtually useless area. And the manual pull-up parking brake handle, on the console between the seats, with its super-hard spring, would be a handful for WWE guys, much less ordinary people with not-so-muscular arms and hands. Ford definitely needs to put in a more-compliant spring/latches in the assembly. But, other than that, the interior of this car is a really nice place to be.....I enjoyed every minute of it.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Not a whole lot to write about back there. The trunk-lid opening, like on the new Camaro, is very small/undersized, and also has a high sill that requires lifting luggage and heavy things up over it to get it inside. That may, (?) however, have been done for rear-chassis rigidity....a low trunk-sill in back, which makes it easier for luggage and packages, takes some re-inforcing metal out of the rear-structure. The cargo area is fairly well-finished, with a decent but not plush grade of gray carpet on the trunk and side-walls. The trunk itself has an acceptable amount of room, considering the classic long hood/short-deck Pony-Car design. Under the rear trunk-floor is (you guessed it), a temporary spare tire, but it seems to be mounted on a very solid, high-quality wheel that could almost be used as an original wheel...it looks that good.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the big 5.0L V8 with a conventional key/fob and side-column ignition switch, just like on the original 1970 model (the 1969 was the same basic car, but locking-steering wheels weren't required until 1970, a year after GM invented them in 1969). Usually I prefer the engine START/STOP buttons, but in this case, it's nice to mimic the original. The 5.0 starts up and idles smoothly, but with an audible, much-improved exhaust rumble this year. I say much-improved because, IMO, I like the rumble-sound this year much more than in the past...the 4.6L Mustangs of yesteryear had a rather flat, nasal-sounding rumble that I never liked (I could tell a 4.6L Mustang from a long way off, out-of-sight-range, just from the specific noise it made).
And the 5.0L, as expected, on the road, is no slouch. Give it some gas, especially in the lower gears, and its 390 ft-lbs. of torque gives you a healthy shove in the back. However, even with this kind of new-found power, it still doesn't seem, to my seat-of-the-pants at least, to have quite the same kick as that of the Camaro SS's 420 ft-lbs. of torque....the difference, while not large, is noticeable. The torque-peak on the 5.0L comes at 4250 RPM, so you have to wind it out a little to get top performance.....and being a brand-new engine, of course, I didn't push it too much. If desired, the traction control can be turned off to do burnouts (believe me, many Mustang owners do). At least the primitive but tough, durable live-rear axle won't melt along with the rear tires.....one reason why Ford persists with the design (this is one area where cost-cutting might make some sense). So, the Mustang GT does have power (noticeably more than in previous GTs), but, underhood, IMO, score one for the Camaro SS.....its larger 6.2L simply out-torques the smaller 5.0L, even if the difference is not huge.
And score the Camaro SS even more in the manual-transmission department. The GT's 6-speed manual transmission, IMO, was, hands-down, the car's worst feature, short of the useless rear seats. The fairly-smooth clutch was OK, though could occasionally be a little tricky, but the real problem was the shift linkage and the lever up-shift springs. The shift-gates were small and narrow, requiring careful fiddling and a precise feel to get the lever in and out correctly. I stalled the engine out, several times, starting up from rest, when the lever looked and felt like it was in first but was actually in third. Upshifting was often very annoying. Sometimes, no matter how careful I was with the shift-feel, the lever would go from first to fourth, making the engine lug, although it's difficult to make an engine with torque like this lug too badly. Other times, it would go easily and smoothly from first back to second.......and up to third....with no problem. Occasionally, it was hard to get a good downshift, too, from 5th or 6th, into the proper lower gear.....it was simply too easy, IMO, to screw up a shift in this car. I know it's not me, because I've easily driven all kinds of manual tansmissions, from sports cars to trucks, even in the old days with unsynchronized first-gears and Jerk-O-Matic clutches. And I had none.....repeat, NONE of the problems with the Camaro SS's 6-speed manual that I did with the Mustang GT's, though the Camaro's clutch was a little heavier. I spoke with the Ford people at the shop about it when I got back, and they told me (rightly or wrongly) that Ford did use a 1-4 shift-restrictor this year, which eliminated 2 and 3 on some driving situations when max-performance was not needed. That was a common feature on some V8 Ponycars some years back, as a fuel-economy measure, but I thought it had been all but eliminated on current models because of advances in fuel efficiency. Even without that feature, I still wasn't impressed with the general shift linkage/design....the gates were too narrowly-spaced.
Fortunately, the chassis on this car helped make up for that......and, despite the simple, primitive, live rear-axle, I thought that the 2011 Mustang GT, in the ride/handling department, was at least the equal, if not superior, to that of the independent-rear-suspension (IRS) Camaro SS. Ford really worked on the Mustang's chassis this year, and it shows. Steering-response was quick (quicker than I expected), with good steering feel as well. Cornering was sure and flat, with very little body-roll. Ride comfort, from the performance-oriented tires/suspension, was a little firm for my tastes, particularly over bumps, and thumps from the tires could be heard on road-impacts, but the general ride comfort, especially on smoother roads, was not bad at all. Road noise, except for a few thumps over bumps, was generally low, and wind-noise, from the high-quality door/bodywork, was also well-controlled. The only significant noise on the road was the rather marked (and traditional) pony-car exhaust rumble, and even that, as I indicated above, was, IMO, a better-sounding tone than the previous 4.6L Mustang nasal-rumbles of the past.
And, finally, score one (but moderately) for the Camaro SS on the brakes. The Mustang GT's brakes, with the usual 4-wheel disc/ABS/EFD, etc..., good as they were, in ordinary street driving, to me, just didn't have the beef and stopping power of the Camaro SS's big Brembo brake package. The Mustang's pedal had noticeably more sponginess and a less-firm feel than the Camaro's Brembos. Both brakes would stop you in a hurry, if you needed it...but the Brembos on the Camaro clearly did so with less-fuss. The Mustang's brake-pedal-location, as I remember it, didn't have much of a problem with my big size 15 clown-shoes hanging-up on the bottom or edge of the pedal going from gas to brake, like it does in some vehicles.
THE VERDICT:
Instead of writing my usual end-of-review, Verdict wrap-up, I'm going to do what most of you probably want...make a direct comparison of the Mustang GT to the Camaro SS (which, of course, was one of the reasons I drove it in the first place). Remember, of course, this is NOT the kind of comparison you will see in many enthusiast auto magazines on the track....this is strictly for street-use driving, by my own judgement, under the conditions that I drove them.
The Mustang GT wins in the general build-quality department, fit-and-finish, Consumer Reports' Predicted Reliability (the Camaro still doesn't have much CR reliability data), interior-design/trim, headroom, steering/handling/chassis engineering, dealer-availability, body styles (the new Camaro converibles are just starting to be shipped now), and the fact that Mustang convertibles can be had in all trim levels, unlike Camaro. Mustangs are also less-likely to be marked up over list than Camaros...especially if you avoid the limited-production Shelby GT and Super-Snake models.
The Camaro SS wins in engine torque, the design of its manual-transmission, brake effectiveness, paint-color choices, underhood-service room, and ease-of-parking-brake-use (though the Camaro's parking-brake handle is also a little heavy).
Both cars are likely to have high insurance rates for less-than-careful drivers, poor tire wear from soft-rubber, summer-only, high-performance tires (and, of course, from doing burnouts), lousy winter traction on wet/icy roads, even with the traction/stability control on, and, of course, a useless rear seat for adults. The Mustang may or may not have better visibility, depending on whether the rear-quarter window has the cover-kit on it, but the Camaro's rear-visibility will always be very poor. Both cars show some cost-cutting in things like a lack of body-side mouldings, non-swiveling side-mirrors, and a temporary-spare tire. And both cars, of course, have a vast, widespread dealer-network for service and repairs.
So, there you have it. And, as always............Happy Car Shopping.
MM
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/
In a Nutshell: Well-built, good quality, dynamite super-retro looks, and a good chassis, but frustrating shift linkage in the lower gears.
There has been a lot of general CL interest in the new 5.0L Mustang GT, and, of course a lot of hype about it in the general automotive press and enthusiast magazines. After a LONG wait for an unsold, review-available Camaro SS, I finally got that review done a few weeks ago. At the Ford shops, I'm still waiting (by CL request) for the all-new 2011 Explorer, which won't be introduced for maybe another month or two, and the all-new 2012 Focus, which won't be introduced until (at least) January of next year. Likewise, I'm also still waiting (by CL request) for the all-new Hyundai Equus, which the Hyundai people tell me will be released next month (though the Equus dealer-marketing/test-drive policies are unclear), and for the Annual Holiday Review coming up in December (I won't spill the beans on that one now, but I'm sure you guys will like it).
So, with some time on my hands today (actually, with my watch, the time's not on my hands, but my wrist), after my daily morning swim, I figured that, after the recent Camaro SS review, I had to check out the new Mustang GT, the SS's arch-enemy, and see how much of that media-hype was justified. I knew, from being at Ford dealerships for other reasons lately, that Mustang GT's, unlike the Camaro SS, were in reasonably good supply. An unsold brand-new Camaro SS, particularly with a 6-speed manual, is harder to find today than a Republican who is behind in the polls. That's not necesarily the case with new Mustangs, though, even with the GT, because Ford, wisely, decided to build enough to meet demand, instead of just a few thousand like GM does with the Camaro (you will likely, however, find supply/demand problems and dealer-price mark-ups with the more-expensive Shelby GT500 and Super-Snake Mustangs).
The Mustang, of course, is a quintessial All-American icon; the original Pony-Car, and still the only pony-car to see continual production from the 1960's to the present without an interruption, though the small, wimpy, emasculated mid-late 1970s versions (essentially redone Pintos) were nothing short of an embarassment, and many of the 1980s/1990s versions had some serious build-quality/reliability problems. The history of this car is so well-known and documented that I won't go into the details here.......most of you reading this are already aware of it, so let's skip that long littany and get to the 2011 model.
Actually, before we get to that, there is one more thing I do want to bring up........something significant, that I am very concerned with. All drivers, of course, can't be lumped into the same mold, and, of course, that applies to Mustang drivers as well. But, over the years, I have noticed one disturbing trend. I admittedly don't have hard data for crash death/injury for every single auto model. But, from what I myself, with my own two eyes and ears, have noticed, is that more teens and young people seem to have been hurt or killed in the D.C. area in V8-powered Mustangs than in any other single make/model vehicle, primarily by drag-racing. That also seems to be the case with those young, immature, aggressive drivers who do foolish things on the roads and take unnecessary chances. BMW drivers, years ago, to some extent, used to be like that, but that is no longer the case....they are still sometimes on the aggressive side, but clearly don't do the kinds of silly and dangerous things I see with Mustangs. I've seen guys in Mustang V8s (SVTs, Cobras, GTs, Shelbys, etc...) do ridiculous things like pass at triple-digit speeds on the shoulder, weave in and out of traffic passing people, and make last-second swerves in front of others.....not to menton drag-racing each other, and Camaros. Yes, for some drivers, insurance is high on these cars, and, yes, there's a reason. And, while yes, there ARE many careful Mustang drivers (I do want to point that out), there's something about Mustang V8s that just attracts aggressive drivers and drag-racers like a magnet (one reason Ford still uses a live-axle rear on the non-Shelbys, but we'll get into that later).
OK.....for 2011, here's the latest Mustang line-up: Two body styles are offered...a convertible and hardtop-coupe. 5 production trim-versions are offered from the factory...V6, V6 Premium, GT, GT Premium, and Shelby GT500 (not counting the very limited-production Shelby Super-Snake, esentially a street-legal track-car, and the numerous aftermarket-tuner Mustang versions). All factory versions, surprisingly, come in both hardtop and convertible models, even the Shelby GT500....that's a big one-up on both the Camaro and Challenger. V6 models get a potent 305 HP 3.7L V6 with 280 ft-lbs. of torque. GT models get a new 5.0L 412 HP V8 with 390 ft-lbs. of torque......potent, but not quite up to the Camaro SS's 6.2L V8 with 424 HP and 420 ft-lbs. of torque. The Shelby, of course, gets the most-potent engine (which will handily dust off the Camaro SS)......a 5.4L Supercharged V8 with 540 HP and 510 ft-lbs. of torque. An even more powerful (600+ HP) Super-Snake version is available, but is special-order, not part of the regular Mustang line-up, and is generally intended for track use only...it doesn't even come with a factory warranty. (Chevy, BTW, has a Camaro Z28 planned which would equal or exceed the Shelby GT500, but GM's bankrupcy has that project still on hold). All V6 and GT Mustangs come with a choice of a conventional 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic transmission....the Shelbys get a more heavy-duty Tremec 6-speed manual.
V6 and GT models, at the current time, seem to be in pretty good supply, at least in the D.C. area, where I live. The Ford shop I was at today, admittedly one of the largest ones on the East Coast, had a number of V6 and GT models (both manual and automatic), and even one or two Shelbys, available on the lot. For the review, I chose a nice Kona (medium/dark) Blue GT Premium Coupe model with the 6-speed manual, optional Saddle (Brown) leather interior and some nice optional packages like a 3.55 rear-end and upgraded headlights...it listed for a little over 37K, though base V6 prices start down around 22K. GT models are easy enough to find that this Ford shop was not asking for a mark-up on it, though the Shelby, not surprisingly, did have one.......they wouldn't quote just how much without serious price negotiation. I did the normal static-review, inside and out, on the one I picked out. Then, when I went inside to get the key and get my Driver's License Xeroxed for the test-drive, the sales manager checked his roster and said that that particular car had been special-ordered as a factory-program car and was not available for a test-drive......and it would soon go to a specific customer. So, I went back out on the lot, found a Grabber-Blue regular-GT Coupe model with a 6-speed manual and black-leather seats inside (that bright Grabber-Blue color will knock your socks off), came back inside, got the key, and did the test-drive. It was the same drivetrain as the GT Premium I wrote up on the static-review, with the exception of lacking the 3.55 LSD differential and the metal underhood cross-brace between the two strut-towers, so, of course, it listed for a somewhat less.
I was particularly interested, of course, to see how the new GT stacked up against the new Camaro SS, which I already had reviewed several weeks ago........and to compare my views with the (many) others that have already been written up in the auto press and magazines. The GT, IMO, was clearly better in some areas...not as good in others. Details coming up.
Model Reviewed: 2011 Ford Mustang GT Premium Coupe
Base Price: $32,845
Options:
Electronics Package: $2340
Security Package: $395
3.55 Ratio Limited-Slip-Differential: $395
HID High-Intensity-Discharge Headlights: $525
Destination/Freight: $850
List Price as Reviewed: $37,350
Drivetrain: RWD, longitudinal-mounted 5.0L Ti-VCT V8, 412 HP @ 6500 RPM, Torque, 390 Ft-lbs. @ 4250 RPM, 6-Speed Short-Shift manual transmission, Limited-slip, live-axle differential.
Exterior Color: Kona Blue
Interior: Saddle (Brown) Leather
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City / 26 Highway
PLUSSES:
Good overall assembly quality.
Dynamite-looking (IMO), super-retro exterior styling.
Well-done chassis/suspension, despite the live rear-axle.
Quick steering response.
Flat cornering.
Firm but not harsh ride.....not bad for the level of handling.
Strong engine (but not as strong as its rivals).
Smooth clutch.....but can be a little tricky.
Good wind/road noise control.
Better-sounding engine exhaust (IMO) than before.
Fairly good underhood layout.
Decent rear-vision, by pony-car standards.
Fairly good cargo-area finish.
Well-done paint job.
Good exterior/interior hardware.
Good exterior color paint choice...but with some recent colors missing.
Decent front headroom (without sunroof)....much better than Camaro's.
Almost-Killer stereo sound.
Well-done interior trim (much better than its two rivals).
Optional multi-adjustable dash/gauge lighting system.
Super-retro but clear/legible primary gauges.
Complete secondary-gauge set on the dash, without idiot-lights.
Fairly easy-to-use dash buttons/*****/controls (without NAV).
Vast number of dealer/factory/aftermarket accessories and graphics.
Aftermarket-tuner versions available (Roush, Rentech, Saleen, etc....)
Vast dealer network for service/warranty/repairs.
Much better supply/demand availability (at the current time) than the Camaro SS.
MINUSES:
Poorly-done shift-gate/linkage (IMO).
Smooth but sometimes tricky clutch.
Torque not quite as strong as the Camaro SS.
Somewhat spongy brake pedal not as strong as Camaro SS Brembo brakes.
Prop-rod for the hood.
Typically useless pony-car rear seat.
Too-small, Munchkin-size trunk opening.
Hulk-Hogan parking-brake handle.
Temporary spare-tire.
No locking gas-filler cap.
Engine top-components hamper some access.
Rigidly-mounted side-mirrors do not swivel.
No body-side mouldings for nick/ding protection.
What happened to the yellow, orange, and lime-green paint-color options?
High insurance rates for some drivers.
A rolling coffin for teens and young people?
EXTERIOR:
Like with the Camaro and Challenger, the 2011 Mustang's exterior is vintage 1967-1970.....bring on Jimi Hendrix, psychadelic music, Woodstock, Vietnam, campus riots, and the Age of Muscle Cars all over again (and I thought I had finally forgotten all of that). With the exception of not having chromed bumpers any more, or the classic red-striped UniRoyal Tiger Paw tires, the exterior of the 2011 model is very close to that of the 3Gen 1969-70 model, and the interior is very close to the 2Gen 1967-78 model. One noted concession to safety, though, on the new 2011 model, is the rear-quarter window that allows much better vision out the back, from inside, than with the new Camaro. True Mustang retro-freaks, though, can even have that covered up, with a window-kit, that makes the rear-quarter even more like the 69-70 model....if they are willing to sacrifice the visibility, of course. Although a few recent Ford models are still not impressive in this area, for other Ford/Lincoln vehicles, the quality of the sheet metal, paint jobs, trim, and hardware has improved markedly in recent years....and the new Mustang is clearly one of them. The sheet metal on both of my test cars was solid-feeling, the panels were well-mounted, and the paint job was smooth, even, and well-done, with virtually no orange-peel. The exterior paint colors offered were, IMO, pretty good.....a mixture of the usual black/silver/white with some standout blues and reds.....the Grabber Blue, as I indicated above, is especially nice. But what happened to the nice Lemon Yellow, Orange, and Lime Green that was offered before? Come on Ford.....when you offer nice colors like that, you have to stick with them. Graphic/paint-stripe packages are offered, if desired, to make the paint jobs look even bolder....and, of course, are standard on the Shelby models. Ford also, unfortunately, slipped up in a few spots on the exterior, besides the loss of some bright paint colors. The rigid-plastic side-mirror housings don't swivel. There are no body-side mouldings to ward off parking-lot dings. The circular gas-filler flap-door doesn't lock to prevent fuel-siphoning, though the Mustang does use Ford's patented no-twist-cap fuel system that eliminates the possibility of driving off after leaving the cap on the fuel pump. You would be surprised how many people do that.....I see it all the time. The rigid side-mirrors, of course, without integrated turn-signals, the no-lock filler-door, and the lack of body-side moldings are simple cost-cutting....I disagree with those who say that eliminating the mouldings is a styling issue.
UNDERHOOD:
Open up the fairly solid, well-constructed hood, and a nice insulation pad lines the underside, but no springs or gas-struts to hold the hood up, you must, on this $37,000 car, fumble with a simple, cheap rod....another sign of cost-cutting. I fondly remember the chrome, race-type hood-pins on the 1969-70 Mach 1, Cobra Jet, and Boss 302/429 Mustangs, but Ford, for all of its retro-styling, elected not to use them on the 2011 GT (a new Boss 302 Mustang is planned for next year...and we'll see if that retro-styling touch is brought back then or not).
The basic underhood layout is pretty good, considering the big 5.0L longitudinally-mounted V8 in there. Like with the 6.2L Camaro SS V8, the compartment seems designed for that engine in mind....not just stuffed in with a shoe horn as an afterthought. The engine fits in with at least a little room around the front and sides to reach components (in the 1969-70 model, I heard stories of the big 429 and 428 Cobra-Jet motors having to actually be loosened or removed to change spark plugs and do a tune-up, which, in those days before electronic ignition, you generally did every 10,000 miles or so)....don't know how true those stories were. The slightly more expensive Kona Blue model had a big metal cross-brace running between the two front strut-towers (a fairly common practice with peformance/sport-oriented vehicles, for added chassis-rigidity)....I don't remember seeing it on the other GT I looked at. The engine-trim pieces and fuel-induction hardware, on top of the engine, block some component-access, but, overall, considering the size of the big (by today's standards) motor, underhood-access room isn't that bad. I forgot to check the location/access of the oil dipstick, or even if it has one instead of oil-sensors (I guess age is creeping up on me now), but the reservoirs, filler-caps, and most of the other components underhood seemed easily-accessable, including the uncovered battery, back and on the left.
INTERIOR:
Inside, it's Deja Vu all over again, too.....with some signs of modernness, of course. Only this time, inside, instead of the Third-Generation 1969-70 Deja Vu on the outside, it's 1967-68 instead, like the Second-Generation model. Directly in front of you are super-retro '67-68 style primary gauges, yet still clear and easily-readable....I disagree with the reviews that say that they are not as legible as modern gauges. A Mustang option (and one I would consider) is the color-adjustable system that allows you to choose between any of some 125 different dash-light colors. Between the two primary gauges lie a nice set of smaller (but still legible) gauges for oil pressure, fuel, voltmeter, and engine-temperature, with no idiot-lights (those gauges, IMO, should be standard in all vehicles). The Mustang, IMO, is way ahead of the new Camaro here....the Camaro offers the same gauges, but, like the retro 1969 Camaro it copies, puts those gauges down on the floor at the front of the console, where they are markedly out of your eye-range when you're trying to drive and keep your eyes on the road. The Mustang's steering wheel is more-or-less retro (it has to have an air bag stuffed in, of course, unlike the original), three-spoked, and with nice silver-painted plastic trim that somehow doesn't look or feel cheap. The steering column has a manual-tilt (but not telescoping) lever. Overhead, there is adequate headroom for tall people if you don't have the sunroof (noticeably more so than in the Camaro), and the sun-visors and headliner both have a nice soft-fabric covering.
Recent Mustangs, up to just a year or two ago, were criticized for their cheap, overly-plastic, poor-quality interiors, and the Ford designers apparantly listened. Both the 2010 and 2011 models have not only vastly-improved interior-trim quality over their predecessors, but the 2011 Mustang's interior, IMO, simply blows that of both the Camaro and the Dodge Challenger out of the water. The dash trim is a superb patterned-gray-metallic texture that looks and feels very close to real carbon-fiber. The black plastic monotone door panels, wih fabric inserts, look and feel a little plain for my tastes, but are well-constructed and attached. The leather seats are comforable and well-shaped for large Americans (the car is aimed, of course, at us porky 50-60-year-old Baby Boomers), and the leather-grade seems fairly nice, though the side bolsters could use a little more support for the car's good cornering (more on that later). Cloth seats, of course, come in the lower-grade Mustangs. The stereo-sound quality, IMO, was super-good, almost a killer (just the thing for a late-60s Jimi Hendrix concert and his famous electronic-feedback guitar). In my non-NAV test vehicles, the stereo and climate-control *****/buttons/levers were all rather simple and easy-to-use. Satellite radio comes with the package.
Was there anything I didn't like about the interior? Yes. The rear seat, in true Pony-Car tradition, was useless for anything but children and as a package-shelf. The rear-seat-folding straps (to increase cargo area) were a very awkward reach back into that virtually useless area. And the manual pull-up parking brake handle, on the console between the seats, with its super-hard spring, would be a handful for WWE guys, much less ordinary people with not-so-muscular arms and hands. Ford definitely needs to put in a more-compliant spring/latches in the assembly. But, other than that, the interior of this car is a really nice place to be.....I enjoyed every minute of it.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Not a whole lot to write about back there. The trunk-lid opening, like on the new Camaro, is very small/undersized, and also has a high sill that requires lifting luggage and heavy things up over it to get it inside. That may, (?) however, have been done for rear-chassis rigidity....a low trunk-sill in back, which makes it easier for luggage and packages, takes some re-inforcing metal out of the rear-structure. The cargo area is fairly well-finished, with a decent but not plush grade of gray carpet on the trunk and side-walls. The trunk itself has an acceptable amount of room, considering the classic long hood/short-deck Pony-Car design. Under the rear trunk-floor is (you guessed it), a temporary spare tire, but it seems to be mounted on a very solid, high-quality wheel that could almost be used as an original wheel...it looks that good.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the big 5.0L V8 with a conventional key/fob and side-column ignition switch, just like on the original 1970 model (the 1969 was the same basic car, but locking-steering wheels weren't required until 1970, a year after GM invented them in 1969). Usually I prefer the engine START/STOP buttons, but in this case, it's nice to mimic the original. The 5.0 starts up and idles smoothly, but with an audible, much-improved exhaust rumble this year. I say much-improved because, IMO, I like the rumble-sound this year much more than in the past...the 4.6L Mustangs of yesteryear had a rather flat, nasal-sounding rumble that I never liked (I could tell a 4.6L Mustang from a long way off, out-of-sight-range, just from the specific noise it made).
And the 5.0L, as expected, on the road, is no slouch. Give it some gas, especially in the lower gears, and its 390 ft-lbs. of torque gives you a healthy shove in the back. However, even with this kind of new-found power, it still doesn't seem, to my seat-of-the-pants at least, to have quite the same kick as that of the Camaro SS's 420 ft-lbs. of torque....the difference, while not large, is noticeable. The torque-peak on the 5.0L comes at 4250 RPM, so you have to wind it out a little to get top performance.....and being a brand-new engine, of course, I didn't push it too much. If desired, the traction control can be turned off to do burnouts (believe me, many Mustang owners do). At least the primitive but tough, durable live-rear axle won't melt along with the rear tires.....one reason why Ford persists with the design (this is one area where cost-cutting might make some sense). So, the Mustang GT does have power (noticeably more than in previous GTs), but, underhood, IMO, score one for the Camaro SS.....its larger 6.2L simply out-torques the smaller 5.0L, even if the difference is not huge.
And score the Camaro SS even more in the manual-transmission department. The GT's 6-speed manual transmission, IMO, was, hands-down, the car's worst feature, short of the useless rear seats. The fairly-smooth clutch was OK, though could occasionally be a little tricky, but the real problem was the shift linkage and the lever up-shift springs. The shift-gates were small and narrow, requiring careful fiddling and a precise feel to get the lever in and out correctly. I stalled the engine out, several times, starting up from rest, when the lever looked and felt like it was in first but was actually in third. Upshifting was often very annoying. Sometimes, no matter how careful I was with the shift-feel, the lever would go from first to fourth, making the engine lug, although it's difficult to make an engine with torque like this lug too badly. Other times, it would go easily and smoothly from first back to second.......and up to third....with no problem. Occasionally, it was hard to get a good downshift, too, from 5th or 6th, into the proper lower gear.....it was simply too easy, IMO, to screw up a shift in this car. I know it's not me, because I've easily driven all kinds of manual tansmissions, from sports cars to trucks, even in the old days with unsynchronized first-gears and Jerk-O-Matic clutches. And I had none.....repeat, NONE of the problems with the Camaro SS's 6-speed manual that I did with the Mustang GT's, though the Camaro's clutch was a little heavier. I spoke with the Ford people at the shop about it when I got back, and they told me (rightly or wrongly) that Ford did use a 1-4 shift-restrictor this year, which eliminated 2 and 3 on some driving situations when max-performance was not needed. That was a common feature on some V8 Ponycars some years back, as a fuel-economy measure, but I thought it had been all but eliminated on current models because of advances in fuel efficiency. Even without that feature, I still wasn't impressed with the general shift linkage/design....the gates were too narrowly-spaced.
Fortunately, the chassis on this car helped make up for that......and, despite the simple, primitive, live rear-axle, I thought that the 2011 Mustang GT, in the ride/handling department, was at least the equal, if not superior, to that of the independent-rear-suspension (IRS) Camaro SS. Ford really worked on the Mustang's chassis this year, and it shows. Steering-response was quick (quicker than I expected), with good steering feel as well. Cornering was sure and flat, with very little body-roll. Ride comfort, from the performance-oriented tires/suspension, was a little firm for my tastes, particularly over bumps, and thumps from the tires could be heard on road-impacts, but the general ride comfort, especially on smoother roads, was not bad at all. Road noise, except for a few thumps over bumps, was generally low, and wind-noise, from the high-quality door/bodywork, was also well-controlled. The only significant noise on the road was the rather marked (and traditional) pony-car exhaust rumble, and even that, as I indicated above, was, IMO, a better-sounding tone than the previous 4.6L Mustang nasal-rumbles of the past.
And, finally, score one (but moderately) for the Camaro SS on the brakes. The Mustang GT's brakes, with the usual 4-wheel disc/ABS/EFD, etc..., good as they were, in ordinary street driving, to me, just didn't have the beef and stopping power of the Camaro SS's big Brembo brake package. The Mustang's pedal had noticeably more sponginess and a less-firm feel than the Camaro's Brembos. Both brakes would stop you in a hurry, if you needed it...but the Brembos on the Camaro clearly did so with less-fuss. The Mustang's brake-pedal-location, as I remember it, didn't have much of a problem with my big size 15 clown-shoes hanging-up on the bottom or edge of the pedal going from gas to brake, like it does in some vehicles.
THE VERDICT:
Instead of writing my usual end-of-review, Verdict wrap-up, I'm going to do what most of you probably want...make a direct comparison of the Mustang GT to the Camaro SS (which, of course, was one of the reasons I drove it in the first place). Remember, of course, this is NOT the kind of comparison you will see in many enthusiast auto magazines on the track....this is strictly for street-use driving, by my own judgement, under the conditions that I drove them.
The Mustang GT wins in the general build-quality department, fit-and-finish, Consumer Reports' Predicted Reliability (the Camaro still doesn't have much CR reliability data), interior-design/trim, headroom, steering/handling/chassis engineering, dealer-availability, body styles (the new Camaro converibles are just starting to be shipped now), and the fact that Mustang convertibles can be had in all trim levels, unlike Camaro. Mustangs are also less-likely to be marked up over list than Camaros...especially if you avoid the limited-production Shelby GT and Super-Snake models.
The Camaro SS wins in engine torque, the design of its manual-transmission, brake effectiveness, paint-color choices, underhood-service room, and ease-of-parking-brake-use (though the Camaro's parking-brake handle is also a little heavy).
Both cars are likely to have high insurance rates for less-than-careful drivers, poor tire wear from soft-rubber, summer-only, high-performance tires (and, of course, from doing burnouts), lousy winter traction on wet/icy roads, even with the traction/stability control on, and, of course, a useless rear seat for adults. The Mustang may or may not have better visibility, depending on whether the rear-quarter window has the cover-kit on it, but the Camaro's rear-visibility will always be very poor. Both cars show some cost-cutting in things like a lack of body-side mouldings, non-swiveling side-mirrors, and a temporary-spare tire. And both cars, of course, have a vast, widespread dealer-network for service and repairs.
So, there you have it. And, as always............Happy Car Shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-21-10 at 09:52 PM.
10-21-10, 09:45 PM
#2
Lexus Champion
Good review as usual Mike. 
I appreciate the fact that you directly compared it to it's true rivals...the Challenger and Camaro...unlike many mags/sites that want to pit it against the M3 and such. It is very clear that you grew up with the original muscle car classics and can appreciate their history in today's modern versions.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I spent 3 days with a 5.0 vert. I am disappointed that you thought the 6 speed was less than outstanding. Imo, one of the biggest downfalls....and I mean HUGE downfalls....of the automatic that I drove was that it was less than engaging. The lack of a DCT/PDK/8 speed slushbox was a major fail, imo, of the automatic. To hear that the 6 speed isn't a winner is frightening.
I agree that the interior is a step up...especially compared to the Dodge and Chev....and that the sound system is very good. You mentioned that your test vehicle didn't have Nav, but I thought Sync was standard on all of them? I was thoroughly impressed with Sync and thought that you might have been more comfortable with it than some of the competitor offerings?
Overall, if deciding between a Challenger SRT-8, Camaro SS or Mustang 5.0, I would likely choose the 'Stang in spite of the deficiencies I feel it has.
I appreciate the fact that you directly compared it to it's true rivals...the Challenger and Camaro...unlike many mags/sites that want to pit it against the M3 and such. It is very clear that you grew up with the original muscle car classics and can appreciate their history in today's modern versions.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I spent 3 days with a 5.0 vert. I am disappointed that you thought the 6 speed was less than outstanding. Imo, one of the biggest downfalls....and I mean HUGE downfalls....of the automatic that I drove was that it was less than engaging. The lack of a DCT/PDK/8 speed slushbox was a major fail, imo, of the automatic. To hear that the 6 speed isn't a winner is frightening.
I agree that the interior is a step up...especially compared to the Dodge and Chev....and that the sound system is very good. You mentioned that your test vehicle didn't have Nav, but I thought Sync was standard on all of them? I was thoroughly impressed with Sync and thought that you might have been more comfortable with it than some of the competitor offerings?
Overall, if deciding between a Challenger SRT-8, Camaro SS or Mustang 5.0, I would likely choose the 'Stang in spite of the deficiencies I feel it has.
10-21-10, 10:17 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks. 
I agree....even with the Mustang's vast chassis and interior improvements this year, it is not an M3 in the chassis department, though both the Mustang GT and Camaro SS out-torque the M3, especially at low RPMs. And the last new M3 I reviewed, in 2008, showed inexcusable assembly-quality glitches for a new car costing some 63K. Although the Mustang, IMO, showed better assembly/materials than the Camaro, neither one had any significant defects right from the factory (assuming that the quirky 6-speed in the Mustang wasn't defective).
Yeah, I went to high school with the original ones. Didn't have enough money, of course, as a teen, to have a new one, but I did have a used Plymouth Barracuda....and some of my friends had new ones, which I tried out a couple of times. I was a well-known careful driver, and could drive a muscle-car with common sense...and they knew it, so they weren't afraid to let me drive.
(and a couple of Buicks, but we won't get into that)
The 6-speed manual was a puzzler.....seems like, at times, the 1-4 skip-shift feature would work, then it wouldn't. I'd pull the lever back from first and never reallly know what I'd get until I felt the engine start lugging. It's possible, (?) though, that Ford only puts this feature in certain-market cars, or that there was an intermitent problem with the specific transmission in my car. I did not check-test other Mustangs GTs on the lot for a comparison, as the dealership was very kind giving me the time with this car that they did, and I didn't want to take advantage of them.
You might (?) try out a 6-speed in your area and see if you get the same results I did. But the Canadian winter is fast approachnig in your area....and these cars just don't cut it on snow and ice.
My car did have SYNC....but the American-market version seemed to hook a conventional stereo to it instead of a traditional NAV screen.
Yes, the GT automatic, in regular street driving, for several reasons, would (probably) make the best daily-driver. Certainly it has the nicest interior to spend any real time in.
I appreciate the fact that you directly compared it to it's true rivals...the Challenger and Camaro...unlike many mags/sites that want to pit it against the M3 and such.
It is very clear that you grew up with the original muscle car classics and can appreciate their history in today's modern versions.
(and a couple of Buicks, but we won't get into that)
As I mentioned in the other thread, I spent 3 days with a 5.0 vert. I am disappointed that you thought the 6 speed was less than outstanding. Imo, one of the biggest downfalls....and I mean HUGE downfalls....of the automatic that I drove was that it was less than engaging. The lack of a DCT/PDK/8 speed slushbox was a major fail, imo, of the automatic. To hear that the 6 speed isn't a winner is frightening.
You might (?) try out a 6-speed in your area and see if you get the same results I did. But the Canadian winter is fast approachnig in your area....and these cars just don't cut it on snow and ice.
I agree that the interior is a step up...especially compared to the Dodge and Chev....and that the sound system is very good. You mentioned that your test vehicle didn't have Nav, but I thought Sync was standard on all of them? I was thoroughly impressed with Sync and thought that you might have been more comfortable with it than some of the competitor offerings?
Overall, if deciding between a Challenger SRT-8, Camaro SS or Mustang 5.0, I would likely choose the 'Stang in spite of the deficiencies I feel it has.
10-22-10, 05:21 AM
#5
Lexus Champion
one thing I don't like is the seating...the headrest position is totally wrong...pushing my head forward....WTF???? and NO these aren't adjustable fwd and back, just up and down.
10-22-10, 06:27 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Jut-forward headrests like that are becoming more and more common in new vehicles. The reason is (once again) cost-cutting. Studies showed that many drivers, in the past, for comfort or other reasons, have tended to sit with the headrest too low and/or too far back to provide adequate whiplash protection in a rear-end crash. Being tall (6' 2"), I've tended to do that myself sometimes, as some headrests simply couldn't adjust up far enough for me. Saab and Volvo, always the safety-innovators, got around that problem by designing pendulum/lever-operated headrests that normally rested far enough back of the person's head that he or she didn't feel it pressing, but, if the car was hit in the rear, the weighted lever/pendulum rod in the seat would instantly swing the headrest forward to contact the back of the person's head and prevent a whiplash. Effective, of course, but they added to seat-production costs...hence the cheaper, but less-comfortable alternative of the jut-forward headrests you note in the picture. They also increase whiplash protection, but at less-cost and simpler installation on the assembly line.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-22-10 at 06:35 AM.
Trending Topics
10-22-10, 06:43 AM
#8
Lexus Champion
Great review. I definitely like the new mustang GTs.
However, like you mentioned, I have seen many single mustang car accidents, more than any other cars I've seen. Seen a few in side ditches and some wrapped around poles and trees. There are many mustang drivers here that always seem to think every road they're on is some sort of racetrack as they are always smashing the gas pedal. Saw two young drivers(different times) fish tale their mustang as they made a left turn yesterday not caring about other cars near by.
However, like you mentioned, I have seen many single mustang car accidents, more than any other cars I've seen. Seen a few in side ditches and some wrapped around poles and trees. There are many mustang drivers here that always seem to think every road they're on is some sort of racetrack as they are always smashing the gas pedal. Saw two young drivers(different times) fish tale their mustang as they made a left turn yesterday not caring about other cars near by.
10-22-10, 06:51 AM
#10
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Country, WI
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thumbs up as always Mike
Agree with about all comments, would say the rear view in Mustang is heads above the Camaro, but I cannot attest to road comparison.
Your quote:" In a Nutshell: Well-built, good quality, dynamite super-retro looks, and a good chassis, but frustrating shift linkage in the lower gears".... gearing is why we all upgraded to 3.73 or 4.12 once we purchased our cars
Agree with about all comments, would say the rear view in Mustang is heads above the Camaro, but I cannot attest to road comparison.
Your quote:" In a Nutshell: Well-built, good quality, dynamite super-retro looks, and a good chassis, but frustrating shift linkage in the lower gears".... gearing is why we all upgraded to 3.73 or 4.12 once we purchased our cars
10-22-10, 08:41 AM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
Aggressive Mustang drivers are not necessarily always drag-racing, but sometimes doing other dumb things as well.....I outlined some of those things in the review. But, to be fair, they are not all that stereotype...there are some careful Mustang jocks as well. And, when you see bad things happen to your friends and colleagues from dumb driving mistakes, it can sober you up ina hurry.
I definitely like the new Mustang GTs.
However, like you mentioned, I have seen many single mustang car accidents, more than any other cars I've seen. Seen a few in side ditches and some wrapped around poles and trees. There are many mustang drivers here that always seem to think every road they're on is some sort of racetrack as they are always smashing the gas pedal. Saw two young drivers(different times) fish tale their mustang as they made a left turn yesterday not caring about other cars near by.
However, like you mentioned, I have seen many single mustang car accidents, more than any other cars I've seen. Seen a few in side ditches and some wrapped around poles and trees. There are many mustang drivers here that always seem to think every road they're on is some sort of racetrack as they are always smashing the gas pedal. Saw two young drivers(different times) fish tale their mustang as they made a left turn yesterday not caring about other cars near by.
10-22-10, 08:51 AM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Fortunately, the latest Mustangs, of course, have state-of-the-art safety equipment (multiple air bags, ABS, stability control, etc....), so they are somewhat more likely than past models to protect dumb drivers from their own mistakes. Some Mustang jocks, though, turn the traction/ESC off so they can do burnouts.
I thought I explained that in the review. What I meant by the 'Hulk Hogan" parking-brake handle was the very stiff spring/ratchet assembly it lifts up and down on. The one on my test-car, at least, was so stiff while pressing the release-button and in its up-and-down movement that I think a lot of people would have trouble with it unless they had well-muscled, athletic hands and shoulders. It was arguably the stiffest-operating handle I've seen on a modern production car. The handle in the Camaro SS was also a little stiff, but not to the same degree. I don't want to sound sexist or stereotype here, but those handles simply weren't designed for little old ladies.
What? Please explain.
10-22-10, 09:01 AM
#14
Thanks for the review, Mike!
I know that, for American muscle cars, the Camaro and 'Stang have always been competitors.
However, Ford is pushing the envelope and challenging other halo cars, specifically the BMW M3 coupe.
The numbers are there. And although there is a significant difference in build materials and quality, would you agree (or disagree) that performance and handling are comparable? Is the BMW worth the extra premium; double the price of the 'Stang GT?
I know that, for American muscle cars, the Camaro and 'Stang have always been competitors.
However, Ford is pushing the envelope and challenging other halo cars, specifically the BMW M3 coupe.
The numbers are there. And although there is a significant difference in build materials and quality, would you agree (or disagree) that performance and handling are comparable? Is the BMW worth the extra premium; double the price of the 'Stang GT?
