fasterfaster

This is kinda off topic, but this is my only car forum and my 951 IS my reference point.

I was in Seattle for a wedding last weekend and the nice girl at the counter upgraded me to a Mustang. Granted, this is the base 'stang, so I wasn't expecting much power, but the engine was actually fine. Impressive, even, for a V6 moving that boat. It was EVERYTHING else I hated about the car. There was literally no single feature beyond keyless entry that I preferred about this car that is 20 years newer than my 951.

I was especially upset because I really WANT the American automakers to make great cars, and it seemed like they were on a rebound. The cars are getting great reviews for being more "European." This car definitely was not.

- I felt like I was sitting in a bathtub. The car is giant (why would a sports car ever be that big?) and even raising the power seats, I still felt like I could barely see out the windows or over the hood.
- It's a giant heavy boat. It rolled badly at any hint of cornering. Outright grip was actually high, but it left me with no desire to actually take turns.
- The steering feel was downright awful. Complete rubber. Too light. Undamped. At a stop sign, if you pulled the wheel off center and let go, it would snap back not just to center, but beyond and then back and forth like a rubber band. I've rarely had such a hard time getting a car to track where I wanted. We're not just talking worse than the 951. We're talking worse feel and tracking than my old Subaru Forester. Worse than my '87 4Runner. I'm not joking.
- Brakes were overboosted with no feel and a completely non-linear response. Like old drum brakes.
- Stereo was difficult to navigate, with no radio reception, and the fancy Microsoft Sync wouldn't work with my iPhone 4.
- Seats were uncomfortable with a headrest that was WAY too far forward.

Does the GT have completely different steering and suspension, because it would take a lot more than a V8 to make that a drivable car.

odurandina

great post. huge, garbage cars. heavy, ugly....

Chrysler, Challenger.
GM, Corvette.
Ford, GT.

everything else = busura.

onspeed

You really think challenger > viper?

Speaking of boats...

Reimu

Try the GT, Ford paid a lot of money and pulled a lot of strings to make it look faster than an M3

It's a hell of a lot better than the previous mustangs, but I'm tired of hearing about it like it's the second coming

odurandina

no, not a huge Viper fan... but i do like the new Challenger because it's the best remake of the classic musclecar. the Camaro and Mustang are pretty awful. they don't look like classics, contemporaries, or anything in between. and i've heard they feel like it too. on the other hand, the Challenger knows it's role and does it well... it's got a nice engine and the car looks great. i liked the episode where Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May took the Vette, Challenger and CTS to Bonneville, UT. it was clearly demonstrated that you wouldn't want to be chosing the Challenger to drive hard around the corners of that mountain road,

(but Steve McQueen would have gone for it because the car is so cool).

fasterfaster

No car ever proved to me more that the numbers have little to do with the driving experience. The engine was strong and the tires sticky. I bet it pulls similar skidpad and drag numbers to my 951 if not better. It is nowhere near the same driving experience. I am dead serious that I would rather take my old 4runner down a twisty road than that Mustang.

If the GT improves the numbers without improving the feel, then it's a wasted effort in my opinion.

sj340

You may have driven a thrashed and possibly wrecked Mustang.I think your first misunderstanding is that the Mustang is a sports car.Who ever told you that??
It is not a sports car and was not intended to be compared to a sports car.
While I have not driven the new model,I also own an 07 Shelby GT which does not sound at all like the car you drove.Shelby did lower my car and put a different suspension in it,maybe that makes a huge difference.
But my best comparison would be 944 is a sports car and the Mustang is a muscle car.I think both of them do what they are designed for very well.You still can't beat the sound and feel of a V8 Mustang with lowered rear end gears and a manual transmission for just cruising around town and you can't beat a 944 for the twisties.
So get both!

944Ross

Blame the crash test dummies for all three current musclecars being huge and bloated. True for all new cars, really. The tall beltline is needed for frontal and side impact resistance, massive structures needed so you can run into a bridge abutment and walk away. No way the corporate lawyers are letting a 300 HP car out the door that isn't a tank.

I've owned Mustangs and Z28s from all the generations except the current ones, but have driven the newer Mustangs several times as rentals. I have to I agree the Mustang lacks completely any kind of "driving experience", a competent car but very cramped cockpit and I can't believe they imitated the '67's dashboard. It's like driving a mid-60's Falcon.

choinga

Someone else mentioned it...but the only way anyone would get me in a Mustang (a new one anyway) would be if it was a Shelby...GT500 preferably.

944Ross

I can't believe the money they're asking for a Shelby, why wouldn't you buy a Vette for near the same money?

kombatrok

Hey now ... I have a '64 Falcon, the interior is pretty decent in a simplistic sort if way. And even though the way it drives can't compare to a 944 at all, I enjoy driving it more and get more looks and compliments. Sometimes it doesn't matter what the car feels like behind the wheel...

elzergone

I'm trying to imagine what it feels like to think this, and I just can't do it.

Different strokes I guess

ninefiveone

I guess the real question is whether you feel it's fair to compare a $20K rental mustang v6 (which is highly likely to be the last 4.0 V6 version rather than the current 300hp v6 that can be had with the track pack suspension, etc) to your 951 which was the equivalent of $90K in today's dollars?

2011 Boss 302 would be a much fairer comparison at $45K and consistently competitive with the current M3 around road tracks. i.e. sport car

The Shelby satisfies the muscle car side of the equation if you want to go that route.

Mark Hubley

I think most of the blame goes to the American public, which generally perceives big as safe and small as unsafe. In a land where half the vehicles on the road are full-size trucks and SUV's, I believe many buyers view bigger-size/increased-weight as positives, even in supposed sports cars.

I have had various friends and relatives comment on how exposed they feel riding in one of my Porsches. Most American drivers are not enthusiasts, and they are perfectly happy in a "sports car" that is actually a land yacht as long as it has plenty of horsepower and looks cool. If it weighs closer to 4K lbs than 3K lbs, then that's a bonus for them.

xschop

I'll take my P-car over a Rustang any day.