What do the About.com Rating stars mean?
Whenever a manufacturer revamps or revises a car I like, I always worry that they're going to screw it up. Not so the Mustang. There hasn't been a bad Mustang in nearly 30 years, but then again it's been 30 years since the Mustang faced any serious competition from Chrysler or GM. Frankly, I thought the previous Mustang held its own just fine against the new Challenger and Camaro -- it didn't need to change, and yet it has. So is it better or worse? Read on. $21,845 base, $39,480 as tested, EPA fuel economy estimates 16-18 MPG city, 24-26 MPG highway.
First Glance: Return of the pony cars
Larger photos: Front - rear - all photos
The return of the Dodge Challenger, Chevy Camaro and revamped Ford Mustang is being hailed as one of the great events in modern automotive history (or at least it would be if the sky wasn't falling on Detroit). But as the guy who has to drive and review these cars, it's been a bit of a heartbreaker.
First we had the Challenger -- amazing to look at, thrilling to drive with either V8 engine, but with a cabin so depressing that Dodge ought to include a case of Zoloft as standard equipment. And speaking of pharmaceuticals, if your doctor won't write you a prescription for sleeping pills, try taking a drive in the six-cylinder Challenger. Works every time.
Next came the Camaro, a gorgeous car that offers amazing bang for the buck - 300 horsepower for $23,000 and 426 hp for $31,000. But doing so required some major cost-cutting, and a quick glance at the interior will show you where every dime's gone missing.
Now we have Bachelor #3: The 2010 Ford Mustang. And all I can say is: Thank goodness.
For the record, the '10 'Stang isn't all new, but a rather extensive re-do with significant changes inside and out. Despite all-new sheetmetal, the styling hasn't changed much, which is a good thing. I think the '05-'09s were the best looking Mustangs ever. The 2010 doesn't look any better; thankfully, it doesn't look too much worse. My favorite bit is the taillights (link goes to photo) -- they remind me of the lights from the '71 Mustang (a.k.a. the Fat Elvis Mustang), but the turn signals light up sequentially, which is beyond cool.
In the Driver's Seat: It's all the same to me
Inside, Ford de-cheaped the Mustang's interior materials and shuffled the layout a bit. Compare old and new and you'll see the differences, but for the most part the new 'Stang has the same retro-chic look that I loved so much in the old car. One of the reasons I preferred the previous Mustang to the Challenger and Camaro was that the 'Stang's smaller size and better visibility made it easier to drive, especially for a short guy like me. That hasn't changed, although the 2010's "power bulge" hood makes it a little trickier to figure out where the right-front corner is. Still, the Mustang is the only one of the three pony cars that doesn't make me feel like I'm driving a machine gun bunker. You do pay a price for the compact dimensions, though -- the Mustang's back seat is pretty much useless and the trunk is small, although it tries hard enough.
Ford upped the Mustang's luxo quotient by adding optional features like a backup camera ($240) and dual-zone climate control (bundled with voice-activated navigation for $2,195 -- ouch). My top-of-the-line Mustang GT Premium test car also had a glass roof ($1,995) that gives you the same sun-and-stars view as a convertible without mussing your hair (or giving you skin cancer -- the glass roof has an SPF of 50). All these gadgets were much appreciated, but along with other goodies like fancy wheels and an automatic transmission, they brought my tester's price tag up to nearly $40,000. Gyah! I love the Mustang as much as the next guy, but that's Infiniti G37 and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR money.
On the Road: Improved where it counts
In 2009, Ford introduced a limited-edition 'Stang called the Bullitt, which featured upgraded suspension, steering and engine. Most of those upgrades have been incorporated in the 2010 Mustang, and they make a noticeable improvement. Yes, the Mustang still has its Model-T-era solid rear axle, but Ford has changed the way it's attached to the car with good results. Solid axles tend to skitter around on bumpy curves, but the new Mustang's back end kept its cool on all but the roughest sections of the About.com Top Secret Curvy Test Road. The ride has been softened up, which makes the Mustang much more comfortable as a daily driver, but it's not so soft that it throws off the handling. The steering feels overly light, almost like a true 60s-era muscle car, although it guides the Mustang with a good deal more precision than last year's setup.
Like the '09 Bullitt, the '10 Mustang GT's 4.6 liter V8 produces 315 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque, up 15 hp and 5 lb-ft from 2009. (The V6 holds steady at 210 hp and 240 lb-ft.) Ford engineers tweaked the acoustics, and the results are bitchin', dude: Less road noise, more screamin' V8. It even runs on regular gas, but the engine's computer serves up a fatter torque curve if you feed it premium. Electronic stability control is now standard (about time, Ford!), and it adds safety without killing the fun: My automatic-equipped tester would happily lay down two strips of rubber from a dead standstill. Oh, and it delivered 17.2 MPG in mixed driving -- no Prius, but not bad considering how much time I spent making that V8 howl.
Journey's End: Mustang, you're still the one
Of the three pony cars, the Mustang is still my favorite -- but depending on your priorities, you might not agree. If you plan to haul people in the back seat, the Dodge Challenger is a better choice, and the V8-powered Challenger R/T is just as thrilling to drive as the V8 Mustang. If you're out for raw power, the Chevy Camaro SS is the way to go. It costs about two grand more than the Mustang GT, but the Camaro's V8 clobbers the Ford's by 1.6 liters, 111 horsepower and 95 lb-ft of torque -- the surplus alone is enough to make a Honda Fit go like stink. And the Camaro's testosterone-laden lines make the Mustang look like a Buick.
Despite the improvements in handling, the Mustang still isn't a proper sports car. It's a lot of fun, but it's still not in the same league as cars like the Nissan 370Z, Subaru WRX and Hyundai Genesis Coupe. I can deal with that, but I'm having a little more trouble getting my head around my well-optioned test car's $39,480 price tag. To be fair to Ford, they do make a Mustang for every budget -- V6s start at $22k, V8s at $29k and convertibles at $27k. But $40,000? Backup camera or no backup camera, that seems like an awful lot of dough for a Mustang.
To sum it all up: I'm a fan. I love the way the Mustang combines muscle car thrills with daily driver sensibility. I love the noises it makes. I love that I can see out of it. And most of all, I love the fact that Ford hasn't lost sight of what the Mustang is all about. -- Aaron Gold
