05 Mustang road test in local paper
10/3/04, 07:52 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: June 16, 2004
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's edition of the Cleveland Plain Dealer has an article on the 05 Mustang. I have it scanned already,but it is too big for me to post (982 kb). If some one can help me get it posted, I'm sure everyone would enjoy it
10/3/04, 08:20 AM
#2
2ndGen-
Thanks for the heads up.
How about this . .
http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?...69311.xml?bates
IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT
Mustang builds on its past, does it with flash
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Christopher Jensen
Plain Dealer Auto Editor
Paw Paw, Mich.- Cruising down a tree-lined country road, flickering through sun and shadows with the classic Mustang hood out front, it feels like driving a bit of history, but so much better.
This is the 2005 Mustang, the long-awaited replacement of Ford's ancient hobby horse, the original underpinnings of which go back to the 1979 model year.
Ford has updated the Mustang over the years, but it could never quite bring itself to spend the money for a complete reworking. Until now.
Before undertaking that task, Ford decided to take a long look at the Mustang's heritage, figure out what was best about the car, then improve on those things, said Barb Samardzich, Ford's executive director for small vehicles.
The key elements of the Mustang's heritage turned out to be styling, affordability and handling that can please the most serious enthusiast, she said.
Ford didn't dare forsake the classic Mustang appearance, a move that might have angered legions of enthusiasts. Instead, designers fell back on an updated interpretation.
On affordability, prices on the V-6 begin at $19,410, with the V-8 powered GT starting at $24,995. Both prices include destination and delivery charges.
The cars are being built at the AutoAlliance International Plant, a 50/50 venture between Ford and Mazda in Flat Rock, Mich. They are expected in dealerships this month.
Interior
The overall length is 187.6 inches, about 4 inches longer than the old model. The 107.1-inch wheelbase is almost six inches longer than before.
Part of the reason for increasing the wheelbase was to get a little more interior room. However, using five of those inches to push the front wheels forward improved balance and made the Mustang handle better, said Hau Thai-Tang, the chief engineer.
Now, the V-8 has about 53 percent of the weight in front, compared with 57 percent on the old car.
Ford says there is more room inside, but the back seat remains largely a ceremonial fixture, with only 31 inches of legroom. That's about one inch more than before. As with many coupes, reaching the back seat is neither easy nor pretty, but it can involve some degree of amusement for onlookers.
The increases in room are generally marginal, with the most significant being almost two inches more front shoulder room. But Ford's figures show the loss of a half-inch in rear headroom.
Overall, the interior is functional and pleasant, with a hearty dose of plastic. But that is all part of the trade-off when an important goal is affordability.
Safety equipment includes optional ($370) side-impact air bags in the front seat that provide head and chest protection. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety of real-world crashes found head protection can reduce the driver's chance of being killed in a side-impact crash by 45 percent.
Air curtains, which would cover the rear windows, are not available. They could be added for a later model year, Ford said.
The trunk is rated at 12.3 cubic feet, an increase of 1.4 cubic feet. The back seat folds down for carrying larger items.
"We also went after utility because we recognize for many of the V-6 owners this is their only car," said Thai-Tang.
On the road
During a daylong drive through Michigan, the first thing one notices about the car is the solidity of the body. Rumbling over potholes or tar strips no longer sends a quiver through the body.
Thai-Tang says the torsional rigidity (or resistance to twisting) has been increased 31 percent. The Mustang has a 50 percent greater resistance to bending. (Think of the ends being placed on jacks with a giant hand pushing down mid-vehicle.)
The advantage of increased rigidity is that it gives the engineers the chance to have good handling without a stiff ride. With a poor structure, engineers have to choose one or the other and consumers have to live with the choice.
"It really pays dividends when you push the car, but also with the long-term reliability and durability, squeak and rattle," said Thai-Tang.
Ford's delicate dance of affordability is reflected in the 2005's suspension, at least on paper. In particular, the old Mustang had a solid rear axle. That made it one of the few vehicles that lacked an independent rear suspension, which performs better on a rough surface because the two wheels can move independently.
It was widely assumed that when the new Mustang arrived it would join the rest of the modern motoring world and have an independent rear suspension.
Not so. Ford saved money by sticking with a solid rear axle and again using a MacPherson strut front suspension. However, clever engineering involving lightening, relocating and general, creative finagling of the front and rear suspension appears to have saved the day.
In our small group, mostly consisting of writers for various car magazines, there was generally surprise and praise for how well the rear suspension worked. There was none of the untoward behavior one would expect, such as hopping or skittering while cornering on a rough surface.
Combined with a reworked front suspension and improved (also stronger) rack-and-pinion steering, the Mustang GT is an impressive package. The steering has a good combination of feel and weight (arguably a tiny bit light), and the Mustang heads into a turn with near-instant obedience.
Encounter a rumpled surface in the middle of a turn, and the new Mustang just doesn't care. Even sharp applications of V-8 power are not likely to break the rear loose unless the surface is slippery.
Under such circumstances, the traction-control system kicks in, reducing power. But Ford did a slick thing. Accelerate hard in a straight line, and the traction control doesn't react. That allows the driver to launch the Mustang in a blast of tire smoke. This juvenile activity appeals to a surprising number of drivers, spectators and every tire dealer in the country.
The traction control is inactive unless sensors detect that the rear is moving sideways. The idea is to allow the driver to have some fun, but still offer some help on a slippery surface.
Lifting off the gas in a high-speed turn does tuck the nose a bit deeper into the turn as the tail moves to the outside. However, it is such a subtle movement that it will help most drivers and is unlikely to trouble any.
One advantage of such "trailing-throttle oversteer" is that, should a driver be surprised by a turn that tightens up and decide to lift off the gas, the nose moves a bit deeper into the turn, helping the driver.
On the GT that I drove, the ride was surprisingly compliant, particularly given the GT's role as a sporting machine. More driving is needed, but it seems likely that Samardzich's team has pulled off the remarkable feat of designing a car that is entertaining to drive and doesn't penalize its occupants with a stiff ride.
The power
Two engines are available, a V-6 and a V-8.
The V-6 is a 4.0-liter rated at 210 horsepower at 5,250 revolutions per minute and 240 foot-pounds of torque at 3,500 rpm. Ford says about 90 percent of that torque is available at only 2,000 rpm, which should make for a strong response to the throttle whenever the driver needs it.
On our sneak-preview drive, Ford had more V-8s and I did not get a chance to try the V-6.
The V-8 is a 4.6-liter rated at 300 horsepower at 5,750 rpm and 320 foot-pounds of torque at 4,500 rpm. Either a five-speed manual or five-speed automatic is available.
During a short drive, the five-speed automatic was fairly quick to downshift and smart enough to hold an upshift under hard acceleration until the last, delicious, high-rev moment.
On the manual, the shift linkage had relatively short movements with an easy, solid engagement.
The gear ratios are thoughtfully chosen, and, as one would expect from a 4.6-liter V-8, the response is quick. The 300-horsepower output handles the GT's weight (3,483 pounds with the five-speed and 3,518 pounds with the automatic) with ease.
About 1,600 rpm cruising on the highway one of the V-8s droned a bit, but push hard and move into the range of 4,000 or 5,000 rpm and it sounded great.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimate is that the V-6 with the manual will get 19 miles per gallon in the city and 28 mpg highway, while the automatic is rated at 19 mpg city and 25 mpg highway. Opt for the V-8 and the manual is rated at 17 mpg city and 25 mpg highway, with the automatic good for 18 mpg city and 23 mpg highway.
Going from zero to 60 mph in a V-8 with the manual transmission takes 5.6 seconds, according to instrumented tests conducted by Don Sherman, the technical editor for Automobile Magazine.
Zero to 100 mph took 14 seconds, and covering the quarter-mile required 14.2 seconds and finished at 102 mph, Sherman found. "It is the fastest Mustang GT we have ever produced," said Phil Martens, the group vice president for North American product creation.
Conclusion
There was not nearly enough driving of these early models to tell for sure whether Ford has produced a truly great car for enthusiasts. But it is clear that the days of Band-Aid, semi-apologetic Mustangs are over, and it seems highly likely that the Mustang is galloping back into its golden age.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
cjensen@plaind.com, 216-999-4830
© 2004 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.
Thanks for the heads up.
How about this . . http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?...69311.xml?bates
IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT
Mustang builds on its past, does it with flash
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Christopher Jensen
Plain Dealer Auto Editor
Paw Paw, Mich.- Cruising down a tree-lined country road, flickering through sun and shadows with the classic Mustang hood out front, it feels like driving a bit of history, but so much better.
This is the 2005 Mustang, the long-awaited replacement of Ford's ancient hobby horse, the original underpinnings of which go back to the 1979 model year.
Ford has updated the Mustang over the years, but it could never quite bring itself to spend the money for a complete reworking. Until now.
Before undertaking that task, Ford decided to take a long look at the Mustang's heritage, figure out what was best about the car, then improve on those things, said Barb Samardzich, Ford's executive director for small vehicles.
The key elements of the Mustang's heritage turned out to be styling, affordability and handling that can please the most serious enthusiast, she said.
Ford didn't dare forsake the classic Mustang appearance, a move that might have angered legions of enthusiasts. Instead, designers fell back on an updated interpretation.
On affordability, prices on the V-6 begin at $19,410, with the V-8 powered GT starting at $24,995. Both prices include destination and delivery charges.
The cars are being built at the AutoAlliance International Plant, a 50/50 venture between Ford and Mazda in Flat Rock, Mich. They are expected in dealerships this month.
Interior
The overall length is 187.6 inches, about 4 inches longer than the old model. The 107.1-inch wheelbase is almost six inches longer than before.
Part of the reason for increasing the wheelbase was to get a little more interior room. However, using five of those inches to push the front wheels forward improved balance and made the Mustang handle better, said Hau Thai-Tang, the chief engineer.
Now, the V-8 has about 53 percent of the weight in front, compared with 57 percent on the old car.
Ford says there is more room inside, but the back seat remains largely a ceremonial fixture, with only 31 inches of legroom. That's about one inch more than before. As with many coupes, reaching the back seat is neither easy nor pretty, but it can involve some degree of amusement for onlookers.
The increases in room are generally marginal, with the most significant being almost two inches more front shoulder room. But Ford's figures show the loss of a half-inch in rear headroom.
Overall, the interior is functional and pleasant, with a hearty dose of plastic. But that is all part of the trade-off when an important goal is affordability.
Safety equipment includes optional ($370) side-impact air bags in the front seat that provide head and chest protection. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety of real-world crashes found head protection can reduce the driver's chance of being killed in a side-impact crash by 45 percent.
Air curtains, which would cover the rear windows, are not available. They could be added for a later model year, Ford said.
The trunk is rated at 12.3 cubic feet, an increase of 1.4 cubic feet. The back seat folds down for carrying larger items.
"We also went after utility because we recognize for many of the V-6 owners this is their only car," said Thai-Tang.
On the road
During a daylong drive through Michigan, the first thing one notices about the car is the solidity of the body. Rumbling over potholes or tar strips no longer sends a quiver through the body.
Thai-Tang says the torsional rigidity (or resistance to twisting) has been increased 31 percent. The Mustang has a 50 percent greater resistance to bending. (Think of the ends being placed on jacks with a giant hand pushing down mid-vehicle.)
The advantage of increased rigidity is that it gives the engineers the chance to have good handling without a stiff ride. With a poor structure, engineers have to choose one or the other and consumers have to live with the choice.
"It really pays dividends when you push the car, but also with the long-term reliability and durability, squeak and rattle," said Thai-Tang.
Ford's delicate dance of affordability is reflected in the 2005's suspension, at least on paper. In particular, the old Mustang had a solid rear axle. That made it one of the few vehicles that lacked an independent rear suspension, which performs better on a rough surface because the two wheels can move independently.
It was widely assumed that when the new Mustang arrived it would join the rest of the modern motoring world and have an independent rear suspension.
Not so. Ford saved money by sticking with a solid rear axle and again using a MacPherson strut front suspension. However, clever engineering involving lightening, relocating and general, creative finagling of the front and rear suspension appears to have saved the day.
In our small group, mostly consisting of writers for various car magazines, there was generally surprise and praise for how well the rear suspension worked. There was none of the untoward behavior one would expect, such as hopping or skittering while cornering on a rough surface.
Combined with a reworked front suspension and improved (also stronger) rack-and-pinion steering, the Mustang GT is an impressive package. The steering has a good combination of feel and weight (arguably a tiny bit light), and the Mustang heads into a turn with near-instant obedience.
Encounter a rumpled surface in the middle of a turn, and the new Mustang just doesn't care. Even sharp applications of V-8 power are not likely to break the rear loose unless the surface is slippery.
Under such circumstances, the traction-control system kicks in, reducing power. But Ford did a slick thing. Accelerate hard in a straight line, and the traction control doesn't react. That allows the driver to launch the Mustang in a blast of tire smoke. This juvenile activity appeals to a surprising number of drivers, spectators and every tire dealer in the country.
The traction control is inactive unless sensors detect that the rear is moving sideways. The idea is to allow the driver to have some fun, but still offer some help on a slippery surface.
Lifting off the gas in a high-speed turn does tuck the nose a bit deeper into the turn as the tail moves to the outside. However, it is such a subtle movement that it will help most drivers and is unlikely to trouble any.
One advantage of such "trailing-throttle oversteer" is that, should a driver be surprised by a turn that tightens up and decide to lift off the gas, the nose moves a bit deeper into the turn, helping the driver.
On the GT that I drove, the ride was surprisingly compliant, particularly given the GT's role as a sporting machine. More driving is needed, but it seems likely that Samardzich's team has pulled off the remarkable feat of designing a car that is entertaining to drive and doesn't penalize its occupants with a stiff ride.
The power
Two engines are available, a V-6 and a V-8.
The V-6 is a 4.0-liter rated at 210 horsepower at 5,250 revolutions per minute and 240 foot-pounds of torque at 3,500 rpm. Ford says about 90 percent of that torque is available at only 2,000 rpm, which should make for a strong response to the throttle whenever the driver needs it.
On our sneak-preview drive, Ford had more V-8s and I did not get a chance to try the V-6.
The V-8 is a 4.6-liter rated at 300 horsepower at 5,750 rpm and 320 foot-pounds of torque at 4,500 rpm. Either a five-speed manual or five-speed automatic is available.
During a short drive, the five-speed automatic was fairly quick to downshift and smart enough to hold an upshift under hard acceleration until the last, delicious, high-rev moment.
On the manual, the shift linkage had relatively short movements with an easy, solid engagement.
The gear ratios are thoughtfully chosen, and, as one would expect from a 4.6-liter V-8, the response is quick. The 300-horsepower output handles the GT's weight (3,483 pounds with the five-speed and 3,518 pounds with the automatic) with ease.
About 1,600 rpm cruising on the highway one of the V-8s droned a bit, but push hard and move into the range of 4,000 or 5,000 rpm and it sounded great.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimate is that the V-6 with the manual will get 19 miles per gallon in the city and 28 mpg highway, while the automatic is rated at 19 mpg city and 25 mpg highway. Opt for the V-8 and the manual is rated at 17 mpg city and 25 mpg highway, with the automatic good for 18 mpg city and 23 mpg highway.
Going from zero to 60 mph in a V-8 with the manual transmission takes 5.6 seconds, according to instrumented tests conducted by Don Sherman, the technical editor for Automobile Magazine.
Zero to 100 mph took 14 seconds, and covering the quarter-mile required 14.2 seconds and finished at 102 mph, Sherman found. "It is the fastest Mustang GT we have ever produced," said Phil Martens, the group vice president for North American product creation.
Conclusion
There was not nearly enough driving of these early models to tell for sure whether Ford has produced a truly great car for enthusiasts. But it is clear that the days of Band-Aid, semi-apologetic Mustangs are over, and it seems highly likely that the Mustang is galloping back into its golden age.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
cjensen@plaind.com, 216-999-4830
© 2004 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.
10/3/04, 08:48 AM
#5
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2004
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was a great article. However, I don't understand why Automobile Magazine, the source for some of the test data in this article, was different from that of Motor Trend. In MT the Mustang got from 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 0-100 in 13.7 sec, and finshed the 1/4 mile in 13.6 sec @ 99.9mph. Not too much of a difference but I just thought I'd point it out.
I love how just about every artice that I have read to date the journalists simply love this car.
I love how just about every artice that I have read to date the journalists simply love this car.
10/3/04, 09:44 AM
#9
Originally posted by mustang_sallad@October 3, 2004, 8:46 AM
wow, 5.6 seconds to 60 in the manual...
<--- Donny Sherman
wow, 5.6 seconds to 60 in the manual...
<--- Donny Sherman
10/3/04, 06:06 PM
#13
Cobra Member
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good read. Don't get upset by the disparity in the times, guys. Not every mag tests them in the same way and a number of them don't jst drop the clutch and power shift. To get an idea of how the car stacks up vai-a vis to others, look at the listing of road tests and compare times.
The MT tests are almost always faster than the others, and the Mustang enthusiast mags will be even faster.
Overall, we know that this car is going to be great and fast as well.
The MT tests are almost always faster than the others, and the Mustang enthusiast mags will be even faster.
Overall, we know that this car is going to be great and fast as well.
10/3/04, 06:34 PM
#14
FR500 Member
Join Date: June 12, 2004
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by seth0019@October 3, 2004, 8:51 AM
That was a great article. However, I don't understand why Automobile Magazine, the source for some of the test data in this article, was different from that of Motor Trend. In MT the Mustang got from 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 0-100 in 13.7 sec, and finshed the 1/4 mile in 13.6 sec @ 99.9mph. Not too much of a difference but I just thought I'd point it out.
I love how just about every artice that I have read to date the journalists simply love this car.
That was a great article. However, I don't understand why Automobile Magazine, the source for some of the test data in this article, was different from that of Motor Trend. In MT the Mustang got from 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 0-100 in 13.7 sec, and finshed the 1/4 mile in 13.6 sec @ 99.9mph. Not too much of a difference but I just thought I'd point it out.
I love how just about every artice that I have read to date the journalists simply love this car.
10/4/04, 12:31 AM
#16
Originally posted by Grantsdale@October 3, 2004, 10:29 AM
The 0-60 in 5.1 in MT is in an auto too ... the driver must have stinked.
The 0-60 in 5.1 in MT is in an auto too ... the driver must have stinked.
10/4/04, 06:52 AM
#18
GT Member
Join Date: April 7, 2004
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Badandy@October 3, 2004, 9:42 AM
or Automobile Mag doesn't know how to drive.
or Automobile Mag doesn't know how to drive.
I only buy Automobile magazine for their pretty pictures.
I no longer read their articles. If they are writing an article about anything domestic, you can expect them to harp on any and all flaws, and get performance numbers considerably lower than every other mag. If they are doing an article about a european car, especially a German or British one, you can expect glowing praise for anything and everything done right on the car.
It is a magazine written by old men, who dream of driving gloves and sputtering '60's British roadsters (with too little power) weaving through tree-lined roads at a "brisk" pace. After all, those are the only "real" sports cars ever built.
Of course, these are my opinions, and you are welcome to disagree. Even though, you would be wrong. :P
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post