No Passion in the new Mustang
6/29/05, 04:13 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time lurker to these threads, let me kick this off:
Learned to drive in my grandfather's '68 Mustang. Loved every minute, and many fond memories of course. As I had just gotten out of college and heard Ford was redoing the Mustang for '05, I got interested. But life doesn't allow one to indulge in a pure driver's car when your first starting out, plus I couldn't put off buying a new car, so I ended up purchasing a Subaru Forrester XT.
Anyway, a year later, I'm about to get married, and plan on giving my wife-to-be the Forrester, so I began to look for a new car. The Mustang came to mind as there no longer a need for a purely practical car. So I headed down to the dealership and asked to test drive a GT. I was truly looking forward to this: no, the Mustang didn't have the sophistication of a European or Asian coupe, but it was American Muscle, and that was the point. Which made the disappointment I felt that much worse; there wasn't that wild feeling of the old in the new. It just seemed fat and sloppy picking up speed or taking a corner, and the gearshift was like putting your hand in a thing of molasses- its sticky, slows everything down, and doesn't feel all that great. What really hit home though, was the engine. The whole point of the Mustang, at least to me, is that while you skimp on the amenities, your money is going to pay for a terrific powerplant. And that just wasn't there. On a warm southern afternoon, the engine was one of the most asthmatic I've ever driven. I would press down on the pedal and the car would seem to stall for a half second before anything would happen.
As I was driving back to the dealership, I asked the salesman the 0-60 time, to which he said the GT achieved an "unbelievable" 5.7 seconds... and half a second later, I realized my SUV, the Forrester, achieves that "unbelievable" time faster - 5.3 seconds. Its handling, engine, and gearbox were all more responsive than the Mustang; I could throw it into corners I wouldn't dare try in the GT for fear of dying, and on that note, the Forrester had better and more safety features.
The point of all this is simple: I just don't see it. I can't find one reason to buy an '05 Mustang. It isn't as fun as my grandfather's Mustang (or the Forrester, or even the old RX7 I drove in high school and college). It had nothing of what I wanted in a Mustang (great engine, grin factor). So in the end, I bought my father's '03 Porsche 911 Turbo. There was the engine, the grin factor I had been looking for. Yes, yes, it cost me more than triple the asking price of the Mustang; but I would have bought that Mustang over the 911 if it had the one simple factor that was in my grandfather's vehicle: FUN
So I guess I'll just wait and see what the Shelby Mustang's are like. I realize that my opinion is going to infuriate some. But I want to make sure those who are thinking of making the plunge and buying an 05 can read of voice of dissent.
EDIT: As an aside, I'm not suggesting in the slightest anyone buy a Forrester. While the XT model (turbocharged) is certainly a good car to drive, it is only that: a good car to drive. I'll reiterate that if the Mustang's engine were better, I'd have been a lot more interested in the car. I wanted a sports car that could put a grin on my face as I take a corner, or press down on the pedal. Every time I've ever gotten out of the '68, I've had a grin that wouldn't go away. Hence, why I'm still intrested in the Shelby variant in '07. If its as good as they already say, I'll be trading in the Porsche in a heartbeat. Last, I'm not trying to flame the Mustang, just giving my impressions. I, like many others, use car forums to find out information on a potential purchase; and if you head over to the Porsche forum, you can see I have also done a simple post explaining why I chose the 911.
Learned to drive in my grandfather's '68 Mustang. Loved every minute, and many fond memories of course. As I had just gotten out of college and heard Ford was redoing the Mustang for '05, I got interested. But life doesn't allow one to indulge in a pure driver's car when your first starting out, plus I couldn't put off buying a new car, so I ended up purchasing a Subaru Forrester XT.
Anyway, a year later, I'm about to get married, and plan on giving my wife-to-be the Forrester, so I began to look for a new car. The Mustang came to mind as there no longer a need for a purely practical car. So I headed down to the dealership and asked to test drive a GT. I was truly looking forward to this: no, the Mustang didn't have the sophistication of a European or Asian coupe, but it was American Muscle, and that was the point. Which made the disappointment I felt that much worse; there wasn't that wild feeling of the old in the new. It just seemed fat and sloppy picking up speed or taking a corner, and the gearshift was like putting your hand in a thing of molasses- its sticky, slows everything down, and doesn't feel all that great. What really hit home though, was the engine. The whole point of the Mustang, at least to me, is that while you skimp on the amenities, your money is going to pay for a terrific powerplant. And that just wasn't there. On a warm southern afternoon, the engine was one of the most asthmatic I've ever driven. I would press down on the pedal and the car would seem to stall for a half second before anything would happen.
As I was driving back to the dealership, I asked the salesman the 0-60 time, to which he said the GT achieved an "unbelievable" 5.7 seconds... and half a second later, I realized my SUV, the Forrester, achieves that "unbelievable" time faster - 5.3 seconds. Its handling, engine, and gearbox were all more responsive than the Mustang; I could throw it into corners I wouldn't dare try in the GT for fear of dying, and on that note, the Forrester had better and more safety features.
The point of all this is simple: I just don't see it. I can't find one reason to buy an '05 Mustang. It isn't as fun as my grandfather's Mustang (or the Forrester, or even the old RX7 I drove in high school and college). It had nothing of what I wanted in a Mustang (great engine, grin factor). So in the end, I bought my father's '03 Porsche 911 Turbo. There was the engine, the grin factor I had been looking for. Yes, yes, it cost me more than triple the asking price of the Mustang; but I would have bought that Mustang over the 911 if it had the one simple factor that was in my grandfather's vehicle: FUN
So I guess I'll just wait and see what the Shelby Mustang's are like. I realize that my opinion is going to infuriate some. But I want to make sure those who are thinking of making the plunge and buying an 05 can read of voice of dissent.
EDIT: As an aside, I'm not suggesting in the slightest anyone buy a Forrester. While the XT model (turbocharged) is certainly a good car to drive, it is only that: a good car to drive. I'll reiterate that if the Mustang's engine were better, I'd have been a lot more interested in the car. I wanted a sports car that could put a grin on my face as I take a corner, or press down on the pedal. Every time I've ever gotten out of the '68, I've had a grin that wouldn't go away. Hence, why I'm still intrested in the Shelby variant in '07. If its as good as they already say, I'll be trading in the Porsche in a heartbeat. Last, I'm not trying to flame the Mustang, just giving my impressions. I, like many others, use car forums to find out information on a potential purchase; and if you head over to the Porsche forum, you can see I have also done a simple post explaining why I chose the 911.
6/29/05, 04:50 AM
#3
Dethroned Nascar Guru
A quote from the May 2005, Sports Car International Magazine (I only bought it because they compared the 05 Mustang GT to a Mazdaspeed Miata, Subur WRX, and Acura RSX Type-S).
You sir are level-headed and logical. I wish more people were like you and would not buy the Mustang GT, because right now the supply and demand curve is not looking good for the buyer.
When it comes to Mustangs, I would bet that 90% of the people on here are not level-headed and logical. For them, its all emotion. You're either a Mustang person or your not. So, I would guess that you are probably not a Mustang person.
I am. For the most part, I am level-headed and logical, hence the reason my wife drives a Mazda MPV. But when it comes to Mustangs, logic is out the window.
Corvette owners are the same way. They are pretty unreliable cars comparably speaking, yet they get high rating from their owners, because of the crap eating grins their cars put on their owners' faces.
I too briefly owned a 1982 911. That was one fun car to drive, and the biggest chick magnet I've have ever seen. I wish you well.
Ultimately logic would suggest that the car that was the easiest to drive fast and the most agreeable companion for the daily grind would get the nod-in that case, the WRX. But, the Mustang GT's alluring personality begs the question of whether the most capable machine is automatically the best choice. Either way, the Mustang's bags of character, reasonable daily manners and easily acessible pontency will certainly lead plenty of buyers to ignore even the most level-headed logic
When it comes to Mustangs, I would bet that 90% of the people on here are not level-headed and logical. For them, its all emotion. You're either a Mustang person or your not. So, I would guess that you are probably not a Mustang person.
I am. For the most part, I am level-headed and logical, hence the reason my wife drives a Mazda MPV. But when it comes to Mustangs, logic is out the window.
Corvette owners are the same way. They are pretty unreliable cars comparably speaking, yet they get high rating from their owners, because of the crap eating grins their cars put on their owners' faces.
I too briefly owned a 1982 911. That was one fun car to drive, and the biggest chick magnet I've have ever seen. I wish you well.
6/29/05, 05:00 AM
#4
If I were You I would buy a Vette.
The 911 is OK but Porsche is not the same brand as it was a few years ago.It lost all its magic because now it specializes in producing SUVs and it is going to produce a sedan.Believe me I used to love 911s (especially ma favourite 993) and I am not an Import hater (look where I am from)
As far as the Stang is concerned-it's a matter of taste.I personally love the Stang.
Best Wishes
The 911 is OK but Porsche is not the same brand as it was a few years ago.It lost all its magic because now it specializes in producing SUVs and it is going to produce a sedan.Believe me I used to love 911s (especially ma favourite 993) and I am not an Import hater (look where I am from)
As far as the Stang is concerned-it's a matter of taste.I personally love the Stang.
Best Wishes
6/29/05, 05:06 AM
#5
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: June 13, 2004
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are entitled to your opinion.
I would say that you more than likely got a lemmon, or at least a GT that had some issues.
No, this car is not a 68 with a huge power plant which gets my curiousty up when I read that this what your comparing to.
I have driven and riden in more '60's/'70's muscle cars than I can recall.
There simply is no comparison.
The new GT is definatley a performer in so many ways that classic muscles are not.
Handling.
Comfort
Shifting (This is surely and area that is improved, lemmon?)
Styling.
I do not agree that you have to be a mustang fanatic to love this car.
It is simply driving pleasure at its finest for the money.
Are there more comfortable cars, better handling, faster? Absolutely.
For the money. Absolutely not.
I wish you luck and if you cannot truley enjoy this car then you are making the right decision by not getting one.
I would say that you more than likely got a lemmon, or at least a GT that had some issues.
No, this car is not a 68 with a huge power plant which gets my curiousty up when I read that this what your comparing to.
I have driven and riden in more '60's/'70's muscle cars than I can recall.
There simply is no comparison.
The new GT is definatley a performer in so many ways that classic muscles are not.
Handling.
Comfort
Shifting (This is surely and area that is improved, lemmon?)
Styling.
I do not agree that you have to be a mustang fanatic to love this car.
It is simply driving pleasure at its finest for the money.
Are there more comfortable cars, better handling, faster? Absolutely.
For the money. Absolutely not.
I wish you luck and if you cannot truley enjoy this car then you are making the right decision by not getting one.
6/29/05, 05:21 AM
#6
GT Member
Join Date: June 14, 2005
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never trust a dealer in 0-60 times. A dealer never seems to remember these stats. The last road and track tests I had read show the GT does 0-60 in 4.9. This was up from 5.3 in their original tests.
6/29/05, 06:19 AM
#9
Cobra Member
Join Date: November 1, 2004
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what alot of people forget is that a "muscle car" is not a refined car. it will always be ruff around the edges. yea they could have installed better options, like. auto dimming mirrors, automatic climate control, and lots of other options and top shelf features.. but that is not in my opinion a "muscle car". heck in the 60`s most of them did not even have air condition, power steering, disc brakes... i could go on and on.. but i thnk you get my drift...i wish you good luck with your new car..but to me a porsche has always been a over priced volkswagon...but they make diffrent cars to suit diffrent people..
6/29/05, 06:31 AM
#11
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Glenn Mills, Pennsylvania
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AND . . . for the price you paid for your 911, with all the money I could save, I will spank your Forrester left and right. I think the Mustang is more than enjoyable, your trying to get some people on here aggravated and it's working. 
Matt
Matt
6/29/05, 06:44 AM
#13
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 7, 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great, have fun with your Forrester and Porsche. I will bet you my house that my MGT will beat your Forrester, stock for stock!
As for your decision, that's great man, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand why people feel the need to come on here and post junk like that. Go to a Subaru forum and spew that, cause it isn't going to be received very well here!
As for your decision, that's great man, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand why people feel the need to come on here and post junk like that. Go to a Subaru forum and spew that, cause it isn't going to be received very well here!
and your point is...................... :scratch: 
6/29/05, 06:54 AM
#17
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 17, 2005
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Youre entitled to your opinion but
1)Why come here and bash the mustang?
2)Mustang is 5.2 0-60(4.9 when broken in), and no way in heck a forester can be 0-60 in 5.3.
3)You'd be the first person out of hundreds that I have talked to about the stang, and the only person to say it's slow and sluggish, and has sloppy shifting. You don't sound like you know anythng about cars cuz Motor Trend, Car and Driver, and just about every other magazine, and car lover gave the mustang rave reviews. You do the math...
4)I bet the dealer plopped you in a V6 and told you it was a V8(why he would do that I dunno, that would give a bad name to GTs, not that V6s are slow, but they dont compare to the V8)
5)Isn't the forrester a station wagon? Excuse me I'm gunna go throw up now.... :-P
1)Why come here and bash the mustang?
2)Mustang is 5.2 0-60(4.9 when broken in), and no way in heck a forester can be 0-60 in 5.3.
3)You'd be the first person out of hundreds that I have talked to about the stang, and the only person to say it's slow and sluggish, and has sloppy shifting. You don't sound like you know anythng about cars cuz Motor Trend, Car and Driver, and just about every other magazine, and car lover gave the mustang rave reviews. You do the math...
4)I bet the dealer plopped you in a V6 and told you it was a V8(why he would do that I dunno, that would give a bad name to GTs, not that V6s are slow, but they dont compare to the V8)
5)Isn't the forrester a station wagon? Excuse me I'm gunna go throw up now.... :-P
6/29/05, 06:57 AM
#18
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ajaka,
The 68 is a great car but the 05 is better in every measurable way; braking, performance, safety, and skid pad. I have heard that some have had the hesitation problem, too bad that dealer didn’t take care of that and asked you back, and too bad he didn’t know how fast the Mustang is.
This next part is from car and driver…
PORSCHE 911 TURBO/GT2
The 911 Turbo and its wild-child stablemate, the GT2, remain status quo for 2003. Although they use the same engine, more turbo boost in the GT2 mill results in 456 horsepower versus the Turbo’s 415. If you want more power in the Turbo, you can opt for the X50 engine package that raises the pony total to 444. Riding on a lowered, stiffened suspension, the GT2 sports weight-saving (nine pounds per wheel) ceramic brake rotors and swaps the Turbo’s four-wheel drive for rear-wheel, saving about 200 pounds. While the Turbo is an amazing performer—top speed, 192 mph; 0 to 60, 3.9 seconds; lateral grip, 0.93 g—the GT2 is even better: top speed, 194 mph; 0 to 60, 3.8 seconds; lateral grip, 0.98 g. What fascinates us is that Porsche created two very distinct cars off one platform. Sadly, only the super-rich will have to experience the agony of choosing between them.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...0&page_number=1
The last line sums it up, but I take comfort it knowing if someone put half the $ in the Mustang as the Porsche, the Porsche would lose out anywhere anytime and look better doing it.
I will enjoy the Grand Am races more that ever now, thanks!
MustangDan
The 68 is a great car but the 05 is better in every measurable way; braking, performance, safety, and skid pad. I have heard that some have had the hesitation problem, too bad that dealer didn’t take care of that and asked you back, and too bad he didn’t know how fast the Mustang is.
This next part is from car and driver…
PORSCHE 911 TURBO/GT2
The 911 Turbo and its wild-child stablemate, the GT2, remain status quo for 2003. Although they use the same engine, more turbo boost in the GT2 mill results in 456 horsepower versus the Turbo’s 415. If you want more power in the Turbo, you can opt for the X50 engine package that raises the pony total to 444. Riding on a lowered, stiffened suspension, the GT2 sports weight-saving (nine pounds per wheel) ceramic brake rotors and swaps the Turbo’s four-wheel drive for rear-wheel, saving about 200 pounds. While the Turbo is an amazing performer—top speed, 192 mph; 0 to 60, 3.9 seconds; lateral grip, 0.93 g—the GT2 is even better: top speed, 194 mph; 0 to 60, 3.8 seconds; lateral grip, 0.98 g. What fascinates us is that Porsche created two very distinct cars off one platform. Sadly, only the super-rich will have to experience the agony of choosing between them.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...0&page_number=1
The last line sums it up, but I take comfort it knowing if someone put half the $ in the Mustang as the Porsche, the Porsche would lose out anywhere anytime and look better doing it.
I will enjoy the Grand Am races more that ever now, thanks!
MustangDan
6/29/05, 07:01 AM
#19
AKA 1 BULLITT------------ Legacy TMS Member
Another passing troll trying to succeed at pulling some strings.
