rhumb

Well, perhaps that's because that's the only thing it is truly competent at -- basically being relegated to simple straight line acceleration due to the lack of truly competitive and contemporary levels of handling and braking.

Don't get me wrong, I like a fast accelerating car as much as the next guy, but that is but one narrow slice of any car's overall performance element and I'd rather that the Mustang be able to comport itself with some contemporary-level of competence in the other 359 degrees of the compass beyond dead ahead and a creamy smooth road.

Of course, now that the Stang ain't the only pony car game in town, will Ford be able to get away with being so complacent regarding ride, handling and braking? The inevitable comparison tests will be revealing and give some substantive date to all our IRS/wimpy brakes rantings and ravings.

rhumb

I guess some of it is a bit of semantics. I've always tended to look at the Mustang as something distinct from a "muscle car," i.e., a pony car.

Indeed, the Mustang was in many ways conceived as almost a sort of anti-muscle car when it originally came out, a sort of synthesis of European sport coupe qualities of modest size, exciting yet tasteful styling and a well balanced performance envelope that included not only good acceleration but good handling relative to the lumbering muscle car leviathan of the day. The mere presence of a V8 under the hood need not doom a car to cloddish handling and ice boat braking capability.

For the whole first generation, the only motors you could get were rather small (for the day) short-stroke, peaky 289s (after the original, even smaller 260). It was only during the 2nd gen Stang that it started adopting big-block motors in some models at the cost of balance and handling. Even through later generations, though, the original and iconic "Pony Car" DNA asserted itself in Boss 302s, SVOs, SVTs and other more balanced iterations. And many of those classic Mustangs commanding steep prices from pining baby boomers are indeed 289 GTs, Shelby 350s and Boss 302s, not only the big block drag queens.

To narrowly relegate the Stang as only worthy of being a unidimensional, oafish muscle car is to ignore its very conceptualization and a huge part of its heritage, a part of its DNA and heritage I would like to see revived rather than dismissed.

rhumb

Perhaps the problem isn't the messenger, the various car rags, but the message, that the Mustang is being outclassed by its newer competitors. It's always the temptation to shoot the messengers when they bear news one would rather not hear -- "they're being paid off by Company X, they're just a bunch of quiche-eating Euro snobs, blah, blah, blah...."

But when the general consensus starts coming to a similar conclusion, maybe the problem is the Ford does need to do a VERY good job with the '10 because it ain't the only game in town now and can't get away with the scrimping they could and did in '05 when they was little to no real direct competition.

bob

I'm fine with the core message, it really is the messenger, rather than read an honest appraisal of the F5 we are getting what amounts to a bunch of closet fanboys coming out and gushing all over the new Camaro. Taken from thier perspective the Challenger (nevermind the MT said they liked the GT500 over the SRT8 Charger and the GT500 beat the Challenger in a performance comparo) is a huge leap over the Mustang and the Camaro according to them is a huge leap over the Challenger. If this is the case then I should have lofty (as in M3 beating) expectations for the Camaro.

I suspect while it will be good, the F5 will not be the holy grail of performance they are touting it to be this very second.

MBK

huge slice for me brother; torque, HP, looks and SOUND... i ain't going to be taking this car 45MPH right turn out of my office and i don't care about that bit a hop i get on a bumpy road; i love it

stangfoeva

+1 to that my friend! No road courses for me