Story on MSN:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37555305/ns/business-autos/

Favorite quote: "The whole car enjoys additional bracing that makes the chassis stiffer than ever and the coupe’s impressive strength promises to keep the car rattle-free over years of service, in contrast to the 1979-2004 cars which were as floppy as an election-year politician. "

 

In my opinion, that quote is a little inaccurate in that the SN-95 cars were noticably stouter than their predecessors. I've had good experiences with my '03 Mach 1, although I can definitely feel the difference in the S197 chassis over it.

 

Also, I don't agree with the commentary on the dash -

"Inside, the dashboard is designed to recall those of the late-'60s models. That would be OK if it were also made of better materials than the late-'60s cars. There is less metal on the dashboard, but it is replaced with loads of cheap plastic, so that’s no improvement."

Hmmm...

 

I don't agree with this either. It's not perfect but what cars is? It looks great in the Mustang and really? did they just compare the car's materials with that of a late-'60's model's materials? C'mon, when was the last time any of them have seen a non restored dash out of a late 60's car? Also, there's less metal? Are they retarded, it's got a gigantic aluminum piece across the front!

 

Perhaps they tested a basic instead of a premium?

 

This.

 

After reading the article in its entirety I realize just how retarded the review gets. I thought the same about the base GT interior. It was a Vert with Brembos though and I don't know that Ford is dumping the base models on the media. Unless it's this guy, in his case I wouldn't care either, I'd give the guy whatever. His arguments are just a bit off beat seeing as how he praises and in the same sentence repeals with another segment. The convertible (not that I really can vouch) was earlier praised for its stiffness and ability compared to the coupe as most auto mags were pretty astounded with the way the car handled. What are people looking for in an automobile dash these days, stainless steel to match their appliances?! A fully wooden dash? Even my BMW's dash is plastic, it just has foam padding underneath the skin so it is a bit softer. I don't know. Whatever.

 

This guy doesn't know too much about what he is talking about. My dash is all soft touch and aluminum sections on my V-6. No plastic panels on my dash.

 

Crushed velvet.

 

What the reviewer wanted the fake wood paneling in the interior that the 69, 70's plus had???? Seriously if your going to write a review know the complete history of the cars.....

 

I'm very glad they went with the metal path instead of the fake wood on the Mustangs. I can't stand fake wood interiors.

 

I thought this was one of the worst-written reviews of the 2011 Mustang that I've read (and I've read just about all of 'em). It was as if he'd written about the 2005-2009 Mustang (re dash/interior), looked at the spec sheet for the 2011 and noted the increased power and handling, and came up with the title. Really bad. But what else would you expect from MSNBC??

 

Wow, this guy was a tool...It sounds like he didn't like Mustangs before and he sure doesn't like them now. Of course he has to say something nice about the powerplants...but his interior assessments made him look like an ***.

Dave

 

You guys sound like the kids on Camaro5.

No one said this guy was writing the Bible. Just one reviewers opinion. I had a late 60's Mustang and the interior materials WERE crap. But that was a different time altogether.

The point of the article was to highlight the new engines and transmissions. Aside from the authors constant waffling, the last sentence said it all: "Either way, Ford will finally provide an engine that is among the best in its class. "

 

I agree Jerry, I don't think the guy was writing the bible, and it was one reviewers opinions. My problem was that the review was written like a senior editor said "hey, we've gotta put something out about this new Mustang" the reviewer replies, "but I've got deadlines and all this other work to do. By the way, we don't even have a Mustang here to write a report about." senior editor replies "make it work!"

I feel like the article was written and reviewed from this guys cubicle. He can have his own opinions but it looks like someone cut and pasted a review from 2001 and fudged in the 5.0 factor. Bad write ups are bad write ups, regardless of the victim.

What you quoted about his statement at the end just makes me feel like these statements were pasted in because his other arguments just didn't fit the bill. I am really just upset that it's such a terribly done review without any time taken to really review the car. That's how I feel, just as much my opinion against the reviewers. See how this works?

Just to throw this out there but "Best in Class" shouldn't really apply to the Mustang any more. When someone says "Best In Class" about a Honda Accord, there are about 6 or 7 other cars out there now comparable in said "class." I would venture to say that the new power train is besting many classes.

This coming from a guy that still enjoys Camaros, Challengers, Corvettes, Aston Martins, Porsches, Caterhams, Duesenburgs, Jeeps, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Infinity, Nissan, Konisegg, McLauren...you name it, I respect them all. Not being a douche, just don't feel like when something is given it's due, it's not right.


Edit: Maybe I just don't like being considered a Camaro5-ite.

 

Good points, Kelsey. I think you're spot-on. The title and last sentence are cohesive but the rest of the article is a disjointed mess.

Many "professional" journalists discredit "bloggers" but with this kind of writing, bloggers have a big opening.

 

So were 70's beemer jimmy square boxes. It sounds like he's a Euro snob but he must have been born in the 80's and doesn't know auto history very well.

He can spout all he wants but I'm not givin' this up: