AutoWeek '05 Mustang Review

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=100907

Poor interior materials and live rear axle cited as shortcomings.

This is the second mixed review I've seen of the car. Another magazine, mph, recently said the car lacked the edge and attitude advertised by the exterior.

I am liking this car more and more, I dont think I can wait for GM to give me another choice. I will wait until next summer but thats it, if I havnt seen a concept or confirmation I will buy a mustang.

There's been a couple of mixed reviews, but the majority have been rather positive. But even the mixed ones have said that the quality is worlds above what the previous Mustang was. Makes one wonder just how high their standards are.

There's been a couple of mixed reviews, but the majority have been rather positive. But even the mixed ones have said that the quality is worlds above what the previous Mustang was. Makes one wonder just how high their standards are.


Well, I don't think there is shocking being said there... I think everyone knows the interior quality on Mustangs (and F-bodies prior) were pretty much at the bottom of the barrel as far as fit and finish and materials go... so I don't think that statement is all that unrealistic.... In other words, yes, it can be vastly improved over the old Stang, but still not up to par with other offerings today.

I haven't sat in one, so I can't say myself.

The one I saw was VERY nice. But I'm sure that soon we'll all find out real soon. :)

i remember being completely underwhelmed by the stang interior at NAIAS, but I also remember the two previous cars i sat in and experienced before the unveiling were an Aston Marton and a Maybach...perhaps my opinion was skewered just a little bit....

It seems like they bash the live axle for the sheer fact that it's a live axle. They say it handles better, but then say it should include a live axle just because the Z has it? I read through to try to figure out why they didn't like the live axle, couldn't find it.

I'd almost consider a live axle a plus for a pony/muscle car, not a minus. No wheelhop as a rule and less weak rear-end problems.... If the car handles good, which these apparently do it's stupid to point it out.

It's like that Top Gear C6 Vette review where they went on and on about how the it a "leaf spring" rear suspension. They forgot to mention how much it kicked ass performance wise and allowed the $50k Corvette to kick some ass on the race course time wise....

With that import loving chick from Autoweek doing the article I pee on that article. She also say's the Mustang feels tigher then the GTO but if someone actually told her the GTO was imported she would take back that statment. :rolleyes: She sucks.

I'm not a Ford guy but I think they hit a home run with this car. I think its the one of the best styling jobs I've seen in years and I think they will sell in tremendous numbers.
I thought some of the reviewer's comments were just plain silly. Speakers where you want to push the door open with your foot? Who does that? The live axle is bad but handling compares to the GTO? When I drove the GTO at the Autoshow in Motion I thought the GTO handled quite well.
Like virtually all of what I read in the automotive press, I consider that review irrelevant.

I'd almost consider a live axle a plus for a pony/muscle car, not a minus. No wheelhop as a rule and less weak rear-end problems.... If the car handles good, which these apparently do it's stupid to point it out.

The live axle is not equivilent to pushrods. It's old tech. and can not handle as well as an independent rear. It's cheap, though, allowing it to be shared with the cheapo 6 cylinder version and drag race guys will obviously love it. The problem is, though, that this is not the 60's and more and more people buy cars for the total package, not just the 1/4 mile, in which case a solid rear axle is definatly a handicap.

and my ultimate problem is not the fact that the car is offered with a live axle, but the fact that IRS isn't at LEAST optional...but I guess it doesn't really matter to be, because I've got my eye on what SVT will do

The live axle is not equivilent to pushrods. It's old tech. and can not handle as well as an independent rear. It's cheap, though, allowing it to be shared with the cheapo 6 cylinder version and drag race guys will obviously love it. The problem is, though, that this is not the 60's and more and more people buy cars for the total package, not just the 1/4 mile, in which case a solid rear axle is definatly a handicap.

Unless you're racing on really bumpy roads, IRS isn't going to make much difference over a solid axle. While I prefer IRS, a good live axle setup is very competitive. Most consumers wouldn't know the difference in ride characteristics anyway.

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=100907

Poor interior materials and live rear axle cited as shortcomings.

This is the second mixed review I've seen of the car. Another magazine, mph, recently said the car lacked the edge and attitude advertised by the exterior.
I read that mph article(first issue of the magazine btw so take it for what you will) and I couldn't help but laugh at it.
They bashed the Mustang for having a better interior and a smoother more refined ride but then bashed it at the same time for haivng a live axle. The ulimate case of damned if you do damned if you don't.

Unless you're racing on really bumpy roads, IRS isn't going to make much difference over a solid axle. While I prefer IRS, a good live axle setup is very competitive. Most consumers wouldn't know the difference in ride characteristics anyway.


Ah, but see, you have to open your mind a bit... few Mustang owners are going to be racing their car at all, let alone exclusively.

Keeping that in mind, these cars are drivers which will be driven on bumpy roads.

This is why IRS is so important.... we aren't talking about NHRA or NASCAR race vehicles... these are real world street cars....

Without benefit of an actual back-to-back run, the Mustang felt a bit sharper than the GTO, but it falls short of the robust performance of the 350Z.
Since when is the 350Zs performance better than the GTO? This Woman is smoking crack! They should assign her to minivans not performance cars. Who uses their foot to open a door anyway?

Even if you're not talking about racing, I think 85% of people are not going to realize this new Mustang has a solid rear axle unless you tell them. For that matter, I doubt many of them know the difference between a solid rear axle and IRS anyway.

IRS is overrated in many ways, but it's still nice.

Even if you're not talking about racing, I think 85% of people are not going to realize this new Mustang has a solid rear axle unless you tell them. For that matter, I doubt many of them know the difference between a solid rear axle and IRS anyway.

IRS is overrated in many ways, but it's still nice.


Technically, I suppose you are correct, I would have to agree that 85% of the buyers would not know if the car was IRS or solid axle... however, the ride quality itself it the difference not actually knowing or caring what equipment is there...

If people actually test drive a solid axle Mustang, and then go and test drive a 5th Gen Camaro with IRS (assuming that happens), I'm pretty sure most would say the Mustang "rode like a truck", or "was so hard and bumpy" or something like that, and say the Camaro rode so much "smoother".

IMO, Ford REALLY left an oppourtunity for GM to pounce on here. It's been how long since either of these cars has been re-built from scratch... so this could really be a key thing to set the Camaro ahead.

My 99 came with an IRS. The very first mod I made was a live axle swap (yes, I'm drag race oriented). Drag racing, strength, and weight loss aside, there was very little noticeable difference in daily ride via my butt-o-meter. That doesn't mean that others would have just hated the difference, but I hardly noticed.

My 04 will almost certainly have a live axle under the chassis sometime this winter. To each their own. :)

IRS is overrated IMHO.

Before you accuse me of being a neanderthal, I have owned 2 Thunderbird SCs, and I'm about to buy a 3rd. I also have owned 4th gen Zs and at least 6 5.0 Mustangs.

On a smooth track, you can't beat a live axle. It weighs less, is stronger, and as one certain Camaro rep likes to point out, live axle 4th gen Z28s can outhandle early C5s on the track.

However, a well engineered IRS system won't sidestep or threaten to bite you if one of those rear tires hits a rough spot while you're cornering near the limit.

I loved my Mustangs, but I have a healthy respect for what they couldn't do. Camaros are the same way, they just have a higher limit. By my SCs with just a set of good 245s are pretty unflappable on any road, yet can keep up with damn near anything.

Then you have the ultimate IRS-live axle comparison, the Mach1 and Cobra. Cobra has over 100 horses and torque over the Mach 1, yet the Cobra can't clearly run away from the Mach on the strip. Cobra's IRS adsorbs heaps of power. Sure, Corvette has IRS, and is hella quick. But it's underweighet for it's size, and it would even be quicker with a live axle (as if all a Corvette buyer wanted was drag strip acceleration :lol: )

IRS doesn't mean better handling, and it isn't the magic cure-all. It simply means better control over a wider range of road conditions. It can seem to handle better because it's not as easily unsettled as a live axle. But it iosn't automatically a better handling suspension.

IRS is overrated IMHO.

Before you accuse me of being a neanderthal, I have owned 2 Thunderbird SCs, and I'm about to buy a 3rd. I also have owned 4th gen Zs and at least 6 5.0 Mustangs.

On a smooth track, you can't beat a live axle. It weighs less, is stronger, and as one certain Camaro rep likes to point out, live axle 4th gen Z28s can outhandle early C5s on the track.

However, a well engineered IRS system won't sidestep or threaten to bite you if one of those rear tires hits a rough spot while you're cornering near the limit.

I loved my Mustangs, but I have a healthy respect for what they couldn't do. Camaros are the same way, they just have a higher limit. By my SCs with just a set of good 245s are pretty unflappable on any road, yet can keep up with damn near anything.

Then you have the ultimate IRS-live axle comparison, the Mach1 and Cobra. Cobra has over 100 horses and torque over the Mach 1, yet the Cobra can't clearly run away from the Mach on the strip. Cobra's IRS adsorbs heaps of power. Sure, Corvette has IRS, and is hella quick. But it's underweighet for it's size, and it would even be quicker with a live axle (as if all a Corvette buyer wanted was drag strip acceleration :lol: )

IRS doesn't mean better handling, and it isn't the magic cure-all. It simply means better control over a wider range of road conditions. It can seem to handle better because it's not as easily unsettled as a live axle. But it iosn't automatically a better handling suspension.

The biggest and most important advantage IRS has over a live axle is packaging, not performance.

Too bad automotive writers aren't smart enough to recognize it.

Present company excepted.

IRS does give you the ability to run some camber back there which is a nice thing if you track the car. (doesnt balance out the typical weight increase imho)

Other than that, it ranks as a Car and Driver type thing to me...right up there with DVD players and cupholders.