Relax killer. I didn't insult your mother,OK.

It may come as a surprise to you, but I've read all those articles. And what they essentially say is the car is better than the one it replaced. I agree with that, but big deal.

I've also driven one. Have you?
You may agree with my assesment or disagree..but those are my real observations. BTW, have you paid absolutely no attention to the MT story we're discussing? Guess not.

And my screen name has absolutely no bearing on any of this.......MunchE.

 

Low price points always equal sacrifices and compromises. That's a sad reality. If you go all out on the suspension, you're going to have to sacrifice elsewhere to come under that pricing goal. In the end, you're more limited than say a dedicated 2 seater sports car like a 350z, corvette, etc...

It's NOT as good (obviously), but if setup properly, it gets the job done...no doubt. With its "ancient" setup, the Grand Am mustangs have thus far taken 3 of 4 races against the likes of Porsches, M3's, etc... To say there's no potential, or to say that a car is automatically an incompetent handler just because it has a live axle and a strut setup is kinda short sided.

You don't see a double wishbone front suspension on Porsches, BMW's, EVO's, STI's, and a slew of other competent handlers, but they make do with what they got due to the proper tuning and such. I believe that's the case with Mustang, it doesn't have the most ideal setup, but that doesn't mean it's an incapable handler with the chassis and such having next to no potential. There’s potential.

If Ford does their homework, the GT500 should be more than a simple straight-line car. It probably won't be world-class, but that's fine as long as the overall package is good.

Probably so, but i doubt someone looking for corvette or Lotus Elise precision would be looking at a mustang to begin with. The mustang performs well within its boundaries, and the GT500 should be no different if SVT stays true to their promise of a better balanced (handling, accelerating, braking) car.

Either way, Ford has no trouble moving Mustangs regardless of how picky people spending that kind of money could be. Again, it goes back to the overall package. Get that right, and the details don't matter as much. And if you're one to sweat the details, than a compromised pony car isn't for you.

And who's to say that the handling on a pony car should be "world class" or that it "can't handle with a live/strut setup"? Let's be realistic....A pony car isn't a sports car, never has, never will be. They were never the most refined, the most sophisticated, the best engineered, the best handlers, etc... And despite that fact, the new mustangs are capable handlers. Put it on a track with similarly priced cars, and it'll pull its own weight just fine. It's not the BEST, but it gets the job done just fine. Especially when you get around to giving it a drop, putting some real rubber under the wheel arches (235/55's suck), etc...

And how does chevy "get it"? The camaro won't be out for another couple of years, and we don't even know the details as far as suspension, etc....

Just trying to be a realist. Mustangs have and will always be compromised. Just their nature. They'll never be comparable to the likes of dedicated 2 seater sports cars or 2800lb go-carts, but that's fine as long as they continue to represent a good overall performance value and bang for your buck.

 

Yeah, I'm sure of it. A stock GT 5spd is a 13.8-13.9@101-102 car. The manual 300hp Z will be running those times too.

What built in advantages are you referring to in the quarter mile? The stang is a little heavier but it's got the V8 torque to get it moving along with a solid axle that plants. The lighter Z has a 3.5L V6 and an IRS to deal with.

 

They're close, but the GT's got the slight edge.

The GT's run faster than 13.8 in multiple publications. If R&T, C&D, and MT can all turn 13.5's with a 5spd coupe, i dont see why a competant driver couldn't either. In the newest issue of MT and C&D, they have the heavy (3,690lb) convertibles running 13.7's and 13.8's respectively. Even the auto's have grown some ***** on the new stangs and have run as quick as 13.6's. All in all, we've seen 0-60's in the 4.9 to 5.3 second range.

Now, the fastest times i've seen for the 350Z coupe is a 0-60 of 5.3 and a 1/4 mile of 13.8. That's the fastest published timed i've seen for it and that's the 300hp 6spd anniversary addition, not the 287hp versions.

Btw: Only the coupe versions of the touring ($34.5k) and Anniversary ($36.1k) editions get the 300hp engine, rest make do with the 287hp version. Even though the touring and Anniversary versions have 13hp over the regular 350z's, they lose 14lb-ft of tq when compared to the regular 287hp Z's. I don't know if that's a worthwhile trade, but it probably is.

In the end, a good comparable race for a Mustang GT, but if i had to bet on either, i'd bet on the GT. Probably the easier to get the faster times out of.

 

I didn't say there was no potential. Those Grand Am Mustangs looked pretty well set up on the track. But did you notice how the M3's would walk the Mustangs in the corners, but the Mustang's 5.0 Cammer motor would blow by the M3s on the straight away?

Anyway, I just get annoyed when Ford's obvious penny pinching, is passed off as "just as good" as a more sophisticated set up. It's good for what it is...but as we see, it's no 350Z/G35. That's all.

Just a note on BMW's and struts....because everyone brings that up. BMW uses a pretty pricey dual pivot control arm, in combo with it's struts...that's what makes them work so well.
Well we'll see. That iron block, blower and associated plumbing over the front wheels might give the chassis engineers tuning those front struts some headaches. I wish them luck.

 

The story about the Mustang vert vs. the 350Z vert? No, haven't read it. Not too interested in convertables, if that's your criteria for comparison I guess we have different priorities in a car. And your screen name shows an obvious bias towards GM products, thus the "My 89 IROC handles better!" when there's nothing but your finely calibrated SOTP meter to back up that it does. If your point is that the 350Z handles better than the Mustang, that doesn't mean the Mustang can't handle. Everything I've read said it can. You can't come up with a single media outlet who has anything bad to say about the car's handling, except for in this convertable comparison that you hold so dearly. It's annoying to watch people spread misinformation like it's fact. You came into the thread saying "The Cobra won't be able to turn!" like it's some fact, and in the same thread will turn around talking about how your IROC is a great handler. You haven't provided anything to back up your oh-so-factual opinion, which is fine if you want to be on the redzed level of posting here, but I kind of thought you strived to have some credibility to your posts. Just because you don't like how the Mustang drives doesn't mean it can't handle. 6 articles that say the car handles great and you discount them because the old car didn't? You're sounding about as logical as the kid in the CRX going "LOL AMERICAN CARS CAN'T TURN!" which just isn't the type of argument I'd expect to see around here. This is a board which I've come to expect intelligent discussion out of (well, save for redzed) and this attitude of ignoring facts just to bash a car isn't what I expect here.

Whatever though, it seems you made up your mind about this car before it even came out.

 

His 89 IROC will handle better with the right driver. IROC-Z's were made for straight up flat/neutral sharp turning by design, not decent ride quality. (even though I don't find mint examples to be that rough) Drive both back to back and see if you ever get the chance, there's a big difference in the way those cars handled to todays offerings. No compromise handling is alot of fun. That review was also of a powerless RS with 235 ride-biased GA's and that's the only test I've seen a M*stang get .88 g's and a better slalom. You certainly picked the right article. But:

 

Maybe you should.

I am passionate about Camaro, but I also have an SVT Contour and a Hemi Durango...how obviously biased is that?

Didn't say that sport. I said: "But my point is that an '05 Mustang GT should so completely annialate my '89 IROC-Z in handling that we shouldn't even need to bring up tires."

That's a fair statement...don't you think?



It means that Mustang's handling is not world class

Tell you what. Go drive a Mustang. If you honestly think it handles better than your Scion...I'll shut up.

Didn't say that either. I said:
"It's going to be a monster....in a straight line, that is."

In it's day, it was leading edge...today, it's no better than an '05 Mustang GT.



Looks like you've made up your mind also......go drive one and get back to me.

 

First thing I found on google, figured being from Thirdgen.org it's a source you guys would trust

I'll read that article when it's posted to their website. Print is dead. Regardless, the performance stats of convertable cars aren't exactly something I'm interested in, there's more than enough info out there about the coupes. You seem like a pretty big convertable fan, I'm not.

I've driven 2 2005 V6 Mustangs, an auto and a stick. No GTs though, they're pretty hard to come by that aren't already sold out of the dealer.

It drove rather nice. My Scion isn't really a great handler and I liked the drive of the Mustang a lot more, even the V6 with it's big sidewalls and blah tires.

The Mustang's handling isn't world class? Is it SUPPOSED to be? I guess the 350Z's acceleration isn't world class either, because it's slower than the Mustang? Hey, the 350Z doesn't handle as well as a Lotus Elise which only costs about 7k more, that means it's handling isn't world class. Does that mean you'll start saying the 350Z is good "in a straight line, that is" because the Lotus Elise handles better? Why not? That's just as valid of a comparison, the price difference is about the same between the Mustang and the 350Z compared to the Z and the Elise. You could always play the "for a few thousand dollars more, this car does this specific thing better" game for any car, but that doesn't discount the car's accomplishments. The 2005 Mustang has been praised for it's handling in all of the reviews of it, as well as providing soem fo the best acceleration in it's class. But that warrants a "sure it's good, in a straight line! HAW HAW HAW" every time the car is mentioned? I haven't seen any reviews panning the handling. Everything I've read says the Mustang is a great overall package, and a great value for the price. I drove one and thought it drove and handled great. Acceleration dropped off after 2nd gear, but it was a V6.

If I jumped into a thread about the Cobalt SS and said "Yeah it's fine, in a straight line, the RX-8 handles better so the Cobalt SS isn't world class" people would pitch a fit. How do you define world class? best in the world? Well then, the 350Z isn't WORLD class either. Let's just say nothing is world class and pan everything but the Ferrari Enzo.

 

...So why is it a big deal if the Mustang doesn't have the best handling in the world? You get a hell of a lot of car for $25,000 with a Mustang. If you were buying a brand new performace car for MSRP and were capped at $25K, if the Mustang wasn't in your top 5 list, you should have your head checked.

At 25k, there are lots of great handling cars with decent performance, but there are not very many great performing cars with decent handling. Pretty much, It's Mustang as your only option.

Ford is right. The Mustang is a price sensitive car. It's buyers are price sensitive, and the sales reflect that. If they aren't, chances are they will buy another car anyway.

Cliffs Notes:

Would I like an IRS? - Yes.
Would I pay $29,000 for an IRS Mustang GT? - No.

 

It's not a big deal, as long as you realize that when Ford says, "it's live axle thinks it's an IRS", they are either just marketing or they are just kidding.

BTW, as I've said previously, I'd consider a Mustang GT for my next purchase (no, I'm not kidding)...I just wouldn't want to spend much more than 25K for it. I don't mind the retro styling, I just wouldn't spend much more on the retro chassis.

 

Why would IRS bump the price of a Mustang GT up $4,000? It has been noted that Ford is saving only a few hundred dollars per car going with the live axle.

 

According to Mustang cheif engineer, Hau Thai-Tang, 300 bucks, to be exact.

 

Thats how much the IRS itself would cost. Thats not the total cost of putting it on the car. Its also not what they would have to charge.

 

Thai-Tang never elaborated, he only said it saved $300. But call it $300, $400 or $800....Wilson's point (which I agree with), is that it wouldn't be $4,000.