26th Aug 2009, 14:04

The 70's were a different time and there was much less traffic. Today, you should be thinking about the safest way to get to the hospital. I know that in an emergency the thought processes aren't always the most logical. However, should you be driving at 108 mph on city streets to get someone to the hospital risking killing someone else on the way there? I have, and never will have to figure out which car I can unsafely speed through the streets in to get somewhere, over another car I own.

Also, what is so unstable about a Fox Mustang? I took dead mans curve in Cleveland with mine, which is basically a 90 degree turn on rt.90, at 65 mph without even pulling out of the seat or leaving the lane I was in. That car handled amazingly well for it's price point which was about $13K back then, brand new. It rode rough but I never felt out of control in it. The 2010 is by far the best Mustang yet for handling, though and a really amazing feat of engineering given that it is still on that old live axle rear end.

27th Aug 2009, 06:14

10:35 sorry LS7 in the new Z06 Corvette is what I meant to say. The future is here with this great model.

27th Aug 2009, 07:04

I am in shows and a 6 appeals to me only in a Grand National or t bucket, or an early Vette or Chevy with triple single barrel carbs. Late model 6 cars are out of place; more for a mall shopping center than shows.

27th Aug 2009, 10:00

That's an easy mistake to make for sure... and yes the LS7 is amazing!!

27th Aug 2009, 15:43

The 70 Chevelle 454. 450 HP would have mopped up the slant six on the freeway. The SS superior front and rear factory anti sway bars of which your Duster lacked rear sways as well as no disc brakes and small tires.

It's a wonder you survived, I drove my wife, had 3 children and drove each time with sense, instead of risking my wife, unborn child, myself and any other innocent motorist. Extremely poor example, in fact I question its validity to start with. Sure you didn't have a Nova 6 and a Chevelle SS? Odd pairing to own at the time.

27th Aug 2009, 21:57

"Also, what is so unstable about a Fox Mustang"

Everything. My wife and I were driving on a partially icy road a few years back in our Fox. We were doing 50 mph on a deserted 4-lane suburban road. The road was perfectly straight and level. I hit an icy spot and the rear end started to come around. I turned into the skid, eased off on the gas and the car continued to keep swapping ends. My wife said "Stop playing". I informed her I WASN'T. With the wheels cranked full lock in the direction of the skid the car proceeded to make a full 180% spin across all 4 lanes and ended up pointed back the way we had come in a snowbank. No damage to the car, and thankfully the road was deserted. Before you start yelling "POOR DRIVING", I might add that I am a former stunt driver and well qualified to judge car handling and to drive one very well indeed. The Fox Mustang is one of the most notorious cars in the world for poor handling. I have numerous books on cars and it is my primary hobby. Just last night I was reading one. In the section on the Fox Mustang the comment was made that it was a very poor handling car. I totally agree. Newer ones are marginally better, but a Mustang will still break loose so easily that I'd never choose one for aggressive twisty-road driving.

28th Aug 2009, 08:33

Using an icy road experience doesn't make me think the Fox Mustang is a really bad handling car... sorry. You could hit ice with just about any car at 50 and potentially lose control.

I never had any handling issues with either of mine, nor have I ever had any issues with any later Mustang, and I think they are pretty tight overall and are easy to keep in line. I actually drove one of mine in the winter with Blizzaks on all four corners. I was cruising on the highway at 70 mph one morning like a young fool, and when I hit an overpass the steering wheel totally let loose on the ice. I just let my foot off the gas and coasted. It stayed perfectly true and straight and never once swerved to the left or right. Maybe I just have better control reflexes... I don't know, but I never felt too unsafe in that car. Yes the tires helped a lot, but running summer Gatorbacks in the snow on a 4X4 wouldn't get you too much farther. I put blizzaks on my last Maxima too because it was horrible in the snow so tires do make a huge difference.

And in the summer months I used to hunt for twisty roads and go like heck through them. Maybe I just didn't know any better, but I never lost the rear end and I never felt out of control. Freeway entrance loops were an easy 60 mph run with my Mustangs, and I used to keep up with just about everything else out there short of a Corvette or a superbike. I was always amazed at how flat those cars stayed in corners. You just have to know the right amount of gas to give it or not give it in order to not kick out the rear end. The traction lok axle helped that out a lot too. I had that on both of my cars. A 2.73 geared Mustang probably was a poorer handling car.

Being a professional driver probably sets your expectations higher, but to me the Mustang is more than capable and the 2010 being upwards of .9g's on the skidpad is really pretty amazing.

18th Jul 2010, 12:46

I can't find the comment, but somewhere on one of these Mustang reviews, the 4.0 V6 lovers tried to state that "the V8 Mustang is dead, soon to be gone, and will soon be replaced by only V6's and 4-cylinders."

Why is it then that Ford put all that time and Money into a new 5.0 Liter V8 with over 400 HP that is rated 26 MPG highway?

The comment was also made by this same group that the Fusion 2.5 liter motor should be placed under the hood of the Mustang, as it is "more powerful than the 1980's GT's and 5.0's. I wish Ford would do it, just to prove this guy wrong. How is the 2.5 liter going to make up for the nearly 100 pounds of torque it loses versus the old 302 V8? There's more to acceleration than horsepower, I wish people could learn simple facts.

I will use this as an example: Modern semi trucks weigh up to and often times over 80,000 pounds. Their engines average around 400-500 HP, same as modern muscle cars. But those huge 12.0 liter + semi truck motors also put anywhere from 1600-2400 pounds of torque to the drive wheels. So should we put V6 and V8 car engines in semi trucks just because they make 300-500 horsepower? This is the same logic the V6 and 4-cylinder lovers are trying to use.

Ford (along with GM and Chrysler) learned their lesson in the 1970's and 1980's: That putting a 4-cylinder under the hood of a Pony Car is like wiping your butt with feces after a bowel movement.

The only thing gone and forgotten is the 4-cylinder Mustang and Camaro. And good riddance.

Welcome back to the showroom, Mustang 5.0!!! It's been too long, but well worth the wait!!!