3rd Feb 2009, 13:40
I own a New Mustang and know what the author is talking about by "cheap plastic." Around the door sill panels and front pillars there are literally gaps of up to 3-4 mm between upholstery pieces, plastic trim, and the body itself. Just about every new Mustang I've seen is like this, even the Bullit.
Also the door panels themselves, the front part (closest to the door hinges) looks quite nice with a secondary color leather insert. But the rear part has cheap looking plastic door lock knobs and plastic that looks like it could have come from some kids Tonka toys.
My car is a GT without any upgrades, and I sort of bought it on a whim as well. It was cheap, rear wheel, V8 and fast, my very own midlife crisis car. Just what I wanted.
For examples of "somewhat higher quality" arranged plastic, one only needs to look at cars like the new Chevy Malibu, New Nissan Altima, and most Honda products from recent years.
5th Feb 2009, 23:20
I made comment 18:15 and boy, did I get a shock today!! My best friend picked me up for lunch in his 2005 Hyundai Accent. I had really never paid any attention before, but after talking about interiors, I guess it was on my mind. I noticed that his door panels are actually UPHOLSTERED with a type of fabric!! The doors at least are more luxurious looking than my Mustang OR my friend's Lexus!! Oh, well, after having to just REMOVE the upholstery from my wife's Fusion's trunk (why upholster a TRUNK!!!) to install a spoiler, I guess I guess cars do have some interior quirks.
8th Feb 2009, 21:46
With the reverse issue, go to first and second gear, then to reverse, always worked with my stick.
10th Feb 2009, 20:52
My 93 Ford Taurus had cloth upholstered door panels. They looked nice, but after several years, the fibers rubbed off where my elbow hit it and the shape dented in. Didn't look so good. I would not recommend cloth upholstered doors to anyone if they could get plastic instead.
Last December, I saw a great line in Forbes magazine as friendly advice for CEO's of major corporations. Something like going to the company Christmas party wearing a tuxedo and driving a your Mustang is not going to be seen as cool, no matter how much you want to do it.
15th Feb 2009, 23:52
I doubt if a "CEO of a major corporation" would be seen driving any kind of Ford. With that said I would rather push a Mustang than drive a Taurus. A Taurus is an ugly piece of junk.
16th Feb 2009, 12:07
The 2010 Tauruses are definitely NOT your Granny's old Taurus. They are sharp, well designed, and come with the 365 horsepower "SHO" option. I drive a Mustang, but I'm drooling over the new Taurus SHO. It would blow my Mustang off the road without breathing hard.
5th Mar 2009, 20:31
I'm a senior citizen and luckily work for a firm that doesn't give a rat's behind WHAT we drive or how we dress. I'm second in the company ranking and routinely meet with millionaire clients wearing blue jeans and golf shirts. Thank God I never got into the "corporate set" mentality. My car? A grabber orange Mustang (and also a brilliant red Grand Am). My wife has a red Fusion and a GMC. Our family tried Beemers. They are expensive, unimpressive, and unreliable.
Now as for ride and practicality go for the Mercury Marauder. Firm ride, but better than any Mustang. Lots of power, HUGE interior, and not cursed with the "Granny" image of the Town Car. My 80+ year old mom drove Town Cars from 1984 to 2006. Very comfy, great ride...BORING. And who on God's green Earth told you TIRES for a Marauder cost $750 APIECE!!! I assume that was a joke. A full set of Michelins mounted and balanced on our GMC would only be $1400. The Marauder does not require any "special" tires.
8th Mar 2009, 21:36
With an overpriced $38,000 base price I hope it does that and more. The new Taurus and SHO are just another yuppie inspired, ugly bar of soap looking car. Not quite as ugly as the previous Taurus, but it's no good looker like a Mustang.
I'm not denying that an SHO will be quicker than a Mustang, but it WILL for sure breath hard doing it. Even if the 2010 SHO wins the race, it will still be a hideously ugly car.
10th Mar 2009, 11:33
I don't know about "hideously" ugly, but yes, for $10,000 less I'd DEFINITELY opt for a Mustang GT. There are lots of cars that are faster than Mustang. Few are as sporty.
27th Mar 2009, 08:02
Actually even with 365 HP the Mustang will probably still take the Taurus. A 5-speed GT hits 60 in 5.1 seconds. The Taurus will likely be in the 5.5-5.7 range with an automatic and an extra 1,000 pounds to haul.
3rd Mar 2010, 08:06
I makes me angry that they print CS on the car. It may stand for California Special, but there is no way Ford should do this with Carroll Shelby. It's kind of upsetting really. I have a '76 Shelby Mustang, and I am disappointed to see Ford do this.
29th Jun 2010, 16:10
The California Special has nothing to do with Carroll Shelby so who cares? They've done many cars with similar themes and the same initials. Should I be upset about the '70 Challenger T/A because they stole something from Pontiac who had their first Trans Am in 1969?
16th Aug 2010, 13:21
Just letters on a car...
The Mustang is definitely a car always evolving. I can't wait to see what the years ahead bring to us. As for the 2010 model, it competes with today's standards which aren't impressive in any car.
16th Aug 2010, 15:23
Is this praise for the Mustang or a slam to it? I think 412 HP and 0-60 in 4.6 seconds is impressive by ANY days standards for a car that starts at $28K. Even the 2010 was very impressive at 4.9 to 60 with only 315 HP. Not sure what you're expecting from any car these days.
The old muscle cars were not nearly as quick or as efficient as the cars of today. They are awesome to own and collect, but the technology is so far behind what is out now, it isn't even in the same league. Who'd of thought there would ever be a stock Corvette with 638 HP that gets 26 mpg??