2008 Ford Mustang GT California Special from North America - Comments

No major problems after 3,000 miles.

A few minor, yet somewhat annoying interior rattles resolved by the dealer.

Gear shift seems to have a lot of play and slop for a new car. I may buy a Hurst kit.

Clutch is not firm enough.

Transmission is occasionally hard to get into reverse after being parked for long amounts of time. I would think Ford could have resolved this after using this transmission for so long.

Some noticeable road noise, especially with rear seats folded down.

I bought this thing on a whim. I kind of wish I would have waited. It's not a bad car, but I had no idea in August that our country and the Big 3 automakers would be in so much financial trouble. If any of them will survive, it looks like it will be Ford for now.

I located a car that had nearly every option I wanted, and the right color (Vista Blue), and I couldn't resist.

If you haven't driven a 2005 or newer Mustang, I definitely recommend doing so. The ride is much smoother, and handling way more composed. The old rattle trap pickup truck-like ride and handling is gone. I can't speak for the base model, but the GT feels nearly 100% improved over the previous body styles. It is a sports car, and can still get a bit choppy over bumpy roads, but at least you won't be thrown from your seat.

What hasn't changed is that anyone over the age of 10 will be miserable riding in the back seats.

Performance is awesome to say the least. You won't find many cars in this price range that will snap you back in your seat this quickly. Fuel economy is decent, I average about 25 MPG highway driving somewhat aggressively. I may look for some slightly lower rear gears if I can find them in a limited slip. I have the 3.55 gears and in my opinion the engine is forced to run too fast above 70 MPH. When driving on 2-lane, 55 MPH country roads the car is good for nearly 29 MPG. Ford should offer a 6-speed in this car. If I want power, I can downshift. That's what an automatic transmission does too.

I've heard a lot of gripes about the solid rear axle. Most of them from people who don't own a Mustang. My response is so what? Cars had solid rear axles for 80 years and they usually outlived the car itself. Less parts means less maintenance. I can't see the axle being an issue with handling, unless maybe you try doing slaloms and autocross against a Porsche or Ferrari. I have yet to push my 'Stang to the limits, so I can't comment on the so-called "snapping noise" people complain of.

I also think Ford should have offered some reasonably priced performance upgrades, like maybe a Mach 1 package.

One thing they did get right is the factory exhaust note, turning the key and stepping on the gas is a little bit of heaven in my opinion.

The Shaker 500 will be plenty of stereo for most people, the 1000 is overkill.

The overall fit and finish is still mediocre at best. Lots of cheap, hard plastic, even with the interior upgrade package. My biggest gripe would have to be the wide design of the center console, greatly reducing legroom. I like to lean my knee to the right while driving, and the sharp edge sticks out like a sore thumb. It also seems as is Ford worked hard on the instrument cluster and took no notice of the cheap plastic and gaps in the rest of the interior. The door panels look as if they could have come from a 1992 Tempo or F-150.

The seats are very comfortable, but firm, so they may have some feeling fatigued on very long drives.

I would think that after so many years Ford would find a way to put a larger fuel tank on this car. 16 gallons for a V8? Gimme a break.

So this car is what it is. It's not a family car. It's not an econobox. If you want that go buy an Accord, Altima, Camry, Prius, or Fit. It is the only surviving muscle car. It hasn't come, left us, and tried to come back like so many others. Tried and true reliability with modern and retro styling blended nicely. Just a little rough around the edges like it always has been.

Great review!

Kudos. A well-balanced review.

This is a very good, comprehensive and honest review of a very good car. YES, they ride rough (but not nearly as bad as the older ones). I've owned 7 Mustangs with various engine and transmission combinations. I liked them all, but the newest is definitely the best.

I DO get a kick out of the term "cheap" plastic, and would LOVE a definition of "expensive" plastic!! I rode in a co-workers Lexus a while back and was very surprised to find just as much plastic in it as in my Mustang. Whether the plastic was "cheap" or "expensive" I don't know. It didn't have the price tag on it. It was just as hard and "plasticky" as mine.

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.

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.

With the reverse issue, go to first and second gear, then to reverse, always worked with my stick.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

Well, on that note, I am looking at the 2003-2004 Mercury Marauder. Full size sedan (get one while they still are out there), usually well preserved by their owners, now coming off leases or back into the mkt after one owner, and ranging around $14-17K.

I'm old enough but still going thru my first-life crisis (no kids). Can I really bring myself to show up in a Grand Marquis, even one with head-snapping performance and monochromatic styling? The other choice of course would be the Lincoln Town Car: more car and probably cheaper upkeep (heard the Marauder tires are $1500 for a set of REARS).

So the CEO set might pooh-pooh pulling up in one's 'Stang thang, but the babes will want to hop in your GT convertible more than crawl into your sedan, no question. The question is: DO YOU FEEL GOOD? So now I'm thinking I rather tool around in a drop-top ponycar instead, get my 'Stang thang on. The goal is dependable, low-cost maintenance in a car to bang around town or comfy enough to road trip. I'm talking my other cars used to be big Beemers; I went thru two in seven years - no more! The other criteria WAS: and the mother-in-law in the back (for those road trips). Mmmmmm, OK, I'll do it in a 'Stang. Sorry, Mom.

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.

"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."

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.

"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."

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.

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.

"it will still be a hideously ugly car."

Huh... go figure. I like it.