9th Apr 2010, 15:32
Forget the 2010 V6 Mustang! It is a dog.
Check out the 2011 V6 with 305 hp and better gas mileage. It is due out this summer.
See recent write ups in Car and Driver/Motor Trend magazines, or their web sites.
12th Apr 2010, 10:42
""Smooth riding Mustang" is an oxymoron!!"
Go drive the newest GT... It is smooth, quiet and super tight. It doesn't have a harsh ride. Okay, if you are used to a Town Car then maybe it will be a little harsh, but as far as a Mustang, it is the best yet by far. Can't wait to see how the 2011 compares with almost 100 more hp.
12th Apr 2010, 16:51
We owned 2 red Fox-body LX hatchbacks. One was a 2.3 litre 4-cylinder and the other was a 5.0 V-8. The 4 rode and handled better due to its lighter weight and better front-rear weight distribution. Of course the 5.0 was faster, but we didn't race. From the outside they were indistinguishable from each other except for the 5.0 badge.
I don't see what all the "my engine's bigger than yours" is really about. All Mustangs are great cars.
I've driven the 2010 and it is not what I'd call "smooth" by any stretch of the imagination, though it is way better than the Foxes. One railroad crossing at 30mph will immediately let you know it still has the antiquated rear axle design.
13th Apr 2010, 12:15
Okay, the 2.3 handled better??? No way!! The 5.0 had a much tighter suspension and wider tires, and easily outperformed the 4 cylinder. The 4 cylinder Mustangs were the sloppiest handing thing Ford had in the day. Even a Tempo was better due to its front drive configuration.
They were very much "distinguishable" from one another as well. The wider tires led to a much more aggressive stance and the big polished stainless pipes out the rear end gave a hint of what was under the hood too. Also, if you had a '90-'93, you got the full GT interior on the LX hatch, which was much nicer than the base interior. Why people continually think the Mustang is all about the engine is beyond me.
There is no comparison at all from the 4 cylinder to the 5.0 Fox Mustang. The 5.0 was a complete driving experience with power, sound, and yes handling and the 4 cylinder just looked like a Mustang stuck on a Tempo chassis with tires that were too narrow, and a soft riding suspension that pitched and rolled more than most SUV's of the day.
Things haven't changed that much either... The V-6 Mustang of today is still a far cry from the complete driving experience of the GT. The V-6 Mustang is no old 4 cylinder Fox body, but it just screams rental and falls short on most of the excitement of the GT. There's nothing wrong with more power and performance, especially when you can still achieve mid to upper 20's for mpg on the highway like the Fox body cars (with EFI) did and the current GT does today.
The new 305 hp V-6 should be much better than the current one, but we'll see if they get smarter with the handling and at least offer something more sporty to go along with it.
13th Apr 2010, 12:25
Hmmm, if you do 30 in ANY car over railroad tracks, you'll be feeling any inadequacies in suspension design and even the seats you're sitting on. I wouldn't even count that as a good test really, as I would never drive a Mustang over rough tracks that fast...or any other car for that matter. I did 50 around an entrance ramp easily that was concrete with expansion joints, and the rear end didn't even hop once like it would in an older Mustang. I was amazed at the advancement of the old rear end. They really have done wonders with it.
Trouble is they would tack on another few grand in price to go with a full independent rear end, so the best bang for the buck title would suffer greatly. You just can't have it all unless you want to pay for it. You can always get the GT500 I guess as long as you don't mind the extra $20K.
14th Apr 2010, 11:09
"Even a Tempo was better due to its front drive configuration."
No front drive car can come even close to handling like ANY rear drive car.
As for the Foxes, Ford offered the 4 with the exact same tires and wheels as the 5.0 (it was an extra-cost option). The handling was not only better, but also safer due to the better weight distribution, which kept the rear end from breaking loose in fast corners like the nose-heavy 5.0's.
Due to its inability to handle the wheel-spin, the Fox 5.0 was one of the most dangerous Mustangs ever built. Even with posi-traction, it broke loose way too easy even on dry pavement. In the rain it was a death trap. Virtually every automotive reviewer made note of this characteristic in road tests.
14th Apr 2010, 12:16
"Hmmm, if you do 30 in ANY car over railroad tracks, you'll be feeling any inadequacies in suspension design and even the seats you're sitting on."
Interesting. I routinely take railroad crossings at 50-70 mph in my sedan and SUV and hardly notice it.
14th Apr 2010, 13:18
Hey, they're your vehicles. If you want to wear out suspension parts and tires prematurely, go for it.
What's interesting is how much over the speed limit you are going to cross a railroad track at 70 mph, since most I have seen have a pretty low speed limit on them, especially if they are rough.
14th Apr 2010, 13:49
First of all you need to look at your specs in more detail. Yes they offered the 10 hole mags on the 4 cylinder Mustang after they switched to the 5 spoke pony rims for the 5.0's in 1991. They were offered, however with much narrower 205 series rubber, which was very easy to spot from a distance. I could always tell a 4 cylinder Mustang from way off, even with the bigger wheels on it.
I'm sorry but I had 2 5.0 Mustangs, and never had trouble keeping the rear ends planted, and never really lost one unless I really wanted it to slide out. They both had the Traction Lok axles and 5-speed manuals. A 4 cylinder Mustang wasn't even a thought to me as far as handling or any level of performance against my 5.0's. I also distinctly remember C&D rating the Fox as the best bang for the buck year after year in the late 80's and early 90's, until the Camaro came along with the Vette engine in '93. I never read one line about how easily the spin out though... and definitely nothing about how dangerous they supposedly are.
These cars took a little more skill to drive well as any high powered rear driver does. I never even lost the rear end in the rain if I was driving normal, and that didn't mean crawling around at 15 mph. The gatorbacks these cars were equipped with were actually designed for wet traction, and did quite well. I switched to B.F. Goodrich radial TA's on one of my cars and they were just as good as the Gatorbacks overall. I also sold these cars new in '92, and drove quite a few new ones and never had any issues with them. I actually passed a car going around a corner full out and hit 80 in 3rd gear and never once had the car slip or slide. It handled amazingly. I took dead mans curve in Cleveland at 65 mph without pulling out of the seat... and that is a 90 degree turn on rt. 90 with a posted limit of 25 mph. I have countless young and foolish stories of pushing my Mustangs to their limits and never once did I have any issues with handling... not once.
I even put 4 snows on one of my Mustangs and ran it through a hard NY winter and it was actually pretty easy to get around in. I never considered either of my Mustangs dangerous cars by any means and they actually out handled most of the cars I have owned including my 92X which is basically a WRX with AWD. The poor tire choice (Bridgestone Potenza) they put on those cars made them extremely dangerous on wet pavement. I did full power slides around corners at only 30 mph on wet pavement... without wanting to or trying.
All in all, I don't care much what people think about the old 5.0. I just don't know why people bash these cars as lousy handling. Maybe people have gotten soft from front wheel drive and AWD cars over the years and it is too hard to handle an old-school racer... I dunno. The proof is in the numbers still out there as awesome performance cars, that are a blast to drive and outperformed virtually everything out there in their day. They still have an unbelievable following even 17 years after the last one was built. I wouldn't think such a lousy handling and performing car would really create such a legendary mark in automotive history, do you?