PDA

View Full Version : The New Mustang Sucks



Matthew
07-04-2005, 11:01 PM
so monica and i needed a rental the first day we were in Vegas to run some errands and what not.

the cabs were so expensive so i had some hundayi or other cheap ass econobox reserved for like 25 bucks.

we get there and monica was talking about how since we are getting married etc we might as well upgrade to a mustang (new model) that they had there.

aside from the fact that it was a v6 (of course, because it was a rental) that thing sucks...im not knocking the speed, im talking about design and quality.

1) that thing is a BOAT. its like driving a small truck AT LEAST. there were times i felt the lanes were too small around vegas for the car, and it was a bitch to park EVERYWHERE. even with the size of my WRX which i can parrallel park like a mofo, i couldnt in the mustang.

2) the view is TERRIBLE. that thing is ENORMOUS but the front and rear windows are TINY. i cant even see halfway to the front of the car or be able to judge anything. that car needs flags near the front. and i used to drive trucks in my old army job. when you look through the front window, you have to be perplexed by the sheer size of the car yet tiny view through the window. my wife was in the army 8 years and drove HMMWVS all the time and felt it was a hassle to drive.

3) the interior is CHEAP AS HELL. although this was a v6, it still had the leather and all that. the gauges are recessed SO FAR back its like trying to peer down a tunnel to read the gauges. very annoying. the radio, while a 6 cd disc changer that plays mp3s, looked like a style my dad had on his 93 ford probe, and the vents and overall feeling was just cheap plastic. this includes the shifter, which looks cheaper than a playschool shifter...which brings me to..

4) the design of the center console sucks ass. obviously we had an auto since it was a rental, and the thing sticks up like 3 inches from the console. the cup holders are right behind it towards you, and level with the rest of the console and not that deep. so if you have ANY drink, large or small, its going to completely blcok your shifter. not TOO bad with an auto (but i was still struggling when parking, etc with my arm cockeyed up), but i would hate to drive that in a manual. my WRX has a crappy similar design with the cupholders not being in front of the shifter, but this was about 100 times worse.

5) im pretty average size, 5'8" (and about a half or so) and there is no way you are going to reach the pedals, and turn to get the seatbelt. most times in normal cars you just reach half assed over your shoulder to get the seatbelt, but not in this car. i physically had to completely turn my entire body as if getting something from the back seat to get to the belt. if i was driving a manual and sitting a bit closer (on a manual i normally sit about one click closer) it would have been even harder. it was a hassle EVERY TIME. i figure all the designers and testers were over 6'5" because when i picked up my dad from the airport, he is 6'2" and even he had a hard time reaching back for the belt.

6) there is no room. the car is the size of a small country, but yet there is ZERO trunk room, leg room, head room, and back seat room. i know its a sports car, but i figured they made it big to give you room while maintaining the sports car feel. i wouldnt doubt that my sunfire had more room than this thing. even the trunk is designed so that the opening makes it a feat to get anything into the trunk without wiggling, pushing, and heaving. where does all the room go? i have NO idea. i couldnt find it. i felt cramped, had a hard time getting out of the car (even as hard as my lowered WRX and even LOWER protege5), hard time putting luggage anywhere, and generally just a clausterphobic feeling.

well that is my review of the new mustang. i think its poorly deisnged, but good looking at least.

ill have to post pics of the saleen one i saw at a casino...but still, the car was a huge disappointment for me.

CHICO2003
07-04-2005, 11:52 PM
I pretty much agree with most of what you said... I test drove the car fairly recently (wasn't actually considering buying it) and many of the things you pointed out annoyed me as well. That being said, I think the chance of you overlooking these types of things would be significantly greather if you had the GT. This thing absolutely flies! IMO, it feels faster than an STI (which has the same HP) perhaps due to the fact that it's RWD... who knows? (I'd still take an STI over this any day of the week) the point is... I doubt people are buyin these pups for the way the interior was so logically designed or for how much cargo space it can afford. I've never quite understood the thinking behind buying a v6 auto mustang. For those who actually have some sense, shellin out 27 grand (which is an absolute bargain) for a beast like this (despite its flaws) makes a lot of sense. Keep in mind... they're going for the retro look. most dumbestic buyers are so used to incredibely chintzy interiors that this sort of thing just won't bother them one bit. as long as they can yell "yeeeee haaaaaw" as they jam on the gas they're happy.

Matthew
07-04-2005, 11:55 PM
lol good point. that being said i thought for that much that it would have been a bit more refined. and the things like the windshields, and the seat belts are simply idiotic.

that being said, im sure the GT is a bit better because of the power...but they are heavy as hell too. the doors are the kind that would swing out and knock over a meter if you parked on an incline and had a wife that wasnt paying attn.

seanmcsean
07-05-2005, 12:33 AM
the v6 is useless.. get the gt with a 5 speed and the upgraded interior..

Matthew
07-05-2005, 01:29 AM
notice this has nothing to do with the v6

Roywhitep5
07-05-2005, 02:17 AM
well of course you hate it. your preferance is twards smaller more nimble cars. how could you like it

Matthew
07-05-2005, 08:29 AM
i didnt even really go into performance or handling. im talking about design. yes i like smaller nimbler cars but i also like old cars like chevelles, camaros, mustangs etc. this one is designed poorly.

Mr. Win
07-05-2005, 08:50 AM
i stopped reading because your described every mustang since 93-94...

seanmcsean
07-05-2005, 08:55 AM
meh.. I'd still buy one. I drove an 05 gt and it fit me like a glove. and I'm not a big guy either.. 6'0 190.

65racecoupe
07-17-2005, 10:19 AM
Read my screen name and you will see I am a pony car dude.

Even I am not crazy about even a V8 Mustan now days (only cool 6 cyl produced was #1 off line in 64) . Yes, interior is crap and power is OK.

BUT......

Wait till 07 and Fords SVT Cobra. If it doesnt impress you, you arent a car person. :)

FrigginGLI
07-17-2005, 10:56 AM
You nailed the mustang on the head.

TheMAN
07-17-2005, 11:04 AM
it's not a "sports car", it's a pony car!
plus domestics are not well known for ergonomics or visibility, enough said

65racecoupe
07-17-2005, 11:26 AM
it's not a "sports car", it's a pony car!
plus domestics are not well known for ergonomics or visibility, enough said


Yes / No. A pony car isnt really a term describin a new car anymore.

(It used to define a small block midsize, 2 dr, 4 seater, fast, well ridin car back in late 1960s I.E. Mustan, Camero, Trans Am - Basically any American car raced in Trans Am series was a PONY CAR. Muscle car is a different deffinition as well. All definitions are blended now days ).

Mustan is only car (PONY CAR) defines anymore because a Camero / Trans Am is not made any more.

I would still call it a Sports car, but if you call a Corvette a sports car, I dont know.

Maybe it is just a step down, like a mid level sports car.

jurgs01
07-17-2005, 12:19 PM
Mustang = poor man/non-car enthusiast sports car. I see one for every mile I drive. Too common.

lasermp5
07-17-2005, 12:49 PM
Mustang = poor man/non-car enthusiast sports car. I see one for every mile I drive. Too common.

Exactly. It's only been like what now... 3-4 months since they've really had them at the dealers, and you already see a ton of new stangs... not to mention the old ones. Way too many if you ask me.

Mike R
07-19-2005, 06:29 PM
Matthew-it's RETRO! Poor visibility, big car. Sounds very retro to me!

65racecoupe
07-20-2005, 03:11 AM
Matthew-it's RETRO! Poor visibility, big car. Sounds very retro to me!

That is how my 65 is. (drive)

But, the ACTUAL weight is only 2900 lbs. It feels big compared to my P5, but it really isn't that much bigger.

The NEW stang weighs in close to 3800 I believe. Way too much for its 300 hp.

SciFiMan
07-20-2005, 09:13 AM
It may be nice but it is sure to cost a heap of money. And at that point it's in the realm of higher quality cars that are also pretty quick. Although the SVT will be nice for stoplight drag races.


....Wait till 07 and Fords SVT Cobra. If it doesnt impress you, you arent a car person. :)