If you're reading this review, then you should probably stop right now and head straight to your Ford dealer and buy the new Mustang. It's not a perfect car--far from it. But as with the best cars its styling tells you everything you need to know, both the good and the bad. So if the look of the 2005 turns you on, then nothing else about the car is going to turn you off.

Still need the details? Then by all means read on. Just don't say I didn't warn you that this wasn't the most efficient use of your time.

I have more recently reviewed the V6. That review can be read here.

Background

Back when my driver's license was new I really wanted a Mustang. Until I drove one. Even for my teenage self the steering was too numb and the car overall was too cheap and crude. Despite all that horsepower I had to pass. I didn't drive another Mustang for nearly two decades, and then it was a 2004 Cobra. Amazing acceleration, but the steering and driving position were way off base.

Mustang fans will simply say I don't understand the car. It's just not about handling and finesse. It's about show and go at a low price. But when evaluating cars I actually do go beyond my personal preferences. On an intellectual level I admire any car whose styling and mechanical bits form a cohesive, characterful whole, even if this whole isn't "me."

The problem with the Mustang is that since at least the early 1970s it has been too half-baked even for a car that's supposed to be half-baked. I'll grant that the Mustang doesn't have to have a Lexus interior and handle like a true sports car. But every Mustang has always been based on the cheapest chassis in the Ford inventory--first the Fairlane, then the Pinto, and for the last quarter-century the Fairmont--and no amount of MacGyvering on the part of Ford's most dedicated engineers could quite turn the sow's ear into a silk purse. Mustang fans must really like the car's power and looks, because everything else was the obvious product of cut corner on top of cut corner.

The fifth generation Mustang would likely be much the same way if Ford still had a bargain basement rear-drive chassis to base it on. But it did not. The corporation's only recently engineered rear-drive architecture was created for Lincoln and Jaguar. So if there was to be a new Mustang at all--and this was in doubt for years--then for the first time it would have to be based on a dumbed down premium chassis, not a tarted up cheap one. The Lincoln's independent rear suspension was tossed in favor of a cheaper live axle, but the result still promised to be far superior to any previous Mustang.

To gauge the extent of the improvement, and evaluate how well the new Mustang stacks up against its only direct competitor, the Pontiac GTO, I took a five-speed GT Premium for a test drive.

Styling

The clean 1980s sheetmetal always looked good to me (at least until the GT received a bunch of tacky add-ons in 1987), but I suspect for many people it lacked character. A major update in 1994 included a new exterior that successfully recalled the original Mustang. A bit pudgy, though. A 1999 redesign added some "new edge" elements to the otherwise retro design. This combination never worked for me.

Ford took advantage of the full redesign to give the 2005 car much different proportions. Longer, wider, and less curvaceous, the new car's styling strongly recalls the more butch Mustangs of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Something about the area above the rear wheel doesn't quite work for me (some trim around the rear side window or less rear overhang might help) but overall the new car looks really, really good. The GT's grille-mounted fog lights are an especially nice touch.

Oddly, aside from lacking those fog lights the V6 Mustang looks even better than the GT. The V6's standard alloy wheels and optional "Mustang" tape stripe along the lower body further enhance the retro theme. Neither is available on the GT. The GT I drove was fitted with the optional machined alloys, and despite costing more these are the least attractive of all the wheels available on the car. They're not ugly, just blah and unsuited to the character of the car.

No matter how its outfitted, the new Mustang avoids looking like a toy for adolescents. Thankfully Ford has refrained from festooning it with scoops and spoilers. Even the traditional scoops ahead of the rear wheels have been replaced by a more tasteful crease in the sheetmetal. A rear spoiler is small and optional (at no cost on the GT). In short, adults can drive this car with no worries of looking silly.

Mustangs have always had this advantage over the competition from GM. (Even when the GT acquired a tacky body kit in the late 1980s Ford continued to offer an "LX 5.0" for mroe tasteful buyers.) I feel this largely explains why the Mustang is still with is while the swoopier Camaro and Firebird are not.

The retro theme carries over to the interior in both good and not so good ways. Good is the retro styling. Not so good are the retro materials. As in those old Mustangs, hard plastic surfaces abound. Although this arguably fits the character of the car, and no doubt helps keep the price reasonable, upgrades here and there wouldn't hurt. While they're at it, closing the door even with the window up currently produces some very unquality sounds. Ford should fix that.

Two interior upgrade packages are available. I recommend them both because the base interior is downright drab, especially in charcoal. The first upgrade package ($450)adds a hefty dose of satin-aluminum-finished plastic to the instrument panel, steering wheel spokes, and various other places. Fan of this material or not, you don't want this interior without it. The second package ($175), not on the car I drove, upholsters the seats and door panels in red to really liven the place up.

How does the Pontiac GTO compare? Here we have the problem of taking a fairly good car and trying to make it into something it's not with a minimum of effort. The new GTO was already on sale down under before someone in Detroit decided to make a new GTO out of it. As a result, it looks European and thus too bland for the muscle car crowd. The hood scoops added to the 2005 aren't going to be enough. The GTO's interior uses significantly higher grade materials than the Mustang's, and has more comfortable seats. But its styling is generic near-lux import. The new Mustang's interior might be lower grade, but the car makes a much clearer statement.

Accommodations

The Mustang's driving position is greatly improved for 2005. The new cockpit has a few extra inches of much needed elbow room and the driver's seat now sits at a reasonable height relative the the dash. The view forward is good for a sporty car. The view to the rear is marginal, but for a sporty car that's about as good as it gets. The steering wheel and shifter are where they should be--something that cannot be said of last year's car.

One quibble about the steering wheel: the spokes run all the way to the outside of the rim. I prefer the feel of leather all the way around a rim, so hard plastic at three points is unwelcome. Especially on a cold day (I drove the car with the temp in the high teens). But even on a warm day this wheel won't be inviting to work with.

The front seats, though improved, still provide just an adequate level of comfort. I've sat in worse, but I've also sat in better. Unless you're quite wide the side bolsters won't do much bolstering.

The two-passenger rear seat is of course cramped. I'm 5-9, and both my head and legs barely fit, and that with a little scrunching. That said, being able to carry four adults in a pinch is better than only being able to carry two. Getting into the rear seat isn't easy, and afterwards the front seat returns to its fully upright position. A nuisance.

The trunk at 12 cubic feet is pretty good for a sporty coupe. Still, I wouldn't count on bringing much home from CostCo, as it is a bit shallow vertically. Be aware that the optional 1000-watt audio system fills a good chunk of the trunk with a pair of subwoofers. The rear seats do fold for more cargo room. On the downside, neither the salesperson nor I could find a remote release. Plan on using the key fob or the key.

A word on that audio wattage: Ford uses "peak" rather than "RMS" figures, so you're really getting about 500 watts. Which is still a lot. The "Premium" trim's standard "500-watt" (i.e. roughly 250-watt) system should serve most people plenty well.

In accommodations the GTO does better in some areas, worse in others. It generally feels more upscale, its seats are more significantly more comfortable and supportive, and the rear seats are roomier. But many of the minor controls are oddly placed and the lack of a footrest for the left foot was a serious comfort issue for me. I vaguely recall reading that a deadpedal has been added for 2005. Good if true, but how did the car ever get released without one in the first place? As for the trunk, the GTO offers about half the volume than the Mustang, and its rear seats don't fold. Both shortcomings are courtesy of a fuel tank relocated to the forward section of the trunk for safety reasons.

On the Road

As I've mentioned, aside from styling the Mustang is all about the engine. And the V8 in the 2005, a 4.6 liter producing 300 horsepower, does not disappoint. Driven casually around town the big engine doesn't feel particularly powerful, just always up to the task. Dipping into the throttle the slightest bit elicits a loud burble from the exhaust, but when cruising at a steady speed only a hint of this noise is present. A neat trick, for I suspect even Mustang fans for whom a burbly exhaust is sweet music would find this music tiresome after a few highway miles.

As I see it, the GT's docility in traffic is a strength, not a weakness. Many high performance cars aren't very easy to drive around town. Their engines chomp at the bit, desiring free reign. They refuse to just relax and go with the flow. In contrast, the Mustang, even in GT form, does an excellent job of relaxing and going with the flow.

The V8 does such a good job relaxing that my initial impression was that it wasn't all that powerful. But then I put the pedal to the floor, and the car took off. Granted, the GT is not scary fast like last year's Cobra or the new Corvette. It would need another hundred horses for that. But those cars are perhaps too quick. With a manual transmission the redline approaches so quickly at full throttle that full concentration on the tach is necessary to avoid banging the rev limiter. Take a moment to enjoy the experience and you'll botch the shift. The new Mustang, in contrast, is just slow enough that you'll have a moment to enjoy the brute acceleration before thinking about the need to shift into the next gear.

If you're thinking that even this is quicker than you need a car to be, you might well be right. I didn't test drive the V6, but with about as much horsepower as the old "5.0" V8 I suspect that it's plenty quick enough for even most pony car fans. Sure, for many years the base Mustang engine was a dog, but this is no 90-horse four banger.

The 2005 Mustang's shifter is greatly improved over the 2004's. The effort required remains on the high side and the feel is moderately notchy, but I personally like these characteristics in a shifter. A zero-effort Honda Civic shifter certainly wouldn't fit the character of the car. So where's the improvement? First off, the shifter is located where the driver's hand wants it to be. Second, its throws have been shortened considerably. Very nice. As for the clutch effort, it's reasonable.

Now we come to the weakest aspect of the 2004. The 2005's steering still isn't much of a communicator, but compared to last year's system it's a motormouth. The amount of effort required is just about right, neither too heavy nor too light. All in all very little in the way of conscious thought is required to point the car where you want it to go, and that's a good thing.

The chassis remains inclined towards understeer, but this understeer is mild enough. Push the 2005 and it feels much more stable and composed than the 2004, with significantly less lean in hard turns. Even with the new chassis the Mustang remains far from agile. It is a large coupe, with a half-foot longer wheelbase than the 2004, and from the driver's seat it feels even larger than it is. But I'll grant that a Mustang isn't supposed to be agile. As I said in the introduction the styling honestly reflects the car. The 2005 looks big, brawny, and solid. And that's how it drives.

The new chassis has also benefited ride quality. You won't think you're in a Lincoln, but the suspension takes the edge off bumps and potholes and even on awful roads the ride never felt "busy" to me. It probably helps that the 235/55ZR17 tires have fairly tall sidewalls for a sporty car. No doubt an independent rear suspension would further improve the ride, but the live axle's motions are generally well controlled. I didn't detect the truck-like dancing about I often feel with such a suspension. I discussed exhaust noise earlier. At highway speeds wind and road noise remain moderate (though there is more of the latter than the former), so the new Mustang shouldn't prove too tiresome on long trips.

And how does the GTO compare? For 2005 it gets the new Corvette's 400-horspower 6.0-liter V8. As a result, even though the Pontiac weighs about 400 pounds more than the Ford it should feel considerably torquier off the line and dust the less powerful car in the typical stoplight grand prix. On the flipside, the GTO's manual shifter is much less satisfying to operate unless it too has also been heavily updated since last year. Compared to the new Mustang, the GTO has less steering feel, a more balance chassis, and a busier ride--the last despite an independent rear suspension. I didn't find the Pontiac as pleasant to simply drive around town. Even when cruising the exhaust is uncomfortably loud--a clear disadvantage vis-a-vis the Ford.

Ford Mustang GT Price Comparisons and Pricing

While the Mustang is in my price comparison site's database, the GTO is not because of limited market interest. However, a brief glance at the two cars' prices suggests that the Mustang is considerably less expensive. The GT Premium coupe I drove listed for $27,100. I'd personally do without the $195 wheels on that car, but would probably add the $370 side airbags. The six-speed GTO lists for $33,690. The Pontiac features some additional features, most notably a limited-slip differential and additional power seat adjustments, but these account for at most $1000 of the difference. So the Pontiac is at least $5000 more expensive.

The two most popular comparisons (GT, base to base, without rebates, adjusted for feature differences):

Dodge Charger R/T: $600 more (after a $3,000 price adjustment)

350Z: $2,700 more

Prices change frequently, and differences will vary based on feature level. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, www.truedelta.com. (It's the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.)

TrueDelta's page for the Mustang:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/Mustang.php

Last Words

I've admitted that the Mustang is not my kind of car. Yet I find a lot to like about it, especially the new styling and the fact that this styling honestly represents what the car is like to drive. Basically, people who like the styling will like the rest. And, unlike last year, the Mustang now handles well enough that fans don't have to ignore or rationalize away that aspect of the car. Cap it all with a very reasonable price for such a powerful car, and the 2005 Mustang's brisk sales aren't hard to understand.

The only puzzling bit is that the GT is in much shorter supply than the V6. The dealer I visited had at least half a dozen of the latter on the lot, but only one GT. As people begin to realize that the V6 is also quick, and costs over $4,000 less, this imbalance will probably even out.

I might personally prefer a more agile sports car, but I'm clearly in a small minority here. After a 1990s spurt sports car sales are waning again. The new Mustang will handily outsell them all.

It will also handily outsell the Pontiac GTO, which in 2004 fell well short of GM's sales goal. The reasons are simple. First, the Mustang costs less. Second, people know what a Mustang is, and the new one fits this widely desired image better than any in decades. In contrast, far fewer people possess a clear image of the GTO, which never had the Ford's broad appeal and hasn't been around in decades. Lightly modifying a coupe developed by GM's Australian subsidiary to resurrect the nameplate only further muddied the waters.


A Note on Ford Mustang GT Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy a Mustang rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Ford Mustang GT reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the Mustang GT--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. For non-participants, this access will cost $24.95.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

If you're an Epinions member, and you want to receive an email alert from Epinions when I post a new review, click here.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:
Mazda RX-8 review
Mitsubishi Eclipse GT review
Nissan 350Z review
Pontiac GTO review

Amount Paid (US$): 26000
Model Year: 2005
Model and Options: GT Premium five-speed with interior uprade