Rollin' in my 5.0...395HP at the wheels

[zerocool84]

Car and Driver just hates on Fords period, as well as suffering from general retarditis. My favorite example :

They had an economy car roundup a couple years back, I think they compared basically all of the compacts. The name of the article was 'Cheap shoes', and it focused on value and fuel economy. The Focus, which had the 2nd best fuel economy, the 2nd best acceleration, the 1st finish in slalom/lateral G/lane change tests, had the lowest level of interior noise, and was the 3rd cheapest option in the set, placed LAST. The VW Golf, which cost $8,000 more than the cheapest car and $3,000 more than the next most expensive option, delivered very poor ratings in almost every performance metric, and had the worst fuel economy of the group, placed FIRST. Yeah, let me buy an overpriced gas guzzling FF econobox just because it has a modestly decent interior and a VW badge? C'mon, if I'm spending $20k+ on a car, it sure as hell isn't going to be a non-turbo FF econobox.

C&D is just stupid and I'd never listen to any of their opinions. There was a cheap speed comparison a couple years back, 4 cars and they gave the RSX Type-S the top spot. It was the slowest in straight line, slalom, braking distance, and highest priced but gave it the top spot cus it had the nicest interior. That's stupid if you ask me.

 

[Arkaign]

C&D is just stupid and I'd never listen to any of their opinions. There was a cheap speed comparison a couple years back, 4 cars and they gave the RSX Type-S the top spot. It was the slowest in straight line, slalom, braking distance, and highest priced but gave it the top spot cus it had the nicest interior. That's stupid if you ask me.

Hahaha so typical of C&D. I think of the big 3 mags, they're the most 'bought' by sponsors. It's probably impossible in the real world to entirely insulate the editorial content from the influence of those buying ad space in a shrinking print media, but c'mon now.

It would be another thing if they just changed the name/tone of their article focus. If they said : we want to find the nicest sub-$20k compact for a balance of reliability/luxury/resale, then MAYBE the RSX would have a chance, but an article purely about 'cheap speed'? That's pathetic. It's just like the 'cheap shoes' article, which focused on fuel economy and value in the compact segment, and then they go and choose the vastly most expensive and gaz guzzling choice of them all.

I've given up all hope of C&D's credibility, though their factual meat and potatoes pure numbers tests are still interesting.

 

[MBrown]

the new v6 sounds almost as good as the v8.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPyluzHt8E4&hd=1

 

[LTC8K6]

So much for an IRS...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/29/2011-ford-mustang-v6-first-drive/

Not to overstate things, but the four-wheel independently sprung Camaro felt prehistoric compared to the lighter and more sprightly Mustang. Actually, the Camaro's ponderousness helped it out on Ford's track, as it was a second gear affair (meaning nothing but quick turns and big braking zones), but even on the broken asphalt the cars were running over, we much preferred the Mustang's moves and prowess to the frankly clunky, chunky Camaro.

Through the twisty stuff, the 2011 V6 impressed us with handling that was leaps and bounds better than expected. The lighter, smaller, aluminum mill better balances the car's weight and makes for a nimbler steer. That's correct, the V6 Mustang changes direction quite confidently. The chassis tackles turns quite well, and there's none of the twisting, clunking or falling down we've long associated with the bottom rung Mustang. If we have one complaint it's that the front springs are a little floppy. Meaning that at higher speeds the front-end floats and bobs around too much. Nothing catastrophic, but we would have liked a more tied down nose.