Top Gear Review on 05 GT

[zero3mach1dsg]

i wonder why they said the new 05 gt feels asmathic???, it would've been good to know compared against what....
http://www.wrxfanatics.com/video/Top Gear - Ford Mustang GT 2005.avi

 

[Philippe]

I'm only getting sound, no image?

 

[bemol]

You need the right codec.

Cheers
Dan

 

[Philippe]

I've got Windows Media 10 on WinXP. If it needs a codec, it usually goes and gets it by itself.

 

[JonJon]

I've got Windows Media 10 on WinXP. If it needs a codec, it usually goes and gets it by itself.

Not divx.com or 3ivx.com codecs. Try one of those.
Windows Media Player fails at life.

 

[Thorns Of Agony]

What about the road course test where the Stig drives it?

 

[Philippe]

Works now. Forgot about divx...

 

[AzSnake]

God I hate that little prick.
The dude is such a S&It talker and he driver a Range Rover.
Like he should talk.
He fails to understand the concept of a Pony/Muscle Car.
For instance the live rear axle….It’s what us Mustang owners asked for!!!
If it’s not an IRS it’s no good according to him.
He bags on the engine and the output but then raves about the acceleration…
They say it’s a cheap interior but I have been in some of the nicer cars out of Europe and their not too far off unless you get into the 60+K range.
I guess they gave him and auto to drive since he whined about how hard with was to shift and drive the Vette. The clutch was to heavy for his weak little leg muscles.
Figures he would be all high about the MyColor. He seems to be into the least manly aspects of a car.

O also laughed when he said prior Mustangs were like ponies. I guess he figures over 400 hp in the Cobras is weak.

 

[Jon Do]

He basically says the car underperforms if you analyze its parts but taken as a whole he rated it as a near classic. He didn't say the live axle gave bad handling, he just said it is not going to handle like the best European cars. He also didn't say the engine was fast, he basically implied that he liked the sound and torque but it's acceleration numbers aren't that great. He knows the Mustang is a Muscle car and says it's a great muscle car, but you have to understand that he is reviewing this car for the European audience which isn't familiar with Muscle cars.

These comments are inline with other reviews of the Mustang. For example,in the Car and Drive comparison, the Mustang got ripped in performance numbers but it was rated higher for the intangible "gotta have it" factor. That is the exact point that this review makes. I have read other reviews--particularly from import lovers--about the new Mustang which say the same thing.

You should be glad that the Mustang appeals to the European audience... But of course if you analyze the performance compared to an Evo or STI or the pocket rockets that Europe is used to, the Mustang GT will get beat.

 

[AzSnake]

He basically says the car underperforms if you analyze its parts but taken as a whole he rated it as a near classic. He didn't say the live axle gave bad handling, he just said it is not going to handle like the best European cars. He also didn't say the engine was fast, he basically implied that he liked the sound and torque but it's acceleration numbers aren't that great. He knows the Mustang is a Muscle car and says it's a great muscle car, but you have to understand that he is reviewing this car for the European audience which isn't familiar with Muscle cars.

These comments are inline with other reviews of the Mustang. For example,in the Car and Drive comparison, the Mustang got ripped in performance numbers but it was rated higher for the intangible "gotta have it" factor. That is the exact point that this review makes. I have read other reviews--particularly from import lovers--about the new Mustang which say the same thing.

You should be glad that the Mustang appeals to the European audience... But of course if you analyze the performance compared to an Evo or STI or the pocket rockets that Europe is used to, the Mustang GT will get beat.

How can you compare them. They’re close to if not more than 10K more than the GT.
I disagree. The guy has been a hater on American cars every time he reviews something.
He's bitched about the vettes shifter, he bitched about the GT's gas mileage after they were in ot at near full throttle the whole time they tested it.
He bitched about the GT's weight, he bitched about the Vettes suspension which is actually one of the simplest and best performing suspensions on the market. Be gets beat by an NSX when driving the C6 in a drag race.

He is a tool and has never given any props to anything American on the whole. He throws us a bone here and there but overall he hates anything American. I mean just look at the comment about the kink in the highway on the map he had.

 

[Jon Do]

"I mean just look at the comment about the kink in the highway on the map he had."

But it is a humorous show... He was just making a joke. When it came down to it, he said he really liked the car and understands why it sells so fast.

In Europe, you can get very high performance pocket rockets for near $30K. The Mustang will get beaten in handling and at least tied in raw acceleration by these cars. Since these car are what he's used to, this is his point of reference. HOWEVER, he still rated the car as near-classic at the end.

This is not much different from the Car and Driver comparison against the GTO. If you read the actual review, it almost sounds like the Mustang gets bashed. Because it gets destroyed by nearly every objective measure. But the Mustang still won because of an intangible quality. This is the same point that the above review stresses.

Objectively, the Mustang might not shine but because of intangibles, it gets rated as a near classic. At the end of the day, the Mustang got rated better than 90-95% of the cars on that Wall.

You might complain about a bias against American vehicles, but I have heard numerous American reviews state the same points. Particularly this review I read on Epinions. The guy who reviewed it was an import lover. He mentioned that it isn't that fast or that great handling compared to his imports. But then at the end, he said he might buy it again because of the intangible quality... Or the Edmunds review... Edmunds mentioned that it was a bad performer compared to the 2005 'Vette, but for intangible reasons it seemed more fun to drive... That seems to be the running theme with Mustang reviews--that despite objective shortcomings, it is a desireable car. The Top Gear review didn't deviate from this theme much.

 

[GetImpact]

i wonder why they said the new 05 gt feels asmathic???

Why?

Probably because HP per liter is still p|ss poor compared to most performance I4 configs, and many V6's.

I love that a V8 yields the superior torque and sound, but you gotta admit that ~65 HP per liter in the new Mustang is seriously weak given today's technology... and it's still a gas hog.

So... yes... you could call it asthmatic. <-- Maybe an understatement there.

I had an SVT Focus before this '04 Mustang. No doubt that the Focus engine was weaker, but even the little 2.0 in it put out 85 HP per liter, N/A. That Zetec had variable intake and cam. With this method, J@p motors have been wringing out 100 HP or more per liter for years.

Why hasn't Ford learned how to implement this properly yet? The new Mustang uses much the same technology as the SVT Zetec (similar to VTEC) and the output per displacement still doesn't even come close. You hardly get that on their latest supercharged supercar.

What gives?

You can't keep championing displacement when your tech falls so far behind like this. Engine technology wise, Ford has got their @ss handed to them years ago, and their best efforts to compete are laughable to say the least.

 

[90RanGer]

I watched it a few days ago you can get it off www.racingflix.com if its not working for you. I liked the whole trunk part, wtf? What a waste of time.

 

[torqueIT]

I liked his statement about how the car, from the time it arrives on the lot, till the time it gets bought is averaging around 15 minutes here in the states. I can find no arguement with that!

The Brits can be as snobbish as they like about the new Mustang, you won't see that kind of turn around for anything new coming out of BMW, Mercedes, or Jaguar (oops, never mind that last bit.. Ford owns Jaguar

Anyhoo, the one thing that I've seen that always comes out about the new Mustang, is the 'X-Factor'. That indiscribable something that makes a car stand out from the pack. The new Mustang has got it in spade's!!!

Lastly, affordability...
Scoff all they want about the new Mustangs shortcomings, with the money you save, you can apply it to make your Mustang run rings around most of those European counterparts, with change to spare!

So that's my bit! The Mustang has got potential (a lot of it). Most European sports cars do as well, problem is they do it at about 5-50k more then the Stang!

 

[Rootus]

Probably because HP per liter is still p|ss poor compared to most performance I4 configs, and many V6's.

Ahh great, the "my engine has more HP per liter than yours" argument. It was stupid then, it is still stupid now. You want to compare your focus engine to a Mustang engine? Look at the whole power curve, not just the peak.

Look at the almighty S2000 engine. Makes just under 110 hp per liter (240 from 2.2L). That's awesome, right? Then why is it so sloooooooow? Oh yeah, because it only makes 162 lb-ft of torque (at 6500 RPM!) and peak horsepower occurs at 7800 RPM.

and it's still a gas hog.

Really? Compare it to a 350Z. The Z gets 20/26 and the Mustang 18/25. Considering that the Mustang has 31% more displacement and 8% more weight, that does not seem half-bad -- so please explain how it is a "gas hog."

Oh and the little 2.2L in the Honda S2000 -- 20/25. Less than half the size of the engine in the Mustang, a curb weight of 2835 lbs, and it can only get 20/25???

Your argument is weak.

Dave

 

[txwolfy]

It doesn't seem to bother the Brits in my area - driving my GT anywhere over here in England has heads not just turning, but spinning! They are really thrilled by it for the most part, and I enjoy pulling over and letting them have a closer look - I'm really proud to be an American in the UK, and even more so now!

 

[GetImpact]

Ahh great, the "my engine has more HP per liter than yours" argument. It was stupid then, it is still stupid now. You want to compare your focus engine to a Mustang engine? Look at the whole power curve, not just the peak...

...Your argument is weak.

What argument?

Oh... You must mean my bringing up of the facts.

I guess that sort of tactic doesn't fly with you.

PS - I have a V8 Mustang and I had an SVT Focus. This ain't no "my car is better than your car" kind of thang, Chief.

PPS - Horsepower is a measure of work done. Torque is only momentary force. So, the best measure of an engine's output/efficiency is HP/Fuel consumption. The best Ford 4.6 is far less efficient than many current foreign designs, and so is nearly every other domestic engine design. Clearly, we have fallen behind.

 

[Silver95Stint]

Yeah that dude is an idiot, and after watching what he said about the viper...that showed me everything he had to offer. How can you not like 8.3l's of raw power? But he found a problem with it. I didn't see the show, but I know they will be replaying it over here soon.

 

[tylers65]

Ahh great, the "my engine has more HP per liter than yours" argument. It was stupid then, it is still stupid now. You want to compare your focus engine to a Mustang engine? Look at the whole power curve, not just the peak.

Look at the almighty S2000 engine. Makes just under 110 hp per liter (240 from 2.2L). That's awesome, right? Then why is it so sloooooooow? Oh yeah, because it only makes 162 lb-ft of torque (at 6500 RPM!) and peak horsepower occurs at 7800 RPM.

Really? Compare it to a 350Z. The Z gets 20/26 and the Mustang 18/25. Considering that the Mustang has 31% more displacement and 8% more weight, that does not seem half-bad -- so please explain how it is a "gas hog."

Oh and the little 2.2L in the Honda S2000 -- 20/25. Less than half the size of the engine in the Mustang, a curb weight of 2835 lbs, and it can only get 20/25???

Your argument is weak.

Dave

Was this really needed?

He was not disrespecting the Mustang (he does own one after all).

Is it in your nature to go looking for fights?

 

[Jon Do]

"The best Ford 4.6 is far less efficient than many current foreign designs, and so is nearly every other domestic engine design. Clearly, we have fallen behind."

How are GM designed engines more inefficient than foreign engines from a horsepower/fuel economy perspective? Maybe they are inefficient when put in heavy cars, but in light cars like the Corvette, GM does OK.

Also, the Mustang is fuel inefficient, not because of the engine, but because of the gearing. That is also why this Mustang lacks in top end, and therefore why many reviews complain about a lack of urgency, etc. (relative to what is expected) when mashing on the gas. GM engines are quite good when considering their fuel efficiency for their level of power.