I sold a 98 Honda Civic for a 99 Mustang GT. I'll never own a Honda again. What a piece of crap that car was.
The wipers would turn on all by themselves whenever they felt like it. The seats were like cardboard-covered rocks after half an hour. The car was dangerous at highway speeds - rocked and swayed in any crosswind or whenever a truck went by, and felt like it was seconds from disaster at anything over 70 mph. The interior was designed for a much smaller Asian body - I'm 6', 180ish, and the pedals, steering wheel, and shifter were way to close to each other for any comfort at all. The body was so flexible, the front wheels were all over the place on a rough road. The factory headlights were near useless. The factory brakes were barely adequate if you ever carried a passenger. Power was so anemic (127hp 1.6L) you might as well quit trying to pass if you have passengers. Shifter was made of rubber. Handled like a light car with foam for springs. Insurance was ridiculous for such a pile of parts.
I grew adept at removing the wiper fuse at highway speeds without looking. I added a front strut brace which fixed the front end wandering on rough roads. A rear lower strut brace and stifer adjustable sway bar fixed the wandering in crosswinds/truck wake issues. Aftermarket bulbs fixed the crappy headlights. Aftermarket brakes greatly improved the stopping power, even with two passengers. Weighted shift knob took away some of the rubbery shifter feel. After all was said and done, the car was marginally acceptable. Still wouldn't want to get hit by anything in that tin can.
The 99 Mustang GT was 1000 times the car the honda was, for the same money used. None of the fixes that were necessary on the stock Civic were required on the Mustang to bring it up to par. Why the hell would you ever buy a Civic, unless you were seriously brain dead (or wanted to be)? Sure, the Civic drove nice at first, but the shine quickly wore off. My 99 GT never got old, the power was always more than enough for daily driving, mpg was not much worse on the highway, and the car felt so much more solid and capable it is crazy to ever hear anyone suggest a Civic is anything other than a total death trap.
No car is perfect. If you are buying a Mustang thinking you are getting a BMW, you are an idiot. But Mustangs are SO much better than any Honda I've ever driven it is mind-boggling how anyone can say they'd rather drive a Honda. And this "reliability" people keep mentioning is a red herring. I have a little red wagon that has never been to the shop, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to commute to work in it. I'd much rather pay to fix a car I like to drive/own than never have to fix a car that I hate to drive/own.
And I don't recall anyone saying they want a Ferrari because they are so reliable. Since when did so-called reliability become the motivating factor in car buying/comparative worth? Read Honda forums, and you will find a litany of routine problems. V6 tranny issues, electrical problems, spark plug blow-outs, weak or missing differentials, etc. Honda won't release recall or TSB data, even though virtually every other manufacturer in the States does so voluntarily. If they are so perfect, why hide the data proving it? Ford, GM, and Chrysler are quick to issue recalls on ridiculous issues that wouldn't affect a hundred out of a million, but Honda makes every effort to hide issues, blame the owner, and otherwise balks at spending money improving cars that are already sold.
And let's define "reliability." Consumer Reports defines it as the cost of repairs in a given time period. I don't know about you, but I'd rather spend $3K on one failure than $2500 on three breakdowns. To me, "reliability" means it starts every day, and doesn't leave you on the side of the road 90 miles from home on a Sunday night (Toyota, I'm looking at you). CR's definition doesn't work for me, so their "reliability ratings" don't mean **** as far as I am concerned. If they defined reliability as something I could agree with, they'd totally re-order the winners and losers, and they are unlikely to do that - they are hardly going to change their methodology as long as they sell magazines.
I now have an 03 Mustang GT. The 3650 seems to grind third when it is bitterly cold. I live in MN, and it isn't an issue very often even here. I've gone back and forth on the issue, and while I probably should get it addressed, the issue isn't bad enough to motivate me to take it in. I can't really blame Ford for 3650 isues, since they don't make the trans, they just buy and install them. other than the one issue, I have no complaints after 20,000 hard miles. I don't think 20,000 miles is enough to make any claims about long-term durability, but past experience tells me I won't have to worry about anything other than routine maintenance and the occasional repair. I drove my 99 for 40,000 hard, hard miles, and only had to get the A/C blower motor replaced under warrantee. Not a big deal in my book.
As far as cars running past the 100,000 mile mark, I've only owned maybe 3 cars that weren't past that when I got them. The Toyota was a total POS, not even counting puking the oil pump and taking the whole engine with it at 121K. I've never even heard of an American car doing that, among my friends. I've owned Buicks, Chevys, Chryslers, and Fords, and my friends have owned the whole spectrum of American and foreign cars. It is the Mazdas, Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans, and BMWs that have caused the most problems. I'm not saying all foreign cars suck and all American cars are perfect. Just that I've found that American cars are better values and more likely to survive long term than the Japanese or German cars I've known.
IMHO, the previous owners have more to do with a car's so-called "reliability" than the brand.