Review: 2010 Ford Mustang GT

(page 2 of 2)

Both can use regular gasoline, though performance is better if you use premium (the Mustang GT's horsepower rating rises by 10 if you use premium).

For now, if you want a convertible, you have to go with the Mustang (and pay an extra $5,000). However, GM says a Camaro convertible will debut in the first quarter of 2011.

Behind the Wheel

One of the biggest appeals of the Mustang GT is the throaty growl it emits when you rev the engine. It's no accident that this marvelous sound reverberates in your ears. Ford designers provided the new GT with a "sound induction tube" connecting the car's engine to the cabin. Inside the tube is a membrane that transmits the desired sound frequencies to you ears without allowing air to flow into the cabin. When you aren't revving the engine, the Mustang's cabin (like the Camaro's) is as quiet as a family sedan's.

Car and Driver magazine clocked the Mustang GT with a stick shift at 5 seconds in accelerating from zero to 60. That isn't quite up to the Camaro SS's blazingly fast 4.7 second zero-to-60 rating, but it's plenty fast—about as quick as a BMW 335i, for instance.

When it comes to handling, the Mustang feels lighter and more refined than the Camaro, which drives like the big bulky muscle car it is. Which one is preferable is a matter of taste, but in general, the Mustang achieves more with less. Its engine is smaller, but the car moves nearly as quickly as the Camaro. The Mustang doesn't have the Camaro SS's oversized Brembo brakes, but nonetheless slams to a halt about as quickly. The Mustang has old-fashioned live action (rather than independent) rear suspension, yet the car doesn't lack for grip in hard cornering. And I love the Mustang's steering, which is light- to-the-touch but responsive and precise.

The Mustang GT's interior has been much improved, with higher-grade materials and more chrome trim than before. The dash is relatively vertical and angular, with round dials and brows over the glove box and instruments. Ambient lighting glows in the cup holders even during the day, and big, bold "Mustang" logos on either door sill light up when you open the doors at night.

The front seats in the GT are well-bolstered and comfortable. However, the rear seat only holds two passengers (same as the Camaro and one less than the Challenger). Space in back is very tight, with the front seat set for my height (5 ft., 10 in.) there wasn't enough knee-space in back for an adult to be comfortable. Headroom also is limited by the Mustang's radically sloping roof.

The Mustang's trunk has a big, wide opening. It provides 13.4 cu. ft. of luggage space, 2.1 cu. ft. more than the Camaro's. The rear seats fold down in a split pattern.

Buy it or Bag It?

The consumer profiles of the Mustang and Camaro are almost exactly the same. The average buyer is 45, and about 80% are male. A majority of them finance the purchase. Virtually no leases are being done on either model, according to the Power Information Network (PIN).

Whether to go with Mustang GT or a Camaro SS is largely matter of taste. Both the Mustang and Challenger, for that matter, have a more straightforward retro look than the Camaro. The Mustang is the least expensive of the three, with an average price of $35,454, according to the PIN, versus $37,843 for the Camaro and $37,185 for a comparable '09 Challenger.

I'd be willing to pay more for the new Camaro, which I believe one day will be considered a collectible classic. But you won't give up much in the way of performance if you go with the Mustang instead.

Click here to see more of the 2010 Ford Mustang GT.

Thane Peterson reviews cars for BusinessWeek.com.

Business Exchange

Track and share business topics across the Web.