Topic: Test Drive: 2014 Ford Mustang GT Convertible

[tenpenny]

In my book, the only reason to have a pony car is to have a convertible.

And there's no point to a mustang without the v8, that's a secretary's car.




Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[JRM]

I came of age in the mid to late 1960s, when muscle cars reined supreme.  Not only the pony cars, but mid sized sedans could be had with over 400ci V8 engines.  They were called sleepers.  I wasn't so much into Mustangs as my dad had a Chrysler Dodge dealership.  For me it was Chargers, Coronets, Superbees with 426 hemis for racers and 440 magnums for the street crowd, and then in 1970 the Challenger came out.  That was my pony car.

Getting back to the new Mustang, I like the the styling and the V8 is great.  However, I can't stand to drive a modern car with numb sterring and the solid axle would get pretty annoying on the not so smooth streets and roads we have here.   The New Chaalenger is not on my radar either.  It's based on a full sized car and is too heavy, thus compromising it's handling.  The independent rear suspension is a plus though.

The 60's performance cars were great, but the new cars coming out are so much better, the Mustang not withstanding. 

[JacobBlack]

Could be worse, could have a transverse leaf spring in the rear...

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I drove a Mustang V6 with the pony pack and manual transmission a couple of years ago. The rear axle wasn't an issue on Regina's war zone streets. On my test route there's an on ramp with a compression ridge pretty much mid corner. It's pretty good at bringing any kind of suspension issues to the fore. Most pickups will sidestep, as did the Veloster, but it wasn't an issue with the Mustang.

Driving it back to back with the Genesis coupe with the turbo 4, the Mustang's ride wasn't as harsh, The shift action was a bit better, and the clutch was much much better. For a car in the mid $20k range, it struck me as a bargain.

Mum has a 2008 Mustang convertible with the Cologne V6. The new engine is night and day better and the rear end in that car was much more of an issue.

[Solstice2006]

That's for damn sure, I can't believe they put that V6 in a car as new as 2008!  Especially a sports car!

[SaskSpecV]

I drove a Mustang V6 with the pony pack and manual transmission a couple of years ago.

SirO, how was the power delivery? And do you remember what axle ratio that was?  I remember reading somewhere that the V6 with numerically lower axle ratio felt rather slow (surely done to crank up mileage estimates), whereas the V6 with higher gearing (3.73 maybe?) felt substantially quicker.  But I've never driven either... or the 5.0 V8  

(The only way I'll ever get to own that 5.0 is in an F150    Actually, that's OK - it would be hugely better than 5.4L I'm driving now  )

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I drove a Mustang V6 with the pony pack and manual transmission a couple of years ago.

SirO, how was the power delivery? And do you remember what axle ratio that was?  I remember reading somewhere that the V6 with numerically lower axle ratio felt rather slow (surely done to crank up mileage estimates), whereas the V6 with higher gearing (3.73 maybe?) felt substantially quicker.  But I've never driven either... or the 5.0 V8  

(The only way I'll ever get to own that 5.0 is in an F150    Actually, that's OK - it would be hugely better than 5.4L I'm driving now  )

That was a while ago and I can't remember the gearing, but my seat of the pants impression was that it felt at least as quick as the previous 4.6L GT. It was a little bit "cammy" but once you had any kind of revs on it, it pulled really well.

I remember being really surprised by just how much it had improved over the previous versions. The saddle leather seats looked and felt awesome.

I'd have no trouble at all picking the V6 with that package.

[Snowman]

Still happy with my 2012 v6 with performance package as a drive it to the track, at the track and then back home vehicle.
The gearing is 3:3.1 on the premium and perf pkg (manually tranny) iirc.
Here are a few track videos from last Oct. The third video is me chasing a Carrera 4S
http://s1342.photobucket.com/user/12Mustang/library/?sort=3&page=1

  Racing talks BS walks  No shame in the V6 Stang. I bet most of the people who bash it have never driven one and have inferiority complexes. I rented one in Florida and it drove much better the the RS Camaro I rented the next year.

[Rupert]

   I think you have that exactly...wrong. It's the opposite. Maybe the need of such is a sign of an inferiority complex...I don't know...have to ask at next visit. I just appreciate technically superior equipment...when I see it.
   Little old cars can be very pleasing to some...and not only old farts. I am sure that you power junkies never had to stand in the rain waitng for a tram. Sneers at a ride in anything would not be forthcoming then...even if your feet poked through.

[Solstice2006]

I think he is talking about V8 Mustangs compared to the V6...

[sacrat]

This was the famous ad that Ford used in 1966 to try to push more v6 models on the "secretary set" as they struggled to keep up with v8 demand while the sixes piled up. It was a play on the title of a famous 1962 book with a, um...similar title. These cars often came with "Dress up" kits (chrome wheels,valve covers,etc.) to increase their desirability. This technique is still commonly used today. I came home the other day to find what I thought was an Audi S4 in front of my house, only to discover it was an A4 "S-line". Bit of a letdown but still nice looking...

[johngenx]

Wasn't it an I-6?  I might be wrong.

[sacrat]

Wasn't it an I-6?  I might be wrong.

Yes, the very eary 170cid and  200cid are prone to blowing out  timing chains if revved too hard. The later 200 and 250 cid  were hardier with an increase from 4 to 7 main bearings.They were still very pedestrian engines (90-115 hp) although parts are available to "rod" them. Ford continued to give later truck customers a world of pain with it's astoundingly bad 3000 I-6.

I owned  four early Mustangs back in the 80s (all v8s) , none of show quality, but had fun as part of the local Mustang club

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Wasn't it an I-6?  I might be wrong.

Yes, the very eary 170cid and  200cid are prone to blowing out  timing chains if revved too hard. The later 200 and 250 cid  were hardier with an increase from 4 to 7 main bearings.They were still very pedestrian engines (90-115 hp) although parts are available to "rod" them. Ford continued to give later truck customers a world of pain with it's astoundingly bad 3000 I-6.

I owned  four early Mustangs back in the 80s (all v8s) , none of show quality, but had fun as part of the local Mustang club

The 300in³ I6? Maybe the early ones, but the later ones were very stout.

For whatever reason, a friend of mine put an Offenhauser head, 4 barrel carb and a header on his pickup. It was surprisingly quick, sounded great, and dead reliable.

[Fobroader]

Wasn't it an I-6?  I might be wrong.

Yes, the very eary 170cid and  200cid are prone to blowing out  timing chains if revved too hard. The later 200 and 250 cid  were hardier with an increase from 4 to 7 main bearings.They were still very pedestrian engines (90-115 hp) although parts are available to "rod" them. Ford continued to give later truck customers a world of pain with it's astoundingly bad 3000 I-6.

I owned  four early Mustangs back in the 80s (all v8s) , none of show quality, but had fun as part of the local Mustang club

The 300 I6 was a great motor, as reliable as a granite boulder. Mind you it didnt have great power, but was pretty torquey, and the fuel mileage wasnt that great, reliability wise though, one of the great Ford motors.

[sacrat]

Wasn't it an I-6?  I might be wrong.

Yes, the very eary 170cid and  200cid are prone to blowing out  timing chains if revved too hard. The later 200 and 250 cid  were hardier with an increase from 4 to 7 main bearings.They were still very pedestrian engines (90-115 hp) although parts are available to "rod" them. Ford continued to give later truck customers a world of pain with it's astoundingly bad 3000 I-6.

I owned  four early Mustangs back in the 80s (all v8s) , none of show quality, but had fun as part of the local Mustang club

The 300 I6 was a great motor, as reliable as a granite boulder. Mind you it didnt have great power, but was pretty torquey, and the fuel mileage wasnt that great, reliability wise though, one of the great Ford motors.

My bad  ...The 3000 (3l) was the "vulcan" V6 which was indeed a mess. I remember when my son was looking for his first vehicle, we looked at Rangers. According to our research the engine choices were 2.3 (way underpowered), 3.0 better power, but unreliable, or 4.0 good power and reliable, but V8 mileage out of a V6. We looked elsewhere...

[Fobroader]

Wasn't it an I-6?  I might be wrong.

Yes, the very eary 170cid and  200cid are prone to blowing out  timing chains if revved too hard. The later 200 and 250 cid  were hardier with an increase from 4 to 7 main bearings.They were still very pedestrian engines (90-115 hp) although parts are available to "rod" them. Ford continued to give later truck customers a world of pain with it's astoundingly bad 3000 I-6.

I owned  four early Mustangs back in the 80s (all v8s) , none of show quality, but had fun as part of the local Mustang club

The 300 I6 was a great motor, as reliable as a granite boulder. Mind you it didnt have great power, but was pretty torquey, and the fuel mileage wasnt that great, reliability wise though, one of the great Ford motors.

My bad  ...The 3000 (3l) was the "vulcan" V6 which was indeed a mess. I remember when my son was looking for his first vehicle, we looked at Rangers. According to our research the engine choices were 2.3 (way underpowered), 3.0 better power, but unreliable, or 4.0 good power and reliable, but V8 mileage out of a V6. We looked elsewhere...

Oh yeah, the 3 Leaker  Yeah, not a great motor by any means.