Completely underwhelmed by Mustang GT-H...

[Germanauto]

Rented one of these from Hertz recently and took a road trip with some friends. I read that despite all the "Shelby" badging, the GT-H are essentially a regular GT with a Borla exhaust. These were my impressions:

-It drove like any other Ford until 4000+ RPM. Extremely mundane driving experience when not being floored. Coyote V8 peak HP/torque aren't until 4500 RPM
-Handles like a pickup truck
-Steering is slow and numb
-Interior rattled and creaked the entire drive
-Road noise galore
-Exhaust drone was annoying asf

Am I missing something about the appeal of Mustangs? Are the Mach 1 or GT350 significantly better?

I take it my personal bias toward light and nimble little cars already makes me not a muscle car person to begin with, although even a V6 Camaro drives way better than this thing. No point of 450hp when you don't feel it until you're breaking the law...

[Burrcold]

Rentals are never something to judge an entire car by but yeah they are a bit underwhelming if you have never driven one. Was it manual or auto? The manual definitely brings life to it.

They drive very big, not Challenger big, but big. Just look at the exterior dimensions and it's obviously why.

They are definitely not my cup of tea either, but I can see the appeal (for the price) and just how cheap modifying them is.

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by Burrcold

Rentals are never something to judge an entire car by but yeah they are a bit underwhelming if you have never driven one. Was it manual or auto? The manual definitely brings life to it.

They drive very big, not Challenger big, but big. Just look at the exterior dimensions and it's obviously why.

They are definitely not my cup of tea either, but I can see the appeal (for the price) and just how cheap modifying them is.

Was an auto. And yeah it drove big. Maybe on a track the car comes alive more. A lot of reviews of this generation Mustang raved about how it can actually "handle" now, but I'm not buying it.

There's a lot of better driving cars out there, including some CUVs. I suppose to each their own...

[RM7]

Mustang has lagged for years and only started to catch up with GM products for road/track performance with the Boss and Mach 1. Even a decently equipped Mach 1 is running more than 60K before any dealer markup...compared to a Camaro 1LE. They've suffered from overheating issues, bouncy suspension, insufficient tire size/width, etc. But they've also outsold most of the segment. The old Boss was a mind-**** for how well it could handle with the solid axle. The current GT500 is also a car that can handle it's power and not just a straight-line pony. My point is the exact model really matters, with many of them just being in the noise and not worth discussing. IME, you can get a pretty good rough idea of how serious a car is by the factory tire/wheel width.

[Fordguy]

What year? Did it have 87 octane in the tank?

[nerdogray]

Mustangs are the Applebee's of the automotive world.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Fordguy

What year? Did it have 87 octane in the tank?

Almost guaranteed, in addition to 80,000 mile hockey puck tires filled to 55psi.

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by Fordguy

What year? Did it have 87 octane in the tank?

Brand new. Had like 5000 miles. Michelin pilot sport 4S all season tires

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by RM7

Mustang has lagged for years and only started to catch up with GM products for road/track performance with the Boss and Mach 1. Even a decently equipped Mach 1 is running more than 60K before any dealer markup...compared to a Camaro 1LE. They've suffered from overheating issues, bouncy suspension, insufficient tire size/width, etc. But they've also outsold most of the segment. The old Boss was a mind-**** for how well it could handle with the solid axle. The current GT500 is also a car that can handle it's power and not just a straight-line pony. My point is the exact model really matters, with many of them just being in the noise and not worth discussing. IME, you can get a pretty good rough idea of how serious a car is by the factory tire/wheel width.

Normally I wouldn't be so hard on a ~$50k car with 450hp, but after a recent multi-day stint with the current Camaro it's clear that cars in this segment can be engineered to a much higher standard than the Mustang GT is. Can't forget the other cheap sports cars like GR86, Miata, etc.

Sure the Camaro has poor visibility and a cheap-ish interior, but they really invested into the chassis and overall dynamics. The mass market didn't care hence the low sales, but I commend GM on giving a shit there.

I suppose Ford knows that people just want a cruiser than goes vroom so Mustang is exactly that. The higher end models are probably much nicer to drive, but then you are up in M4 and Cayman type pricing.

[vt100]

Ha… mustang… I had the very same feeling in e46 m3 and in e90 m3… and then in e80 m3 (except low end torque, but it didn’t help anyway).
But what is most important here all this was _after_ I tried a Z4M…
So the point is - it’s all very subjective and depends on what you’re currently used to

[Theruleslawyer]

Originally Posted by Germanauto

Am I missing something about the appeal of Mustangs? Are the Mach 1 or GT350 significantly better?

I take it my personal bias toward light and nimble little cars already makes me not a muscle car person to begin with, although even a V6 Camaro drives way better than this thing. No point of 450hp when you don't feel it until you're breaking the law...

The mach 1 and gtr350 are significantly better. They match well with my m4 at the track when I have run with the shelby club.

The base mustangs are really built to a price point and brakes and suspension are really substandard. As for no power down low, they are fairly good for a NA car, but if your reference is a turbo car they just can't make as much torque down low once you are on boost.

The alpha platform the camaro is on is just a lot better chassis. They always handle better and have a better and much cheaper track package. If you were buying strictly a track car it probably wouldn't be a mustang.

[Alfisti]

You need the PP2 package, it REALLY makes a difference. I drove a regular GT and a PP2 back to back and at 7 tenths it was a big difference.

To give you some idea, i forgot which magazine, maybe road and track, ran a PP2 mustang and a F80 M3 Competition and the PP2 lapped faster on the track.

i strongly considered a PP2 stang instead of of a 997 C2S, argument being i could ditch my DD with the stang and just deal with 2 cars, not three. I think the engine is an absolute gem, i love the revs it wants and it sounds fantastic, i don't care about torque, i wanted something i could rev out. My big issue was the size of the car, especially the long nose and heavy up front engine.

[heavyD^2]

If you are used to say a B58 engine then the Coyote is going to feel a little anemic when puttering around town but if you wind them up they are kind of fun. They aren't cutting edge cars or anything but Ford gives you plenty of colors and options which makes it so you can at least spec your own Mustang. They have come a long way over the last decade.

[RM7]

The LT1 has gobbs of torque down low, that's one of my favorite things. 1100rpm up a hill, no problem. Dig out of a hole, no problem. It's the most fun and noise above 3.5K, but having the torque on hand all the time is just nice, especially when you are used to a modern turbo that can shove your pants. I noticed the older 2010 struggled more with the skip-shift into 4th with more weight and less Hp, but not nearly as much (you can easily defeat by just revving higher than 2.5K to second or a quick right kicking movement with the shifter in between the gate). The thing though is that you just don't sequentially shift this car most of the time, it has so much torque that there's no point to going 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. unless you are racing. You skip gears all the time and you can just go from 1st to 6th if you really want.

[XutvJet]

The current gen and Camaros can really perform BUT they require the expensive options packages with the adaptive shocks, suspension mods, massive ultra high wearing tires (that are good for maybe 10K miles if that), upgraded brakes, etc. The more basic models aren't great "performance" cars except for being pretty quick/fast. The expendable costs for these super Stangs and Camaros is super high and rivals a higher end German performance car. For most buyers, they want the look, sound, and acceleration wouldn't put it thru track style driving plus they want a comfortable ride and not worry about replacing tires every 3-6 months or ripping a front splitter off, etc. Ford and GM know what they're doing with these more common models

The building quality on these cars, especially the Stangs, is pretty laughable for the how much these cars cost now.

[chassis]

Is it possible the rental company (Hertz) installed a "de-tune" (opposite of a tune)?

Either by flash, ECU swap or OBD device?

[dreamingat30fps]

Having owned a mustang GT, camaro SS and C7 the mustang is definitely the least sporty. At least handling wise. I thought the camaro handled great and so did the C7 but then you sacrificed ride quality. I had the chevys first and just sold the mustang last year. Bought the mustang mainly because I've always wanted one and already tried the other two. I enjoyed it. It was more of a cruiser to me. It was comfortable, decent ride and at least with the stock sports exhaust the PERFECT sound. I certainly did not notice any drone at all and if you switched it to quiet mode it was practically silent. While it does not handle like the camaro or C7 or any of the BMWs I've owned except maybe the 335i... I certainly wouldn't call it a truck... I own a truck... it handles nothing like it, but it does have a bit more body roll than I would like in a pure performance car.

Would it be my first choice to go on the track? No. However for cruising around town and blasting down the highway it's great. I had the performance package 1 as mentioned above a performance package 2 might give better handling. However for that I would just go with the camaro or the C7 so I liked it the way it was. IMO the camaro was probably the best compromise between the two. Very nice handling but decent ride quality not quite as bad as the C7. Also much easier to get in and out of than the C7.

[Autoregression]

Originally Posted by Germanauto

Am I missing something about the appeal of Mustangs? Are the Mach 1 or GT350 significantly better?

I owned a GT350 the last 5 years. If you value driver's experience much higher than aesthetics, it can be a very satisfying car. The high revving naturally aspirated V8 combined with a Tremec 6MT made every drive a temptation to be a hooligan. It was supposed to be a fun second car, but ended up being my daily driver.

[Alfisti]

If the roof came off a GT350 I'd own one over the 997.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

The current gen and Camaros can really perform BUT they require the expensive options packages with the adaptive shocks, suspension mods, massive ultra high wearing tires (that are good for maybe 10K miles if that), upgraded brakes, etc. The more basic models aren't great "performance" cars except for being pretty quick/fast. The expendable costs for these super Stangs and Camaros is super high and rivals a higher end German performance car. For most buyers, they want the look, sound, and acceleration wouldn't put it thru track style driving plus they want a comfortable ride and not worry about replacing tires every 3-6 months or ripping a front splitter off, etc. Ford and GM know what they're doing with these more common models

The building quality on these cars, especially the Stangs, is pretty laughable for the how much these cars cost now.

My 2SS 1LE was 48k new. I think you are a little off your rocker in relation to all of this and tires. The mustang packages get especially expensive, but you can pit together a 1ss or 2ss 1LE for a pretty reasonable amount. Ride is good with the magnetic shocks (not the track-focused spool valve shocks on the zl1-1le). For the performance, the expendable cost is nowhere near.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by RM7

My 2SS 1LE was 48k new. I think you are a little off your rocker in relation to all of this and tires. The mustang packages get especially expensive, but you can pit together a 1ss or 2ss 1LE for a pretty reasonable amount. Ride is good with the magnetic shocks (not the track-focused spool valve shocks on the zl1-1le). For the performance, the expendable cost is nowhere near.

The cars I'm talking about are GT350s/500s/Mach 1/Shelby's and the like for the 5th gen Camaros. These cars are f-ing heavy and equipped with massive and expensive rubber and expensive brakes. They chew through tires and brakes. There's no getting around it with all that weight. Lots of 5th gen SS/1LE and the like owners have to replace the front pads and rotors between 15k-30K miles depending on how they drive the car. Yeah, they grip, handle, and brake incredibly well, but they are hell on the expendables. And many of them come stock with barely street legal rubber as well those tires might last them 5k-10K miles. Even the less aggressive summer rubber will only last 15-20K miles, if that.

[NickyC]

At least you weren't this guy.