Hemmings Muscle Machines - most luke-warm review to date

[66Satellite]

Got my Hemmings Muscle Machines in the mail yesterday and was pleased to see a review of the 05 Mustang. (I don't know if anyone is collecting mag reviews of the 05 but I am, since I plan to but one (used) in a few years). Anyway, this magazine gave the Mach 1 a very favorable review last year, and did back flips over the new 300C and Magnum, so I was expecting them to be pretty excited about the 05. Well, they liked it but didn't seem to be thrilled. They criticized the "cheap" feel of the interior, said the gauges were hard to read, complained a bit about the live rear axle, didn't seem to like the gearing, and said that on the whole they were expecting a bit more from this car. In other words, this was the review I was expecting to see in Road & Track or Car & Driver (both those mags raved about the 05--go figure). Just thought it was kind of amusing.

(I also saw a review in the latest Grassroots Motorsports but they were using stock photos we've all seen a million times so I didn't buy it)

 

[M1Rifle]

That's funny. 95 out of 100 cars in that magazine have solid rear axles. They have plain 60's dashs, or crummy 70's plastic dashes. They have 400HP but can't get it to the ground with stock tires and lack of traction.

I guess they can't stand the fact that a stock 2005 Mustang turns heads and will beat most 60's muscle cars (factory stock, that is) to the quarter mile (or darn near it).

With all that torque, the big dogs from 1969-1971 really tear it up if they get the traction to the ground, and will take the Mustang apart in a drag race with a few mods. But in recent tests, factory stock big block muscle cars from the 60's did quarter miles in the high 13's to low 14's, and 0-60 in the high 5's. That's what skinny tires and no traction will get you.