2011 Mustang GT 5.0

[GoCougs]

Loyalists and gearheads all knew what the GTO was though, and they knew it to be expensive, bland, and a hand-me-down from Down Under. Plus, the GTO moniker hadn't carried any cache since 1967.

[the Teuton]

Loyalists and gearheads all knew what the GTO was though, and they knew it to be expensive, bland, and a hand-me-down from Down Under. Plus, the GTO moniker hadn't carried any cache since 1967.

So what you're saying is that GM didn't actively try to go after a newer, broader audience with the new GTO.

[Cobra93]

With ads like the third and fourth you posted, Cobra, is it any wonder the car didn't sell?

Unless you're an absolute gearhead, who cares? It was a terrible ad campaign.

I always assumed the car was aimed at gearheads. 

Anyway, I don't know a single person that ever bought a new car because of an ad campaign.

[GoCougs]

So what you're saying is that GM didn't actively try to go after a newer, broader audience with the new GTO.

I'm sure they would have loved to but the car just wasn't right for it. This was aimed squarely at the the Mustang and Camaro demographic but not only do those cars sell primarily on legacy they are cheaper. The GTO didn't have much legacy and it cost a good deal more.

[the Teuton]

I always assumed the car was aimed at gearheads. 

Anyway, I don't know a single person that ever bought a new car because of an ad campaign.

No one will admit to buying a car because of an ad, but to see a dream car being flung sideways in slowmo with some rock music on in the background will always make us want it, at least psychologically.

How else would anyone know what's in the marketplace as part of his or her consideration set?

[Cobra93]

No one will admit to buying a car because of an ad, but to see a dream car being flung sideways in slowmo with some rock music on in the background will always make us want it, at least psychologically.

How else would anyone know what's in the marketplace as part of his or her consideration set?

Maybe magazines, both in print and online, other enthusiasts, automotive forums, etc. In other words, places where they can obtain real and detailed information on a car. After all, this is the information age.

[hounddog]

I have to agree with Teuts.

This segment makes me want the GT500 Vert.   BADLY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkH1HFsLZw&playnext=1&list=PLDAEC4FBBF2DC8AD1&index=11

And, this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O46E0gCF5os

[Cobra93]

I have to agree with Teuts.

This segment makes me want the GT500 Vert.   BADLY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkH1HFsLZw&playnext=1&list=PLDAEC4FBBF2DC8AD1&index=11

And, this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O46E0gCF5os

Except that neither of those are ads. 

And BTW.......









ROLL TIDE!
Sorry.

[hounddog]

Yes, I realize they are not adds.

I was just saying that the sort of thing Teuts was saying was accurate.

I would also like to point out that your head coach, two of your assistants and your best player all have direct ties to MSU and would not be where they are were it not for MSU. 

You are welcome.

[Mustangfan2003]

Get that Forrest Gump bullshit out of here Cobra. 

[Cobra93]

Yes, I realize they are not adds.
I was just saying that the sort of thing Teuts was saying was accurate.
I would also like to point out that your head coach, two of your assistants and your best player all have direct ties to MSU and would not be where they are were it not for MSU. 
You are welcome.

HA! Alabama's not actually my team. My team sucks even worse than MSU. Although we did only lose to Alabama by 31 . 

[hounddog]

My team was 11-2.

That is not suck.

[Cobra93]

My team was 11-2.

That is not suck.

Good for you.
With that strength of schedule you should be.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

g-q-z:  Read with more attention to what the words mean--the spanking that the GT500 & Charger SRT8 gave to the much lighter '06 GTO was to illustrate just how awful GM's decision to stick with the mega-fail Catera IRS was in a performance car.  Can you not comprehend the dimension of GM's mistake when your performance car just got outhandled by a car weighing 500 pounds more than yours??         

What do you mean stick with? The car had been in production for years. You act like the GTO was a new design from the ground up. The only major change was the moving of the gas tank. You double talk more than a criminal headed to prison.........................

[omicron]

[

The GTO suffered hugely from a lot of bad decisions:
It was a shameless rebadging of an import.  This was just soooo wrong...
It used the dreadful Catera IRS, a contender for the worst IRS of all time.  I believe the current Camaro also uses the Catera IRS, which would explain a lot...In a comparo against the Charger SRT8 and the Shelby GT500 (Motor Trend, July 2006, pgs 48--57) the 3777 lbs GTO got beat in the slalom and the figure-eight by the 3990 lbs GT500 and by the 4266 lbs Charger SRT8 (that's just 11 pounds less than a whoppin' 500 lbs handicap for the Charger vs. the GTO!!!).  BTW, the GT500 also beat the GTO in braking (as did the Charger), 0-60, 0-100, and the quarter-mile--by the time the GTO reached 100 MPH, the GT500 was ahead by more than the length of a football field. 
The gas tank was moved from underneath the car into an already small trunk.
There was no possibility of overlooking the resemblance to the Cavalier, a distinction that woulda been fatal even if the suspension hadda been OK.
GTOs were overpriced, too. That 2006 GTO in the Motor Trend comparo listed for $32,685--more than a standard 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 and many thousands more than the Mustang GT of 2006 (although you could option out a 2006 Mustang GT convertible to more than $32,685).
It was planned to sell 18,000/year, but it never got anywhere remotely close to that.  In the first 30 selling days of 2006, Mustangs outsold the entire 2006 sales of GTOs.

But this is a Mustang thread--if you scroll back 40-50 pages in "The Fast Lane" there are probably some GTO threads in which to discuss the resurrected GTO for those so inclined...

Camaro = Zeta platform. All-new for '06

GTO = V platform. 

[Nethead]

What do you mean stick with? The car had been in production for years. You act like the GTO was a new design from the ground up. The only major change was the moving of the gas tank. You double talk more than a criminal headed to prison.........................

g-q-z: GQZdude, I agree that my statement was poorly worded, and thank you for pointing that out!  I've corrected it below:

"Read with more attention to what the words mean--the spanking that the GT500 & Charger SRT8 gave to the much lighter '06 GTO was to illustrate just how awful GM's decision to leave the GTO stuck with the Commodore's mega-fail Catera IRS was in a performance car.  Can you not comprehend the dimension of GM's mistake when your performance car just got outhandled by a car weighing 500 pounds more than yours??"

Whether the failure was achieved via a brand-new failure or via a known failure long neglected, a 3777-pound performance car being outhandled by a 4266-pound performance car is still a failure.  However poorly I may have worded my statement, those facts remain unchanged.  BlowCougs wouldn't understand that, but I know you do...

And OmiDude pointed out that the new Camaro uses the later Zeta Obese chassis, which is true...unfortunate for the Camaro, for sure, but true nonetheless.

Gentlemen, the Nethead here stands corrected!  I should pay more attention to also ran vehicles so that I don't make gaffes like these!  I'm gettin' too slack...

Ahem, I remind you once again that there are CarSPIN threads for also ran vehicles where their details can be discussed and lamented at length.

Oh, yeah!  Why do they never compare the current Camaro SS to a BMW M3 on a handling course???
Anyone know why that is???  They compare Mustang GTs to BMW M3s on handling courses...

   

[hotrodalex]

Oh, yeah!  Why do they never compare the current Camaro SS to a BMW M3 on a handling course???

BMW won't let them, as they fear the M3 will look silly.

[Nethead]

BMW won't let them, as they fear the M3 will look silly.

Ahhh!  That's got to be it!

[Nethead]

Meanwhile, back on the topic...Edmunds Inside Line is goin' 2011 Mustang GT, and will be presenting periodic updates during the year:

Long-Term Test: 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0

Introduction

By Mike Magrath, Associate Editor | Published Jan 12, 2011

"Mike, wait just a second. Sit down." The meeting with a key executive was going well until this. "One more question." Uh oh. Those are words you never want to hear. "We've got some budget to burn. What should we get: a 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0, or a [generic family hauler *redacted*]?"

The generic family hauler would certainly sell more units than the 412-horsepower V8-powered Mustang GT, and so the reply was carefully calculated. "I want the Mustang, but the GFH sure does have a lot going for it. It'll sell well and is crucial for that brand. But that new 5.0-liter engine is cool. And we did just give up our 2010 Chevy Camaro. And we don't have a muscle car right now...."

"And we haven't had a Mustang since 2005. That was before the blog," he replied.

A few days later, the search was on for a 2011 Ford Mustang GT for a 12-month/20,000-mile road test.

What We Bought
The 2011 Ford Mustang GT Premium starts out at $32,845. And for that you get some serious performance by way of a 412-hp DOHC V8 connected to a slick-shifting six-speed manual transmission. And with a curb weight some 200 pounds lighter than a Chevy Camaro, 412 hp is more than sufficient. A six-speed automatic is optional, but really, no thanks.

Apart from a manual trans and a V8 we had three more rules for our long-term Mustang: 1) It couldn't be a stupid color; 2) 3.73 rear end; 3) keep the price as low as possible. This is a Mustang; it's supposed to be cheap fun.

We managed two out of three.

Early in the shopping process we realized that a GT would be harder to find than a GT Premium. The Premium gets you Bluetooth, iPod integration, satellite radio, leather seats, a power driver seat, leather-wrapped steering wheel and color-adjustable gauges. It also adds $3,200 to the price. Rule three was already looking difficult.

The first Mustang we found was yellow and the second was Kona Blue. See Rule 1 for why those wouldn't work. And then came a spate of fully loaded navigation-equipped cars with dealer-installed wheels. No, no and no.

So when a black 6MT showed up with the requisite 3.73 gearing ($395), and the Brembo brake package ($1,695), we jumped on it despite some extras.

We could certainly do without the $1,200 1,000-watt Shaker audio system that has two trunk-mounted subwoofers. The rear video camera ($385) is nice, but unnecessary. HIDs are $525 and the Rapid Spec 401A package is $395 and gets us contrasting leather and a cool ball shifter, which the aforementioned executive really digs.

Altogether, our 2011 Ford Mustang rocks the register to the tune of $38,780. That price, however, was before the negotiation began. We were offered the Ford Executive Plan, which got us the car for just about $200 over invoice. There were also $1,500 in incentives on the hood so our price was $34,717.61, or, $38,850.94 out the door including all tax/title/license fees.

It's a lot of car for $34,717.61.

Why We Bought It
Life with a 2010 Chevy Camaro SS didn't end the way we expected. The limited visibility and Martian ergonomics meant that unless you had a need for speed, you passed on the Camaro. Despite 426 horses, it was often the last car out of the garage at night. In comparison, another muscle car, the 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T came in as a lame duck ? low on power, big on flashy looks ? but won us over in the end with its real-world livability and addictive soundtrack.

The Mustang seems to split the difference. It looks just wild enough to be cool and has just enough power to make you grin. The test remains, though, whether this "just right" blending of style and function works in the real world, 365 days in a row for 20,000 miles.

There is accommodation to be found in the middle ground, but rarely greatness. The Chevy Camaro outsold the Ford Mustang in 2010 without a convertible and without owners being able to see out of it. Still, our long-term Camaro lost us somewhere during the test, and the Challenger won us over. Will the Mustang cruise along in mediocrity, rise to the top choice in the fleet or simply fade away and make us wish we'd chosen that generic family hauler?

Twelve months and 20,000 miles will help us decide. Follow along on our long-term road test blog for a year of living with a brand-new 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0.

Current Odometer: 1,573
Best Fuel Economy: 21.5 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 13.0 mpg
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 17.2 mpg

Edmunds purchased this vehicle for the purpose of evaluation.
 

[Xer0]

Meanwhile, back on the topic...Edmunds Inside Line is goin' 2011 Mustang GT, and will be presenting periodic updates during the year:

Long-Term Test: 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0

Introduction

By Mike Magrath, Associate Editor | Published Jan 12, 2011

"Mike, wait just a second. Sit down." The meeting with a key executive was going well until this. "One more question." Uh oh. Those are words you never want to hear. "We've got some budget to burn. What should we get: a 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0, or a [generic family hauler *redacted*]?"

The generic family hauler would certainly sell more units than the 412-horsepower V8-powered Mustang GT, and so the reply was carefully calculated. "I want the Mustang, but the GFH sure does have a lot going for it. It'll sell well and is crucial for that brand. But that new 5.0-liter engine is cool. And we did just give up our 2010 Chevy Camaro. And we don't have a muscle car right now...."

"And we haven't had a Mustang since 2005. That was before the blog," he replied.

A few days later, the search was on for a 2011 Ford Mustang GT for a 12-month/20,000-mile road test.

What We Bought
The 2011 Ford Mustang GT Premium starts out at $32,845. And for that you get some serious performance by way of a 412-hp DOHC V8 connected to a slick-shifting six-speed manual transmission. And with a curb weight some 200 pounds lighter than a Chevy Camaro, 412 hp is more than sufficient. A six-speed automatic is optional, but really, no thanks.

Apart from a manual trans and a V8 we had three more rules for our long-term Mustang: 1) It couldn't be a stupid color; 2) 3.73 rear end; 3) keep the price as low as possible. This is a Mustang; it's supposed to be cheap fun.

We managed two out of three.

Early in the shopping process we realized that a GT would be harder to find than a GT Premium. The Premium gets you Bluetooth, iPod integration, satellite radio, leather seats, a power driver seat, leather-wrapped steering wheel and color-adjustable gauges. It also adds $3,200 to the price. Rule three was already looking difficult.

The first Mustang we found was yellow and the second was Kona Blue. See Rule 1 for why those wouldn't work. And then came a spate of fully loaded navigation-equipped cars with dealer-installed wheels. No, no and no.

So when a black 6MT showed up with the requisite 3.73 gearing ($395), and the Brembo brake package ($1,695), we jumped on it despite some extras.

We could certainly do without the $1,200 1,000-watt Shaker audio system that has two trunk-mounted subwoofers. The rear video camera ($385) is nice, but unnecessary. HIDs are $525 and the Rapid Spec 401A package is $395 and gets us contrasting leather and a cool ball shifter, which the aforementioned executive really digs.

Altogether, our 2011 Ford Mustang rocks the register to the tune of $38,780. That price, however, was before the negotiation began. We were offered the Ford Executive Plan, which got us the car for just about $200 over invoice. There were also $1,500 in incentives on the hood so our price was $34,717.61, or, $38,850.94 out the door including all tax/title/license fees.

It's a lot of car for $34,717.61.

Why We Bought It
Life with a 2010 Chevy Camaro SS didn't end the way we expected. The limited visibility and Martian ergonomics meant that unless you had a need for speed, you passed on the Camaro. Despite 426 horses, it was often the last car out of the garage at night. In comparison, another muscle car, the 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T came in as a lame duck ? low on power, big on flashy looks ? but won us over in the end with its real-world livability and addictive soundtrack.

The Mustang seems to split the difference. It looks just wild enough to be cool and has just enough power to make you grin. The test remains, though, whether this "just right" blending of style and function works in the real world, 365 days in a row for 20,000 miles.

There is accommodation to be found in the middle ground, but rarely greatness. The Chevy Camaro outsold the Ford Mustang in 2010 without a convertible and without owners being able to see out of it. Still, our long-term Camaro lost us somewhere during the test, and the Challenger won us over. Will the Mustang cruise along in mediocrity, rise to the top choice in the fleet or simply fade away and make us wish we'd chosen that generic family hauler?

Twelve months and 20,000 miles will help us decide. Follow along on our long-term road test blog for a year of living with a brand-new 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0.

Current Odometer: 1,573
Best Fuel Economy: 21.5 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 13.0 mpg
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 17.2 mpg

Edmunds purchased this vehicle for the purpose of evaluation.
 

Take it back IL, take it back!   

That blue color looks awesome!

[SVT666]

Kona Blue is sexy as hell, but I think they really meant the Grabber Blue.

[Xer0]

Ugh yeah, that is hideous.  IIRC, one of the newer Mustangs on the board is Kona Blue (MX's?) and its a fine choice.  Personally, it would be my choice too; black is so boring.

[SVT666]

Ugh yeah, that is hideous.  IIRC, one of the newer Mustangs on the board is Kona Blue (MX's?) and its a fine choice.  Personally, it would be my choice too; black is so boring.

HotRodPilot

[giant_mtb]

I have to agree with Teuts.

This segment makes me want the GT500 Vert.   BADLY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkH1HFsLZw&playnext=1&list=PLDAEC4FBBF2DC8AD1&index=11

And, this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O46E0gCF5os

Makes me want a Roush instead.

[MX793]

HotRodPilot

Yup, mine as well.

[68_427]

For hemi

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/17/coyote-cobra-superformance-mkiii-roadster-powered-by-the-mustan/

[SVT666]

I was wondering how long that would take.  Sweet.  Though the old carburated motors sound better.

[565]

Ford lies about rear brakes on Mustang.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/01/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-has-brembos-single-piston-sliding-rear-calipers.html




Plus their brand new long term 5.0 GT has already broken down.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/01/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-tsb-in-az-part-1.html

[GoCougs]

LOLz at the blue over spray on the GT500 pic, including the vertical sway bar link...

[SVT666]

Obviously that's not cool, but I also don't know why this is such a big surprise.  The Brembo Brake Package applies to the front brakes only.  The rears are the GT's stock brakes...as mentioned in every single article about the car.