2011 Ford Mustang V6: The Power & the Fuel-Sipping Glory

[Morris Minor]

I read this in yesterday's Wall Street Journal print edition, thoroughly-enjoyed it.  It set me thinking; my wife wants a convertible...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575152042180219912.html

APRIL 3, 2010
The Power and the Fuel-Sipping Glory
Ford's new Mustang V6 pairs 305 horses with 31 mpg on the highway, but those side mirrors have to go
By DAN NEIL

By now checking my side-view mirrors before I change lanes is an autonomic neural function, somewhere between breathing and cringing at the sound of a shrieking fan belt, or Sarah Palin.

So I was just a little surprised when, after glancing in my left-side mirror, I was nearly obliterated by a large white pickup truck speeding down Ventura Boulevard in Los Angeles. Where the hell did he come from?

Oh, right. Alaska.



Welcome to the 2011 Ford Mustang V6, which has many things to recommend it?a stonky, turgid-with-horsepower sixer, a choice of new six-speed transmissions, All-American provenance and rather astounding 31 mpg highway fuel economy?and one thing that cries out for the ministrations of a sharp screwdriver: a driver's-side "spot mirror," a small convex affair glued to the face of the streamlined side-view mirror, precisely where large white pickups hide. Dear Mr. Ford, about these mirrors. Hate them. Dangerous. Trash.

The Ford Mustang is rapidly becoming America's low-rent, GED-educated version of the Porsche 911. They've both been around since the mid-'60s, both core syntax in automotive culture, both as rich with symbolism as the Book of Kells. Both cars are bound as if by blood oath to an inferior technology: in the case of the Porsche, the less-than-optimum rear-engine layout; for the Mustang, the widely disdained?though damned effective?solid rear axle, as opposed to an independent rear suspension. And both cars, by their sheer longevity, are examples of a kind of engineering perfectibility, as their respective design teams continue to refine and improve the car, year after year, in a kind of Darwinian fire of adaptation. They may be platypuses but you won't find a better duck-billed fur-bearing egg-layer anywhere.

In 2009, Ford's product elves took the Mustang dramatically forward with a redesigned exterior and interior, major chassis upgrades and a laundry list of subtle improvements, which made the car almost terrific. Indeed, the current-model-year (2010) Mustang GT, I think, easily outpoints the key competitors (Chevy Camaro SS and Dodge Challenger SRT) in handling and ride quality, mostly by virtue of the fact that the competitors are, as sports cars, mullet-coiffured lard butts.

The 40-foot asterisk beside Mustang has lately been its engines, which have varied from dated to utterly Pleistocene. This has been particularly true of the entry-level Mustangs powered by the V6?a villainous antique outputting 210 horsepower from 4.0 liters of displacement and sucking gas like no tomorrow. For reference, note that the 2010 Mustang V6 returns an official 16 mpg in the city and 24 mpg on the highway and?at the risk of hitting this nail too hard?it moves like it's been quaffing Propofol.

Yes, sure, Ford has sold a lot of these cars?the low-buck Mustang is the perennial choice of bank tellers and spirit-squad captains. But among enthusiasts, the Mustang V6 is about as popular as flesh-eating bacteria.

For the 2011 model year, the Mustang line gets two new engines, neither of which is exactly state of the art but both nonetheless vast improvements over the previous piston-equipped anvils. The Mustang GT gets a 5.0-liter, 32-valve DOHC V8 good for 412 horsepower (replacing the 4.6-liter, 315-hp engine). And the new V6?our focus today?is a 3.7-liter, 24-valve Duratec V6, with dual overhead cams, variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust sides, cold-air induction, and a nice toasty 10.5:1 compression ratio. This aluminum-block unit churns 305 horsepower at 6,500 rpm and a thick-wristed 280 pound-feet of torque.

This engine does for the Mustang V6 what a trip to Lourdes does for intractable VD. It's a miracle cure, sheer deliverance, salvation. Zero-to-60 acceleration feels easily in the high five-second range as car comes off the line with a big smooth rushing moment over-vaulting the car's 3,400-pound inertia, with almost no axle tramp or other squirrelly-ness. Awesome. Big righteous torque is available in the upper rpm registers, and the handling hardware?revised front and rear suspension and antiroll bars, redesigned rear-end lower control arms, tuned tires and other esoterica?puts a seriously athletic leg under the whole project.

The base-model Mustang?previously a good-looking, clumsy doofus (note the restraint with which I avoid mentioning Matthew McConaughey)?is now actually fun to drive. Actually, it's kind of a riot.

Meanwhile, thanks to the new engine, a six-speed automatic transmission, freer-breathing dual exhaust (formerly a single pipe), and a host of measures that nibble at the efficiency equation (including electric-assist power steering with?I kid you not?Active Nibble Control), the Mustang is rated at 19 mpg city and 31 mpg highway, the highest in the class of V6-powered American sport coupes including the base-model Chevy Camaro LT and Dodge Challenger. The base Mustang all but crushes the direct Asian import competitor, the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8?quicker, cheaper, more fuel-efficient and more charismatic by, oh, light-years.

Ah, but nothing comes for free, and among the means the Mustang employs to achieve its celebrated highway mpg is a host of fine-grain aerodynamic tweaks, including smaller, more streamlined side mirrors, which some misbegotten son-of-a-dog safety engineer decided needed spotter mirrors.

Enter?almost, at least?the aforementioned large white pickup.

Indeed, the 31 mpg number?which has been marketing catnip for Ford?is achieved at some cost to Mustang V6's overall drivability; it's a good thing the Mustang has it to spare. For instance, the rear-axle ratio on the base-model car is a sky-high 2.73, which means that at highway speeds the engine is loafing along at low rpm. The downside is that tall rear gears tend to smother torque and kill off-the-line acceleration. As quick as this car is out of the hole, it would be significantly more responsive with a shorter rear gear. That option is available in the V6 performance package.

Meanwhile, the computer programming governing the new six-speed automatic transmission demonstrates a deep, almost irresistible urge to jump to higher gear in the interests of fuel saving?and that can make the car a little frustrating to drive hard in canyon country. Forget "D" for Drive; best slap the shifter over to the manual gate and wring out the rpm. Ah, but then you're not getting 31 mpg, are you?

The high-mileage Mustang also gives up a measure of road-holding by using Michelin Energy radials, what are known as low-rolling-resistance tires. But you can't take it away from the Ford chassis guys. They have managed to tune the Mustang's suspension and stability control programming so that, while the tires aren't particularly grippy, the way the car slides around on them is easily manageable and actually pretty entertaining.

In canyon country, the Mustang feels well sorted and competent. The electric power steering, while as numb as a sled dog's nose, is responsive and direct. The car feels very honest, balanced and confidence-inspiring. With the stability control set to Sport?or better yet, Off?it's effortless to pitch the rear end around with generous application of noise and gas. Would I like more lateral grip? Oh yeah. But the V6 Mustang has no bad manners or ugly surprises in store. For 2011, the base Mustang gets the big honking brakes from the Mustang GT, so that stopping distance is not an issue. Brake-pedal feel is quite good, too.

For, well, ever, it's seemed to enthusiasts that the Mustang to have would be the V8 because, otherwise, why bother? But here's a radical thought. What if, one day, the V6-powered car, with its over-achieving performance and conscientious fuel economy, and available Performance package (bigger wheels, stickier tires, stiffer suspension, a general upgrade in orneriness) became the aspirational Mustang, the one kids want to buy? Oh, brave new world....

Meantime, let's raise a cheer for government fuel-economy regulations. Free-market choristers can be counted on to lament the feds' Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements, particularly the Obama administration's finalizing of rules to require 35.5-mpg CAFE standard by 2016. Yes, of course, the end of capitalism as we know it, the death of innocents, etc. Except that CAFE is working. Imperfectly, true, but cars are getting better, faster and more efficient?and doing so in the absence of meaningful market forces, like drastically higher fuel prices?and you need only look to the Mustang V6 for proof. A decade ago, such a car was beyond the imaginings of the most wild-eyed, patchouli-reeking green gearhead.

The future is coming up fast. Objects in your tiny mirrors are closer than they appear.

[CALL_911]

As much as I love the Camaro, I'd take the Mustang over it.

I really, really want a Mustang. I never thought I'd ever say that I would want a Mustang V6.

[Onslaught]

I still only like the V8 ones. Perhaps it's all in my head but to me it's the only way to do it right.

[Colin]

I've just turned in a 2010 V6 Mustang Convertible. It was even in Grabber Blue like the on depicted.

Before everyone eulogises about the convertible too much - and I admit it does look great - you'd better test one. The scuttle shake/body flex was just awful on even some of SoCal's less rough freeways and other streets. I would generally describe the rad as "bad", with too much pitching from the suspension even on the smoothest of surfaces. Sadly, I don't believe the 2011 changes will make much difference to this.

I know that 'Stang vs Camaro is like religion...... having recently sampled both and a Challenger, I ahve to conclude that the Dodge wins if you need to put people in the back and have luggage. In SE spec it also wins the refinement game (but why are you buying a car like this if that is your criterion?)..... the Ford clearly wins by default if you want a Convertible. If it was my money, I'd be headed to the Chevrolet dealer..... I did not find the things which others have listed here to be particularly irksome, so on a preference basis (at least until the 2011 Mustangs come out and I can get to try a V8 Challenger) it would be the one I'd pick.

Full reports on the Challenger and Mustang to come in due course. 

[sportyaccordy]

Great article, especially from a non-car publication.

I don't know that I could pick a Mustang GT over a used G35 coupe or even a new Genesis 3.8 coupe. I still have reservations about the Mustang's size and exterior (though again it does look damn good). The interior is still a bit cheesy. I just prefer a more Japanese/Euro character in design. But I would be hating if I said it was a good (or possibly better) car than either a used G or a new Genesis 3.8. Good job Ford

[ifcar]

I've just turned in a 2010 V6 Mustang Convertible. It was even in Grabber Blue like the on depicted.

Before everyone eulogises about the convertible too much - and I admit it does look great - you'd better test one. The scuttle shake/body flex was just awful on even some of SoCal's less rough freeways and other streets. I would generally describe the rad as "bad", with too much pitching from the suspension even on the smoothest of surfaces. Sadly, I don't believe the 2011 changes will make much difference to this.

I know that 'Stang vs Camaro is like religion...... having recently sampled both and a Challenger, I ahve to conclude that the Dodge wins if you need to put people in the back and have luggage. In SE spec it also wins the refinement game (but why are you buying a car like this if that is your criterion?)..... the Ford clearly wins by default if you want a Convertible. If it was my money, I'd be headed to the Chevrolet dealer..... I did not find the things which others have listed here to be particularly irksome, so on a preference basis (at least until the 2011 Mustangs come out and I can get to try a V8 Challenger) it would be the one I'd pick.

Full reports on the Challenger and Mustang to come in due course. 

Did you find any major complaints that wouldn't be fixed by the 2011 engine or by choosing a model with a roof?

[ifcar]

Great article, especially from a non-car publication.

Neil is a Pulitzer winner who used to work for C/D and Autoweek.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Neil is a Pulitzer winner who used to work for C/D and Autoweek.

So am I.

[Onslaught]

Before everyone eulogises about the convertible too much - and I admit it does look great - you'd better test one. The scuttle shake/body flex was just awful on even some of SoCal's less rough freeways and other streets. I would generally describe the rad as "bad", with too much pitching from the suspension even on the smoothest of surfaces. Sadly, I don't believe the 2011 changes will make much difference to this.

I think it must be some kind of law that Ford can't make the Mustang into a good convertible. You think this one is bad then you should try out one from the 90's. They're wet noodles. If I was going to get a Mustang then it have to be a coupe and not a convert. I was a long time Ford hater. I loathed the Mustang. But I've come around over the last few years on the new ones. But Ford still makes cheap looking convertible tops that don't impress me much. But so do the other domestic makers for that matter.

[Morris Minor]

The BMW 3 series always comes to mind when trying to recall reviews of convertibles where scuttle shake is not a problem. The Infiniti G37 convertible has been a huge disappointment.

[Onslaught]

Unless a car is made to be a convertible from the start then it will be an up hill battle.

[Nethead]

From www.caranddriver.com.  It an't the convertible, but it is the new V6:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q1/2011_ford_mustang_v6-short_take_road_test


Ford shows its base pony car some love and churns out a sweetheart.
BY MIKE SUTTON, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JOHN ROE AND THE MANUFACTURER
April 2010

Highs and Lows

Highs: Impressive power, six forward speeds, performance options create a back-road sweetie, not too thirsty.

Lows: Steering could be heavier, Mustang Club of America package is gaudy.

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe

PRICE AS TESTED: $30,675 (base price: $22,995)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 227 cu in, 3726 cc
Power (SAE net): 305 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 280 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 107.1 in Length: 188.1 in
Width: 73.9 in Height: 55.6 in
Curb weight: 3520 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.0 sec
Street start, 5?60 mph: 5.8 sec
Standing ?-mile: 14.0 sec @ 104 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 113 mph
Braking, 70?0 mph: 152 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.95 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 19/29 mpg
C/D observed: 18 mpg

Although most of the hubbub surrounding the 2011 Ford Mustang is centered on the GT?s fantastic new 412-hp, 5.0-liter V-8?our test of which you can read here?Ford made damn sure not to forget about the volume V-6 model, which now sports a high-tech 305-hp, 3.7-liter V-6 as standard equipment. Yes, 305 ponies in a base Mustang, or just 10 fewer than in last year?s GT. Given that our last test of Ford?s standard pony car left us about as warm as a dip in a frozen lake, we tempered our enthusiasm when sliding behind the wheel of this new one. Lucky for us?and for all Mustang fanatics?Ford did its homework. The 2011 Mustang V-6 is an astonishingly good car.

Reveling in a Revelation

For perspective, previous V-6 Mustangs were forever plagued by a thrashy SOHC 4.0-liter V-6 with a meager 210 hp and 240 lb-ft of torque. The new all-aluminum DOHC engine?a range-topping variant of Ford?s Duratec V-6 architecture with variable valve timing on both the intake and exhaust cams?produces 305 hp at 6500 rpm and 280 lb-ft at 4250 rpm. It?s not as strong at low revs as the V-8?nor as fiercely bellowing?but the mill quickly spins to its 7000-rpm redline with a husky howl emanating from its dual three-inch exhaust outlets; only a little straining is audible near the top of the rev range. Fueled by regular unleaded and capable of returning 19 mpg in the city and up to 31 mpg on the highway with the optional six-speed automatic transmission ($995), this is impressive stuff.

Strapped with our test gear, we spurred a new V-6 Mustang with the standard six-speed manual to 60 mph in 5.4 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 14 flat at 104 mph. That?s over one second better in both tests than the previous V-6 model and just a half-second or so off the paces of the quickest 2010 GT we tested. More important, the 3520-pound Mustang V-6 is 0.5 second quicker than the 3800-pound Chevy Camaro V-6 in both measures?cue the chirping from the peanut gallery?and the Ford also outruns the slightly lighter and more powerful Hyundai Genesis V-6 coupe. A set of sharp, black-painted 19-inch wheels wrapped in optional Pirelli P Zeros?size 255/40ZR-19, same as on the GT?meant that traction off the line wasn?t an issue.

Back-Road Surprise

But we already knew that the 2011 car was going to be quicker than last year?s model; we just didn?t expect Ford to dial up the entertainment value so high. All 2011 V-6 models sport revised suspension tuning, a standard limited-slip differential, and larger brakes?11.5 inches up front, 11.8 in the rear?and our tester also had Ford?s factory-installed Performance package ($1995), which will be available in late summer and essentially brings the car up to GT spec. In addition to the aforementioned Pirelli gumballs ($360 each) and 19-inch wheels, the kit includes the GT?s upgraded shocks, springs, and anti-roll bars; the V-6?s optional 3.31:1 rear axle (a 2.73:1 ring and pinion is standard); GT brake calipers with upgraded pads; a front strut-tower brace; a revised stability-control system with a more-liberal sport mode; and a couple of unique badges.

What results is a sharper, better-balanced whole that is an absolute blast to toss through the twisties. The V-6 may be only 60 pounds lighter than the new GT, but the difference feels greater from the driver?s seat; it?s more nimble and neutral-handling, with a surprising amount of feedback from the electric power-steering rack. Despite the solid-axle layout, our tester?s ride felt compliant and controlled, with little if any uneasiness during hard cornering on rough pavement.

We?ll say the steering is a bit too light for our liking, and the suspension tuning made for an occasional ass-out surprise during abrupt, high-speed directional changes. But we can?t fault the big-league numbers: a 152-foot stop from 70 mph and a neck-straining 0.95 g around the skidpad, both of which slightly better the 2011 GT?s and approach those of far more expensive stuff. We also didn?t notice any fade from the stock brakes, which should hold up fairly well even if you plan to hit the track regularly. (Did we just suggest frequent track use of a V-6 Mustang? I think we did.)

Manual-transmission V-6s are rated at 19 mpg in the city and 29 on the highway. We only managed 18 mpg over 300 miles of what was pretty aggressive running through Southern California?s canyons, but we should get a better figure when we can test one back home and factor in some normal commutes.

It?s About Time

With last year?s already extensive updates powering the 2010 Mustang GT to a win in a three-way with a Camaro SS and Dodge Challenger R/T, we?re delighted to see Ford spreading the love to the V-6 model. We didn?t get a chance to sample the base car with the normal suspension, but at $22,995 to start, the 2011 Mustang V-6 is the least-expensive way to get rear-wheel drive and 300 hp; 2010 Camaros base at $23,530, and the Genesis coupe with a 3.8-liter V-6 starts at $25,750. The Dodge Challenger SE starts at $23,460 but is so grossly outmatched as to be easily dismissed from the conversation.

Our Grabber Blue Mustang was decked out in Premium trim, which at $26,695 to start nets leather hides for the seats and steering wheel, a booming Shaker 500 audio system, and various chrome and aluminum detailing, among other amenities. Also featured were the Security package ($395) with wheel locks and an anti-theft alarm; Comfort package ($595) with a six-way power driver?s seat and heaters for the front chairs; the Performance package; and the $995 Mustang Club of America package, which includes a blingy stainless-steel billet grille, fog lights, flat-black stripes down the body sides, a similar appliqu? between the taillights, a prominent decklid spoiler, unique 18-inch wheels, and several other bits. Total: about $30,675.

We?d definitely recommend the Premium model because the plastic-heavy base interior is bland and uninviting, but we?re cool with skipping the MCA package; it might grab attention at the local Steak ?n Shake, but it?s a bit much for our tastes. Loaded with additional options such as navigation ($2340), a glass roof ($1995), a Shaker 1000 audio upgrade ($1295), and xenon headlights ($595), the V-6 model could easily climb past $35,000, at which point we?d remind you that the GT starts at $30,495 and that the new 5.0-liter V-8 is really, really good. But given this car?s status as the volume model, we guarantee legions of buyers are going to be plenty pleased with the Mustang V-6.

[GoCougs]

350Zs were horrifically flexy convertibles too; the Nissan FM platform just wasn't designed to be convertible. Same issue with the Mustang, the SN197 Mustang's donor chassis just wasn't designed for it.

[omicron]

Boo, light steering. Give me a meaty V8 version and I'll be happy, although it seems I'll need to order the shorter gear ratios.

[Morris Minor]

350Zs were horrifically flexy convertibles too; the Nissan FM platform just wasn't designed to be convertible. Same issue with the Mustang, the SN197 Mustang's donor chassis just wasn't designed for it.

I suppose keeping costs down has always been a Mustang trademark. Even so it's a pity, per Colin's post, that the D2C platform does not do a better job in the roof-off variants.

[S204STi]

Hmm, I thought the new 3.7 was DI.  Pretty impressive numbers with port fuel injection.

[the Teuton]

Hmm, I thought the new 3.7 was DI.  Pretty impressive numbers with port fuel injection.

Too 'spensive...at least initially...

[S204STi]

Ah, I see.  Well, still impressive.  The GM mill requires DI to get its numbers.  That's promising for Ford.

[SVT666]

Ah, I see.  Well, still impressive.  The GM mill requires DI to get its numbers.  That's promising for Ford.

DI is reserved for the EcoBoost right now.  Ford said DI didn't produce significant enough advantages in power or fuel economy to warrant the cost.

[Nethead]

DI is reserved for the EcoBoost right now.  Ford said DI didn't produce significant enough advantages in power or fuel economy to warrant the cost.

Yeah, Ford says GDI only adds one percent in non-boosted applications.  In boost applications, GDI still adds the one percent but goes further to allow higher boost because GDI allows the same engine to run cooler than that engine would run with port injection.  That's why GDI is used in EcoBoost engines--it allows more boost without an increase in the likelihood of detonation due to the lower operating temperatures of GDI engines.  

But room for GDI was provided in the heads of the 3.7 V6, obviously, and in the heads of the TiVCT 5.0L V8 in the event of boosted 5.0s being offered in the future.

[S204STi]

Was that minor percentage increase verified using the existing compression ratio or with hardware optimised for the capabilities of DI?  Just curious.

Either way, it'll be a good way to upgrade the current engines, and I'm glad they had the foresight to at least make room in the current design for it.

[mojammer]

Before this the V6 mustang was arguably just a chick car; I never even considered owning one.  Now though, I think it's a legitimate pony car, something I would consider owning. 

[565]

350Zs were horrifically flexy convertibles too; the Nissan FM platform just wasn't designed to be convertible.

Where did you get that idea?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/03q3/2003_audi_tt_vs.bmw_z4_honda_s2000_nissan_350z_porsche_boxster-comparison_tests/2003_nissan_350z_roadster_touring_page_4

"Highs: No waiting for the torque, and the sweet symphony of twin pipes that accompanies it; the refined ride; the feeling of enduring solidity

This car has a low pulse rate and a sense of gravitas about it. Nothing flexes.

Ride smoothness tops all the others. Interior noises are muted. Cockpit drafts are least bothersome of the group.

But the Z wears its weight well. The feeling is deliberate rather than ponderous, self-assured rather than tentative. And the weight doesn't ruin the sports-car feeling. The grip ramps up confidently in turns, and the suspension keeps its poise. No hip fakes, no stutter steps.


By comparison C&D never mentioned the others for being particularly solid (they did say that the Porsche and Audi were flexy).


When C&D tested the 370Z, they also remarked they remembered the 350z for being rigid.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/2010_nissan_370z_touring_roadster-short_take_road_test

"When it came along in 2003, the droptop Z car scored well on the rigidity meter. In our August ?03 comparo [?The Blow Dryers?], we noted a ?feeling of enduring solidity? and that ?nothing flexes.?"

Basically Nissan was willing to add weight to the 350z until it was stiff enough.

[SVT666]

Where did you get that idea?

Cougs just makes shit up now.  He's the new Nethead.

[GoCougs]

My MTBing ride buddy had a 350Z vert (Indian guy); hated the car for many (good) reasons, one of which was the ultra mega flexy body. To show me he parked one side of the car up on the curb, and you could visibly see the door gaps change, and that the point on the A-pillar where the 'vert interfaces was all out of whack. It was simply a terrible car IMO though I have to admit his constant diatribes have me forever biased no matter how many articles you guys uncover.

[565]

My MTBing ride buddy had a 350Z vert (Indian guy); hated the car for many (good) reasons, one of which was the ultra mega flexy body. To show me he parked one side of the car up on the curb, and you could visibly see the door gaps change, and that the point on the A-pillar where the 'vert interfaces was all out of whack. It was simply a terrible car IMO though I have to admit his constant diatribes have me forever biased no matter how many articles you guys uncover.

Sounds like he expects too much from a convertible in general.  Parking with a wheel on a curb and expecting no flex is a hard test for any vert to pass.  The 350Z is very stiff amongst convertibles, but obviously won't compare to a closed top vehicle in general.  I once posted a big list of torsional rigidities and as a whole sports cars aren't as rigid as people expect and often much flexier than sedans or even SUVs.  It's because the low slung shape of a sports car isn't an ideal shape for rigidity to begin with, think cube vs pancake, and rigidity often comes at the cost of weight.

[S204STi]

Well, and with lower weight stiffness isn't as necessary to maintain good handling traits, or so it would seem to me.

[Onslaught]

My MTBing ride buddy had a 350Z vert (Indian guy); hated the car for many (good) reasons, one of which was the ultra mega flexy body. To show me he parked one side of the car up on the curb, and you could visibly see the door gaps change, and that the point on the A-pillar where the 'vert interfaces was all out of whack. It was simply a terrible car IMO though I have to admit his constant diatribes have me forever biased no matter how many articles you guys uncover.

Just about any convert will do that. You do it on some Mustangs and you can't even open the door.

[S204STi]

Do it to a Grand Am and it'll fold like a taco.  It's true.  I did it once.

[GoCougs]

Sounds like he expects too much from a convertible in general.  Parking with a wheel on a curb and expecting no flex is a hard test for any vert to pass.  The 350Z is very stiff amongst convertibles, but obviously won't compare to a closed top vehicle in general.  I once posted a big list of torsional rigidities and as a whole sports cars aren't as rigid as people expect and often much flexier than sedans or even SUVs.  It's because the low slung shape of a sports car isn't an ideal shape for rigidity to begin with, think cube vs pancake, and rigidity often comes at the cost of weight.

Well, I had to listen to it enough on rides and the like that I'm converted on the issue of the 350Z drop top (ha - dig that pun).