ShareThis Page

Auto review: Mustang honors the past as Ford looks to the future

| Saturday, March 30, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

A decade ago, as Ford engineers prepared the next-generation Mustang, they stared down an inescapable truth: The best Mustangs were built in the 1960s.

So they set out to build a brand-new 1968 Mustang fastback, wrapping modern technology in retro sheet metal. That strategy carried its own risks, like asking the Rolling Stones to re-record “Exile on Main Street.”

It's clear now that it worked brilliantly, setting off an unlikely second coming of the muscle car era. In a familiar stampede, Chevrolet and Dodge — which scrambled in the '60s to make their own “pony cars” — followed Ford's lead again with refried versions of the original Camaro and Challenger.

The 2013 Mustang GT we tested recently, a drag-strip beast that could smoke most anything from the '60s, may be among the last of the retro breed. With the Mustang's 50th anniversary approaching next year, the engineers in Dearborn, Mich., are again feverishly designing the next-generation Mustang. They face an even tougher challenge: How do you take a car into the future after you've taken it a half-century into the past?

However wonderful the next Mustang may be, it will be a shame to see this one pass into history, whence it came. The successful remake of the 1967-68 car represents a kind of redemption for dumb decisions Ford made when it abandoned the early Mustangs in the first place, leading to a series of putrid pony cars throughout the 1970s. (Note to Ford: Do not bring back the Mustang II.)

A week in the old-school cockpit of the latest GT confirms that its ride, handling and shifting are an upgrade over both ancient and recent Mustangs, which have always been a bit crude — endearingly so.

Ford has also pulled off a subtle but substantial evolution of its retro design. A mid-cycle refresh in 2010 added a sharpened belt line and a rear end pinched in on both sides. For 2013, Ford added a more prominent front grille and other tweaks. The updates somehow made the car look simultaneously less dated and more like the old car.

But only one option really matters on this car: the 302-cubic-inch, 5.0-liter V-8, a direct descendant of the first 302 small-block introduced in the 1968 Mustang, now with a ludicrous 420 horsepower and 390 pound-feet of torque. The first retro Mustang GT, a 2005 model, was impressive enough with 300 horses. Piling on 120 more is like deep-frying bacon in pork fat.

With the six-speed manual, it's difficult to launch the GT without roasting enough rubber to set off neighborhood smoke alarms. Shifts into second gear provoke another loud bark from the rear tires. Pushing the 7,000-rpm redline in higher gears requires acres of open highway.

The car's least-expected quality is a near-optimal trade-off between aggressive handling and a comfortable ride.

The GT has its issues. All Mustangs do. Their point has never been perfection, but rather the proper ratio of performance to price. The car can be a handful to drive in town, and feels a tad too big and heavy. Its center console is awkwardly angled up toward the back seat, making manual shifting an elbow-bumping affair.

The GT goes from zero to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds on its way to a 12.7-second quarter-mile, according to Motor Trend. If you want something just a hair faster, plunk down $190,000 on an Aston Martin DB9.

Our loaded test car came to $40,255, a bit high for the quintessential affordable fast car. But GTs start at $30,750, and the V-6 base model — with a more-than-respectable 305 horsepower — brings the price down to $22,200.

All this sets a high bar for the next-generation Mustang. If Ford has learned anything from history, it will take care to avoid repeating what happened after the 1960s, a textbook case of messing with success.

Our advice to Ford: The Mustang is finally back in a good place. Don't screw it up. Don't get any big ideas. Do what you should have done in the 1970s: Let the shape of the car change slowly, organically, over many years.

Brian Thevenot is a writer for the Los Angeles Times.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.