2016 Ford Mustang GT

We live in strange times. A former reality-TV star has keys to the White House, the Chicago Cubs are World Series champs, and Ford Mustangs come with independent rear suspensions. But the Blue Oval’s seminal pony car has not lost all sense of ­tradition as it finally enters the modern age and, with it, markets outside the U.S. It’s still a workaday barnstormer, and the Mustang’s evolution is still shadowed, as it was in the ’60s and ’70s, by a hard-charging Chevrolet Camaro. That it shared our long-term garage with a 2016 Camaro SS lent us perspective on what is the most forward-thinking Mustang in half a century.

Our 17-month, 40,000-mile rodeo began about a year after the then-new 2015 Mustang celebrated the golden anniversary of the original pony’s debut. This latest GT coupe also secured an immediate spot on our 10Best list (since displaced by the Shelby GT350), which ultimately led to this one taking up temporary residence at 1585 Eisenhower Place.

It’s an altogether more sophisticated steed. The addition of the multilink rear end and a revised front strut suspension has polished the Mustang’s road manners to an unexpected shine, with the newfound refinement bolstered by sleeker proportions and a classier cabin with better ergonomics. It immediately trounced the Dodge Challenger and the previous-gen Camaro SS 1LE in a comparison test.

Minor changes for 2016: Ford’s much-improved Sync 3 infotainment interface replaced the MyFord Touch system, and, in a nod to ’60s nostalgia, designers added barely visible LED turn signals to the hoods of GT models (then subsequently removed them for the 2017 model year).

Ford likes to hype the Mustang’s newly available 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder, but our manual-saving hooligan ways meant that a stick-shift GT with the 5.0-liter Coyote V-8 was the only way to go. For 2015, Ford massaged the smooth, rev-happy 5.0 to produce an additional 15 horsepower and 10 pound-feet of torque, bringing it up to 435 and 400, respectively, which helps compensate for the extra 130 or so pounds the new generation gained. The standard Getrag six-speed manual also entered ’15 with minor revisions, including reduced clutch and shifter efforts, even if the shifter’s tight gates mean you sometimes grab fifth gear when reaching for third.

In the name of parsimony, we started with the V-8 coupe’s Premium trim level for $37,200 (base GTs start about $4000 less) and went light on the extras. Along with standard automatic HID headlights, eight airbags, and the GT’s line-lock burnout software, the Premium setup includes an 8.0-inch touchscreen in the console, dual-zone automatic climate control, heated and cooled leather front seats, selectable driving modes (normal, sport-plus, track, and snow/wet), ambient lighting, and heated exterior mirrors with galloping-pony puddle lamps. Premium trim also adds nicer interior materials, such as a seemingly machine-turned aluminum panel across the dash, but some hard plastics are reminders of the Stang’s blue-collar roots.

We took a pass on navigation, adaptive cruise control, and other amenities, save for black leather manual Recaro sport seats ($1595) and the GT Performance package ($2495), which nets six-piston Brembo front brakes with 15.0-inch rotors (up from the base 13.9-inchers) and a shorter 3.73:1 rear axle with a Torsen limited-slip differential.

The Performance package also features chassis and strut-tower braces, a firmer suspension tune, a larger radiator, and revised programming for the electrically assisted power steering and stability-control system. The bundle’s painted 19-inch wheels wrapped in staggered Pirelli P Zero summer rubber (255/40s in front, 275/40s out back) completed our car’s midnight-rider visage.

Upon its arrival in late fall, there was just enough time to break in and track-test our GT before it needed a set of OE-size Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 winter tires to stay out of snowy embankments. When new, it dashed to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and covered the quarter-mile in 12.9 at 112 mph, making it the quickest GT we’ve tested and almost as fleet as the 526-hp GT350. A solid 156-foot stop from 70 mph and 0.94 g of lateral stick evidenced the ­latest Mustang’s impressive road adhesion, despite both figures trailing the 150-foot and 0.98-g returns posted by our manual Camaro SS. (The 455-hp Chevy hit 60 mph in four seconds flat, and it blitzed the quarter in 12.3 at 118 mph.)

Although the Recaros lacked the power adjustability and ­heating and ventilation offered by the Premium’s standard thrones, the GT quickly gained supporters for its sinister presence and a design penned with just the right amount of retro. It wasn’t our first choice on chilly mornings or for long trips—rear-seat comfort being largely dependent on the ease with which passengers could remove their heads—but the Mustang drew high marks for day-to-day entertainment and livability as a two-seater. The visibility up front is good, with more glass and a notably taller ­saddle than in the Camaro, and the improved ride quality and ­composure from the 21st-century suspension don’t constrict the car’s playfulness or chuckability. It may be the most advanced ­Mustang to date, but there’s old-school charm in the GT’s lively connection to the road that you don’t get from the Camaro’s ­industrial-adhesive grip.

Due to the supersoft Pirellis and our sliding around, we burned through two—two!—sets of rear P Zeros before the Mustang could return to the strip at 40,000 miles, at which point it returned nearly identical acceleration figures as when new, only upping its quarter-mile trap speed by a tick to 113 mph. The new rear tires also helped increase the car’s lateral grip to 0.96 g, another best for a GT, yet stretched the 70-to-zero braking distance by 10 feet to 166. Further confirming our Ford’s appetite for rubber was the need for yet another set of rear Blizzaks for its second winter in Ann Arbor.

We didn’t expect much from the 5.0 in terms of fuel efficiency, and the short ­gearing that’s part of the Performance package made quick work of the fuel supply when commuting. But several treks to ­Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Virginia bumped our average figure to 20 mpg, or 1 mpg better than the car’s EPA combined rating. We also saw fuel economy as high as 27 mpg on some highway runs. But the Mustang’s 16-gallon tank meant that we usually could squeeze only about 300 miles from a stint, at which point most drivers were ready to take a break from the constricting Recaro.

Indeed, the seats were our greatest source of frustration. Their exaggerated bolsters impeded smooth shifting, and our drivers found it hard to comfortably settle into the chairs. While some occupants on the larger side did find the front buckets ache-free over long stretches, many never fully adjusted.

A brake pedal that grew increasingly grabby on initial application added to our annoyance, as did a host of clunks from the transmission and driveline whenever we worked through the lower gears. We had the dealer look into both issues, but the service desk deemed everything to be operating within normal parameters.

Servicing our pony was much easier on our wallets than the $2877 we spent on ­rubber. Four scheduled oil changes and inspections averaged $57 each. Our only non-tire-related problem was the result of Michigan’s roads: A nasty pothole caused $732 worth of damage to the Mustang’s right-rear suspension, with the dealer taking less than a week to replace the fuel-filler tube and a busted damper and its mount.

But as technical director Eric Tingwall puts it, “The Mustang became significantly less cool the day a Camaro SS joined our long-term fleet.” The new-for-2016 Camaro is a formidable foe, with the SS toppling the GT in its first comparo, and both the V-6 and V-8 Camaros earning 10Best awards the past two years. Presented with the Chevy’s greater power, better handling, and nicer suite of extras in 2SS trim, our Ford’s shine immediately began to dim. The GT’s heavily muffled exhaust seemed to grow even more so, lacking the raucous startup bark and wide-open roar of the Camaro’s actively controlled trumpets. The linear, high-revving 5.0 felt malnourished after pedaling the SS’s torque-rich small-block, which was just as happy lugging at 1200 rpm as it was blasting to redline. And the Ford’s squirminess under power and at the limit appeared more pronounced and uncouth. If the latest Mustang aces the traditional pony-car formula, the new-age Camaro has true sports-car ambitions.

As the Mustang’s odometer rolled past 40,000 miles, though, our preferences had yet to coalesce, the choice between the two still very much dependent on “which brand you’ve sold your soul to,” according to senior editor Jared Gall. Which is why both of these models are still around after so many years, stronger than ever. While the Ford lacks the latest Chevy’s masterful ride and handling, it packs greater style and is easier to live with as a daily driver. And despite the Mustang’s fussier engine and drivetrain, the greater effort needed to wring the most out of it can be highly rewarding and fun.

Ford says it is committed to developing the Mustang even further for the 2018 model, with a raft of changes that both align it better with the Camaro and address many of our complaints. Those alterations include more-powerful engines, an active exhaust system, an updated manual gearbox, revised suspensions with available magnetorheological dampers, and an optional 10-speed automatic transmission.

So the changes keep coming. We just hope Ford doesn’t refine the fun out of it. But that could never happen, could it?

 

Rants & Raves

“The engine makes a great sound, but it’s just not loud enough. I want more auditory drama from a V-8 called Coyote.” –Joseph Capparella

“I just feel so bad-ass behind the wheel of this thing, and I don’t get that feeling in the Camaro.” –Drew Dorian

“The thunking sounds that come from the drivetrain on upshifts kinda ruin this otherwise excellent car.” –Rusty Blackwell

“It’s 74 degrees and sunny out. This car is hotter than the surface of the sun, and the A/C is having a really hard time doing anything about it.” –Jeff Sabatini

“Although the latest Camaro steers better, rides better, and generally drives better, I think Ford did a vastly superior job stylistically.” –Dave VanderWerp

“The Recaro’s bolsters are so big that I have to somehow reach around them to shift, and they render the armrest on the center console useless.” –Jennifer Harrington

“I feel much more comfortable in the Stang than I do in the Camaro, not just because of visibility concerns but also because of the seating position.” –Joseph Capparella

“The interior overall seems cheap for a $40,000 car, with lots of hard plastic.” –Dave VanderWerp