Edmunds Comparo & Video - Ford Mustang GT vs Nissan 370Z
03-12-2009, 11:52 AM
#1
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmunds Comparo & Video - Ford Mustang GT vs Nissan 370Z Two Legends Face Off
Both of these cars will hit 60 mph in 5.2 seconds and run the quarter in 13.5 seconds.
By Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor
Date posted: 03-10-2009
When we last left the 2009 Nissan 370Z, it had just laid a drubbing on BMW's little 135i. We then proclaimed, "The 2009 Nissan 370Z raises the standard for the sport coupe segment to a new level of affordable excellence."
Time to get more serious. It's V8 time. Who's in? Let's see, no Camaro, and a Challenger is not available (don't ask), so that leaves the freshly updated 2010 Ford Mustang GT, a car whose very existence is predicated upon wallet-friendly performance.
Perhaps a reinvigorated veteran can take down the newly crowned king. The particulars might differ — four seats versus two, V8 versus V6 — but the mission is the same. And the 2009 Nissan 370Z and 2010 Ford Mustang GT are priced closer than you might think.
Line 'Em Up
A mismatch this is not, as this Mustang GT is priced within a few thousand bucks of the 370Z.
We tested a 2010 Ford Mustang GT Premium Coupe outfitted with the Track Pack, which includes revised dampers, a shorter 3.73:1 axle ratio, a limited-slip differential, better brakes, 19-inch wheels, wider summer performance tires and a few suspension underpinnings pilfered from the Shelby GT500. Add in comfort items and other non-performance options and our tester rings up to $34,775.
As before, our 2009 Nissan 370Z Touring stands in the opposite corner, fresh from our long-term test fleet. It wears the Sport package, which adds bigger brakes, a manual transmission with rev-matching shifting capability, a limited-slip diff, and 19-inch wheels and wider rubber. Our 370Z is also equipped with a $1,850 navigation system that Ford offers but our test car lacks, and its MSRP just crests $40 large at $40,320.
Bottom line, we've essentially gathered the most expensive versions of both cars. Not by choice, it just worked out that way. But they can both be bought for less, much less, and with all their good go-fast parts. In other words, there are cheaper versions of these cars that will perform the same as these loaded examples, only without a few comfort extras. The base price on a Mustang GT Premium is $30,995, while a 370Z starts at $29,930. Add the Track Package to the Mustang and your MSRP is $32,494. Add the Sport Package to the Z and you're looking at $33,625.
But is the new 370Z really worth more than the new Mustang in an economy as brutal as this one? We aimed to find out.
The Light Goes Green
One's more practical than the other; take a guess which one.
Go ahead; pick a car, any car. Both of them will reach 60 mph in 5.2 seconds (4.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). Similarly, the Z runs the quarter in 13.5 seconds at 103.7 mph and the Mustang a nearly identical 13.5 at 102.9 mph. If their straight-line performance was any closer we'd have to start splitting atoms to measure the difference. And before you ask, we filled the Mustang with premium (91 octane) fuel, which Ford says fattens up the torque curve without affecting the peak.
The difference between the two lies in the power delivery. With better gearing and less weight, the 3,374-pound 370Z's speed sneaks up on you. The 7,500-rpm reach of its 3.7-liter V6 is far around the tachometer dial, and there are no flat spots in the power delivery all the way up to the 332-horsepower peak at 7,000 rpm.
However, the coarse sounds and vibration of this V6 mean you have to grit your teeth and force yourself to keep the throttle floored past 6,000 rpm. Like other Nissans equipped with this powertrain, the din is accompanied by a gearlever that sizzles frantically with high-frequency vibration. We're fans of earlier iterations of Nissan's VQ-Series V6, but the 370Z's VQ37HR could use some finishing school.
If you're cynical, the 2010 Ford Mustang's three-valve 4.6-liter V8 can be thought of as a weaponized version of an engine that dates back nearly a decade and a half (though not that much further than the VQ-Series V6, really). Yet this mill doesn't betray its age willingly. The benefits of continuous improvement are evident in its tractability and willingness to run happily on regular-grade 87 octane fuel.
The 315-hp Mustang's V8 doesn't two-by-four you in the chest when you mat the throttle off idle and then fall on its face, wheezing like some pony car of old. Instead, the torque is soft down low, stacking up progressively as the revs pile on. It needs to be above 3,000 rpm before the V8 starts cashing the checks written by its intake note.
And it is some intake note — Ford has done a stupendous job of replicating the gloriously guttural bark of 1960s-era Mustangs, and it renders the Z's grating high-rpm warble that much more intolerable. The urge to scale and descend the Mustang's rev range just to savor it is irresistible.
A Bend in the Road
Chasing a Z down this road won't end well for the Mustang.
Despite the Track Pack's shorter 3.73:1 rear end, the 3,572-pound Mustang is still geared too tall. This dulls the V8's snappiness, an impression exacerbated by the Mustang's overly soft engine mounts. As a result, driveline lash is a companion at low speeds. Pay close attention and you can also feel the powertrain lurching about during quick transient handling maneuvers, such as rapid lane changes.
With that said, the Mustang's initial turn into a corner is immediate, almost disconcertingly so since the steering is lifeless and doesn't build effort commensurate with the movements of the chassis. The new car is an improvement over previous Mustangs, but it doesn't hold a candle to the way the 2009 Nissan 370Z responds to steering inputs.
No review involving the 2010 Ford Mustang would be complete without addressing the live axle. It has its benefits for launching and on billiard-table-smooth road-racing tracks, yet makes its compromises known to you in the real world far too often. Years of development still haven't reversed physics, and you're reminded of this every time the Mustang's rear end encounters a bump and pitches you vertically like a toddler on a parent's knee.
Find a blemish-free stretch of tarmac and the Mustang is an engaging companion, though we expected the Track Pack to be a bit sharper in controlling roll and pitch. The balance is there, though, as long as you let the chassis take a set. Then you can easily transition between steady-state understeer and easily controllable throttle steer. It's fun in the hooligan way that Mustangs have always been, just with a bit more control than before.
Hard braking with the Mustang results in a lot of nose dive and some seriously rapid deceleration — it comes to a halt from 60 mph in just 107 feet, which betters the performance turned in by the Z by just a foot. It's the Z's binders we lust after, though — unlike the Mustang, the 370's pedal feel is consistently solid whether you're strafing the canyons or crawling in gridlock.
Stretching the Gap
The Mustang's Track Pack adds firmer dampers, a shorter rear end and stiffer suspension underpinnings.
If the 2010 Mustang proves a surprisingly capable handler, then the Z is nevertheless in another galaxy. You can see this in the way the 370Z grips harder on the skid pad at 0.94g to the Mustang's 0.91g, but the differences in capability are more prominently evidenced in the slalom. Here, the Z changes direction with more immediacy, returning a 72-mph slalom speed to the Mustang's 68.4 mph.
Putting aside the numbers, you get the first clue of the Z's sporting intent before you're even moving. The steering wheel's sculpted grips hint at what's to come when you bend the car through a chicane. The 370Z's helm is a revelation, quicker and far more precise than the Mustang, with a sporting heft and a chatty nature. Cornering loads build in direct proportion to the steering wheel input angle in a way that's intuitive and confidence-inspiring. You'd be hard-pressed to find better steering anywhere. Jump into the 370Z after wheeling the Mustang and you'll wonder why the Mustang is so sloppy.
The Z's responses are devoid of slack, yet this focus doesn't have the usual tradeoff of a jolting ride. This is a chassis that never needs to take a set — the Z is always poised.
Then there's SynchroRev Match, a feature that every automaker ought to be scrambling to try to replicate. Not only does it let you focus on your braking points when you're driving with full commitment, it also aids in providing engine braking in the crush of traffic. Simply put, it's the most brilliant enhancement to doing it manually since the blow-up doll.
That's not to say that the 370Z's transmission does everything perfectly. Upshifts suffer from a slightly sticky gearchange and the clutch takeup could be more progressive. These aren't showstoppers, but nailing details like these would propel the Z to the sports car elite.
Both of these cars will hit 60 mph in 5.2 seconds and run the quarter in 13.5 seconds.
By Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor
Date posted: 03-10-2009
When we last left the 2009 Nissan 370Z, it had just laid a drubbing on BMW's little 135i. We then proclaimed, "The 2009 Nissan 370Z raises the standard for the sport coupe segment to a new level of affordable excellence."
Time to get more serious. It's V8 time. Who's in? Let's see, no Camaro, and a Challenger is not available (don't ask), so that leaves the freshly updated 2010 Ford Mustang GT, a car whose very existence is predicated upon wallet-friendly performance.
Perhaps a reinvigorated veteran can take down the newly crowned king. The particulars might differ — four seats versus two, V8 versus V6 — but the mission is the same. And the 2009 Nissan 370Z and 2010 Ford Mustang GT are priced closer than you might think.
Line 'Em Up
A mismatch this is not, as this Mustang GT is priced within a few thousand bucks of the 370Z.
We tested a 2010 Ford Mustang GT Premium Coupe outfitted with the Track Pack, which includes revised dampers, a shorter 3.73:1 axle ratio, a limited-slip differential, better brakes, 19-inch wheels, wider summer performance tires and a few suspension underpinnings pilfered from the Shelby GT500. Add in comfort items and other non-performance options and our tester rings up to $34,775.
As before, our 2009 Nissan 370Z Touring stands in the opposite corner, fresh from our long-term test fleet. It wears the Sport package, which adds bigger brakes, a manual transmission with rev-matching shifting capability, a limited-slip diff, and 19-inch wheels and wider rubber. Our 370Z is also equipped with a $1,850 navigation system that Ford offers but our test car lacks, and its MSRP just crests $40 large at $40,320.
Bottom line, we've essentially gathered the most expensive versions of both cars. Not by choice, it just worked out that way. But they can both be bought for less, much less, and with all their good go-fast parts. In other words, there are cheaper versions of these cars that will perform the same as these loaded examples, only without a few comfort extras. The base price on a Mustang GT Premium is $30,995, while a 370Z starts at $29,930. Add the Track Package to the Mustang and your MSRP is $32,494. Add the Sport Package to the Z and you're looking at $33,625.
But is the new 370Z really worth more than the new Mustang in an economy as brutal as this one? We aimed to find out.
The Light Goes Green
One's more practical than the other; take a guess which one.
Go ahead; pick a car, any car. Both of them will reach 60 mph in 5.2 seconds (4.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). Similarly, the Z runs the quarter in 13.5 seconds at 103.7 mph and the Mustang a nearly identical 13.5 at 102.9 mph. If their straight-line performance was any closer we'd have to start splitting atoms to measure the difference. And before you ask, we filled the Mustang with premium (91 octane) fuel, which Ford says fattens up the torque curve without affecting the peak.
The difference between the two lies in the power delivery. With better gearing and less weight, the 3,374-pound 370Z's speed sneaks up on you. The 7,500-rpm reach of its 3.7-liter V6 is far around the tachometer dial, and there are no flat spots in the power delivery all the way up to the 332-horsepower peak at 7,000 rpm.
However, the coarse sounds and vibration of this V6 mean you have to grit your teeth and force yourself to keep the throttle floored past 6,000 rpm. Like other Nissans equipped with this powertrain, the din is accompanied by a gearlever that sizzles frantically with high-frequency vibration. We're fans of earlier iterations of Nissan's VQ-Series V6, but the 370Z's VQ37HR could use some finishing school.
If you're cynical, the 2010 Ford Mustang's three-valve 4.6-liter V8 can be thought of as a weaponized version of an engine that dates back nearly a decade and a half (though not that much further than the VQ-Series V6, really). Yet this mill doesn't betray its age willingly. The benefits of continuous improvement are evident in its tractability and willingness to run happily on regular-grade 87 octane fuel.
The 315-hp Mustang's V8 doesn't two-by-four you in the chest when you mat the throttle off idle and then fall on its face, wheezing like some pony car of old. Instead, the torque is soft down low, stacking up progressively as the revs pile on. It needs to be above 3,000 rpm before the V8 starts cashing the checks written by its intake note.
And it is some intake note — Ford has done a stupendous job of replicating the gloriously guttural bark of 1960s-era Mustangs, and it renders the Z's grating high-rpm warble that much more intolerable. The urge to scale and descend the Mustang's rev range just to savor it is irresistible.
A Bend in the Road
Chasing a Z down this road won't end well for the Mustang.
Despite the Track Pack's shorter 3.73:1 rear end, the 3,572-pound Mustang is still geared too tall. This dulls the V8's snappiness, an impression exacerbated by the Mustang's overly soft engine mounts. As a result, driveline lash is a companion at low speeds. Pay close attention and you can also feel the powertrain lurching about during quick transient handling maneuvers, such as rapid lane changes.
With that said, the Mustang's initial turn into a corner is immediate, almost disconcertingly so since the steering is lifeless and doesn't build effort commensurate with the movements of the chassis. The new car is an improvement over previous Mustangs, but it doesn't hold a candle to the way the 2009 Nissan 370Z responds to steering inputs.
No review involving the 2010 Ford Mustang would be complete without addressing the live axle. It has its benefits for launching and on billiard-table-smooth road-racing tracks, yet makes its compromises known to you in the real world far too often. Years of development still haven't reversed physics, and you're reminded of this every time the Mustang's rear end encounters a bump and pitches you vertically like a toddler on a parent's knee.
Find a blemish-free stretch of tarmac and the Mustang is an engaging companion, though we expected the Track Pack to be a bit sharper in controlling roll and pitch. The balance is there, though, as long as you let the chassis take a set. Then you can easily transition between steady-state understeer and easily controllable throttle steer. It's fun in the hooligan way that Mustangs have always been, just with a bit more control than before.
Hard braking with the Mustang results in a lot of nose dive and some seriously rapid deceleration — it comes to a halt from 60 mph in just 107 feet, which betters the performance turned in by the Z by just a foot. It's the Z's binders we lust after, though — unlike the Mustang, the 370's pedal feel is consistently solid whether you're strafing the canyons or crawling in gridlock.
Stretching the Gap
The Mustang's Track Pack adds firmer dampers, a shorter rear end and stiffer suspension underpinnings.
If the 2010 Mustang proves a surprisingly capable handler, then the Z is nevertheless in another galaxy. You can see this in the way the 370Z grips harder on the skid pad at 0.94g to the Mustang's 0.91g, but the differences in capability are more prominently evidenced in the slalom. Here, the Z changes direction with more immediacy, returning a 72-mph slalom speed to the Mustang's 68.4 mph.
Putting aside the numbers, you get the first clue of the Z's sporting intent before you're even moving. The steering wheel's sculpted grips hint at what's to come when you bend the car through a chicane. The 370Z's helm is a revelation, quicker and far more precise than the Mustang, with a sporting heft and a chatty nature. Cornering loads build in direct proportion to the steering wheel input angle in a way that's intuitive and confidence-inspiring. You'd be hard-pressed to find better steering anywhere. Jump into the 370Z after wheeling the Mustang and you'll wonder why the Mustang is so sloppy.
The Z's responses are devoid of slack, yet this focus doesn't have the usual tradeoff of a jolting ride. This is a chassis that never needs to take a set — the Z is always poised.
Then there's SynchroRev Match, a feature that every automaker ought to be scrambling to try to replicate. Not only does it let you focus on your braking points when you're driving with full commitment, it also aids in providing engine braking in the crush of traffic. Simply put, it's the most brilliant enhancement to doing it manually since the blow-up doll.
That's not to say that the 370Z's transmission does everything perfectly. Upshifts suffer from a slightly sticky gearchange and the clutch takeup could be more progressive. These aren't showstoppers, but nailing details like these would propel the Z to the sports car elite.
03-12-2009, 11:52 AM
#2
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Living in Style
On roads like this one, the 370Z is in its element.
Noticeable improvements in materials quality and NVH were part of the 2010 Ford Mustang's design brief, and you can see it in the soft-touch dashboard materials and hear it in the lack of road and wind noise.
Yet certain aspects of the Mustang's cabin frustrate us — its retro-style gauges belong back in the 1960s, as they're not only illegible but also are prone to being obscured by stray reflections. The cruise control interface was crummy a decade ago. Plus, the steering wheel is too large and its clunky spokes discourage optimum nine-and-three hand placement. But, hey, you can choose from hundreds of different interior lighting color schemes. Really, when it comes to design nuances in a performance car, this isn't what we had in mind.
On the plus side, there's a sense of spaciousness in the Mustang that the Z-car can't match, and the Ford's seats are more comfortable than the Z's, if not quite as supportive. And practicality is a no-brainer — the Mustang has rear seats, and small as they are, this fact alone goes a long way toward daily-driver viability.
If you shied away from the plasticky 350Z, fear not the 370Z. The 2009 Nissan 370Z's cabin is finished to a much higher standard, with synthetic suede and high-quality trimmings. There are lots of gauges and they're all legible, the centerpiece being a huge tachometer that dominates the instrument cluster like the eye of Cyclops.
At the same time, the Z-car is a much more intimate place than the Mustang's cabin, so make sure you shower before picking up your date (don't ask how we know this). You'll also want to be careful when backing out of your beau's driveway, too — that monolithic C-pillar could blot out a Brinks truck.
Wrap Up
There's no mistaking these superstars for anything else.
Large, gregarious and sporting a fan base of Americans millions strong despite its flaws, the 2010 Ford Mustang is the Rush Limbaugh of cars. It might be outclassed by the 2009 Nissan 370Z, but for many the charms of the Mustang cannot be replaced. At $35 grand, though, the Mustang GT is a tough sell. If you're willing to forgo some amenities, you could have a Mustang GT that performs similarly to our tester for a bit less money. That's the Mustang we'd prefer.
When it comes to delivering the best things about performance cars, the Z-car is a decathlete that leaps higher, throws farther and swims harder than the rest. If you can make the financial stretch for it, the 2009 Nissan 370Z will provide all the stimulus you need.
1ST PLACE - Nissan 370Z
Sharp, rewarding and fast, the Z cements its reputation as a performance car to be reckoned with.
2ND PLACE - Ford Mustang GT
Fantastic V8 soundtrack with a dose of practicality at the expense of capability and communication.
Second Opinion
Lead Senior Editor Ed Hellwig says:
This is a "marry versus date" decision to some degree. The Nissan 370Z? Fun in short bursts, less so day-to-day. The Ford Mustang? A bore on roads that should be fun, yet shockingly comfortable everywhere else.
So which way would I go if it were my name on the check? Sorry, Ford. The 370Z would get my money.
I mean let's face it. If you're going to buy a car like this, practicality and comfort are already out the window. And as close as these cars are in a straight line, the Nissan will walk away from the Mustang at the first sign of a turn.
And can somebody explain to me why the 370Z feels so tractable around town with usable low-end power, while the Mustang is soft anywhere below 3,500 rpm? Uh, isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
And the Mustang's brakes? Steering? Shifter? It's not even a contest.
So yeah, as much as I root for the home team and savor the sound of a V8, it's the Nissan 370Z that would make me feel like I was getting my money's worth.
Performance
0 - 30 (sec): 2.0
0 - 45 (sec): 3.5
0 - 60 (sec): 5.2
0 - 75 (sec): 7.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.5 @ 103.7
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.9
30 - 0 (ft): 26
60 - 0 (ft): 108
Braking Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very Good
Slalom (mph): 72.0
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.94
Handling Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very Good
Db @ Idle: 49.2
Db @ Full Throttle: 82.7
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 70.3
Acceleration Comments: More revs are required here to get a sub 5.5-second 60-mph time, but I essentially use the same technique. The Z doesn't seem to like a lot of wheelspin -- it only gets slower. So getting the clutch out quickly and using WOT early is the key. This engine doesn't inspire at high rpm, but it does make power and it lends itself to hard driving in a way the Mustang's V8 never could.
Handling Comments: The more time I spend in the Z, the more comfortable I become. As of now, I've yet to drive it on the street -- only track testing. Still, it speaks volumes that my first run through the slalom in the Z was quicker than my best run in the Mustang. This is a communicative, direct-responding, focused sports car and it shows when it's asked to turn. Fun and fast. Around the skid pad there's immense grip, which seems to increase in direct proportion to how hard it's pushed. The rear doesn't want to step out and won't until something drastic (like instantly snapping off the throttle) is done. Even then, it's asking the driver if he really, really wants to do this. But it will play tail out it you want. And it's fun.
Braking Comments: Very good distance and pedal feel. We're not anywhere near approaching the thermal limits of these brakes in the succession of stops completed for this test.
0 - 30 (sec): 2.1
0 - 45 (sec): 3.4
0 - 60 (sec): 5.2
0 - 75 (sec): 7.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.5 @ 102.9
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.9
30 - 0 (ft): 27
60 - 0 (ft): 107
Braking Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very Good
Slalom (mph): 68.4
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.91
Handling Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Good
Acceleration Comments: Easy to launch. Best technique is to let the clutch out quickly at relatively low rpm and then use the torque to pull through the rest of 1st gear without wheelspin. I drop the clutch from below 3K rpm and transition immediately to WOT. Good shifter -- direct without being too high effort. And thanks to the intake honkus, I like the engine noise. This feels and sounds like a pony car. If nothing else, Ford has that nailed.
Handling Comments: "Overall, the Mustang is predictable and easy to throw around. Fun, even. Its limits are higher than before but it's difficult to take it seriously as a handling machine when compared to something like the Z. Still, around the pad, it's totally mild mannered and controllable -- even a knuckle dragger could powerslide this thing until it had no rear tires. Through the slalom its instant turn-in takes some adjustment but it transitions well for a live-axle car and remains impressively composed. Overall, an improvement from the last car."
Braking Comments: Short stopping distance is a surprise.
On roads like this one, the 370Z is in its element.
Noticeable improvements in materials quality and NVH were part of the 2010 Ford Mustang's design brief, and you can see it in the soft-touch dashboard materials and hear it in the lack of road and wind noise.
Yet certain aspects of the Mustang's cabin frustrate us — its retro-style gauges belong back in the 1960s, as they're not only illegible but also are prone to being obscured by stray reflections. The cruise control interface was crummy a decade ago. Plus, the steering wheel is too large and its clunky spokes discourage optimum nine-and-three hand placement. But, hey, you can choose from hundreds of different interior lighting color schemes. Really, when it comes to design nuances in a performance car, this isn't what we had in mind.
On the plus side, there's a sense of spaciousness in the Mustang that the Z-car can't match, and the Ford's seats are more comfortable than the Z's, if not quite as supportive. And practicality is a no-brainer — the Mustang has rear seats, and small as they are, this fact alone goes a long way toward daily-driver viability.
If you shied away from the plasticky 350Z, fear not the 370Z. The 2009 Nissan 370Z's cabin is finished to a much higher standard, with synthetic suede and high-quality trimmings. There are lots of gauges and they're all legible, the centerpiece being a huge tachometer that dominates the instrument cluster like the eye of Cyclops.
At the same time, the Z-car is a much more intimate place than the Mustang's cabin, so make sure you shower before picking up your date (don't ask how we know this). You'll also want to be careful when backing out of your beau's driveway, too — that monolithic C-pillar could blot out a Brinks truck.
Wrap Up
There's no mistaking these superstars for anything else.
Large, gregarious and sporting a fan base of Americans millions strong despite its flaws, the 2010 Ford Mustang is the Rush Limbaugh of cars. It might be outclassed by the 2009 Nissan 370Z, but for many the charms of the Mustang cannot be replaced. At $35 grand, though, the Mustang GT is a tough sell. If you're willing to forgo some amenities, you could have a Mustang GT that performs similarly to our tester for a bit less money. That's the Mustang we'd prefer.
When it comes to delivering the best things about performance cars, the Z-car is a decathlete that leaps higher, throws farther and swims harder than the rest. If you can make the financial stretch for it, the 2009 Nissan 370Z will provide all the stimulus you need.
1ST PLACE - Nissan 370Z
Sharp, rewarding and fast, the Z cements its reputation as a performance car to be reckoned with.
2ND PLACE - Ford Mustang GT
Fantastic V8 soundtrack with a dose of practicality at the expense of capability and communication.
Second Opinion
Lead Senior Editor Ed Hellwig says:
This is a "marry versus date" decision to some degree. The Nissan 370Z? Fun in short bursts, less so day-to-day. The Ford Mustang? A bore on roads that should be fun, yet shockingly comfortable everywhere else.
So which way would I go if it were my name on the check? Sorry, Ford. The 370Z would get my money.
I mean let's face it. If you're going to buy a car like this, practicality and comfort are already out the window. And as close as these cars are in a straight line, the Nissan will walk away from the Mustang at the first sign of a turn.
And can somebody explain to me why the 370Z feels so tractable around town with usable low-end power, while the Mustang is soft anywhere below 3,500 rpm? Uh, isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
And the Mustang's brakes? Steering? Shifter? It's not even a contest.
So yeah, as much as I root for the home team and savor the sound of a V8, it's the Nissan 370Z that would make me feel like I was getting my money's worth.
Performance
0 - 30 (sec): 2.0
0 - 45 (sec): 3.5
0 - 60 (sec): 5.2
0 - 75 (sec): 7.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.5 @ 103.7
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.9
30 - 0 (ft): 26
60 - 0 (ft): 108
Braking Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very Good
Slalom (mph): 72.0
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.94
Handling Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very Good
Db @ Idle: 49.2
Db @ Full Throttle: 82.7
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 70.3
Acceleration Comments: More revs are required here to get a sub 5.5-second 60-mph time, but I essentially use the same technique. The Z doesn't seem to like a lot of wheelspin -- it only gets slower. So getting the clutch out quickly and using WOT early is the key. This engine doesn't inspire at high rpm, but it does make power and it lends itself to hard driving in a way the Mustang's V8 never could.
Handling Comments: The more time I spend in the Z, the more comfortable I become. As of now, I've yet to drive it on the street -- only track testing. Still, it speaks volumes that my first run through the slalom in the Z was quicker than my best run in the Mustang. This is a communicative, direct-responding, focused sports car and it shows when it's asked to turn. Fun and fast. Around the skid pad there's immense grip, which seems to increase in direct proportion to how hard it's pushed. The rear doesn't want to step out and won't until something drastic (like instantly snapping off the throttle) is done. Even then, it's asking the driver if he really, really wants to do this. But it will play tail out it you want. And it's fun.
Braking Comments: Very good distance and pedal feel. We're not anywhere near approaching the thermal limits of these brakes in the succession of stops completed for this test.
0 - 30 (sec): 2.1
0 - 45 (sec): 3.4
0 - 60 (sec): 5.2
0 - 75 (sec): 7.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.5 @ 102.9
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.9
30 - 0 (ft): 27
60 - 0 (ft): 107
Braking Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very Good
Slalom (mph): 68.4
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.91
Handling Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Good
Acceleration Comments: Easy to launch. Best technique is to let the clutch out quickly at relatively low rpm and then use the torque to pull through the rest of 1st gear without wheelspin. I drop the clutch from below 3K rpm and transition immediately to WOT. Good shifter -- direct without being too high effort. And thanks to the intake honkus, I like the engine noise. This feels and sounds like a pony car. If nothing else, Ford has that nailed.
Handling Comments: "Overall, the Mustang is predictable and easy to throw around. Fun, even. Its limits are higher than before but it's difficult to take it seriously as a handling machine when compared to something like the Z. Still, around the pad, it's totally mild mannered and controllable -- even a knuckle dragger could powerslide this thing until it had no rear tires. Through the slalom its instant turn-in takes some adjustment but it transitions well for a live-axle car and remains impressively composed. Overall, an improvement from the last car."
Braking Comments: Short stopping distance is a surprise.
03-12-2009, 04:00 PM
#6
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd take the Mustang and keep $6000 in my pocket. Besides what happened to the Z's styling, it looks like somebodys behind it pulling its ears?
My friend had a '75 260z, that was a sexy car.
My friend had a '75 260z, that was a sexy car.
Trending Topics
03-12-2009, 04:24 PM
#8
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But between those two I'd pick the Mustang. But for $35k I'd take a Challenger R/T (I know it's heavy and slower than my 4th Gen) but that car is pure sex.
03-12-2009, 10:31 PM
#11
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the new Z-Car and thought about getting a 350Z...however I cannot get over a V8's soundtrack and that is why the GT wins for me. I want to see these two compete with the new SS 
W
W
03-13-2009, 10:26 AM
#12
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Western Kentucky
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just had a thought. The Mustang GT is known for being a base price performance car. And yet it hangs with a car (370Z) that is designed to be a road coarse brawler king of the hill at 30k range price. I'd say the GT is a bargain. Its detuned compared to the 370Z. The Zs motor is probably working harder hence less reliable. And if we REALLY wanted to compare a Mustang ready to run toss the GT500 at the 370z and watch the stang destroy it, track course what ever. Any tuner GT (Saleen, Roush, etc) all will walk the fully loaded 40k 370Z and for near the same price.
03-13-2009, 10:21 PM
#14
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again... sports car vs. pony car. The Mustang is close in a straight line. Some people care about more than a straight line. Those are people that buy sports cars instead of pony cars.
03-14-2009, 01:55 AM
#15
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just had a thought. The Mustang GT is known for being a base price performance car. And yet it hangs with a car (370Z) that is designed to be a road coarse brawler king of the hill at 30k range price. I'd say the GT is a bargain. Its detuned compared to the 370Z. The Zs motor is probably working harder hence less reliable. And if we REALLY wanted to compare a Mustang ready to run toss the GT500 at the 370z and watch the stang destroy it, track course what ever. Any tuner GT (Saleen, Roush, etc) all will walk the fully loaded 40k 370Z and for near the same price.
Seems like you're trying to make the mustang out to be better than what it is. It's a decent car that just so happened to get beat by a 6cyl. Check the other magazine test in this section, where the 370z clocked in at 107+mph trap speed.
How silly is it to compare tuners to stock cars, hell, lets compare a GTR to a mustang GT.
03-14-2009, 01:58 AM
#16
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on the weight. With the turbos, extra piping, intercooler, etc..... it might add a 100+lbs to the weight of the vehicle.
03-14-2009, 09:39 PM
#19
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3v 4.6 is by no means "old and outdated"... it was just released in 2005. But I do agree that anybody who buys a 2010 GT will feel a bit undersold in a few months.
03-14-2009, 11:41 PM
#20
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The 3v 4.6 is by no means "old and outdated"... it was just released in 2005. But I do agree that anybody who buys a 2010 GT will feel a bit undersold in a few months."
I like the new Stang...but I am inclined to say that engine is a bit long in the tooth.
W
I like the new Stang...but I am inclined to say that engine is a bit long in the tooth.
W