I think I remember reading that the take rate for automatics on the Mustang is like 70%, which is about the same for the V6. It is those 'secretary special' cars that enable Ford to build the GT, Boss, GT500/whatever. Praise little baby Jesus for those cars!

Yep! Now, I hear the new Mustang is going to get a ten-speed auto? Insane. The other thing that impacts this actually feeling the shifts and torque converter lockup. In my old Sable and Taurus, I could feel every shift, and knew exactly when the torque converter locked. In my wife's C300, her previous C280, and…

Because most people can't be counted on to accurately determine when a car is shifting, let alone keep track of what gear they're in. My daily is a Mustang GT with a manual, and I always know what gear I'm in, always. When I'm driving my wife's C300 Sport, I have no idea. Hell, I don't even know how many gears it…

I've had my eye on a new car to replace my 2006 Mustang GT, and the choice is really between a Mustang GT, Chevy SS, and Dodge Charger Daytona. Only one offers a manual transmission.

Needs moar shaker.

Uh huh.

How about matching price tags, then? Lets load the Mustang up with all the performance goodies that the approximately $25k price difference nets me - race compound rubber, vastly upgraded brakes, stiffer suspension, etc, etc, etc. Hell, I won't even make any changes to the engine.

The standard M3 wears Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tires in 245 and 265 widths, front and rear.

Boss 302 Laguna Seca ~$46k.
M3 (base) ~$60k.

You're going to quibble about 0.1 second, which is easily attributed to cheaper, less sticky tires on the Mustang?

Oh, also, the Mustang that nearly beat the M3 (lost on a road course by 0.1 sec) was the GT, not the Boss 302 or Boss 302 Laguna Seca.

No, the M3's equivalent is at least two Mustang GTs.

Yes, but the question is whether Ford's penny pinching accountants have learned their lesson, or not.

The cost of adding it to a chassis is somewhat irrelevant when the cost of the actual components are much higher. The IRS in the Cobra didn't break because it was retrofit onto a chassis not designed for it, it broke because they used cheap components to keep the cost down. I'm, frankly, worried about the same thing…

He's saying that the IRS will be compromised to keep costs down, similar to the IRS in the 03' - 04' Terminator Cobra. Many of those cars have been converted to live axles because the components that Ford used were cheap, and broke easily. Heck, Chevy did the same thing with the new Camaro, and early models were…

Comment of the year.

Tell that to the IRS-equipped M3. That the live axle-equipped Mustang GT came close to beating on a road course.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. I knew that both the Ford and Chevy engines were OHV, despite Ford not building a pushrod V8 in...10 years? 20?

I love the individual carbon fiber throttle bodies!

Agreed. I told my wife when I saw the pictures, this is the only part of the design I don't like.