Face Off: 2010 Mustang GT vs. 2009 Nissan 370Z
In Face Off, we will pit cars against each other, but instead of the full-blown, highly scrutinized, professional comparison test, this is something different. One editor will defend the honor of one car, and make the case for why they would buy it -- and why the other guy is wrong. In the end, you can decide who wins.
While last week's undercard bout pitted the Range Rover Supercharged against the Mercedes-Benz G550, this week's main event is entirely different weight class: the 2010 Ford Mustang GT versus the 2009 Nissan 370Z. Both have trained hard in the off-season and undertaken some corrective cosmetic surgery. Think of this as a companion to the Inside Line brawl that gave the decision to the Z. Will the fans award a knockout this time? The fighters are entering the ring for this real-deal, rear-wheel automobile smackdown. Let's get ready to grumble!
Opening Arguments:
Mark Takahashi for the 2010 Ford Mustang GT
The new Mustang harkens back to a time before we obsessed over mutual funds, irritable bowel syndrome or which Disney star just imploded -- a time of Rock 'n' Roll, drag racing, denim and burgers with a generous serving of cool. This Mustang keeps that spirit alive and emerges with nothing but improvements over pony cars past: better handling dynamics, a quiet interior, a meaner nose, sculpted haunches, trick new taillights and a much improved interior. Now I'm not saying it's perfect, but I'll take edgy over clinical any day. And don't think that it's all sharp edges and bare metal, either. Nifty perks like Sync, customizable color lighting and a thumpin' sound system keep it well-rounded for daily use. Add in options like a glass roof, navigation and a rearview camera to watch your own burnout and you'll have a hard time wiping away my perma-grin.
Also, you just can't ignore the obvious practicality advantages the Mustang has over the Z -- the two additional seats and a trunk that can fit more than just Keira Knightley's swimsuit. You could take three friends to In 'n' Out Burgers or go on a cross-country road trip. Good luck in the Z. Plus, the 'Stang delivers something that the Zed can't, and never could. It's the bravado that comes with a big honkin' V8. There, I've said it -- I love displacement. If we lived in Canada, I'd marry it and make it mine.
James Riswick for the 2009 Nissan 370Z
You're right, the Mustang does harken back to an earlier time -- but so does my grandfather. It indeed boasts significant improvements over past pony cars, but that's a pretty low bar to hurdle. Wow, the solid rear axle is much better than the old solid rear axle. The steering has less Novocaine coursing through its pump than the old car. No thank you.
I'll take the Nissan 370Z, a thoroughly modern sports car designed in the here-and-now for people in the here-and-now. While the Mustang touts how it manages to mask its quaint underpinnings, the Z flaunts game-changing technology like the SynchroRev Match shifter. This is evolution of the species, the Mustang is Jurassic Park. If you look at simple track numbers, both cars are remarkably neck and neck. But in reality, they couldn't feel any different. There is a precision to the Nissan; a confident bond between Z and driver. It knows what I want and I know what the car is doing. Yet it's also reasonably refined for road trips and the daily slog.
I'll concede that the Z isn't very practical. No back seat and a tiny trunk could be a serious deal breaker for those who need it as their lone daily driver. But as long as the Z can haul Keira's swimsuit, that's good enough -- that just means she picked me and my Z rather than Grandpa Mark and his Mustang.
Rebuttals
Takahashi:
I admit, these middleweights are evenly matched ... on paper. Heck, I'll even give a nod to the Z's handling. But listen up my young Padawan, there is something so exquisite about wrestling a musclecar into shape (and performing REAL heel-toe downshifts). It's as rewarding as riding a racehorse or chasing kids off my lawn. The Mustang inspires me, while the Z is as soulless as Ben Stein reciting Piece of my Heart. In the Mustang, I'm Steve McQueen in Bullitt. In the Z I'm ummmm, geez, Bruce Willis in Blind Date? Puhleeeze. Bruce had it right in Pulp Fiction when he said, "Zed's dead, baby ... Zed's dead."
Riswick:
Didn't Bruce get with Kim Basinger in that movie? Who cares. If you take joy in wrestling a horse about, so be it, ride on cowboy. But allow me to switch gears (without heel-toeing) by bringing up the interior. While the Mustang's quality has improved dramatically from its wretched predecessor, it still feels bland and extremely dated. I find it depressing. The 370 is a big improvement from the 350, but its ambiance is borderline luxurious and conveys a distinct sporting intent. It inspires me to go fast for long periods of time. Sure, I can't see a bloody thing out the back, but the only thing I'm going to see back there is you power sliding into a Dutch Elm while I pull away, effortlessly cutting through Latigo Canyon Road with Keira Knightley cooing over my perfectly matched downshifts.
So, who wins?
- Posted by
- Mark Takahashi March 23, 2009, 12:01 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Ford, Nissan, Test Cars and Car Reviews
- Technorati Tags:
- 2009 Nissan 370Z, 2010 Mustang GT, Comparison, Face Off
The Mustang. 370Z looks like ass.
370Z wins hands down. We're talkin modern car vs. throwback nostalgia. Lose the rear axle, the engine thats about to burn a lot of oil once past 100k and hard plastic 1970's civic interior and then I'll be interested.
i'll take the Z over the mustang any day. Z looks worlds better and while it may not have the same power as the mustang, the fact that the 3.7L V6 can beat the V8 int he mustang just says a lot to me. while the Z has love it or hate it looks, the mustang just looks like the ford design team just got lazy. the last mustang looked horrible expect for a hand few ones and this one looks worse.
been in both the last Z and mustang and would have taken the Z back then as well. rode much better, handled better, and was faster. the mustang just sounded like it was going to die and was barely pulling its weight when driving. the Z on the other didn't feel like it was underpowered.
watching burnouts via the rearview camera? who does burnouts in reverse? i'd rather be sitting nearly on top of the wheels as they catch fire. Z car all the way
This is tough, because the Z is the better performance car.
I'd have to go with the Mustang though, it's more civilized ride, less frantic engine note, quieter interior, and back seat and trunk all win for me. It just needs a 6 speed and an IRS and I'm set.
Plus the Mustang can run on regular grade gas.
The Z outclasses the Mustang in every respect and is the claer winner. Neither car looks like "ass". But the Cx-7 does. :-)
Kids today. They want the gee-wiz features. Take me back to the good days. I'd have a lot more fun in the Mustang.
I don't live on or near a race track. I'll take the Mustang.
I'm going to call this one a tie. Although a few things match up on their respective spec sheets and invoices, these are really two different strokes for different folks.
I've heard Takahasi's argument about the Mustang's history more than once. That argument is null because the Z car has been around since 1969 as well.
The difference is that the Z has evolved and continually refined to meet the market at the time. The target is the ultimate sportscar for $35K and really the Z is a budget Cayman, not a econocar w/ a V8. Nissan actually spent time and money to develop a world class vehicle and answer the critics of the old model. They did that while keeping the price in check, raised the performance and quality and evoking the history of the Z car with shades of the '69 240Z in it.
Except Nissan doesn't use history as an excuse- they honor it by doing the best they can in 2009.
The lack of Mustang development is purely based on two things: lazyness and cheapness. How Ford can justify $35K for an aged platform recycled so many times Goodwill wouldn't accept it, is beyond me.
I understand the Mustang's appeal. It's got econobox practicality slapped with a V8. Great if they were charging $20K for it.
Not so great when I can get a G8 GT that is 200% more practical for the same price and could easily keep pace with it.
Mustang is an overpriced pretender making a farce of it's history.
I could only take the mustang. I need a car, not an overhyped and overpriced weekend go-kart.
And how can people say that the mustang lacks development when it pulls similar numbers to the "ultimate sportscar" z, while actually being as practical as a 3 series coupe?
Between the two, I'd take the Z every day of the week. The lights are a little funky, but the rest of the sheet metal is pure art. Maybe Nissan will tone down those lights in a mid-cycle refresh. I'm not a fan of the Mustang's brutishness, and I never will be. But I'm not the guy Ford had in mind when it designed the car, so that's okay.
If I really needed four usable seats along with my 300+ hp, and I do (need the four seats) in my non-hypothetical life, I'd choose something else altogether, perhaps a CPO 335 if we're sticking with the sub-40K thing.
I need to spend a month with each to decide. How do I sign up to be your Midwestern Tester?
Z wins! It's just a better sports car. The Mustang is more practical, but like edubya said, if I want a practical 4-door sports car, I'd look at the 3-series or the (prev-gen) Mazda 6 instead.
If I really wanted a good pony/muscle car, I'd wait for the new V6 Camaro.
People like cruiserhead write "the Z has evolved and continually refined" and "The lack of Mustang development is purely based on two things: lazyness and cheapness"
If you read the linked article, you'll see things like the following:
370Z: "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"
Mustang: "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."
Mixed: "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."
Which is more refined again?
You can argue points back and forth, but let's not bark how unrefined the Mustang is when the Nissan engine is crude.
"How Ford can justify $35K for an aged platform recycled so many times Goodwill wouldn't accept it, is beyond me."
Where the hell have you been? This ain't 2004 any longer. The old ancient platform argument is null as you say. Need I remind you the Mustang got a brand new platform with the 2005 redesign? Hardly recycled. And please do us all a favor and stay away from trying to make cheap jokes.
Cool, brand new live axle rear. That's an awesome upgrade. Restyle that looks the same as the last one. Brilliant.
solutions such as "the rear looks too chunky, lets cut the corners off at an angle and call it good."
Totally worth $35K
I wonder why more contemporary high performance cars don't use a live axle - I mean, it's just so totally awesome!
Out of curiosity, how many people here have ever driven a car with a solid rear axle?
I have an old jeep with solid front and rear axles (solid axles are great for additional wheel travel when offroading) which in my day to day life is no problem at all. The only time it's even noticable is IF you hit a substantial bump (like speed bump size) while going around a corner, and even then it doesn't really do anything bad or force you to lose control. Why are people harping on this single aspect of the mustang? Is that all we have to complain about?
solid axles are perfect for offroad. they are piss poor on a sportscar or any car that holds a standard on road handling performance.
That is not the only thing to complain about the Mustang. That is the huge cost cutting elephant that one must point to when you are asked to put up $30K+ on a sportscar.
Despite my criticisms, I really like the Mustang... at $20-25K.
cruiserhead, then you'll be delighted to know that the Mustang GT goes for well under $30K.
not well enough. I go by "as equipped" and not poverty pack. A proper GT is tickling $30-35K.
Poverty pack GT would be an exciting prospect at $20K.
Solid Axle in 2010, NO COMMENT.
I know the physical disadvantages of a solid axle, but all the reviews I've read have basically said that the handling and ride quality of the gt are excellent, despite the solid axle.
So once again, has anyone here really even driven a solid axle car, or are we just repeating the old "solid axle bad" mantra (just like the old "pushrod bad" one that still goes around) and using that to justify our opinion of the mustang without having even driven the two cars? Keep in mind we're talking 2010 to 2010 here.
Who doesn't love the sound of "american muscle", however what else does the mustang have really going for it. hmmmm, nothing. first off you have to compare the GT mustang which we all no is a V8 versus the Z cars V6. Heck the mustang V6 only produces 210hp as opposed to the Z's 332. The mustang is a bit antiquated at this point, seriously ford, you're still using a live axle on a sports car. Get with times like chevy did on the camaro. there's not much to be said about nostalgia in a shootout such as this.
Yes the numbers between the 2 cars are similar. But myself would take a car that I feel like I am connected to and has all the latest and greatest advancements. theres more to life than straight line runs. so the Z is my choice even with the ugly headlights and next to nothing for trunk space. oh-yeah and the "wind up toy" sounding engine.
Cruiserhead1 get some facts will yah?
How Ford can justify $35K for an aged platform recycled so many times Goodwill wouldn't accept it, is beyond me.
I love people who do not know what they are talking about, which I find increasingly disturbing on forums. For 2005 Ford dedicated for the first time in Mustang's history a platform just for this car. <-and it’s not shared with anything else.
"the 2005 Ford Mustang that was introduced in January as the first Mustang ever with its own dedicated platform." Source: http://www.maximum-cars.com/Cars/Car.php?carnumber=624
Now unlike the Mustang the Z actually shares its platform with the Infiniti G37 and has since its introduction of the 350Z.
Based on the same platform as the existing car and using a 3.7-litre version of the same V6 engine, the new 370Z is shorter, lighter and more powerful than the outgoing 350. Source: http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/car_news_article.aspx?cp-documentid=11119713
Based on the SAME platform as the outgoing car. Look up when the 350Z debuted and you will find that the Z platform is actually older than the Mustang!
People stop assuming that you know what you are talking about and actually read the facts!
Also I am tired of hearing oh the Mustang looks the same as it always has....well so do Porche, Corvette, Ferrari, GTR, Viper and so on....its called family lineage, its what makes the car what it is. I am sorry the Mustang actually has a soul and fantastic history (much better than the Z might I add: fastest selling car of all time, riots at dealerships, people sleeping in cars to make sure their checks cleared ring a bell? Circa April 17th 1964)I will never want the Mustang to look like anything else other than a MUSTANG!
The Z looks like a catfish! I'd take the Stang any day. A more comfortable ride, the monster stereo, two extra seats, and that beautiful V8 sound with some aftermarket pipes...oh yeah.
ignorance1, you just proved my point.
if the Mustang is newer, why does it still have the craptastic live axle?
Cheapness and lazyness. There is no other reason.
If I were building off a platform as brilliant as the Z's, I would not be ashamed.
The Mustang has most new body panels in this redesign yet was not worth it. I think the prev gen Mustang actually looks better because of the pure resemblance to the classic ones.
I like tradition but will hold any car to a high standard- and I'll call BS on them if they don't live up to it. I want a Mustang to look like a Mustang- but I want the BEST Ford can do. This is NOT the best Mustang Ford can make.
I want the BEST $30K Mustang Ford can make. Can Ford stand in front of you and say they did that with a straight face?
I would take the Mustang over the Z, but I think it's ridiculous that Ford is still using a solid rear axle in the Mustang. They can claim that that's what the Mustang faithful want, but it is really about a cash-strapped company cutting costs. A solid rear axle makes every day driving on uneven roads annoying. Disclosure: I have owned or leased a '99, '02 and '05 Mustang GT.
With that said, I still think the Mustang looks better than the Z, has that irreplacable V8 sound, and is more functional. I'm really impressed with the job they have done on the 2010, other than the continuation of the solid rear axle and the 5-spd manaual. 400 hp V8 and 6 spd are on the way for 2011, but no IRS.
To me the Z is a great car, looks decent and perfoms well, but just doesn't have the intangibles that the Mustang has.
I just sold the '05 because I need a sedan. If I were in the market for another $35K "sports" car, I would probably go with the new Camaro. Great looks, V8, and IRS.
I'm a man not a girl, i like to drive not sit back, i'll take the girl thats hotter over the two other one's that could fit in my back seat if i had one, i'll take 332 horse's with a sycro rev that can be turned OFF AND ON. o yeah and with no back seats that just means i'm bringing them home for sure. . . . and i can race you and symple beat you
Ford is lucky Nissan is only putting the VQ 37VHR engine in the Z.
Nissan has a VK56DE V8 that will fit.
Ford should be thankful Nissan has not taken the step and put their V8 in the Z because it will bring up that question how can the 560Z run the ¼ mile that much faster than a muscle car?
Why would you pay 30k for a car that has no technological firsts in today’s market?
Look at Chevy with the Camaro SS they got the picture faster than the mustang GT and 370z not to mention the price is lower too.
Did the Rustang fanboys have a chance to read this yet:
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.
I don't think that I understand, if performance is so much more important than practicality, then why even buy a car? Save $20,000 off the price of a z roadster and buy a sportbike. A sporbike handles far better, accelerates at bugatti pace, out brakes, and gets double the mpg of a z. The whole point of getting walls and a roof is as a compromise to performance for the sake of practicality. Why would I take the z, which seems to be no more practical for long cruises, foul weather, or people and luggage than a motorcycle?
It is a car that I need, I'll take a car that I can use as a daily driver or roadtripper, since otherwise I'll just take my old bike.
The Mustang is more convienient with 4 seats instead of two but the 370Z looks more like a sports car. They both are good but I think the Nissan 370Z wins.
The 370Z gets my vote. The Z's not only more involving but I could never buy a car that had those absolutely awful, dated, terrible, skinny font gauges that the Mustang has. Really its pitiful. I could not consciously buy a car that had gauges like that. Something small like that is very important.
The Mustang only because it has a back seat. You can pack your buddies along.
My friends and I had a Mitsu Eclipse in high school. I remember many night riding in the back seat.
God times.
A better comparison would be the Genesis Coupe vs the Mustang.
And Edmund's guys, the high revving of V-6 today is yesterday's V-8.
I'm not a "buy American" guy. I buy what I like. But eventhough taste is very subjective, I'd like to state that Nissan makes ugly cars. I had a Maxima SE and loved the car, but the car is ugly. I haven't liked any of the recent Nissan models. People like to talk about how a 6 cyl can compete with a V8, but how good is that if mpg doesn't necesarily favors the Z? That VQ35 or now VQ37 has been historically thirsty. It's like when people talk about the RX8's Rotary Tech... how good is it? How is that a better daily driver? I like the Mustang better. The tech is simple that it is very hard for it to go wrong. Has any of you been at a light next to a V8 Manual Tranny Mustang? That note is beautiful, orgasmic and a trademark for Ford. I'll take the Ford this time.