[mphred]

Just curious- did anyone see the comparison of these two in last months issue of Motor Trend? As usual, the G6 Convt was praised for smoothness, refinement, creature comforts, minimal cowl shake, and steel roof. And as usual, the Mustang won the comparo. It's engine was described as thrashy, overall low tech, marginally better power, lighter, slightly better performance numbers, poorer gas mileage. In the end, they still said the primal V^ Mustang was a better choice for roughly the same money.
With a retractable hardtop? And no mention of how the GTP version would have exceeded the Mustang's power numbers and at least equalled it's performance. Styling aside (I think the Mustang is retro-tired already), the entire platform is old-think (solid rear axle as a cost-cutting measure), and a ragtop, even the best of em, can't hold a candle to a retractable hardtop. I personally drove the convertible and found it pleasant top down, and very quiet with the top up. Next to each other in the pages of the article, the G6 looked thoroughly modern, and the Mustang a throwback to some other time. I know a lot of people are loyal to Mustangs, but I have yet to see one on the road that looks better than mediocre.
So, did anyone else see the article?

:barf:

 

[Subtle_Cynicism]

I didn't see it, but it doesn't surprise me. The gas milage on the GTP's (and GT's for that matter), are rather uninspiring, and the performance, for an engine that size, isn't as high as it should/could be, especially on the vert.

 

[mphred]

Why did they detune the 3.9L on the convertible? 227 or so HP?

 

[bigbengt67]

^ Different exhaust routing is more restrictive.

 

[Mordha]

Just curious- did anyone see the comparison of these two in last months issue of Motor Trend? As usual, the G6 Convt was praised for smoothness, refinement, creature comforts, minimal cowl shake, and steel roof. And as usual, the Mustang won the comparo. It's engine was described as thrashy, overall low tech, marginally better power, lighter, slightly better performance numbers, poorer gas mileage. In the end, they still said the primal V^ Mustang was a better choice for roughly the same money.
With a retractable hardtop? And no mention of how the GTP version would have exceeded the Mustang's power numbers and at least equalled it's performance. Styling aside (I think the Mustang is retro-tired already), the entire platform is old-think (solid rear axle as a cost-cutting measure), and a ragtop, even the best of em, can't hold a candle to a retractable hardtop. I personally drove the convertible and found it pleasant top down, and very quiet with the top up. Next to each other in the pages of the article, the G6 looked thoroughly modern, and the Mustang a throwback to some other time. I know a lot of people are loyal to Mustangs, but I have yet to see one on the road that looks better than mediocre.
So, did anyone else see the article?

:barf:

I did read that article. While I do agree with some of the things noted on the G6, after all, I didn't buy it as a car to haul stuff . I did find it funny that they liked the Mustang more. Then I thought about it a bit and remembered there are roughy a million or more of those Mustangs on the road. And as such they won't pick a new comer because if they did, well there'd be hell to pay .
At any rate, if they like old and tired, uninspiring (styling), so be it. I'll still take my G6 and enjoy the car and enjoy driving it. And I still get looks from people, even those driving the old tired uninspiring Mustang