Motor Trend 8/2006: Ford Mustang V6 convertible v. Pontiac G6 convertible

[SobeSVT]

Ford Mustang V6 convertible v. Pontiac G6 convertible

Folding steel is hot. But does this signal the death Knell for the venerable colth-topped convertible?

1st Place: Ford Mustang V6 convertible
Retro styling done right inside and out - and full of fun. Just needs a refined engine.

2nd Place: Pontiac G6 convertible.
Tightly spun cocoon of metal with lots of interior room, but lacks trunk space and an involving powerplant.

[gm_scott]

ahh. I wouldnt call that much of a fair test. I'll just wait till the Camaro comes out and kicks its butt.

[Mr. Burns]

the mustang is dated and overhyped IMO. It doesnt look as cool anymore.

[genjy]

Originally Posted by gm_scott

ahh. I wouldnt call that much of a fair test. I'll just wait till the Camaro comes out and kicks its butt.

The thing is, it is a fair test in a way, since the Mustang is Ford's only 4-seater v6 convertible and the G6 is GM's only v6 4-seater convertible. MT should have put the v6 Solara Convertible in the comparo as well.

Regarding the Camaro... I don't think the Camaro is even officially confirmed for production, yet. And when will it come out if it is given the greenlight? 2008? 2009? 2010?

The Camaro will beat the then 4+ year old Mustang... oh wow.

[GMFreak8]

This comparison is a no brainer. I love GM, but I'd take a Mustang convertible over a G6 convertible any day.

[SobeSVT]

Originally Posted by gm_scott

ahh. I wouldnt call that much of a fair test. I'll just wait till the Camaro comes out and kicks its butt.

In the meantime the brand new G6 convertible can barely kick its own butt. About the Camaro, lets first see if the frenchs really want a Camaro.

[cadillacpimpin]

i def think the cars tested may be going after different crowds

[mjd1001]

Originally Posted by GMFreak8

This comparison is a no brainer. I love GM, but I'd take a Mustang convertible over a G6 convertible any day.

If I was to buy a "sporty" non convertible car, I would prefer a car like the Mustang over the G6.

However, the G6 convertible looks just great in person, it looks much better than the Mustang Convertible. Thinking of the G6 coupe or looking at a picture of the G6 vert doesn't do the car justice.

It is something about the lines of the hardtop convertible, or maybe the fact the rear window slopes down a bit steeper....that just makes the G6 Vert look like a car that costs much more than it does.

Now only if GM would have taken this car (which is a top of the line G6) and not punished it with only the 3.5 V6 (underpowered for the Vert which weighs in at almost 4,000 lbs) and a 4 speed auto.....esp when the 2007 GTP will be getting the 6 speed auto and 3.6. Just another case of GM doing things only half right.

They get SO CLOSE to making a car that costs over $25,000 that I want so bad that I just buy it....but by the time they put the engine in the car I want..or the transmission, it seems it is already 2-3 years old (like the G6 coupe coming out after the sedan, same for the Cobalt....the 5.3 V8 in the GP and Monte Carlo years after the major update...this with the G6 Vert...etc). Its like by the time they have the RIGHT equipment in the car....the car itself is no longer 'hot' or 'fresh' and I end up moving on to a non GM product in many cases.

There are many problems with GM we all know. But I think the single most frustrating of all of them is GM doesn't equip most of their cars with the best equipment at launch. Its like the hold back on certain equipment or engine/tranny combos..so they can put them in a year or two down the line and maintain sales. What they dont' seem to realize is they are losing MANY customers who will not buy the car at all at any time...but would have if it came at launch with modern technology.

[I-Love-Pontiac]

I would get the G6 just for it's style and it's awsome folding mechanism.

[mbukukanyau]

People still read motortrend?
I decided to just go and test these cars myself

[GMFreak8]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

If I was to buy a "sporty" non convertible car, I would prefer a car like the Mustang over the G6.

However, the G6 convertible looks just great in person, it looks much better than the Mustang Convertible. Thinking of the G6 coupe or looking at a picture of the G6 vert doesn't do the car justice.

It is something about the lines of the hardtop convertible, or maybe the fact the rear window slopes down a bit steeper....that just makes the G6 Vert look like a car that costs much more than it does.

Now only if GM would have taken this car (which is a top of the line G6) and not punished it with only the 3.5 V6 (underpowered for the Vert which weighs in at almost 4,000 lbs) and a 4 speed auto.....esp when the 2007 GTP will be getting the 6 speed auto and 3.6. Just another case of GM doing things only half right.

They get SO CLOSE to making a car that costs over $25,000 that I want so bad that I just buy it....but by the time they put the engine in the car I want..or the transmission, it seems it is already 2-3 years old (like the G6 coupe coming out after the sedan, same for the Cobalt....the 5.3 V8 in the GP and Monte Carlo years after the major update...this with the G6 Vert...etc). Its like by the time they have the RIGHT equipment in the car....the car itself is no longer 'hot' or 'fresh' and I end up moving on to a non GM product in many cases.

There are many problems with GM we all know. But I think the single most frustrating of all of them is GM doesn't equip most of their cars with the best equipment at launch. Its like the hold back on certain equipment or engine/tranny combos..so they can put them in a year or two down the line and maintain sales. What they dont' seem to realize is they are losing MANY customers who will not buy the car at all at any time...but would have if it came at launch with modern technology.

The local dealer has an indoor showroom and had a 2006 G6 convertible in there. I really looked it over as I was waiting for repairs to be done on my Suburban and yes the styling outside is great and the hardtop convertible is great, but that's about it, as far as I'm concerned. The interior is embarrassing, and the engine choices are embarrassing. Personally I'd take the Mustang GT Premium Convertible, it's roughly the same price and offers a lot more. And the styling is nothing to sneeze at. *drool*

[Delta2.2]

I agree with what GMFreak8 said. seems the G6 in some ways are good but it just isnt as nice as a mustang.

[Kheiron]

Originally Posted by genjy

The thing is, it is a fair test in a way, since the Mustang is Ford's only 4-seater v6 convertible and the G6 is GM's only v6 4-seater convertible. MT should have put the v6 Solara Convertible in the comparo as well.

Regarding the Camaro... I don't think the Camaro is even officially confirmed for production, yet. And when will it come out if it is given the greenlight? 2008? 2009? 2010?

The Camaro will beat the then 4+ year old Mustang... oh wow.

not true, the 2007 9-3 2.8L HF V6 turbo is another one of GM's v6 4seater convertibles.

As far as the test, I haven't read about it yet, can somone post the article link or the entire test? So I won't comment on its validity.

As for the Mustang, the retro looks are a fad in passing, how do you evolve a 1967-69 muscle car look? What, fast forward to the 70's and make a retro look of that? I'm am looking for staying power and something that will look great ten years from now and still have a distinctive look, but will still look attractive and current even when it is 5-10 years old. Hopefully the Camaro will achieve that like the Corvette has.

[TiburonJT]

Originally Posted by Kheiron

As for the Mustang, the retro looks are a fad in passing, how do you evolve a 1967-69 muscle car look? What, fast forward to the 70's and make a retro look of that?

Use your imagination. Why would the Mustang have follow history from this point forward? The current Mustang jumped back 30 years, so why couldn't the next change be radical as well? The next Mustang doesn't have to be retro, nor does it have to follow the designs from the '60s forward.

This decision to buy a G6 or Mustang really is a no-brainer. I think the G6 convertible looks nice, but I would choose RWD and a more masculine design over the G6.

Originally Posted by SobeSVT

About the Camaro, lets first see if the french really want a Camaro.

Ouch. You're so insensitive.

[Kheiron]

Originally Posted by TiburonJT

Use your imagination. Why would the Mustang have follow history from this point forward? The current Mustang jumped back 30 years, so why couldn't the next change be radical as well? The next Mustang doesn't have to be retro, nor does it have to follow the designs from the '60s forward.

This decision to buy a G6 or Mustang really is a no-brainer. I think the G6 convertible looks nice, but I would choose RWD and a more masculine design over the G6.



Ouch. You're so insensitive.

agreed, it could be radical, but look at the message that sends. I hate to bring it up, but toyohonda rarely ever have radical designs and just evolve their product offerings continually improving them and addressing their shortcomings with every new product they come out with. Gradual change. In conjunction with this gradual change and continuous improvement they have mastered streamlining their production line as well as making bullet proof, reliable products. Every year they have done this since their inception, the overall curve has been an increase in sales.

In contrast (and this is grossly overgeneralized, but read into this for my message and try and see the viewpoint I'm trying to convey) the Domestic companies have let some of their non-SUV/Truck offerings stagnate, decline, and develop negative connotations/reputations (See everything from the Vega to the Pinto to the Cavalier to the Grand Am to the Neon, to the quientessential example: The Ford Taurus) as a result they needed radical change product wise/name wise. Not always, but typically this is a sign of the "Hit and Miss" syndrome which I would effectively compare to throwing ten darts at a dart board and hitting one bull's eye and nine misses (or being a baseball player and have 3 strike outs in a game followed up by a home run). It just screams inconsistancy, because, if you continuously improve your product and evolve it and meld/tailor it to the market, there is no need for radical change. Of course, there are always exceptions to this rule of thumb, but its a philosophy which I believe in.

The Taurus is an excellent example, in 1986 it was groundbreaking and a world class product, it was refreshed in the early-mid 90's to its current jelly bean shape and has been that way ever since. I would speculate that if Ford would have improved it and offered a Fusion-like class competing refresh/replacement in 2000, 2001, or 2002, the Taurus buyers that are now in Accords, Camry's, Sonata's, Impala's, or 300's would still be purchasing the Taurus.

The perfect example of what should have happened is the Camry, it has been continuously updated every 3-4 years instead of the 6-8+year product cycle typical of the former Big Three as recent as 2000. Toyota is aiming for product refreshes every 18-24 months the last I heard through the grapevine which to me means that their customers have no reason to not purchase another Camry. Why trade a product you've had that works beautifully unless something else is offered that is A: Groundbreaking in design and you've fallen in love with it (The Big 2.5 seem to have taken this philosophy to heart), B: You get another reliable product with features/content/safety in the same package as the Camry for a lower price (See: Hyundai Sonata in this particular example) or C: a hybrid of A and B, which should be the ultimate goal for GM/Ford in particular.

As a side note: I believe the last we will see of these long product cycles with the 900's and the Minivans (AKA lambdas) as I believe GM/Ford have finally gotten the message that its all about 3 things (Lets hope so at least ): "...Product, Product, Product...!" and that means fresh product every 2-3 years being refreshed or redesigned totally or extensively.

If you read to here, congradulations as I apologize for the long post, but wanted be clear, concise, and comprehensive in my message and tried to get you and others to see what I'm getting at. In all honesty, I've never been a mustang fan, but the last generation 2004 Cobra was a nice car (abeit a low grade interior) and could have easily had an evolutionary look as opposed to a retro look (much like the Corvette did.)