2002 GT vs 1987 GT Review LONG

[Mr 5 0]

Unit:

Thanks for the comparo 'review'.

I've been very curious as to what the new breed Mustangs were like in the real world, beyond the HP and quarter-mile numbers and you gave us that, for which many are probably appreciative.

I totally agree with your assertion that the Fox-bodied Mustangs are the definitive late-twentieth century American muscle car. They still look good (read: muscular) and are a joy to drive if you appreciate their muscle car characteristics, as most of us do, here.

As my '90 LX ages (117,000 miles now) I've been thinking about replacing it with a late-model GT but I know that for about half the cost of a new 'Stang I could totally refurbish the LX, including new engine, trans, paint, interior and all the small stuff.

I've done it before (with a Camaro) and it was a chore that took forever but after reading your review on the new Mustang GT (based on your 2400 miles of driving it) I'm very tempted to hang on to my '90 LX. I like my performance cars to feel like a performance car (as well as sound like one), not a hopped up commuter car. I don't care about impressing anyone with a new car, either so that isn't a factor, as I'm sure it wasn't with you.

My personal 'jury' is still out on this but I doubt I'll be parting with my LX any time soon and again, I appreciate your thoughtful commentary and ratings of the two 'Stangs.

BTW: What's wrong with long posts?