2010 mustang goes 8.97@153..

I'm going to jump in here. Yes the Mustang has come along way quickly, but to compare modern technolgy to 1960's technolgy is where I think you slip up.
To tune the 60's autos is very time consuming, alot of trial & error. To tune the modern stuff, just hooked up the laptop. With the event of the computor, all time tables get moved up. It has also helped the 60's autos progress quit rapidly in the last ten years. Whenever you can make changes on the desktop instead of hands on, everything moves faster.
I feel that Ford has limited itself to where the Mustang can be classed, where as the Dodge boys have tried to make the Challenger to fit several classes, 5.9M, 5.7H, & 6.1H, Kinda like a goverment run company. LOL I couldn't turn that one down.
I think the Challenger is a very good looking car, as long as it isn't parked next to an earlier Challenger. Then it seems a little porky. But it will seat 4 pretty well.
The Mustang I thought was done right out of the box. It held true to the original Stangs, & kicked the originals *** as well. Ford got it. Now the 2010's look odd with pinched down grille & tail lamps, Ford screwed it up. Why do we have to change things?
The Camaro has ok taillamps, great roofline, a front end only a mother could love. I was thinking that this car would have a better look to it, since they were the last one in the game. Not so, must have let the guy that designed the Astec have at it.
I see three different customers for these cars.
Camaro, teens first car, low cost appeal, think Cobalt owner's next step purchase.
Mustang, average young performance & tuner buyer, modern day Hot Rodder.
Challenger, older person wanting comfort, style, performance, & remembers the old days. It doesn't have to be the fastest of the three.
Three distinct cars for the masses.