[MrPbody]

Well, you get what you pay for...

In "olden times", when it was common to see MANY muscle cars running around looking for races, Mustangs were outselling the GM cars, just like today. And, just like today, they were more of a "pest" than a competitor. I can't tell you how many times a 289 4-speed Mustang wanted to bet money he (or she in at least two cases) could beat my "Pontiac" (said with a high level of condescension). Not once. No small block Ford-powered car EVER beat my GTO in a street race.
My brother and nephew are both deep into Mustangs. They have 5 between them, including a '65 "K" code, a '78 "King Cobra" (brother bought it new), a Bullitt, a '99 Cobra and an '88 4-cyl. car (very nice condition). They're pleasant cars to drive. The late models will STOMP the '65. But they're very "plastic". Not just literally, but figuratively as well. Road noise is high. Ride comfort is spotty. On rough roads, they're simply no fun. The same can be said for the 2nd generation F-bodies (Firebird/Camaro), but they at least had enough power to make them serious. No Mustang after '73 or before '88, will get out of its' own way... The '85-'87 models showed promise, and respond well to modifications.
Sorry dude. I have little respect for them. Perhaps, had they built ten times as many 428 or 429 cars as they did the small blocks (instead of the other way around), I MIGHT take them a bit more seriously.
The word "inferior" is subjective in this case. Inferior to what? GTO? Corvette? You bet. Nissan? Nope (except MAYBE a turbochared 350Z). Mitsubishi? Nope. Honda? Nope. Dodge Charger? Probably not. Subaru? Please...