Bill Pierre Ford

Ford’s 2010 Mustang GT makes a strong, loud and increasingly rare case for keeping cars simple. While the influx of automotive technology may improve efficiency, it often takes the fun out of driving by isolating the driver from the car. The Mustang, with its uncluttered cockpit and simple devices, puts the driver back in control.

The Mustang is part of a sports car surge in the U.S. car market, driven in part by the introduction of the Chevrolet Camaro SS earlier this year and the Dodge Challenger R/T in 2008. Sales of sporty midsize cars this year rose about 12% through November compared with the same period last year. Sales in most other car categories are down by double-digit percentages; overall car and truck sales dropped about 12% this year, according to J.D. Power and Associates.

The first turn of the key quickly reminded me of why I have been drawn to cars since childhood. While many new vehicles shield the driver from the machinery through push-button transmissions, electronic parking brakes and layers of soundproof padding, the Mustang is mechanical immersion. It starts with the ignition key, which one still has to insert and turn to start the car.

Turning the key elicits a warm, crackling roar from the eight-cylinder engine. Vibrations make their way to the driver’s hands and feet through the steering column and floorboards. The clutch pedal feels heavy but engages smoothly to get the car moving without bucking or lunging. (The Mustang is available with an automatic transmission, but that severely cuts its engaging, fun-to-drive appeal.)

The two-door Mustang feels compact but comfortable, with enough visibility that I didn’t worry about running into things while backing up or driving through tight traffic and crowded parking lots. The Camaro is two inches longer than the Mustang, and the Challenger is almost 10 inches longer — yet their small windows can make drivers feel claustrophobic.

At $27,995, the Mustang is the least expensive of the trio. The Challenger costs $30,860, and the Camaro costs $33,450. But the Mustang has the best-looking interior, with more shapely and defined dashboard and door panels and attractive chrome trim that recalls cars of the 1960s. The Challenger and Camaro have bland, cheap-looking cabins that appear to be made of parts borrowed from other cars. The Challenger and Camaro have fuel economy ratings of 16 miles per gallon in the city and 24 on the highway; the Mustang’s rating is 17 mpg in the city and 24 mpg on the highway.

On the open road, the Mustang feels like a sports car — an old one. It carves corners nicely despite a rather crude suspension that includes a solid rear axle. This setup typically isn’t as sure-footed over rough roads compared with an independent rear suspension that allows each wheel to respond individually to bumps. (Both the Camaro and Challenger have this more advanced suspension design.)

The Mustang’s crudeness will turn off some drivers. It isn’t as polished as buyers may expect of a new car. Its solid axle is hard to excuse on a contemporary car that is supposed to be sporty. Ford says the simpler rear suspension helps cut costs and hasn’t deterred buyers.

The car is heavy at more than 3,500 pounds. Still, it weighs hundreds less than the Challenger and Camaro, and its handling feels lighter — if not nimbler — in comparison. Even though its rear suspension feels slightly unsettled over bumps, it doesn’t keep the Mustang from being fun to drive. Indeed, the car makes back-road driving so enjoyable that I usually wound up looking for longer more twisty routes to my destination.

The Mustang’s manual transmission is a five-speed while most others have six-speed gearboxes. It comes off as quaint and old-fashioned compared with other higher-end cars like BMWs and Audis and even the Challenger, which has a chassis developed from a Mercedes-Benz sedan.

Part of what makes the Mustang rewarding to drive is that it keeps you busy trying to shift, accelerate and apply the brakes smoothly. Doing so makes the most of its engine and the suspension’s capabilities.

If I was shopping for a contemporary muscle car I’d pick the Mustang GT because it strikes the right balance between modern technology and the old-fashioned roughness that makes driving fast, powerful cars feel a bit like riding a horse. The Camaro and Challenger feel more modern and refined, with smoother rides and less of the roar and rumble that make the Mustang stand out. They are technically more powerful, but they feel tame and reserved compared with the snarling, boisterous Mustang.

Drivers who want hot-rod looks with the ride and comfort of a family sedan should test-drive the Camaro and Challenger. They might skip the Mustang because while it is a treat for drivers, its smaller back seat and rougher ride can be less pleasant for passengers. But if you believe piloting a proper muscle car should be exciting enough to remind drivers of their earliest thrills behind the wheel, the Mustang delivers like no other car available today.

There hasn’t been a year in the auto industry like 2009.

General Motors and Chrysler fought to stay alive, and only did so thanks to support from taxpayers.

The U.S. government imposed some conditions in exchange for its support. The result was the ouster of GM CEO Rick Wagoner and his successor, Fritz Henderson and Chrysler being taken over by Italian automaker Fiat.

But the companies survived. Ford earned plaudits for avoiding government involvement and for producing vehicles like the Ford Fusion.

The changes meant the end of brands like General Motors’ Pontiac and Saturn, and Saab is looking for a New Year’s miracle for salvation. More than a thousand dealers closed, mostly those selling Chrysler and GM vehicles.

While there was plenty of news to report in 2009, no one in the auto industry wants a repeat this year.