Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Xr4Ti?
Remember what a smashing success that was? Seems to me that was also the product of marketers at The Ford Motor Company. Sigh.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Other-Makes-XR4Ti-UNIQUE-Merkur-XR4Ti-1985-conver- tible_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6472QQihZ019QQitemZ290016952728QQrdZ1
Ford has given specific timing on the demise of certain vehicles. Taurus was to have died over a year ago...just finished production recently. THe Essex engines were to have been replaced 2 years ago...they are still being produced. Etc. Lets not forget if the demand is there and Wixom closes, the tools/dies/part can be used at the same plant building CV/GM. And even then, enough TC's will be built over, if the MKS introduction is pushed back a bit.
Navicross was killed because it was deemed not sufficiently profittable, and soon after the decision to allow Jaguar soul use of DEW98 platform made it stillborn.
I agree, the Markie Mark nomeclature is a bit rediculous. But it's more about brand identity. If you say "I Have a Zephyr", people can't grasp it, don't have a clue. If you say "I have a Lincoln MKZ", then people know who makes it... it's the LINCOLN part that Ford wants people to say. I can somewhat get used to that, it's the "Mark" thing. Mark this, Mark that, Mark my words...
The above planned vehicles willl be profittable, and while each one is not expected to sell at 100K+ volumes, it'll be profittable in low volumes which is the key point. Yes, 1999 was a steller year for Lincoln sales considering having maybe 3 products at that time. Considering so many went to fleet sales, doesn't do well for various other factors such as resale value, perception, etc.
Previously the thought was "We have an idle factory, we need to build 50K units to make everyone work, GO !" and many things were compromised along the way that hurt Ford. The key is profittable vehicles at lower volumes that people actually want, while offering more choices...not innundating the marketplace with vehicles just to not have a factory sit idle.
Waht about CTS, STS, and DTS. There doesn't seem to be a problem there and Cadi just made the change. I think we can be sorry the names are gone but that doesn't mean the strategy won't work because there are so many examples of it working. RDX, MDX comes to mind.
They need to to look fresh and modern. Electrolumiescent gages, blue lighting, aluminum mixed with wood (different shades should be available) and it must be well executed. The one thig i dislike about the MKZ (other than the made in mexico part) is the interrior looks to be too much of an old mans land.
They can fix this with the MKS without drastically departing fromthe style. For example, the 2007 navi interrior is hurling over the toilet on new years discusting, but the 2006, with much the same style looks fresher and better. The same can be done for the MKS.
Like the MKZ, the exterrior of the MKS is pretty spot on. They could put chrome around the side lincoln symbol, and make it light up, but otherwise its OK. The interrior sucks, and no amount of good materials will help the bad design.
The scary part of all this for me is that too many unskilled drivers are already speeding around. Adding all these systems makes if even more likely that they will do more dumb things and get away with it...until one day they don't. People often are retarded about getting going after a stop (witness how long it takes a whole line of cars to start moving when the light turns green). But these same people, once they get moving, often drive too fast for conditions, and go through lights that have already turned red. They slow down on curves that could be easily taken at speed, but going into tight ones too fast. And the doofuses on cell phones--talk about erratic driving of which they have no awarenes. But enough of that. Wrong thread.
So, how long before the MKZ will get a full or at least a significant makeover? As it is now, it is too boring for me!
The Z is a Mexican-made Mazda 6. Does the Mazda 6 have stability control?
As for the Mazda6, according to the Mazdausa.com website the MazdaSpeed6 does not have stability control; it does have AWD and traction control.
Re overpriced fees, I'm pleased with the cost of Lincoln ownership versus Volvo ownership. Those Swedes get expensive once they hit 100,000 miles!
Yea, I drove without a seat belt and airbags for a long time, too. I'll take any safety feature I can get, when it's my wife and daughter in the car. You are entitled to your opinion about stability control, but your own industry (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) seems to think it's a pretty good idea:
A new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that crash deaths on American roads could be reduced by one third if all vehicles were equipped with the Electronic Stability Control.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/06/09/iihs_esc/index.html
I am disappointed that the MKZ is not going to have it, but there are a lot of other good cars out there to choose from that do.
Ah-choo.
The article cited above, that IIHS published, should have called out the different variances of effectiveness that ESP has on cars based on whether they are RWD, FWD, and AWD taking into account the different behavior each exhibits. That said it still is an omission on a near luxo vehicle such as the MKZ. Though I wouldn't be so quick to right it off in terms of driveability and safety, because there are many things in an emergency/panic situation that come into play besides the electronic nannies that we are so used to these days.
Why buy a Rolex when a Timex keeps better time?
There's only one reason--Because you want to.
I'd suggest that you think about what vehicle type you prefer to own without strangers telling you what you want.
Chief
The specs on the "other" website says the fuel tank is 17.5 gallons.
Ford's media site is notorious for typos so I'm leaning towards 17.5.
* Each fillup costs more and total fuel costs are perceived as much higher.
* More weight to be carried slightly lessens fuel economy.
* More gasoline on aboard slightly lessens safety.
VERY few people see large tank size as a major benefit.
In addition, other engineering changes may have to be made to increase tank size. Sometimes, it isn't as simple as just dropping in another tank. There must be space, the other structures must support the added weight, there are considerations from an impact standpoint.
If gasoline ever becomes short again, not just costly, the benefits of a larger tank will be much more clear.
to go to http://tinyurl.com/krycf as prior postings
made here (Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ forum) regarding the gas
tank have been moved there?
the FWD MKZ is that about average for a
AWD vs FWD, I checked a couple of other models
Ford 500 and Dodge Magnum and the weight
difference is around 170 lbs so the 206 seems rather high,
based on that weight what should the gas mileage
be 18/26 and what about loss of power 0-60
.3 second loss ?
If they have to offer 0 financing to sell the MKZ, Ford is in even more trouble than most think.
Short answer: It's highly, highly unlikely, and not a good sign if they do.
I know, I know, Ford has always operated thusly: when the chips are down, delay planned introductions to save money. Guess what? It is actually speeding them up that works best in the long run. Late to the table rarely gets you the lion's share (unless everyone is already satiated on what was offered, and you have something really unique to offer).
Starting at $29,890