Lincoln MKS

brucelinc

Good assessment, Jeyhoe. I do think the LS has stood the test of time, styling wise. They still look good - but very conservative. A 1999 Mitsubishi Galant still looks pretty good, too.

Lincoln tried for the sports sedan market with the LS but didn't stick with it. I don't know how many buyers will give them a second chance. Maybe we will find out when the RWD platform is available a couple of years from now. In any case, the MKS is not shooting at the same target that the LS was. Currently, Lincoln does "soft luxury" as other posters have said. The MKS screams soft luxury, even entry-level soft luxury, based on the powertrain and pricing. The ecoboost version could change this but the base car appears more on the ES350, Buick Lucerne, or Chrysler 300 level than anything more lofty.

brucelinc

The company that I work for pays for surveys all the time. If the information is positive, we might use it in advertising. If it is not so positive, we make internal procedural or product changes so that the results will be better next time. The last thing we are looking for is inaccurate or misleading data. That would be worse than no data at all.

akirby

Exactly! Companies that do this type of work MUST be honest and objective - otherwise they won't get any future business.

jeyhoe

"Had a 525 for a day...LS would be toast in the twisties, I'm afraid!"

Hey, who you gonna believe - the test that Ford paid for that said the LS outhandles the 5series and was used in ad campaigns 2 or 3 years ago - or your own lyin eyes?

That said, I enjoy immensely the handling of my V6 stick shift LS in the twisties, as does my wife. Neither of us though are BMW drivers. Frankly, I've never liked Beemers. Just a personal bias I guess. Sat in a couple and I am never comfortable in em, even sitting still. Just me I guess cause the rest of the driving world thinks they're the "bee's knees".

jeyhoe

allen;

First, see above post.

Second, sorry for bein a harpie. I guess I just dont trust marketing folks. I get this partly from my wife, who used to be one and couldn't get outta there fast enough once she saw what goes on.

I think my bigger problem with this survey is the way they're using it. You have to "suspend disbelief" to quote a famous politician to get from the results where Ford is clearly behind Toyota and Honda, to the ad campaign where Ford says they are equal to the other 2.

circlew

Well, FORD, of course. They've got to know better than I.

Regards,
OW

akirby

That was a legitimate test as long as you understand the parameters:

LS V8 Sport Package vs. BMW 540i w/standard suspension (the LS was still much cheaper).

This was a specific handling test, not overall performance. The large V8 engine in the 540i probably hurt it more than the 3.9L V8 in the LS. It was obviously way faster in a straight line.

The 525 with the lighter engine may very well outhandle the same V8 LS Sport, just like the 3.0L V6 sport package would outhandle the 3.9L V8 sport package.

The point was that the LS was a great handling car - if it wasn't then no version of the LS would have beaten any version of the BMW.

I guess I tend to take these types of ads at face value without extrapolating too much and taking all of them with a grain of salt.

I can't find any links to the actual quality data - anyone have a link?

akirby

where Ford is clearly behind Toyota and Honda, to the ad campaign where Ford says they are equal to the other 2.

I found the data in Ford's press release:

Ford - 1,284 TGW per 1,000 vehicles (1.284 per vehicle)
Toyota/Honda - 1,250 TGW per 1,000 vehicles (1.250 per vehicle)

Statistically speaking, this is a difference of 2.72%. I'm sure this type of survey has a statistical margin of error that's higher than that.

From a statistical standpoint, Ford is correct - it's a dead heat.

Richard also posted a comparison of the JD Power IQS (initial quality - same measurement as above) for 2004 models compared to the 2007 Vehicle Dependability Survey (which measured the same 2004 models after 3 years) and the relative positioning of the brands was close enough to conclude that the IQS was a good predictor of 3 yr dependability.

If JD Power, Consumer Reports, RDA, Ford's internal quality group AND Ford's public financial data ALL say that Ford is greatly improved and on par with the imports - when do you start believing it?

circlew

I can only give you seat of the pants feedback...33K in the 2003 LS and when I drove the 525i for a day, I knew the answer.

Regards,
OW

jeyhoe

I believe I BELIEVE!!!

Seriously, Ford is definitely making strides in the right direction, quality wise according to the stats. No doubt about it. My 2 vehicles have been great. (Except for a couple of things...which I wont harp on )

Still, regarding this particular ad, it's a stretch going to the "statistical margin of error" (and yeah, I knew that's what they're doing) to say "there's no one better". The actual data says differently and everyone who finishes #1 in their class would agree it wouldn't be fair to say - well, within statistical margin of error, we could say the guy with the 10th best GPA is also at the top of his class. That's what grates on me. That's all. More power to Ford if they keep this trend up. Still and last, I pay much more attention to the 'frequency of repair' charts in CR than to IQ. When those charts on Ford vehicles look like Toyotas and Hondas instead of like Hyundais and VWs, THEN I'll REALLY be impressed.

akirby

I don't recall Ford using the words "there's no one better." What I heard was a simple claim that Ford's quality was now equal with Toyota. Was that in the tv ad, print ad or was that just a paraphrase?

The difference between GPAs and this is that GPAs are based on actual test results - hard data - which is complete. You have every answer to every question from every person. This is a survey, which by nature is inaccurate because it's based on a sample. The larger the sample the more accurate the survey. If you did the same survey the same way with different people, the result could be just the opposite.

We're also talking about a relatively small number here. No matter which number you use, 1 in 4 vehicles will have a defect in the first 90 days. As opposed to 1 out of 2 or 1 out of 3.

I think some people just don't give Ford credit for the excellent quality of their NEW vehicles - those released 2005 and later. It's a dramatic turnaround after the recall plagued 2003 Focus.

Speaking of CR - last time I checked CR said the Fusion was BETTER than the Camry and equal to the Accord in quality - period. And this wasn't just IQS either. I've had none of the problems with my Fusion that I had with my LS, and I bought both within months of them hitting the market. In fact, the Fusion is 2.5 years old with nary a problem.

jeyhoe

Next time I hear one of those 'drive one' ads, I'll listen very carefully. I'm pretty sure the TV ads say something like "And as for quality, no one is better than Ford."

Also, real glad the Fusion etc working out well for you. However, it's not real suprising that it's having fewer teething problems than the LS since:

Fusion = Mazda 6 platform etc that's been around for ? years. Not exactly lofty goals for the product, more like basic transportation.
LS = based on a brand new platform, codesigned with Jaguar half a world away. Lofty goals for the vehicle including competing with BMW. Pushing the Ford envelope etc. Brand new auto tranny, Jaguar V8 etc. Bound to be more issues.

Taking this to another level - Is it FORD that's doing better quality wise these days, or is it Mazda and Volvo and by extension, Ford?

akirby

You might be right - the only one I've heard says that Ford has equaled Toyota in quality. I don't have a problem with the claim itself - I think it's statistically accurate. However, I don't think they should make such a claim based only on IQS unless they say that's what it's based on. And if they have other data then they should say that, too.

If you think that Mazda and Volvo are somehow responsible for Ford's improved car quality - then how do you explain the Focus and Mustang? They're also enjoying improved quality and they're 100% Ford North America.

And if you check the 2007 VDS (which measures 2004 vehicles) you'll see that Ford is slightly below average while Volvo is 10 points worse and Mazda is WAY down the list - 6th from the bottom and 68 points worse. So one could say that Ford is even better than we thought, given they started out with such crap!

jeyhoe

"And if you check the 2007 VDS (which measures 2004 vehicles) you'll see that Ford is slightly below average while Volvo is 10 points worse and Mazda is WAY down the list - 6th from the bottom and 68 points worse. So one could say that Ford is even better than we thought, given they started out with such crap! "

You got me there!

brucelinc

This is off topic, I know, but take a gander at the 2009 Mazda 6. Not only is it a knock-out but it will have the Mazda version of the 3.7 engine. This will be a very sweet sedan.

If the MKS doesn't impress me and if the Mazda 6 has some of the luxury options I want, I might consider one and save $10,000. In two or three years, maybe Lincoln will have a real contender in the luxury car market.

jeyhoe

Yeah, just saw the 2009 Maxima and that's a real nice ride too. 290 hp and a beautiful new body. BUT, a CVT and no manual to say nothing of FWD.

brucelinc

I am afraid that by the time the MKS finally arrives, it will be met with about the same enthusiasm as the Zephyr when it came on the scene with the 3.0 engine. Yawn........

It seems odd that the Mazda 6, a mainstream mid-size sedan, will have more power from its 3.7 engine that the "Lincoln exclusive" 3.7 in the MKS. With higher priced fuel and looming CAFE mandates, I understand the need to watch fuel economy. However, the 3.7 in the MKS is not great in that regard, either, based on the estimates shown on the Lincoln site. To make matters worse, with the FWD layout, any serious addition of power will mean the necessity for AWD. That adds weight and rotational mass which hurts both performance and fuel economy.

Lincoln needs the RWD platform, pronto!

akirby

I was told they simply did not have the time or resources to do the tuning and testing on the 3.7L: to get more power and better FE. There were also issues with the original D3 front clip handling more power. Those will be fixed (obviously) with the EcoBoost version. Apparently the changes were significant enough to warrant changing the platform name to D3-2 (unofficially at least).

Yet another case of Ford being caught with the right idea but not enough resources to fully execute it in a timely manner. That's what happens when you ignore large portions of your business for many years.

jeyhoe

"Yet another case of Ford being caught with the right idea but not enough resources to fully execute it in a timely manner. That's what happens when you ignore large portions of your business for many years. "

... and allow or encourage a large number of employees including the very engineers needed for this work to leave the company.

akirby

True, but under certain business situations you don't have a choice, if you want to stay in business. The root cause of all of these problems is poor management decisions of the past (allowing each continent to act independently, not leveraging global resources, putting too much into SUVs and not enough into cars and crossovers, etc. etc. etc.).

carolinabob

Per the latest Fortune magazine, Ford is placing most of its emphasis on the new world car, AKA Festiva. This means any serious planing for Lincoln is DOA. I was looking forward to seriously trying the MKS, but not so sure now.
Perhaps if they dropped Mercury (all Fords anyway) and combined Lincoln and Ford dealerships with Mazdas and then produced different vehicles from all three, they might succed.

akirby

If that's what the article says, that's ridiculous. And it's the Fiesta, not the Festiva. It's an important vehicle but it's still just one vehicle. Lincoln is already working on a new GRWD platform shared with the Aussies (just like Ford of Europe is sharing the Fiesta with North America).

But the GRWD and global B car teams are totally separate so I don't see one taking away from the other.

brucelinc

I have waited over two years for the MKS to arrive. As the launch date gets closer and we learn more about the MKS, I find myself becoming less interested. The base 270 HP engine is the biggest disappointment for me.

When the concept was introduced in 2006, it had the 4.4 Yamaha V8 that is now available in the Volvo S80. The S80 with that engine is rated at the same highway fuel economy as the 3.7 MKS but it has 41 more HP and 60 more lbs/ft of torque. Ultimately, the Ecoboost will be better and supposely less expensive than the V8 but until it arrives, the MKS does not have a suitable engine, IMO. The base engine will be adequate, for sure, but toward the bottom of the class in performance.

I understand all the reasons for this state of affairs but those excuses will not help Lincoln's image or help it move product. The MKS will be viewed as a roomy, nice riding car with plenty of gadgets. I just don't see anything special enough to justify the price or give it any buzz in the marketplace. I see big discounts and incentives in the future and possibly a short life-span.

cowbell

I was back at the doctor's office today, and the May Automobile magazine was in. There were five letters in the reader comments section about the thrashing of the MKS design from an earlier issue. Every letter thought the review was way off base, and defended the car. Of course styling is always subjective, but one of the letters brought up a good point:

If the 70+ year-old reviewer hated the design, maybe Lincoln is moving in the right direction.

brucelinc

If the 70+ year-old reviewer hated the design, maybe Lincoln is moving in the right direction.

Yes, that is an excellent point! Really good designs should be a bit controversial. Not Pontiac Aztec controversial, mind you, but they should step outside the box a bit.

jeyhoe

Bruce;

Were u in here back in 2000 when the LS was being intro'd? This board was busier than a one-armed paper hangar. That was when Lincoln was trying to be a contenda. Now, they're throwing stuff against the wall and trying to survive. Personally, I dont think they will. Certainly Mercury is just about gone. Then where does Lincoln go? Team with Mazda? Ridiculous. Be the new Mercury and team with Volvo? Or team up with Ford - the probable solution. Ford-Lincoln and that's it. Wont sell because Ford buyers and Lincoln buyers are 2 different demographics. They dont wanna and wont mix. Besides, now the idiots in Washington are setting the bar at what 35mpg? You'd have to sell 500 Fiestas or whatever for every MKS. THe Japanese are the only ones who have a hope of meeting this new standard. And people will buy the Japanese cars like never before because gas they say could be TEN DOLLARS per gallon next year. The globalists - nee communists - are winning and our standard of living is heading DOWN DOWN DOWN to meet India and China on the way up. I dont think ANY of the American car companies will survive past, say, 2020. Sorry, but that's my opinion. TATA and Chery are the future of cars. And they wont be sellin Jags long either. It'll be that little tata donkey-mobile and a Chery rickshaw. Forget Lincoln. The world is spinning out of control and eco-boost is eco-BS.

Now, I think I'll take my meds.

circlew

Ilike to take my naps at the local Lincoln dealer these days. After owning a 2003 LS, there is nothing there but good sleep-mobiles!

Regards,
OW

brucelinc

Hey, Fed-ex me some of your meds, will ya? I am beginning to need them almost as much as you do.

Yes, I was here in the early days. I used to set aside about an hour to review all of the LS posts. The participation of some of the posters including Lincoln management and engineers gave me even more confidence in Lincoln and pride in my decision to own an LS. It is doubtful we ever see days like that again regarding a Lincoln.

I haven't totally analyzed the new fuel economy requirements yet but I was thinking that there was a bit of a loophole that was missing in the old CAFE standards.

jeyhoe

Loophole in CAFE? Yeah, maybe - Barbara Boxer and Al Gore and John Kerry can drive Rolls and Bentleys and BIG SUVs. The rest of us get scooters.

No, definitely wont see those days again. Most Lincoln engineers now probably dont even speak English!

Lookin for opinion, bruce (and anyone else in here..here..here - is that an echo?). Got a postcard in the mail 2 days ago that got me thinking about replacing my Navigator. (Not that the mpg=8.8 on the dash doesn't do that on its own) I think I should do it before some California enviro-whacko torches it to reduce pollution, as they did to a neighborhood of "Green" homes in Oregon. Not green enuf I guess and I'm sure the day or 2 of billowing black smoke from the fires was an important part of the improvements to the environment they support. But good grief, I digress ...

The postcard was from Volvo, advertising a Special Edition XC90. Under $40K which seems like a good price for a 7 passengr AWD SUV that gts (somewhat) better mileage than the Nav. With gas at $4.11 no here and going to $10 they say, perhaps now's the time? This special edition is well equipped with lots of stuff I like. Only things I'd give up from the Nav are Navigation and rear DVD and A/C. BUT, it's got a Ford in-line 6 that makes only 235hp!!?? Haven't driven it yet, but it's bigger and heavier than the Edge which has what 263 hp?
Then I started thinking, why not save even more gas and money and get a Subaru Outback. AWD and close to 30mpg hiway. Only seats 4 or 5, but when I need more, I've got a van. I dunno. I need a Navigator that gets 40mpg, tows a boat and looks like a Porsche. WHY cant I have what I want.

brucelinc

OK, here is my opinion and it is worth just what you pay for it:

I think Volvos (and most European cars) are overpriced for what you get. The XC90 was reviewed by C & D in the May, 07 issue and they liked the V8 performance but didn't like much of anything else. The inline 6 is no doubt a smooth engine but the power is not competitive. I personally think Volvo interiors leave a lot to be desired, too. Volvo seems to put a big price premium on their reputation for safety.

If I were looking to replace a Nav and wanted better mileage, I would have to look at the Mazda CX9. The Mazda gets very positive reviews and it has the 3.7 engine and manumatic. I have never driven one but if I were in the market for a vehicle of this nature, it would be at the top of my list.

[Deleted User]

Except the CX9 does not have a V8 option and therefore would not be likely to be able to do a good portion of the kind of towing that a Navigator might.

I like Volvo interiors myself. Very clean and Scandinavian. They look quality without the gobs of plastic wood that others often layer on.

The 235 hp V6 is quite adequate if commuting and light towing are all that it will be used for.

jeyhoe

Hey guys, thanks for pipin in. I agree with some of what y'all say, reserve the right to disagree with some too!

And I apologize to everyone else for the off-topic topic. First, gregg, I have eliminated my need for towing by selling my 21 foot toy hauler so I dont NEED a big V8 anymore. I have a big van if I need to tow anything, so towing was kinda in league with a 40mpg Nav in my previous post wish-list. So yeah, the CX-9 is a reasonable suggestion. I think if I was to describe what I want in a real-world way it would be a nice SUV or CUV that I can take off road that 5% of the time that I want to, can get me thru Sierra snow to Lake Tahoe without the hassle of chains and gets good gas mileage.
The Volvo is actually more than I really need, but the "luxury", safety and ability to seat 7 in this special edition CX90 are all on the "want" side of the books. I think the CX-9 also is overkill (and price) but again nice to have.
I've been *seriously* thinking about an LR2 for a while. It's in the ballpark, though only a 5 seater. It has, I'm almost positive, the same straight 6 as the VOlvo and I would expect better performance and mileage since the LR is smaller. Also the LR2 has a much more versatile AWD system than either of the others, though still no true low range. Of course, LR's absolutely DISMAL repair history scares the cr*p out of me and CR recently said one lifted it's wheels several inches off the ground at 53mph in their cone test which is shades of Suzuki Samurai to me. They rated it's emergency performance as poor over this, with a full test to follow in Sept. Interstingly, they said a BMW X5 did the same thing in I think 2005 and BMW fixed the problem with software adjustments to the stability control. Hopefully LR will do the same. The Subaru is available in several configs with 5speed manual 4cyl, thru turbos of the same to a bigger 6cyl auto. The weak powertrain (only 170 hp) interests me mainly for the mileage (20,27 I think is the 2008 number) and people report getting 30 mpg or more on the highway. I dont think any of the others will come close to that.
Another less desireable but economical option is the Jeep Patriot with the off-road transaxle Again, not true 4WD but a deep 1st 'gear' CVT compromise. This thing gets close to 30 as well, though it's pretty dismal inside.
Then there's the Veracruz (great warrantee), Mariner hybrid (great milege but dismal off road) even the Acadia etc could be in the mix as Volvo competitors.

So that's the way it is. The perfect mobile for me not yet offered. Everything's a compromise. But with premium at $4.27 at the corner Chevron this AM, I gotta do something. Hope PT Barnum was right when I go to sell my beautiful but incredibly thirsty Navigator.

datagen

I need a Navigator that gets 40mpg, tows a boat and looks like a Porsche. WHY cant I have what I want.
-------------------------------------------
Simple, because if you got what you wanted, you would not get anything else. So the plan is to get you small pieces over TIME. By some miracle you got everything you wanted right off the bat one of two things, extreamly lucky in the circumstance for the price or it will coast $150,000 plus.

jeyhoe

Good point!

BTW, in the post you quote, there was also a reference to the new CAFE standards and whether there were loopholes and I made a rather sarcastic remark (who, me?) saying basically that the people who make the laws exclude themselves.

Well, now last night and today comes the breaking story that - hey whattyaknow, I might have been right. And not only that, but WE THE TAXPAYERS are paying for Congress to drive gas guzzlers while telling us not to. WHAT A SURPRISE.

Charlie Rangle, that good democrat from New York is exhibit A. He drives a new Cadillac DeVille PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS and he is totally unashamed saying basically that his constituents wont respect him if he drives an economy car. Yet HE VOTED TO RAISE CAFE.

Hey, Charlie, I DONT RESPECT YOU. But he dont care.

Amazing what we've allowed the government that's supposed to represent us to become. Good grief, where's George Washington and Patrick Henry when you REALLY need them. Rant off (on this board anyway)

brucelinc

Subaru? Veracruz? Surprising considerations for a good Conservative of your considerable means and stature.

[Deleted User]

Well you ought to know that being conservative does not equate with being stupid. What's so great about buying a Ford product built in Mexico or Canada--especially if it does not meet your needs--versus a US built Subaru that does? What is so sensible about slavish support of the UAW when pay and benefits got too far out of line with economic conditions? Don't mean to start a war here, but I think some people get very confused about what being conservative means, and they begin to equate it with opposition to stem cell research, homosexual unions, abortion and any sort of gun control, while at the same time advocating draconian drug control measures, other things that restrict civil liberties, "biblical" beliefs about natural selection and support for unwinnable wars. Could we get back to conservatives who advocate conservative political approaches, smaller govermnent and so forth?. Those that think?

brucelinc

Holy cow, gregg, did you see the "wink" on my post? I was kidding...tongue in cheek kidding! Perhaps my post was a poor taste reference to stereotypes but I didn't mean to offend and I don't need a lecture on what it means to be a conservative.

jeyhoe

Hey, fellow travelers, I only question the part about my 'stature' and considerable means.

To speak to what gregg said, I've always been a buy-American guy as I've said before. And that is still a consideration for me. But American doesn't really mean much anymore. Lincolns and Cadillacs built in Mexico, Chryslers soon in China. Hondas in Ohio and Subarus somewhere back there.
And like gregg says, the UAW has become a big part of the problem, to say nothing of management at Ford etc. I know a certain someone's gonna jump in and say Ford management has changed. Whatever. From now on, I give no more of a RIP about the average union worker than they do about me. I care about what's best for my family. Now I will draw the line at buying a car made in China, at least at this point. But Korea (SOUTH) is in play as well as Japan and Europe. No more Mr American for me. Especially after the treatment I've received from Ford higher ups about legitimate problems with my car. Not that I expect a whole lot better treatment from say Subaru, but maybe it's time to give em a shot. Besides, their cars are much more suitable to my needs and wants currently than anything Ford offers. Not including Volvo and Mazda, which I dont really consider to be Fords.
Lastly, I've said before - I am surrounded by liberal nutcases out here (as Gallagher said - California is like a cereal - what aint fruits and nuts is flakes) and NONE of them will consider either 1) voting for a Republican or 2) buying an American car. Yet the unions slavishly support every stinkin commie democrat that comes down the pike, while those same people would NEVER buy a product made by those same union employees. I know, generalization, but there's a lotta truth to it. I've ridden Japanee motorcycles and bought Japanese cameras for 30 years and they're all quality products. Maybe it's time to give their cars a chance. And I feel more kinship with Japanese people in a political sense than democrats anyway. Crazy? Maybe, but look what we got goin this year... Good grief.

kenb757

What about the TATA Nano Vanden Plas edition?

cowbell

I want to tell you to stop generalizing, but sadly I agree with you and I lean more democratic. I also want to temper that with democrats in California scare me. So to you, I guess I would say the people (who are in the majority right now) that look more favorably on the Democrats than the Republicans are not like the ones in California. And many of them in the mid-west still drive "American" cars.

Wow, this has nothing to do with the MKS, does it?

I assume your kinship with the Japanese people is due to their universal healthcare.

jeyhoe

Point taken about non-Californian democrats. But in my defense, I dont know any democrats from, say, Kansas. I see what's around me. A good friend, who retired 10 or so years ago from a long sucessful career with NASA, responded to my asking her why she supports Obama by saying, in part, "Because I hate my country." Cant argue with that logic,eh? She is the same one who told me last year "I will NEVER consider buying an American car." THe rest have never actually said that, but the proof is in the pudding: Lexus, Lexus, BMW, Mini, Toyota, Toyota, Toyota, etc etc. Me? two Lincolns and a trunk full of ajada from the above Liberal owners.
These will be my last Lincolns or Fords, however, of that I'm (pretty) sure - never say never, I always say.
I'm more open to universal heathcare lately, ever since the story last week that immigrants are now LEAVING Britain cause the health care there is so BAD! HAHAHAHA. THe democrats will have us in that position in no time and voila - the solution to the illegal alien problem.

datagen

Got this from another forum and it interested me due to the fact I was experiencing the same thing.
-------------------------------------
EcoBoost may be an EcoBust

After I announced to my friends and associates of my ordering of the MKS. Some told me that I should have waited for the ecoboost engine rather than the 3.7 liter that will be the original power plant. At first I shrug it off, but the reconsideration started creepin in as the gas prices started rocketing.

So I did some research knowing my own personal requirements and came up with the following conclusion:

They can have the EcoBoost.

I say this for several reasons as follows:

Marketing: Ford says that the engine could save you up to 20% in fuel mileage. Much depends on where that 20% is placed. Taken from thecarconnection.com.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Car_Shows_and_Concept_Cars/Detroit_Auto_Show/For- d_EcoBoost_V-8_Power_from_Six.S286.A13796.html

“Ford will take a very different approach. Think of EcoBoost, says Kapp, "as a small engine that thinks big." In times past, Ford might have gone with a V-8 for its new MKS, which will be the first production use of the direct injection system. When you want performance, there's plenty of power, Kapp continues, but under normal driving conditions, you'll get the mileage of a V-6, in this case, about a 20-percent gain over the comparable V-8.”

So if you just want a V6 and not interested in the power of a V8, to me the 3.7 is fine. Hell I have a Mustang and a Taurus with 3.0 Ltr engines and I have gotten enough tickets between those two to pay a college kids books for his first three semesters. So for those whom were thinking that you may save more from a standard V6 level, think again. For those whom were looking at V8’s, I am sure you want the engine to do big, not just think big.

Physics: The Direct Inject (DI) is nothing new. GM and others have it (with very little improvement in the mileage area to me), and it is well known overseas, but the turbo is a new twist and this kinda bothers me. Ford says to think of their EcoBoost engines as small blocks that thinks big. Well that is fine idea with a smaller so-called stronger block doing the work of the bigger ones. But in the back of my mine I am thinking that with the smaller engine working the level of a V8, will it be working harder to the point of above normal operating heat, faster wearing parts, more frequent oil changes and maintenance work all around? It is just simple physics for something smaller to do more, it will have to work harder at it and not unless it has its own nuclear (thimble of uranium) power plant, the majority of the work will be up to the little engine that may (at extra cost) could.

I saw a demo where a Ford Taurus with Ecoboost was racing a CTS and some other car (can’t remember what it was). The Taurus clearly beat the others but it hit me of what the RPM’s were, the heat ratio, and the fuel consumption even with the twin turbos to get a car length and a half across the line ahead of the others.

I’m sorry, but I am not sold on Ecoboost yet. The 3.7 is just a bored out version of the 3.5 which is a bored out version of the 3.0. I feel better with this at this time. Not unless anyone out there can convince me otherwise. I guess like everything else, when it gets its real test (the streets), then we will know for sure if it is boost or bust.
----------------------------------

Thoughts fellas???

akirby

The 3.7 probably is (right now at least) just an enlarged (not sure if it's bore or stroke or both) 3.5. However, the 3.5 is not just an enlarged 3.0. The 3.5L is designed for VVT and DI and has a lot of improvements over the 3.0L. If it was just a bigger 3.0L it would have been finished 5 years ago.

There is no doubt that an ecoboost 3.5L putting out 340 hp will use more fuel than a 270 hp 3.7L. What Ford is saying is that a 3.5L EB V6 with 340 hp will use 20% less fuel than a 4.6L/5.0L/5.4L putting out 340 hp.

It's analogous to choosing a V6 mustang over a V8 mustang, but the mileage penalty for the V8 is 20% less than it used to be. You decide if you want performance or fuel economy.

If you don't want a hot rod, the 3.7L would be the best choice anyway.

jeyhoe

Is on BON. BUT, u gotta have a login to see em.

In any case, a fw thoughts are posted and guess what? FOlks who have seen the car and the pix love the outside except for the rear and thik the interior is too cheap-looking for the market it plays in. Where've we heard that before? $50K was the price on one guy's radar. So will the T and R then be in the $60-$70K range? Man, Buick should raise their prices.

brucelinc

My dealer just called me and said they would have MKSs on July 1st and he invited me in to drive one. Other dealers in some parts of the country have already had pre-production models to view and drive but we haven't here in Minneapolis.

My boss just bought a 2008 Acura RL and I took it for a spin. That car has my idea of a luxury interior. Every panel is soft to the touch and the center stack looks like a work of art. The door storage areas are lined with felt or some such fabric. Very nice. The V6 was a bit shy on low-end torque but once wound up it pulled hard and had a beautiful sound. Honda does make a sweet sounding V6. I was surprised at the high level of road noise, though. Also, the ride was firmer than I expected.

I do look forward to driving an MKS. I will still probably wait for the Ecoboost model before I buy, though.

jeyhoe

Did u see right there to the right of your message is a link Edmunds' info on the mks??

I went in there and an AWD with premium package which includes pretty much everything I'd want stickers at under $47K. So with the ecoboost, I'd expect around $50K

Also, the mileage numbers in there are 17/23. Ecoboost might be 19/25 then? Is that competitive?

Finally, it could be that Edmunds has it's head where the sun dont shine (again) but they say the mks has a CVT. That's not right is it?

Lastly, not to say I told anyone so, but the pictures of the interior are the same as I've seen before. They did not upgrade it as some said they would. And it's just not a competitive interior in this market. Sad and dreary looking. For something close to $1000 they'll put wood on the doors, but apparently the centerstack will stay a butt-ugly matte-black.

akirby

Finally, it could be that Edmunds has it's head where the sun dont shine (again) but they say the mks has a CVT. That's not right is it?

Of course not and yes, they still have an anatomical problem. Geez - how do you get something like that wrong? It's the same GM joint venture 6F automatic as the Edge and MKX.

As for better mileage on the Ecoboost - not gonna happen. The 20% better fuel economy of the EB 3.5L is compared to a V8 with similar power - in this case it would be a 5.4L V8 or the upcoming 5.0L. It will get the same or worse fuel economy as the base 3.7L. It's for performance, not FE.

I will say I'm a little disappointed in the center stack, but not as much as you. The black plastic in the closeup Ford pictures from last year were not flat black but had flecks of silver. I'll wait to see it in person. I really thought it would get a wood option or at least aluminum.

brucelinc

As Allen said, the Ecoboost will not get better mileage than the naturally aspirated V6. As for being competitive in fuel economy, I can't think of many AWD luxury-type sedans that have 340-350 HP so I don't know what to compare it with. It should easily out perform an Acura RL or a Cadillac STS and get similar real-world mileage.

At this point, I am inclined to wait for the Ecoboost. I am more interested in power than fuel economy. Another benefit to waiting is that the aftermarket will have time to develop a wood or some other type of inlay for that ugly centerstack. All of Lincoln's other "late availability" items will be ready, too.

jeyhoe

Bruce, Allen: Yeah, that makes sense. No free lunch. over 300hp for V6 mileage is what ecoboost promises. That's a good thing for sure. Is it enough to satisfy enviros and new cafe? Different story.
Wish I could feel the same as u bruce that power etc outweighs mpg concerns. Premium here now $4.15/gal and rising by the day. And the local paper is revelling in it. They have a contest going to pick the day regular hits $4.00 Isn't this FUN boys and girls? Any day now it will. Then $5.00 not far off. CARB (Cal Air Res Board, the geniuses who poisoned our groundwater with MTBE) have announced they want to FINE ALL gas stations because they sell stuff that contributes to CO2. Great, that'll help eh? Small fines for the stations but HUGE files for the refineries is their plan. Who's gonna pay? Why my wife and I and all the working stiffs in California. And this is just the beginning. They're going to tax gasoline until it's $10.00/gallon within a year or two is the word now. I'm hoping they'll come up with a plan to buy back my Navigator just to get it off the street and thereby save the planet. Prince Charles said yesterday we have 18 months before the climate disaster hits and we need to throw tens of billions of pounds at the problem. Wonder how much will come out of HIS pocket? Every candidate for pres has bought into this AlGore snake oil. It's unbelievable, but its a fact.
Also, local paper, San Jose Merc News, had a big story week or two ago about one of the solutions the geniuses have dreamed up - HUGE multi-hundred acre farms of CO2 scrubbers. Look like giant fly swatters perched on towers. Row upon row. Cost? "Trillions of dollars PER YEAR" THat includes the couple of NUCLEAR plants that would have to be built to run EACH of these things.
Know what? For me, a degree or two of temperture rise is beginning to look mighty good in comparison.

Back closer to home- yesterday driver's window in the LS - something snapped inside. I can get it closed manually and it'll stay but looks like I gotta tear the door panel off. Oh well, guess I knew it would happen sooner or later. Now to find all the screws and fasteners etc to get the panel off w/out messing it up.

carolinabob

Right now, you can get a 2008 Acura RL with Technology package for under $40,000. Will MKS be just a re-badged, little bit better Taurus for $55,000?