Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Lincoln MKS

1737476787996

Comments

  • kenb757kenb757 Posts: 149
    I guess that's why the TC got five stars in collision tests. The TC has very soft rubber bushings (mounts) for isolation which contributes to some shudder over large bumps. If the frame has adequate attachments to the body, it shouldn't separate. The old Boeing 707 had wings that attached to the fuselage with two (very large) bolts each.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Go check the IIHS crash ratings for the Crown Vic and Taurus, then get back to us.
  • kenb757kenb757 Posts: 149
    "There is a reason that BOF cars are dead. No need to resurrect them now."

    And that reason is weight savings and hence fuel economy.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    There is a reason that the big sedans from Bentley, Maserati, BMW, Audi, Rolls, etc. do not use BOF (and at the prices of some of these machines, they can use whatever technology they want). The new unitized designs are stronger, flex less, have greater tortional rigidity, are better at delivering low noise/vibration/harshness, and more easily meet high crash standards. Not to mention weight savings and fuel economy.
  • kenb757kenb757 Posts: 149
    The Rolls Phantom uses an aluminum space frame (relatively light, but very strong). Unit body cars have never been better at delivering lower NVH levels. Rolls had issues with road noise when they first went to unit body construction in the Shadow in 1965. They never totally resolved that issue until the new Phantom made its appearance. Unit body cars can have great torsional rigidity depending on the design and the gauge of steel used, but they still don't have great resistance to tension and compression, hence a stretched limo will have a frame welded underneath, if it was a unit body to begin with.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    The Rolls aluminum space frame is not the same thing as BOF as used by the TC. You did not address all the other examples. You seem to think the Rolls is the quietest car as a result of BOF. It is not. But have it your way. There are plenty of TCs around to buy. They are by far not as quiet as some of the unitized luxury rides out there. You prefer float and shudder to taut and precise. That's fine, go for it. The overall market will determine what design will last.
  • kenb757kenb757 Posts: 149
    The Rolls is quieter than all of your other examples, but it's not quieter just because of the space frame. I could next get into the meaning of refinement (which the Audi and Infiniti are not), but I'll leave you "experts" to your forum here.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    Excuse me. Thought you were the expert.
  • -Sounds to me like your jealous that you don't have a S550 4 matic. You like the S550 also .Well then since you admit that the S550 is a much better car then you should probably purchase or lease one. That's if you can afford one. Pardon me for being a snob. I also wrote that the MKS doesn't handle or perform as well as a Acura RL. Surely you can afford an RL! What about an Audi A6? Oops, that would cost too much. The question is why would one purchase an MKS when there are better cars in that price range that offer better handling and performance? The only thing I can figure are the discounts that Lincoln is offering on their products. Yep, Luxury for the proletariate. Everyone can own a Lincoln and act like an old fashion millionaire.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Please list the "better cars in that price range that offer better handling and performance"?
  • I see people here talking a lot of garbage about the TC and BOF big cars in general, and I quite frankly am very sick and tired of it. It sure would be nice if people would have minds of their own and not just hate certain cars because the self-appointed lords of the automotive world say they are worthy of hate. The TC is a fine car that just needed to be replaced by a NEW state of the art BOF full size design, it is NOT the car's fault that stupid Ford decided to neglect it. BOF full size cars are NOT garbage just because they are not almighty BMWs or MBs. So to all of you haters, please grow up. Handling is not the only thing that matters in a car, and the TC, 30 year old platform or no 30 year old platform, still has plenty of fans (I am one of them and proud of it) because it is a good car based on a sound concept.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    There is no advantage - from a consumer perspective - to BOF in a passenger car. The main drawbacks are weight and too much flex. They could easily design a unibody replacement for the TC and make it ride like the current TC, but very few people would buy it.

    The debate isn't BOF vs. unibody (again, for consumers - commercial use is a slightly different story). It's TC ride, handling and styling versus MKS ride handling and styling. Lincoln can't compete with the other Luxury or near luxury makes with a TC.

    The only people who would buy a TC or GM are the ones that already own one, and they probably bought it used.

    The market is not there. How many times do we have to say it?
  • savethelandsavetheland Posts: 671
    Ford could not easily build unibody replacement for TC, if it could it would. Most luxury car buyers demand big refined RWD cars. Success of brands like Lexus, Mercedes, BMW and Infinity and failure of Lincoln, Caddy and Acura proves that.

    Ford simply does not have engineering prowess or know-how to develop competitive RWD platform. Jaguar with their engineering talent are gone and all those talks about Ford working on global RWD platform that could be used by Lincoln were nothing that good intentions with no substance behind - this attempt evidently failed miserably leaving Lincoln as Ford clones for foreseeable future.

    Ford engineers are not as good as Hyudai engineers. What we are talking here about? Hyudais has more luxury image than Lincoln. MT recently stated that Genesis is a good value as a luxury car while MKS is overpriced. If you take into account that they cost almost the same - Genesis is a better luxury car.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    So if Lincoln had made the MKS a RWD sedan like the mighty Lexus LS then it would have sold 700 units last month instead of the 1300 units that it actually sold? Or 595 like the GS series?

    Tell you what - you go find a full size (large) RWD luxury sedan that outsold the MKS in February. The 5 series, CTS and E-class are all midsized so they don't count. Go ahead - we'll wait...............

    The Genesis is a nice vehicle but even Lincoln dealers look good compared to taking your car to a Hyundai dealer.

    And unless you've actually built a world class vehicle I don't think you're qualified to comment on what Ford can or can't do. They must be doing something right since they're still in business and not on the cusp of bankruptcy.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    And unless you've actually built a world class vehicle I don't think you're qualified to comment on what Ford can or can't do. They must be doing something right since they're still in business and not on the cusp of bankruptcy.

    I think Lincoln has their market picked out...Ford is getting to be more like Toyota everyday, one size fits most. So the Lincoln MKS works well for "most" lux buyers in the price range, and the 3 people that want a BOF vehicle, or are determined to get a RWD vehicle, get something else.

    They are finally starting to do that with the trim levels, instead of 15,000 options, the have a DX/LX/EX ala Honda (in this case S/SE/SEL or what not). They are not trying to accommodate everyone in all markets - there are no wagons and no minivans. They are going for where the sales are.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Except I think that they *want* to take Lincoln to the next step with a higher end luxo-barge that can compete with the S class, Lexus LS, etc. They just have more important things to do first to make sure they still have a company in 5 years. And the MKS is a good first step.

    I think the new Taurus, even more than the MKS, proves that Ford is finally being run by product people and not beancounters and board members.

    Can you imagine the old Ford coming out with a Taurus that has 365 hp and more power than the Lincoln version of the same platform? Or without a Sable companion? The times have definitely changed. Too bad they didn't start a few years earlier.
  • Bull. BOF cars can tow more and ride much more comfortably and smoother than unibody cars. I have owned over 30 vehicles in my life, and I can confirm this, as can many other people here, just as I can confirm that my small cars always handled better than my large ones.

    What you are saying sounds like more anti BOF/Big car bias. The MKS is nice, but I believe that there is still a place/market for the true full size cars like the TC and GM. And don't talk to me about that "The market isn't there" stuff either. I bet you have no problem with Sports cars that sell 50 copies a month. Nobody complains about the market "Not being there" for those cars. Your post is just more of the same irrational hatred for a type of car that does not deserve it.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    The MKS is nice, but I believe that there is still a place/market for the true full size cars like the TC and GM. And don't talk to me about that "The market isn't there" stuff either. I bet you have no problem with Sports cars that sell 50 copies a month. Nobody complains about the market "Not being there" for those cars. Your post is just more of the same irrational hatred for a type of car that does not deserve it.

    I agree that there is a market, it is just not the largest or most lucrative right this second, and right now I think survival is the issue for the Blue Oval. They also don't have a 50 car/ month sport program either. And I don't think anyone "hates" BOF vehicles, I think it is just a change in direction.

    Ford is becoming more like Toyota (my way or the highway) and less like BMW (you can have it your way) or going from very high mix relatively low volume of each particular model, to higher volume (world cars) with lower mix (fewer trim levels, etc)
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Towing??? You want to tow something significant with a $40K+ luxury sedan? I guess that puts you and the other 3 guys in a very small market segment. And there is nothing that prevents towing in a unibody architecture. The Grand Cherokee can tow 7000 lbs and it's unibody.

    I'm not anti-BOF. I just think that unibody has so many more advantages when it comes to a $40K+ luxury sedan. If BOF was better then why don't the Germans or the Europeans use it in their luxury sedans?

    The market and the competition has shifted. You might as well embrace it and move on. BOF sedans just don't make sense anymore.
  • gent70360gent70360 Posts: 33
    I agree with carfanforever. There is a lot of big car bias here. I believe that a big part of the reason big cars with comfortable rides are not the most popular car is one of style or fashion. Don't underestimate this. Several years ago, when full sized SUVs were so popular, it was NOT because of their ride and handling characteristics. It was all about image. Most people I know who drive expiditions do so only to haul the family around. They were previously minivan owners, with a vehicle having better ride and handling. They moved to the truck based SUV for the image more than anything. Oh, they also like to sit higher and feel safe because of the vehicle size and weight. I believe it is the image of the big car that people don't want. The TC, CV or GM are cars that their parents or grandparents were likely to have. I have had several people tease me at work for having a "paw paw" car.

    Because of this, I don't think the big roomy cars will be popular again. Although I am starting to see several decked out with very oversized rims and new paint on the road, driven by younger people. Is this some sort of retro thing?

    I suspect that the big cars would sell a bit better than they do now if only they would be updated. Don't get me wrong, I do like the MKS. But if there was something like the TC, but updated and stylish and full of electronic toys with the comfortable ride, I would consider it.

    I don't think I need to be put down because of the way I feel. Not everyone wants a sports car like ride. I suspect one thing, that the sports car minded people are more likely to be on this forum.

    The roads are very bad here in south Louisiana, where the soil subsides at a rate than can be measured, where pot holes can sometimes have mud bottoms, where seams in a concrete road need shaving down every so often. I don't want a close connection to the road.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Nobody is putting anyone down for liking TCs or GMs. What I'm saying is this:

    1 - BOF has inherent limitations for sedans (weight and frame stiffness mainly) that are overcome by newer unibody architectures.

    2 - there is a market for large, softly sprung, poor handling sedans - it's just very, very tiny and shrinking every day.

    You can continue to buy and drive TCs and GMs and CVs for years, but it is totally unreasonable to expect Ford to continue investing in a dying platform.

    If Ford wanted to build a super comfortable softly sprung luxo-barge they could do that on a unibody chassis. Why? See #2 above.

    It happens. Cassettes gave way to CDs and now CDs are giving way to MP3s. It's called progress.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,423
    The TC was good in its day, and I am not knocking it for serving its purpose. I have owned 27 vehiclels and several have been BOF. It is personal preference of course, but I would never go back. When I do ride in a Panther platform car now (TC, CV, GM), the loose chassis/lack of stiffness is really off-putting. It feels like something from the 70s or before.

    I do like big comfortable cars too, but the ones I have gravitated toward have been ones like the big Lexus, the Jaguar Vanden Plas, the Audi A8...if I could afford it, the Bentley sedan would be a consideration. All of them are quieter, less flexy and and better handling than the decades old Panther design. I especially appreciate a car that can both coddle and handle. Ford looked at updating those old cars and it just did not make sense. Those who want a Panther can still get them., but to engineer a proper 21st century rear drive sedan with IRS and either a unitized chassis or aluminum space frame is not a priority, when Ford is having difficulty right now selling their real money makers (F150, Mustang, Fusion...even the Focus is tanking).

    The MKS is a good start, though I have no interest in it. If Lincoln does survive (and the jury is still out), they may have a big sedan again. But it won't be old BOF, solid axle with huge empty overhangs like the outgoing TC. But mostly, it won't be any time soon. Luxury SUVs took over where people needed to do heavy towing. Now, even SUVs will be moving toward unitized designs with greater towing capacity than befoer.

    Notice that GM, even with their slightly more modern DTS and Lucerne are now letting those models wither...adn that decision was made even before they became totally bankrupt.. There are not enough people anymore shopping in the $35-45K range who want a four door sedan that is merely big and quiet adn can occasionallytow a trailer. They want technology as well, along with flexibility of use. The TC filled its role well for decades. Things change.
  • gent70360gent70360 Posts: 33
    I didn't say it had to be BOF

    I didn't say it had to be a TC, GM or CV.

    I didn't say it had to be a barge.

    I didn't say I expected Ford to invest in it or make it. I don't believe the analogy of cassettes giving way to CDs then to MP3s is a good one. Progress to me is a transition to better technology such as the introduction of direct fuel injection or computer control of the engine; or the introduction of new features like the new fuel cap/door, or even air conditioning or power seats in an earlier era. Equating style and ride features to progress doesn't work for me. A big car with a comfortable ride does not have have anything to do with the opposite of progress. I just don't like your tone when you say luxo-barge.

    If EVERYONE IN THE WORLD wanted something that was tightly sprung, and had sports car handling, then how do you explain all the very large pickups and full sized SUV's that were all the rage for the last several years. The way you sound, i get the feeling that you think everyone wants to drive a sport sedan.

    At one time, LOTS of people wanted minivans. At another time, LOTS of people wanted SUVs. There will be something else at some point. It is human nature. There will always be LOTS of followers and a few people who go their own different way.

    I don't like your tone. You want to be connected to the road and feel every bump, why are you even interested in the MKS? There are more tightly sprung and better handling sedans out there.
  • You still don't get it. I don't want to hear that the market is not lucrative or large right now. The market for Sports cars like Corvettes and Miatas is not huge either, but I don't hear you or the others who think like you making insulting and condescending posts about those cars to their fans. And my 50 Sports car a month analogy was just that. I don't hear about GM dropping the Corvette any time soon, do you? Compared to it's big car sales, the Corvette may as well sell 50 copies a month.

    If you think noone "Hates" BOF vehicles, you must not be reading the same forum I am, becaue the hatred for those vehicles is pretty obvious.
  • Yes TOWING! One of the uses for a big car which you and your ilk refuse to acknowledge is that big cars are good for TOWING. I don't want to be forced to use an SUV or a pickup if I want to tow something. And don't give me that "$40,000" argument. Growing up I saw PLENTY of big Cadillacs, Lincolns, Buicks, and Oldsmobiles that cost the equivalent of $40,000 in their era with trailer hitches in the back pulling Airstreams, boats, and the like. You also don't seem to have a problem with people using big luxury SUVs that cost that much and more for towing. Typical.

    If you want to believe that those vehicles tow better than BOF, go right ahead. It's not a fact, and it's just another example of your biases.

    You are anti BOF, and just because the Germans or Europeans don't do something does'nt mean it's garbage. They seem to have trouble understanding the importance of torque in their engines to non highway drivers. Is that a better way to build an engine because the almighty Germans and Europeans do it?

    Don't give me that the market and competition "Has shited" stuff. Talk to me about automakes NEGLECTING certain platforms and having ZERO advertising for certain cars. And don't tell me what to embrace either. BOF sedans may not makes sense anymore TO YOU, but your word nor your opinion are law. BOF sedans STILL make sense to me and others, which is why they STILL sell. Let us like them and leave us be.
  • THANK YOU Gent. you are so correct. This big car/BOF hatred is just people wanting to be trendy and fit in. Your example of the SUVS and Minivans was spot on correct and brilliant. At the peak of SUV popularity, these same people were praising them to the high heavens while knocking big cars left right and sideways, and talking about how "Inefficient" they were. Can you beat that? They knock big cars supposedy for that reason, but yet love vehicles that are even BIGGER. What a joke! Now that big SUVS are out, they are suddenly anti big SUV. We can see what is going on here clear as day, and it is really tiresome.
  • I disagree. I feel that we are being put down for liking TCs and GMs, and that the cars are being insulted for no good reason.

    1. That is just your opinion. BOF cars also have ADVANTAGES.

    2. That is also just your opinion. In the late 1990s all I heard from the auto magazines was that NOBODY wanted Lincolns because they were "Old man's cars" and similar garbage. Then I recently found out that Lincoln was the BEST SELLING LUXURY BRAND IN THE US in the late 1990s. NOT BMW or Mercedes. That jsut goes to show you the extent of the bias of you and your ilk. You want to talk about that market "Shrinking"? Why don't you talk about the automakers NEGLECTING said car type, no advertising and no updates/refinements? Tell the WHOLE story for once and drop the bias.

    That is NOT unreasonable. Why neglect loyal customers who like a product? That is just more bias.

    Some people prefer BOF, and we are not monsters because we do.

    More condescending and insulting crap.
  • It is not for you to say that it doesen't make sense for Ford to invest in a new state of the art BOF platform. It would be nice if Ford asked the people like us who actually purchase Panthers (As did I, my latest is an '07) about that. They are neglecting us for no damn good reason. People like you are having their needs met, so why can't we have ours?

    You may not like BOF cars anymore, and that is your business. But don't tell us what to like and don't try to tell Ford that they are doing the right thing by neglecting/ignoring us.

    I and many others still want big, BOF cars with long overhangs. That does not make us criminals or worthy of insults and being talked down to.
  • jimbresjimbres Posts: 2,025
    Then I recently found out that Lincoln was the BEST SELLING LUXURY BRAND IN THE US in the late 1990s.

    Where I live (NYC metro area), at least half of the Town Cars on the road have livery or taxi plates. They make up most of the "black car" fleets that in better times took those of us who worked on Wall Street home if we had to work late, after the trains stopped running. (No, I wasn't an evil banker - just a software writer.)

    Don't think that I'm knocking the Town Car when I say this. Quite the contrary. The guys who drive these cars also own them; they're self-employed contractors who pay for dispatch services. They love the TC because they can get 300K or more (sometimes many more) miles out of it at minimum cost & with little downtime. When you depend on your car for your daily bread, you can't afford to have it in the shop for days on end.

    Remember also that the roads around NYC are in poor shape, so these Town Cars take a lot of unintended abuse. During the busy times - for example, the Christmas party season back when the Dow was in 5 digits - a TC owner/driver typically logged 16 hours per day on the road.

    The TC isn't my personal cup of tea - I'm your basic BMW-loving yuppie snob (or I was when I had a job) - but I have enormous respect for it. No car works harder.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    I don't want to hear that the market is not lucrative or large right now.

    So you really don't expect anything to change, you are just lamenting the passing of an icon or something?

    The market for Sports cars like Corvettes and Miatas is not huge either, but I don't hear you or the others who think like you making insulting and condescending posts about those cars to their fans.

    There isn't a huge market for anything right now, at under 10m vehicles a year. I am willing to bet more Corvettes or Miatas are sold than Panthers. I apologize if the tone of my posts was insulting or condescending.
Sign In or Register to comment.