Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
Just admit that you will never like the MKZ because YOU know it shares a platform with the Fusion - regardless of what it actually looks like or how it actually performs or how the general buying public accepts it.
Wait a minute! The dam* tires are the same color! Allen, the the heck is wrong with you? You must be blind not to see that these cars are indentical!
(That's a snipe at GM)
There are only so many ways you can package a vehicle toward the ends of economy. That is that it meets the needs of fuel economy, the needs of the buyer, and the needs of Ford to economically produce at a price point.
Here is hoping that dependability will be the main point is Ford's stable. As pointed out earlier, GM has real issues in that area and I know lifelong GM people that are now looking at Ford for the first time in their lives.
And get this...I admit to being one of Lincoln's harshest critics these past few years, but here I am actually defending Lincoln's effort here in a totally weasel-y way (not to mention being called Allen's partner...sparring partner maybe). This is all sort of funny, especially the vitriole. What fuels your continued rant?
BTW, there is no Toyota version of the Lexus IS, and there are no Nissan versions of Infiniti cars. However, the Lexus ES350 has been very successful using the same architecture as the Camry. The Audi TT and A3 and Q3 all share architecture with the VW Golf (a terrific design in its own right). An Audi and a Lamborghini share an architecture. The VW Phaeton and the Bentley Continental Flying Spur share architecture. The Buick Lacrosse and the Cadillac XTS share architecture, but no body or interior bits. The Chrysler 300 and Dodge Challenger use the same architecture. Heck, the Taurus and Explorer use the same architecture. Porsche and VW share some architecture.
But what am I doing? All this and more has been said before. It does not sway Edward. No matter what other models have been successful with platform sharing and differentiation, that does not matter. So I am done. We all have opinions. In the end it is all up to the marketplace.
The new CCD suspension on the MKZ and MKS should go a long way toward providing a larger step up from their platform mates. I will be test driving a new MKS as soon as they are available to check out the difference in ride/handling compared to my 2010.
I have been very pleased with my MKS but it rides and drives no better than a new Taurus. In fact, both the MKS and the new Taurus ride more stiffly than my wife's 2008 Taurus. If the continually controlled damping and driver adjustability work as expected, both the MKS and MKZ should ride and handle better than previous versions.
I thought you'd find that amusing.
Or horrifying.....
I love the rear treatment and the interior is stunning. This is a great first step for Lincoln.
On the customer service side, in addition to upgrading dealerships Lincoln is partnering with Les Clefs d'Or - the prestigious international association of hotel concierges - to train Lincoln staff at the Lincoln Academy.
Lincoln is serious this time and they're following through on their long term plans to put Lincoln back onto the luxury map.
The difference is that The MMZ is about 2 inches longer and is about .75 inches taller.
That's one difference. What about the other differences? V6 engine; suspension; wheels; doors; hood; grille; headlamps; taillamps; roof; glass; trunk; bumper; gauges; dash; console; shifter; seats; steering wheel; fenders; quarter panels; thx audio, etc. etc. etc.
In other words - almost everything.
The exterior looks great to me - with the exception of the C-pillar. I don't really care for the six-window look. The interior looks near perfect. It looks like most of the items one expects from a luxury car are available - except for power tilt/telescope steering wheel and power adjustable pedals. The specs say the tilt/telescope is manual but the pictures appear to have the power button on the side of the column. Otherwise, heated steering wheel, massaging seats, heated/cooled seats are all available. Best of all is the adaptable/adustable suspension. The push-button transmission is cool. No, it damn well better not have a prop-rod hood!
As far as I am concerned the optional sliding roof is disappointing. It doesn't open very far and automatically closes even more if you go over 45 MPH. Worst of all, it drapes down over the rear window. This reminds me of the cheap-assed sunroofs some GM cars have - where the sunroof just plops up over the roof. A moonroof that neatly tucks in between the roof and headliner is much cleaner. Thankfully, that is also an option for the MKZ. There was a lot of hype about the sliding roof an it might appeal to some but I wouldn't have it even for free. The original retractable hardtop on the 1957 Ford was a masterpiece of technology at the time. This......not so much, IMHO.
The 3.7 engine should move the car nicely and be competitive with other cars in this class. The turbo 4 should also work nicely - lots of torque - and strong MPG. Of course, I would prefer the 3.5 ecoboost. I also hoped that the 8 speed transmission would be available at launch but that is apparently not the case.
I look forward to the arrival of the MKZ later this fall. I doubt one will find its way into my garage but it appears to be a great effort and should double MKZ sales.
I think you would feel differently about the roof once you see it in person. We have the Vista roof (also known as the BAMR - Big [non-permissible content removed] Moon Roof) on our Edge and it's basically the same. There is not enough room in the headliner for such a large opening on a sedan. It won't be for everyone but at least it's optional for those that want it.
I expect the 8 speed tranny will show up next year along with a 2.7L Ecoboost V6. And I wouldn't be surprised to see a top end model with the 3.5L Ecoboost within a year or two.
I still can't believe some people would scoff at this - it's probably the best vehicle Lincoln has done in decades - even though I agree with you on a couple of the exterior styling cues.
My problem is I want stellar fuel economy so I'll be looking at a Fusion 1.6L EB that gets 26/37. I can't see spending the extra money on a FFH or MKZ hybrid but I'll at least look at both.
I agree this is the best effort in a long time. With the enhanced dealer experience that has already begun, this should generate more interest and sales. The new MKS coming in 2014 will be welcome, too.
I suspect that Ford will continue to pour money into Lincoln now, until it either becomes other than a laughingstock...or until Ford goes down...who knows what the future brings, but things change far more quickly now. Ford likely cannot succeed over the long term with just one marque...I am not thinking of a company right now that has. Two marques can probably do it, but poor Lincoln is such damaged goods. Mercury with its photocopy Ford products still had a better reputation when it died.
Anyway, I see how GM and Chrysler are now growing like gangbusters. Each has many marques still, although they both have cut their marque lists considerably. GM with Chevy, Buick, GMC, Cadillac, Holden (the Chevy Caprice here), Opel and Vauxhall. Opel is providing Buick with a lot of help, and Buick is a star currently, given its status in China and growing presence here again. But Opel is a drag on GM overall, and whether GM will be able to move fast enough to compete with athletes like Hyundai-Kia and the newly power-housed VW remains a question.
VW has taken the opposite tack from Ford and Honda (which also is struggling a bit with its luxury brand), and has now 11 separate marques in the group, plus several more they can re-introduce without buying anything (Auto Union, DKW, Hoirch, NSU (remember the wankel engined Ro 80 from the late 60s)? VW had a major slump for awhile, but in this past year knocked Toyota down to #3 (GM is again #1). VW projected becoming the largest car maker by 2018, but now are on track for 2016. Quite a renaissance. Meanwhile, as many new models as GM has in the pipeline and on showroom floors for all its brands, it could go down in the next few years with all that is happening in Germany, China and Korea.
It is an interesting time. My long love for Lincoln does not blind me to the fact that they aren't renewing their lineup as fast as other manufacturers have figured out how to do. MKZ is a bright spot, but they need about six more, and within the next 18 months, I imagine, to become a player again.
I still think they might have a surprise up their sleeve based on the new mustang platform.
Ya think? Give Ford, (or me) $50 Billion dollars, and I'll go like Gangbusters too! :confuse:
I know, woulda, coulda, shoulda. But to slam GM and Chrysler for actually figuring out how to not toss all the government funds right down the old rathole they were formerly stuffing their own funds into is a bit of sour grapes. These two companies, like Ford, employ a helluva a lot of people and allow a whole lot of suppliers and their employees to exist too. The TARP funds are being paid back, not lost.
It's anyone's call how laissez-faire we ought to be as a country in order to be pragmatic rather than ideologues, but both Chrysler and GM are prospering right now. Will that continue? I have no crystal ball. Ford, GM and Chrysler could all be gone in 5 years for all we know. I hope not, but Britain used to have a booming car business too.
The growth in the Korean companies is phenomenal now that they have figured out how to keep renewing their fleets completely every four years or so. Japan is not out, and it is only a matter of time before China finds its niche here. Even if it doesn't, projections are that the US market will become less and less a determiner of a company's success.
Ford needs to revive moribund Lincoln and find a way to pitch it internationally, or create another luxury brand from scratch without the baggage of the long slow ruination of the once proud Lincoln brand.
GM is a lot better but they have not cut their overhead and excess capacity as much as Ford has and they put all their hybrid eggs in the Volt basket and "mild" hybrids. They are decontenting chevys so they don't compete with Buicks and they're offering financing to people with questionable credit. They have an expensive Volt but they don't have any EVs or less expensive full hybrids.
They may do better in China and if so hopefully that will help the bottom line. But Ford simply couldn't afford to go after China before - they were too busy trying to stay in business - without government handouts. And they are handouts until GM and Chrysler pay back every penny they borrowed (which we both know won't happen).
handoutgrant for $92.7 million to Ford in 2009 for battery research.GM, Chrysler, Ford Share in U.S. Grants for Batteries (Bloomberg)
I bet with a bit of digging I could find all kinds of grants to Ford for infrastructure development and employee training and research. Here's one laundry list.
Some of us don't think there's a problem with government/industry partnerships. If building a highway exit and putting in a rail spur creates jobs, go for it (that's exactly what happened in Chattanooga with VW). If VW pulls out for some reason, those "grants" won't be repaid either.
Sorry, I like Ford and own some stock, but I don't think they are any more "pure" than GM or Chrysler for not taking the same bailout offer. Remember, Ford lobbied for the bailout, knowing that if their Detroit competitors went the "regular" bankruptcy route, a lot of suppliers would fail too, and that would hurt their recovery efforts as well.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Chrysler had repaid its government loans.
As for GM, I believe the stock that the government took as collateral has to go to ~53 before our federal government breaks even. Any sale of GM stock below that price represents a loss. Since GM closed at 22.44 on Friday, it'll be a while before the government is repaid, if ever.
If GM had failed and therefore was not able to pay back the loans then that's one thing but that's not the case here.
I think that's part of the reason they haven't changed their business model as much as they should - they believe if they get in trouble again the government will bail them out.
Correction follows:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2011/05/truth-behind- -chrysler%E2%80%99s-fake-auto-bailout-pay-back/145552
I made my point so I'll be quiet now.
Investing entails risk. Don't have much sympathy for the stockholders of Old GM. If you want to bail them out, I want to get in line for some of my lousy bets. :shades:
Old GM stockholders were allowed to keep their shares.
GM was given a loan and protection from creditors but has to pay back every penny.
GM was required to maintain all of their old obligations (including warranty claims - a whole other nasty subject by itself).
GM would be in the same place they are now but the taxpayers and shareholders would not be out billions of dollars.
And it's only an investment if it's voluntary. Nobody asked me if I wanted to invest MY money in GM.
Chrysler is better - at least they still have to pay back the $3.5B government loan. I just don't like them advertising that they've paid back the loans when they didn't. It's like me having a car loan, refinancing it and saying that I paid it off.
And I don't necessarily blame GM and Chrysler. I blame the government for allowing it.
In other news, it looks like Ford is looking more to the Australians for revamping the look of Lincolns.
Lincoln goes inside-out with Australian designers (caradvice.com.au)
Revamping of Lincoln has started again in earnest, but previous re-set attempts were underway 10 years ago. Perhaps like Hyundai, they will be able to start with the mediocre and build a real brand over time. However, their proposals for new models don't now go much beyond the MKZ and an Escape spin-off. Unfortunately, the 2013 MKS piffle of changes means that model will likely be with us for at least a couple more years. It's anonymous at best, like the Volvo S80 and the Acura RL. The MKT is just ungainly, and also destined to be around at least a couple more years. I saw one drive by yesterday, and I must say it is not aging well. The Navigator is an embarrassment at this point, like the Town Car ended up to be. I continue to beat a dead horse of course, but even if Ford didn't have the money to do the number of models GM has been able to do, even in its bankruptcy, why didn't any of those guys earning the big bucks see that they were pouring all their limited resources into non-descript, even homely looking iron?
Ford will survive as the American Honda--models with good reputations and a luxury brand that seems to be an also-ran for the time being. With its loans, Chrysler has been able to take advantage of synergies with its European brands/owners to get new models to market quickly both here and there. GM is propped up by China: both Buick and Chevrolet sell in excess of 50K units there per month, and with all their joint ventures GM sold 2.5 million vehicles in China in 2011. The stock loss to taxpayers is only real when the stock is sold, and nobody knows what the market will do in the coming years. There were many times when the old GM stock price exceeded what the government needs in order to break even. Stranger things have happened.
The Honda model has worked for Honda, and may work long-term for Ford. We shall see. Meanwhile, get that new Lincoln team some amphetamines.
The team and plan are in place - you just have to be a little patient to see the outcome.
BTW - where is the CTS hybrid to compete with the MKZ hybrid? I bet the MKZ hybrid outsells the CTS-V sedan.
Lincoln won't be BMW or Mercedes but they can be Lexus in a few years.
Because the Escalade sells very well and is extremely profitable.
The next 'slade may be Lambda based.
RWD does not equal "high end" luxury vehicles. It does allow for higher performance but in the luxury vehicle game that doesn't always translate to better sales or more profit.
The 2 biggest sellers for Lexus are the FWD based ES and RX.
Why is the new XTS FWD based? Why does it only offer a 304 hp 3.6L V6 while the much older MKS offers a 365 hp 3.5L Ecoboost V6?
What does the XTS offer that the MKS doesn't?
Another thing, the all new Mustang is not really all new at all. The platform is the same platform as now except it will have an irs as was originally planned for it.
I can take a basic stick frame house and build either a $150K house or a $250K house based on the finishing materials and mechanicals.
I don't have any first hand information, but I've read in more than one source that the next all-new Mustang will be smaller and lighter, in addition to featuring IRS. The smaller, in particular, suggests that it'll probably have a new platform. We'll see.
As to XTS v. MKS...they are remarkably similar in a lot of ways, nearly the same length and wheelbase. Their base engines have similar size and power. They are FWD based, stop-gap "flagships" until both brands have time to issue something better. Both of them have too much body length to wheelbase, as bulky pretend full-size FWD cars tend to have (Audi being an exception)
However, the XTS is good looking and has gotten reluctantly good reviews from the auto press for its lines (the press really doesn't want to like this sort of car). The interior is where it really shines over the MKS. Despite a slightly shorter wheelbase, it has a much roomier back seat than the MKS does (routinely knocked for its tight quarters in back). Both have large car trunks. Given that the XTS shares a platform with the Lacrosse, the large trunk is unexpected. The other part of the interior is its quality and ambience. The press loves the interior style and finish of the XTS, which bests Mercedes in execution.
Now, both are cars running in Toyota Avalon territory until something better can be brought to market. In two years, Cadillac will have a larger RWD flagship that will at least offer a V8 as an option. Lincoln is going for an improved MKS. Seems to be the story of Lincoln's existence...Cadillac achieves and then abandons the "standard of the world" quality--and then shoots for it again, while Lincoln dithers with mediocrity, and a stellar design every 30 years or so.
They got burned by the Mark II in days gone by...a car more expensive than even what most of the European high end had to offer, and it was pretty to boot, but it didn't sell (too expensive). The Continental brand went down at the end of the 50s. The 60s Continentals were distinctive, but that distinctiveness became bloat in the 70s. The 1990 Town Car and the 1998 Navigator were resurrections of good, but like with Ford and the original Explorer and the original Taurus, they had no idea what to do for an encore, because they didn't really understand the appeal and why these models had icon status in the first place.
I got old somewhere along the way, and no one ever asked me what would work better. But I bet everything I have and all that of my neighbors in this co-op that I could have stopped some really stupid decisions from being approved during the past 40 years, and I am no Einstein. Bean counters did a lot of damage of course, but even so, what bozo thought that the 1996 Taurus was a credible follow-up to the 1986 Taurus? Who in charge really thought delusionally that the 2007 Navigator was a fitting replacement for the way the 1998 took the market by storm?
I am not privy to any inside information, so it just boggles my mind that people have been paid good money for so long to come up with such mediocrity.
We don't know what Lincoln has in store for the MKS yet. It will definitely have more rear seat room. Whether it's based on a longer wider CD4 platform or some new Global RWD platform is still up in the air.
Since I'm not into SUVs, I won't comment on the '07 Navigator, but I agree with everything else you wrote in your post.
Bah. (me too )
I remember when the Olds Toronado came out. Competed with the Thunderbird and based (all per Wiki) on the Riviera and Eldorado RWD platforms. But - this full size luxury car was FWD. That "stopgap" had a 26 year run.
Cadillac is also dragging its heels getting the upper end options available on the XTS, but they probably don't give a crap that it doesn't have a hot engine right now. It will sell based on its presentation...and the fact that Cadillac has some legs right now, and the MKS is still an unknown to most buyers. Not to mention really dull in the styling department. :P
We all know there is a market for FWD luxury floaters yet, and Cadillac has hit that sweet spot with this introduction. Still, that demographic is beginning to circle the drain. Even so, the compromised XTS should do fine until the RWD blockbuster arrives. Meanwhile, Cadillac is outselling the MKX with the SRX, and the Nav with the Slade. The ATS is out next month, and the new CTS will be out next year.
This is cut-throat. Even with all their effort, Cadillac may still fall on its face. It has before. My repetitive message, NO car company is sitting back or standing still while Lincoln finally gets its sh*t together.
You keep saying that Lincoln can't survive long enough to get the new vehicles out. And I keep saying that Ford is profitable and can afford to wait for the long term Lincoln plan to take hold.