Thanks for the replacement headsup. In talking to my neighbors both heard the car start and cutout after a few seconds. This was on every attempt. It was like the alarm system was killing the engine. The alarm only went off after the engine cut out. I had more than enough juice to boost as my buddy was using his diesel pickup with a battery the size of my engine block. No corrosion on either batteries. I'll have to see what the dealer has to say about this. Ray
Second what akirby said. Peak HP numbers don't necessarily reflect what the car performs like on the road. OK, maybe we're talking "butt dyno" here, but that's what we drive by, right? The way a car responds to a push on the pedal from 30, or especially 60, is what floats my boat and that's hard to document with statistics. I'll be keeping my '00 for two more years (at least), but my dealer has promised me a test drive in their first '03 and I can't wait.
But if I were buying an '03 I'd have them swap the wheels from my '00 Sport.:)
Ray, if you don't get anywhere with the dealer, you might contact Rene. He also had a dead battery after his LS sat for a long time. FWIW.
"Combine that with the 3.58 rear axle (yours is 3.31 unless it was a REALLY early 99 build)"
I'm kind of disappointed in Ford for not fixing their advertised ratio for three years. The car started out with a 3.58 ratio and was switched to 3.31 after a few months of production. They continued to advertise the car as having a 3.58, not even bothering to change the specs for the '01 and '02 product launches. You'd figure that after the Cobra/HP fiasco, they'd be a little more careful about what they tell consumers. I'm even kind of surprised that they haven't corrected the "280 HP @ 4000 RPM" number in the month or so since the specs were leaked.
Had the battery replaced today under warranty. Almost wished I'd gone out and bought one as it took three hours. They first had to charge the battery then see if it held the charge - it didn't. Told them I'd been through all that but they needed the printout to claim the battery under warranty to Ford. I was told the alarm will go off with a weak battery which is fine but it shouldn't disable the engine while you're jumping it. They had no explanation so we'll leave that one for the next unsuspecting soul to own the car after I turn it in at leases end. Ray Chartrand
My LS's battery died after I hadn't started it up in a long time. We were doing a major home remodel for about 4 months and simply didn't drive the LS during that period. When I eventually tried to start it, it was totally dead! All I did was put a charger on it for 24 hours, and after that it started normally (no horns or blinking lights).
Actually, I had another look at the Ford Media site - 3.31 is reported for 2000 and 2002 V8, but 3.58 is definitely up there for the 2001 and 2003. I could have sworn I read 3.58 for all of them earlier... although I do suppose I could have confused the V6 numbers for 2000 and 2002... :-/
In my earlier post, I asked about how good of a lease deal I was getting with a $609 payment, 36 months, 15k miles, $850 out-of-pocket. After spending time with the dealer yesterday, I believe they are giving me a good deal. The cap cost is about $600 over invoice and the interest rate is 0.5%. I tried comparing the deal with an Audi A6 2.7T, and couldn't figure why the monthly prices were about the same, considering the cap costs were very close, Lincoln has $3000 customer cash (Audi has none), and the Audi interest rate is about 1.45%. Then it hit me in the face--residual after 3 years on the A6 is 51%, while it's only 39% on the LSE. Today I'll ask the dealer to throw in window tint and a rear spoiler--if they say yes, I'll bring home a new LSE.
Doesn't the LSE come with the rear spoiler???? The one at my dealer was one. I don't recall their price on that one, but they have a V6 LSC for $32,8ish!! From a glance, it looks pretty loaded!
IIRC early build '00s had the 3:58 but it was changed to 3:31 soon after production started. Some people have suggested this was so they could provide the magazines with cars that would show good 0-60 times, but then they had to sell what the EPA certified. That doesn't make sense, though. If the car wasn't certified with the 3:58 they would not have been able to sell any.
Mike, the spoiler on the LSE is optional, according to my dealer; they've had one with, one without. Probably dreaming, but I wonder if it was made optional due to the unfavorable reaction of a lot of us at Mania2. In the group I was in, at least, the general consensus on the LSE was "lose the spoiler."
force98: Something doesn't make sense with the 39% residual. Using a zero down lease, 15K / year, 0.5% interest and a 53% of MSRP residual I estimate a lease payment of $622 a month, so with $850 down $600 even a month sounds right.
Normally residual is based upon MSPR, is your dealer doing something different and using a residual based on the discounted price?
Audi is really struggling with sales in the US (especially compared to BMW). Audi's also have poor resale value, probably 2nd only to Lincoln. In order to keep those Audis moving they are using heavily subsidized leases. Looking at the ads in the local paper it looks like I can get an A6 3.0 for about $40 more per month as a LS V-8, even though the A6 MSRP is $4K more than a LS V-8, not a LSE). As a comparison, a BMW 525i would be over $200 a month more than a LS V-8, which I just don't understand given BMW's high resale $$.
Again the way to make the biggest change in the lease payment $ is to change the residual value, so Audi must really be inflating the residuals to lower the lease payments.
In a Ford press release, Lincoln head honcho Darryl Hazel says that the LS will be in showrooms "late in the year"; I assume that probably means December.
There are no published reviews that I'm aware of as yet. I believe that first drives by magazine/print reviewers are taking place right about now, so they should be showing up in the coming weeks.
Automotive News is reporting that the LS convertible will be available as a 2006 model. Also a rear-wheel drive vehicle that is a cross between a sedan and sports utility.
The start of '03 LS production has been scheduled for Nov 15, 2002 for quite some time. Assuming that there is no slippage in that date, the very first '03 LS's would be on dealer lots in early December, but you won't see a lot of them until the end of December or January.
I would imaging that a pilot run of '03 LS's would be started within a couple of weeks, if not in a few days. Usually these first production cars get in the hands of the auto press, which means that most rags would not be able to report on driving one until their November or December issues, unless Lincoln lets them at the hand built engineering prototypes that they have been testing and beating on this summer.
Of course if there are any glitches when they do the pilot run.....
I just read the article in CarConnection about the upcoming 350 hp Cadillac CTS.
I guess that, for the time being, the HP race will be ceded to Cadillac. Doesn't Lincoln have anyone playing the "Bob Lutz" role to inspire them to be more competetive in this area, or are they relegating this responsibility to outside tuners like McLaren? Maybe they'll bring McLaren "inhouse" like MB did with AMG.
Sorry to complain, but it seems like LM is always a step behind GM when it comes to performance. The performance leadership role translates into sales when you can advertise your Cadillac Escalade as being "The Most Powerful SUV on Earth". I'd love to see an ad touting "Lincoln Navigator -- The Most Powerful SUV on Earth", or "Lincoln LS -- faster 0-60 than BMW 5-series 4.4 and MB E-class". At this point GM/Cadillac, Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infinity and VW/Audi seem more than willing to compete with BMW and MB in the performance arena -- why not LM?
I know the LS has world-class handling -- how about some 0-60 times to go along with it? Even if the 2003 model cuts a full second off the current 7.2 0-60 times, it will be matched or leapfrogged by so many other peers and other lesser cars that it blends into the pack. The LS needs something to distinquish it in order to attract the attention of wider demographic than the automotive press and the rare enthusiast who appreciate this car's innate goodness.
There's another way to look at it. The LS has been ahead of the GM competition (first Catera, then CTS) in power output since its introduction, so it's hardly been a step behind GM in the rear-drive sedan category. The 350-horse CTS is currently vaporware; if and when it actually goes on sale, we'll be able to see how well it competes. Also, who's to say that Lincoln isn't planning to be more competitive, power-wise? I'm guessing that the Lincoln folks aren't twiddling their thumbs; time will tell.
As far as 0-60 times are concerned, the October Car and Driver has a comparison test featuring the cars against which (incorrectly, I contend) car rags tend to pit the LS. They are the Acura TL Type S, the Audi A4 3.0 CVT, and BMW 330i, the Infiniti G35, the Merc C320, and the VW Passat W8. All tested cars are automatics, and the 0-60 times range from a fastest of 7.1 seconds (G35) to a slowest of 7.7 (VW).
If the '03 LS does, indeed, cut a second off its current time, winding up in the low sixes (we'll have to wait and see on that one, too), then it'll suck the doors off this current set of competitors. There's always more than one point of view.
You're right -- The LS does have a long list of pluses compared to the competition, and it is not a slow car by any definition of the word. It just irks me to see a Nissan Altima with a faster 0-60 time than a clearly-superior car like the LS. I hate to say it, but I think a lot of folks tend to focus on this one statistic to the exclusion of all else, and whenever a car can boast a faster figure than the competitor it usually increases sales (even if that car happens to be junk otherwise). Maybe handling is too subjective a quality to quantify for purposes of advertising advantage.
OK -- I admit it -- I'm looking for Bragging Rights!
Lightning pickup - no GM competition now or in the near future. The Silverado SS won't even come close according to the specs I read this weekend. Dodge has a competitor coming but it's several years late. Ford has owned this one for awhile.
Mustang Cobra '03 - Outside of the much more expensive Corvette (which only has 2 seats), there is nothing to compete with the Mustang. 400 hp+ (don't believe the 390 advertised hp - they learned from the 99 Cobra disaster). Even the Camarobirds top end models couldn't come close to this one.
SVT Focus - GM has nothing even close here, although they're supposedly working on a performance version of the Pontiac Sunfire and Chevy Cavalier (ROTFL), but for the foreseeable future looks like Ford owns this one - even beating the Honda Civic Si and VW competition.
Ok, GM has some really powerful, torquey truck engines and the Corvette, but that's it. The GTO is on the way but it's just a low end grand prix with a big motor. Typical GM engineering. Dodge is the only one that can really challenge Ford in this arena right now.
5 years ago I would have agreed that Ford seemed destined to lose the HP wars every time, but that changed. Wait til the GT40 arrives - Coletti claims it will turn Vipers into something between an earthworm and a garden snake. Not sure I believe that, but.......
And in case you forgot, when Caddy announced the CTSi (now called the CTSv) Lincoln also announced a hot rod LS (not the McLaren) powered by a 400 hp normally aspirated 5.0L modular V8 with a 6-speed ZF automatic (as in the S type and 745i). I'm betting Lincoln will announce something soon in this area.
I agree; the 0-60 stat IS the focused-upon number, and it's really meaningless in real-world driving. More important on the street, from an acceleration standpoint (IMO), are stats like 30-50 and 50-70, but they're not "sexy" enough.
What's equally (if not more) important is a car's ability to handle and brake, thus giving the driver the opportunity to avoid unpleasantness, and the LS has that in spades. Handling measurement is subjective, though, and not easily compared by numbers, so we're back to 0-60.
I also agree with you on bragging rights. Your points are well-taken; just wanted to post another perspective. I can't wait for the '03 to hit the streets; I think those of us who appreciate the LS will be pleased.
A number at which the LS would excel is fairly easy to obtain, but not measured.
How about skid pad max. lateral G's on a RoUgH skid pad, something like real world. On a smooth pad, the less sophisticated (solid rear axle) cars can turn in good numbers. Put 'em on a rough surface and watch them skitter.
Signed the paperwork a few hours ago for my new '02 LSE V8. Can't wait to get it home--dealer is having the windows tinted for me first. Opinions please. I'm thinking of having the rear spoiler installed. I've never seen one in person--just photos. Any of you have first-hand experience with owning or seeing a spoiler equipped LS?
If it's the small lip type spoiler I personally think it looks good, but not the 'wing' type. But it's your car so you should take a look and see if you like it or not. You're the one who has to live with it, not us!
I'm a little puzzled about your insurance costs. Have you gotten an explanation for this?
The LS has been named one of the safest cars of all time. It is a "best pick" by the IIHS. I haven't seen it on any lists of frequently stolen cars. So, what could it be? In my case, there was only a minimal increase compared to the 98 Sable I was getting out of.
I'd definitely want a detailed explanation for this with some kind of loss data to back it up.
I would be shopping around unless the BMW costs were unusually low for some reason (such as thru BMW).
My 2001 LS V-8 Sport insurance costs $24.20 more than my 1999 Explorer 2WD XLT with same coverage or $58.40 per year. Now that is a bargain. List: LS-$40,000, Explorer-$30,000 + LS is 2 years newer.
Something is rotten here, my '00 LS costs about $200 more per year ($100 / six months) to insure than my wife's 1997 Taurus. We have less coverage on the Taurus and her annual mileage is about is about 50% of my mileage.
The USAA rep told me the LSE was higher due to high collision repair costs. She did say the vehicle was very safe and rated accordingly. As for wife and I, both over 40, zero moving violations/accidents in last 10+ years, etc. Cost to insure is $805 every 6 months with 100/250 deductibles. I changed deductibles to 500/1000, which dropped quote to $595. I think one factor is NM has the second highest number of uninsured drivers in the US. It sucks, as folks like me get stuck paying higher rates because of the losers who don't bother to get insurance. Question--does the LS have DRLs? I was not able to answer that question last night while talking to the USAA rep. Perhaps the DRLs can be programed by the dealer? I haven't physically taken delivery of the car yet, so no owner's manual to review.
I'm interested in purchasing a 2000 LS V8 Sport with appx. 18,800 miles. It seems to be loaded with the sport package/sport suspension, sunroof, traction control, all power, memory driver seat, heated leather seats, etc. It is in great condition (no scratches, no door dents). What should I expect to pay for it from a Lincoln dealership with the original warranty?? Should I be aware of anything before purchasing?? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
You can go right here on edmunds.com or kbb.com and calculate the TMV for that vehicle. I'm guessing low 20's since it's low mileage. Higher mileage would put it in the upper teens. You'll still have up to 4 years of warranty coverage from the original purchase date - at least a year (you'll hit that before you'll hit 50K). It's a great value if you like the car. There were a few problems on the 2000s but most would have already been fixed or you can have fixed under warranty. Nothing that would prevent a buy recommendation. Figure that the car new cost about $37K depending on options. Just check for cosmetic damage, tire condition, etc or obvious signs of abuse.
It must be your area. We also have USAA and our premium is about $750 a year. That is with a $100 collision and $0 comprehensive deductibles. We are in So. Cal.
Some months ago Popular Mechanics showed a photograph of an LS they said was supercharged, and it was stated that this would be a future option. However, there is no mention of this in the Autoweek article on the 2003 LS. Is a blower in the pipeline, or has PM got its story wrong?
Although nothing is certain until a car is in production, the talk of a supercharged LS has gone away and been replced by talk of a LS with the upcomming 400 HP. 5.0L DOHC Ford Mod Motor. It would also have the Mustang Cobra 6 speed manual. Ford has already showed off a prototype of this engine in the FR-500 Mustang concept car and you can supposedly buy the parts for it from SVT. However recently there has been talk of problems manufacturing the block for the 5.0 L mod motor, so.........
It seems that Lincoln will be leaving the supercharged LS to McLaren (350 HP or so), which may make sense not to compete too directly with your chosen LS tuner.
So again take everything with a grain of salt until you see one on the showroom floor.
The first thing I've done for years is upgrade tires after I buy a new vehicle. I'm considering replacing the OEM tires on my 3-day old LSE V8 with 245/50-17 Michelin Pilot Sport A/S. Anyone have experience with this tire? And how about the wider size? On a sour note, I noticed the leather boot frame for the emergency brake handle has lifted up off the console. After years of owning non-US luxury brands, such as BMW, Lexus, and Audi, I'm a bit disappointed. One of the reasons I stayed away from US vehicles was poor build quality. I hope this is not a precursor of things to come...
I've got the 235/50-17 Pilot Sport A/S and I love them. Not sure about the 245/50 size - 245/45 is the recommended alternate size for the 17" wheels. I run mine at 32 psi. Probably the best high performance all season tire you can buy - they stick like glue in the rain. I'm very happy and will buy them again.
The Kuhmos have also gotten good marks. Probably not as smooth or quiet as the Michelins but still good and the dry grip is even better. Used a lot by autocrossers and they're about half the price of the Michelins.
Has anyone with a Red Carpet lease signed up for the new damage waiver program? One of the dealer's I'm talking to is really pushing it hard. The trade name of the program is "Red Carpet Lease, WearCare"
The sell is that for $400 you can turn in the car at the end of the lease and have up to $2,500 worth of damage or required repairs, such as dents dings, bald tires etc. and not have to pay a nickel at turn in.
Sounds too good to be true, which gets me suspicious.
force98, don't know about the A/S's but I have Pilot Sport XGT-V4 unidirectional's and they are wonderful. Incredible dry grip, quiet, great steering feel, good wet grip, are drivable in snow (not great though) and seem to be wearing reasonably well. The only down sides are they are a little harsh, probably due to real stiff sidewalls which give that good steering feel.
It's not too good to be true - it's an insurance policy. Any major damage will be covered by your auto insurance, so you don't need to worry about that. Sounds like a lot of additional dealer profit to me. I would save the $400 and take my chances.
Well now I dunno. I took this with my Jag X Type and think it is probably worth it. Mine cost $500 on my 39 month lease. In addition to the damage, my limit of 12K miles per yr is waived and I can drive up to 20K per year without penalty. Also, if you try to turn in a car with almost bald tires, maybe a torn seat, and some bumper and door dings, you will have a fight on your hands. The dealer will certainly charge you and I've heard some wierd tales. Just the peace of mind is worth it to me.
I also think it's a waste of money. I have leased 5 vehicles in last 8 years (LSE is number 6) and never had any problems turning one in at lease end. This includes BMW, Cadillac, Ford, Audi, and Lexus. With each vehicle, turn in was a breeze, and I never paid a penny in damages. Door dings, small tears & scratches, etc, are not normally chargeable items. For example, Cadillac recently allowed me: Dings/dents/scratches 2" or less Interior burn holes 1/8" or less Interior tears/cuts 1/2" or less Windshield damage 1/2" or less However, I take immaculate care of my vehicles. If you tend to trash you vehicles, then it may be money well spent. As for tires, I always go out and buy better tires, reap the benefits of improved performance throughout the lease, then put the OEM tires back on just before I turn the vehicle back in. Why put new tires on just to give them back to Ford?
Yes I figure that anytime the salesman is pushing hard its commission $ for them.
I went to fordcredit.com and looked at all the details. It specifically excludes anything that should be covered by the original warranty. It also specifically excludes "Extra mileage charges as stated in the lease."
Seems to me that there are only a few places that you make out.
1. You turn it in with worn out tires. 2. You turn it in with body damage that cost less than $1,000 to fix. That way you don't have to put it through your insurance, loose the deductable and risk paying higher rates.
Bottom line is it looks like they can charge only $400 because they've covered most of the bases. And with my present LS lease I have done what force98 does, that is I have some nice Michelins on it and I have the old tires with only 2,000 miles on them stacked in the corner of the garage for when I turn it in.
I think the tires that come on the LSE are very good tires that are well matched for Ride and handling. Perhaps you should buy inexpensive tires at the end of the lease and turn it in with those tires.
Comments
I had more than enough juice to boost as my buddy was using his diesel pickup with a battery the size of my engine block. No corrosion on either batteries.
I'll have to see what the dealer has to say about this.
Ray
But if I were buying an '03 I'd have them swap the wheels from my '00 Sport.:)
Ray, if you don't get anywhere with the dealer, you might contact Rene. He also had a dead battery after his LS sat for a long time. FWIW.
I'm kind of disappointed in Ford for not fixing their advertised ratio for three years. The car started out with a 3.58 ratio and was switched to 3.31 after a few months of production. They continued to advertise the car as having a 3.58, not even bothering to change the specs for the '01 and '02 product launches. You'd figure that after the Cobra/HP fiasco, they'd be a little more careful about what they tell consumers.
I'm even kind of surprised that they haven't corrected the "280 HP @ 4000 RPM" number in the month or so since the specs were leaked.
I was told the alarm will go off with a weak battery which is fine but it shouldn't disable the engine while you're jumping it. They had no explanation so we'll leave that one for the next unsuspecting soul to own the car after I turn it in at leases end.
Ray Chartrand
Mike, the spoiler on the LSE is optional, according to my dealer; they've had one with, one without. Probably dreaming, but I wonder if it was made optional due to the unfavorable reaction of a lot of us at Mania2. In the group I was in, at least, the general consensus on the LSE was "lose the spoiler."
Normally residual is based upon MSPR, is your dealer doing something different and using a residual based on the discounted price?
Audi is really struggling with sales in the US (especially compared to BMW). Audi's also have poor resale value, probably 2nd only to Lincoln. In order to keep those Audis moving they are using heavily subsidized leases. Looking at the ads in the local paper it looks like I can get an A6 3.0 for about $40 more per month as a LS V-8, even though the A6 MSRP is $4K more than a LS V-8, not a LSE). As a comparison, a BMW 525i would be over $200 a month more than a LS V-8, which I just don't understand given BMW's high resale $$.
Again the way to make the biggest change in the lease payment $ is to change the residual value, so Audi must really be inflating the residuals to lower the lease payments.
Also, have there been any driver-reviews???
There are no published reviews that I'm aware of as yet. I believe that first drives by magazine/print reviewers are taking place right about now, so they should be showing up in the coming weeks.
Maybe a LS coupe for 2005???
I would imaging that a pilot run of '03 LS's would be started within a couple of weeks, if not in a few days. Usually these first production cars get in the hands of the auto press, which means that most rags would not be able to report on driving one until their November or December issues, unless Lincoln lets them at the hand built engineering prototypes that they have been testing and beating on this summer.
Of course if there are any glitches when they do the pilot run.....
So close, yet so far away......
I guess that, for the time being, the HP race will be ceded to Cadillac. Doesn't Lincoln have anyone playing the "Bob Lutz" role to inspire them to be more competetive in this area, or are they relegating this responsibility to outside tuners like McLaren? Maybe they'll bring McLaren "inhouse" like MB did with AMG.
Sorry to complain, but it seems like LM is always a step behind GM when it comes to performance. The performance leadership role translates into sales when you can advertise your Cadillac Escalade as being "The Most Powerful SUV on Earth". I'd love to see an ad touting "Lincoln Navigator -- The Most Powerful SUV on Earth", or "Lincoln LS -- faster 0-60 than BMW 5-series 4.4 and MB E-class". At this point GM/Cadillac, Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infinity and VW/Audi seem more than willing to compete with BMW and MB in the performance arena -- why not LM?
I know the LS has world-class handling -- how about some 0-60 times to go along with it? Even if the 2003 model cuts a full second off the current 7.2 0-60 times, it will be matched or leapfrogged by so many other peers and other lesser cars that it blends into the pack. The LS needs something to distinquish it in order to attract the attention of wider demographic than the automotive press and the rare enthusiast who appreciate this car's innate goodness.
B**** Session over.
As far as 0-60 times are concerned, the October Car and Driver has a comparison test featuring the cars against which (incorrectly, I contend) car rags tend to pit the LS. They are the Acura TL Type S, the Audi A4 3.0 CVT, and BMW 330i, the Infiniti G35, the Merc C320, and the VW Passat W8. All tested cars are automatics, and the 0-60 times range from a fastest of 7.1 seconds (G35) to a slowest of 7.7 (VW).
If the '03 LS does, indeed, cut a second off its current time, winding up in the low sixes (we'll have to wait and see on that one, too), then it'll suck the doors off this current set of competitors. There's always more than one point of view.
JLinc, LLSOC charter member
I hate to say it, but I think a lot of folks tend to focus on this one statistic to the exclusion of all else, and whenever a car can boast a faster figure than the competitor it usually increases sales (even if that car happens to be junk otherwise). Maybe handling is too subjective a quality to quantify for purposes of advertising advantage.
OK -- I admit it -- I'm looking for Bragging Rights!
Lightning pickup - no GM competition now or in the near future. The Silverado SS won't even come close according to the specs I read this weekend. Dodge has a competitor coming but it's several years late. Ford has owned this one for awhile.
Mustang Cobra '03 - Outside of the much more expensive Corvette (which only has 2 seats), there is nothing to compete with the Mustang. 400 hp+ (don't believe the 390 advertised hp - they learned from the 99 Cobra disaster). Even the Camarobirds top end models couldn't come close to this one.
SVT Focus - GM has nothing even close here, although they're supposedly working on a performance version of the Pontiac Sunfire and Chevy Cavalier (ROTFL), but for the foreseeable future looks like Ford owns this one - even beating the Honda Civic Si and VW competition.
Ok, GM has some really powerful, torquey truck engines and the Corvette, but that's it. The GTO is on the way but it's just a low end grand prix with a big motor. Typical GM engineering.
Dodge is the only one that can really challenge Ford in this arena right now.
5 years ago I would have agreed that Ford seemed destined to lose the HP wars every time, but that changed. Wait til the GT40 arrives - Coletti claims it will turn Vipers into something between an earthworm and a garden snake. Not sure I believe that, but.......
And in case you forgot, when Caddy announced the CTSi (now called the CTSv) Lincoln also announced a hot rod LS (not the McLaren) powered by a 400 hp normally aspirated 5.0L modular V8 with a 6-speed ZF automatic (as in the S type and 745i). I'm betting Lincoln will announce something soon in this area.
What's equally (if not more) important is a car's ability to handle and brake, thus giving the driver the opportunity to avoid unpleasantness, and the LS has that in spades. Handling measurement is subjective, though, and not easily compared by numbers, so we're back to 0-60.
I also agree with you on bragging rights. Your points are well-taken; just wanted to post another perspective. I can't wait for the '03 to hit the streets; I think those of us who appreciate the LS will be pleased.
JLinc, LLSOC charter member
How about skid pad max. lateral G's on a RoUgH skid pad, something like real world. On a smooth pad, the less sophisticated (solid rear axle) cars can turn in good numbers. Put 'em on a rough surface and watch them skitter.
What say, Edmunds?
Opinions please. I'm thinking of having the rear spoiler installed. I've never seen one in person--just photos. Any of you have first-hand experience with owning or seeing a spoiler equipped LS?
I'm a little puzzled about your insurance costs. Have you gotten an explanation for this?
The LS has been named one of the safest cars of all time. It is a "best pick" by the IIHS. I haven't seen it on any lists of frequently stolen cars. So, what could it be? In my case, there was only a minimal increase compared to the 98 Sable I was getting out of.
I'd definitely want a detailed explanation for this with some kind of loss data to back it up.
My 2001 LS V-8 Sport insurance costs $24.20 more than my 1999 Explorer 2WD XLT with same coverage or $58.40 per year. Now that is a bargain. List: LS-$40,000, Explorer-$30,000 + LS is 2 years newer.
Question--does the LS have DRLs? I was not able to answer that question last night while talking to the USAA rep. Perhaps the DRLs can be programed by the dealer? I haven't physically taken delivery of the car yet, so no owner's manual to review.
Call Prudential or Kemper. I believe Kemper is online. There are a lot of online search engines on the net for Auto quotes.
My previous carrier, AAA wanted 1200 to insure the LS and I told them to blow chunks after talking with Pru.
I pay 275.00 every 6 months.
Also call your congressman and demand he do something about illegal immigration. We have the same problem in California.
Page 75: "Unfortunately, the 5 speed manual has been dropped from the V-6".
Mike
LLSOC Charter Member
Guy from SVT says he envisions an SVT version of the LS. !!! Let's start praying!!!!!!!
It seems that Lincoln will be leaving the supercharged LS to McLaren (350 HP or so), which may make sense not to compete too directly with your chosen LS tuner.
So again take everything with a grain of salt until you see one on the showroom floor.
On a sour note, I noticed the leather boot frame for the emergency brake handle has lifted up off the console. After years of owning non-US luxury brands, such as BMW, Lexus, and Audi, I'm a bit disappointed. One of the reasons I stayed away from US vehicles was poor build quality. I hope this is not a precursor of things to come...
The Kuhmos have also gotten good marks. Probably not as smooth or quiet as the Michelins but still good and the dry grip is even better. Used a lot by autocrossers and they're about half the price of the Michelins.
The sell is that for $400 you can turn in the car at the end of the lease and have up to $2,500 worth of damage or required repairs, such as dents dings, bald tires etc. and not have to pay a nickel at turn in.
Sounds too good to be true, which gets me suspicious.
force98, don't know about the A/S's but I have Pilot Sport XGT-V4 unidirectional's and they are wonderful. Incredible dry grip, quiet, great steering feel, good wet grip, are drivable in snow (not great though) and seem to be wearing reasonably well. The only down sides are they are a little harsh, probably due to real stiff sidewalls which give that good steering feel.
Dings/dents/scratches 2" or less
Interior burn holes 1/8" or less
Interior tears/cuts 1/2" or less
Windshield damage 1/2" or less
However, I take immaculate care of my vehicles. If you tend to trash you vehicles, then it may be money well spent.
As for tires, I always go out and buy better tires, reap the benefits of improved performance throughout the lease, then put the OEM tires back on just before I turn the vehicle back in. Why put new tires on just to give them back to Ford?
Yes I figure that anytime the salesman is pushing hard its commission $ for them.
I went to fordcredit.com and looked at all the details. It specifically excludes anything that should be covered by the original warranty. It also specifically excludes "Extra mileage charges as stated in the lease."
Seems to me that there are only a few places that you make out.
1. You turn it in with worn out tires.
2. You turn it in with body damage that cost less than $1,000 to fix. That way you don't have to put it through your insurance, loose the deductable and risk paying higher rates.
Bottom line is it looks like they can charge only $400 because they've covered most of the bases. And with my present LS lease I have done what force98 does, that is I have some nice Michelins on it and I have the old tires with only 2,000 miles on them stacked in the corner of the garage for when I turn it in.