By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Still no mention of fuel tank capacity. That was conveniently left out of the specs.
Mpg of 19/27 is not too good in today's market. For comparison the heavier more powerful V8 LS is 18/25. So this is the much ballyhooed new fuel efficient drivetrain? The future don't look so bright. Oh well.
some vehicles are optimized for the epa tests.
it's not like the etched in stone 15, oops, no, 10 commandments.
props to mel brooks.
Therefore, no matter how you spin it, the MKZ should have better numbers. And it will only get worse as other manufacturers continue to increase mileage on like sized vehicles. Plus, how is it going to look when by 2008 the full-size GM SUVs will have better mileage than the AWD MKZ?
With plants closing right and left, thousands and thousands of employees losing their jobs, bankruptcy looking them dead in the eye and virtually living on life support, Ford continues to make bad marketing and engineering decisions. It's mind boggling. I honestly believe the chances that Ford (or Lincoln or Mercury) will be around 5 yrs from now are no better than 50-50. And this comes from an 06 Zephyr owner.
The bigger issue is how it compares to the competition, and this is an area where Ford continues to have problems. Not sure why but I'm trying to get some information from one of the engineers that might shed some light on it.
Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 17 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 17 mpg / 27 mpg Automatic: : 18 mpg / 27 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 306 mi. / 459 mi. Manual: 289 mi. / 459 mi.
thanks.
I know your trying to justify these mpg numbers on the MKZ but they are extremely disappointing. This 3.5 engine was supposed to get a 10% imnprovement in MPG over the 2.0 Duratec. It was hyped up that way two years ago on many websites.
Even a lowly Hyundai Azera (which has a nicer interior in my opinion) gets 19-28 mpg. And this car is a 3.8L instead of a 3.5 liter. (The 07 Azera may of dropped their city figure to 18mpg)
But I don't remember ever hearing about the 3.5L getting BETTER mileage than the 3.0 (assume 2.0 was a typo). All I remember hearing is that it would get the same fuel mileage while producing a lot more power.
don't forget it is tuned to use regular gas, and does not yet have vvt, etc...
rav4, 3 rows of seats, marketing doesn't get any better than that. real world, a different story. plenty of highlander buyers drank the same koolaid.
link title
These people writing these articles must of got their information from some Ford source.
link title
"Ford has to get leaner and meaner.....correction, Ford has to get smarter and more innovative. Anytime a company is forced to get leaner and meaner that indicates they have already screwed up and it's time to sacrifice their loyal workforce.
"They're laying a solid foundation".....how, by introducing new powertrains that are less efficient than the old powertrains?
Really, now. Sometimes things are so indefensible that you should leave them alone.
What I'm saying is it doesn't really matter what Ford estimated or how it stacks up against the old engine. What matters is how it stacks up against the competition and that's where it seems to come up short, at least in highway fuel mileage.
The fact is Ford has lost market share - a lot of it due to bad product decisions and engineering but some of it out of their control - but regardless of the cause it's gone and it's not going to come back overnight. The competition does not have 36,000 more employees on the payroll than they need and Ford can't compete with them if they have that much dead weight.
This is survival - plain and simple. Fields already said job cuts and reductions in volume are not the way forward, but it's a necessary first step to position the company to start growing again.
In the long run, what keeps the company in business is good for all the employees.
Fuel Economy: ES350 wins with a combined 25.5 vs. 23.5
Fuel Type: MKZ wins with 87 vs. 93
Fuel expense: THE MXZ surprisingly wins here. $100 in gas gets you 850 miles in the ES350 and 854 in the MKZ. (Assuming 3.00 for 93, 2.75 for 87)
Performance: The ES350 claims 6.8sec for 0-60, Edmunds recorded a 7.1. There are no times for the MKZ yet, but the Zephyr claims 7.26 while Edmunds got 7.6. With the new Engine, the estimates are about 1 second quicker. Assuming a lower real world number improvement(.8), the MKZ wins. 6.5 claimed vs. 6.8 claimed, or 6.8 Edmunds vs. 7.1 Edmunds. MKZ wins.
salary
Does anyone know if ford has plans to replace the current wood designs on its steering wheels with the more conventional type. The wood on the sides is very interesting and diferent but especially on the Navigator it looks bad.
Then again, the new navigators interiior is just short of horrible, in terms of design. The last model was really awesome in that respect.
Glad so see ford fight it out with this lincoln. Wonder if they will add cornering lights like in the MKS...
As for the Navigator, that grill looks terrible to me but it will sell in youth market. They eat all of that stuff up, big rims, big grills, heck they even put it on their teeth!
Chief
Also, the event I went to was called Savor the Dream event. check out the schedule and when it might be coming to your town.
Savor the Dream
Chief
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/f0efe50
Why? Because we are going for more granular topics with descriptive titles. Makes it easier for new folks to find what they're seeking.
Chief