Howdy, Stranger!

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

Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ



  • theman123theman123 Posts: 170
    Hey Chief, here's a real review by Automedia on the Lincoln Zephyr. This might be able to help you a little bit. Just do a Google search Lincoln Zephyr Review. There are a bunch of reviews on the car. Most are very positive others are more blah than anything else.

    Auto Media Lincoln Zephyr Review

  • bigtbigt Posts: 413
    I also have the blonde wood interior and I receive positive comments all the time. It really looks good when at night in the city lights. When the parking attendents bring it up I get lots of comments. Unfortunately most folks have not seen this car or have any ideal what it is. I know there have been a few TV ads out there. I am in the greater DC area and I have only seen a few of them in the 3-4 months I have owned my Zephyr.

    Does anyone know if there will be more color selections next year?

    They had BMW for innovation with a HUD display, GM offers this display on a Corvette, Cadillac, and GP GXP!!!!!!!!!

    What gives? I heard that the BMWdispolay is slow to adjust to speed changes, this looks like garbadge to me. I don't think its a good source for accurate interrior info either.

    Besides, the MKZ should have slight improvements inside. Unfortunatley is does not seem like an automanual will be part of the deal.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    I found that odd too, BUT sometimes someone could have come up with the idea, while someone else came behind and improved it. Who knows what the judges were thinking at that time, but for anything to win, it must receive majority of the votes.

    This is just one example to take into account, when manufacturer's survey respondants over the same items as well.

    Like one example is. VW's are known for high quality interior materials, great presentation all around, YET, the rest of the car isn't reliable. Yet, public perception surveys show they rate high by consumers.

    But surveys, and these types of awards don't just grant titles to the winners, but with what manufacturer's learn from this, we as consumers gain from it.

    And mark my words, the industry is moving to greater personalization of vehicle interiors, and that is the common element with the above mentioned.

    Don't be surprised if 20-40 years from now, we have empty/hollow boxes in our dashboards, where we "pick" stereos, A/C, Navi's, clusters, etc. and drop them in at the dealership....Like "plug and play".
  • bigtbigt Posts: 413
    And I hope that this time the home team does not just stand on the sidelines. I was glad to see all the GM products on the Apprentise final yesterday. It was cool seeing Donald Trump drive out the Pontiac. I wonder what he really drives (if at all). I would hate it if all our autos came from overseas. Gee, can't we make anything anymore!
  • We can, the Japanese have shown us what we already know, if you build in a non-union state you can make a world class product. With most of our companies the problem is that over the years owrkers reacted to bad MGT with unions, and since then MGT has not given them sufficient reason to abandon this practice.

    The result is that the whole country suffers. What kind of insult is this, that a FOREIGN car company can build a BETTER car in OUR OWN COUNTRY than we can?

    As soon as we deserve better, we will take it. While I like these new Ford cars (Fusion/Milan/MKZ) I hope that this "Made in Mexico" business is temporary, and a warning for unions that they are not the only game in town anymore.

    They did a good thing for America I know, but now they have bit off too much of the Pie, IMHO. They need to view the corporations in a different light if they wish to survive.

    I mean meybe it is a good idea to buy these cars, just to have a ford without the staggering weight of Union liabilities. Some of them I can accept, and would pay just a bit more for a union made US car. I believe workers need insurance and retirement, but what they have now is overkill, a guy standing there bolting stuff on to metal should not get more money and benefits than someone who is a scientist, a nurse, or an analyst.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Now, if only Lincoln would start making true Lincoln sedans again. I don't think even GM would be making Malibus and CTSs on the same line (as Ford does Fusions and Zephyrs in Mexico), if GM had stooped to put the CTS on a shared front drive platform with Malibu or G6 or Saturn.

    Ford's response to crisis and market share loss is to delay products further (for further redesign) and kill off others. The Zephyr/MTZ and the "new" Navigator cannot carry Lincoln, so the hope is now on the MKX--a very thinly disguised Ford Edge. If the Edge is good enough, the MKX should make it. But Lincoln has now become a hodgepodge of disparate products, all with different styling themes and none the exclusive province of Lincoln. I see more hurting ahead.

    I was looking at 61-63 and 66-69 Continentals the past few days. What a presence. Lincoln builds nothing nowadays that will be seen in the same way 30 ro 40 years hence. Pity.

    The standouts in the Lincoln line go back to the 30's and 40's and then skip to the 60's. Since then, the eyecatchers have been few: the Mark III (the Mark II was a Continental, not a Lincoln), perhaps Marks IV and V (definitely NOT the Mark VI), the mid-80s Continental sedan (just prior to the '99), and the Mark VII (still a pretty car in any crowd). The Mark VIII was a little too stretched and rounded for my tastes, but still, it seemed like a real Lincoln (unlike the dowdy Mark VI).

    The Zephyr is like the Versailles, although it is a far better car because they started with the Fusion, not an aging old chassis like the Granada. I doubt anyone will regret buying a Zephyr, but it will be as forgettable ultimately as the Versailles was in the annals of Lincoln history.
  • pnewbypnewby Posts: 277
    You pointed out some good cars. I also loved the '57 (I think, I know it was mid '50s) Mark. I bought a new '84 Conti. sedan, and it was a great car. People would really turn their heads to get a good look. Also bought a '00 LS in '99, and even though it had every "early build" problem that I ever heard of, I still loved it, and it had lots of folks coming to ask about it. What I still wonder about is why Cadillac lost market share when they went to all FWD, is coming back to RWD, while Lincoln gained market share with new RWD cars is now going to FWD. Something doesn't seem quite right. Of course I'm kinda stuck on AWD myself, but would prefer one based on RWD as opposed to the FWD on most of the new Fords and Lincs.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,001
    To be more precise, Lincoln is going to AWD, not FWD. And if you stop and think about it, the only suitable existing platforms that could support Lincoln AWD sedans were the Volvo and Mazda platforms which just happen to be FWD based. Lincoln can't afford to build an all new RWD platform right away and this was the fastest and least expensive way to get something to market.

    Lincoln needs products FAST and I look at their current plans as a way to get products in the showrooms and to test the AWD market. I'm sure they're already working on a new RWD platform that will support AWD but that's several years away.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Agree with all you say.

    However, I have yet to see any indication of Lincoln moving fast, even though we both agree they ought to. Adding the Zephyr almost as an afterthought to Fusion production was hardly planning ahead when sales began plummeting after the 2000 model year (not that they would have considered planning for new product prior to that ;) ).

    I like you don't care so much that the MTZ is front drive based, and it is also good they started with the Fusion as the chassis. However, for me it is like the difference between the Versailles, and the 84-87 Continental sedan that followed. The Versailles was a half-baked tarting up of the Granada. Within a couple years, they gave it its own roofline and rear doors, but by then it was too late.

    The mid-80s Continental, on the other hand, although clearly shared a Fox platform with the Fairmont, did not have one body panel or window glass piece in common with its Ford sibling. It looked like a proper Lincoln and the 86-87 Continental still looks good.

    The Zephyr is helping Lincoln out a bit right now. A Fusion based car that looked even more like a proper Lincoln would have been better. Woulda coulda shoulda. Lincoln is where it is right now due to its own lack of effort. See all Douglas R's posts.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,001
    The Zephyr wasn't an afterthought. But the 2006 model was definitely a rush job based on the demise of the LS. That is evidenced by the 2007 MKZ which is how the car was planned all along. Based on the number of Zephyr's sold already I'd say it's successful as a stop gap measure.

    I think Lincoln is moving fast - fast being a relative term. The problem is they keep stopping and changing directions going all the way back to the PAG fiasco.

    They need to get the MKS out asap and start working on a new RWD/AWD platform for their flagship that can be shared with other divisions.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    JDPower Initial Quality Study results are in, the Zephyr acheived a 2nd place spot behind the Lexus ES330.
  • theman123theman123 Posts: 170
    JDPower Initial Quality Study results are in, the Zephyr acheived a 2nd place spot behind the Lexus ES330.

    Oh now that's going to stir the S@#$ storm. Hey does anybody have an actual link to the actual rankings and all ?
  • rolo77rolo77 Posts: 31
    Entry premium car:
    –Winner: Lexus IS 250/IS 350
    –Runners-up: Lincoln Zephyr, Acura TL


    JDPower Initial Quality Study results are in !
  • bigtbigt Posts: 413
    The JDPower site links are mostly broken. I did find this but it does not mention the Zephyr:
  • buckwheatbuckwheat Posts: 396
    Notice that winners in each category were based separately on votes from those in the auto industry and the news media.
    Included in the industry vote (2007 MKZ)..
  • Why Ford decided to build a brand new POS 3.2L engine that makes a pathetic 236 hp in England when they could have saved some development money and based it off of the more modern and powerful 3.5 then added enhancements to it for the euro brands?

    Why all of this money spend on an engine that is HP defecient right out of the gate. In an era of the 305hp toyota/Lexus V6 this 236hp garbadge is unacceptable.

    C&D described this engine in the volvo as "adequate". The only way 236hp out of a 'new' engine is adequate is if its MY1999.

    What do you guys think? Certainly the MKZ's engine could fit in a volvo. :mad:
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    I think 236 hp is not so bad for a 3.2. I understand the 3.2 is a straight 6. In addition to the advantage that may offer in terms of smoothness, it also gives Volvo something that is not simply a re-badged Ford. Still, your point is well-taken.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Why is the 3.2L now labeled a POS?

    Volvo' took the lead development of the 3.2L I-6 and it fits THEIR needs the most. Volvo prefers using I-6's because it allows for more space ahead of the engine, for crashworthiness.

    Jaguar and LR will also have access to this engine. The LR2 will have this engine stateside. S-type will also use this engine next time around.

    Also, a good majority of these engines will go towards other countries (specially in Europe) where your taxed upon certain engine/emmissions/size criteria. In the case of the Volvo S60, the 3.2L will hardly sell in comparison to the 2.5L I5, and/or D5.

    If someone wants more power, a turbocharged variation of this engine will be available. A few for those countries, yet MANY for N.A.

    Another issue is vehicle dynamics. I've test driven the Camry with it's 3.5L and thrown it into a corner, and understood why I will never own a FWD vehicle with that much weight in the engine bay. Then again, the typical Camry buyer would hardly drive their car that way.

    Volvo's 3.2L sits a bit rearward than the current 2.5L for better platform balancing, and crash protection. Using a turbocharger is wiser for THEIR use, than throwing more displacement. In the Jaguar, the vehicle will achieve better 50/50 weight distribution, which is perfect for what THEY need.

    And most importantly, Ford allowed PAG to design this engine for their sole use. Don't expect it in any Ford/Mercury branded vehicle for N.A. so it doesn't dilute PAG.
  • rolo77rolo77 Posts: 31
    Military overseas just put a down payment for a MKZ 07,
    using price protection 06 prices for 07 models. The estimated price on my invoice was a increase
    of 563.00 for a 07 FWD, but no pricing for
    AWD 07, so using the base 2000.00 increase
    that came from Ford

    I would estimate MKZ 07 base will increase 563.00 to 600.00
    MKZ 07 AWD upgrade extra 1400.00 to 1500.00 option

    once again, do not hold me to this just using my invoice
    of a 563.00 est increase (slightly discounted
    for military) and what ford put out. my MKZ priced protected 06 prices for and 07 came in fully loaded at 31,600.00 about 3600.00 off MSRP so I am happy, still debating my interior but looks like light stone with the blue exterior

  • bigtbigt Posts: 413
    I am trying to figure out how you are pricing the 2007 MKZ?

    What site are you using?
  • rolo77rolo77 Posts: 31
    Not using a site, Stationed in Japan, so I put a down payment for a 07 MKZ, using a dealer with Military overseas
    sales. This information was on the dealers disk for the
    month of june.

  • If you had to chose out of these two cars which one would you get? I'm deciding out of the two. Which has the better options, performance and etc. I know the avalon is bigger than the zephyr right? I also want to add a navigation system (probably pioneer avic z1). But let me know what I should thinkg about, God willing I hope to get it in December.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    The Avalon is much roomier, has more equipment (and options) for the price, gets better mileage, and will have better re-sale value. The Zephyr will be available at a greater discount per MSRP, is arguably better looking, is more exclusive (you will see fewer of them), is easier to park, and is quality built like the Toyota. You'd have to drive each one to see for yourself which one you could best live with.
  • bigtbigt Posts: 413
    "is more exclusive (you will see fewer of them)"

    That is an interesting parameter. Actually it played a part in my purchase. I had the 300m since 2000 and thought about the new one and then said to myself, everyone has one of these see them all the time. I wanted something different. Now I must admit that you can go way over to that side because here in the Greater DC area I have only seen one or two of them since I purchased mine. Still if I find a sharp MKZ for 2007 I might trade up.
  • Ford should be the priority.

    Volvo took the lead in making the engine? Great, so more moeny was spent by ford to pay them. They can take the lead all they want, give them the 3.5L to start working with, they can tone it down to 3.2 if they want (like cadillac with the 3.6) but Ford would have saved allot of development money, and most credit would have went to volvo, plus the 3.5L cost would be spread out better.

    If volvo wants more space bet. the engine and the front of they car they can either redesign the car, or wait till ford has more money, b/c if ford/volvo worked together on this "V6 to save the company" as it could have been called, meybe it would come out of the gate AT 300 HP and give toyota something to worry about.

    And many cutomers are growing tired of paying top dollar for inferrior euro performance from brands like jag/volvo/and less so Saab. The fact is, that our co's who own these brands could fit better parts in them. What GM did for saab by decreasing the turo the 3.2L gives the 9-3 some serious power. Im just saying that 236hp is a joke. And what volvo needs is irrelevant, its what we need that counts, and when a 25K camry bows past your new 35K volvo/Jag you will really feel that you got your moneys worth.

    ANT, i love Ford, but IMO they made a terrible mistake here. They could have made the 3.5 even better, giving it DI in addition to its cirrent stup, but those funds were spent to give volvo an inline engine. Pathetic.
  • bigtbigt Posts: 413
    Does anyone know if any of the folks from the car manufactures ever browse these sites and read the comments?
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    So your saying, let's forget and throw everything out the window (crash space, perception, exclusive engine use) because all that counts is acceleration, and thats it?

    It's important to take all the above mentioned senarios in consideration. Yes the $25K Camry can blow by the Volvo, just like the Mustang can do all the above for $21K, case being, buyer's aren't exclusively looking for power. And IF they were, a Turbocharged 3.2L will be made available later, in "R" format.

    If manufacturer's followed what the rags would demand, all cars would be as huge as minivans, with V8/V10 engines, and RWD.

    There's always going to be a vehicle, that is faster, another that handles better, and another that is less expensive, another that has better materials, etc. I haven't driven the perfect package yet...I know, I try them all. So the 3.2L will do fine, and for those who need more power, there's the "R" series.
Sign In or Register to comment.