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
I don't own a MKS (does anyone yet?) and that's not available on any other Ford products yet - it seems to be a new feature unique to the MKS.
However - I work with numbers and spreadsheets and charts a lot and I know a bar chart is much easier to interpret at a glance than a spreadsheet with numbers. So strictly from an ergonomics standpoint I understand why they chose a bar graph over numbers. That's basically why bar charts were invented - they're easier to interpret quickly.
I understand that you prefer numbers and that's ok. But I don't understand how something so trivial could be a deal breaker.
I also think that given a choice between not having one at all or having numbers or a bar graph most folks would choose the bar graph. You can't please every single customer with every feature.
I sympathize with the situation, but let's put the blame where it belongs.
I have a local Ford/Lincoln/Mercury dealer who is fantastic. I only use them for sales and warranty work so I couldn't care less whether the waiting room has marble floors and Starbucks coffee. I don't understand why people like to be coddled so much by their car dealers.
I find higher numbers "rewarding," so often I adjust my accelerator input (or gear) to get that number higher. A bar graph isn't going to indicate just where I am as precisely as a number.
Lincoln may have discovered that most people don't look at instantaneous readouts any more than they look at the speedometer or other instruments. But that doesn't mean that those of us who do visually check readouts several times per minute don't actually want good and precise information. Lots of features of luxury cars never get used much if at all. They are there for those who will use them, and such features and touches are one of the reasons a car like the MKS is considered a luxury ride.
I agree. That is why I don't like digital watches and speedometers. I usually don't want to know what time it is, but what time it isn't! How much time to make that appointment. Same with speed. How much over or under the limit am I going. I can visualize both time and speed better with an analog readout.
I still think a large vertical bar graph (with the number also displayed) would be the best solution, but I'll agree that this feature as implemented is pretty worthless.
I still don't think it's a deal breaker.
And a big trunk that you cant get anything big into? That's close to worthless. What about the hinges? Does the trunk have ITH? Or something better?
And the slalom reveals the problems with the car off the straightaway?
THis thing, while nice looking, sounds like Continental II. A FWD plow with a nice body. This car has less HP than the last Continental though. And unless I''m mistaken, the last Continental got better mpg with a V8. I KNOW the Mark 8 did.
I fail to understand why car companies, mainly American ones, design and engineer vehicles with such obvious and easily rectified problems, really design errors. Semi-rant OFF.
For those who have not followed the thread, I am talking about my preference for a digital display of instantaneous fuel economy as opposed to the tiny bar graph that the owner's manual describes and pictures.
Then please explain me how Saturn and Lexus came up with such a worderful dealerships and they do not sell Chevys and Toyota there BTW.
Ford tried to modify their holdbacks to give Blue Oval Certified dealers more money back than the non certified dealers which would incent them to provide better service. The dealers sued them, won and the Blue Oval Certified program was cut back to nothing more than a worthless plaque that anyone could obtain and there was no financial incentive to do better.
MKS review
If I were to list the top 5 things I look for in a car, the MKS really nails 4 out of 5 based on the reviews. My only concern is the engine performance but even the comments about that have been better than I expected. TTAC said refinement was on a par with the best Japanese V6s or words to that effect. Many others have commented favorably about the power. The ride/handling balance, overall fit/finish and quiet interior are very important to me and those things have gotten very positive comments. Overall comfort has been mentioned as a strong point, too.
I am getting excited to do my own road test!
Alen reducing number of dealerships does not mean you have to fold Lincoln/Mercury into lowly Ford. Ford had a good working model of selling Lincoln as exclusive marque and Mercury as a volume brand in exclusive dealerships. It was what differentiated Ford from other companies. They could just hold LM dealerships to higher standards like Lexus or Saturn. Instead they make it difficult for rich people even to think about buying Ford made cars. Rich people want a special treatment and special cars – they worked hard and they deserve it.
There is also another contingent – people who want to be different and want different kind of cars, just like myself. By dropping Mercury and folding Lincoln into Ford they achieves nothing but alienation of all those people.
In the case of the MKS, the AWD model has a lower (3.39) axle ratio than the FWD version. While that certainly won't help gas mileage, it might help performance so the AWD version could be about as quick as the FWD. About the only reason I would go for AWD would be so I could say, "it's not FWD."
If the MKS manages torque steer as well as the Taurus, it will not be a problem for me. We drove FWD and AWD Taurus' back to back prior to our purchase and the only difference I could tell was that the FWD model had noticeably stronger acceleration - not to mention much better EPA ratings.
There were two models on display: Tuxedo black with light cashmere & dark wood, and Cinnamon with light cashmere & dark wood. Both were very sharp, but that Tuxedo black is truly impressive. Because it has glass particles rather than metal flakes, the reflected colors were really sharp.
The car is larger than I expected.....the pictures make is appear to be more of a 'large mid-size', but it is most definitely full-size. I am 6'5" and was quite comfortable in the driver, passenger, and rear seat.
Fit and finish was very impressive. Panel alignments and textures were well-matched, and the doors felt solid (not just heavy). The use of chrome on the exterior is just enough....not too flashy, but you definitely see the luxury status of the vehicle. After seeing the interior design of this vehicle, I have to say I disagree with some reviewers who don't care for it. Compared to my MKX, it is definitely a step up in execution and style. Very tasteful and seems to be well-built.
The dealership had 16 vehicle order sheets on display so the public could see their incoming inventory. 6 of the sheets said "sold" across them when we arrived, and a 7th was marked "sold" before we left. Could be a complete marketing ploy, but it was the talk of the place.
Prior to my current vehicle we had a 2006 Cadillac DTS Luxury III, and before that a 2001 Chrysler Concorde LXi. This new Lincoln is at least a solid competitor to the Cadillac (couldn't drive it to say if it is overall a better vehicle), and light years ahead of the Chrysler.
I told my family that this is probably my next vehicle. To my surprise they didn't roll their eyes or groan.....they were impressed with it, too.
You wouldn't happen to have taken pictures today would ya? I'm definitely buying the car but am torn between the color choices; Tuxedo Black, Cinnamon and Dark Ink Blue. The majority of my peers are calling for Black, and it's got an edge after I saw some true pictures and saw the great mini glass particles in the paint. It looks awesome. Cinnamon and Dark Ink look just as great but would rather see "live" pictures before making a final color choice.
Lincoln MKS: We hope Lincoln doesn't really believe its own bluster on this car. Semi- Lincoln MKS.jpgmodern styling and a few dashes of "tech" on the equipment list aren't enough to make this reincarnation of the last Continental (R.I.P. 2002) anything vaguely desirable - or competitive.
The profile is crisp enough but could be anything, the grille's more than a little overwrought and the interior looks like Bette Midler's idea of hip.
Notes to Lincoln: 1. Acura's already doing this better, and they can't sell it. 2. The terms "flagship" and "front-drive" still don't mix - just ask Acura. 3. Don't brag about "8,600 orders" before the MKS even hit the showroom. We saw Alan Mulally out back of those dealerships threatening to hand out an old-fashioned Irish butt-whipping if they didn't order a bunch.
Regards,
OW
I will have to admit there are some serious disconnects here. The excuse that the execs have that they did not see this (higher gas prices) coming is a bunch of bull to me. Don’t care how they say it; someone was sleep at the wheel. Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, and others have made their money and are struggling now with what they have and then comes Ford with a new car. That conservatism crap will kill them every time.
You are right again, 8600 orders are just that. Like in a restaurant, don’t like it send it back. Tell me you got 8600 sales and counting, now that is impressive. They announce the MKS in January, present it in June, won’t sell it till July, and to get it just the way you want it you have to wait till August and beyond, SOME LAUNCH.
I went to one presentation and to get the details from them was like pulling teeth. Many have told me that they best better be competitive or along with the mileage, they may deal themselves right out of the market. They better hurry up and see if they can turn those 8600 order into sales quick before something else in the economy blows up in their face.
Yet in a way it is the Continental reborn (which was based on the previous Taurus as well). Both the MKS and Continental went for longer overhangs than the Taurus as a sort of weird way of representing more luxury, even as other brands are trimming inches, especially front overhang. The MKS was rumored to have a longer wheelbase than the Taurus, but now that it is here, it does not. Even with adding inches to the length, it has less trunk room than the Taurus.
So it is going to be open to that Continental criticism, even though it has done the transition from Taurus better than the previous Taurus Continentals did. And the 8600 prior orders is an advertising ploy more than an indication of popularity. It should sell well, but this is not going to be a hot car in short supply. And I suspect that the more ungainly aspects to its styling (courtesy of the Taurus platform) will become all the more evident to shoppers once the newer and sleeker Taurus goes on sale.
The review was mean-spirited, but also has some truth in it. Ever since I first saw the MKS concept, I kept hoping Lincoln would take to heart the wannabe-a-Japanese-luxury-car criticisms of its shape, and just not do that. Instead, they gave it a toned down version of what is to be the new Lincoln grill and called it a day. I don't think they will regret doing this as much as they do putting the final approval on the Five Hundred/Montego, but I really do hope they have learned a thing or two about how careful and cautious can often get you nowhere.
And I also wonder...why if the new Lincoln design language includes full width tail lights did this one get erstaz Maserati quattroporte ones? Tail lights are about as easy to modify as grills, even if development is far along. Now Lincoln has a "flagship" that doesn't look like any Lincoln at all from the rear. Weird planning. I do hope they are done with issuing model after model that bear no family resemblance to one another. Could you imagine if Audi decided the 4, 6 and 8 should look like they came from three different manufacturers?
As for being conservative, I think that only applies to the platform in general - using an existing FWD/AWD platform rather than designing a new RWD platform. But that decision was made at least 3 years ago, maybe longer - and by the time Fields and Mulally and Kuzack took over there were no readily available alternatives. So in the context of the platform they had to work with, I think Ford did a remarkable job differentiating the MKS from the Taurus and with a few very minor exceptions it sounds like the fit, finish and luxury appointments are on par with the very best.
They need to get the MKS styling and features into the 2010 MKZ as I suspect a lot of people will be downsizing but want to keep the luxury.
I guess we'll never know for sure but my guess is it was either too time consuming or simply cost too much to redo the grill AND the taillights, so they opted for the bigger impact of a new grill.
Too bad Fields and Kuzak didn't get there 2 years earlier.
I heard one of the factory workers say they had a MKT in the paint shop so maybe we'll get to see what the new guys can do when they get to start from scratch.
I'd take what that guy said with a HUGE grain of salt. Here's what he said about the new Accord:
Accord: Fat, heavy and overstuffed. The world didn't need a bigger and more luxie Accord, but that's what Honda uncharacteristically decided was best for the latest generation. Incentives appeared immediately, which also is aberrant for any new Accord.
Granted, when broad assumptions about Honda's most important car were crafted five or six years ago, the world was a different place. But the Accord already had grown so much, it's hard to fathom how famously imaginative Honda got itself to a place that said more size and more stuff was the best route for "improvement." The new Accord seems to be evidence of lazy or indifferent developmental initiative - it's a relentlessly un-innovative package, and that's the true disappointment of the new Accord.
I'm not going to argue if his opinion is right or wrong, as it is all completely subjective, but the marketplace says he's wrong. There's been great growth in Accord sales.
He might be wrong about the MKS too. Of course, being a random squaking voice on the internet means never having to admit you're wrong.
I have a 2004 Taurus and 2006 Zephyr. Both have been great cars for me. So the plan is to let my wife have the Z and I get the MKS. I want to keep my Taurus around as a backup. I agree, it should sell well and I believe you will know why the taillights are like they are when you see the 2009/10 MKZ. True people may want to downsize, but I can't see much difference between the 3.5 and the 3.7 except to save on the weight and the 14 inches I believe.
I am not sure by putting all the gizmos in the MKZ is a good idea. I guess it would have to go that route if the MKS flops, but I believe it may hold its own for a while. Again to me it is the logistics. If they treat the MKS like the did the LS, it is doomed. If I recall, the LS got pretty good reviews when it launched.
Rumor control tells of some frustrations on the design side of the house. Many ideas that were pretty good ones were scrapped. Some felt that Ford had an opportunity to make a clean break from the pack with some of these Ideas (Like Chrysler did with the 300, PT Cruiser, Prowler, and Crossover design wise), but elected to wait on many of them. I did heard the new Taurus may make a mark. I saw one from a distance and it did look sharp, but at first glance it looked like a Chrysler. One thing I will say is that they went with poven technology and I guess you can't go to far wrong in that area. Personally I believe much of the money is going toward the hybrids, electric and hydrogen vehicles, which under these times is by no means a bad idea.
Maybe they could get the power they need from little kids. I hear that is where Duracell and Eveready gets their energy.
I dunno about that. Lots of people who buy Lincolns are blue-hairs and they arent all independedntly wealthy. In point of fact, this one major expense of owning a car has about doubled in a little over a year. And it stands to do it again. You say $4.00/gallon. Here in Bay Area Ca, that was months ago. Premium is now $4.79 at the 'discount' stations. I dont think there are more than a few car shoppers these days who are NOT awake to the fact that cars getting mpgs in the teens/low twenties are going to cost a BUNDLE of money just to run around in.
Unless something is done about gas prices, cars like the mks I think are DOA. There may be other people who think like me (scary, huh?
I hate the way the auto writers put this car down. This car is not intended to be a sports car. It should not be held up to that standard in handling. For me, I am basically happy with my towncar but would like a bit better acceleration and less noise. I am sure the MKS will be an improvement on these two things.
I think for the buyer who is looking to move up from a mainstream sedan to something a bit more expensive, the faltering market, their 401k performance, and other economic factors could be more of a detriment than fuel economy. OTOH, if a customer is accustomed to spending $40,000 or more on a car, I am not sure the high fuel costs will be a huge factor.
Although the FE ratings for the MKS are not stellar for a V6, I would be surprised if it doesn't use less fuel than a Towncar in the real world - particularly in open highway cruising.
At 30 mpg, it becomes $2000.
I dunno. I guess I should just speak for me, eh? I cant justify $3000/yr plus say $10,000 year in car payments. (Figure $47K mks with low interest 5 yr loan.) - That's over $1000/month plus insurance and maintenance. OK, the gas is less than 1/3 of the cost. But it used to be 1/6 and soon it might be 1/2. Plus everything else getting more expensive due precisely to high cost of gas and deisel for delivery trucks etc.
Aside - just remember, the democrats say "we dont need to drill for more oil"
Anyway, u could be right. Many people may not see $3000/yr for gas as a problem.
As for the MKS itself, I still like its' looks. Very much. The interior has grown on me a little bit, BUT, the center stack still is a glaringly ugly thing, especially with the parts-bin radio and hvac controls which are the same (AFAICT) as those on the Flex, except the flex looks better cause it has a satin-silver or whatever center stack. I also noticed it does not have, at least according to -ahem- Edmunds: outside temp guage and worse, it has no trip computer.
I priced one the way I would want it and it's around $47,000. That's WAY too much for me. I paid $31,500 for my LS. I could probably get a MKS for 42-43? Still too much.
Plain fact is it's probably somewhat underpowered (seems to be when comparing numbers to rivals) and the mpg is no better than a V8 LS and is actually worse than a 10 year old Mark VIII with a 300hp V8. This is progress?
It's not the total fuel cost - it's the difference between fuel cost for a MKS and fuel cost for buying something else new or keeping what you already have.
That difference is closer to the $500 that brucelinc noted and nowhere near $3K.
What, exactly, do you think people are buying instead of a MKS?
Not sure what you mean by the MKS not having a trip computer. It most certainly does. I am not sure about an external temp gauge but I would be surprised if it doesn't.
Keep in mind that the EPA methodology has changed. The 10 year old Mark would not be rated as high under the new process as it was 10 years ago. I would bet a tank of gas that an MKS would use less fuel than a Mark 8 or a V8 LS if driven exactly the same way on the same route - if that route includes lots of highway driving.
98 Mark VIII 15 24
00 LS V8 15 22
09 Acura RL 16 22
08 Infiniti M35 16 23
08 Caddy DTS 15 23
09 Lincoln MKS 17 24
Try comparing apples to apples next time, not apples to walnuts.
Of course, the MKS engineers smartly made this Lincoln tuned for Regular Gas....nice move, IMO. Because that WILL matter as much as several more MPGs would.
To you Allen and Bruce - Read much? Think much? Nowhere did I say the $3000 was the DIFFERENCE between anything and anything else. It is the cost of gas per year at 20 mpg, $5.00/gal and 12000 miles/year. 6th grade readers could understand that, why couldn't you? At 30 mpg, the cost is $2000. So the diff between 30 and 20 mpg using these assumptions is $1000 per year. Really didnt think I had to spell out every step like 7th grade geometry, but at least I gave Allen another reason to take a swipe at me cause I don't slobber all over every product Ford makes like a drunk sychophant.
Again, Allen, I said I would be keeping my fine-running Lincoln LS until a miracle occurs or I am forced to go hybrid. That's MY choice. I think a LOT of people are now and even more will be soon making that choice. Friends out here are doing just that - Mercury Mountaineer? - Now a Prius. Ford F150? Now a Mini. Odyssey minivan? Camry hybrid. Others driving old Lincolns and Lexus rather than buy. These are some of the choices friends out here are making. Look at auto sales - almost everyone is down. Looks like one of the worst years ever. Wait til we see June numbers! Why? GAS, Allen, GAS. (And democrats, but that's for another lesson). People can not afford to commute anymore at $5.00/gallon. And they certainly cant afford to commute AND buy a new car with gas at these prices. And nvbanker - you can brag about 20 cents cheaper for regular all u want. That just lags premium by a couple of weeks since the democrats took over congress vowing to fix this problem and watched gas DOUBLE in price instead. So sure, save 20cents and use regular. You also lose the stellar 5 or so hp out of the 3.7L so why not save $15,000 and just get a Ford instead? I'd say Mercury but that option wont be around much longer.
$5.00/gallon probably wont be around much longer either. Who will be able to afford a 20mpg car at $6.00 or $7.00 or $8.00 a gallon? Wall street and who else? Oil speculators? I'm probably dead wrong, but if the mks sells half of what the LS sold, ... it wont matter anyway. CAFE is going to kill it all. The mks is also terribly overpriced, and will get much more expensive when Ford is forced to sell 100 Fiestas for every mks to please Nanci Pelosi.
To you ron - No, the mks is not better mpg than competition. CTS for example is 18/26 and that's with over 300 hp. And it has RWD, a cheaper price and a far better interior to boot.
As for mpg, I had a Mark 8. Close to 300hp V8, a regular rocketship. It would get 28mpg on the hiway. My 01 LS with 210 hp gets 25-26. The mks is rated 18/24. I'll bet it'll get about same mpg as my LS. So my point which hopefully bears repeating is - In this brave new world we find ourselves in, how many people can justify going into debt for a vehicle costing over $40,000 that will cost it's owner so much in gas when they could stay on the sidelines til either the price of gas comes down or a miracle occurs?
Don't know what's gonna break, but $6.00 gallon looks right around the corner. That's about $120.00 every time you fill up your mks. Do that once a week - over $500 a month for gas. (Not exaggerating, Allen, there are more than 4 weeks in a month.) Take the family on a weekend trip - another $120 for gas. Who needs that on top of a $600 - $1000 payment? And I didnt name anything else folks might buy, but there are lots of similar cars on the market. Some get better mpg, some not. My point in this case is, Ford is 3 or more years bhind the rest and brings nothing new to the table as far as drive train and economy goes. The time for samo-samo is OVER gentlemen. Where't the hybrid mks? mkz? mkx? Where's cylinder deactivation? Where's the acknowledgement of reality? Gimme some technology that'll ease the pain. Forget the GD disappearing door combo lock and gimme cylinder deactivation.
As one reviewer said - "Nice looking car. Horrible timing." Oh, and WHERE's the optional engine? Most if not all of the cvompetition has one. I guess waiting a year or two aint so bad. IF it ever appears.
Last - nobody else think the lack of a trip computer is a serious omission? Or has Edmunds got it wrong !!?? and there really is a trip computer?