Howdy, Stranger!

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

Lincoln MKS



  • speculatorspeculator Posts: 116
    ">Ford would be in a better financial position if it would phase out Lincoln and Mercury. I believe that GM, not to mention their foreign competition, have gained more than a slight tech edge in vehicle platform design. Ford could compete with Chevy and Pontiac along with its low to mid price foreign competition much sooner if it didn't have to waste resources on Lincoln and Mercury.Presently, Ford has to use warmed over tech from Volvo and Mazda to produce its present vehicles that would compete with its rivals products of five years ago. For instance, it will take Ford 4 or 5 years to produce a newly designed modern rear drive platform that may or not have independent rear suspension for its Crown Vic etc replacements . Which may not be much better than its present platforms if it doesn't have irs.Lincoln has lost all of its cache among younger more affluent buyers who have a yearly income of over 125000.00 per year. Its seems that Cadillac has made in-roads into this segment of the market with its CTS.Most of the people in this income class when asked in a marketing survey which American manufacturer has the best ability to compete with its foreign luxury competition has Cadillac as the most often brand name mentioned by its respondents . Lincoln barely is mentioned ahead of Pontiac. Ford could compete more readily by saving overhead that these two failing divisions utilize. Unfortunately ,For Ford ,when the consumer hears Lincoln, they see a Ford . They don't see much of a different between the two brands. When they hear Cadillac they see CTS.This car has gave Cadillac such a boost in the consumer satisfaction, that they are waiting to see what Cadillac is going to do next.From a marketing stand point, it would be very difficult for Lincoln to regain brand satisfaction among consumers considering all of the competition that it has to compete with. Cadillac had its same dilemma with consumers as Lincoln.Unfortunately Cadillac beat Lincoln to the punch with more modern luxury performace vehicles that rival many of the features of its foreign rivals.Now Cadillac has Lincoln over a barrel. Its true that Cadillac is more costly to purchase than a Lincoln, but in the segment that Lincoln is attempting to compete in, this is a liability as cheaper equals cheap. The intelligent thing for Ford to do is to discontinue Merc and Lincoln and use the money that would be save by going on a crash program of producing more modern low priced vehicles. This way Ford would still be in business 10 years from now.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,932
    I typically only drop in here very occasionally – but I noticed that there had been close to 100 posts since I last visited, so I decided to scan a few – largely to see if anything about the MKS specifications had changed, since last I visited . . .

    Skipping past all the Political “stuff”, a couple of posts that caught my eye referred to “The Good Old Days” – when Jim Rogers and Mark K ( trans. engineer ) were contributing on the LS board. Those were, indeed, interesting times. One reason I bought my first LS was that participation.

    As OW knows, I have been posting mostly in the Pontiac G8 forums. I have found that, though I certainly enjoyed some of the “bells & whistles” provided by the 2 LSs I had, I am more interested in the RWD handling dynamics and the V8 TQ provided by something like the G8 GT. And I am willing to forego a level ( or 2 ) of interior fit, finish & materials as well as a few features I have had before, in order to have a sedan that has close to a 50\50 F\R weight balance, RWD and capable of a 13.5-ish quarter mile.

    The G8 GT is ( clearly ) not designed to be directly comparable to the MKS. It will not have several features ( standard or optional ) that the Lincoln will offer. But it is a 4DR Sedan – that looks like it will be dynamically superior to the Lincoln – and offer all the luxury & refinement that ** I ** require. Though it will certainly lack a number of features & “tech toys” that Lincoln will offer.

    [[[ Must feed TQ addiction. ]]]

    And the G8 GT’s EPA MPG estimates are comparable to RWD V8 sedans such as the BMW 550i – and the highway estimate ( and early return from buyers agrees ) is exactly the same as an Infiniti G35 – a smaller & lighter Sport Sedan, with a 3.5L V6.

    Let me reiterate: I am most emphatically ** NOT ** trying to convince anyone here that the G8 GT is ‘better’ than the MKS. )))

    I am not really surprised that Lincoln has veered ( ? ) away from trying to compete with BMW – or even Caddy, in the Sport Sedan segment.

    But I am ( still ) rather disappointed. As I posted in several ways some time ago: If Lincoln had introduced an LS with ( a version of ) the Jag’s Supercharged V8 and the Jag’s 6-speed ZF automatic trans. – and at a price point that reasonably & realistically reflected the incremental additional cost of only this upgraded drivetrain ( essentially a “Lincoln LS – R” ) I would have bought one. Period. In a heartbeat. In 2004 ( when I did buy a left-over 2003 LS ), or 2005, or 2006, or 2007.

    [ The Jag S-Type R was just a bit too much money for me – and still used that odd ‘J-Gate’ instead of a real manumatic function – via the shift lever or paddles. ]

    Since I really do want a RWD V8 Sport Sedan for my next purchase, and the MKS does not fit, I will continue to check here occasionally – but only to see if Ford \ LM ever does seem to be moving toward producing sedans I’d find interesting again.

    Carry on!

    Oh, and this recent post:
    “What about the TATA Nano Vanden Plas edition?”
    Absolutely cracked me up . . .

    - Ray
    Y2K and 2003 Lincoln LS V8s – fast receding into the rear view mirror of my memory . . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • jeyhoejeyhoe Posts: 490

    Completely agree. And u may have missed it but I posted here or mabe on the LS board that I had been visiting the G8 board and that I was not surprised that I saw some of our old LS folks over there. I dont blame u in the least. Unless u want a FWD rolling sofa, no need to go into the Lincoln showrooms for at least several years if ever.
  • speculatorspeculator Posts: 116
    The G8 is a better drivers car than the MKS simply because it uses a Sigma platform as does the CTS. The Mks is a front wheel driver which limits handling because of torque steer. Given time , the same luxury gadgets will make its way to the mid to lower cost segment of the market. The Mks was to be a rear driver originally with the use of a modified Ford of Australia Falcon chassis,but Ford couldn't keep the price of the vehicle below 45,0000. Too bad.They may have had something to take on the CTS performance wise. Ford would have had to open a new line dedicated to this vehicle. It was cheaper to use the existing Taurus line for this vehicle thus the front wheel drive.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,001
    Torque steer isn't the big problem - it's the fact that the nose is too heavy and the chassis is not balanced.

    Ford is finally developing a new GRWD platform for Lincoln (and presumably a cheaper version for Ford). This wasn't feasible until Mulally forced global platform engineering between Europe, Australia and North America. Why they didn't do this years ago is still a mystery. It should have been done for the 2nd gen LS.
  • jeyhoejeyhoe Posts: 490
    "It should have been done for the 2nd gen LS."

    Absolutely agree with that.

    I dont understand how you can say this though:

    "Torque steer isn't the big problem - it's the fact that the nose is too heavy and the chassis is not balanced. "

    I mean its a good assumption, but not having driven the car, that's all it is isnt it?
  • speculatorspeculator Posts: 116
    Isn't the car unbalanced because all of the drive train is over the front two wheels which also causes the nose to be too heavy? Ford is projecting a 4 or 5 year timeline for its new rwd platorm. In automotive terms that is a lifetime. Lincoln needed to do something exceptional now to keep the brand n the game. The Mks might have done it if it had a modern rwd platform.This might have given the Lincoln division some buzz with the motoring enthusiast market. My logical side tells me that Lincoln probably won't be produced by then but my emotional side hopes that it will be.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,001
    I mean its a good assumption, but not having driven the car, that's all it is isnt it?

    That was a general statement about FWD cars in general not handling as well as their RWD counterparts. It wasn't specific to any vehicle.
  • cowbellcowbell Posts: 125
    I know it''s close to Memorial Day weekend, but is the moderator around?
  • carolinabobcarolinabob Posts: 576
    I didn't. It was a RL with the technology package. MSRP-$52,000, asking price-$39,000. Of course that is a 2008 in a bad market for the RL. Based cost of MKS on the Lincoln website. Regardless, Lincoln needs to sell a car that is distictively not a Ford clone. It also needs to come fully loaded without a lot of expensive packages.
    I will test drive the Lincoln and am hoping for the best.
  • docrwdocrw Posts: 94
    Now that we've put this subthread to bed, does anyone have any new info on the MKS.

    I am secretly, well openly now I guess, hoping that they will see the light and intro the ecoboost engine sooner rather than later. By sooner I mean by the end of this year or the very beginning of next year. When Hyundai's flagship is putting out 375hp, Lincoln really can't afford to be maxing out at 100 fewer ponies. Is the technology not ready or are they just trying to milk sales of the base engine before releasing the turbo?

    I would think that Lincoln would realize that they do not have the luxury of time and need to make as big an impact as possible with their new flagship. But it seems that that has been, and may still be, their problem. Either they don't see the urgency or don't know how to make an impact.
  • datagendatagen Posts: 107
    If it is the latter of your question, it would be pretty stupid for Ford to play that game. I am sure there are plenty of execs and lawyers trying to make adjustments to the rapidly changing fuel price situation. There may be an urgency for them to incorporate the eco-boost, but I do not believe they are going to make it in time.

    They may have to following Chrysler’s route with a gas promo of their own. Some of my partners whom have ordered the MKS are already thinking about alternatives (FWD rather than AWD, etc). According to the numbers on the web site and other places, there's not much difference in MPG between the two. I guess it depends on your driving habits. From what the experts are saying, a lot depends on that.

    I believe the ecoboost has been a little misleading. If you think the ecoboost will give you better mpg from the 3.7 power plant, you may be mistaken. Save on a Comparable V8, maybe with some of the numbers Ford says it can spit out. So much depends on what the driver wants and like the gas prices, which may be changing just as fast also. :confuse:
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    I agree they need the Ecoboost sooner rather than later. The reason is not fuel economy - the Ecoboost is NOT an economy engine - it is a performance engine. The fact that it provides the HP of larger V8 while delivering better fuel economy than a larger V8 is a bonus.

    IMO, the reason they need the Ecoboost is to add some "buzz" to an otherwise very ordinary vehicle. The MKS has been described as a replacement for the long-discontinued Continental. Maybe, but the old Conti had more power, a more upscale interior, and an adjustable suspension. The EPA ratings at the time were similar to the base V6 MKS. Obviously, the MKS is superior in many ways but I would expect more progress.

    Speaking of fuel economy, let's face it - a 4200 pound vehicle is not going to be stellar in that department and still maintain the performance and drivability that buyers expect of a $40,000+ vehicle. Having said that, I am surprised that the highway mileage is only rated at 24 for FWD model. I am also surprised that the AWD model is only one MPG less. The FWD Taurus is 28 and while the AWD model is 24. I know from experience that the Taurus FWD will easily exceed 28 on a highway trip. With such a small bump in engine size, I expected the MKS to do nearly as well despite the 400 lb. difference in weight.

    We should be seeing some driving reports on the MKS soon. I hope the magazines and online auto sites can get their hands on an Ecoboost test mule soon, as well.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Don't forget the 2008 EPA figures are significantly lower than how these were previously calculated. The Conti's ratings would drop too if recalculated.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    Yes, you are right about that. I looked up the revised numbers and the Conti would be 22 highway using today's calculations. If it had the benefit of a 6 speed transmission with a tall overdrive like the MKS, it would likely be just as good or even better than the MKS.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    And cars have become heavier, even since the Continental. My loaded 91 Olds 98 Touring Sedan barely weighed more than a current VW Rabbit.

    Large sedans tend to weigh nearly 1,000 lbs more than they did 15-20 years ago. Find a way to cut weight (and retain all the safety and rigidity of current cars) and mileage will be a lot better.
  • datagendatagen Posts: 107
    Funny you would think that they would be ahead in that area. I can understand the weight increase due to all the new technology that has been added. It seems where they cut in one area (lighter wheels, smaller tires (even the spare), headlights, lighter (yet stronger glass), they increase in weight (engine, overall size, safety features, etc). That could be a great plus for the ecoboost is the weight of the engine itself compared to a V8 or even a V6. Great point!!!
  • datagendatagen Posts: 107
    You have a point brucelinc, They will need the ecoboost and the AWD to move that extra 400lbs to the point where it has similar movement like the Cadillac CT and STS's.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    One of the problems with the FWD layout is that you can only put so much power through the front wheels without torque steer and traction issues. A move to the Ecoboost will necessitate AWD which adds even more weight. And, Gregg is right again - cars have gotten heavier with more rigidity, safety equipment and goodies.

    For as much as I complain about the MKS, I will probably end up buying one! I really would like to replace my LS before winter. But I also would like a step up in performance as well as luxury. Another thing that we don't know about the Ecoboost MKS is what else will be part of the Ecoboost package? If they try to make a sports sedan out of it with stiff suspension and black-out trim, it will not appeal to me so much.
  • speculatorspeculator Posts: 116
    Awd on the Mks will not make it perform as a CTS or STS. As the MKS is a front wheel drive vehicle the drive wheel bias is to the front wheels when the awd is not engaged.Also,because the entire drive train on the MKS is in front of the vehicle this gives the vehicle much less of the weight distribution ideal of 50 percent towards the front and 50 percent towards rear.For deal handling ,the vehicle should be as close to possible to the 50/50 weight distribution. Also the faster one goes in a front wheel driver the more torque steer becomes more of a phenomenon. The CTS V and STS V have an optional awd but when the awd is not engaged the drive wheel bias is to the rear wheels. Also, because the CTS and STS are rear wheel drive vehicles, they are closer to the 50/50 weight distribution ideal.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    The MKS has a FWD design that accentuates the weight distribution imbalance. This setup was/is good for economy cars to maximize interior space on a small footprint. In order to do so, however, the engine is placed, at least in part, forward of the front wheels.

    For a luxury design, the MKS is proportioned an awfully lot like lesser FWD models. FWD can be designed with better weight distribution by moving the engine back to a more mid-ships location, as Audi has done with their newest offerings, or as Acura did with the old Vigor. The original Olds Toronado (this back when FWD was still exotic and expensive) was decidedly "cab backward." The problem with designing a better FWD chassis is that by the time you engineer out some of the inherent handling problems, you may as well have bought and paid for a RWD chassis.
  • speculatorspeculator Posts: 116
    But isn't the MKS using a Ford Taurus platform? What is the weight distribution of the MKS as compared to the Taurus? I believe that AUDI has engineered the torque steer out of its front wheel drive vehicles at least ten years ago. Did Ford do the same with the MKS? I believe That the MKS has a wider track than the Taurus but I think that the weight distribution is the same. Does anyone know the answers to these questions?
  • jeyhoejeyhoe Posts: 490
    Yes, mks is based on Taurus. So if u want to get a real good feel for how the mks is likely to run, go drive a Taurus right now. mks will have a little more hp. I dont know if they did anything additional to affect balance or torque steer.
    Another data point would be a 2006 Volvo S80. Or just be paient! :)
  • docrwdocrw Posts: 94
    The MKS probably won't compete with an STS, never mind CTS, when it comes to handling or performance. The point is, Lincoln can not afford to offer a flagship sedan without flagship numbers. This is all about perception, but the reality is that most potential buyers of the MKS are not looking for a super handling car. They want a comfortable car with enough straight line power to make them feel justified in spending the premium over a Taurus. Lets face it, horsepower still sells, and today horsepower with the perception of better fuel economy sells even better. If someone can buy a 320hp STS V8 or a 350+hp MKS with ecoboost for 10-15K less, and the MKS will get 18/25 versus 14/22 then Lincoln can at least make the MKS seem competitive. As far as torque steer goes, it should not be a problem, that is why companies make AWD versions of FWD cars.

    For me, with two kids, I am not looking at carving curves like I did in my younger single days. I'm looking for a car that holds everyone comfortably and offers at least a modicum of good handling manners. If I can also smoke some kid off the line at a traffic light then all the better. :)
  • speculatorspeculator Posts: 116
    It would be great if Lincoln offered a rwd high performance sedan that could compete with the best of its competitors. I seen the MKR show car and would love to see this car go into production. I think Lincoln needs a performance vehicle to restore credibility with the those under 55 who would consider purchasing a performance sedan. This is Lincoln's flagship
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    I completely agree with everything you said. Power does sell, even if the buyer never uses all of it! This market (soft luxury) is not about razor sharp handling. It is more about a quiet refined ride, upscale interior, and creature comforts. The ride should be velvety firm - compliant, yet controlled. Not blue hair soft, but not BMW harsh.

    My wife has a new Taurus. It is an awesome car for the money. It rides great, will easily out accelerate my LS V8, and is extremely quiet. In fact, it has far less road noise than the 2008 Acura RL I drove recently. Is an MKS with the base V6 worth $20,000 more to me than we paid for her Taurus? That will be tough for me to justify.
  • datagendatagen Posts: 107
    For me I try to look for a balance. Yes power is good, but I like the luxury as well. I believe from the many areas of ideas for the MKS, one was from the Taurus model. Even my 2004 surprises me with its power and quick acceleration and it is a 3.0. In addition, the ability to go down the hightway with little noise coming from the sunroof when it is open tells me the designers were really thinking in that area as well. I believe the MKS will make its mark. Even though I order mine already, I will have to wait for the 20 inch rims which I understand will be available in August now. The only thing I wish is that Ford gave a model to consumer reports so they could get the stats.
  • jeyhoejeyhoe Posts: 490
    bruce: I am surprised to hear that your V6 Taurus would win a 0-60 against your V8 LS. I'll put my V6 Getrag LS up against your Taurus anytime - name the place - oreferably some place with curves:)
  • jeyhoejeyhoe Posts: 490
    In case y'all missed it, Ford is laying off another 10-12% of white collar American workers. And they've given up on being profitable in 2009. Just the facts, Ma'am. I wonder how many will be engineers?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    We all know that Ford is in trouble. Their best comeback plan hit the wall of changing circumstances. They need more than a miracle worker. They have no more money to do anything more than what they have already planned, but it is either not enough or not soon enough.

    Lincoln is worse off than least there are some new Ford models coming every few months (a necessity to survive these days). Lincoln on the other hand has announced no plans yet on how it will save the Navigator--a vehicle that went from the top to the bottom in a few short years, because no one had a clue about how to keep it relevant. The Town Car is now deservedly fleet only, and what a piece of crap it is by comparison to anything current. The MKZ will never have a chance to make a real mark until they give it a body that doesn't look like a Fusion with makeup. The MKS is very belated (and do any of you have one in hand yet??) and can't keep the ball in the air by itself. Lincoln can't bring the MKT to market until next year. When the Lincoln Escape will be sold is not yet pinned down. Meanwhile, how many more years can Ford soldier on losing great gobs of money before someone else swallows them up or they have to close shop? Doesn't seem like the Ford family has any clue what to do.
Sign In or Register to comment.