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
Where did I say that? There is a huge difference between liking something and saying one is technologically better than the other. I would never tell you that YOU shouldn't like the Panthers. Your love for the platform has blinded you to any shortcomings and you're the one who's personally offended that the mfrs have abandoned the technology.
Now, back to the MKS.......
Yes, the 30 year old BOF structure of the TC did well. That alone proves the soundness of the BOF way of building cars.
Listen, can we just get one thing straight please? This is not a matter of me getting upset/offended because someone else dislikes cars I like. If someone had said, "I don't like Town Cars/Panthers, they are not my cup of tea", I would have no problem with that and leave them be. What bothers me is people saying, either directly or indirectly, "I don't like Town Cars/Panthers! They are useless junk, built on stupid, unsafe, outdated BOF architecture, anybody who does like them is a backwards fool who needs to get with the times, accept a new, high tech unibody car, and I applaud Ford/big three for abandoning stupid, unsafe useless, BOF/Panther junk, which nobody wants anyway! Bravo Ford/big three!"
THAT is what bothers me.
"Back to the MKS"? Sure, it is a nice car. I could see myself getting one one day and parking it next to one of my Panthers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlYidwFeDOk&NR=1
Now, back to the MKS...the more I look at its platform mate, the 2010 Taurus, the more it grows on me. I didn't like some of the details at first, but it is looking quite nice to my eye now (and I literally do have just one working eye!). I do think some people are going to cross-shop these two and not just find a Ford bargain, but a sharper looking car as well. Of course it is all personal preference.
If I were satisfied with the base V6, I would take a Taurus Limited over a base MKS. I would waaaay prefer the Taurus over an MKZ. I want the Ecoboost engine, though, and the only Taurus with that is the SHO. It has stiffer suspension and I don't want that. I don't care for the interior trim in the SHO, either.
For the MKS, is it normal for the side mirrors to pivot forward as they are seen to do in the crash video? I mean, is this a designed movement or a result of the crash?
I cannot believe I am actually considering taking a look at the Taurus. I did look at the MKS with no real prior interest, and I could just not get past the shape and styling. of the thing. But I agree it is a good effort for now. And enough people do seem to like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIDpCT1tOqE&eurl=http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/- 13/video-prius-backlash-bubbles-over-in-comedy-sketch/&feature=player_embedded
Kinda sick, but sure made me laff!
I really like the new Taurus. It looks real sharp, and the SHO is amazing. Ford just might be on a roll here with that car, the MKS, the new F-Series, the updated Fusion, and the new Focus, as well as the tweaked Mustang.
I have been a V8 fan for many years (more than I will admit to you guys), simply because it was usually the only way to get enough power to rapidly move the vehicle...not race-car, mind you, just that V6s rarely had over 225 HP...I know there are some exceptions, but not thru-out all of auto land...
Also, I intentionally do not count turbocharged engines, simply because if the turbo ever breaks, you are stuck with an engine that may qualify as a paperweight...
Now, I am not so sure about V8 anymore, and to say that a V6 car cannot be "true luxury" is, IMO a silly statment...I have changed my tune...I think of the 3.6L Caddy direct injection which puts out around 300 HP, no turbo (gosh, I hope I am right in that statement!!!)...that engine will probably make its way further down the GM line over time, assuming that GM HAS a line of cars over time, as I expect them to kill Pontiac, Saab, Hummer, Saturn, and either kill Buick or merge it into Caddy, and merge Chevy and GMC trucks into GMC trucks only...GM will become Chevrolet, GMC trucks, Cadillac and Corvette...
Anyway, I had always thought V8s were "it" because that is where the power was...now, with V6s performing like V8s, the actual existence of a V8 may be superfluous...
Awesome, get one of each!
2010 Taurus: Yep, this is the one they should have built in 2005 instead of the 500. The lower roofline and greenhouse has a lot of Chrysler 300 look but overall you can see the influence of the Interceptor concept. While pretty striking, there are some fussy details that detract. The crease on the back fender looks like an afterthought and needs to be hammered smooth. The "C" pillar is a bit fussy and the break between the rear window and fixed portion of glass is too far forward. The rear end is perfect to my eye but the grill is a bit Camry-bland for my tastes. I couldn't get in the show car to examine the interior closely but I like the brows over the dash and the more gentle slope of the center stack. Unfortunately, it looks like the console top is the same flat black plastic used on the MKS.
MKZ: Looks better in person than in pictures. The grill and taillights are a huge improvement. I wish they could have reworked the greenhouse to lose the Fusion look, though. The interior more like the MKS but again, the console appears to use the cheap flat black plastic. Not having rear seat AC vents in a $35,000 sedan is unacceptable, IMO.
Fusion: Love it. The new grill and hood really look great in person - not as overwhelming as I expected. I wish the Taurus grill was more like this. The Fusion puts the Malibu to shame, IMO.
MKT: If you like big goofy station wagons, you will love this. You would never know it shares anything with the Flex.
MKS: No 2010s at the Minneapolis show. From a styling standpoint, my biggest objection to the MKS is the huge tall greenhouse and too-short rear deck. Not only is the trunk opening small but the overall proportions seem out of whack with such a short deck. Also, with such a huge greenhouse, why is their less rear seat leg room than a Taurus? There has been a lot of hype about the Bridge of Weir leather used on the seats. It is soft and supple but, OMG, it wrinkles badly. The interiors of the 3 MKSs at the show all looked 10 years old. The seat bottoms are too short, too. Lincoln, please do something about that cheap-assed console/centerstack!
Buick LaCrosse: A beautiful package marred by stupid details. The line going down the side that drops and then sweeps back up again might have been fine on a 1954 Roadmaster but it is tacky in 2010. Likewise the fake holes that are now stuck on top of the hood. If not for these details, I think the LaCrosse looks better than the Taurus.
Others: The 2010 Camaro is drop-dead beautiful - much better than in pictures. The side windows are very shallow giving the car a low muscular appearance. While it will not likely outsell the Mustang, I can see why GM lovers will be dancing in the streets over this one. In looks, this is a home run.
I don't think the Genesis looks any more upscale than a Honda Accord. Nice interior in the Genesis, though. Overall, I think the best looking mid priced sedans come from Audi. The Jag XF is right up there, too. On the lower end, the VW Passat CC is a real looker, too.
I am sure no one will disagree with any of my opinions.
You must not have seen the interior.......
I sat in it and it is pretty low rent. However, I will cut them some slack because they have an excellent platform, excellent engines, great exterior styling and they had to meet a fairly low price point to be competitive.
Gregg, the Malibu seems too narrow in relationship to its length. That is why I don't really like it. The tail lamps look odd to me, too. I do like the side view, though.
Ford on the other hand introduces a 2010 Fusion and 2010 Taurus with completely different grills. Ford truck division also oddly gave the newest F150, Superduty, Escape (its unique grill not remotely attractive), Explorer, and Expedition all slightly different themes. At least within the Ford family Mercury knows how to do a grill theme on several disparate vehicles.
Lincoln has a recognizable grill again. Hope they can get it on the MKX and Nav soon. It is the one thing I like about the MKS looks (though the lower air intake looks like it was made for a different car).
I am waiting for new LaCrosse though for final decision what to buy. I want something more exiting style-wise than your typical family sedan.And there is always Mazda6 which more upscale and in general better car than Fusion/Milan.
Milan is better looking car than Fusion for sure, but issue with bland and dated interior still remains.
The new Taurus just makes the hottest segment of the market (Mid/fullsize family sedans, all the action is here) even hotter!
Old Malibu is to new Malibu as old Taurus is to new Taurus. I don't think any of the cars were "hideous" but I think both new models are way way better looking than those they replaced. I haven't been able to say that about cars in a while.
But outside it looks hideous. It is expensive for I4 and I have doubts about reliability and I am not sure that interior will age gracefully. I have enough examples of VW inteiors looking drab and worn after several years of extensive use and sitting under CA sun.
- LOVE IT
- V6 has more than adequate power
- Lotta compliments
- Have yet to figure out auto-high beam
- Two complaints: For us smokers (my bad) console design prohibits use of an ashtray and a cupholder at the same time (dealer says 'power points' will not support use of lighter either.)
- For such a large trunk, opening dimensions are ridiculous. You cannot even get a small ice chest inside
- Very comfortable, good handling
- For those who complain about the 'cheap plastic' on the center console, I purchased ($270) an Ebony wood dash kit from Sherwood Dash and it looks and matches great, I did not use the whole kit, I decided to leave the aluminum finished vents and GPS surround as-is.
Over all, very pleased
DRUDDLE, how is your leather holding up? Based on some of the MKSs I have seen, it seems like it wrinkles easily and shows a lot of wear in a short time. Also, are you satisfied with the range of adjustability of the steering wheel? It doesn't go quite low enough or extend quite far enough toward the driver to suit me but I suppose I would get used to it after awhile.
The local L-M dealer had five MKS's, parked in a semi-circle, out front. All different colors, looked pretty cool. I still think they are great looking cars.
That's the MKS's problem. Not a bad car at all, and of course it you buy one, people are going to remark "what a nice car." (They would do so as well with a 2009 Mercury Sable.) But we all know it ain't no standout. The MKS needed more of the new dramatic Lincoln cues than it was possible to give it prior to production. It was drawn back when Ford still thought that the 500 had "classic lines" and would soon look better to the eyes of the public than the more daring Chrysler 300. Well, that will never happen, no matter how sick and tired we all get of the Chrysler (and we will if we already haven't).
Ford screwed up with this conservative, anonymous approach. They know that now. The 2010 Taurus is one result of that hard lesson.
I think the MKS looks pretty good from some angles, especially the front. As you have said, it just isn't particularly distinctive. Having said that, I do think it looks as good or better than its direct competitors.
My previous car, an '06 Grand Marquis had Katskins white leather installed from the dealership and after 3 years and 26,000 miles really looked like crap.
I am 6'1" and 205 # and the front seats / steering wheel fit me fine. No complaints.
For an ashtray, I ordered one on Amazon that has a soft blue lighting and allows the tambour door to be closed over it, but still cannot use the cupholders while it is in place.
Many of those in hte "near-luxury" class are seen as luxury cars by many (MKZ, CTS, A4, S60, 300, ES350, G370, TL, etc.). Then you have further overlaps like the Acura TSX or the VW CC. The CC is little different from the A4 underneath, and by the time you equip it with V6, AWD, it is without a doubt in the near-luxury class. It's not always about the name...the VW Phaeton and Passat W8 were luxury cars, though ill-conceived for this market. The Mazda Millenia from the 90s (and the 929 for that matter) were more luxurious than the comparable Lexus of the time.
But price and competition alone don't wholly define luxury or near luxury. The Saab sedans have been in that price range for a long time, but usually don't impart a real luxury feeling (they are not particularly quiet, interior materials and styling is sub-par). So a luxury car needs to be not just well-equipped and "well-pedigreed." Controls should be smooth and well-damped. Interior materials should be quality and pleasing. It should be QUIET in all operations. It should appear to go about its business effortlessly. It should have most of the latest bells and whistles.
The MKS sort of falls between near-luxury and luxury. Within its range, it tries to cover both areas. It should be quieter and the engine shouldn't sound so strained under hard acceleration. There could be more suspension choices. Other than styling (which is unique and the importance of that need not be diminished), it is little different from the Taurus. Time was even when Lincoln shared a platform with a Ford, the Lincoln got a different wheelbase, unique suspension, a quieter ride, nore opulent interior. It remains to be seen if the greater Ecoboost availability on the Lincoln will create enough distance from the 2010 Taurus to justify the extra coin,.
I only have two small nits to pick on this car:
The "bookshelf" (actually the door storage) is too tight to put a book in comfortably. My '06 Avalon had door storage that would tilt out so you could put in a book and remove it easily.
The only other thing that could use improvement is the keyless entry. Rather than have to go to the driver's door to unlock the car without using a key or the transmitter, I liked that with the Avalon, I only had to walk up to any door or the trunk with the fob in my pocket and any door could be opened.
Since I haven't taken any long distance drives yet that haven't involved going through a mountain pass (I live in Pahrump, NV and we go to Las Vegas frequently) I haven't been able to see what kind of mpg it will get on "flat" highway travel. It gets around 21mpg going "over the hump to Pahrump". With a few more miles on the car, I am hoping this will improve.
The formerly optional "Technology package" is now standard - push button start, rain-sensing wipers, etc. The wood door trim is now part of the Ultimate package but is a stand-alone option also. They also indicate that the instrument cluster is new. I haven't even seen a picture of that so I don't know what "new" means. All models have the paddle shifters instead of the toggling lever. It appears that the rear sunshade is now standard.
The Ecoboost model, of course, includes AWD and 19" wheels. Otherwise, it is available in base or Ultimate trims. There is an optional "Ecoboost appearance package" but that is late availability. It includes body cladding, metallic interior trim, 20" chrome wheels, spoiler, and other trim items. I wouldn't want this package, anyway.
Many colors have been changed. I was kind of leaning toward the White Chocolate but it has been replaced with White Platinum. I also was considering Sangria red but it has been replaced with Red Candy Metallic tint.
Strangely, and unlike the Taurus, no adjustable pedals, blind spot warning, or massaging seats are available according to the order guide.
I am looking to place an order fairly soon for the Ecoboost model with the wood door trim and Ultimate package. I am still on the fence in terms of color.
I don't understand the lack of adjustable pedals, BLIS or massaging seats. Let me see what I can find out from my sources.