Howdy, Stranger!

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

Lincoln MKS



  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Maybe they could change the MKS to Continental or Mark ??

    OH MAN, I wish they would...., or Cosmopolitan, or Premier, or........
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,018
    I really thought that the new management team would ditch the MK names and bring back Continental, Mark, etc. I guess they still could starting with the next round of redesigns. I do have to admit the MK names aren't as bad as I thought they'd be.
  • datagendatagen Posts: 107
    I think there is something a little misleading here. So far I have not seen anywhere that the ecoboost engine will provide better fuel economy that the 3.7 ltr base engine. I have read that it will provide better fuel economy to other V-8's but not so much on similar V-6 engines out there.

    Currently I have a MKS with AWD and it is running between 18.3 and 18.6 in the city. I can see an ecoboost 3.5 doing about 19-21 tops if that.
  • datagendatagen Posts: 107
    In truth, the MKS is short for the Mark S
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    The link that I posted was the first time I have seen reference to the 25 MPG highway estimate. I agree that they have always talked about the power of a 4.6 V8 but with better mileage than the V8.

    Direct Injection should help FE somewhat and the fact that the Ecoboost is slightly smaller in displacement could also help. I would not be shocked to see EPA ratings better on the Ecoboost 3.5 than on the base 3.7. I guess we wait and see.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    That is what is being said now. The Ecoboost won't just best V8s with similar power. It will apparently get better mileage than the base engine as well.
  • datagendatagen Posts: 107
    I would have to admit that I like the names as well. I guess that is why I like the uniqueness of the Zephyr name. I believe if they named the MKS with the Mark S or Mark X (standing for 10) on the car itself, then my tastes buds in the name area would have been satisfied. :)
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,018
    There was a recent direct quote from a Ford rep saying that the 3.5L EB would get better fuel mileage than the base 3.7L, but I don't have the link.
  • cowbellcowbell Posts: 125
    Here's a post from kickingtires that mentions the ecoboost will get better fuel economy than the 3.7. 25 mpg highway for AWD. As ecoboost will only be available on the AWD models.

    "Estimated fuel economy for the MKS with an Ecoboost engine is 25 mpg on the highway. This is only 2 mpg better than the current 3.7-liter V-6 with all-wheel drive, but there is also an extra 67 horsepower under the hood. An all-wheel drive STS with a V-8 is rated at 22 mpg on the highway, and the all-wheel drive Infiniti M45 is rated at 20 mpg. "

    kickingtires blog entry
  • And the MKK is short for Mark K, MKT is short for Mark T, MKZ is short for Mark Z? Regardless, 99% of people out there do not know that - I didn't and I have test driven one and have brochures and other information on the MKS.
    Interesting when you call or visit a dealer and ask about MKS, you have to repeat it a couple of times so they do not think you are talking about one of the other MK's.
    Still, I like the car better than I do it's competitors even if it is underpowered in some circumstances.
  • datagendatagen Posts: 107
    Where do you feel it is underpowered? I know everyone is different because some are satisfied to be able to merge in traffic, while others are happy only when they are pushed back in there seats like the commercial of the startship. Myself I have yet to find this under power. I have had to put myself in check as going down the highway. Mine seems to drift away from me faster than I anticipate at time.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    Bob hasn't answered yet but I will jump in here. I decided to wait for the Ecoboost because I found the base engine to be not quite competitive in this class and less responsive in mid range and higher speeds than my current car. Up to 50 MPH, the MKS feels pretty decent but after that it is a bit flat.

    Drive the MKS back to back with an STS, RL, or ES350 and it just feels lethargic in comparison. There is also a bit more of a labored sound to the engine than I find acceptable in this class. For those who don't care about that, the MKS base engine is fine.
  • It was fine for routine driving, but when I had to accelerate going up an on ramp so I could merge with traffic, I had to press the accelerator in pretty far and you could hear the engine reving up.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,018
    I had to press the accelerator in pretty far and you could hear the engine reving up.

    Sounds like it's working as designed. :confuse:

    Underpowered implies having to step on the gas all the time just to get adequate performance. Sounds like it is adequate but you both would simply prefer a bit more power.
  • No, underpowered means it does not have sufficient power for normal requirements. The on ramp was a long one with a small gradient. I have driven several Lexus, Acura, Infiniti, Toyota and Hyundai vehicles up the same ramp without having to press in the accelrator much at all.
    Some magazine reviews have even stated it is underpowered. Wish it wasn't so because I think it is an excellent car otherwise. Bit pricey for an American car compared to Japanese and Korean competitors though.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,018
    Having a 6 speed tranny is also part of it - it needs to kick down in those cases whereas a 4 or 5 speed may not.

    If you only have to go > 50% throttle every once in a while and when you do the performance is there, I don't call that underpowered. The fact that you don't like to drive that way just means that you prefer more power, which is fine.

    I'm not saying it couldn't USE more power, especially when compared to the competition, I just don't agree with saying the power level is inadequate.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Personally, I found the power to be adequate. My Lexus has more, but I don't really NEED more. Ergo, adequate. More power on demand is never a bad thing, particularly if the mileage is just as good or even better. Eagerly waiting for the boost.
  • Ecoboost = direct injection and turbocharging. Already found in VW, Audi, BMW and even the ( 2006) MazdaSpeed6. I read that Ford executives were hesitant to accept anything other than a conventional V8 and drug their feet on this one. Now Ford is playing catch-up. Damn it!
  • zone4zone4 Posts: 46
    For those of you who think the Lincoln MKS is underpowered a 340 horsepower version will be available next year.
  • "As an all-new model, the 2009 Lincoln MKS is supposed to challenge worthy rivals from Germany and Japan for class leadership. Yet its most distinguishing characteristics are its failings — gnarly engine noises, lackluster interior quality and trawlerlike handling combined with an incongruously firm ride. We're still holding out hope for that American automotive renaissance, but if Lincoln's latest effort is any indication, we might be waiting awhile longer."

    This is one of the more negative reviews I have read.
  • datagendatagen Posts: 107
    I believe that there is a constant balancing act going on here. Power vs economy seems to have always been a challenge for the engineers. Just to report to everyone that I have had my MKS just about a month now and by its computer it started out at 17.2 the first week, second 18.3, third 18.6, and currently it is at 19.4 (all city driving). On a weekend 300 mile trip I just took it reported 25.2 hwy. This is the AWD version also. :)
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Seems like if you took that MKS and put CTS on the back of it, Edmunds would extol its virtues and compare it to a 5er..... Edmunds hates Ford, didn't you know that?
  • I currently have a Mercedes E350 and the lease ends next month. After test driving a Cadillac CTS Mercedes C300 and looking carefully at the Lexus Is and GS I ordered an MKS today. The ride is fantastic and the power is more than adequate, The interior room and electronics clinched the deal. Plus the lease price saved me 300 a month. I ordered the Ultimate package but is there anything I should add? The 19 inch wheels were great I was worried that if I upgraded to a 20 inch the ride would be harsh. Any thoughts?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Edmunds hates Ford? Are you being ironic? Or sarcastic? I don't get what you are saying.
  • I've had my MKS since July and assumed that Ford would be able to figure out how to add a remote starter to the MKS with push button ignition. No such luck! Dealer says it will be another 6 months...meanwhile I am freezing my butt off in Michigan. Would it make sense to take it to an aftermarket installer and hope they don't tap into the main electrical? If you're thinking about getting the MKS, stick with the key and tumbler!!!
  • Seriously, is the dealer promising that a solution for the remote start combined with the push button ingnition is in the works? I am definitely getting the remort start was was a bit disappointed in that it was not something I could get with the push button start. I may have to rethink things now. I was just about to go with a fully loaded Sable because of this along with the better milage and the fold down rear seat backs.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,018
    I'm sure it will be available shortly - I'm sure it's the different type of key security (longer range vs. the very short range PATS key) and/or a different computer interface.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Everyone has their own taste and each of us likes different toys. For myself, I am not inclined to think that warming up a modern car makes any sense. They always start at the first turn of a key or button, and the heat comes up fast from heater and seats. Nothing good about idling a car to warm up its mechanicals either...the suspension, tires, differential, etc. all need for the car to move in order for the warming up to happen. Mostly, I think of the woman at work with a rather clap trap GM product who who turns on the engine and lights remotely as she is heading to the car across the parking lot, and then I hear the engine knock, the too loud exhaust and imagine that little bit of self-esteem she apparently draws from that level of control.
  • cowbellcowbell Posts: 125
    I don't think anyone is getting a remote start for the the suspension, tires ...etc. They are getting it for the few minutes it takes any car to start pumping heat into the car. Sure, it's not necessary, but it's something very nice to have, especially if you're already paying this much for a car.

    Also, I think many people would love the remote start in the winter so they don't have to scrape ice of a cold windshield before they can begin driving. If you leave the front defrost on when you last get out of the car at night, you can have the heater clear your windshield for you, with out stepping outside. Or at least warm up the glass so the ice comes right off, instead of having to chip away at it for 5 minutes.
Sign In or Register to comment.