Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Lincoln MKS

1444547495058

Comments

  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Yup nothing.

    Now how would YOU like it if we told you:

    "Stop crying because the automakers won't give you a stick with big engine sports sedans".

    "If sports sedans with big engines and sticks were in high demand, then the automakers would MAKE them! They don't, so NOBODY wants them, DUH!"

    "The automakers are SMART not to offfer no stupid big engined sports sedans with sticks, nobody wants that junk, which is why they sell in such small numbers!"

    "Those of you who want a stick in a big engined sport sedan need to just accept an automatic or a manumatic. It's called progress, sticks are old, outdated technology! Grow up and get with the times!"

    "You want a big engined sport sedan with a stick? Too bad. The manufacturers don't make that slow selling junk anymore, and good that they don't!"

    Doesn't feel so good eh?


    I don't exactly understand why you are making it personal, but to your point, the next differentiator, to me, is cost (after the availability of a manual transmission).

    So if I can't get what I want, I am going to get the cheapest thing available that meets my needs (since I can't meet wants) and use the rest of the $$ for something else. Perhaps a 2nd car that does meet more of my wants, or another motorcycle.

    You could definitely do the same, in your case it would be getting something like an MKS and then getting a Panther as well. You could get a used Police Interceptor GM for pennies on the dollar, and have the high performance goodies as well (although that might be counter to the cushy ride thing).
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    You're overlooking one thing in your sports car analogy - most of those low volume sports cars are sold in other countries (like the Miata) - so it's not a low volume niche vehicle overall. The same is true for manual sedans - a lot of those are only available here because they're in demand in Europe.

    Building cars is a business and if they can't make enough money on a particular type of vehicle then they won't build it. It's really simple. I'm sure vinyl lovers felt the same way about the CD.
  • toomanyfumestoomanyfumes Member Posts: 1,019
    Hey vinyl records are back, Best Buy has a whole aisle of 'em. :P
    2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    We "Agree" on nothing. I can see by your statmennt that the big three "Flooded the market with gashogs" that we are not on the same page. You are expressing the same bizarre big vehicle hatred that I am railing against. The big three didn't flood the market with anything. The idiot consumers decided that they wanted big suvs as personal cars, so the big three responded. Big suvs are one of the few vehicle types that the big three do well, so they were happy to sell them. They did NOT put a gun to anyone's head and force them to buy big suvs. The mistake they DID make was to neglect their big cars in favor of those big suvs.

    As far as making it on the F150 and Mustang alone, I think if you throw in the Crown Vic, a smaller full size, a new compact pickup, suvs big and small, a crossover or two, and a bigger midsize sedan, plus the commerical vehicles, that would be a smart business model for Ford to follow in North America. the big three are dead when it comes to compacts, subcompacts, and midsize cars below a certain size. The Fusion is great, the European focus is good too, but I think most North American buyers are just not willing to give the domestics the benefit of the doubt on those car types anymore.

    The MKS is a good replacemet for the 95 to 02 Continental. People just hate it because it is not a BMW 5 series, and that is just plain silly. Lincoln buyers do not want a 5 Series and 5 Series buyers do not want a Lincoln.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    The only thing here that is "Ridiculous" is how you people who have this bizarre hatred for Panthers/BOF big cars in general keep making post after post expressing your bizarre, tiresome hatred for those cars, gloating over the fact that the automakers are neglecting that product and those of us who want/like it, and coming up with all kinds of lame "Reasons" why the automakers are "Smart" to do that. THAT is what is REALLY ridiculous.

    As far as your Miata example goes, I know nothing about two seat roadsters being "Volume" sellers in ANY country. Sure they may be fuel efficient, but a small two seat car is simply not very usefull when it comes to utility, which is what MOST car buyers in every country are looking for. I know about microcars, subcompacts, and compacts being the volume sellers overseas, but I have NEVER heard that about two seat roadsters. And please note that although two seat roadsters are small sellers and not usefull for utility, I still believe that they should be made because some people just want a car for driving pleasure, and that is something that small two seat roadsters do well, so they do serve a purpose.

    It's so easy to be condescending and matter of fact with all of this "Automaking is a business, it's really simple blah, blah" talk when it is a type of car/market that you have a bizarre hatred for being neglected, but when the shoe is on the other foot, ie people complaining because they cannot get manuals either at all or in a certain vehicle like big engined sports sedans, then the same "Logical" people are so full of sympathy. What a bunch of hipocracy.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    This has nothing to do with vinyl records. I am still waiting for somebody to tell me how a CAR (NOT a pickup, suv, or crossover) that can easily swallow six adults, a trunk full of luggage or groceries, tow trailers well, offer a smooth, comfortable ride, and have a chassis strong/capable enough to do all of that with no drama is "Obsolete".
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    You're the one getting bent out of shape, not us. I understand why you and a few others like the Panthers, but I also understand why Ford doesn't want to invest in them. You, on the other hand, think Ford should continue building what YOU want even if there is no business case.

    And just for the record, I feel the same way about manuals - I'd like to see them built but I totally understand that there is no market for them and I don't blame the mfrs for not building them.

    I also understand why the MKS was not built on a new RWD platform which would provide more power options and better handling.

    And just to show that I don't always get what I want - I've been waiting several years for DirecTV to come out with new Tivo HD software for their receivers, but they chose not to continue their business relationship. It totally sucks but you don't see me getting all hot and bothered about something that I have NO CONTROL over.

    If you would lose your BOF/Panther obsession long enough to try a modern unibody full size sedan I think you'll find that it's not quite as bad as you think. But then you'd have nothing to complain about.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I am still waiting for somebody to tell me how a CAR (NOT a pickup, suv, or crossover) that can easily swallow six adults, a trunk full of luggage or groceries, tow trailers well, offer a smooth, comfortable ride, and have a chassis strong/capable enough to do all of that with no drama is "Obsolete".

    Unibody has many technological advantages over BOF - mainly weight, crash worthiness and chassis stiffness. But then again you don't care so why bother?
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I am still waiting for somebody to tell me how a CAR (NOT a pickup, suv, or crossover) that can easily swallow six adults, a trunk full of luggage or groceries, tow trailers well, offer a smooth, comfortable ride, and have a chassis strong/capable enough to do all of that with no drama is "Obsolete".

    I can't think of a car with a bench front seat. The Legacy can tow like 3k lbs, comes in a manual, has a good size trunk and doesn't seem to have any non-self induced drama. Oh and AWD.

    I think the next generation of the Fusion is going to have substantially more towing capability (although it wouldn't take alot to improve from "not recommended") to be inline with European offerings.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    Yes I am getting "Bent out of shape" because I don't like seeing a vehicle type I like being insulted for no reason, nor do I appreciate being insulted or condescended to by people who think they know everything and who hate BOF big cars because Road & Track said they should, nor do I like hearing people like you going "BRAVO FORD/BIG THREE!!!!!!" for abandoning/neglecting Panthers/Similar and those of us who are loyal buyers of those cars. I don't care how much you try and mock me, you DON'T know me, and you DON'T speak for me, so DON'T presume to tell me what kind of cars I should like.

    If you want to just shrug your shoulders about the automakers not offering anymore something that you want, well that is your business and your choice, but just DON'T tell other people they should do the same thing. Over the years I have given the big three a good amount of my hard earned money, so I feel I have a right to chastise them for when they spit in my face this way.

    I repeat, it is NOT your place to tell me "What obsession" to lose. If I like BOF Panther type cars, that is my business, end of story. Do I chastise/mock you for wanting manuals avaliable in big engine sports sedans or whatever kind of vehicle you want them in? NO. So why can't you give me the same respect? And for your information, I have owned over 30 vehicles, and many of them were unibody. I don't mind unibody for my subcompacts, compacts, midsizes, or minivans, but I DO prefer BOF for my big cars, pickups, and suvs. I have also owned some unibody big cars, and they can be nice, but I still PREFER my big cars to be BOF. That is not a crime no matter how much you try to mock or belittle me for feeling that way.

    And you can try to insinuate that I want something to be upset about all you want, but that won't make it true. I was simply responding to the lame, tiresome hatred that you and your ilk are always throwing around at cars that you feel are not worth existing, as if you were the final authorities on what cars should and shouldn't exist, which you are NOT. Tell the WHOLE story instead of insinuating and making stuff up.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    These are your OPINIONS. It is NOT a forgeone conclusion or FACT that modern unibodies are superior to BOF designs. If that were true, then vehicles based on the 30 year old Panther platform would no to do as well as they do in MODERN crash tests. Weight? Lighter weight usually= LESS STRENGTH, so there goes that "Advantage", and as for chassis stiffness, the vehicles that need that the most, pickups are STILL BOF, so why have the automakers not converted en masse to that chassis type for pickups? I rest my case.

    What I "Don't care" about, is how much you and your ilk hate BOF big cars for no reason at all. I will still like the vehicle type and support it. You guys hate that, but I don't care. That is how I feel, period.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    You can't be serious. The Legacy is a fine car, but it is NOT a proper replacement for a modern, state of the art BOF car the size of a 1977 Chevy Caprice or the like.

    It is fine to offer towing ability on cars the size of the Fusion, but they are not proper replacements for BOF, full size passenger cars, which were master towing vehicles. The only decent towing vehicles for sale now are pickups and suvs, but not everyone wants to drive a pickup or suv all the time. I am one of those people. I would rather have a passenger car as my most used vehicle that is versatile enough to do many tasks in the way of people moving and cargo carrying at once.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    Yours is not a bad idea engineer, and I for one will keep buying Panthers as long as I am driving.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Fair enough sir, sorry I've got nothin' for you. I hope that you find a vehicle that meets your needs, wants and desires.
  • datagendatagen Member Posts: 107
    That is why I said to a point, but based upon your reply, I can see your two-dimensional thinking is set. It will be very hard for you to understand the depth of what I said. You are bent one side against the other. You say no one did not put a gun to anyone’s head and force people to buy SUV’s. In a sense there was a gun and the automakers pulled the trigger.

    How? When you have the controlling pieces of a market, knowing of future issues/responsibilities and yet keep the controls in a way for your own rewards. Then you have the makings of greed (the gun) and are pulling the trigger (marketing). Since we have become a nation of choice and have what we want (not so much what we need), the auto companies were only to happy to oblige as long as it was their way. For years they knew of the maturing auto market. For years they knew what was coming when it came to oil, yet chose a different path. Honda knew it and based upon their history of surviving in Japan were better prepared for it than anyone.

    If you ever have the time, check out the book Taken for a Ride : How Daimler-Benz drove off with Chrysler, by Bill Vlasic. In this book, you will see how the information they knew put fear in them to a point of self-annihilation. You do have it correct that I do hate SUV’s. Always did because I could not see their purpose beyond utility vehicles for commercial use. But like I said there is enough blame to go around. Some people could have ducked, some did, and one of them was I.

    If you look at the last 4-5 months sales figures, I believe more people like the MKS than you may think. Calm down and realize that there are those who will always find fault, even in an angel.
  • Could we all try to get along here? We all know it is ok to disagree, and we all know individuall preferences are just that. Of course there is nothing wrong with liking BOF or unibody, nor is there any reason not to say why we prefer this or that. I think sometimes we get the most vehement when we put our own selves on the defensive. If we could more often see another's perspective as "that's interesting that you think that," rather than "if you think that, then you must think I am wrong or crazy," then some of the slings and arrows coyuld be avoided. Anyway, no offense intended here.

    I do think that if Ford were in better shape, it could offer more niche products, like the worldwide offerings of Toyota and VW Group for example. The Panther could be updated and would continue to sell in some quantity, but there is no money to play around with that now. Ford isn't even making any money on the F150 right now. Touch and go is what it is, and given the bleak economic situation, it will be interesting to see what part of Ford may survive.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I don't recall every saying that someone shouldn't like the Panthers. I was merely pointing out why the mfrs were abandoning both the platform and the technology - all for good business reasons - and why I personally don't like them.

    The good news is you can continue to buy TCs and GMs for a few more years - just stockpile 2 or 3 of them. Pretty soon you'll be able to buy 2 for the price of just one MKS anyway.
  • scottphillipscottphillip Member Posts: 249
    My first car was a Town Coupe, some twenty-five (gulp!) years ago, and while I still appreciate them I don't think that I would buy one now. I love technology too much, and the Town Car has not kept pace. I have a Lexus LS now and it's rather how I would envision a Japanese Lincoln.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here, I simply disagree with the idea that the manufacturer's "Forced" anyone who did not need SUVs to buy SUVs. I simply think they dropped the ball by putting all of their eggs in that basket rather than investing in their full size cars. And by this I mean mainly GM and Ford, because Chyrsler at least did a fine job with it's LH cars in the 1990s, which I think were some of the best FWD unibody big sedans ever.

    As for the MKS, I think they dropped the ball with the car for two reasons. Number one, it is not a proper Town Car replacement in my opinion, and number two, if they think BMW or Mercedes or Japanese luxury buyers will consider it, they are kidding themselves. I like the MKS, but I think it makes more sense as a replacement for the 95 02 Continental, rather than as a Town Car substitute/Lincoln's flagship or an import luxury alternative. The LS was the car Lincoln should have stuck with to take on the luxury imports.

    By the way, does anyone think the lack of a V8 option will hurt the MKS?
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    I agree with your "Can't we all get along" stance gregg. The think is I was just responding to the uneccesary venom being hurled at the TC/Panthers. It is really tiresome and annoying at this point.

    Curios, what cars/platforms is Ford actually making money on right now?
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    You may not have come right out and said that people shouldn't like Panthers, but you IMPLIED it with your constant snide remarks and potshots at the platform. And there you go again with that "Good business reasons" stuff. Please. Since when is it "Good business reasons" to neglect development for one of your hottest selling/most profitable platforms when it is at it's peak instead of investing in it for the future so it can still do you good? Please. I bet Mercedes still makes money on the S Class right now even in these down times.

    You can personally dislike Panthers all you want, just please stop telling other people they shouldn't either and cheerleading Ford for neglecting the platform and those of us who like it.

    Well, as I said before, I will continue to buy Panthers for as long as I continure driving.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    If you want more high tech, that is your choice and there is nothing wrong with that. The thing is, I don't fault the TC itself for not being high tech, I fault Ford for that. Here is the way I look at it. In 1989, the Panther platform was 10 tears old, the TC was Lincoln's best seller, one of Ford's best sellers period, and backed up by even stronger sales from the CV and GM. So in light of that, I feel that Ford should have given the platform the development it deserved, and had an all new Panther platform ready for introduction between 1991-1993, with all new TCs, CVs, and GMs on top of it of course. Then a mid cycle redesign for the cars and a chassis update for 1997-1998 or so, then an all new BOF platform and cars for 03-04, which would just about be ready for a mid cycle redesign for '07, '08. That means that right now we would have state of the art hight tech, BOF Town Cars Crown Victorias, and Grand Marquis in FoMoCo dealers right now, and Ford would be much better off for it. Why Ford did not do this is beyond any human comprehenshion.
  • Well, I certainly agree with you here. First, the MKS is an almost perfect update to the 1988 - 2002 Continental. Secondly, Ford wouldn't have lost so much market share if during the late 90s go-go years, they had committed themselves to regular updates and redesigns of their best sellers.

    Instead, they kept buying other car companies (later unloaded at a loss), and even their full redesigns ended up looking for all the world like mere mid-cycle refreshes. It wasn't just the Panthers that got short shrift. The Ranger was sorely neglected. The Taurus Explorer, Expedition, and Navigator were top sellers in their classes and responsible for much of Ford's growth in the late 90's, allong with the F150. It is almost criminal what they did to the Taurus. Thank goodness for the 2010. They are STILL using the same body on the Nav (with front and rear clip changes...well, gee, it worked for the Panthers for a lot more years!).

    Ford has a new business plan and some good products coming or already here. But they messed up big time first, and then the recession hit. I think it is remarkable they have not thus far needed government funds to go on from day to day. But they did start their turnaround plan before all the markets went south, so that has helped a bit. But I still wonder where Ford would be today had they not ceded the mid-size market they dominated to Camry and Accord with their belated and weird 1996 Taurus (and even more bland 2000), if they had kept the Explorer fresh and relevant, if they had tried for higher gas miieage sooner, if they had continued to update and develop their rear drive platforms, if they had given us the world Focus and so on.

    Woulda coulda shoulda. The old BOF is dead, but that does not mean there never could have been a high tech replacement capable of being and doiong all the things you wanted from a big car. Big SUVs could have been made more relevant by now too. It would have been nice to see an Interceptor on the road. But it ain't gonna happen. I hope they make it. The history of the American auto is littered with deceased models which used to be on top. It takes more knowhow than I have to anticipate market changes enough to keep a vehicle on the best seller list. Ford almost killed king Mustang more than once with overwrought design, mediocrity, unreasonably long product cycles, and so on. Some of this is just sheer damn luck.
  • datagendatagen Member Posts: 107
    I believe much depends on the price of gas again. They had this fight in the development stage and if the Exec had won, I am not sure the MKS would have sold as well as it did during the high gas price days. But as an option, the Ecoboost engine may eliminate the need of more power from a V-8 all together.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Ford finally has a CEO that knows what the hell he is doing rather than just a marketing B man at the helm.

    Incidently, Mopar moved most of their cars away from BOF way back in the 60's. What is now killing BOF and the V8 is fuel efficiency. I expect they will only be on full size trucks soon. I also think the industry is backstepping from RWD for much the same reason. So like someone said already, if you want those things in a car better grab it now unless you can afford an expensive low volume luxury car in the future.

    Truthfully, I think with today's technology you might be hardpressed to tell a RWD BOF from a FWD unibody if you didn't know what you were driving except perhaps in a sports car.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    But as an option, the Ecoboost engine may eliminate the need of more power from a V-8 all together.

    My parents have never had a V8 car in their lives. I haven't, nor have my siblings. I don't think its a requirement for most car buyers, even in luxury segments. Come to think of it, my grandparents didn't have V8s since the Regal and Grand Prix went FWD. They had that 3800.

    I grew up around 4 cylinder imports (and some European I6s) and never went wanting for a V8. It just wasn't an issue for me, then or now.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    By the way, does anyone think the lack of a V8 option will hurt the MKS?

    I have always had V8 daily drivers - except for my '90 T-bird with a supercharged V6. Based on the torque curve of the Ecoboost and the "test drive" that is on U-tube, I think the Ecoboost will make us V8 fans forget all about the desire for a V8.

    I came close to getting an MKS last summer but declined primarily because I didn't like the base V6. I will likely order an Ecoboost MKS without even driving one first.

    The gas prices last summer may have helped make the V6 MKS more desirable that it would have been with the Yamaha V8 which was in the original concept. I do think, however, the the twin turbo V6 will pull in more buyers like me who expect a near-luxury car to have a powertrain that is more special than a mainstream mid-size sedan.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I totally agree that the panthers were neglected (as were a lot of others as Gregg pointed out) and could be a lot better. But there is no way you can use "state of the art high tech" and BOF sedans in the same sentence. Unibody is state of the art for everything except full sized SUVs and trucks. Just like 5 and 6 speed transmissions are replacing 4 speeds and fuel injection has replaced carburetors and overhead cams have replaced pushrods.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    Yes, we can and it would be very helpful if all would remember to refrain from injecting personal assumptions about other members into comments. You can disagree till the cows come home, just don't take someone's differing opinion as an insult to your own preferences.

    Thanks for your future cooperation.
  • datagendatagen Member Posts: 107
    We do it from time to time just to make sure you are here with us Karen, that's all.
    Joking aside, point taken. Have a nice one :) :shades: :)
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    You agree with me? Are you sure?
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    Hmmm, people always talk about how image is so important in the luxury car game. They say that a V8 gives luxury cars a certain amount of prestige that has little to with any tangible factors like power, fuel economy, etc. These same people say that is why Acura is still not considered a "True" luxury brand, because the Legend and now RL have not had that V8.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    Well I disagree. Unibody construction AIN'T new, the technology was pioneered back in the 1940s (I believe) in Europe, and became mainstream on most Euro cars in the 1950s, finally coming over to the U.S. in the 1960s.

    Once again, you are suggesting that your OPINION is FACT, which it is NOT. I think that a BOF car can be high tech, there is no reason it can't be. It can have an IRS, four wheel disc brakes, traction control, and a million other innovations.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    As for me personally, I don't care too much about the whole V-6 only thing in cars the size of the MKS and smaller. In a TC, pickup, or SUV, now THAT'S another story! :):):):)
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I didn't say it was "new" - I said "state of the art". In a chassis that means stiffness and crash protection and a unibody is far better at both. And that's fact, not opinion.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    SIGH.

    It is NOT fact that unibodies are better than BOF designs at stiffness and crash protection. There is your BOF hatred talking again. Why can't you just let it go? You are NOT going to get me to subscribe to your biased views.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    It's pointless to continue arguing when well-known facts are dismissed as opinions. I give up.
  • Why can't you just let it go? ;)
  • gent70360gent70360 Member Posts: 33
    I don't know the facts about BOF vs. unibody regarding crash worthiness. But I can say this. In the mid 1980's when unibodies first became known to me, I attended a forensics medical conference where the speaker presented a series of car wreck injuries and emphatically stated his opinion that unibody cars were more dangerous to be in during a wreck. He suggested that the members of the audience keep this in mind when buying a new car. Now I do realize that this was 20 yrs ago and that those unibody designs are no longer used. I have no doubt that unibody designs are better now.

    BOF seems to work just fine for full sized pickups and SUV's. Could they make a very nice state of the art full sized BOF car? I am sure they could. Personally, it doesn't matter to me. I am looking at the car, not the BOF vs unibody issue alone. I also do not need to tow a trailer anymore.

    I feel some empathy for carfanforever, since I too feel that I have been slighted here. This discussion does not need to get personal.

    We all have different driving styles. We tend to drive within the comfort zones of our cars. So, when I drive my TC, I corner in a way that is comfortable. Thus, I am not concerned at all about any "boaty" tendency. Now when someone says they would like to see a manual transmission option in a MKS size car with a V8, then I suspect that this person would have a very very different style of driving from what I would ever have. This is fine. We will for the most part be looking at different cars. But since the MKS is the biggest Lincoln currently offered, I am here along with a lot of people with different driving styles. I should not have to feel slighted because of this.
  • cowbellcowbell Member Posts: 125
    Considering the source, I would take it with a grain of salt, but according to wikipedia, one of the disadvantages of BOF cars is "No crumple zone - higher rate of death and serious injury."

    I probably shouldn't be doing anything to continue tis conversation though.... Hey remember the MKS?
  • And there is this video that shows how the 1997-2004 F150 practically came apart in the same sort of crash that lots of unibody vehicles can undergo with no damage to the pasenger comparrtment.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB0araA0T_k

    To its credit, Ford has since engineered a lot more safety into the 2004 and up F150. But it did add significant weight as well.

    BTW, I own one of these trucks and still like it a lot.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    Good. I was not trying to convince you to stop liking whatever cars you do ,so you should not have done that to me and other Panther/BOF fans.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    Why don't you tell your handling obsessed friends to let their tiresome, irrational hatred of Panther/BOF go?
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    THANK YOU gent. You are 100% correct.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    That was solved by adding safety cages to the bodies of cars. I think the first BOF cars to get them were the 1991 Chevy Caprices when they went aero.
  • You are too funny! Thanks for injecting a bit of lightheartedness to this thread. ;)
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    Greg, I did not see such a huge difference between how the TC and the MKS behaved in those videos, other than it looked like the TC was going faster than the MKS. Also, can you keep in mind that the TC's structure is 30 years old, and the MKS's structure is brand new? That only underscores my point that the Panther platform should have been updated continuosly.

    Gregg, go to the TC forums, and see what is said about the TC and crash safety in the advertisements for it on the side. Also, Police cars and Taxis are subject to tons of abuse and are subject to all kinds of crashes, yet both Police car and Taxi buyers swear by the Panther, over newer unibody designs like the Charger, 500/Taurus, and Impala. Why is that? Also, take a look at some of the other Panther crash test Youtube videos (As did I) and the comments that follow them. I think you will find them interesting to say the least.
  • carfanforevercarfanforever Member Posts: 84
    What did I say that was funny? :confuse: :confuse:
  • Hey, I don't recall saying there was a huge difference. I presented the videos. The crash speeds are the same I think anyone would have to be impressed with how well the MKS did, The front wheels still turned afterward. The TC indeed did well for what is largely a decades old structure. But which of the two would I rather be in if such a headon crash occurred?

    It really is apples and oranges. You say toMAYto and I say toMAHto. It does not hurt my feelings, pick my pocket or break my back if you prefer a BOF car, I just don't know of one that is as safe as some of the new models out there. I get that that is not your top priority when buying a car. Obviiously it was not my top priority when I bought the F150 I still have.
Sign In or Register to comment.