Last post on Feb 22, 2013 at 11:54 AM
You are in the Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ
What is this discussion about?
Lincoln Zephyr, Lincoln MKZ, Sedan
#2998 of 3018 Re: A more objective review than Edmunds whiny ranting [manster12]
Dec 21, 2012 (8:33 am)
Sounds like you are having a bad day as well. The back attack makes me wonder why someone who doesn't like the car, and writes the why of that, elicits so much criticism from you. Of course no one article should be definitive in making a purchase decision.
I look at the reviews overall. I was hoping the car would be more remarkable than it is, but it is a start. Reviews are mixed, not uniformly bad. Thus, the car is good enough to compete. Reviews are mixed as well on the new ES350...that won't kill it.
Mainly, the MKZ no longer has forgettable styling, and its equipment and engines are competitive. It is just not great enough to turn Lincoln's reputation around right now.
#2999 of 3018 Regarding Erin's review
Jan 03, 2013 (9:55 pm)
Maybe someone else more mature should have been handed the assignment of writing this review. For example, if the car can be had with a sport package, I think it's fair that they give a car with a sport package to review, what's wrong with that? So what if it's available in 1 month instead of now. It's astonishing that it beats an M5, and it's whined about it instead of praising it. And how can it be said most buyers won't purchase the sport package? I'm sure a fair amount of them will (not .0001% as this article implies).
As for all the complaints about the interior and everything else, they all sound like personal preference issues. Other reviews I've read have said the exact opposite of this one about all these topics, including how it stacks up to the competition. Compare this review to the Lexus ES review Erin wrote, where she completely glosses over many issues and didn't whine about anything, and it sounds like she's got a prejudice problem with Lincoln.
This review comes off as a poor excuse for fair, unbiased journalism, and gives the Edmunds website a black eye if she's qualified enough to be a senior editor. The other journalists on this website seem to have a more even-tempered set of skills for evaluating an automobile on it's merits, maybe over time Erin can learn something from them.
#3000 of 3018 Re: Regarding Erin's review [carchatter1]
Jan 04, 2013 (8:36 am)
It always strikes me how individual reviewers pick up on, emphasize or de-emphasize different things. But that is why I read many reviews for any car. Reviewers are no different than buyers in that regard. They have individual preferences.
This Edmunds reviewer was not impressed with the MKZ. Period. I may not be duly impressed with one of her favorites. There is no need to take any of it personally.
The argument that it beat an M5 falls if apples-to-apples tires are shod on each vehicle. I think her point is that these tires on this car render it louder and more uncomfortable than the MKZ should be. Few people buying this type of car want sport at the expense of comfort. (That may change a bit when an Ecoboost 3.5 model is offered that is more all-of-a-piece.) So relax. She had a point to make. You do as well.
Remember that very few people are ever completely unbiased. The little Lincoln fan club on this thread certainly isn't. We all hope that Lincoln will begin to issue true excellence very soon. MKZ is a start around the bases, but hardly a home run.
#3001 of 3018 Re: Regarding Erin's review [gregg_vw]
Jan 04, 2013 (9:05 am)
The argument that it beat an M5 falls if apples-to-apples tires are shod on each vehicle.
They were the same tires that the M5 uses. That was the point.
It's not that we're fanbois who get upset at anything negative. There are plenty of negative things that could be said about the MKZ and Lincoln in general without going overboard or exaggerating.
It's just irritating that Lincoln is making significant headway to change they way everybody said they need to change and they still don't get treated fairly by some of the media.
As for Edmunds - I remember their senior editor back in 2002 or so (Wardlaw) who said Lincoln couldn't make up their mind about engine displacement because the Stype had a 4.0L engine and the LS said it was 3.9L. I tried to explain that the difference in displacement had to do with the Lincoln engine having a 85 mm stroke vs. 86 mm in the Jag. His answer - well what does stroke have to do with displacement? Which is akin to saying "why does a taller glass hold more water than a shorter glass?". Then he complains about the transmission shifting on the LS and takes it in for service, knowing there was a TSB available that fixed it. Did he mention the TSB that he knew about? Nope. He waited to see if the service advisor would find it on his own and he didn't, so he put up with the bad shifting for 6 more months and complained about it constantly.
And I won't even mention that he couldn't find the battery which was mounted in the trunk.
So I don't have a lot of respect for Edmunds senior editors in the first place nor most automotive journalists. They all seem to have their biases and they don't always do proper research. That doesn't mean it isn't frustrating though.
#3003 of 3018 Re: Regarding Erin's review [akirby]
Jan 04, 2013 (12:41 pm)
Sorry about the tire confusion.
But my point is that reviews don't have to be frustrating. To take offense at an auto journalist's opinion just because her opinion frosts your cookies, doesn't change a thing as compared to simply taking note of your disagreement and moving on.
I am fascinated as well by the lack of knowledge and insight within many of these articles. But I just cannot waste my energy getting upset about something that I cannot change, and that will not change. What I have found is that like with movie reviews, book reviews or anything else, the bulk of reviews of any model taken together more or less provide an overall rating. To balance out Edmunds, I have also seen a completely glowing review of the new MKZ. I pay attention to the regression toward the mean.
#3004 of 3018 Re: Regarding Erin's review [gregg_vw]
Jan 04, 2013 (1:53 pm)
As you well know I tend to get wound up over this stuff way more than I should. And it's not just a Ford thing - that's just where I spend most of my time. Biased and inaccurate reporting irks me to no end.
Maybe that's why my blood pressure is a little higher than it should be. I'll try to do more ignoring and less ranting.
#3005 of 3018 Re: Regarding Erin's review [akirby]
Jan 05, 2013 (6:49 pm)
Ah...you're ok, Allen. Just a bit a a fanboi...
#3006 of 3018 I think this latest review clinches it
Feb 10, 2013 (4:40 pm)
The new MKZ is so much better than the 2012. Yet it competes in a 2013 environment that reasonably can expect more, given the competition.
If you drive a car for awhile as these testers did, and conclude that there is little to be gained for that $20K over the Fusion Titanium, that is a problem. For Lincoln it is a big problem, because this car cannot be redone for at least five more years.
#3007 of 3018 Re: I think this latest review clinches it [gregg_vw]
Feb 11, 2013 (9:44 am)
I don't think the $20K comparison is valid because it includes features not available on the Fusion like THX stereo, LED adaptive headlamps, retractable glass roof, 3.7L V6, Lincoln ride control.
I priced a MKZ and it was about $10K more than a comparably equipped Fusion Titanium. For that you get a longer warranty, free maintenance, upgraded materials, Lincoln Ride Control, LED headlamps, heated and cooled seats, push button shifter and lots of smaller upgrades.
Whether those extra things are worth $10K is really a personal decision. For some it is and others (like me) it isn't. But at least you're not getting a rebadge job.
I also think the MKZ will get a major facelift for 2015 with a new front that's closer to the MKC concept and engine upgrades. They're not going to wait 5 years.