- #2502 of 2769
-
Re: MKS vs. Taurus vs. others [gregg_vw]
by savetheland
-
Mar 27, 2009 (4:38 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gregg_vw (Mar 27, 2009 5:20 am)
In fact I considered VW CC. It feels more luxurous than Lincoln. I mean interior materials and design.
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.
|
- #2503 of 2769
-
Re: MKS vs. Taurus vs. others [savetheland]
by gregg_vw
-
Mar 28, 2009 (10:59 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: savetheland (Mar 27, 2009 4:38 pm)
WOW...hideous? Just illustrates individual preference! (You probably hate the Mercedes CLS too.) I think those two are among the very most beautiful sedans out there today, along with the Jaguar XF, the Maserati Quattroporte and the upcoming Aston sedan Tesla model S sedan and Fisker Karma to mention a few. (The CC is the only one of that group I could easily afford.) I saw one sitting next to the new A4. Not only did it make the A4 look dowdy by comparison, it undercut the A4 price by several thousand. The CC V6 AWD model would be a better comparison with the Lincoln though. More money but still in the ballpark and still less than the Lincoln. But if the looks aren't for you, then the car isn't for you. Man, I'd buy it on looks alone. (And my 2003 VW interior still looks as good as the day I bought it.)
|
- #2504 of 2769
-
2000 Miles in an MKS
by DRUDDELL
-
Mar 28, 2009 (11:01 am)
-
|
Some thoughts on my MKS after 1 month and 2000 miles:
- 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
|
- #2505 of 2769
-
Re: 2000 Miles in an MKS [DRUDDELL]
by brucelinc
-
Mar 28, 2009 (11:46 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: DRUDDELL (Mar 28, 2009 11:01 am)
Yes, the wood from a dash kit on the console looks great, IMO. The last time I checked, they didn't have a kit for the olive ash wood but they might by now.
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.
|
- #2506 of 2769
-
Re: 2000 Miles in an MKS [DRUDDELL]
by toomanyfumes
-
Mar 28, 2009 (12:03 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: DRUDDELL (Mar 28, 2009 11:01 am)
Funny how fast cars change. My '05 LS has three ashtrays and a lighter. Cassette player too.  The leather still looks new, but I use conditioner on it.
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. 
|
- #2507 of 2769
-
Re: MKS vs. Taurus vs. others [gregg_vw]
by carfanforever
-
Mar 28, 2009 (1:12 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gregg_vw (Mar 27, 2009 5:20 am)
The VW CC is one beautiful car, as is the Merc CLS. I hope more builders jump on this 4 door coupe bandwagon.
|
- #2508 of 2769
-
Re: MKS vs. Taurus vs. others [gregg_vw]
by savetheland
-
Mar 28, 2009 (2:57 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gregg_vw (Mar 28, 2009 10:59 am)
I can point to Audi as an example of elegant, beautiful and simple design. Beautiful design is always simple and not overdone. Audi was making elegant car starting with '85 Audi 80. '85 Audi 80 still looks modern and elegant after more than 20 years from introduction. VW CC style is similar to how Koreans or Japanese approach to designing cars - it will look dated and ugly in next model cycle. I like Tesla S and Karma, but the elegance of these luxury marques has nothing in common with Passat CC. But do not forget that VW is a pedestrian marque of VAG. It only looks luxurious in comparison with American cars (Accord, MKZ, Camry). Unfortunately Ford has no idea how to make luxury car. VWs bread and butter brand feels more luxurious than Fords "luxury" marque Lincoln. Audi is simply out of reach for Ford to immitate.
|
- #2509 of 2769
-
Re: MKS vs. Taurus vs. others [savetheland]
by gregg_vw
-
Mar 28, 2009 (5:22 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: savetheland (Mar 28, 2009 2:57 pm)
Of course the CC will look dated after awhile, but I doubt it will ever look ugly, any more than any elegant or unique older car does as time passes and its lines fall out of favor. Ugly cars are ugly from the go-shot, like the Ford 500, the last American Motors Ambassador, the Aztek, the PT Cruizer Convertible, the current Chrysler Sebring hardtop convertible, the Ssangyong Rodius. The Koreans and Japanese have produced nothing currently that looks as good as the CC. The swoopy lines may not be your taste, but they are not ugly nor Japanese derivative. Park an Altima (one of the less bland Japanese midsize sedans) next to a CC and the Altima looks blah.
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.
|
- #2510 of 2769
-
Re: MKS vs. Taurus vs. others [savetheland]
by carfanforever
-
Mar 28, 2009 (9:45 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: savetheland (Mar 28, 2009 2:57 pm)
Gregg, how do you define "Luxury car"?
|
- #2511 of 2769
-
Re: MKS vs. Taurus vs. others [gregg_vw]
by brucelinc
-
Mar 29, 2009 (8:02 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: gregg_vw (Mar 28, 2009 5:22 pm)
Ford hasn't had what I would call a breakthrough styling sensation for a good long while. They have apparently been afraid to step very far outside the box. In my opinion, some of the best looking Ford products for their time would include the '60 Starliner, the '61 Lincoln Continental, the '61 T'Bird, the '83 T'bird, and the 89 'T'Bird. The original Taurus was ground-breaking, too.
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.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
