Last post on May 21, 2013 at 6:54 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
Lincoln Zephyr, Lincoln MKS, Lincoln MKX
Jan 19, 2013 (5:29 am)
Blagh blagh. Appearance is eye candy and it works for short term, but you can only fool customers so long. I had 11 Lacrosse CXS, loaded, ruby red jewel tint, lots of metal flake. What a beautiful car according to all comments I got. But what a piece of junk. Worst vehicle I ever owned in my 56 years of driving. Lemoned it for a whole lotta reasons.
Think of the old box looking Mercedes. They were nothing toward nice looking but they sold and sold well. Most buyers were likely returning customers.
Bumped into an aquaintance last night, he admiring my MKS. Mentioned the lemon and he said a friend of his was having horrible experience with new Lucernne. Also said problems with American were why he stuck to foreign names these days. I could not argue against that because my wife has a KIA with 80,000 miles.
I believe Ford/Lincoln needs to take a hard look at some basic concepts of building.
Jan 19, 2013 (6:16 am)
My MKS is short of perfect. Quite a number of smaller items that bug me. Example being the sealing around openings and finish at those points. Others have complained about the poor sealing around the doors, allowing splash, dirt to get into that area and transfering to clothing. I can give the Lacrosse as an example of an excellent attempt at sealing the doors and other areas. They brag of their triple seal and it extends to the outer edges effectively. (I had issue in this area, one of the seals on all four doors separated at the factory splice) Also at the leading edge of the door, there was a seal to contact the fender when closed. On mine, they did not make contact, but I saw some that actually worked. That should be a hint.
Last weekend I washed MKS and KIA Rondo. Again the poor design on the MKS showed to an extreme compared to the KIA. All of the extra places dirt was hiding made the wash an extreme chore. And in the washing I noticed things that are from years gone by with Ford. Wake up Ford. Many of those crannies don't have finish paint. It was like they got a primer/dusting of paint and without those extra high gloss coats the dirt adheres and with high humidity it appears that black mold grows into the paint. That just says cheap. Add to that the poor quality sealer that is used to fill voids which deteriorates and flakes the paint off. It sure does not say quality. And this situation extends to the trunk area where all kinds of road dirt/film accumulates and is hard to remove. Again it grows black crud. Ford/Lincoln definitely needs to revisit design to address such. Hood area as well.
And you know those little stickers of information that are in many places. They darned sure should not be coming loose when washing. One that does not is that stupid one on inside glass, rear door, that brags about union built and quality. They can leave that one off.
And what is it that seat belts get so stained turning dark and unable to clean? Also says cheap.
And those little rubber bumpers that are at doors/hood/trunk, I had two of them pop off during the wash.
And the center armrests, the dye on the leather has worn off, noticed at 18K miles.
Lots of small things that scream cheap, enough to force thinking foreign on my next purchase.
As to the clowns that are trying to reinvent the "Hot Rod Lincoln", go elsewhere and do it.
Quality is the number one seller of vehicles.
#3977 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [e_net_rider]
Jan 19, 2013 (6:55 am)
You complain about Lincoln's build quality. Have you compared the build quality of BMW, Audi, Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes, and Cadillac to Lincoln's?
I bet you will find that the build quality of these vehicles is far above the quality of your MKS. You will also find that the platform engineering for these vehicles is far superior to any platform that underpins any Lincoln.
I agree with you about not wanting a Hot Rod Lincoln . Lincoln doesn't need a Shelby Lincoln that uses a Mustang platform . That would really be vulgar.
Lincoln needs something uniquely its own.
By the way , I had a 1975 Mercedes450 SEL. The build quality and platform engineering on that car was far superior to my Father's Lincoln MK 5. The car would literally run rings around the MK5 on the skid pad. I also had a Jaguar XJ 12 coupe. Build quality was not as good as Mercedes but better than Lincoln's ;however, Lucas electronics and bearing seal problems were a nightmare . Yet it was more fun to drive than the Lincoln.
#3978 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [edward53]
Jan 20, 2013 (3:52 am)
I was in a friend's Lexus and it seemed nice. Also the saying about the Olds Aurora, "They ride like a Lexus." seemed true. But you know how that first impression, that short test drive is, it does not tell much. Ownership or having the vehicle for awhile reveals all.
Don't be so quick to lump Cadillac in. I'd say many of the things about them are likely much like the Lacrosse. Many of the same components, such as three bad batteries in first year and a defective oil filter from the factory. I did give them a check after the Buick and found the same horrible hard seating where I could feel structure through the padding and likely the wires for seat heating. Got in and bounced hard on the seat several times to imitate settling in from a long ride. Of the GM's, Chrysler's, and MKS, MKS wins hands down when it comes to the seat. (Not including head rest)
As to the others, I'd have to do some serious testing. Perhaps the biggest BMW might be different, but of the others I've heard they ride hard and are a chore to drive. One commented, "I prefer the Lincoln because I'm not tired after driving it.", compared to a BMW.
MK5, not sure what year that would have been, but if on Taurus body, it would have been lacking a lot. Only the first version of Taurus/Sable seemed solid although somewhat under-powered with that version of 3.0L. After the first one, they lightened it a lot and a particularly weak spot was the window frame attaching to the door. It bent easily allowing poor sealing and they were noisy. And with that I'm reminded that I noticed a piece of that rubber window track popping from its place on my MKS. Ford is cheap on those window tracks it seems as well as low quality carpet.
#3979 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [e_net_rider]
Jan 20, 2013 (10:16 am)
I think the MKS is a decent car and very well equipped. My problem with the MKS is that it always looks so clunky. Parked on the street next to other cars it often comes off as half-baked, with clumsy and unimaginative lines, and a bulky presence that still does not look like money. Lincoln was controlled by half-wits when this thing was drawn and approved. Thank goodness for new blood.
#3981 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [gregg_vw]
Jan 20, 2013 (5:14 pm)
For once I agree 100%. Neither one is exciting. Can't wait to see what Max has in store for the other Lincolns.
#3982 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [e_net_rider]
Jan 24, 2013 (10:51 am)
MK5, not sure what year that would have been,
The Mark V way predated the Taurus by 11 years, circa 75. It was a Panther platform, about 22 ft long, and just gorgeous for the day. A true luxury car, Eldorado competition, soft, cushy, opulent, square but with a forward stance. 460 V8, 7 mpg, miserable acceleration - but enviable at any setting or event.
#3983 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [e_net_rider]
Jan 24, 2013 (3:40 pm)
There were no Mark models that shared anything with the Taurus. The 1988-94 Continental was based on the Taurus, but shared no interior or exterior styling with the Ford. It was noticeably roomier than the Taurus as well. The 1995-2002 Continental was also based on Taurus architecture, but with a slightly different wheelbase, more interior room, and huge front and rear overhangs.