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
#3993 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [keystonecarfan]
Jan 25, 2013 (5:06 pm)
Actually, the MKS is wider than the 2002 Continental, which did not seem narrow at all. It was a big car, even then. The other weird thing...cars are often able to carve out more legroom by being taller (explains why subcompacts are often so tall), like the MKS. However, the 2000 era Continental was shorter in height than not only the MKS--by a lot--but also 2 inches shorter than the 2013 MKZ! Not as wide either.
So the 2000 era Continental was not a bulky block of a vehicle, even if it did have enormous overhangs--that contributed nothing to interior room. Still, it had way more interior room, and more rear legroom on a significantly shorter wheelbase than either the MKS or new MKZ. Somehow Lincoln has lost track of how to style a luxury sedan that doesn't look like a block, and at the same time make it really roomy. What is up with that?
#3994 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [lemko]
Jan 25, 2013 (5:32 pm)
I've noticed the resemblance of the LS to Mitsubishi Galants and Diamanté also. While not striking, I thought the LS was a clean design that has held up well. My '05 with the '06 sport wheels and metallic red paint was a sharp car.
#3995 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [gregg_vw]
Jan 28, 2013 (10:36 am)
The 1995-2002 Continental was also based on Taurus architecture, but with a slightly different wheelbase, more interior room,
Au Contrare, Gregg: Having owned both, you are incorrect on the interior room - the 2005 on Continental was much smaller inside than the previous model, particulary in the rear seat. It was ultra tech and ultra luxury, ultra powerful with the In Tech V8, but all the room went into the trunk, not the cabin. The limosine roofline the pre 95 had, was gone, and so was the headroom and legroom.
#3996 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [nvbanker]
Jan 28, 2013 (6:28 pm)
I'm not saying the 1995 did not give up rear legroom, compared to the 1994. What I was saying is that if you chopped off the ridiculous overhangs that were the style then, this Continental car with a wheelbase of 109 inches offered more interior room (with a lower roof and less width) than the 2013 MKZ does with a wheelbase of over 112".
I hate that Ford has forgotten how to carve out interior room. This is a usual complaint about the subcompact class Fiesta, the compact class Focus, the midsize Fusion and MKZ, and the "large" class MKS. It is not as if the styling is so cool and so far better than rivals that making the interiors smaller is worth it (like with the Aston Martin Rapide, to use an extreme example).
#3997 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [gregg_vw]
Jan 28, 2013 (6:38 pm)
What do all those cars have in common? European platforms. Rumor is CD4 (Fusion/MKZ/Mondeo) is based mostly on the old EUCD Mondeo platform.
#3998 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [gregg_vw]
Jan 28, 2013 (7:30 pm)
I hate that Ford has forgotten how to carve out interior room
That is a major complaint I have with Ford products. The new Explorer is atrocious for it's size and the Taurus is just plain pathetic in the interior dimensions and room aspect. I think this is one area where they could learn from GM. Sit in a traverse and then an Explorer. Heck, even Toyota trumps the Explorer big time in this area.
#3999 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [berri]
Jan 28, 2013 (8:16 pm)
Explorer, Taurus, Flex, MKT and MKS are all derived from a Volvo platform and all suffer the same problems with interior room and a very high beltline. The next generation should fix that when they all switch to a CD4 variant (2013 Fusion/Mondeo/MKZ).
#4000 of 4170 Re: appearance 2 [toomanyfumes]
Jan 29, 2013 (7:04 am)
The LS is still a bit of a head turner. As to resemblance's, there are only so many ways you can build a vehicle without breaking the rules necessary for a quality vehicle. If oil prices go high and stay long enough to support major body changes, you will see everything go aerodynamic. As it is, prices shoot high and most people start dumping trucks/large SUV for small fuel efficient. Fuel prices drop and they get tired of riding in a sardine can, they start buying bigger vehicles. Because of lag to change production, about half the time it seems what is on the lot is out of sync with what buyer's want.
Even luxury cars are effected. Some buyer's can afford anything, including $10 gas, but that is a very limited market, and about half of them want to stay with the style. Hence such horrible creations as a Cadillac Cimaron (Chevy Citation) and a Lincoln that was on a Ford Granada.
I personally look at TCO, total cost of ownership, when making a purchase. Insurance is one variable that should be looked at closely. Surprisingly, the insurance for a new 11 Lacrosse loaded was no more than what it was for an 09 Malibu LT2. I was told the main reason was safety. Yet I pay a little more for a year older 10 MKS, mostly base.
I certainly have not popped those chrome strips on the roof, but they do break the roof lines. Somehow GM found a way to get rid of those trim pieces on Lacrosse, maybe better welding. That narrow channel existed, but it's paint was a flawless as any smooth surface.
#4001 of 4170 ...a Lincoln that was on a Ford Granada.
Jan 29, 2013 (11:01 am)
You mean the Versailles?
Feb 02, 2013 (12:31 pm)
Lincoln sold less than 4,200 cars in January. Even Volvo outsold Lincoln again.
Most dealers are still waiting for the "2013" MKZ. There is no rhyme or reason for not calling it a 2014, and skipping the 2013 model year...except it is too late to do that now. From here though, there is no way but up (or out).
And here comes an explanation from the Detroit News:
"Lincoln sold 453 MKZs, down 73 percent compared to last January. Ken Czubay, Ford vice president, U.S. marketing, sales and service, said Ford is taking extra time to comb over all-new MKZ sedans, the first of four all-new products for Lincoln over the next four years. As a result, Lincoln will not have a full-stock of MKZ sedans until early April."