Track Tested: 2010 Lincoln MKS EcoBoost

[AdmiralViscen]

If the MKS EB was a Buick Roadmaster GS the naysayers in this thread would be heralding the return of 60s GM.

[OLDSCHOOLGMFAN]

Originally Posted by AdmiralViscen

If the MKS EB was a Buick Roadmaster GS the naysayers in this thread would be heralding the return of 60s GM.

I see nothing wrong with a return to when GM ruled the automotive world.

[bigbuck16]

Originally Posted by Xenon

It's 5.9 seconds BTW, not 7.6 for the 3.0T.
While the MKS isn't a failure at all, I'm not very impressed with it. And I'm pretty sure that there is a lot of people, editors included that feel this way. If I'm going to be dropping nearly $60K for a car, it better be impressive.

So will the MKS be the sales success that Ford is looking for? We will see...

Get mad and weep

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=8255

0-60 5 seconds
1/4 13.6 @104mph
60-0 123 feet

[70W30]

Originally Posted by wescoent

Really? What V8 engine in a car of that size and weight gets 17/25?

I don't know the EPA numbers, but pops' 2005 CTS-V gets upper 20's on the highway.

And I guarantee it will smoke this more expensive Lincoln. lol...

And I have to say, I know of no one that will spend more for a Lincoln than a Caddy. Not saying it doesn't happen, but a $56K Lincoln is a hard sell I'm thinking...

Especially when one can drop 4 more and get a V.

[Extreme4x4]

And once again............................. the CTS is a midsize car. The MKS is a large car.

BTW, I didn't know that the CTSV was AWD. (it isn't, but this constant insistance on comparing FWD or RWD fuel economy, against AWD, gets old)

BTW2, CTSV EPA fuel economy is 14/19. Of course, I would never think of comparing the fuel economy of a 550hp vehicle, with that of a 355hp vehicle.............. especially when they are completely different vehicles (size, purpose, power, drive).

[PA Dweller]

Originally Posted by Extreme4x4

And once again............................. the CTS is a midsize car. The MKS is a large car.

BTW, I didn't know that the CTSV was AWD. (it isn't, but this constant insistance on comparing FWD or RWD fuel economy, against AWD, gets old)

BTW2, CTSV EPA fuel economy is 14/19. Of course, I would never think of comparing the fuel economy of a 550hp vehicle, with that of a 355hp vehicle.............. especially when they are completely different vehicles (size, purpose, power, drive).

This man here makes some valid points, if we are to make a proper comparison then use the DTS as an example. It's the cloest thing Cadillac has to the MKS.

[kneedragger]

Originally Posted by 70W30

I don't know the EPA numbers, but pops' 2005 CTS-V gets upper 20's on the highway.

And I guarantee it will smoke this more expensive Lincoln. lol...

And I have to say, I know of no one that will spend more for a Lincoln than a Caddy. Not saying it doesn't happen, but a $56K Lincoln is a hard sell I'm thinking...

Especially when one can drop 4 more and get a V.

I hate when people use anecdotal fuel economy numbers. You can literally make up anything and people often do

My dads MKS ecoboost gets high 30's on the highway!!!! *

and i know atleast 5 people who would spend more for a lincoln than a caddy... *


There you go, and just like that, i wiped out your whole argument


*Designates a fact that was completely made up

[Barry Badrinath]

Originally Posted by PA Dweller

This man here makes some valid points, if we are to make a proper comparison then use the DTS as an example. It's the cloest thing Cadillac has to the MKS.

Yes, SHE does, though I disagree that size is the primary determinate as to whether people will cross shop the cars used as examples.

Those people who's most important feature is size would most likely not cross shop. But the further that goes down on the list of importance, the more people who will.

Personally, it's not that important. So long as the car is engaging, it could be DTS sized... even 60's Brougham sized, for all I care.

There is something to be said about satisfying one's inner pimp, so to speak.

[wescoent]

By the way, for a little preview of the MKS and Taurus's capabilities moving forward, check out this aftermarket model:

http://jalopnik.com/5397856/mobsteel...0hp-taurus-sho

Solved the brake and power problem... but added a whole litany of other issues... O.o

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by wescoent

By the way, for a little preview of the MKS and Taurus's capabilities moving forward, check out this aftermarket model:

http://jalopnik.com/5397856/mobsteel...0hp-taurus-sho

Solved the brake and power problem... but added a whole litany of other issues... O.o

I think 22" rims look ridiculous on any car, period. When the sidewalls of your tire are thinner than the soles of your shoe, I think it's more cartoonish than sexy.

But 13 inch Brembo brakes should help.

The question is whether the 400 horsepower comes from lifting the redline or boosting the torque output across the whole rev range.

[OLDSCHOOLGMFAN]

WHOA that Black Taurus is plum SEXY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Xenon]

Originally Posted by Extreme4x4

It depends on the source, and the test. I looked all over the web for all. Unfortunately, noone was consistant.

I will say that I also did not take the fastest time I saw for the Ecoboost MKS, to be fair.

BTW, the Ecoboost MKS starts at $47K. So far, in this thread, the only price I have seen, is the "as tested" price of $56K.............. which is fair, but does not address that the car can be had for much less. Now, in your posts, it has drifted up to "nearly" $60K. I guess that looks better, than rounding down to "slightly over" $55K?

Much in the same way that every arguement about the SHO not being worth $45K, likes to ignore that the car starts at $38K............... very well equipped.

However, we get it, you don't like the car. That is really all you need to say.

Most of the reason that I'm not fond of this car is because I was expecting along the veins of the old LS, not what's essentially a FWD Town Car.

[Extreme4x4]

The MKS has been what it is, since its inception, which includes discussion before it even became a concept. It was never a secret that the car was going to be a D3 dirivative.

The LS is gone. Long gone. Not only that, but Ford never made money on it............... oh goody (Fords fault entirely). I'm sorry about that.

I loved the LS, and had planned on buying one, someday. That is not possible. That is also many years ago (lets just admit that we all knew the car was "dead car driving," for quite a while). I love the Ecoboost MKS, but do not want to pay the money over the SHO. Thus, SHO it is for me. See, inbetween the LS and now, I moved, and realized that AWD is a good thing.................. a very good thing. Thus, it is now a requirement.

A big bonus?? How much the interiors of the MKS/Taurus are generations of improvements above the LS. We are talking, by a magnitude here. That is also important to me.

Anyway, I guess I am just saying that the LS is gone. To begrudge the MKS, as if it was some evil plot by the car, to do away with the the LS, is kind of silly. It is a great car in its own right.................. just as the LS was a great car, in its own right, in its time.

[PA Dweller]

Originally Posted by Barry Badrinath

Yes, SHE does, though I disagree that size is the primary determinate as to whether people will cross shop the cars used as examples.

Those people who's most important feature is size would most likely not cross shop. But the further that goes down on the list of importance, the more people who will.

Personally, it's not that important. So long as the car is engaging, it could be DTS sized... even 60's Brougham sized, for all I care.

There is something to be said about satisfying one's inner pimp, so to speak.

Ouch my bad, it's hard to tell since we're on the internet.

You make good points, some people probably do cross-shop these two vehicles but still they cannot properly compete. The CTS will always handle better because it's smaller, and the MKS will always be more roomy since it's bigger. In my opinion I find both vehicles to be engaging. The CTS is more brash and in your face, while the MKS is more laid back and elegant. Some people will like the CTS for what it has while others won't, same for the MKS. It all comes down to personal taste.

I also understand the comment about satisfying the "inner-pimp" but thats what the Escalade/Navigator is for.

[OLDSCHOOLGMFAN]

Originally Posted by Xenon

Most of the reason that I'm not fond of this car is because I was expecting along the veins of the old LS, not what's essentially a FWD Town Car.

The MKS wasn't meant to be no LS replacement. It was meant for Lincoln's traditional customers, who don't want no LS.