[Titanic]

The Lincoln MKS weighs 4,127 lbs, has a 273hp/273TQ on regular (275hp/276TQ on premium) 3.7L V6 and a 6-speed auto, and returns 19mpg on the EPA combined cycle for the FWD model.

For comparison, the 300C weighs 4,096lbs, has a 350hp/390TQ 5.7L V8 (on mid-grade) and a 5-speed automatic, and returns 18mpg on the EPA combined cycle for the RWD model.

So....I don't get it. Isn't the FWD platform, and V6/6-speed combo supposed to be all about light-weight and efficiency? The 300C is routinely blasted here for being portly (which I don't entirely disagree with), yet it's lighter, more powerful, and just about as fuel efficient (not to mention it's a 4 year old design).

The Lincoln is only marginally bigger dimensionally, and only has 2 cubic feet more interior volume, which is hardly enough to explain the situation. What gives?

(Figures obtained from Autoweek, Lincoln.com, fueleconomy.gov, and Chrysler.com)

 

[big swede]

The weights of these cars are getting downright embarrassing and need to be the prime concern for the next generation of cars.

 

[syr74]

Nothing at all surprising here. I've stated several times before that, in most cases, modern V6 engines seldom do much better in terms of overall fuel economy than do many much larger V8's with the difference in highway fuel economy often being extremely small if not non existent. That is exactly what we have here as we can see by the numbers.

Lincoln MKS FWD 3.7L: 17/24 city/hwy

Chrysler 300 5.7L: 15/23 city/hwy

Even more telling is the fuel economy of the 3.5L V6 powered Chrysler 300

Chrysler 300 3.5L V6: 17/24 city/hwy

I've seen a few folks argue that fwd cars are supposed to be more fuel efficient but, aside from real world benefits that may result from that layout like a weight advantage, this is a fantasy that only exists in the mind of Bob Lutz when he needs an excuse for a RWD program delay.

If I'm going to complain about the MKS I'll rant about the power to weight ratio which, unlike the fuel economy, really is unacceptable for an American car in this segment. The Ecoboost V6 will offer close to another 100hp, more than another 100lb-ft of torque, and will likely return slightly better fuel economy for the trouble when comparing AWD model to AWD model. Ford/Lincoln should have simply bumped the price up another 4k, made the EB V6 and AWD standard, and delivered a car which would garner far more interest and praise.

 

[johnstarnes]

Other than making cars smaller, what are some good strategies for reducing vehicle weights? Greater use of carbon fiber composites, aluminum and aluminum-honeycomb panels? Polycarbonates? Hand crank windows vs. electric for a bit of exercise on the way to a pricey gym? GM's amazing fuel cell "skateboard" technology? Seems wasteful for a two TON vehicle to be taking a 160 pound person somewhere.

 

[Tone]

If you take advantage of FWD's packaging efficiency you can end up with a very light, very roomy car, even if Lincoln seems to have missed that mark by a wide margin.

In fact, GM did exactly that in the 1980s and early 1990s. Their full-size FWD cars (like the Buick Park Avenue) had big interiors, ample trunks and weighed in around 3500 lbs -- almost what a mid-sized car weights (and lighter than the new generation of "pony cars").

No, they didn't have 300+ hp; they made due with 150 - 200 hp 3800 V6s, with 230+ hp supercharged versions optional.

They were boxy, which when combined with FWD allowed them to cram the maximum amount of space into the minimal amount of space.

Peter Egan of Road and Track had a Park Ave as his winter car and wrote about its excellent fuel economy here: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=26&article_id=26. Is was good enough that he couldn't justify buying a smaller car to only gain a few mpg!

A similar approach today with more fuel efficient engines would create a car with full-sized room and much better fuel economy. In fact, an Impala with a couple of extra inches of wheelbase would get you pretty close!

 

[mgescuro]

why would it? MKS probably incorporates all of Volvo's advanced safety features. Plus it's AWD capable too.

 

[EldoFan]

Safety & Technology = more weight :yup:

 

[blank disk]

Safety and NVH and luxury all surpass the 300C.

Who wants to bet that all that "extra" adds a couple hundred pounds.
Personally, I don't mind it. I bet it rides far quieter and smoother than the 300C. We already know it is safer because of the Volvo influence.

What big luxury car really stands out in light weight and FE in that price range anyway?
Would anyone want it more it if weighed 400lbs lighter with exotic materials and cost $4K more? Not me.

 

[wescoent]

Safety and NVH and luxury all surpass the 300C.

Who wants to bet that all that "extra" adds a couple hundred pounds.
Personally, I don't mind it. I bet it rides far quieter and smoother than the 300C. We already know it is safer because of the Volvo influence.

What big luxury car really stands out in light weight and FE in that price range anyway?
Would anyone want it more it if weighed 400lbs lighter with exotic materials and cost $4K more? Not me.

This is my impression as well. The Chrysler 300 is a fine family sedan, for sure, and absolutely cleaned Ford's clock back in 2005.

However, let's upgrade the 300 to the refinement, equipment, and safety levels of the MKS, then let's talk about weight.

You want to see a true pig? Check the weight of the Bentley Continental Flying Spur. For a car that size, I cannot comprehend where all that weight is hidden. Lead lining?

 

[blank disk]

I believe the weight you quoted was for an AWD MKS.

Double check that, and then compare i to the nearly 4300lbs of the AWD 300c.

 

[Titanic]

I believe the weight you quoted was for an AWD MKS.

Double check that, and then compare i to the nearly 4300lbs of the AWD 300c.

I checked it, it's for the FWD version.

 

[Shawn704]

I believe the weight you quoted was for an AWD MKS.

Double check that, and then compare i to the nearly 4300lbs of the AWD 300c.

The MotorTrend review listed AWD MKS's curb weight at 4276 lbs
and the Chrysler's website listed the AWD 300C at 4280 lbs.

I wouldn't consider the MKS marginally bigger than the 300, the MKS is 7.3 inches longer. The wheelbase is nearly identical at 120 inches in the 300 versus 119.9 in the MKS.

MKS
204.1 x 75.9 x 61.6 inches

300C
196.8 x 74.1 x 58.9 inches

 

[blank disk]

So the 300C is much smaller and more weight.
And far less luxury and nowhere near the NVH levels of the MKS.
Safety neither.

The 300C looks so dated to me now.
The MKS looks reallly sharp, especially for those of us who are weathered of the old Art & Science look.

 

[EldoFan]

So the 300C is much smaller and more weight.
And far less luxury and nowhere near the NVH levels of the MKS.
Safety neither.

The 300C looks so dated to me now.
The MKS looks reallly sharp, especially for those of us who are sick of the Art & Science look.

Well at least this just proves how fickle MT is.......esp. after they gave their top honor to the 300C 4 years ago.....which is surprising given the fit N finish hasn't gotten notably better.

 

[igor]

Well at least this just proves how fickle MT is.......esp. after they gave their top honor to the 300C 4 years ago.....which is surprising given the fit N finish hasn't gotten notably better.

4 years is a LONG time for a car - the 2000 Taurus was welcomed with open arms in 2000 - by 2003 it was irrelevant.

Igor

 

[jry]

Nothing at all surprising here. I've stated several times before that, in most cases, modern V6 engines seldom do much better in terms of overall fuel economy than do many much larger V8's with the difference in highway fuel economy often being extremely small if not non existent. That is exactly what we have here as we can see by the numbers.

Lincoln MKS FWD 3.7L: 17/24 city/hwy

Chrysler 300 5.7L: 15/23 city/hwy

Even more telling is the fuel economy of the 3.5L V6 powered Chrysler 300

Chrysler 300 3.5L V6: 17/24 city/hwy

I've seen a few folks argue that fwd cars are supposed to be more fuel efficient but, aside from real world benefits that may result from that layout like a weight advantage, this is a fantasy that only exists in the mind of Bob Lutz when he needs an excuse for a RWD program delay.

If I'm going to complain about the MKS I'll rant about the power to weight ratio which, unlike the fuel economy, really is unacceptable for an American car in this segment. The Ecoboost V6 will offer close to another 100hp, more than another 100lb-ft of torque, and will likely return slightly better fuel economy for the trouble when comparing AWD model to AWD model. Ford/Lincoln should have simply bumped the price up another 4k, made the EB V6 and AWD standard, and delivered a car which would garner far more interest and praise.

Am i missing something here. The AWD STS 300 HP, DI with its 6 speed auto gets better mileage with regular gas than the MKS? The idea here is to get better mileage. Holy cow, my 06 STS did better than that. My 03 Bonne got nearly 30 on the highway with FWD, the pushrod 3.8 and a 4 speed auto. What would that have gotten with a 6 speed? 35? If i am going for crappy mileage and premium, i'll find a one year old Bentley Flying Spur or something like that. I need to review the STS mileage again. Maybe they should just rework the DTS a little, put the DI6 in that, a 6 speed and AWD.
Size, Comfort, Mileage and Handling.

 

[syr74]

Am I missing something here? The AWD STS 300 HP, DI with its 6 speed auto gets better mileage with regular gas than the MKS?

I don't see why this would be a surprise. DI makes a difference in this respect and, as the STS loses nothing in fuel economy in the transition to AWD with both RWD and AWD being rated at 17/26 city/hwy the 2mpg improvement in hwy fuel economy over the MKS is about what I would expect direct injection to deliver....particularly given the STS sedans lighter weight. (the awd STS weighs about what a fwd MKS does)

However, while fuel is at a premium I wouldn't look for people to rush out and buy STS sedans, the problem being that the STS has an unacceptably small rear seat and offers almost nothing of substance over the new CTS but a higher sticker because of this. The truth here is that I'm not crazy about the new MKS and find it to be utterly inappropriate as a Lincoln, but I have to say I'd rather pony up the extra dough for the upcoming GTDi MKS and get similar fuel economy to the STS which you readily applaud in a car with 340+hp and around 360lb-ft of torque all in a package which has a back seat that isn't laughable in a full size sedan. Of course FWIW I'd rather have a Chrysler 300 or a CTS than either of them but if were going to debate which sub par American luxury sedan is king of the mountain...STS or MKS...at least wait for Lincoln to play their aces.

My 03 Bonne got nearly 30 on the highway with FWD, the pushrod 3.8 and a 4 speed auto. What would that have gotten with a 6 speed? 35?

You do realize that what your Bonnie got on the highway and what these cars are rated at couldn't have less to do with one another?

If I am going for crappy mileage and premium, i'll find a one year old Bentley Flying Spur or something like that.

If you find a one year old Flying Spur for 45k or something close to it and decide not to buy it....please let me know.

 

[blank disk]

Did someone mention the STS.
This interior leaves me speechless.
In a bad way.

 

[F14CRAZY]

So the 300C is much smaller and more weight.
And far less luxury and nowhere near the NVH levels of the MKS.
Safety neither.

The 300C looks so dated to me now.
The MKS looks reallly sharp, especially for those of us who are weathered of the old Art & Science look.

But um, 300 is RWD, and has a V8...a Hemi to be exact...

 

[Z0mg Seth]

The MKS get's similar gas mileage to the cars that are the same size, like the A8, 7-Series, DTS, and S-Class. It's hardly any different mileage/weight wise than those.