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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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

 

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

Yeah, that's one of the things I like about it. Extremely safe car, given that Volvo helped to design it.

 

Safety & Technology = more weight :yup:

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

Quit hatin......you know the DTS/Lucerne interiors are practically interchangeable......: :lmao:

 

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.

 

Really? In the last thread I made this comparo:

Cadillac STS: 3.6 304hp 18/26
Cadillac CTS: 3.6 304hp 18/26
Lexus GS 350: 3.5 V6 303hp 19/27
BMW 535i: 3.0 I6 300hp 17/26
Hyundai Genesis V6: 3.8L V6 290hp 18/27
Hyundai Genesis V8: 4.6L V8 375hp 17/25
Lincoln MKS (FWD): 3.7L V6 275hp 17/24


But since you specifically said cars within the MKS' size:
Cadillac STS: 3.6 304hp 18/26
Hyundai Genesis V6: 3.8L V6 290hp 18/27
Hyundai Genesis V8: 4.6L V8 375hp 17/25
Lincoln MKS (FWD): 3.7L V6 275hp 17/24

7 series, S-class and A8 have worse fuel economy, but do keep in mind, they do have V8s (making 100+ more hp) as standard equipment.

 

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)

That's hardly an adequate comparison. The 300 is 7 inches shorter than the MKS. The MKS would be much lighter if it lost 7 inches in length.

 

FWIW, the Dodge Charger R/T is longer than the 300C (200.1 in) and weighs 4,031lbs. So, length doesn't explain it. And the 300C has an IRON block V8! IRON! The MKS has no such handicap that I'm aware of.

 

Driving behind a Challenger recently, I could not help but notice how big that car is.
No thanks. Not for a "pony car."

Although the 300C may see acceptable fuel economyy on the highway due to it's cyl deactivation system, city fuel economy sucks more, and that's where I drive most.

 

Driving behind a Challenger recently, I could not help but notice how big that car is. No thanks. Not for a "pony car."

The Dodge Challenger has always been a large car. Why would a new-age version be small? The "new age" Mustang and Camaro are small because those cars always WERE small..

Six cylinder engines in general don't do that much better than eights when pulling the same weight.

Exactly. If the "six" has to work much harder to pull the weight, it's not going to make much of a difference...

 

The MKS is a huge car, with a huge amount of features, stellar safety, and plenty of luxury. You cannot compare it to a Chrysler 300, which is a mainstream large car with an ultra cheap interior, so so safety, and few features.

The problem that some of you have with the MKS is the same problem that most of the reviewers have................. you, and they, just don't know what it competes with directly, and that drives you crazy.

 

You're getting too caught up in the 300C comparison. I just picked it because it's thought of as a heavy car, and the MKS is even heavier. You can compare it to anything else that's supposedly in its class and get about the same result.

As for the 300C, I don't see how you can say it has few features. It has laser cruise control, satellite TV, DVD player(s), Hard Drive, navigation, mp3 player compatibility, Boston Acoustics Dolby 5.1 surround sound or 13 speaker Kicker system, Bluetooth, power tilt/telescoping steering column, front and rear heated seats, dual-zone climate control, HID headlamps, Smartbeam headlamps that automatically dim for oncoming traffic, rain-sensing wipers, self-sealing tires, ESC, rear parking sensors, remote starting....

It seems up to snuff to me.

 

The 300C is a good comparison partner, because it was certainly NOT designed with being light or fuel-efficient in mind. It was designed to be a huge lump of iron looking "pimp" and with engines large enough to move it around, just like in the old days (although Chrysler forgot the style element, don't blame them, you can't have everything).

The MKS isn't really special in any way, it is a large FWD car that could've been Hyundai's answer to Lexus, but ended up as Ford's. People coo about it because, let's face it, we've been expecting something even worse. It's good "for a Lincoln", but it's nothing spectacular. From an American automaker facing new CAFE, I would expect their largest and, reportedly, most technologically-advanced sedan to make a difference in the fuel economy department -> NADA...

At the same time, Ford's very own Mazda launches a new generation of cars BOTH larger and lighter and more fuel efficient than their predecessors... If not Jaguar, couldn't Ford at least go there for assistance and ask for a new-millennium Mazda Millennia?

PS. About the Volvo thing - it seems that the magic is rubbing-off, and Volvo is weakest in two decades or so. It makes it harder to bear that GM does not let SAAB spread their born-from-jets wings.

 

Born from jets is the stupidest tag line to ever befall an automotive manufacturer.

I cannot believe that someone actually signed off on that.

Yes, I do realize Saabs history. However, new Saabs are just GM's with a few Swedish touches.

 

Born from jets is the stupidest tag line to ever befall an automotive manufacturer.

I cannot believe that someone actually signed off on that.

Yes, I do realize Saabs history. However, new Saabs are just GM's with a few Swedish touches.

I like "Born from Jets". It's different and it fits in with their heritage. Wasn't sure about it at first but it definitely makes a good fit for the brand in my opinion.

 

Born from jets is the stupidest tag line to ever befall an automotive manufacturer.

Tagline aside, that was something to advertise. I liked the ads (especially the more restrained and "Swedish" European ones, w/o the tagline obviously). And if SAAB's weren't just worse renditions of the Opel Vectra, they could fly.

 

Well, the overall theme is OK, but the tagline was really too much in your face, smeared all over and pushed down the troath. When you show a SAAB and a jet, it is obvious where you're coming from. You don't need to go all over it.

I much prefer the commercials we got in the European market, such as this one:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=PyVtmNZDjrA

(in Poland, we didn't get any "jet" tagline or voiceover)

Well, at least SAAB uses Swedish music now with Oh Laura's "Release Me" - though I think they should use schlager...

 

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)

Wow, great post. This is interesting, puzzling, and disappointing. I've been excited about the MKS and would be willing to have sub-300hp, FWD, and 6-cylinders if mileage was substantially better...yet you've shown this is not necessarily the case. Not to mention the 300 is older and one would imagine a newly released car would have the edge of the most recent fuel-saving measures. I still think the MKS is beautiful, and it is a BIG car, but one would have assumed it would post a bit better mpg numbers.

 

The wheelbase is a little short on the MKS. As you know, the 300 has that LOOONG wheelbase which makes it a great ride. Heck, even the STS has a longer wheelbase and more horseys to boot. I'll have to drive the MKS before making up my mind. I noticed that there isn't much advantage in the torque and HP stats by using premium. Odd. If it doesn't knock my socks off on the drive then we just may opt for another STS-6-AWD.

 

Correct me if i am wrong (i can take it).
I think over a year ago the EPA changed the way it calculates MPG. Didn't everyones MPG figures take a hit?
It seems like the 300C did better in gas mileage when it was released. I think thats due to the change implemented by the EPA. Kind of tricky. Then change the calculations on mileage, it lowers everyones MPG. Then, they raise the CAFE standards. Tough deal.

 

How about Mitsubishi changing to " Born from the blood of your POWs in WWII"

 

One of my buddies use to give me big crap for driving a Mirage back in 1991. I would look over at his Nissan 200SX and laugh. Hypocrisy is alive and well.

 

a$$fuk

 

a$$hole

 

Six cylinder engines in general don't do that much better than eights when pulling the same weight. To elaborate on your example, a Chrysler 300 AWD 3.5L gets exactly the same fuel economy rating as an AWD Hemi. Same goes for a 4WD Explorer with a V6 and V8- identical rating. A V6 G8 gets 2 mpg better combined than a V8. Same with an AWD Acadia vs. a 4WD 5.3L Yukon. There just aren't huge efficiency gains to be had from going with a 6 in a car with similar weight. Of course, now it can be argued that 1 or 2 mpg is a big deal.

Plus, the D35 on which the D37 is based has proven to be a pretty thirsty engine...I struggle to get 24 highway in my FWD MKZ.

Hell my moms 06 pt cruiser with the 4 cylinder is one little thirsty car, I cannot achieve more than 22mpg on the highway