By on November 18, 2015

2017_Lincoln_MKZ_02_HR

Lincoln will give its MKZ the Continental treatment for 2017, including a 400 horsepower, 3.0-liter twin-turbocharged V-6 engine and all-wheel drive.

According to the automaker, the engine will be exclusive to the brand. The 400 horsepower and 400 lbs-ft of torque will be kept in check with Dynamic Torque Vectoring available in the optional Driver’s Package.

Driver’s Package? Lincoln? I like the sound of this.

2017_Lincoln_MKZ_06_HR

The MKZ will also be available as a hybrid, powered by a 2.0-liter four-cylinder GTDI engine and hybrid powertrain good for a combined 245 horsepower routed to the front wheels only.

Lincoln will bring the new MKZ to dealers in summer of 2016.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

143 Comments on “LA 2015: Lincoln Gives 2017 MKZ 400 Horsepower, All-Wheel Drive, Second Chance at Life...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    …As CoreyDL reported an hour ago, with more pics! :) Since Mark can’t just use someone else’s pics, but I can:

    http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/los_angeles/2015/2017-lincoln-mkz-gains-continental-like-face-400-hp-v-6/

    Black/white/denim Charlie Sheen interior package optional (blech). Rear light bar continuity fail as standard!

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    Just the change of the grille-design should result in more sales. This beats the “smilin’ balun whale” grille, any day.

  • avatar
    cwallace

    That new nose is a significant improvement.

  • avatar
    MUSASHI66

    Brother??

    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51pH794h85L._SY300_.jpg

  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    Yeah, I see Audi, Jag, and Chrysler 200 in that front end. Not sure that Lincoln did themselves any favors here.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    I’ve come to realize after owning a 400hp car for 3 years that 400hp is unnecessary and unusable 99.8% of the time. But the .2% of the time when it is useful is intoxicating.
    From now on, 300hp will be my target.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      V6 turbo. It is Ford. There will never be another Lincoln with a V8 again.

      • 0 avatar
        Higheriq

        And that can be blamed on the silly, stupid, socialistic 2025 EPA CAFE standards of 54.5mpg, not Ford. Let’s pray that a free-market-friendly administration is elected next year and those CAFE ratings are repealed. THEN you see another Lincoln V8.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Well, let’s blame Ford too. What Lincoln are they going to put a V8 in besides the Navigator?

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            They have made a FWD V-8 Continental before. Not that the current 5.0 is as small as the old 4.6L, so probably not.

            Maybe a plus-sized Mustang as a Personal Luxury Coupe/Convertable? But with a 400 hp twin turbo V-6 exclusive to Lincoln, who needs a V-8 aside from nostalgic reasons? Plenty of low end torque from Ford’s EcoBoost 6’s so far. Sound? Would you pay more for similar power, increased fuel consumption, but better sound? Would enough people to justify it?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Well, I don’t know if the FWD V8 Contitaurus was a great idea.

            I think that if Lincoln brings a PLC or sedan based on the Mustang or D6 to market, it should have the 450+ HP 3.5TT as an engine. It differentiates it from the Mustang as well.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            A Lincoln dealer principle once told me the reason Continental went FWD was because Lincoln needed a FWD model for the Northeast. Evidently some customers switched to GM in the mid-80s when Old/Buick/Cadillac first came out with C/H body as FWD and dealers needed something to compete with it aside from the newly introduced Sable.

            @bball

            You tell Fields *I* said if there were to ever be a Mustang derived Lincoln product I don’t wanna see only this turbo s*it, I want something ridiculous like the 5.8 to be offered as well. Make a statement.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            I worked at a Lincoln-Mercury dealer in the early 2000s. The V-8 Conti was my favorite car on the lot. I drove one every chance I got. The LS was fun, the Navigator was cool and classy, but I just loved the V-8 Conti. The 95-97 was ugly, but the 98-02 was simply great looking and driving in my book. Loved the five passenger model. We had only one or two CE models, but I wanted one. Bad.

            A loaded V-8/AWD 2001 Mountaineer Premier or Monterey model was another vehicle I seriously wanted to make mine. The Sable Platinum was nice, but the Intec 4.6L in the Conti was glorious.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            I never got why the Continental used a 32V 4.6 detuned to the same power as the 16V 4.6 instead of just…using the 16V 4.6. Seems incredibly pointless.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            The Intech 4v 4.6l in the Continental output ~50hp more than the average 2v of the time. It wasn’t particularly detuned as it didn’t actually make the 300hp that was advertised in the Cobra. There was a big debacle about it at the time.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            Ah, I didn’t realize the Continental redesign was in 1995, not later. All the ones I’ve seen are the 1998 redesign.

            I blame the notoriously fragile AX4N transmission, probably sent the earlier ones to the grave by now.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I think those Contis also had a particularly dodgy version of Lincoln air suspension. Saw a revised 98-02 version on the road today on my way to work. It was silver, and they don’t look good in silver. Other than that, the design has held up well, IMO. Definitely better than the LS.

            I recall Motorweek criticized the Continental for being a mix n’ match of characteristics. It was a traditional full-size but was technologically complex with the interior electronic adjustments. It had a V8 in it but was FWD. It was supposed to be comfortable but the adjustable suspension made it floppy sometimes, and sometimes too harsh, and not great to be in.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          The free market is always right! It’s not like the environment is important or anything.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Correct.

            One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. – Ecclesiastes 1:4 (KJV).

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Right! Because the car of 2025 can either be a Prius C or an Excursion. No middle ground whatsoever. MUST be one or the other. Obviously if you dont want a Prius C, youre clearly a baby seal murdering, Mother Earth hating neanderthal who favors dumping nuclear waste in creeks that run by school playgrounds (probably in ethnicly diverse neighborhoods just to be safe).

            Arent politics fun?

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        “There will never be another Lincoln with a V8…” -ajla

        Why do you say that? Has FoMoCo announced that somewhere that I missed, or is this just the view from your crystal ball?

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I actually requested that this comment be deleted when I first made it this afternoon because I didn’t like it, but I guess TTAC decided it was too important to get rid of.

        I meant this more as a statement than a judgement call. I personally prefer V8s (and I even bought a brand new car with one last year so I put my money where my mouth is). However, the EB V6 engines are generally fine and it isn’t like the $30K-$60K market is flooded with V8 offerings these days anyway. Whether the 8 cylinder’s disappearance is due to regulations or changing consumer preference I don’t know, but it is what it is.

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      I’m even slower and like 200hp cars, just keep some of the weight out of it. Actually I found it’s about all I can afford new car wise.

    • 0 avatar
      Car Ramrod

      Same experience, same conclusion. I just don’t want my 300hp from a turbo if I can help it.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        I can’t imagine why not. My new toy has 326hp and 330lb-ft from a 3.0L turbo six. That 330lb-ft being available from *1300* rpm. In other words, right damned now. My rental du jour is a Challenger with the V6 with almost as much power, but even with an autotragic willing to downshift the wait for the revs to spin up to get some go is so very irritating. And not very efficient.

        The trick for fun is to make an engine that has more than sufficient power without the turbo, then add a turbo. BMW only actually adds about 60hp with the turbo (the N/A version of this motor makes a healthy 272hp), but they add and extend the torque “curve” (that isn’t curved) substantially.

        • 0 avatar
          mattmers

          I agree that the oems need to make sufficient power without a turbo. I think they should be able to get about 40-50 horsepower per cylinder. That is 200hp from a 4 cylinder, 300 horsepower for a 6 cylinder and so on. Then throw a turbo on each making a 260hp 4 cylinder and a 360hp 6 cylinder which is completely achivable. The KIA optima is at 275hp 4 cylinder. I drive a SAAB 9-3 which is 210hp but it should have been at least 240hp (SAAB is known for under tuning their cars)

          Look at volvo and their xc90 4 cylinder.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Why not?

        I mean, you don’t need a lot of boost to get 300HP from a 3L engine; those can easily do 275HP NA.

        Light boost isn’t a recipe for failure and stress and doom – and like krhodes says, that torque curve.

        I heartily approve of how it turns out in my Volvo.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      I pretty much agree. One car has 224 hp and it’s not quite enough. Another has 380 hp and it works well only because the car weighs more than a blue whale. The last car has 200 hp but gets a pass because it’s old.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      I have to agree. I have 394 HP under the right foot in car number three and when I put it to the floor, so much fun…but there just isn’t a whole lot of opportunity to let that kind of HP run free.

    • 0 avatar
      Land Ark

      Sorry for those who don’t follow, I edited it out, but original I had asked if it was going to be a V8 or turbo V6 – obviously missing the first paragraph of the article.

    • 0 avatar
      SaulTigh

      Fully agreed. It’s all in how the car uses what it has. My new car only has 180hp and 200 lb-ft of torque, but the weight has been kept down and with a turbo charger and peak torque avail between 1250-4000 RPM it feels far more fleet of foot than the 263 hp I had in my last car. Add to that an 8 speed auto that always seems to be in the right gear and I’m having a lot of fun, and getting way better gas mileage than I’m used to.

      Took my first road trip today and when running on cruise at 75 I found I could just give the pedal a gentle squeeze and I was at 90 in a heart beat with no drama, and only a 1000 more rpms on the tach. It almost seems impossible compared to every other car I’ve ever owned.

      Engineering is the answer, not more power I think.

    • 0 avatar
      ponchoman49

      Just as 20″ tires are 99.9% unnecessary for a mid size FWD based sedan and only add un-sprung weight and considerable cost to the vehicles for the .1% that they might come in handy for that 90 MPG slalom course driving a single driver might encounter. Oh and they increase fuel consumption and noise and ride harsher over city bumps.

  • avatar
    formula m

    It is an improvement over the current Lincoln front end design. Jaguar is evident

    Why would you buy this car :
    “The MKZ will also be available as a hybrid, powered by a 2.0-liter four-cylinder GTDI engine and hybrid powertrain good for a combined 245 horsepower routed to the front wheels only.”
    When the Kia Optima/Opitma hybrid is available and very likely a better car. 400hp/awd package is more jaguar.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The Kia Optima Hybrid is not a better car than the MKZ Hybrid. It’s a better value but not a better car.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        Havent you heard? Kias are BMWs now. actual evidence does not need to exist to declare them better. Everyone should just say “okay” and move on.

        Excuse me while I go trade in my 328i for a Rio.

        • 0 avatar
          formula m

          Kia is ranked 6th on consumer reports reliability compared to Lincoln at 16. I have sold plenty on Ford MoCo products, so I have my opinion. Optima is a solid car with the same same level of equipment, better value, reliability and warranty.

          I probably would spend my money on a Rio before I would buy a Mini. You should trade your 328 in for an Optima. It probably is a wash in terms of the cars but you will be less likely to try and brag about driving the Kia like you do now with your BMW

          • 0 avatar
            formula m

            Actually it’s not even close. I just checked what the Optima EX premium hybrid comes standard with compared to the same $36k(cdn) priced base Lincoln MKZ hybrid. Lincoln is unequivocally worse equipped.

            Optima EX std equipment

            – Low rolling resistance tires
            – Panoramic sunroof
            – Xenon high intensity discharge (HID) headlights
            – LED daytime running lights
            – LED front fog lights
            – Heated steering wheel
            – Heated rear seats
            – Rain-sensing windshield
            – Power folding sideview mirrors
            – Interior mood lighting (red hue)
            – Stainless steel illuminated door scuff plates
            – Automatic windshield defog system
            – Leatherette dash trim
            Package features :
            – 8″ Multimedia Interface
            – Voice-activated navigation3
            – Infinity® premium audio system
            – Leather seats
            – Blind-spot detection system
            – Rear parking sensors
            – Air-cooled front seats
            – Power passenger seat
            – Memory driver’s seat
            1SIRIUS

            Lincoln MKZ hybrid

            Seating
            10-way heated power front seats with 2-way power lumbar
            60/40 split bench rear seat
            Soft Touch Seats
            Entertainment Systems
            SYNC® with MyLincoln Touch™
            Lincoln Premium Audio System
            SiriusXM Satellite Radio
            Comfort and Convenience
            Genuine wood trim on doors and instrument panel
            Leather-wrapped steering wheel

            ** the rest of the stuff is an embarrassment of riches of which Lincoln bestows upon you. Features list cut n pasted from both sites

            Front and rear floor mats
            Dual LCD next-generation SmartGauge® with EcoGuide
            MyKey®
            2 front and 2 rear roof mounted assist handles
            Cabin air filtration system
            Rear window defroster
            1st and 2nd-row dome lamps
            Auto-dimming rearview mirror
            (3) 12V powerpoints
            Manual tilt/telescoping steering column
            Driver and front-passenger illuminated visors with mirrors
            Global open/close windows with key fob
            One-touch-up-down front and rear windows
            Remote decklid release
            Easy Fuel® capless fuel filler
            Power door locks
            Remote Keyless Entry System with trunk release
            Universal garage door opener
            Variable-speed windshield wipers
            Dual-zone electronic automatic temperature control (DEATC)
            Cupholders 8 total
            Overhead console with sunglasses holder
            Front seat-back map pockets
            Front console with armrest storage bin and two cupholders
            Glove box with valet lock
            Remote start system
            All-Weather Vinyl Floor Mats

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Of course it’s worse equipped at $36K. The $36K MKZ Hybrid is worse equipped than a $36K Fusion Hybrid. Kia has a heck of a value proposition, but I don’t think the Optima is an objectively better car than the Fusion, let alone the MKZ.

            If you compare a top spec Optima to an A6, TLX, ES, etc, you’ll see the same thing. That’s how it works. Top spec mainstream branded vehicles have more bells and whistles than entry level luxury cars. It’s the same as it ever was.

            I’ve had an Optima has a rental 3 or 4 times this year and I wouldn’t want to own one.

          • 0 avatar
            formula m

            You’re right bball but in my mind you are paying for a better drivetrain/chassis in an A6, TLX or ES.

            The 2.0l 4cyl hybrid drivetrain in the Lincoln puts it on par with the Optima premium hybrid for me

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Fair. I shouldn’t argue too much because I am not a fan of the existence of the 2.0T MKZ while the 3.7L got axed. The only engine I’d want in the MKZ is the current V6 or the new 3.0TT.

    • 0 avatar
      Frylock350

      I’d be willing to bed the Lincoln’s materials quality and especially ride quality and NVH will blow the doors off an Optima.

      • 0 avatar
        brn

        Exactly. You can’t just compare a feature list.

        A couple of years ago, I was looking at a slightly used 2012 MKZ. All the reviews told me it was a waste of money, as a similarly equipped (critically acclaimed) Fusion could be had for less money. So I drove them back to back. A base MKZ vs a fully loaded Fusion.

        The MKZ was hands down the better vehicle. Higher quality materials. Better sound deadening. More solid ride. All the interior mechanicals (seats, etc) operated much more smoothly.

        Once again, I learned not to trust automotive reviews. It was pretty nice car (for it’s street price). The new MKZ being talked about in this article is two generations newer. I expect it’ll be one hell of a car.

        I do hate the absurdly low profile wheels in the picture though. I wish the industry would get over that.

  • avatar
    wmba

    What is this thing really? A Fusion or a Taurus? I lost track of Lincoln’s naming scheme five minutes after they announced it,

    • 0 avatar
      Opus

      The MK Zephyr is based on the Fusion. The MKS is the one that’s Taurus-based.

    • 0 avatar
      Higheriq

      MKZ= Zephyr, MKT= Touring, MKC= Compact Crossover, MKX= Crossover, MKS= Super Sedan. It really DOES make sense if you realize what is going on.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        What? No. You need approval for your posts if you’re going to do this nonsense, mixing model names with random word descriptors.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Let’s just forget that this MKbusiness ever happened and not have an origin story with bball40dtw. It’s way too convoluted and ridiculous.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Spill it.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Well, both the MKZ and MKX started with names. The MKZ was the Zephyr and the MKX was supposed to be the Aviator. Then marketing decided they want to be more competitive with other luxury brands by not having names instead of making a competitive product. Both the MKZ and MKX were originally pronounced Mark Ecks or Zee. Then focus groups and marketing people got involved. The pronunciation got changed to just the letters and any heritage was gone. After that, Lincoln added the MkT, in which the T means touring. The “T” is prominently featured on the MkT badge because were supposed to focus on Touring. This makes things more confusing and also dumb. Nothing after matters, because they got away from the whole point of the MK stuff. It was supposed to a nod to previous Mark vehicles, but ended up meaning nothing to anyone. The discussion of what the added names after that mean (S and C)is pointless because the whole idea behind going to MK was ruined.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’m sure you were already aware of this, but the whole “Mark Series” thing came about as a result of the short lived Continental Motor Company:

            “The Continental Mark II is a personal luxury car that was produced by Continental in 1956 and 1957. An attempt to build a post-World War II car to rival the greatest of the pre-War era, or anything produced in Europe, it is regarded as a rare and elegant classic.”

            “Ford wanted a superior and standalone up-market brand – aside from Lincoln – to compete with General Motors’ Cadillac, Packard, and Chrysler Corporation’s Imperial brands.”

            “While technically never a Lincoln and manufactured by a separate new division, Continental, the Mark II was sold and maintained through Lincoln dealerships, featured a Lincoln drivetrain, and sported a Continental-emulating spare tire hump in the trunk lid, affectionally called a “Continental kit” for all the optional add-ons during the 50’s. The outside mounted spare was first used on the 39-48 Lincoln Continentals. On its hood and trunk were four-pointed stars, soon adopted by Lincoln as its own emblem.

            Handbuilt and resultantly expensive at around USD10,000 on launch, the quickly redesigned 1958 Mark III[9] was substantially less expensive at $6,000, mostly because it preponderantly utilized Lincoln parts and technology rather than being overwhelmingly unique as introduced. The result was that the two products were difficult to differentiate within the customer’s mind, and resulted in the Continental marque’s being reabsorbed by Lincoln.[10] Confusion of the model as a Lincoln has reigned ever since.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Mark_II

            The idea of continuing the series was later birthed around 1965 as an attempt to get more use out the Thunderbird:

            “The Mark III was created when Lee Iacocca, president of Ford Motor Company at the time, directed Design Vice President, Gene Bordinat, to “put a Rolls Royce grille on a Thunderbird”[2] in September 1965. The Mark III was based on the Lincoln Continental (1961-1969) and the four-door Thunderbird model,[2] which was first introduced for 1967. Iacocca wanted to put the Thunderbird’s development investment to better use than just the Thunderbird model alone, which “was dying in the marketplace.”[2] Instead, Ford would use that investment as a platform for several models.”

            So essentially since the series began/began again as a Lincoln, it was mostly the coupe contemporary to the Continental sedan, and later in the final generation was shared with coupe only Thunderbird. I’m sure FoMoCo marketing couldn’t find ten minutes to do this research and understand “Mark” or “MK” or whatever have little to no history behind them in and of themselves. The history lies with “Continental” which they trashed in 2003 (the only model to be named “Mark” something was Mark VIII, the others were Continental Mark [roman numeral]). Heck calling the D3 and CD3 car models Continental and Continental-Zephyr/Continental-Sport or whatever would have actually fit with the initial narrative they were attempting to create.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        This works for me. There’s only 6 vehicles in Lincoln’s stable anyway.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Six is a fair amount.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            The future is looking bright for Lincoln, methinks, in terms of name recognition. The two sedans (which don’t sell well) will get actual names to increase visibility (Continental and Zephyr). Navigator will stay Navigator, nothing wrong there. The full-size CUV becomes Aviator, which, while not as storied a name as Continental or even Navigator, is still better than the utterly forgettable MKT. MKX sells well enough even with an ABC name, though no one would complain if they gave it a real one. Maybe Excalibur? That’s almost too ostentatious. MKC…I dunno. I ran out of steam.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The MKX is fine because it was supposed to be pronounced “Mark-Ecks” until Marketing got all goofy. It’s also Lincoln’s best product right now. If they had a slightly longer MKX, my wife would want one.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            There is a stable of Mercury “C” names: Cougar, Capri, Comet, Commuter, Cyclone.

            …and one 28CL original: Corsair.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I find it slightly ironic that Lincoln’s best-selling products are the ones that are the most obvious Ford rebadges–MKX, first-gen Zephyr/MKZ, Navigator.

            Personally, I’m glad Mark X wasn’t adopted. Save it for a LWB Mustang-based personal lux coupe. If Windows can skip 9, so can Lincoln.

            EDIT: @28CL: Ooh, Lincoln Corsair. Me likey.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Thanks I’m glad you like it. I’m sure Bball will take it to Fields the next time he has a corporate board meeting

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            @28. Chevy did it too. Only moreso and nobody seemed to notice.

            Chevette
            Citation
            Cavalier
            Camaro
            Corvette
            Corvair
            Corsica
            Celebrity
            Caprice Classic
            Classic
            Chevelle
            Concorse
            Cruze
            Cheyenne
            Colorado

            Thats a lot of C’s. Yet some of their best/most recognized names not applied to sports cars are Impala, Malibu, Silverado and Bel Air. No C’s.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            All that time spent typing names…and you couldn’t be bothered to alphabetize them, or even sort them chronologically?!

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            That’s a lot of Cs, I think my report cards had more though.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            I didnt know this waa to be a graded assignment. I put them in the order in which they entered my mind…which was no order at all.

            And, I forgot Cobalt. I wish we all could (no moreso than Marry Barra Im sure!).

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        If you realize what is going on AND you have your secret decoder ring.

        Of course, each third letter stands for one and only one type of Lincoln, but unless someone has let you in on the secret, to the average non-car-junkie citizen, they are meaningless.

        @bball40dtw thanks for the behind the curtain look at the MK thing with the new Lincolns. Many of us thought it was supposed to be an extension of Mk VII, Mk VIII, etc., pronounced as Markl 7, Mark 8, etc.

        So why wasn’t it MK X instead of MKX, and why wasn’t it supposed to be pronounced Mark Ten?

        That would have seemed to make more sense, and might have forestalled the marketing weenie focus group nonsense.

        And as a side note, if Ford decided to make a 300ci V6, couldn’t they just as easily make a 300ci V8? Other than the fact that it has two more pistons, con rods, etc, why would the number of cylinders have any effect at all on CAFE numbers? If anything, I would think you could get the same amount of fuel to burn slightly more efficiently in the same displacement distributed into smaller individual cylinders.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          For efficiency the lower the number of cylinders while keeping the same displacement the better.

          There are less frictional losses from the bearings and rings. Overall the engine weighs less and the reciprocating mass is lower.

          Yes the gains are small but at this point and time every bit matters no matter how small it is. Some examples of what is being used today in the name of better efficiency. Many accessory drives no longer have idler pulleys or tensioners. They use what is called a “stretch to fit belt with no adjustment. Another trick is the overrunning alternator decoupler. This is a one way clutch on the alternator. That means that they can run lower belt tension w/o a chirp on transmission shifts at redline.

          The other thing is packaging a V6 can typically fit in a smaller hole. That means a smaller engine compartment can be used and that can save weight on the vehicle.

          It also helps on emissions as there are those pesky hydrocarbons that like to hang out at the far corners of the combustion chamber and between the top of the piston and piston ring.

          So yeah fewer cylinders to achieve the same displacement are the way of the future.

          For the record I’d rather have a V8 and that is what makes up the vast majority of the vehicles in my driveway. Just 1 4cyl among lots of V8s.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            What you say about the number of cylinders seems to make sense.

            But does this mean that, taken to its logical conclusion, that in 2033 most engines will be either V-Twins, inline twins, or flat plane horizontally opposed twins?

            I guess the NVH would rule out single-bangers, though. ;-}

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Hard to say, but the number of 3cyls are on the rise, if that is any indication of where things are going.

  • avatar
    kmars2009

    Since the Continental name is returning, wouldn’t this car go back to Zephyr? I mean, I thought they were returning back to real names again.

  • avatar
    CincyDavid

    I really like the new grille…wish they would give the poor thing a name, I am thoroughly confused by the alphanumeric naming scheme…at least I knew what a Town Car was, and where it fit in the line-up.

  • avatar
    alfaromeo

    I hope the front end could raise up a little bit, either move the grill up a little or make it bigger.

    The headlights look so Audi style, I don’t like it.

    The two tone interior is a little strange, at least from pictures in automobilemag.

  • avatar
    Waftable Torque

    I’ll dissent and call the redesign a normcore failure. To my eyes, the current MKZ is the most attractive mid-size luxury sedan on the market.

    I’m also surprised Ford hasn’t been able to engineer AWD with a hybrid engine yet. They would have the first midsize sedan to be so equipped.

  • avatar
    NeilM

    Yeah they got rid of the hideous old grille, but compensated with those truly tasteless wheels. At least there’s no Opera Window. Yet.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Meh.

    Ford fit/finish issues, vanilla looks, poor quality control & reliability, and turbofail ruin any budding excitement.

    Sedans have become just as homogenously boring as jackwagons (aka CUVs).

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      Two months ago, I would have agreed with you. I took my mom in to buy a MkZ when they were delivering out their first 90’s days worth of the 2014’s. The showroom model was atrocious, but mostly due to poor supplier quality.

      I have been inside two MkZ’s since, and they have really cleaned up their initial quality concerns.

      This Mid Cycle Action will be telling a story about the future of Lincoln. If they can reign in their lessons learned and deliver good initial quality, I have a feeling that Lincoln quality may stand out once again. For heaven’s sake, they are building a isolated Paint shop (partially funded with Lincoln Quality money) in Louisville for the Navigator / Expedition.

      We shall see. I remain an optimist. I also had an unreasonable short lived love affair with a 1984 Lincoln Continental.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      I would have thought you would have declared this light years better than an equivalent Cadillac.

      • 0 avatar
        ttiguy

        Ehh……the Cadillac equivalent to this would be a CTS vsport. Even dead weight knows this MKZ would be put to shame by the caddie

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          This will be much cheaper than the CTS VSport. Like $20K cheaper.

          • 0 avatar
            ttiguy

            A base cts vsport is 60k a loaded one is 70k. At best I’d expect this to be 10k cheaper (50-60k). No way a loaded one has a sticker of 50k. A loaded fusion can reach 40k

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The CTS VSport starts at $64K. The MKZ 3.7L AWD in the Select Package (which will be the lowest package the 3.0TT is available in) starts at $43K. The 3.0TT will be replacing the 3.7L and there won’t be much of a price increase. Someone should have no problem finding an MKZ 3.0TT AWD for between $40K and $45K with discounts.

          • 0 avatar
            ttiguy

            Wrong. The vsport starts at 60950 per the Cadillac website. The base vsport is essentially a performance pkg CTS (tier 3 of 4) with the TTV6. The equivalent MKZ would be a reserve.

            Doesn’t really matter until prices are known for the Lincoln but get the facts straight.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “The 3.0TT will be replacing the 3.7L and there won’t be much of a price increase.”

            Tisk tisk. How much power do you really need out of what is essentially a Fusion?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I don’t need the options in reserve. I don’t care about the package levels between the two. I would be happy with either. I want the 3.0TT V6. I don’t care about radar cruise control or whatever else.

            And you are right. I relied on Google for pricing. They said $63.9 and the Cadillac website says $59.9 (without delivery or whatever). So we are looking at between $10K and $15K. Still, that is a huge difference. Plus they are two completely different cars. Isn’t the VSport RWD?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            28-

            I think that the MKZ should still have the 3.7L option.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Cadillac I believe is offering two V6s in the upcoming CT6. Now I realize its not a direct class competitor but its pretty sad the day the dysfunctional lair in SoHo does something better – especially when the Zephyr already had the fricking motor.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            They are also offering a 2.0T in a 17 foot Cadillac flagship. The V6 options and price on the CT6 are pretty decent though. It seems like it will be a good product.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Two of out three ain’t bad. Supposedly the I4 is for export. What I’m seeing with Zephyr is I can have an I4, which outside of the hybrid is a negatory good buddy, and a turbo 3.0. I realize FoMoCo is doing this whole turbo is cool thing but ehhhhh I’m not on board.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Hopefully the Conti has a NA V6, but I doubt it. I’d put money on 3.0TT and 3.5TT for North America. 2.0T for China, like the CT6.

            At least the 3.0TT is a large enough displacement on the MKZ that you can stay out of the boost.

  • avatar
    ltcmgm78

    I like the idea of naming the car “Zephyr”. Great job on the grille! I would have split that rear taillight in some way so it has less resemblance to the old model.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Well, now it’s put-up-or-shut-up time for all the people who said they’d buy TT V6 Fusions. I expect almost no 3.0TT MKZs will actually sell, but they’ll generate an enormous amount of good press for the brand and sell a lot of 2.0T cars. (Why the 2.0T instead of the 2.3T? Beats me.)

  • avatar
    Zoom

    If one were looking at slightly used 2015 model, which would be better, the 2.0T or 3.7? Asking for a friend.

  • avatar
    jpk112

    I like it. Lincoln seems to be going in the right direction.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I really think the MKZ are quite an ugly vehicle.

    The link below shows a Continental concept which is far more attractive. Maybe Lincoln should start looking at how to produce vehicles that are good looking.

    Everyone like horsepower, or better still torque, that’s why in the US like Australia we have quite a few V8s.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/46/b4/ab/46b4abc20bbb13d691dbf6eebf2f6867.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Troll, troll, troll your boat.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        bball;)
        I really dislike the looks of the MKZ. The MKZ is style less and bland. The kind of vehicle a vegetarian would buy. Ford’s smaller vehicles are better looking, even the Focus.

        I do think the vehicle in the image from Lincoln is a far better looking vehicle and Lincoln could/should seriously look at this for the MKZ.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I want them to build squared off, slab sided coupes and sedans, but that isn’t going to ever happen.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            The MKZ is almost slab sided!

            http://www.cromoclassico.com/eng/immagini/cont7.jpg

            No look.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            It sort of is. It’s not squared off in the front or back, but the lines are good.

            I’m actually fine with the MKZ. The back end is still one of the best around and the refresh made everything else better. There isn’t much to complain about. I wish they showed it in a different color of paint.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            @bball You are not alone…I will bet that even though you like Fords and not only because of your situation, but I am guessing you like the long black Cadillacs of the seventies, too.

            And isn’t a long slabsided sedan just a Panther platform vehicle?

            Yes, I know, we will never see them produced again, though I wonder/speculate a lot about what might be built on the D6 platform w/RWD and/or AWD, and a strong motor, along with a roomy interior with some bells and whistles thrown in…Perhaps something that people who still love Panthers would feel drawn to.

            I am guessing by slab-sided you are referring to long runs of unsculpted body, but not necessarily straight-edge corners. Personally, I am getting tired of seeing cars that look like the design chief took a sculpting tool to the clay model, and dragged itr along the side of the body to put a handful of grooves in the side, allegedly to make it look like it “flows”.

            But yes, I am acutely aware of my membership in the “Old Geezers who want the Panther back, and also want you to stay off my lawn”. But I can still dream.

            2018 still the best possibility for a large RWD or AWD sedan with an upscale set of features. And enough kick to make it a decent sleeper, even if it isn’t going to be a Hellcat killer.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          Isn’t it ok for this to be styled boring? The Continental will be the classy looker.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      The Continental is still ahead. This is not the Continental.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I like it. But given this is Ford Fusion sized I see the biggest threat being the Jaguar XE.

    The upcoming Jaguar is the first luxury vehicle I’ve seen in 20 years that checks all the right boxes. Although i suspect optioned up the way I would want it, I’d get to $55K+ in a hurry.

    But 400 HP and AWD in something Ford Fusion sized with the front clip – much like – if the price is right.

    • 0 avatar

      Jaguar just announced prices. The XE with the 340 HP supercharged V6 starts at just under $42,000 and for now the V6 is RWD only. It will be interesting to see how Lincoln prices the top of the line MKZ. With 400HP and AWD, if they price it right, it could be a threat to the entry level Jaguar.

  • avatar
    omer333

    My pantses are a little snug from the idea of a decent hot-rod Lincoln. Now if only they could give the blasted things actual names instead of this alpha-numeric gobbledy-gook.

  • avatar
    Mullholland

    This completes the circle. Ford’s SUVs look like Land Rovers. Now their Lincolns look like Jaguars.

  • avatar
    johnny_5.0

    So how much for a 3/36 lease with the “big” motor and AWD? Wait…I might want a Lincoln?!?

  • avatar
    VenomV12

    Well the only positive thing I have to say is that this is a hell of a way to get people to buy Cadillac CTSs.

  • avatar
    Lichtronamo

    The exterior of the new LaCrosse looks much higher end than the MKZ refresh – note the hood cut lines. Same with the interior.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      The hood cut looks much better on the Lincoln since it goes all the way to the grille and headlights rather than that having that separate header panel which looks much cheaper to me.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    It’s funny but I have always preferred the cheaper Fusion over this odd looking overly plain sided mess. The removal of the Oldsmobile inspired grille helps but it looks too Jaguar. Removing the 3.7 V6 is a mistake. Ford is having themselves a major turbo fetish these days. They are going to pay dearly for that!

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      Ford must have a Phantom of the Turbo hiding high up in the machinery in some Ford building, a Phantom that keeps whispering “CAFE is the question. Turbo is the answer” into the ears of senior Ford management.

      They were singing that song as far back as 1988 where the Turbo-ized Thunderbird was supposed to be SOOO much stronger than the 5.0L SportCoupe Thunderbird, and BTW, it got better EPA mileage, supposedly as an added bonus.

      Unfortunately for those who fell for the turbo spiel, the V8 could and did kick its rear end every day of the week and twice on Sundays, once

      on the highway and once at the strip.

      And while turbos have gotten more reliable, and perhaps will last longer these days, to many they are just a gimmick to tweak out a few extra HP from a small displacement engine.

      But if you increase the pressure inside the cylinders, it is inevitable that you will be putting more strain on the drivetrain.

      Unfortunately for the middle class, or what is left of it, CAFE requires Ford to discourage all but a handful of buyers from buying a big block, NA V8 with tons of torque across the power band.

      If I had the money and the space, I would be collecting as many samples of decent hard-running V8’s and would keep them tuned up and running right. I doubt that anyone is inclined to start collecting great turbos of the past, whether Ford or anyone else’s. OK, maybe the odd Ferrari, but otherwise, they are soulless machines with overworked engines.

      I understand why manufacturers flock to the turbo “solution”, but I see no reason to want one.

      • 0 avatar
        Maxb49

        This is not 1961 and turbos are not a gimmick. The are exhaust driven superchargers required for the operation of the world’s most reliable piston engines (industrial and marine diesels), required for piston driven engines at high altitude, and required for every large over the road semi (good for 1,000,000 miles). They have been used in cars for literally decades, and there is nothing that a naturally aspirated engine can do that the same engine fitted with a turbocharger cannot do better. Don’t forget the million mile Saab with it’s original turbo. Turbos are superior to belt driven superchargers because they have only one moving part – the turbine shaft.

        From a performance perspective, one could argue that many turbo cars feel inferior because the engines to which they are attached are designed towards low output. This is not a fault of the turbochargers design, rather it is a fault of the automaker. That said, turbos can’t fix other problems facing these V6s, like noise, vibration, and harshness. That’s a design flaw.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • speedlaw: I did the same with leaving the full Distronc package whenI got the current ride. I know when Im changing...
  • jack4x: Is the Camaro really that much harder to see out of than a Vette though? I feel like it’s just held to...
  • speedlaw: Having never ever seen a well drivenRogue I agree
  • apl: I like the design. It is different. But if it was sold only in Japan, why are the controls marked with English...
  • Inside Looking Out: Exactly. I cannot wrap my mind around it why they are doing that.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States