Lincoln To Offer A 2.0L EcoBoost As An Option For MKT Town Car

You know... the real news here is that they are calling the thing a Town Car.....

lmao. although i admit, the notion of 28mpg in this thing is intriguing.

now how about a 2.0 eb flex?

I agree Olds that it is amazing about them calling it the Town Car. Yet anyone who has driven one I think will find the FWD 4 banger engine to be sadly under powered.

Isn't the 2.0t putting out roughly the same power as the V8 the last Town Car had though? Running it through a 6-speed auto instead, it should feel roughly the same in power as the outgoing sedan.

Isn't the 2.0t putting out roughly the same power as the V8 the last Town Car had though? Running it through a 6-speed auto instead, it should feel roughly the same in power as the outgoing sedan.

I truly hope that I am wrong, but my personal experiance of our over weight sedans with hi power 4 bangers is that they still do not seem to drive like a V8 powered version even when the horsepower and torque is about the same.

Wait and see.........

my hope is when ford has the 2.3 ecoboost ready for the mustang that they move that in to the taurus, flex, explorer, mkt etc. that little bit extra displacement i think can help a lot for these larger fords.

I think ford is looking to lighten all its vehicles but the P90 volvo platform these are all on, i doubt they will try to replace it. so they need to boost up the engine IMO.

Maybe it is time for Lincoln to die. That thing is hideous. It's hard to believe that Lincoln's were once Presidential limousines.

Lincoln should only have like 3 or 4 cars. i.e. where they are now? LOL

MKZ....MKS.....a small one, MKX, not sure they need an MKT although I like it myself. Maybe a small crossover.

MKr is a car that should have been.

I think they're using Town Car in the generic sense, and it is a long-term nameplate for Lincoln. I was surprised to see the nameplate on 1950's Lincolns.

What a joke. Lincoln should just be axed

What a turd. $50k with a 4cyl? Madness.

It isn't for general consumer consumption. It is 98% fleet.

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

And quietly and smoothly..two qualities 4 cyls aren't known for.

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

I previously mentioned, the turbo 4 has the same output as the outgoing V8.

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic Andi merge onto the freeway with authority.

And quietly and smoothly..two qualities 4 cyls aren't known for.

Merely a factor of sound insulation.... And you need to update your sampling.

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

I previously mentioned, the turbo 4 has the same output as the outgoing V8.

You guys can continue to harp on this spec sheet comparison, but I'm not buying into it until I experience it myself... engines have characteristics other than HP and torque, otherwise, the V8 would have been banished overnight with these magical turbo 4's.

I simply have not had the opportunity to drive any of the newer turbo 4's, as they all generally come in cars I can't fit into... and I haven't rented anything for a LONG time now... and quite frankly, with no new Pontiacs, I have not been compelled to stop by a dealership for anything but a handful of parts. This will be ending soon, as I plan on trying out some of the new stuff for kicks.

If I get an MKT 2.0T as a press car, maybe I'll make a trip to NJ :-P

FWD cars w/ 4cyl engines... not my area of interest, though I've probably driven Malibu and Fusion rentals w/ 4cyls and haven't noticed it. I have 3 rentals in the next 6 weeks scheduled, hopefully can avoid 4 cyls.

None of them would be turbo 4s so not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

None of them would be turbo 4s so not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

True, but still just 4 cyls...it will be interesting to see how the current turbo 4 trend plays out...turbo 4s were fairly widespread in the 80s, most of them turned out to be crap and a passing fad.

None of them would be turbo 4s so not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

True, but still just 4 cyls...it will be interesting to see how the current turbo 4 trend plays out...turbo 4s were fairly widespread in the 80s, most of them turned out to be crap and a passing fad.

and still just as irrelevant. The Turbo-4s that are out now don't need to rev to get power or torque out of them. You're not going to be happy with a naturally aspirated 4 no matter what... we all know that already. The Regal GS Turbo-4 puts out more torque and at a lower RPM than the FWD Northstar did.

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

I previously mentioned, the turbo 4 has the same output as the outgoing V8.

The MKT probably weighs 1000lbs more than the TC did...a 4cyl in the MKT is absurd as a 4cyl in the Enclave or Acacia would be..

None of them would be turbo 4s so not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

True, but still just 4 cyls...it will be interesting to see how the current turbo 4 trend plays out...turbo 4s were fairly widespread in the 80s, most of them turned out to be crap and a passing fad.

and still just as irrelevant. The Turbo-4s that are out now don't need to rev to get power or torque out of them. You're not going to be happy with a naturally aspirated 4 no matter what... we all know that already. The Regal GS Turbo-4 puts out more torque and at a lower RPM than the FWD Northstar did.

Very true olds that the current crop of Turbo 4 or even Turbo 3 engines put out more than v6 or v8 engines did in the 80's or 90's. Yet when driving one of them, there still seems to be something missing from the over all experience of putting your foot into a turbo 4 banger compared to a v8.

I call it the seat of your pants experience, but I do not get a satisfying feel from driving a turbo 4 in comparison to a v8. Yes I am probably biased a bit from having big power V8's all my life, but when I push a small engine even turbo charged still seem to strain in my perception compared to a v8.

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

I previously mentioned, the turbo 4 has the same output as the outgoing V8.

The MKT probably weighs 1000lbs more than the TC did...a 4cyl in the MKT is absurd as a 4cyl in the Enclave or Acacia would be..

You're wandering into SMK territory with just making up $h! numbers to suit your agenda.

The Lincoln Town Car is 4413 lbs.

The Lincoln MKT 3.7 V6 FWD is 4499 lbs.

For a total difference of 86 lbs.

Just the switch from a 3.7 liter V6 to a 4-cylinder turbo is enough to make up for the 86 lb weight gain, so there is even a chance that the MKT 2.0 will weigh less than a Town Car.

Add to the fact that the MKT has a 6-speed rather than a 4-speed so I would expect the MKT to out perform the Town Car. The 2.0T can make 280 ft-bl at 1700rpm - 4500, just 7 ft-lb less than the peak torque 4.6 V8 makes at 4600rpm.

Stop making stuff up just to suit your agenda.

None of them would be turbo 4s so not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

True, but still just 4 cyls...it will be interesting to see how the current turbo 4 trend plays out...turbo 4s were fairly widespread in the 80s, most of them turned out to be crap and a passing fad.

and still just as irrelevant. The Turbo-4s that are out now don't need to rev to get power or torque out of them. You're not going to be happy with a naturally aspirated 4 no matter what... we all know that already. The Regal GS Turbo-4 puts out more torque and at a lower RPM than the FWD Northstar did.

Very true olds that the current crop of Turbo 4 or even Turbo 3 engines put out more than v6 or v8 engines did in the 80's or 90's. Yet when driving one of them, there still seems to be something missing from the over all experience of putting your foot into a turbo 4 banger compared to a v8.

I call it the seat of your pants experience, but I do not get a satisfying feel from driving a turbo 4 in comparison to a v8. Yes I am probably biased a bit from having big power V8's all my life, but when I push a small engine even turbo charged still seem to strain in my perception compared to a v8.

Limo drivers don't tend to care about such "seat of the pants" experience. They care more about fuel efficiency.

Oh good Cubie... down vote me because I bothered to go look up the numbers you couldn't be bothered to actually know...

Oh good... down vote me because I bothered to go look up the numbers you couldn't be bothered to actually know...

Whatever...Wikipedia didn't have the weight numbers for the MKT..I assumed it was as heavy as the similarly sized Lambdas....it's just another ugly CUV... and I don't have an 'agenda' here.

MSN.com autos section. Best vehicle data site on the net.

I am with Oldsmoboi on this one. Limo or hearse drivers aren't going to care about speed, and if you are in the back of a limo you can't hear the engine, and if you are in the back of a hearse you probably don't care about NVH characteristics. The Town Car V8 did have torque, but a transmission form the 80s as well. The MKT 2.0 has 260 lb-ft, less than the V8 but the transmission can make up for it. Fuel economy is the real thing here, many limos sit around idling or going at slow speeds in cities, so the 5 mpg extra is worth the slight drop in power.

Plus, the Town Car had only 1 engine choice, the MKT has 3, so if you don't like the 2.0T and want that seat of your pants experience in an ugly, pointless SUV, they make a 3.5 Ecoboost also. If looking to be critical of the MKT 2.0 Ecoboost, I wouldn't pick on it having a little less power, I'd wonder why it only gets 28 mpg, but weight and aerodynamics are no doubt dragging it down big time. $49k is a lot also, if it was $49k for that 2.0T with a hybrid system getting more like 30 mpg combined they would have something more marketable to fleets.

I am with Oldsmoboi on this one. Limo or hearse drivers aren't going to care about speed, and if you are in the back of a limo you can't hear the engine, and if you are in the back of a hearse you probably don't care about NVH characteristics. The Town Car V8 did have torque, but a transmission form the 80s as well. The MKT 2.0 has 260 lb-ft, less than the V8 but the transmission can make up for it. Fuel economy is the real thing here, many limos sit around idling or going at slow speeds in cities, so the 5 mpg extra is worth the slight drop in power.

Limo drivers are required by law to be shut off after 3 minutes of idling, except in extreme conditions where the passengers require climate control. Last I checked, a 4 or 8 used the same amount of gas while off.

Also, I've always tipped better to drivers who got me from A to B quickly... most of my friends do, as well... and even mention this ahead of time.

I am with Oldsmoboi on this one. Limo or hearse drivers aren't going to care about speed, and if you are in the back of a limo you can't hear the engine, and if you are in the back of a hearse you probably don't care about NVH characteristics. The Town Car V8 did have torque, but a transmission form the 80s as well. The MKT 2.0 has 260 lb-ft, less than the V8 but the transmission can make up for it. Fuel economy is the real thing here, many limos sit around idling or going at slow speeds in cities, so the 5 mpg extra is worth the slight drop in power.

Limo drivers are required by law to be shut off after 3 minutes of idling, except in extreme conditions where the passengers require climate control. Last I checked, a 4 or 8 used the same amount of gas while off.

Also, I've always tipped better to drivers who got me from A to B quickly... most of my friends do, as well... and even mention this ahead of time.

Limo drivers rarely do shut off after 3 minutes and the "climate control" is an easy excuse for it.

You sit there with a stop watch during your limo ride? Do you require all acceleration to be full throttle? Even my 140hp, 14.9 second to 60 Oldsmobile can get you to the airport faster than the law allows without the secondaries ever opening.

All of this tempest in a teapot over a livery vehicle's acceleration....which is still likely better than the preceding model.

Interesting the loss of 5 Hp and 10 torque over the Fusion/Edge 2.0 Ecoboost. And judging from several owners with FWD Explorers and Edges with this motor 28 highway will rarely ever be obtainable in a vehicle in the 4400 LB range.