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...