Interactive Review: 2011 Lincoln MKS Ecoboost

[Drew Dowdell]

Interactive Review:

2011 Lincoln MKS Ecoboost

Stock photo shown

Lincoln just dropped off a 2011 MKS Ecoboost AWD. My first impression with the car is; DAMN! It's FAST!, however I already have a couple minor issues with the interior. I've only gotten to drive it for a quick spin around town, but with 3-6 inches of snow predicted for my schedule trip to Lordstown tomorrow, having the AWD will certainly be a help.

So gear up your questions for the Interactive Review: 2011 Lincoln MKS Ecoboost

Media Gallery: 2011 Lincoln MKS Ecoboost AWD

[NOS2006]

Minor issues with the interior, eh? Please do elaborate.

[Drew Dowdell]

Switchgear quality... specifically the power windows/doors/mirrors

[ocnblu]

How's visibility sternside? I hear a lot of ppl complaining they cannot see out the back of the new Taurus.

[Cory Wolfe]

Lincoln just dropped off a 2011 MKS Ecoboost AWD. My first impression with the car is; DAMN! It's FAST!, however I already have a couple minor issues with the interior. I've only gotten to drive it for a quick spin around town, but with 3-6 inches of snow predicted for my schedule trip to Lordstown tomorrow, having the AWD will certainly be a help.

Oh that's right. I ought to have a splendid drive in the CRX.

[regfootball]

mpg.

why do you not have the bridges of weir leather?

tell us what u think of active park assist.

go find a g8 to drag race.

seat comfort, front and rear.

last question "would you buy this car over a CTS 3.6"

[smk4565]

I like the look of this car, especially the front which I really like. But this car is so big, I think it would be hard to drive in congested areas or to parallel park in tighter spots. The main flaw is $57k for a Taurus SHO, I don't think so. That is the problem with Lincoln, they make a nice looking car, but at the end of the day it is a glorified Ford for a lot of money. For $57k rear drive V8 cars are available.

How does this car drive though, I drove an FWD MKZ and was unimpressed.

Edited January 21, 2011 by smk4565

[Croc]

Yeah, Ford interiors look decent, but I find materials quality generally lacking.

[Drew Dowdell]

It looks big. It feels big. It drives mid-size.

It's AWD.... so the RWD thing is moot.

Feels like I sit up very high compared to other sedans. Seat comfort is excellent considering that I also have a Regal Turbo this week, the contrast is even bigger. I'm still fighting with the seats in the Regal.

I have to figure out how to use the active park assist.

It has a substantial size advantage over a CTS. This is almost, but not quite, DTS feeling inside. Without my measuring tape, the only real loss of space compared to a DTS would be in the trunk.

The CTS has a more imaginative interior, but quality is about the same, each having their own downfalls in different areas.

The rain sense wipers are schizophrenic.

I've only really driven it at night so far, so I don't have much to say about rear visibility. Nothing jumped out at me as "oh that's bad" on those terms.

[2b2]

...last question "would you buy this car over a CTS 3.6"

IF Cadillac made a CTS as big as a DTS, would you buy That instead?

...use your imagination!!

fixed ^

OR (edit)

*WHEN* Lincoln brings out the new Awd MKZ 3.5EB Next year,

(the one rumored to look a bit like a Jag XF)

would you prefer THAT to either the MKS or CTS?

Edited January 21, 2011 by 2b2

[regfootball]

no, to me the CTS MKS comparo is relevant as they sometimes cross paths in price.

basically i doubt the CTS is worth as much as the price (V series excluded).

[Drew Dowdell]

27.2mpg @ 65mph on the way back from Lordstown.

[ocnblu]

So it's a Cruze competitor, then?

[Drew Dowdell]

Cruze did 34 or so on the way back in terrible snowy conditions.

Today on the Ohio and Pa turnpikes it was clear.

[jwbouch]

I test drove a Taurus SHO when they first came out. The center console was sooo intrusive into the space where my right knee usually goes. Does this Lincoln seem to be the same?

[dwightlooi]

27.2mpg @ 65mph on the way back from Lordstown.

I get 25.2 mpg at 65 mph (constant speed over 30~35 miles) in the C55's 5.5L M113 V8 (SOHC 24v). The car actually has a pretty short cruising gear -- 2350 rpm @ 65 mph, 2900 rpm @ 80 mph in 5th. So, almost halving the displacement and dropping two cylinders got you 2 mpg. Well... I am sure the MKZ is also not 3600 lbs and AWD probably costs about 5% in fuel efficiency. Still... if you are after fuel economy the top priority shouldn't be downsizing the engine, it should be weight, ratio spread, aerodynamics, cylinder count then displacement. Displacement being a distant fifth on the list.

Edited January 22, 2011 by dwightlooi

[Lamar]

I get 25.2 mpg at 65 mph (constant speed over 30~35 miles) in the C55's 5.5L M113 V8 (SOHC 24v). The car actually has a pretty short cruising gear -- 2350 rpm @ 65 mph, 2900 rpm @ 80 mph in 5th. So, almost halving the displacement and dropping two cylinders got you 2 mpg. Well... I am sure the MKZ is also not 3600 lbs and AWD probably costs about 5% in fuel efficiency. Still... if you are after fuel economy the top priority shouldn't be downsizing the engine, it should be weight, ratio spread, aerodynamics, cylinder count then displacement. Displacement being a distant fifth on the list.

The MKS EcoBoost is 4305 lbs.

Interestingly, Dwight, the MKS EcoBoost has the best EPA rating out of all three powertrain/drivetrain combinations of the model.

MKS FWD (3.7L V6) - 17/24/19 combined

MKS AWD (3.7L V6) - 16/23/19

MKS EB (3.5L V6TT) - 17/25/20

[ocnblu]

The MKS does not project its length well. To me, the Taurus, with its more horizontal lines, looks longer. The Lincoln looks like a high bubble. I feel they should restyle it to accentuate its length more.

[Drew Dowdell]

I get 25.2 mpg at 65 mph (constant speed over 30~35 miles) in the C55's 5.5L M113 V8 (SOHC 24v). The car actually has a pretty short cruising gear -- 2350 rpm @ 65 mph, 2900 rpm @ 80 mph in 5th. So, almost halving the displacement and dropping two cylinders got you 2 mpg. Well... I am sure the MKZ is also not 3600 lbs and AWD probably costs about 5% in fuel efficiency. Still... if you are after fuel economy the top priority shouldn't be downsizing the engine, it should be weight, ratio spread, aerodynamics, cylinder count then displacement. Displacement being a distant fifth on the list.

6th gear on the MKS at 65mph is around 1,750 rpm.

[Robert Hall]

The MKS does not project its length well. To me, the Taurus, with its more horizontal lines, looks longer. The Lincoln looks like a high bubble. I feel they should restyle it to accentuate its length more.

As far as the design, I think one negative common to both the Taurus and MKS is that they are too tall below the beltline...because of the height, they end up looking narrow when viewed end-on. They would probably look better with about 3-4 inches or so taken out vertically below the beltline...also, the decklids are too short, a problem w/ many designs today.

I do like the interiors of both cars, the Taurus dash design more so, I think.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[caddycruiser]

I test drove a Taurus SHO when they first came out. The center console was sooo intrusive into the space where my right knee usually goes. Does this Lincoln seem to be the same?

I'm uncomfortable in the Taurus because of the monster console vs. seat position, but the inside of the Lincoln feels very different. More upright, more open, and much less console--with better materials. When I was trying to decide what I wanted to buy next, even a Taurus or MKS, I liked the price more on the Taurus...but it was nowhere near as comfortable or open as the MKS. Same platform, etc. but different packaging for sure.

[Drew Dowdell]

Demonstration of the auto park feature.

[SAmadei]

Demonstration of the auto park feature.

Do people who buy this (or rent/test them) actually use this feature on a regular basis?

Knowing the setup time and the requirements for the space to back into, I would think even a half-competent parker would prefer to do the "the old fashioned way". I mean, when you're driving, does this give you, what 12 seconds to txt message someone? Its not like you can completely ignore the process, you are still liable for the car's actions.

I just question this feature being not much more that a curiosity to show your friends.

A true "Parking Assistant", to me, would be something like those extra wheeled things shown off in the '50s that helped people park in tiny spaces. I can't find a vintage video, but its somethign like THIS. Seems kind of a waste to put that on a Renault 5/Le Car, but on a long car or SUV, it would be a big help.

[regfootball]

Demonstration of the auto park feature.

insane!

worth the money, IYO? In five years its half the price.....

[Drew Dowdell]

insane!

worth the money, IYO? In five years its half the price.....

You'll just have to wait for the full review ;-)

[pow]

I really liked the MKS I checked out at LAIAS, which had a light and airy interior with olive wood and lots of chrome detail. Very contemporary and pleasant and the complete opposite of a sporting or serious German interior. I'm not sure it can compete against cars the caliber of the 5-series or E-class, but I'd take one over, say, an ES350. After rebates, it's priced comparably to the Lexus.

Demonstration of the auto park feature.

How does it perform when parking next to a curb? I'd hate to scratch up my wheels, or damage some tie rod ends, because the car parked itself too close to the curb.

[pow]

I get 25.2 mpg at 65 mph (constant speed over 30~35 miles) in the C55's 5.5L M113 V8 (SOHC 24v). The car actually has a pretty short cruising gear -- 2350 rpm @ 65 mph, 2900 rpm @ 80 mph in 5th. So, almost halving the displacement and dropping two cylinders got you 2 mpg. Well... I am sure the MKZ is also not 3600 lbs and AWD probably costs about 5% in fuel efficiency. Still... if you are after fuel economy the top priority shouldn't be downsizing the engine, it should be weight, ratio spread, aerodynamics, cylinder count then displacement. Displacement being a distant fifth on the list.

I would say displacement does make a difference... C55 gets 14/20 MPG to the 700-lb heavier and all-wheel-driven EcoBoost MKS 17/25 MPG.

[caddycruiser]

I LOVE Ford's Park Assist...it's so well done and such a CHEAP option on the Flex, Explorer, MKS/MKT and even the old boy Escape...I'd order every one with it.

Even if you don't use it, it's there if you want and truly an exemplary feature to have. No issues with curbs, etc., it just works.