cp-the-nerd

I'm late to the party here. I was brutally hungover most of yesterday then went out for thanksgiving dinner. First off, congrats to the GT350R. Very impressive showing, I honestly did not know what to expect from the R after seeing the preliminary handling tests of the standard model. The upgrade in performance is staggering, and the carbon fiber wheels are every bit as important as the Z/28's carbon ceramic brakes. 3 mph trap speed improvement over the 1/4 mile is just crazy without upgrading the drivetrain. The lap time victory is undeniable proof of this Mustang's superiority at the track. It's a shame the GT350R couldn't make it to Best Driver's Car because it would be awesome seeing consecutive years go to jaw dropping American pony cars. Love seeing the LS7 dyno chart. That engine has always over-delivered, it's exceptional, and still my favorite engine note of all time. It sounds like the incredible hulk had a love child with a banshee from hell. If I had sh*t tons of money lying around, I'd seriously consider shopping for one of the heavily discounted Z/28s out there.

itemizing each opinion does not change the fact they were all risks to a degree. And as far as the definition or risk, I would say that following the Germans lock-step is hardly a risk. Lmao. You have provided no reasoning behind YOUR itemized list of "risks" and now you offer no rebuttal to my counterargument. I also see Drew has responded to your list in similar fashion. You've made it abundantly clear you do not understand risk in the automotive industry. In fact, just about every move Ford makes with Lincoln is done to MINIMIZE risk: -sharing platforms and powertrains -testing any new technology on the Ford brand -focusing on the highest profit luxury segments -abandoning the unique split-wing design for the new derivative luxury mash-up design

Loooool "3. LS was a risk, and huge departure from the Town Cars of that day." Terrible example. It was a risk that Ford immediately folded on and they haven't given RWD another shot since. One generation and they threw it away. This is the exact reason we have a line up of badge-engineered Lincolns. Meanwhile, Cadillac took a similar risk with the first gen CTS and built the brand's product renaissance off that RWD chassis. "4. Original EcoBoost was a Lincoln MKS, very risky too." Putting a high output engine in a luxury car is not risky, it's par for the course. A risky ecoboost would be the last gen F150 with the 3.5EB. THAT was risk, and it was under the Ford brand. Lincoln didn't get the ecoboost Navigator until last year when Ford knew people would buy turbocharged trucks. "5. MKX was somewhat risky." Building a luxury crossover when luxury crossovers are RAGING in the marketplace is about as risky as betting you'll hit sand if you fall off a Camel. "7. Hybrids" Again, a badge engineered Ford is not in any way a risk. It's merely cost effective to spread their hybrid powertrain among multiple models. "8. 400 hp sedans with sophisticated AWD systems are the latest." Yes, it was... when Audi started doing it as a way to match BMW and Mercedes Benz. Was it risky when GM did it with the 410 hp XTS V-Sport two years ago? No. It's simply an expectation of luxury cars, and AWD is necessary without the benefit of RWD. "9. Aluminum bodied SUV soon." Again, the risk was on the F150. Ford made sure it was a safe investment, now they'll apply it to other trucks/SUVs. "11. oh yeah, MKT was a huge risk." The MKT was a badge engineered Ford Flex with the same powertrains as the MKS. I don't think you understand the concept of risk.

Distinct look? It looks like they made an Audi-Jag hybrid, While I think it looks great I'm not sure how distinct it is. Come to think of it...I'm curious what Jaguar thinks of this. Take the Lincoln emblem off and this car could be anything. Frankly, a Korean or Chinese badge would make more sense with their reputation for copied design cues. The car is attractive. The car is no longer original. Both statements are true.

Just going to point out that this article is dated September 2014. Clearly their stance changed when they targeted the Z/28 directly during development of the GT350R.

ccap FTW in this thread.

And there it is, the "haters" term. When one has nothing left to debate constructively, it makes an appearance. Lincoln isn't taking risks. They continue to re-engineer Fords, and they continue an asinine level of engine/powertrain sharing. The existence of the Edge Sport 2.7EB is answering a question no one asked, and blatantly steals exclusivity from the slick new MKX. An Edge Sport with 300 hp/310 lb-ft from the 2.3T would have been sufficient. Their sudden dramatic change in design language is perplexing, especially when the new face is widely seen as derivative and the recent "split wing" models have been praised for their original and handsome appearance.

Didn't realize they had a "floating" console. Those are all the rage these days since the shifter is just electronic anyway.

Just two new products (after the Continental) by 2020?? That's a thoroughly underwhelming claim.

That part about GM and production fit, you have to understand that prior to the NUMMI venture with Toyota, GM (and the majority of D3 manufacturing plants) were using old production methods. A tightly manufactured, state of the art automobile was not really possible. The entire production process was incredibly counter intuitive. There's an outstanding podcast about the history of NUMMI and GM being taught Japanese manufacturing methods. If anyone is interested, I'll dig it up.

How many vehicles have start/stop, cylinder deactivation, AND 8-speeds or more? I'll wait, it's a super short list. Start/stop and cylinder cutoff have been around a while. I think every BMW has had start/stop and an 8 speed the past 3 years. Lexus had an 8-speed transmission 9 years ago. I also heard a Ford engineer say that start/stop gave about a 5% gain in city fuel economy. So that is going from 20 to 21 mpg. Not a deal breaker for most people. I think a 300 hp V6 with start/stop, 8 speed auto, 22/31 mpg is what is expected in a $35,000 car. The Chrysler 300 had 300 hp and 31 mpg and an 8 speed n 2012. That is just what is expected of the segment. I think the Lacrosse engine is what the buyers want and expect. That's not what I asked. Here it is again: How many vehicles have start/stop, cylinder deactivation, AND 8-speeds or more? In other words: what vehicles feature all three of those technologies?

If you will remember, they never retested those older vehicles; the EPA simply estimated a loss. My personal 60k worth of test data perfectly matched up to the old rating. Same could be said of my old Cobalt which also had it's loss estimated. If you wish to match up a current Avalon to a current LaCrosse, be my guest. You'll find that Toyota hasn't advanced since 2005 either. And in terms of luxury and the current LaCrosse, its not night and day. A little quieter, more convincing fake wood, and a more swanky design. Not exactly apples and oranges there. Though, yes, the new one appears to have an interior that's more on par with a Cadillac than a fancy Toyota. Also, it's not elitism, merely the fact that the influx of new members have, on the whole, been extremely argumentative, quick to throw attacks, and generally dismissive towards reason. There are standouts among all of you who certainly add a lot of positive material to this forum. I'm not even saying that you aren't one of the standouts, but calling my facts a "f@#cking joke" isn't doing yourself any favors here. When I first joined way back in 2003, anyone who's been here that long can tell you I was the same way-argumentative and likely immature. I received my fair share of castrating reality checks by many of the more senior members. Bud, YOU started the argumentative tone with that condescending post about your Avalon capped off with "kthxbai" like a petulant 14 year old girl. Then you got embarrassed and defensive about getting your dick caught in your zipper in the first Avalon post and started trying to throw it back on me instead of taking it on the chin. Do you not see the irony of telling someone how negative and argumentative they are WHILE contributing to it? Or calling my facts into question while presenting skewed information of your own? Then you deny post-count elitism and rant about how you've been here since 2003 and you USED to be immature and grew up over time, but you seem to overlook that you have no idea my age, background, or experience outside of this forum. That's exactly the fallacy of post-count elitism. If you're going to throw out personal anecdotes like "I got the old EPA rating in my Avalon" instead of using the controlled constant of the new rating system, then I'll happily point out that I have shots on my phone of averaging 32 mpg highway in my port-injected 3.6L Malibu--a car rated 17/26--and owners in a number of GM 3.6L DI sedans report 30+ mpg highway (including Casa, I believe). The Buick competes with the ES, by the way, not the Avalon, and the journalistic comparisons didn't go well for the Lexus.

I think the Sentra grade is too generous! It's a limp attempt at a refresh on one of the segments worst cars. Now this is a personal nitpick, but I'm surprised you find no fault with the hugely derivative MKZ front end design (400 hp drivetrain notwithstanding), while the Buick Lacrosse gets a TBD.

The new powertrain is hardly run of the mill. The V6 has start/stop and cylinder deactivation mated to a brand new 8-speed. With a huge drop in curb weight, this big sedan is likely to be QUICK (like running mid-14s) and still achieve over 20/30 mpg. I'm sorry... is that really considered quick these days? My 11 year old Avalon would run mid-14s and hit 60 in about 6 seconds (and would do over 31 mpg highway), which is likely where the new LaCrosse will be at. I wasn't wowed by that car's power, so I'm not going to be wowed by this either. The current LaCrosse is a 2-ton porker, so losing 300lbs merely brings it back down to average weight and performance for the class. Again, there's nothing exciting here. It's a run-of-the-mill powertrain in every single way for the year 2017. Kthxbai. What I would really like to see is the MKZ's powertrain with the LaCrosse's body. Perfect boulevard cruiser. Second the idea that your 2010HP 2004 Avalon is going to be faster than the new LaX, while getting superior fuel economy is ridiculous. The 2004 Camry SE barely pulled it off with a 14.6 seconds @ 97.0 mph, and was lighter. This Lacrosse, should certainly improve upon the numbers laid by my heavier Impala.. Fuel economy is certainly going into the 30s.. I love the idea of Run of the Mill when is incorporating start/stop, cylinder deactivation and an 8-speed tranny.. all wrapped in a sweet honey bun of an exterior. U want 12 second 1/4 miles.. go buy a Cadillac.. or even a Chevy. Buick is about smooth luxury. Everyone doesn't need their car to be a performance car.. and that's coming from some one who predominately has REAL performance cars. Excuse my typo, I meant 10 year old. My 2005 Avalon weighed a hair over 3600lbs, was rated at 280 hp, quoted at 14.6 seconds @ 99 mph in the quarter and 6.0 seconds to 60, and was rated at 22/31 mpg. I'm not saying the LaCrosse won't be able to match it, I simply don't see it exceeding it buy much, if at all. Also, for what it's worth, 10 years on, and the Avalon hasn't improved upon itself either. It is also just run-of-the-mill these days. It's not necessarily a bad thing for Buick to do the same, but there's nothing exciting here besides an 8 speed auto that others have had for years. With Buick itself stating they are perfectly happy with the LaCrosse being their flagship sedan, I would've expected more... a risk or two. Instead, it's been played safe, likely to keep its current cult of owners happy. Meanwhile, Lincoln, which is basically just a Buick competitor these days, is taking those risks... It's just too bad they don't have a better stylist. 22/31 mpg was the OLD rating system. The 2005 Avalon is rated 19/28 mpg by the new system, a whopping ONE mpg better in the city compared to the much heavier outgoing 18/28 mpg Lacrosse. Meanwhile the actual quality and luxury differences between an old Avalon and the epsilon II Lacrosse is night and day. Total apples and oranges comparison. Your post-count elitism is adorable and your facts are dubious.

The new powertrain is hardly run of the mill. The V6 has start/stop and cylinder deactivation mated to a brand new 8-speed. With a huge drop in curb weight, this big sedan is likely to be QUICK (like running mid-14s) and still achieve over 20/30 mpg. I'm sorry... is that really considered quick these days? My 11 year old Avalon would run mid-14s and hit 60 in about 6 seconds (and would do over 31 mpg highway), which is likely where the new LaCrosse will be at. I wasn't wowed by that car's power, so I'm not going to be wowed by this either. The current LaCrosse is a 2-ton porker, so losing 300lbs merely brings it back down to average weight and performance for the class. Again, there's nothing exciting here. It's a run-of-the-mill powertrain in every single way for the year 2017. Kthxbai. What I would really like to see is the MKZ's powertrain with the LaCrosse's body. Perfect boulevard cruiser. This post is a f@#king joke. A 2004 Avalon had a 3.0L V6 with just over 200 horsepower and a 4-speed auto. It's a tin can compared to modern cars, and I don't believe for a damn second it could run anywhere near 14s.

How many vehicles have start/stop, cylinder deactivation, AND 8-speeds or more? I'll wait, it's a super short list.

That's a lot of super easy work for an electrician. I had issues with a bunch of the outlets in my house and my brother (who has electrical experience) swapped out the bad ones in a few minutes, even repaired a light switch. Shouldn't require rewiring the whole house.

This has got to be the most misleading, cherrypicked, biased horsesh*t argument I've seen in a long time. This tunnel vision around the 4.6L Northstar is a total logic failure. Cadillac lacked a proper midlevel performance engine for 5 years. That's the only thing your stats point out.

You beat me to it. Chinese badging is really nonsensical. They do the same thing with Buick models.

I am going to "project" my hand across yo face if you suggest that again. Ford and GM are already giving the finger to snobby euros. A joint project between automakers responsible for the Corvette Stingray, Camaro Z/28, the ATS-V and CTS-V, the Boss 302, the GT350, and the new GT would be too many chefs in the kitchen. It creeps me out enough when people do cross-swaps with engines. Some sort of mid-engine Chevord Corvestang would make me want to jam my dick down a drain disposal.

Ew ccap, that's sacrilege. The rivalry is what drives the product.

The seats and door panels are both really nice but when I bring my eyes to the center stack, it just looks too much like the Fusion (plain jane looking) while the rest of the interior is five steps above that. Kind of messes with the cohesiveness of the rest of the interior to me. The whole interior wrap around from the doors to the dash has always screamed Fusion to me, because not only were some of the Ford's buttons carried over, but it's clear everything uses the same hard points. Vents, trim details, center stack, door paneling. It's like Chevy and GMC except everyone at Lincoln pretends it's not the same car underneath getting marked up to 3-series pricing. Now obviously that's an exaggeration, but the point is no true luxury brand allows mainstream underpinnings to show through so blatantly. I thought about this a bit and then went googling images just to see..... and you're right. On the MKZ/Fusion, there is just too much similarity... it looks like you could even take a door panel interior from one, swap it into the other, and the trim pieces would still line up perfectly. Compare this to the Avalon/ES and the dashboards are substantially different, even with screens and vents in different locations. The same goes for the Impala/LaCrosse/XTS... the hard points don't line up on any of them. The Chrysler LX sedans line up the same, but they shaped the dash differently enough so as to disguise it better. Put the two next to each other and the points match up, but there is just enough distinction in the shapes to matter. I appreciate you validating that! I've had plenty of arguments with people that either don't understand what I'm saying or refuse acknowledge it like I'm simply bashing, which is funny because I've ALWAYS openly liked the exterior design of the MKZ (until now), even going back a generation.

First of all, I LOVE that Mazda turbocharged the 2.5L instead of going 2.0T like everyone else. Let me tell you, that extra 25% of displacement is going to make a world of difference in this car's driving manners, and I guarantee real world fuel economy will be excellent. I can't wait to see this engine find its way into... a MazdaSpeed6??? We can only hope. Secondly, this may not be Mazda's hottest car, but it's the most impressive execution of their design language, inside and out. This is a great looking crossover and the interior is just a cherry on top. This could very well be next years SUV/CUV of the year.

The seats and door panels are both really nice but when I bring my eyes to the center stack, it just looks too much like the Fusion (plain jane looking) while the rest of the interior is five steps above that. Kind of messes with the cohesiveness of the rest of the interior to me. The whole interior wrap around from the doors to the dash has always screamed Fusion to me, because not only were some of the Ford's buttons carried over, but it's clear everything uses the same hard points. Vents, trim details, center stack, door paneling. It's like Chevy and GMC except everyone at Lincoln pretends it's not the same car underneath getting marked up to 3-series pricing. Now obviously that's an exaggeration, but the point is no true luxury brand allows mainstream underpinnings to show through so blatantly.

I dig it. Looks like a Solstice and a Miata had a love child. Should be a much needed cool car in Fiat's showroom.