Airflow Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 I haven't even read it yet, but here is a C&D review! http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-lincoln-mkz-30t-awd-test-review Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airflow Posted October 25, 2016 Author Share Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) 0-60 came in at 4.8. 1/4 mile in 13.4 at 105. Weight was 4,307. They ripped on the handling and road noise due to the summer tires not being matched to the suspension. However, it pulled .93g on the skid pad and stopped from 70 mph in 156 feet. To me these are really good numbers for this car! The performance numbers in this review sit well with me and back up my test drives. I am waiting until February when I will most likely order one. Edited October 30, 2016 by Airflow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Great acceleration numbers - a bit better than I expected! I am not influenced by magazine tests but I suspect it would have faired better if they had tested one without the driver's package and summer tires. Reviewing its merits as a powerful entry luxury car instead of a sports sedan would be more in this car's wheelhouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalvern Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Haha expected that kind of review. I know folks rip on the transmission but there is a little trick to improving it: Add an extra pint of trans fluid above Max. Works for any 6F series and better shifting even when cold. Sadly Ford is never going to fix the fluid cavitation issue and just going to leave many owners in the dark. Only owners themselves will be able to choose to take up on this, but it hurts the whole review line as a whole. Not sure about negative remark on the summer tires. At least on "my" MKZ there is no road noise whatsoever and I never have gotten wheel hop with a hard WOT (which is what I presume they're going on about by calling it basketballs). This of course could be due to more wear in on the tires. I'm guessing thier test vehicle is all new? I think they're just nitpicking. Torque steer happens when the car is in FWD mode, as it is still FWD based and only powers the rears if nessecary, which highway cruising does not need them. That is to be expected. People just need to decide if its bothersome or not to them. I'm happy this car won't understeer, without unrealistic commands. Personally I expected this though, that C&D would bash the MKZ. Continental will probably get snobbed on too. Seeing them praise Lincoln will be like the Cleveland Browns winning the Super Bowl. This car still wins best for daily driving in my book, and that is what I bought it for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 It's exactly what I expected from C&D. They've been ragging on Lincoln products since forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Yes, it is not the car that they hate so much - it is Lincoln in general. In the test notes, they refer to the tires as "cheater tires." Zalvern, it wasn't wheel hop at WOT that they complained about. It was their opinion that the summer tires ruined the ride quality and were noisy. I haven't driven an MKZ with summer tires but they are much noisier and rougher on an SHO than the all seasons so their opinion on that may be valid. Of course, the all seasons wouldn't generate the skidpad numbers that they recorded with the summer tires, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalvern Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) Yes, it is not the car that they hate so much - it is Lincoln in general. In the test notes, they refer to the tires as "cheater tires." Zalvern, it wasn't wheel hop at WOT that they complained about. It was their opinion that the summer tires ruined the ride quality and were noisy. I haven't driven an MKZ with summer tires but they are much noisier and rougher on an SHO than the all seasons so their opinion on that may be valid. Of course, the all seasons wouldn't generate the skidpad numbers that they recorded with the summer tires, either. Aye, I wasn't quite sure how to take the basketball comment. Just made it sound like they're griping about wheel hop or so. But I mean, they're acting like its putting summer tires on a econo car with poor noise insulation. Most owners will take all seasons for convenience anyways. The performance of summer is worth it on the 3.0T for better control over noise, and anyone buying the 3.0T is favoring performance. Plus noise cancelling depends on drive control mode. Comfort is the strongest, and Sport is the least. I just find the whole complaint staged to just have something bad to say: Cause its a Lincoln The fords part bin jab...rolled my eyes the moment I opened the article. You know, its something to be grateful for if you plan to keep the car for a long time. Its why I like Fords as they're still one of the easier vehicles to modify and repair. But of course, shun it into the Fusion's shadow. I knew that was coming. Oh well. Not like you'll see many MKZs on the road even as years go by. Part of me likes that underdog feel, but we want Lincoln to get better business to improve. Edited October 25, 2016 by Zalvern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalvern Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) Oh yeah, doesn't C&D only do testing with 91 octane? It wasn't mentioned but those numbers would suggest it instead of being 93. ...and why did they say the engine block is aluminum? The 3.0T is compacted graphite iron just like the 2.7T. Edited October 26, 2016 by Zalvern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 In the test notes, it indicated the fuel was "regular." I have no idea what the octane was but the 400 HP/Torque is on 93. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalvern Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 In the test notes, it indicated the fuel was "regular." I have no idea what the octane was but the 400 HP/Torque is on 93. Regular would mean they used 87 octane then. If they got 13.4 quarter and 4.8 0 to 60 on regular...lol. I couldn't find the test notes, maybe due to my phone. While the 3.0T can use 87, it retards a lot of power potential. The engine is very octane hungry to unleash its performance. I tried 87 octane (Shell) a few times and regretted it very quickly. Screws up the learned octane ratio if the engine got used to 93+. Nice feeling knowing they ran the car neutered in fuel then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 I couldn't get to the test notes on my phone, either. Here it is: http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2017-lincoln-mkz-30t-awd-test-review-car-and-driverlincolnmkz30tawd2017.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airflow Posted October 30, 2016 Author Share Posted October 30, 2016 I love C&D and MotorTrend for all of the content they produce, but they are definitely more focused/biased towards the expensive end of things and race track performance without much regard for value or daily usability. The MKZ stopped from 70 in 156 feet with no fade over multiple stops. That is fantastic braking performance for any vehicle. And the MKZ doesn't have 15 inch carbon ceramic rotors that cost $8000 as an option. Hence what I would consider value. 0.93 on skid pad. Again a fantastic number, but wait, Car and Driver just attributes that to cheater tires. Right. So when I used to drag race my Mustang and I upgraded the stock tires to drag radials which stuck like glue that was cheating over using the stockers. Please. I never knew tires came with a caveat that stated they could only be used on $200,000 vehicles. Good tires are good tires. I don't have a Z yet, but do have a 2016 MKX that we love! Super composed and comfortable ride. Great brakes. Quiet interior. Buttery soft leather. Great infotainment system. I could go on and on. And it all costs $300, $400, or more less a month than competing brands. If I'm making any point with this rant, it's that these Lincoln's deserve more unbiased reporting. JoeBrown 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalvern Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 (edited) ^I still would just call C&D out on using Regular octane fuel. I'm glad a few people in the comments noticed it, but still pretty weak of C&D and shady so people might assume this car was tested at full power (it was not). That alone was enough to show the testing wasn't serious, and find it suspicious the article didn't mention about fueling. If I didn't see the notes, would have never known fuel was basically sandbagged. "We didn't have Premium fuel in this car, so it cannot be attributed towards its 400 HP/TQ rating at the crank", no instead, they almost left the article like the car was performing at 400 HP/TQ. They at least could of use 91 octane for the global acceptance measurement (since not all states have 93), and know they aren't reaching 400 crank HP/TQ. I wouldn't be surprised if wheel horsepower drop below 300 with 87 octane, as they said in the article "The top end power was lacking". It's really sluggish in comparison to 93 octane especially. I would say it in comments myself, but not going to waste my time with Internet headaches. At least we know what the truth is. It's a fantastic number for running on regular fuel! The MKZ feels a lot better if you look at it more like a luxury muscle car with its power, and drive it like so. Edited October 30, 2016 by Zalvern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 It's just another hatchet job on a Lincoln that I've come to expect by C&D. They did the same thing when the 2013 MKZ was introduced; complaining that it had summer tires, which was a legitimate factory option. They've been doing it forever. They just did it again with the Continental. Meanwhile, I've read 3 other initial reviews on line that were quite favorable. I've been reading C&D for 50+ years ever since the infamous Pontiac GTO vs. Ferrari GTO issue of 1964 . I've enjoyed their writing and humor. When it comes to their opinions on cars, they've lost all credibility with me. I don't know how many times I've read glowing initial reports about some new car only to find them trashing it 6 months later or giving it a last place finish in a comparison test and making some lame excuse for their earlier droolings. IDK if they don't get enough advertising dollars from Ford or free press junkets or what but it's almost comical already. If Lincoln announced tomorrow that they'd discovered a cure for cancer, C&D would find something negative about it. brucelinc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airflow Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 "If Lincoln announced tomorrow that they'd discovered a cure for cancer, C&D would find something negative about it." LOL! I completely agree and know what you mean about first looks being all rosy and then the review being a trash job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) I have subscribed to C&D since I was a teenager. I agree that they used to have the best writers and their road tests were more factual with much less bias than now. I thought Pat Bedard was among the best. The Continental review was not a bad as the MKZ review but it was striking that they said the ride was too firm. EVER OTHER SOURCE has complimented the ride quality. I have driven 3 different versions of the Conti and found the ride to be supurb even on our frost heaved, pot holed Minneapolis streets. Edited October 31, 2016 by brucelinc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LQ1906 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Same thing here, I read the review by C&D and immediately became annoyed. I'm like they spent the first 1/3 of the article complaining about optional summer tires like only BMW M series or MB AMG series are the only automakers that can offer these tires. I have a '16 MKZ and I know that if I wanted better grip I could just change the tires and it would make all the difference. I did comment on that article that C&D has total biased and they couldn't wait with the "Ford parts Bin" comparison stuff. I been on C&D, Motortrend, Autoblog, and Automobile Mag website everyday waiting for reviews and when I finally saw it I knew it wasn't going to be good with the catchphrase under the Headliner. The Continental review was the same thing. Waiting to see how Autoblog and Motortrend respond....guess we already know these won't be MT Car of the Year...Lol drolds1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Same thing here, I read the review by C&D and immediately became annoyed. I'm like they spent the first 1/3 of the article complaining about optional summer tires like only BMW M series or MB AMG series are the only automakers that can offer these tires. I have a '16 MKZ and I know that if I wanted better grip I could just change the tires and it would make all the difference. I did comment on that article that C&D has total biased and they couldn't wait with the "Ford parts Bin" comparison stuff. I been on C&D, Motortrend, Autoblog, and Automobile Mag website everyday waiting for reviews and when I finally saw it I knew it wasn't going to be good with the catchphrase under the Headliner. The Continental review was the same thing. Waiting to see how Autoblog and Motortrend respond....guess we already know these won't be MT Car of the Year...Lol :lol: Not being MT's COTY is a blessing in disguise. It's often the kiss of death, including my beloved Lincoln LS. Think of some of their "distinguished" past winners that are no longer with us like the Renault Alliance, Chrysler K-cars, and Chevy Vega, to name a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Same thing here, I read the review by C&D and immediately became annoyed. I'm like they spent the first 1/3 of the article complaining about optional summer tires like only BMW M series or MB AMG series are the only automakers that can offer these tires. I have a '16 MKZ and I know that if I wanted better grip I could just change the tires and it would make all the difference. I did comment on that article that C&D has total biased and they couldn't wait with the "Ford parts Bin" comparison stuff. I been on C&D, Motortrend, Autoblog, and Automobile Mag website everyday waiting for reviews and when I finally saw it I knew it wasn't going to be good with the catchphrase under the Headliner. The Continental review was the same thing. Waiting to see how Autoblog and Motortrend respond....guess we already know these won't be MT Car of the Year...Lol :lol: Not being MT's COTY is a blessing in disguise. It's often the kiss of death, including my beloved Lincoln LS. Think of some of their "distinguished" past winners that are no longer with us like the Renault Alliance, Chrysler K-cars, and Chevy Vega, to name a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.