I bought a 2011 version because I needed something with AWD to deal with the snowy hills around here in winter. Subarus were crazy expensive even with high miles. This baby was low-mileage, and cheaper than plain Jane Subies with WAY more mileage. It's given me zero problems in about 7 years of use now, and is smooth, quiet, deals with snow and ice admirably, handles well, and is well appointed and decently quick. Simply a great car in every way, especially for the price.
Maybe I am a little late to comment, but I love my 2014 MKZ which was purchased new. In Ruby red it is a pretty car, it is a nice riding car and I have no complaints about the interior. I believe the wood trim is actually wood from what I have read. I love the front grill. My family calls her ruby red dragon .Friends comment that it still looks like new 10 years later. as for the paddle shifters, I don’t use them because I know how to drive a stick shift and I choose when to shift based on the sound of the engine. This car is too quiet for that. The car has had no maintenance issues. The trunk holds much more luggage than my Toyota Highlander platinum with the third seat up. If you are going to buy one 10 years later, maybe look into complaints about the transmission, but I have none.
Luxury cars had those advanced safety features many years before regular cars such as Honda Accord/Civic and Toyota Camry/Corolla had them. Toyota introduced those advanced safety features as standard in 2017 as part of Toyota Safety Sense, but blind sport monitoring is still optional. Of course, rear backup camera became required by law in 2018, although many manufacturers offered them before then
My Hondas have had plenty of repairs. I drive them gently and do all maintenance. They have reliable powertrains but everything else breaks just like American cars
i'm with you about that grille.....they did the same ugly grille with the newer MKS! The 2009 and 2010 i like that yr grille , reminded me of the 2000 town car grille..also not a fan of the rear styling, just looks boring to me.. they took the tail lights from the 2000 Lincoln mark 8 which i thought were aweful! the rear styling killed that car foe me!! they discontinued the towncar ,replaced it with the MKS>> then they turn around and discontinue the MKS! Which i love,,, and bring back the TOWNCAR! i think was a mistake...and i would not buy a that shrunken version of a once full size luxury car! i think the revamped Towncar was a flop! i don't even know if theirs a 2024 version of a Towncar! they shouldn't!! designers got lazy!!
To me, it's an average car. The interior is what stops the sale. I think it looks cheap, nickel and dimed, little things. The interior is where one spends their time and it should have some eye candy and pizazz that also says high quality. Lincoln has since stepped up quite a bit, but so have prices, seemingly exponentially, and the SUV's are still just dressed up Fords.
Well said.... but I couldn't make a video saying just that! It is nicer than the Fusion, and I think much better looking, but as you said, it doesn't do enough to really stand apart - especially the interior materials.
Since Ford stop making cars in the United States, Lincoln doesn't make cars anymore which upset Lincoln. Ford gave up on the sedan market and focused on SUVs
In the long run, huge mistake by Ford. Not everyone wants an SUV or crossover. Limiting what you offer can cause buyers to go elsewhere(oh right, that's already happening).
I don't have first hand experience with the 3.7 but I do have first hand experience with The 3.5 from which 3.7 was based. All in all these are almost bulletproof engines with one major Achilles heel. The water pump is timing chain driven. If it ever leaks, the best case scenario is it's going to cost around $2,500 to change, the worst case scenario it can blow the engine It all depends on whether it leaks out the weep hole or whether the gasket fails and it mixes the coolant with the oil. As to why this doesn't get as good a fuel economy as your Honda, I think they're are two reasons. One this engine is turbocharged, that's why they keep calling it EcoBoost. This is the part of the marketing that is an outright lie. It's just turbocharged it does not actually help the fuel economy The idea is you're going with a smaller turbo 4 cylinder instead of a V6 and gaining a little bit of fuel economy. It's really more of a V6 replacement as opposed to a competitor for your Hondas naturally aspirated 4 cylinder. This is why I really don't like it. It's the worst of both worlds as far as I'm concerned as it's not nearly as fast as many v6s in that class and it gets fuel mileage of the best v6s, with the added complications of turbocharging, The buzzy nature of such an engine, and has the problems of direct injection. Another factor is it has all-wheel drive on this one which bumps it down another mile per gallon. If I have compared accurately what I think your Honda Accord is, I think the EPA rating is 35 miles per gallon. You're results of 40 miles per gallon on the highway is very impressive, but if we're going to compare car to car we have to go with equal scientific testing as the basis. The cord is still better by about 4 mi per gallon and yes if a person wants a car in that class that gets good fuel economy that's a major factor in the purchase that is a big enough difference to dissuade a person from buying The Lincoln. What I think more premium cars have lost in recent years is the ability to provide a good balance on performance and fuel economy. GM despite all their flaws back in the day did a very good job of providing both when they use the 3800. It was providing better fuel economy in W body and large sedans, then some competitors did with four cylinder equipped smaller sedans. I think the disadvantage that happens with modern vehicles is the use of having the engines designed for more high end torque high-end horsepower application requires more aggressive gearing to allow them to rev to help the car is not feel slow and when it's more premium car with some additional weight, that can be an additional push to have more aggressive gearing which costs them fuel economy. Truthfully I think that things have gone stagnant on fuel economy gains in the real world with the push of turbocharging micro sized engines and a lot of them I question how long they're going to hold up compared to the engines that they replaced.
Another point I thought about recently, you mentioned how the performance models see a fuel economy drop, a factor that might be playing into the situation is a tires that the cars were tested with. If the standard sedans were equipped with low roll resistant tires that can account for a higher fuel economy compared to a more performance focused car that features performance tires which have much higher rolling resistance. Other factors in the situation as I understand it can also be due to gearing of the transmission. I'm not sure this has as much a play as it used to now that we have anywhere from 6 to 10 speeds in the transmission or just a CVT compared to the days when we had four speeds. But that can also be part of it.
I love my 2014 LINCOLN MKZ
I bought a 2011 version because I needed something with AWD to deal with the snowy hills around here in winter. Subarus were crazy expensive even with high miles. This baby was low-mileage, and cheaper than plain Jane Subies with WAY more mileage. It's given me zero problems in about 7 years of use now, and is smooth, quiet, deals with snow and ice admirably, handles well, and is well appointed and decently quick. Simply a great car in every way, especially for the price.
Thanks for sharing!
I think these are beautiful cars.
Maybe I am a little late to comment, but I love my 2014 MKZ which was purchased new. In Ruby red it is a pretty car, it is a nice riding car and I have no complaints about the interior. I believe the wood trim is actually wood from what I have read. I love the front grill. My family calls her ruby red dragon .Friends comment that it still looks like new 10 years later. as for the paddle shifters, I don’t use them because I know how to drive a stick shift and I choose when to shift based on the sound of the engine. This car is too quiet for that. The car has had no maintenance issues. The trunk holds much more luggage than my Toyota Highlander platinum with the third seat up. If you are going to buy one 10 years later, maybe look into complaints about the transmission, but I have none.
I love your reviews....👌
Thanks a ton
Nice car overall, but Ford management was way too stupid not to sell those in Europe or Russia.
I agree they should have beefed up the rear lights.
Luxury cars had those advanced safety features many years before regular cars such as Honda Accord/Civic and Toyota Camry/Corolla had them. Toyota introduced those advanced safety features as standard in 2017 as part of Toyota Safety Sense, but blind sport monitoring is still optional. Of course, rear backup camera became required by law in 2018, although many manufacturers offered them before then
I had a 2015 MKZ and absolutely loved it...until the panoramic roof malfunctioned just out of warranty. Mile high repair bill!
Honda will be worth more period and will have less issues
My Hondas have had plenty of repairs. I drive them gently and do all maintenance. They have reliable powertrains but everything else breaks just like American cars
Brand new not really used price wise and over 70% of people neglect there cars and are mad when somthing pops up
My uncle Angelo owns the first generation and there was 3 version of the car, mercury Milan which my younger brother had one
Coupe like low roof aka " lack of headroom" for a tall person and poor blind spot visibility seems like it would be a concern based on the design.
Yeah the front is ugly especially when you look at it head on. I agree the redesign improved the look.
i'm with you about that grille.....they did the same ugly grille with the newer MKS! The 2009 and 2010 i like that yr grille , reminded me of the 2000 town car grille..also not a fan of the rear styling, just looks boring to me.. they took the tail lights from the 2000 Lincoln mark 8 which i thought were aweful! the rear styling killed that car foe me!! they discontinued the towncar ,replaced it with the MKS>> then they turn around and discontinue the MKS! Which i love,,, and bring back the TOWNCAR! i think was a mistake...and i would not buy a that shrunken version of a once full size luxury car! i think the revamped Towncar was a flop! i don't even know if theirs a 2024 version of a Towncar! they shouldn't!! designers got lazy!!
To me, it's an average car. The interior is what stops the sale. I think it looks cheap, nickel and dimed, little things. The interior is where one spends their time and it should have some eye candy and pizazz that also says high quality. Lincoln has since stepped up quite a bit, but so have prices, seemingly exponentially, and the SUV's are still just dressed up Fords.
It’s basically just a nice Ford Fusion and doesn’t do enough to distinguish itself from the cheaper Fusion.
Well said.... but I couldn't make a video saying just that!
It is nicer than the Fusion, and I think much better looking, but as you said, it doesn't do enough to really stand apart - especially the interior materials.
It's a luxury car so Ford/Lincoln needs to give it completely different looks inside and out. I don't want to pay for a name.
Plus the price is high I'm guessing?
I like this and new Lincolns because they are just a luxury car not sporty in any way just a nice place to be. Somewhat like old school luxury..
Since Ford stop making cars in the United States, Lincoln doesn't make cars anymore which upset Lincoln. Ford gave up on the sedan market and focused on SUVs
In the long run, huge mistake by Ford. Not everyone wants an SUV or crossover. Limiting what you offer can cause buyers to go elsewhere(oh right, that's already happening).
I don't have first hand experience with the 3.7 but I do have first hand experience with The 3.5 from which 3.7 was based. All in all these are almost bulletproof engines with one major Achilles heel. The water pump is timing chain driven. If it ever leaks, the best case scenario is it's going to cost around $2,500 to change, the worst case scenario it can blow the engine It all depends on whether it leaks out the weep hole or whether the gasket fails and it mixes the coolant with the oil.
As to why this doesn't get as good a fuel economy as your Honda, I think they're are two reasons. One this engine is turbocharged, that's why they keep calling it EcoBoost. This is the part of the marketing that is an outright lie. It's just turbocharged it does not actually help the fuel economy The idea is you're going with a smaller turbo 4 cylinder instead of a V6 and gaining a little bit of fuel economy. It's really more of a V6 replacement as opposed to a competitor for your Hondas naturally aspirated 4 cylinder. This is why I really don't like it. It's the worst of both worlds as far as I'm concerned as it's not nearly as fast as many v6s in that class and it gets fuel mileage of the best v6s, with the added complications of turbocharging, The buzzy nature of such an engine, and has the problems of direct injection. Another factor is it has all-wheel drive on this one which bumps it down another mile per gallon. If I have compared accurately what I think your Honda Accord is, I think the EPA rating is 35 miles per gallon. You're results of 40 miles per gallon on the highway is very impressive, but if we're going to compare car to car we have to go with equal scientific testing as the basis. The cord is still better by about 4 mi per gallon and yes if a person wants a car in that class that gets good fuel economy that's a major factor in the purchase that is a big enough difference to dissuade a person from buying The Lincoln.
What I think more premium cars have lost in recent years is the ability to provide a good balance on performance and fuel economy. GM despite all their flaws back in the day did a very good job of providing both when they use the 3800. It was providing better fuel economy in W body and large sedans, then some competitors did with four cylinder equipped smaller sedans. I think the disadvantage that happens with modern vehicles is the use of having the engines designed for more high end torque high-end horsepower application requires more aggressive gearing to allow them to rev to help the car is not feel slow and when it's more premium car with some additional weight, that can be an additional push to have more aggressive gearing which costs them fuel economy. Truthfully I think that things have gone stagnant on fuel economy gains in the real world with the push of turbocharging micro sized engines and a lot of them I question how long they're going to hold up compared to the engines that they replaced.
Another point I thought about recently, you mentioned how the performance models see a fuel economy drop, a factor that might be playing into the situation is a tires that the cars were tested with. If the standard sedans were equipped with low roll resistant tires that can account for a higher fuel economy compared to a more performance focused car that features performance tires which have much higher rolling resistance. Other factors in the situation as I understand it can also be due to gearing of the transmission. I'm not sure this has as much a play as it used to now that we have anywhere from 6 to 10 speeds in the transmission or just a CVT compared to the days when we had four speeds. But that can also be part of it.
I always thought this car was hideous so no matter how good it is, I would never buy one.
It's a oversized Ford fusion LoL