2017 Continental test drive

[jpd80]

No it's CD4 and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Umm, the Chinese Taurus is CD4.

The main underpinning difference is the wheelbases,116" for Taurus versus 117.9" for Continental.

[silvrsvt]

Compared to competitors in this class, Continental is definitely unique for it's fairly basic low cost underpinnings which will make it interesting to see what that platform can do.

 

How is it low-cost? It's not like its a Fiesta platform where pricing concerns are far more acute due to lack of profit from it. The Fusion starts at $22k and tops out at around 40K (well over 50K if you want to include the MKZ). This isn't a $14K Fiesta that tops out at $22K or so for a ST model, which has a much shorter delta for pricing.

 

There isn't anything "Cheap" about the Fusion platform.

 

Lexus has no problem selling ES or other Toyota based luxury cars off these so called "cheap" platforms.

[brucelinc]

Mid-size lower priced cars are vastly better than they used to be. A new Fusion or Malibu is much improved from a NVH standpoint compared to a Taurus or whatever GM was selling 15 years ago. For that reason, with some tweaking, they can be suitable platforms for cars that are priced above the original platform price point. That has not always been the case. The old Taurus platform of the 90s was tweaked to make the Continental of the time and while competitive with the Cadillac Seville of the same era, it was not a great basis for a luxury car and would be ridiculous today.

 

Whether in sales brochures or dealer training materials, Lincoln is positioning the Continental as "quiet luxury" with "effortless power." The enlarged and structurally enhanced CD4 makes perfect sense to deliver on what they promise. As I have said before, how many luxury car buyers push their cars to the limit of its chassis dynamics? I find it interesting that the front drive based Cadillac XTS handily outsells the new CT6 in spite of its rather pedestrian platform.

 

After driving a new MKZ and a new Continental, I found them to be much different animals regardless of their origins. The MKZ is a nice driving car that is maybe 10% better than the Fusion in terms of ride, NVH, and overall feel but it mostly relies on additional luxury content to justify its price. The Continental is so much better in terms of ride, quietness and feel it is not even comparable to an MKZ.

[akirby]

 

How is it low-cost? It's not like its a Fiesta platform where pricing concerns are far more acute due to lack of profit from it. The Fusion starts at $22k and tops out at around 40K (well over 50K if you want to include the MKZ). This isn't a $14K Fiesta that tops out at $22K or so for a ST model, which has a much shorter delta for pricing.

 

There isn't anything "Cheap" about the Fusion platform.

 

Lexus has no problem selling ES or other Toyota based luxury cars off these so called "cheap" platforms.

 

 

When Ford does it, it's cheap. When anyone else does it, it's completely overlooked.

 

Although I'm sure Borg was comparing it to a MB S-class or BMW 7 series - you know, RWD.

[BORG]

It's an inexpensive platform because it's made for inexpensive cars using inexpensive materials with an engineering focus on material and manufacturing cost efficiency. Which is fine, a Lincoln isn't tuned for dynamic driving and it's still far cheaper than comparably equipped German or Asian luxury barges. It doesn't need to be super light or tight as a drum. That's where Lincoln finds its margins and is able to keep pricing very competitive despite it's 'bolt-on' approach to product development. This may change if Lincoln can grow its business and profits (and customers) but for now it's the right decision and most of their customers don't really care about the things they can't see and the brand can't afford to invest in something their customers don't care about.

Edited September 29, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

That's where I expect CD6 to be different - better suited to premium vehicles in the $50K+ range as far as stiffness, lightness, ability to support more power, etc.

[brucelinc]

That's where I expect CD6 to be different - better suited to premium vehicles in the $50K+ range as far as stiffness, lightness, ability to support more power, etc.

 

It will be interesting to see where the "lightness" comes from unless they go all aluminum bodies like the F150. The CT6 was supposed to be light - and it is when equipped with the 4 cylinder and no options. However, when equipped as most people want it, it is around the same weight as a Continental. The big German sedans are far from being lightweights, as well.

[akirby]

I was just referring to using more expensive materials and techniques in the chassis and platform compared to a Ford fusion platform e.g. Not talking about saving hundreds of pounds or that the end result will be lighter.

[brucelinc]

I test drove another Continental yesterday - this time a well loaded Reserve model with the 2.7 twin turbo. Everything I said in my original post still applies but I have a few things to add.

 

Even if you hate FWD based systems and consider the Conti a glorified Fusion, you should check out the 24 or 30 way seats in this car. If my dentist had a chair as comfortable, I would look forward to a root canal. The thigh extenders are great as is the adjustability of individual parts of the seat.

 

I was a bit disappointed in the performance of the 2.7. It is a very smooth and quiet engine but it really didn't feel any stronger than the base naturally aspirated 3.7 that I drove last week. I have read from various sources that the boost is purposely limited until the engine has accumulated a certain number of miles. Maybe that is the case or maybe it just needed more break-in miles. That engine gets great reviews in the F150 so it should be decent in the Conti but I thought it felt very soft considering the torque figures. They are getting a Conti with the 3.0 later this week so I will give it a try.

 

One last nit to pick: I think they went backwards in terms of how the dual panel moonroof works. First of all, it barely opens when in the vent position. More irritating to me is that when opened it just flops up over the roof instead of tucking neatly between the roof and headliner. I realize that it is too big to tuck inside but I wish they offered a conventional moonroof in addition of this big-assed thing.

[akirby]

 

One last nit to pick: I think they went backwards in terms of how the dual panel moonroof works. First of all, it barely opens when in the vent position. More irritating to me is that when opened it just flops up over the roof instead of tucking neatly between the roof and headliner. I realize that it is too big to tuck inside but I wish they offered a conventional moonroof in addition of this big-assed thing.

 

That's how the BAMR has always worked (Big Assed Moon Roof) in the Edge and MKX. I assume there is a glass panel for the rear passengers?

[brucelinc]

Yes, there is a small glass panel for the rear passengers. In some cases, size really does matter. In terms of moonroofs, I prefer the smaller kind that tucks between the headliner and roof instead of this unwieldy looking contraption. The MKZ offers the panoramic roof AND the conventional moonroof but the Continental sort of splits the difference and offers one kind.

 

[BORG]

The opening is really conventional in size but it's the added glass to the rear that requires the roof to overlap on the outside. The MKZ or MKX is definitely the one you want if you want that 'convertible' feel. I doubt however that the next-gen MKZ will retain this feature. The Continental might have a two position feature, so it might open wider with a 2nd press, I'm not sure.

 

The 2.7L EB is very lazy in Comfort mode, it's great for efficiency but it should wake up considerably in Sport mode, I know it makes a HUGE difference in my MKX. The transmission is probably the real culprit, it's very harsh in Sport mode and lazy in Comfort, ultimately Sport mode is not very pleasant so I always drive in Comfort. Like all EcoBoost engines, it doesn't have allot of kick until you get moving and then the rubber band kicks in and puts a smile on your face. But around town, EcoBoost engines always feel their small displacement and mashing the pedal doesn't really do anything so you have to be a little patient. It's something you get use to, I know I was really disappointed when I went from my 3.7 V6 to the 2.7L EB, but once I got use to the very alien way in which it performs you start to enjoy it. For the most part the 3.7 is better for around town but the 2.7 is better for open roads, far more smooth power on tap.

Edited October 4, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

The BAMR has 2 positions - one is for normal driving and keeps the buffeting down. If you open it all the way at more than 30 mph it's terrible, but at lower speeds or while stopped it opens really wide. I assume the Conti works the same way?

[ANTAUS]

And to add, it's real BS that nothing has been posted about the 3.0LV6...not test drives, nothing really posted out there. You would think they would have done a huge fan fare promoting this engine, wtf are they waiting for?

[BORG]

The BAMR has 2 positions - one is for normal driving and keeps the buffeting down. If you open it all the way at more than 30 mph it's terrible, but at lower speeds or while stopped it opens really wide. I assume the Conti works the same way?

 

 

The Continental doesn't really have a BAMR so I don't think there is a need for two stages.

 

Is the 3.0L V6 widely available yet?

 

I think Lincoln prefers to control its own message and leave the press out of it, I know it hasn't worked out too well for them in the past.

[2b2]

Yes, there is a small glass panel for the rear passengers. In some cases, size really does matter. In terms of moonroofs, I prefer the smaller kind that tucks between the headliner and roof instead of this unwieldy looking contraption. The MKZ offers the panoramic roof AND the conventional moonroof but the Continental sort of splits the difference and offers one kind.

I expect the MKZ to sell twice the Conti so

getting 2 moonroofs is understandable imho

(plus, the Fusion offers the 'ordinary' moonroof, right? so no extra costs for the Z)

[fuzzymoomoo]

And to add, it's real BS that nothing has been posted about the 3.0LV6...not test drives, nothing really posted out there. You would think they would have done a huge fan fare promoting this engine, wtf are they waiting for?

it's not widely available yet, that's why. Once they start building more you should start seeing more of it.

[brucelinc]

The Continental has just one opening. I didn't have it open when I was driving it so I don't know about turbulence. Actually, while the opening is wider than the dual panel roof used on the MKS, I doesn't seem to open as far. The rear panel is smaller than the MKS. One benefit of the Continental system is that the roof likely seals better than the kind that has the opening that goes down and under the roof. I have never had sealing issues with the moonroofs that I have had, though.

 

The 3.0 versions are showing up at dealerships. I will be driving one tomorrow. That engine has been available in the MKZ for several weeks but there have been no meaningful reviews of it in that application, either.

 

 

[jcartwright99]

it's not widely available yet, that's why. Once they start building more you should start seeing more of it.

 

There are a lot of 3.0T MKZ's in the greater Chicago area. Crest Lincoln in Southfield, MI seems to have a nice inventory as well. I don't claim to be a marketing expert but I just don't get what they are trying to accomplish here. MKZ reviews with all engines should have been out by now. It's clear there is some sort of media embargo going on. Are they waiting so the MKZ doesn't upstage the Continental?

 

Now that the Continental is hitting dealerships now, we SHOULD see some sort of press, at least I would hope. Again, I will let Lincoln do their marketing magic but I am unsure why they are letting no information out about products that are being sold right now?

 

One of the biggest things I don't understand is the engine choices in the Continental vs MKZ. While they both are getting the 3.0T, you can only get the 3.0T on the reserve trim in the Continental. However, the MKZ has it available on the select trim. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. I would think that the offering would follow the same logic for both models.

 

I think MKZ, while not being as refined as Continental, is going to be a real screamer with the 3.0T. It will be interesting to see the driving dynamics with drivers package. I know it's really not the performance demographic but if you can put something together that performs well (aka, the drivers package), then you could possibly get some of those luxury buyers (sales) that enjoy some spirited driving as well.

[BORG]

The Continental has 3 V6 engines, MKZ only gets 1 so that probably explains the availability differences.

 

As for the BAMR, the only Ford that really has one is the Edge. The only Lincolns that have them are MKZ, MKX, and MKT. There are big glass roofs on Explorer, Continental, Flex, etc...but they don't have the extra large two-stage openings.

Edited October 5, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

The MKZ engine choices are really strange. No 3.7L, no 2.7LEB. And it's still using the 2.0LEB instead of the 2.3LEB.

[brucelinc]

Yes, and the Z offers a 350 HP version of the 3.0 with FWD. There is nothing between the 245 HP 2.0 and the 350 or 400 HP 3.0. Strange, indeed.

[akirby]

Shared plant with Fusion would explain the 2.0LEB instead of the 2.3LEB. But that logic wouldn't explain the 3.0LEB since the Fusion sport has the 2.7LEB. Headscratcher for sure.

[brucelinc]

Another oddity to me is that the MKZ drivers package and the Conti 3.0 both have dynamic torque vectoring and can be had with summer only performance tires. Neither of those enthusiast oriented items are available on the Fusion Sport.

[akirby]

But the only Ford to get the torque vectoring AWD is Focus RS, right? Fusion Sport is not a SVT model so that makes sense to me.