Ford cancels MKS V-8

[Walt]

The Northstar is in the Buick Lucerne as well. Why should Ford deliberately handicap its products just for the sake of Lincoln exclusivity?

 

IMHO, GM allowing any other division to offer the Northstar is one rather large major mistake. The last thing Ford needs to do, is to start repeating their competitor's mistakes; Ford makes enough unique mistakes of their own.

 

BTW, there are different generations of Northstar. I believe Cadillac still has, exclusivity, with the latest version of Northstar (variable valve timing?).

[Michael Reynolds]

At least there isn't a cheap copy of the SRX anywhere in GM's lineup.

 

Just a cheapily made SRX (well until the revised one debuts).

[30 OTT 6]

When ever I hear discussions about needing a 5.0L or a V8 over a V6 or whatever, I always get reminded of Spinal Tap when Nigel (lead guitarist) shows off his Marshall Amp that "goes to 11". Nigel explains that unlike regular amps, this one has that extra kick. Reiner asks Nigel why not just make a louder amp with the regular 10 setting as the highest.

 

Nigel looks at Reiner and quite innocently says "but this one goes to 11".

 

When you think about it, they are both right. You can make a regular amp lounder but one that goes to 11 is special and unique.

[KinneticBrian]

The Lincolns had been equipped with the 430 CID MEL V-8 since 1958. Why would they put any other engine in the '61 Lincoln Continental. And if they wanted to make sure it had the power to match its elegant looks why did they only use a two barrel carburetor. Again demonstrating that Lincoln was not interested in best in class performance, only good enough.

 

As an aside when asked what was his favorite Ford, Carroll Shelby said that out of the more than 100 cars he has, if he could keep only one, it would be his '67 Lincoln Convertible.

 

 

Well, given today's current cast of "useful idiots" in management at Ford, they'd have dropped the 430 in favor of an inline six from a Fairlane, the rationale being "well we made the Continental smaller than the cars it replaced so we don't need this big engine". This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the MKS is positioned to fill the slot in Lincoln's lineup vacated by the Lincoln Continental after 2002. The MKS was designed smaller, but rather than making it capable of holding the 4.6 liter V-8, they instead see that they can cut the V-8, dump a V-6 in there and run with it. This is exactly the same mistake made with the 1988 Continental - which was a car that could have seriously damaged Cadillac, given the homely DeVilles and the joke that was the Seville at the time.

 

For what it's worth, my point seems to be repeatedly missed here. I simply stated that Ford made sure they had the firepower under the hood to match the cool, great looks of the car. I never said anything about the car being best in class for accelleration or performance. This car didn't need to be best in class for performance, what it needed to be was a good performer which it was, but above all else, it needed to be smooth and seamless which it also was.

 

My '79 Mark has a 400 2bbl, and actually is faster off the line than my '78. The difference in performance is hardly perceptable except when you floor them both in passing range. Then the extra two barrels on the 460 4bbl '78 make themselves well known.

 

Love your point on Carrol Shelby too. He joins the ranks of a lot of other people who feel that way about the '60's Lincolns.

[ZanatWork]

Here's the ONLY consideration: potential customers.

 

At the assumed price point, the customers can have a 6 or an 8...so make both available.

[NLPRacing]

Someone, last winter, told me to expect big powertrain news this summer........

 

Is this it?

 

Ford introduces cleaner diesel for larger trucks

 

I was hoping for something I didn't already know...

[Hemiman]

People seem obsessed with the number of cylinders an engine has, as if a V8 is inherently superior to a V6. If that were the case, we'd all be screaming for modestly priced V12s and V16s. The two things that matter most in engine choice, for me at least, are the engine's power and it's refinement. Number three is its fuel economy. If you can agree on these points, you may have to agree that Ford and Lincoln are making the right choice here, especially at this moment in time.

 

The twin turbo, direct injection version of 3.5 V8 for the MKS is not a maybe. It's a fact and the supplier orders have been placed. The engine has been running around Dearborn for a while now in F150s and the feedback from those who've driven it is fantastic. One quoted right here on BON described the engine as a "beast," and he was referring to its power. It is not unusual for turbo charged engines to produce more useful power across a wider range of RPM than most unblown but similarly rated engines. It's currently rated as having a minimum of 350 HP, though the engine is deisgned to be as large as 4 liters (or as small as 3). So more power is available if needed. And we're still talking about a version that hasn't exploited (or needed to exploit) variable output valve timing, premium fuel, or multiple stage air induction - cards that have already been played by most of the competition.

 

The alternative was the 4.4 liter Yamaha V8, which has had nothing but lukewarm reviews so far. Like the earlier SHO V8 from Yamaha, it's a bit of a wimp, with only 315 HP, producing 0-60 times in the Volvo S80 of 6.2 seconds, or about .2 seconds quicker than the current Lincoln LS. Oh wow. I can hardly wait. Using it in the MKS would add $2000 to the cost of the car. So what are you V8 fans asking? Do you really want Lincoln to charge $2000 more for a substanitally less powerful - and no more refined - engine just so you can say you have a V8? How 80's can we get? Maybe Lincoln should apologize to Cadillac for making a highly refined V6 that puts out a lot more power than their normally aspirated Northstar V8? Or to Chrysler for outpowering it's basic hemi? I think not.

 

Lastly, having a V8 these days may even run the risk of backlash because of the price of gas. Sales of all V8 SUVs are down, as are those of 300 hemis, Cadillac STSs, Infinity M, and many others. Sales of more economical cars and 6 cylinder cars in general are up. Does anyone here seriously doubt that gas will remain below $4 a gallon by this time next year?

 

This one time, I think Lincoln and Ford are making the spot-on, right choice, giving us an engine with more power, higher tech, and likely better fuel economy in the bargain. They may even be able to sell "fewer cylinders" as a product benefit given the times we live in.

 

Is the $2000 difference between the NA 3.5 V-6 and the V-8? Or is it the differance between the TT V-6 and the V-8? I would think the TT would be equal or even more than the V-8 in cost.

 

Also, I think the 3.5 already uses some of the bells and whistles mentioned. i.e. VVT and multi stage air flow.

 

In general, the gas milege issue is really not valid anymore. Look at most cars today. Modern engine management is so good that MPG varies little with the number of cyls or even displacement. The problem arrises when the diver puts his foot into it and uses the available hp. If you measure engine efficiency using specific fuel consumption, (gal/hp hr or lbs/ hp hr), you'll find that most modern engines are within a percent of each other.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Hemiman

[uvls16]

thats probably one of the stupidist things Ford could possibly do to that car.

 

Let me see, the Volvo couldnt and cant move their full size cars without a V8 and Ford thinks Lincoln can?

 

Not only this but you cancel engine plans so it pushes multiple models further back in powertrain development.....

 

They shouldnt even produce the MKS or anything above it at all. Give up...lay down and forget about a full size Lincoln until they can produce a true full size Lincoln.

 

Im all for Trubo 6's but its just not the right kind of car for one. The MKz yes, the MKs...no

 

Your reply hit the nail right on its head. Another V-6 Lincoln and in a supposed flagship, is simply ludicrous. Are Ford's marketing morons trying to kill the brand? I sincerely hope the Town Car survives but with the 5.4 V-8.

[one2gamble]

premium fuel

 

Im calling BS on EMDESS claim that the TT 3.5 isnt using premium fuel. I dont see a high output twin turbo motor being able to survive without utilizing it for any length of time.

Edited August 22, 2006 by one2gamble

[96 Pony]

DAMMIT! :angry: Is Ford trying to kill off Lincoln? Because if so, they are doing a pretty good job of it. Not offering a V8 in the MKS has to be one of the stupidest things they could have pulled at a time when Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes and soon to be Lexus are offering powerful V8's as an option.

 

As for the argument that the majority of Caddy's etc sold are V6's - this may be true. But it is also true that the majority of Mustangs sold are V6's as well. The difference - WE HAVE A CHOICE WITH THE MUSTANG AND LINCOLN IS NOT OFFERING US THAT SAME CHOICE! :angry:

[Edstock]

If it has the looks and the power, most of the market will not care about the unavailability of a V-8, especially when you consider that the Lexus and the European V-8's will probably be significantly more expensive.

 

In a way, this is good news, because it means that there are some very interesting vehicles yet to come — this is not the flagship of the Lincoln brand.

[Nels Nelson]

KinneticBrian,

 

I don't own a Lincoln and I've never owned a Lincoln but I do own a Continental, a '56 Mark II. It has a 368 CID Y-Block and a four barrel carburetor affectionately referred to as the "Towering Inferno". I'm also a member of the Lincoln and Continental Owners Club.

 

The point of my posts are that Lincoln is not known for its performance. Lincoln is about style, American Style. And boy does the Mark II have style. People point, they stare, they stop and tell me it is the most beautiful car they've ever seen. My favorite reaction is from BMW owners who try to act like they don't see it. But how can one ignore such presence.

 

The obsession with performance is overblown. It's all about style and that is something the MKS just doesn't have.

 

The people running Lincoln now just don't get it.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Nels Nelson

[Traveler]

What engines this car debuts with is critical to its survival. That's why I agree that it should've first been introduced with a V8, which is appropriate for this type of car. Then introduce the 3.5L V6 entry level model. Then proceed to phase in the TT 3.5L set-up and test the market. Remember when Ford tried to bring in the SVO Mustang in the mid-80s? It had performance...but the target buyers wanted the V8 and the turbo-4 faded out of production? With a new car, they should go with what they know best first and then test the market for something different.

 

Another factor is Ford's perceived questionable reliability. So, Ford is coming out with a brand new 3.5L V6 that is unfamiliar to the US market and setting up an elaborate dual turbo system on a relatively new engine? Ford expects the public to buy what many will view as a rather exotic twin turbo V6 set-up and extended warranty or not, people do not want a sedan of this caliber to create headaches of having to spend time either sitting around a dealership service area or dropping their car off regularly.

 

Ford could be biting off more than they could chew with a TT V6 engine right from the beginning and it could doom the MKS if Ford hasn't done their homework. The complexity of the fully loaded MKS as described would be intimidating to many, especially those skeptical of Ford's ability to pull it off. We're talking about an all-wheel drive, twin-turbo 3.5L V6, 6 speed automatic and all the bells and whistles that go along with the car.

[Ralph Greene]

Who cares? What is so special about a V 8? In a front drive car? Lighter is better.

 

You don't need a V 8 in this size car for good power any more, especially with $3.00-4.00 per gal fuel.

 

Those who think you need it for prestige or bragging rights, in this price range, maybe those times are gone.

[KinneticBrian]

KinneticBrian,

 

I don't own a Lincoln and I've never owned a Lincoln but I do own a Continental, a '56 Mark II. It has a 368 CID Y-Block and a four barrel carburetor affectionately referred to as the "Towering Inferno". I'm also a member of the Lincoln and Continental Owners Club.

 

The point of my posts are that Lincoln is not known for its performance. Lincoln is about style, American Style. And boy does the Mark II have style. People point, they stare, they stop and tell me it is the most beautiful car they've ever seen. My favorite reaction is from BMW owners who try to act like they don't see it. But how can one ignore such presence.

 

The obsession with performance is overblown. It's all about style and that is something the MKS just doesn't have.

 

The people running Lincoln now just don't get it.

 

 

Nels - I couldn't agree with you more. The "useful idiots" running Lincoln don't get it at all. I apologize if I misunderstood you - seems like we both tried making the same point - from two slightly different angles.

 

I agree totally that Lincoln has been about style, more so than straight line accelleration. They've been about style, ride and ease of handling and in those arenas, Lincoln has consistently performed very well.

 

Now I envy your ownership of the Continental Mark II :yup: That is without a doubt one of the finest cars ever produced in America and perhaps an epitome of Continental style.

 

My Marks still draw looks and comments (especially the '79) in restaurant parking lots and at red lights. I know the exact look BMW (and more pathetically Lexus) owners give you when trying not to look at it. The thing about the Mark II, III, IV and V were that all of these cars, along with the big Continentals of the '60's and '70's had "command presence". They may not have been the fastest, but their style was distinct and remarkably American with a richness that although more understated than Cadillac, never seemed to apologize.

 

Motor Trend remarked in a King of the Hill comparo that the Mark III came off as "old money"... richness that had always seemed to be there, graceful and elegant, where the Eldorado came off as "neuvo riche" - trying so hard to tell the world how much money it had.

 

Maybe someday the knuckleheads making decisions at Lincoln will come to their senses. I can see where the MKS is a needed product. I'll respectfully disagree with you on it's style (for now - we'll see what actually hits the showroom). I think it's a nice looking car - but a flagship for this brand it's not.

[630land]

So many screm and yell but then they are not actual buyers, just spectators demanding to 'see' V8's or new styling to please their fantasies.

 

And who said that "Lincolns will never have any V8 ever"? It is just this one car, not all future Lincs.

[igor]

I just want to point out that the artcile does NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT THE MKS WILL BE A V6 ONLY CAR - IT ONLY SAYS THAT THE YAMA V8 WAS CANCELLED.

 

I just noticed that.

 

Igor

[ZanatWork]

Who cares? What is so special about a V 8? In a front drive car? Lighter is better.

 

You don't need a V 8 in this size car for good power any more, especially with $3.00-4.00 per gal fuel.

 

Those who think you need it for prestige or bragging rights, in this price range, maybe those times are gone.

 

The car will be awd, I believe...and the V8 would give it comparable powertrain options to the Audi A6/A8 and more options than the Acura RL (which honda execs admit could use a V8).

[Walt]

Here's the ONLY consideration: potential customers.

 

It is also image.

 

Ford's own Mustang is a good in house lesson for them.

 

Even though people buy the V6 powered Mustang, they are also buying the image created by the V8 Mustangs. Stop offering any V8 in the Mustang, and the V6 sales will drop even though some marketing "genius" in Ford might try to claim that everyone who would have bought the V8 Mustang will now gladly settle for a V6. They wouldn't. And the image of the Mustang brand will be diminished.

 

For a lux brand like Lincoln, image counts too. Matter of fact, I think one sells more by image in Lincoln's segment.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Walt

[Blue II]

The TT 3.5 MKS V-6 will be rated @ 350 HP and 350 Lbs Ft. of Torque. It should be a real performer.

[NLPRacing]

It is also image.

 

Ford's own Mustang is a good in house lesson for them.

 

Even though people buy the V6 powered Mustang, they are also buying the image created by the V8 Mustangs. Stop offering any V8 in the Mustang, and the V6 sales will drop even though some marketing "genius" in Ford might try to claim that everyone who would have bought the V8 Mustang will now gladly settle for a V6. They wouldn't. And the image of the Mustang brand will be diminished.

 

For a lux brand like Lincoln, image counts too. Matter of fact, I think one sells more by image in Lincoln's segment.

 

Another good example is the 1st gen Taurus SHO. Look what that car did for image of the Taurus.

[ZanatWork]

The TT 3.5 MKS V-6 will be rated @ 350 HP and 350 Lbs Ft. of Torque. It should be a real performer.

 

 

It should also be in an awd SVT Fusion!

[one2gamble]

It should also be in an awd SVT Fusion!

 

more like a engine upgrade for the MKz

 

standard 260hp 3.5 with an optional 350hp 350 ft/lb TT 3.5 = Mucho Fun. It probably wouldnt move huge numbers but sure would look great in the mags. Especially since it would probably cost under 40k

[Traveler]

I definitely agree with the SVT Fusion. I feel that this car would be a great image booster for Ford in the eyes of the young adult buyers who wish to move into something a bit more mature than the Evo or STi. The AWD Fusion with a TT 3.5 with 350 horsepower would be a fantastic idea...but it definitely needs a manual tranny to put the icing on the cake. If Ford could build such a Fusion for no more than $35k, I bet it would be very popular.

[NickF1011]

Remember when Ford tried to bring in the SVO Mustang in the mid-80s? It had performance...but the target buyers wanted the V8 and the turbo-4 faded out of production? With a new car, they should go with what they know best first and then test the market for something different.

 

The only reason the SVO failed was because of PRICE. It cost significantly more than a 5.0 GT that made the same power and performed reasonably as well. The SVO was the better car. They just priced it way wrong.

 

The scenario would be the opposite with the MKS. They say cancelling the 4.4 V8 was because of cost. Would you rather have a MORE expensive V8 MKS that performs worse than a more affordable TT V6 MKS? There's just no logic there. The cachet in hearing the phrase "V8-powered" just isn't as important as most people think. It's about PERFORMANCE. If tha V6 can PERFORM better at a LOWER cost, what's the problem?