bossman351 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) http://blog.caranddriver.com/2017-lincoln-continental-fuel-economy-numbers-discovered-considered/ Can someone help, Can't find how to post this link correctly. (edit: They changed the URL, and didn't forward it. I've posted the correct URL - Rich) Edited August 26, 2016 by RichardJensen C&D changed the link on ya, buddy. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 The best of the Lincoln’s competitors top 23 mpg in the city and 34 mpg on the highway. In fact, the Continental with the 400-hp 3.0-liter V-6 is a smidgen less efficient than the all-wheel-drive BMW 550i (16/25 mpg), which uses a larger, 4.4-liter twin-turbo V-8 making similar power. Of course C&D doesn't mention that the Conti is a much larger vehicle than the 550 (6 more cu. ft of combined interior volume) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If you can afford this car, you can afford putting fuel in it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 Yep $50k+ MSRP vehicles should be exempt from EPA tests. Who cares about fuel economy in a $50k vehicle. Love the excuses. But seriously, Continental fails to impress with these fuel economy numbers. When will the 9 speed transmission arrive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Do we honestly think the target market for this car cares about 2mpg?? Just asking. Yes, it will be fodder for the magazine and internet never ending disdain for all things Lincoln................... but, should they have held back the car for a year for a couple of mpg?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) My .02 When you take into consideration how heavy that car is (and yes, it is heavy, the front doors alone are about 100lbs each), those MPG numbers are damn impressive. Edited August 27, 2016 by fuzzymoomoo 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Odd that they would even mention the CTS. Obviously, the Continental is more of a competitor to the XTS. With it's top engine (which has less torque than the Lincoln) the EPA rating is 16/23 - worse than the Continental. I suppose I fit into the target market for the car - although I am probably more of a performance enthusiast than most. And no, I don't give a rat's derriere about EPA fuel economy ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Are you really surprised that a journalist used something that fit a narrative. Journalism is dead. It is no longer "just the facts ma'am." Journalists' opinion and bias are injected into all forms of journalism now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) When compared to CT6, Continental's V6 variants give similar fuel economy and it's only in 2.0T and 8AT guise that the CT6 exceeds 30 mpg..... I'd be interested to know how many small engines CT6s are actually sold. Quite funny actually when you consider that for years the other fans have been telling us that luxury buyers expect a decent level of performance as part of the whole package but the moment Lincoln does that well the goal posts shift.... Edited August 27, 2016 by jpd80 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.