Topic: 2010 Lincoln MKT; Day 1

[Mitlov]

Lincoln has to win the prize for the most confusing naming schemes.

No, that would be Mercedes.  You mean the E-Class coupe is based on the C-Class sedan, not the E-Class sedan?  And explain why the CL is on a completely different platform than the C and the CLK (it's on the S platform).

I was trying to guess which car the MKT was before opening this thead, my guess was the truck they have. Nope, it's the Venza-type vehicle.

T is for Touring, maybe?  As in BMW 325iT, the 325i wagon.

[Ontariodriver]

I really like the bold styling. Oh well not counting for taste. I'm in the minority. 

[Mitlov]

I really like the bold styling. Oh well not counting for taste. I'm in the minority. 

I don't mind it either.  I'm not in love with it, but compared to, say, the new FX's tooth maw, I'm happy with the Lincoln's baleen.

[CarCarCar]

the doors on that thing look like they've been taken of a 1940's fridge. IMO calling that thing an suv is an overstatement, this is a minivan with a crappy third row and AWD.

[Spec5]

Wow, looking at this thing from the side in white it looks like a billboard! Q7 has much nicer lines IMO although these aren't terrible. Hard for any vehicle of this size to look good in a bright colour and not look like a beached whale.

How much is that new Tahoe Denali edition going to be? I know I know its not a fair comparison because its body on frame. But still I bet its an option.

[ptreb]

If you use 355hp, you're going to use 355hp worth of fuel. Like any car you can hit the EPA ratings (14.7 city, 10.7hwy L/100km) if you want to.

Consumer Reports saw 22 Imp mpg (13L/100km) in the MKS in mixed driving.

FYI the turbos are parallel not sequential, one per cylinder bank. They either both spool or neither are spooled. As far as its fuel consumption, It's better than that of the equally powerful, and equally heavy, normally aspirated BMW X5 4.8i.

There are a few of them around town now. Better in person, but she's a big ol' gal.

Osis, are you seriously comparing the 4.8liter V8 from a BMW to a 3.5L V6 from Ford? thats a completely different animal. the torque comparison will tell you a picture, the Beemer will drive circles around the Ford.
they may be equally heavy, but the Beemer is a different class and has 2 more cylinders.

[wing]

I am hoping he meant the 4.4L  4.4L is 350/350 while the Ford is 355/350 that's identical...

But the 4.8L is 555/500 WOWZERS!

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The V8 in the BMW X5 xDrive48i sets the benchmark for responsiveness, power and sophistication. Techinical refinements such as Valvetronic, the Double-VANOS camshaft control system and a fully-variable air intake unit enable maximum power delivery for maximum SAV performance. Producing 350hp, the vehicle accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in just 6.9 seconds. What’s more, this power is delivered with remarkable effortlessness and silky smooth refinement.

http://www.bmw.ca/ca/en/newvehicles/x5/x5/2006/allfacts/engine_8c_petrol.html

YO NO LO COMPRENDE!

[ovr50]

I am hoping he meant the 4.4L  4.4L is 350/350 while the Ford is 355/350 that's identical...

But the 4.8L is 555/500 WOWZERS!

Not quite - the 4.4L V8 in the X5M and X6M are 555/500.

The 4.4L V8 in the new 7 Series is 400/4xx. Both are twin turboes. It is also in the 550iGT but have to check on the hp/tq there.

The 4.8L is being phased out AFAIK; but it is 350HP non-turboed. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

MKT Ecoboost

CAR AND DRIVER TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.4 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 25.7 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.6 sec @ 97 mph
Top speed (govonerlimited): 123 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 196 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 g

Curb Weight: 4,924 lbs (for AWD with EcoBoost)

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 16/22 mpg
C/D observed: 21 mpg

BMW X5 4.8i

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 293 cu in, 4799cc
Power (SAE net): 350 bhp @ 6300 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 350 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 115.5 in Length: 191.1 in Width: 76.1 in Height: 69.5 in
Curb weight: 5151 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.6 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.7 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 169 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 14/19 mpg
C/D-observed: 14 mpg

[wing]

I got all our info from our Buyer's Guide ... apparently it is wrong?  Info comes directly from BMW hmmmm we'll look into it.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/12/11/buyers-guide-2010-bmw-x5.htm/2

[wing]

I see the problem we have our specs backwards.

0-60 6.1s?  Damn it feels fast I guess it is!

[Sir Osis of Liver]

0-60 6.1s?  Damn it feels fast I guess it is!

Hard to believe something that big and heavy can move that quick.

[ptreb]

even if the 350HP are comparable, once you drive the BMW and the MKT - there are 2 worlds of a difference.
I doubt anybody would ever choose the Lincoln then. there is also a price difference I would say of 20grand or so (not sure, but I would assume).
I am trying to like the MKTs styling, but I can't get used to it.

i drive a Volvo XC90 T6, which has only 268HP, which is not enough put sports into the SUV, and to be honest my mileage is about 20mpg. I really dont know that I would ever consider the Lincoln, but I would the Beemer.

I would rather take the Q7 with 4.2 and 350HP to be honest - beautiful styling inside and out. awesome performance. in this limited luxury class I think Lincoln wont' play much of a factor. the interior is ok I think.

[ptreb]

did you guys notice the difference in braking
MKT - 196ft
BMW - 169ft

that is about 30ft difference. wow, shows you how much more fun the bmw would be to drive.

[rrocket]

did you guys notice the difference in braking
MKT - 196ft
BMW - 169ft

that is about 30ft difference. wow, shows you how much more fun the bmw would be to drive.

I suppose....if you're idea of "fun" is driving SUVs..

[Mitlov]

did you guys notice the difference in braking
MKT - 196ft
BMW - 169ft

that is about 30ft difference. wow, shows you how much more fun the bmw would be to drive.

I suppose....if you're idea of "fun" is driving SUVs..

...or better yet, braking from 60 mph to a dead stop in an SUV.  FEEL THE ADRENALINE!!!

[Sir Osis of Liver]

A recap is in order.

In response to someone saying that normally aspirated motors are more fuel efficient than turbo engines, I said this:

FYI the turbos are parallel not sequential, one per cylinder bank. They either both spool or neither are spooled. As far as its fuel consumption, It's better than that of the equally powerful, and equally heavy, normally aspirated BMW X5 4.8i.

This is what you said:

Osis, are you seriously comparing the 4.8liter V8 from a BMW to a 3.5L V6 from Ford? thats a completely different animal. the torque comparison will tell you a picture, the Beemer will drive circles around the Ford.
they may be equally heavy, but the Beemer is a different class and has 2 more cylinders.

I posted test figures that show that, no, the X5 won't in fact "drive circles around the Ford".

I was speaking about engine performance and fuel efficiency. The 3.5 litre Ford produces the same output and performance while using less fuel than the 4.8 litre X5.

The MKT is about $20k cheaper than the base X5, and the suspension setup is more plush than performance, so they do indeed have different modi operandi. That being said, some prefer plush, some prefer sport, while others simply chase badges.

[CanuckS2K]

While I am not particularly fond of the huge grille on the MKT (which I think works extremely well on the MKS), I would take the MKT's interior ANY DAY over that of the X5.  Never been a fan of BMW's spartan interiors.  Kudos to Ford/Lincoln for putting out some great vehicles lately. 

[CanuckS2K]

That being said, some prefer plush, some prefer sport, while others simply chase badges.

So true.