V8-X

Love seeing the Ford and the Taurus come out on top. But, is a 0.38 second difference that significant to the officers or or the depts. purchasing the vehicle? Will that time difference really come into play when it's time to get new units? Personally, the big difference I see, more so than the 0.38 quicker time, is simply the AWD that the others don't offer. Of course the AWD plays into the 0.38 quicker time, but would believe the AWD for those depts that patrol in snow/rain/ice will make a larger difference in the vehicle they purchase. Great bragging rights for Ford either way.

Now that is hot and a good mix of Evo and Mustang. Think this may be one of if not the best rendering of the new Stang that I've seen. Just wonder how it'd look with door handles, badges and stock wheels.

Agreed! As I stated in my original post, I wasn't feeling the design but was willing to wait for the camo to be removed before final judgement.

Whatever man... Stating "I see too much resemblence to the Escape for my taste" is stating the same as "It isn't differentiated enough from the Escape, in my opinion". Both state exactly the same exact thing. From my perspective, for my taste, from my opinion, are stating the same exact thing. Both statements are based on opinions, biases and personal likes/dislikes. Nothing in either statement shows that this is the belief of others. Again, read what has been written, not try to over analyze the statement and try to interpret unstated intent. So stating "my hopes for Lincoln", which again is my belief and opinion and not that of anyone else, somehow turns it into an object response? Sorry man, had I stated something along the lines of "this will hurt Lincoln" or "this will not help Lincoln sales" or "the KMC design will not improve Lincolns portfolio", that would be completely different. My hopes are different than yours. My hopes are different than the markets. My hopes are different than Lincolns. My hopes were intrigued and rose based on the MKZ style. From what I've seen so far of the MKC, this has decreased my hopes (again my personal belief) of the style direction that Lincoln is taking. You can disagree, you may love this design and think it's sending Lincoln in the right direct, more power to you. But because you have a different view, doesn't change my thoughts and my hopes into an objective item. It's again been stated out of personal opinion. Nothing I've stated has been put out as fact, just my personal feelings. But guess I'll have to send all my comments to one of our English professors prior to posting. You know I truly want to ensure any statements I make where people may disagree with doesn't offend their personal beliefs. You know cause their thoughts and beliefs mean so much more to me than my own.

Maybe one of the only individuals here yes. Maybe go visit other forums or the autoblog site and you'll see I am not the only individual who has stated such. Think the size of vehicle and grille kind of gives away the product, so don't think most people would mistake what brand or model this would be. Totally disagree. But must say, the Rav4 is actually uglier in person than in pics, IMO. You can feel however you like about the subject. I've provided areas where the similarities are evident to me, whether you want to agree or disagree, that is your right. Plenty of users on other sites share my feelings, BOF is not the end all be all of forums and is not the final authority on the truth. Again, you disagree, great I'm glad you have your own opinion and thoughts of the vehicle. I have mine and whether you want to accept my comments or not, is again your prerogative and we know where you stand. But just know where I stand. And even though I may see similarities between the products, doesn't mean this is a bad product and won't sale. It's just not as appealing as the concept (which is typical for most vehicles regardless of brand) or I was hoping for. The MKZ was and amazingly designed product, IMO. This doesn't have nearly the same impressions, IMO.

Exactly where did I say it was acceptable for other brands to do it? Where did I say it was not okay for Ford to do it? My simple opinion based post was that I didn't find the MKC overly attractive and saw some similarities to the Escape. I do not know why this has blown into such a bigger issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with platform sharing. It got to where it is because I said I didn't like it overall and saw commonality between the two.

I understand that, was simply using this as a point. He stated no one would know the MKC and Escape are on the same platform unless they knew it before hand. I was using those two products (MKZ/Fusion) as an example, as my father in law saw the MKZ when the Escape he's driving was at the dealer. He could see the similarities between the MKZ and Fusion from the get go. So not knowing they were the same platform prior, he could tell they had a lot in common. And being he drives the 2013 Escape now and will be getting a 2014 soon, I'd venture to guess he'd notice the commonality in overall shape between the MKC and Escape too. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to rationalize that if Chevy and Buick mid-size vehicle, with area's of commonality, that they may be sharing underpinnings. Is it true 100% of the time, no. But it is a fairly accurate assumption to make knowing how much platform sharing manufacturers do these day across their brands.

Someone thinking no one will mistake the two, which is their opinion, is okay. But me believing a particular section based on similar styling cues, which is my opinion, whether you agree or disagree, is not okay? Okay, so because I'm not a fan of CUV's, and because I believe too many of them share similar styling aspects, whether it be a CR-V, Rav4, Sportage or whatnot means I can't comment on the subject? Evidence? And aren't most comments being made currently subjective and opinions based on personal views? I think said area looks X way, you disagree and believe it looks Y way. Until we compare site to side, no camo and final products, aren't any statements being made simply opinion based on what we can/can't see as of now? So when I provided my comments regarding the two semi-profile pics of the MKC and Escape, what exact evidence am I supposed to provide? I provided my comments based on my view point of looking at those two pictures. If you or anyone else see it differently, I'm not trying to say or prove you wrong, just saying this is what I see and where I believe the likeness elements exist. Why is it so hard to simply disagree with me if you don't see what I see, instead of to bulldoze me in an attempt to try an prove me wrong?

Par for the course. If they don't believe in your view, they are a negatard, and evidently you know every single poster to know none of them like platform sharing. And wow, my father in law must be simply amazing, cause he knew the MKZ and Fusion were siblings without anyone ever telling him. While I agree, many may not see resemblance nor know they share a platform, I have no doubt there are plenty of people out there who will know they share platforms or look similar too.

Hmm, if we refer to my original post in this thread, I stated cab (greenhouse) design share resemblance to the Escape, that was it. Read through the thread and plenty of people stated in a nut shell "no one will mistake this for an Escape". So my reference is critiquing, but them saying no one will mistake the two (MKC/Escape) isn't critiquing? Sounds like critiquing to me. Who brought up the fenders comment? Believe it was Nick and I simply replied to his comment on the fenders. (Sorry Nick if you weren't the one who initially posted the fender comment.) Yup, none of those quotes below were critiquing. My ability to understand is just fine. If you believe I have a problem with understanding, that's actually your problem not mine.

As do you and others conclusions who state they don't share resemblance. Check the comments on the autoblog page, plenty of people there believe there isn't enough differentiation between the two products. So clearly I am not the only one who believes this. Again, lets just agree to disagree. You like the product and think they look nothing alike. Me, I'm not to fond of the MKC and think it shares quite a bit of resemblance. Clearly I'm not changing your mind, and you aren't changing mine. Agreed?

Okay whatever, you're right, they look absolutely nothing alike. Nothing about the MKC would tell you it's related to the Escape. Heck, you'd think one was built by Mercedes and the other by Fiat they are so dissimilar.

If it has nothing to do with the platform, why are there similarties? Why is the basic style of the MKZ and Fusion similar? Differences between all four, as there is with any vehicles that shares platforms (Toyota/Lexus, Chevy/Buick, etc). But just like there are differences, because they share platforms there are bound to be many similarities too. I also understand the Flex, MKT and Explorer share platforms, and you can tell Ford invested a lot into making each extremely unique. Personally, love the Flex design, Explorer is okay, and the MKT style is horrible. Do I now have to prove why I believe the MKT is ugly and why the Explorer is just okay? We know if someone loves a Ford design here they don't have to provide reasons as to why, so guess I don't need to comment on the Flex style since I like it. I never stated the door openings have to be unique. It was Nick who brought up that aspect and I was simply replying to his post and comments. Where did I ever say they had to be different? You should be asking Nick why he brought up this particular aspect not me. If you believe the design differences are worth the price, great go buy one. As stated in my posts, these are MY OPINIONS and people may defer from them. Never stated my opinion was the end all be all. You ask me why I like/dislike, I'll provide a basic reply as to why. While I'm not forcing anyone into agreeing with my point of view on this vehicle or any other vehicle, I'm just providing my impressions is all. Why are so many people so inclined in trying to force me to like the vehicle or agree with their opinion? RJ: I do not need to go into detail. You are smart enough to know what is meant by these statements. Look at the vehicles and you'll see, I shouldn't have to go into detail to defend my view in essay form. Does anyone here have to go into great detail to prove why they like a Ford product, um nope. You got it, I'm a dolt and have absolutely no understanding of what those terms mean. But hey, at least give me kudos for using them in the right context. Funny, had any someone stated such a comment to you, I'm inclined to believe you'd take offense to such and warn them of a ban. So please don't try to undermine my intelligence if you don't appreciate such remarks in return. Exactly how does trying to insult me improve the conversation of the thread? So now I'm critiquing design, because I've pointed out a few areas I believe to resemble the Escape. Why aren't you now asking the people who like the design and don't believe there to be any resemblance why they believe this? Because you know they too are critiquing the design, right? Or is it because you agree with their opinion, so they don't have to provide any basis for their position. But because I simply disagree, I must provide every single minute detail and write a thesis on why I believe this.

As stated, yes there has been similar styles in the past, and thanks for providing one example. How exactly does this prove they used similar styles more frequently then than they do now again?

And I understand when sharing platforms, there is only so much that can be done. Of course I wouldn't want something Juke like, even though other than the front clip, I do like the rest of the vehicle design. My comment is if we were basing a purchase on style and appearance ALONE, I do not see enough in the MKC to warrant it's price difference. But do know, there will be much more under the skin to distinguish the two vehicles. My comments are purely based on the style, nothing else. Sure a slight difference in fender design, which is to be expected and as I stated in my original post, there has been sheet metal changes. Still too similar in my view. From these angles, it appears the A, B and C pillars are all the same or nearly identical. The only pillar that looks substantially different is the D. But will admit, C might be changed as it looks more sloped, but again could be due to the differences in angles that these pics are taken from. Door openings all look the same or nearly identical, except for the rear portion of the rear door, which may be slightly different due to the slight difference in the C pillar design. There is uniqueness in the portion from the C pillar back, but same design theme with a slight tweak to the sheet metal. Too much similarity in the windshield rake, simply do not see what you speak of. You are right, there are items they don't share. But overall the small adjustments made don't do enough to distinguish it from the Escape. Again, just my point of view. If you see it different, that's fine, that's your opinion. So I'll simply agree to disagree. And again, will wait to see the un-camo'd production version to make a final decision on the design, but as of right now, I don't see enough.

RJ: I'm a fan of new and old styles. I can tell the difference between old/new rides based on design elements each brand incorporates into their vehicles. And will agree that older models shared similar designs here/there, but they were still much less frequent in my view than today's vehicles. Today manufacturers too often copy cat the high selling design elements from others at a higher rate than they ever appeared to in the past. I totally understand why this is done, as sales, profits and volume of units moved is key, so why not copy cat right? To me and again this is just my opinion, when certain design elements aren't attractive and all manufacturers implement such key elements into their design because other vehicles with said design are selling at high rates, it brings down the appeal factor for that segment. Not saying others don't like these designs or believe they look alike, this is just my point of view is all. I love new vehicles, for one I especially like the Ford Atlas concept. I like the MKZ style. I like the Fusion front clip, but not too fond of the profile or rear design. Personally something about the MKZ profile is much more desirable to me than the Fusion profile. Each are quite unique in their appearance. My comment was simply that certain segments, such as the small CUV, here is simply too much similarities across brands. Other than the obvious (fascia, tail lamps, rims, luggage rack, antenna) the only distinguishable differences in my view are the design/slop of the rear windshield & spoiler, and what appears to be a more pronounced power dome type hood on the MKC. Which from this angle (which may be playing tricks on my eyes) I do like the MKC's more pronounced hood, as I have always said, I think the front profile design of the Escape looks too low and car like in comparison to the high cab design. Always thought it looked like a car front end (Focus) thrown onto a CUV, and the cohesiveness of these two elements just didn't mesh too well. I agree, there are is uniqueness between the two designs, but see more similarities than I do differences.

Me personally, I'm not a CUV fan what so ever. To me, too many of the design elements are copy cat of other makes/models and not enough uniqueness between them. If I had to choose a smaller 4-door 5-passenger CUV/SUV, I'd choose something along the lines of the Xterra or newer (2013/2014) Subaru Forester or even the upcoming 2014 Rogue. The vehicles in this segment typically aren't my style or to my liking. But will say we recently purchased the wife a 2013 Rogue. That is her vehicle not mine, and she liked the Rogue design and drive more than the CX5 and Escape. The only area she really did like the Escape more was the 2.0LEB's power. She really liked the upcoming 2014 Rogue, as do I, but she was unwilling to wait for it to hit showrooms.

I'm sure there is plenty more to the redesign than this. But as for this rendering, I somewhat like the style from about mid-hood to tail. Probably because it looks so similar to the current model. Now will say I dislike the look from mid-hood to front bumper. That front clip and hood detail doesn't look so nice.

Little less camo, and still not impressed, but to be fair I'll wait for the final production version before final judgement is made. So no one gets this wrong, these comments are MY OPINION. From what I can see now it's okay, but other than the grille/headlights, it doesn't appear it'll stand out from the rest of the CUV crowd. The cabin (greenhouse) does have an Escape resemblance, while most the rest of the sheet metal looks unique. Like most the comments on the autoblog page, this isn't exciting nor wants me to book an order. To each their own I guess. If you like it, great go support Ford. For me, this does nothing for me or my hopes of Lincoln. Again these are simply my personal opinions, not saying they are fact. Just don't want those certain special individuals to take my comments out of context or get offended because they thought I was implying my opinion was a fact.

Most 2.0L EB Fusion reviews I've seen have the FWD version in the high 6 sec range, while the AWD versions are in the mid 7 sec range. And those were times listed on premium fuel. From what I can find, the old 3.0L was was in the low 7 sec range, and the 3.5L was in the mid 6 sec range.

Tied for best on EPA MPG ratings sure. But when tested, which I'm sure all vehicles in the study were tested in exactly the same manner, regardless of your "As tested how exactly" quote, the Fusion showed to be the slowest and least efficient. Sure, maybe that 26mpgs is reached when hyper milling, which is nice and equal to two of the competitors. But we'll assume the above numbers were reached when having a heavy right foot. Using that basis, this shows the Fusion brings up the rear in the performance aspect, and when trying to do anything performance related, the Fusion also brings up the rear in mpgs too. You'd hope if the Fusion was bringing up the rear on the 0-60 times, it'd at least get equal or better mpgs as the rest of the crowd. Sadly, it was on the back end of both results.

Or the people replying should read what's being typed, not making assumptions or taking comments out of context. But that would be too easy and then others wouldn't have things to bicker over instead of taking the comments for face value and moving on. This I could totally agree with. But knowing our society, they will expect these systems to replace their lack of driving skills, rather than assist their driving. Personally no. Wouldn't matter who makes it IMO.

And I never said this feature (parking spot finder) was a need. I did say if the person needs parking assist, they shouldn't be driving. Personal opinion there, being if a person can't park your car, I believe you should take the bus, taxi, bike or walk. Too bad drivers aren't required to taking driving school and education classes before they get behind the wheel or the keys. I understand it's a convenience item, but an item to conveniently make people more lazy, IMO. Heated seats is a convenience, but it's nice to have a warm tush, not about being lazy. Same with a stereo, doesn't make you lazy, just makes the ride more enjoyable. Navi helps find directions, which I guess could be considered a lazy feature, since most men won't get out and ask for directions. Never stated Ford or any automaker shouldn't offer it. Like stated early, I totally understand if people will pay and Ford can make money off it, they will offer it. But I simply view this as another feature to dumb down our lazy drivers. If you can't park your car or can't locate a parking spot, should you really be driving? Again just my thoughts, as now people get to pay even less attention to the road since the car will park and find their spots for them. If Ford makes money, more power to them. I'm the same way, always back aisle or two when in the truck. But don't you always find that even though there are plenty of spots up front and you are the only vehicle in the back when you park, it's inevitable that some POS deliberately parks next to you? So you're okay with auto's bringing down peoples common sense and logical rational even more, so the car itself has to tell them whether or not the spot is big enough? To me, and again just my simple opinion. If you can't decipher whether or not a parking spot is big enough for your vehicle, you should not be behind the wheel. Guess that's the biggest issue I have with so many automotive so called convenience features these days. It's making it "convenient" for the drivers to lack all common sense, responsibility or basic driving skills because the car is now doing everything for them so they can put on their mascara, play with their smartphone, etc.

Steering, Windows, Brakes, Mirrors and Seat could all be seen just as much an assistance and safety feature of driving as they can for accommodating for laziness. PS and PB surely helped make the vehicle easier to drive, big safety feature. Have you seen those people swerving and reaching down/over to attempt to adjust their seat, roll-down their crank windows or adjust their passenger mirror? Agree, they should have adjusted these items prior to hitting the road. But having the feature at the flip of a switch makes all safer. And I agree, parking assist can be seen as a convenience and safety feature, so people aren't running into others when parking. But parking is a basic driving element you should have to exhibit during your drivers test. If you need a system to assist you, personally I don't think you should be driving, since every time you travel in a car you'll inevitably need to park it. What exact purpose does the parking spot finder play in driving safety? Other than finding the closest spot to wal-mart on black Friday so you don't hurt your back when carrying out all those gifts for the family?

And as stated, these problems aren't concerning me right now, as the MKZ is the gotta have it product. The concern is, will these owners re-up or purchase another Lincoln product when it's time to, especially if they've dealt with many of the various reported fit/finish/quality issues? Again selling one vehicle, that's nice. Selling a person multiple vehicles or turning them into a lifetime Lincoln buyers is something totally different.