akirby

That's one of the few cars I've seen that look good with black wheels. Nice!

You're not wrong about what buyers want or that a regular cab is cheaper to make. What you're not understanding is that these super cheap models don't make very much money for the mfrs. in some cases they take sales away from more expensive models. They may also force the mfr to lower the price of higher trims or add incentives which further reduces profit. It takes a certain investment just to offer a regular cab - different wheelbase at least. Crash testing. Etc. if you're looking at profits instead of sales then it may not make sense to make a cheap regular cab version. More sales are not always better.

So what happens to the 2.0L? You don't need both - they're too close in power. So now you only have one small EB engine for both ford and Lincoln. Why didn't they make the 2.0 a 2.3 from the beginning? Why did Lincoln say that the engine was developed for them? I could be totally wrong and if you were only looking at ford without Lincoln it makes sense. But with Lincoln it makes more sense to me to keep the 2.0L for Ford and the 2.3 for Lincoln just like the 3.5/3.7 is today. You can still use the 2.3 for a ST fusion or mustang.

Yes, I was quoting the non-pip version from Wikipedia. I did not scroll down to see the pip version. I did NOT make up anything as somebody suggested. I drove a non pip fusion 3.0L for 7 years.

THIS ^^^^ I don't expect the Escape to get the 2.3L from the MKC. I wouldn't expect the Fusion to get the 2.3L if the MKZ gets it. Lincoln NEEDS this to more fully separate itself from Ford. Not just for perception's sake but also for performance in general and to be more competitive.

I give up. Ford should just use the same engine everywhere. That will simplify things.

But as the base engine, not as the top engine. 2.0L - top engine in Fusion and Escape, Base engine in MKC and MKZ.

I'm not saying the 2.3L is expensive or couldn't be used by Ford versions. But I see Lincoln wanting to differentiate itself from Ford cousins as much as possible and letting Ford keep the 2.0L as the top engine. If you use the 2.3L everywhere including Fusion, Escape, Edge, Explorer, etc. then you need some other exclusive engine for Lincoln. I'm thinking you have this for Ford: 1.5L EB 2.0L EB 3.5L V6 And this for Lincoln: 2.0L EB 2.3L EB (MKC) 2.3L EB 3.7L V6 (MKZ) Not sure where the 2.7L Nano fits in especially if it's NA. It also sounded like the 2.3L was created for Lincoln specifically.

IF Ford gets the 2.3L across the board to replace the 2.0L - what does Lincoln use?

The 3.0 Duratec was 221 hp/ 208 lb/ft. The 2.0L EB is 240 hp/ 270 lb/ft. The 3.5L V6 is 285 hp/ 253 lb/ft. It's a lot closer to the 3.5L than the 3.0L with more torque than both. I see the 2.0L remaining as the Ford replacement for the 3.5L and the 2.3L as the Lincoln replacement for the 3.7L (not counting mustang and f150) even if they're slightly down on 0-60 performance. I don't see the 2.3L being used in Ford FWD applications outside of special applications (SVT/ST e.g.).

so we crashed the gate doing 98 and said "let them truckers roll, 10-4"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting-brake

Every time I hear cab-over all I hear in my head is "cab over pete with a reefer on a jimmy hauling hogs"..........

Sorry but that looks just as hideous as every other "shooting brake" out there to me. Although not nearly as bad as this one:

No reason not to continue with the 3.5L V6 at least as an option. Lincoln can continue with the 3.7L. Similarly I'd expect it to continue with the 2.0L and leave the 2.3L for the MKC/MKX.

If by "kicked themselves in the nuts" you mean they "declined to build a cheap version that would negatively impact profits and would only appeal to a few cheap buyers" and instead chose to build versions that more people want to buy for more money and more profit - I agree.

The EBs produce more torque at a lower RPM while the NA engines produce more HP. Is the 2.0EB in the Edge that much slower than the 3.5?

The Edge is too heavy for anything less than a 2.0L EB. And the 2.0L EB is the 3.5L NA replacement, not the 2.3L EB. The 2.3L is the 3.7L equivalent.

For normal dirt and dust, light colors show it the least including white and silver. You can't see it on white unless you get up close. Whereas a dark color will show even the slightest bit of dust and dirt. It has to do with absorption of light versus reflection of light. Black absorbs light so you see the dust. White reflects it and the dust gets lost in the reflected light. You may even have to touch it to see the dust. Of course mud will show on anything especially white or silver, but I was talking about normal dust and dirt, not mud.

White cars show dirt the least.

Pretty much any porsche and some MBs for sure.

No, they don't and that's my major gripe. I've always thought they should bring back Continental. Aviator is a no-brainer. Navigator never left. I'm ok with Zephyr not for its historical significance but because it sounds better than MKZ. I've also thought they had more new vehicles coming. I wonder if there could be a Focus based sedan/hb/wagon slotted below the Zeph....err...MKZ. I heard someone mention something about a new product at MAP that they couldn't discuss. A mustang based coupe and convertible would be nice, too, but I think a RWD sedan would be a stretch. And there is the persistent rumor of a GT like supercar to take on the Italians.

Duh.

Having owned both, I don't think that's the case. The Edge has much more room than the LS.

Full width taillights???