brucelinc

My choice would be a Platinum extended cab (long box) with the 2.7 V6....a combination highly unlikely to be offered.

They paid me $38,500. They then certified the car and listed it for $40,995. I have no idea what they got for it but it wasn't on the lot for very long.

The Mustang folks reside at this location: https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/

I recently picked up this Certified 2018 F150 to replace my old 2001 Ranger. It is an XLT with 302a package, 2.7, Nav and towing package. At first the F150 seemed huge compared to the Ranger but it does become more manageable as I get more accustomed to it. It does take up a lot of garage space, though! I could never understand why anyone would want an F150 as a daily driver or commuting vehicle. I now understand a bit better. The ride, quiet and overall comfort is amazingly good considering the bulk. I still would have preferred a Ranger sized vehicle but I didn't want to wait for the new Ranger to become available. We will use the F150 for an upcoming move to another state....hauling and towing a trailer and my old Ranger lacked the capability that is needed. I am impressed with the little 2.7. It is smooth, quiet and surprisingly potent. As a long time Livernois Motorsports customer, I immediately obtained tunes for it...an 87-89 octane version and a 91-93 version. Since the dealer filled the 36 gallon tank with 87, I have loaded the 87-89 tune first. It really made a difference in terms of response, transmission behavior and overall performance. I look forward to running higher octane and the even stronger tune.

The flashdrive in the USB port is an excellent way to go. I don't use my phone for music. I just leave the flashdrive in the USB port all the time and access the songs or playlists by voice. It is a pretty simple process to rip the music from a CD and then copy it to the flashdrive. It works well with Ford's sync system as well as the I-Drive system in my BMW.

Same here. If I am going to replace my old Ranger, I need the bed length. I use my Ranger to haul things.

Adaptive cruise makes the original non-adaptive type seem incredibly crude and archaic.

Yes, and Vega was the recipient of that dubious award in 1971. Hence, my comparison.

Putting an LS on a 10 best Lincoln list is like putting a Vega on a 10 best Chevrolet list. If buyers could accept the shoddy quality, cheap interior, poor ride, Mitsubishi styling, terrible transmission behavior, sluggish performance combined with poor fuel mileage, they would find that the handling was good and the V8 was smooth when all coils were firing. My comments apply only to the early models. Maybe they improved a few things on later ones before they put it out of its misery.

LOL....Apparently, they have subscribed to the "big ugly-assed grill" syndrome that is plaguing the industry at the moment. Lincoln has an uncanny knack for making a fairly expensive vehicle look no more upscale than a low priced vehicle. It would also be nice if they could decide on some specific styling cues and be consistent with them as new models are introduced. Other upscale makes do a good job of that. Lincoln has been all over the place with grills, C-pillars, rear end treatments, etc.

I would have preferred to trade so I could save some money on sales tax. However, the BMW dealers really low-balled me on trade-in value. I advertised the car on Autotrader and other sites and every dealer in the Minneapolis area contacted me. I didn't get a single contact from an individual, though. I sold the car to the Lincoln dealer from whom I originally purchased it. They paid me $6000 more than the BMW dealer offered on trade. That more than made up for any tax savings.

I sold my Continental this week. Not that many people care about sedans anymore but the Conti was a very good one. If I were to write an exit interview after 5 years of ownership, I would say it met most of my expectations and exceeded a few. The 30 way massaging seats were excellent and the car was just extremely user friendly. The seats and ergonomics deserve an "A." While not exceptional, it would get a solid "B" in ride comfort, quietness and handling. Performance with the 3.0 would be more like a "B+" but was let down by the transmission calibration. I had corrected that with a tune but after returning to stock for the sale, it reminded me how acceleration was cut so drastically between shifts. As I have said many times, the Continental styling was conservatively bland and really doesn't make much of a statement. That was fine with me at all but it would not appeal to those looking to impress the neighbors. There are still some sedan buyers out there. A nice low mileage used Continental makes a very good buy in today's market....especially for those loyal to Ford products.

I have been seriously considering a BMW M550i to replace my Continental. They both have a 117 inch wheelbase and the BMW is just a bit shorter overall. The M550i has a 523 HP twin turbo V8 so it is quite a bit more potent than the Conti. I test drove one but it was not equipped as I would want. I was surprised and impressed with the ride comfort and quietness. It was a bit better than the Conti in those areas. The powerteam is also very impressive...refined, ultra smooth and quite potent. The seats are not quite as supportive or comfortable as those in the Lincoln and the rear seat is not as roomy. Material quality and fit/finish was very good....at least equal to the Lincoln and maybe a bit better in some areas. The instrument cluster is no more configurable than the Lincoln and that was a bit disappointing. It is OK but not exceptional....not nearly as good as a Mustang, for example. The 12 inch center screen is nice, though. If I could order one with the features I want and that are normally available, I would be very tempted. Unfortunately, with the chip shortage, some key items are not available. That is a deal breaker for now.

EPA rating for the 5.0 with the 10 speed is 24 MPG highway. Real world highway mileage is much better than that unless you are driving predominantly uphill or in 7th gear constantly. The 4 cylinder might beat it's highway number, too. I have no experience with those. The 15 MPG city number for the 5.0 sounds about right. I am a bit skeptical of the 21 MPG city rating for the 4 cylinder but, again, I have no experience with one.

I don't know what sort of driving you do but highway mileage for the 5.0 Mustang is actually quite good. However, if you are really considering Mustang GT, I would think fuel economy would be far down on the list of things you are looking for.