Lincoln Targets Gen X

[morgande]

Just because they didn't talk about it's handling in the edited, released version doesn't mean it didn't handle well....obviously it did something right to finish 2nd in that company of vehicles...

 

A car with a TTGDI and a flat torque curve of 350 lb-ft of torque should do quite well running up a mountain where the air is thin!

 

But how does it handle? What do the reviews say?

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/17/review-...uxury-with-a-d/

So is the MKS EcoBoost for you? If you desire a plush ride, strong acceleration and interior appointments that will make you feel coddled, the twin-turbo MKS is definitely worth a look. If you want sports car handling and a tight turning radius, look somewhere else.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/lincoln/mks/2010/review.html

When taken on a curvy road, the MKS's handling is a letdown, feeling dull and overly soft. Yet this softness doesn't translate into comfort, as the MKS is in fact rather firm-riding. It's the worst of both worlds -- rides like a sport sedan, handles like a boat

 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans...rive/specs.html

On Romeo's hilly handling circuit, the smooth, fast EcoBoost simply lulls you into thinking this is a sublime sport sedan. Take the left-hand sweeper at the top of the first hill, entering at 80 mph, and the front-end pushes, giving you benign, but tire-scrubbing understeer, while the bumpy pavement quickly finds the bump stops. There's a bit of wallow at high speeds, too.

 

The chassis is engineered well. It just isn't engineered to play along with the new powerplant.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09...the_gate_page_2

The changes don’t make the MKS ideal for assaulting sinewy canyon roads, but it does drive smaller than it is.

 

http://jalopnik.com/5253188/2010-lincoln-m...ost-first-drive

Toss it hard into a sweeping corner and accelerate, it's balanced with a hint of understeer, but while the tires aren't protesting the chassis is. It feels... unsettled. You feel as if you're about to oversteer even if the car's understeering.

...

We really wanted this car to be an 550i fighter, but it isn't. It's a very big car with a very bad-ass engine which doesn't quite tackle corners with the aplomb we'd like.

...

It tackles corners respectably and the brakes do their thing, but it doesn't feel right. The MKS is super fun in a straight line, and delightful in the corners to about 80%, but after that it gets spooky, and that final 20% is what makes legends. Which this MKS sadly isn't

 

http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/10/08/revie...-be-economical/

Handling in the MKS EcoBoost, which carries a curb weight if 4,276 lbs, falls short when compared to the Lexus GS and Audi A6 4.2 FSI, as its loose steering makes taking turns at higher speeds and arduous task. This can be overlooked however, when assessing the car against the Genesis 4.6 or the Cadillac STS V8.

[RichardJensen]

power ratio is never 100% to the rear.

Wrong. Up to 100% can be transferred to either axle.

 

http://media.ford.com/press_kit_pdf.cfm?press_id=5269

 

---

 

The reality is that the MKS will push to a certain extent due to the engine/transaxle placement ahead of the front axle, regardless of the torque distribution. It's a question of weight distribution not torque distribution.

[silvrsvt]

I am 32, I am Gen X, and I can afford a lincoln. Alot of my friends are driving BMWs and Audis.

 

But yet you drive an old 02 Focus still?

[morgande]

Wrong. Up to 100% can be transferred to either axle.

 

http://media.ford.com/press_kit_pdf.cfm?press_id=5269

 

---

 

The reality is that the MKS will push to a certain extent due to the engine/transaxle placement ahead of the front axle, regardless of the torque distribution. It's a question of weight distribution not torque distribution.

 

Weight distribution is not the only cause of the MKS tendency to understeer. Look at the design elements of Audi. They place their engines as far front as they can, well in front of the axle. And they don't have the level of understeer problems that the MKS does. If anything, they have even worst weight distribution than the MKS.

 

There are very few if not any mid-engine or perfect 50.50 balanced 4-door sedans on the market. They are front engine cars. And they have less understeer issues than the MKS. There are BIGGER and heavier cars than the MKS that perform more admirably. All have their engines in the same place. And in most cases, have bigger V8 with forced induction packaging than the smaller V6 in the MKS. They still perform better.

[NickF1011]

I have a friend who is 32 and barely squeaks into the Gen Y category, although I would associate her more with Gen X.

 

Yeah, I'm 32, but don't really associate myself with Gen X or Gen Y directly. I think most of that has to do with having two older siblings and one younger one, so I've always been hanging around a pretty broad age group.

[RichardJensen]

If anything, they have even worst weight distribution than the MKS.

:sigh: You have a link for this, of course.....

 

The MKS, and the MKS alone, has almost all of its powertrain ahead of the centerline of the front axle.

 

If you think this makes no difference whatsoever to driving dynamics, heaven forbid you ever decide to take a 60s 911 for a spin around a track.....

[TomServo92]

:sigh: You have a link for this, of course.....

 

The MKS, and the MKS alone, has almost all of its powertrain ahead of the centerline of the front axle.

 

If you think this makes no difference whatsoever to driving dynamics, heaven forbid you ever decide to take a 60s 911 for a spin around a track.....

 

Actually, he's right. From the Audi Wiki Page:

 

In all its post Volkswagen-era models, Audi has firmly refused to adopt the traditional rear-wheel drive layout favoured by its two arch rivals Mercedes-Benz and BMW, favouring either front-wheel drive or four-wheel drive. To achieve this, Audi has usually engineered its cars with a longitudinally front mounted engine, in an "overhung" position, over the front wheels – in front of the axle line. While this allows for the easy adoption of four-wheel drive, it goes against the ideal 50:50 weight distribution (as do all front wheel drive cars).

 

Now with that being said, some 2009 and 2010 Audis (not sure which models but I believe the A5 is one) have a revised transaxle that allows the engine to sit back behind the front wheels.

[morgande]

:sigh: You have a link for this, of course.....

 

The MKS, and the MKS alone, has almost all of its powertrain ahead of the centerline of the front axle.

 

If you think this makes no difference whatsoever to driving dynamics, heaven forbid you ever decide to take a 60s 911 for a spin around a track.....

 

Of course weight distribution maters. I'm not saying it doesn't play a factor. What I am arguing is:

 

1. The AWD system used in the MKS has not produced a single review from an automotive publication (online and/or print) that had high remarks.
   
2. The FWD bias of Fords AWD configuration hinders its handling performance.
   
3. The FWD bias of Fords AWD configuration is primary geared to reducing fuel consumption vs superiority of AWD handling.
   

 

In laymen terms: The Fords have AWD. They should perform better than they do, and they don't. So whats the hiccup? Weight? Or configuration? I argue configuration, because its something Ford is more in control over verses curb weight.

[Deanh]

Right now, the AUDI is probably superior in terms of high-performance handling. However, the future should be interesting if Ford goes to work on the Fusion. Time will tell. Maybe we'll get an SVT Fusion.

Gt is coming, SHO drivetrain....and apparently it FLIES....

[akirby]

Of course weight distribution maters. I'm not saying it doesn't play a factor. What I am arguing is:

 

1. The AWD system used in the MKS has not produced a single review from an automotive publication (online and/or print) that had high remarks.
   
2. The FWD bias of Fords AWD configuration hinders its handling performance.
   
3. The FWD bias of Fords AWD configuration is primary geared to reducing fuel consumption vs superiority of AWD handling.
   

 

In laymen terms: The Fords have AWD. They should perform better than they do, and they don't. So whats the hiccup? Weight? Or configuration? I argue configuration, because its something Ford is more in control over verses curb weight.

 

If you think torque distribution factors into handling more than weight distribution then you don't understand the laws of physics. Nose heavy cars naturally understeer. You can tune out some of that and if you have enough power to break the rear wheels loose you can change the understeer to oversteer but that doesn't make it handle better. 50/50 weight distribution is best and that is more easily achieved with a traditional longitudinal engine mount and rwd transmission.

 

If you are correct then why did Audi move the engine back in the S4 to get better weight distribution for better handling? The old S4 was 62/38 but the new one is 55/45. Why would they change it?

[RichardJensen]

They should perform better than they do, and they don't.

Right.

 

While we're shoulding, here's a should from me.

 

• Grocery stores should be organized alphabetically.
  

 

You can should all you want Morgan, it's just a waste of your time-----------unless you get some weird kick out of pretending you know more about engineering a car than the people that get paid to do so.

[RichardJensen]

Now with that being said, some 2009 and 2010 Audis (not sure which models but I believe the A5 is one) have a revised transaxle that allows the engine to sit back behind the front wheels.

1) A6 weight distribution is 56/44, MKS is 59/41.

 

2) Audis push. Everyone knows this--if allowances are made for them that aren't made for the MKS, that's on the reviewers, not on the car company itself.

 

Once you start pushing the S8, there's no escaping the fact it starts pushing, too.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/luxury...e_interior.html

 

However, it exhibits a tendency to understeer when it is pushed much harder in the corners. This is due to the car's weight distribution, which remains front-heavy as the platform of the 2009 A6 is virtually unchanged from the 2008 model and the engine is still positioned very far forward.

http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id...e7-c90ae510e0a6

 

As in the new Audi A5, the front differential and axles have moved forward 6.1 in., placing them ahead of the clutch and transmission. This layout effectively reduces front overhang and lengthens the wheelbase by 6.6 in. The result is less understeer-inducing nose weight and a smoother, more compliant ride.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...article_id=6290

 

Despite the allegedly superior "RWD bias", Audis push under the same circumstances as the MKS: When cornering near their limits. Why? Nose weight.

[morgande]

If you think torque distribution factors into handling more than weight distribution then you don't understand the laws of physics. Nose heavy cars naturally understeer. You can tune out some of that and if you have enough power to break the rear wheels loose you can change the understeer to oversteer but that doesn't make it handle better. 50/50 weight distribution is best and that is more easily achieved with a traditional longitudinal engine mount and rwd transmission.

 

If you are correct then why did Audi move the engine back in the S4 to get better weight distribution for better handling? The old S4 was 62/38 but the new one is 55/45. Why would they change it?

 

At 62%, who would blame Audi for making a few changes. I mean, damn its over 60%. DUH!!!!

 

So, since you swear the issue has everything to do with weight and nothing to do with its torque delivery, then please...show me another FWD biased AWD car that gets praise for its handling. Go ahead..I'll wait. But before I go, check this quote (on the Volvo S60r):

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/03...r_awd-road_test

On our 10Best handling loop, we experienced a lot of body movement, with the tail hopping around and wiggling like an excited pit bull. Spooky.

 

The tail would feel more planted if the Haldex all-wheel-drive system were set up for more rear torque bias. As it is—90/10 front to rear—the system performs very much like a front-drive car. Only under acceleration or when slippage occurs does the system transfer up to 50 percent of torque to the rear

 

Sounds an awful lot like the AWD system used in the MKS. Looks like it performs a lot like the AWD system in the MKS too (perhaps a bit better). Funny, don't remember hearing very high remarks about the Volvo S60Rs handling. Not anything bad per se, just nothing to write home about.

[Deanh]

At 62%, who would blame Audi for making a few changes. I mean, damn its over 60%. DUH!!!!

 

So, since you swear the issue has everything to do with weight and nothing to do with its torque delivery, then please...show me another FWD biased AWD car that gets praise for its handling. Go ahead..I'll wait. But before I go, check this quote (on the Volvo S60r):

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/03...r_awd-road_test

 

 

Sounds an awful lot like the AWD system used in the MKS. Looks like it performs a lot like the AWD system in the MKS too (perhaps a bit better). Funny, don't remember hearing very high remarks about the Volvo S60Rs handling. Not anything bad per se, just nothing to write home about.

Fords is NOT a Haldex...it WAS, past tense...and it can transmit 100 % to the rear........

[morgande]

Right.

 

While we're shoulding, here's a should from me.

 

• Grocery stores should be organized alphabetically.
  

 

You can should all you want Morgan, it's just a waste of your time-----------unless you get some weird kick out of pretending you know more about engineering a car than the people that get paid to do so.

 

Please RJ, can you come up with a better argument than that? I never said I knew more about automotive engineering than anyone. Please go back to my post and show me were I said that.

 

However, if Ford wanted to, they could build a much better MKS (Taurus SHO) than what is on the market right now. And it doesn't take rocket science to figure out how:

 

1. Move the battery to the trunk. Both cars have ample room back there, and it will help with weigh distribution (yes I never said there wasn't a problem with weight distribution)

 

2. Eliminate FWD bias. Or provide an override so that the bias can either be RWD or eliminated at 50/50 altogether. Since everything is electronic, its simply a mater of interpreting the feedback from the various sensors that exist now. This shouldn't be something that would require an entirely new engineering effort (at least I dont think so).

 

3. Replace the dampeners with a set of electronic ones. And move from coils to air springs. That way, the driver isn't stuck with Lincoln-like ride (soft and under-sprung) when they don't want it, or something too stiff when they don't want that either.

 

4. Easy(er) way to disable traction control. Something that goes along with #3.

[morgande]

Fords is NOT a Haldex...it WAS, past tense...and it can transmit 100 % to the rear........

 

News Flash, I didn't say it was. i said its a lot LIKE the haldex, because it is!. With a few slight differences. I'd argue that Ford simply re-engineered the existing Haldex and made their own slight changes to it. But there are more similarities than differences.

[TomServo92]

So, since you swear the issue has everything to do with weight and nothing to do with its torque delivery, then please...show me another FWD biased AWD car that gets praise for its handling. Go ahead..I'll wait.

 

I guess it depends on how much you believe Edmunds, but here's a quote from their review of the Acura RL with SH-AWD:

 

The SH-AWD system in the 2009 Acura RL works transparently but very effectively to maintain traction under the worst of circumstances and, along with the newly firmed-up suspension, provide cornering abilities that are more "sports car" than "luxury sedan." Acura's flagship sedan offers a nice balance between a cushy ride and competent handling and, as a result, makes an excellent everyday luxury sport sedan.

 

Source

 

Car and Drivers comments:

 

As before, the RL’s niftiest gizmo is its Super Handling All-Wheel Drive, which selectively overspeeds outside wheels to induce yaw and create the impression of livelier steering. It works, keeping the RL near the top of our handling charts.

 

Source

[akirby]

Please RJ, can you come up with a better argument than that? I never said I knew more about automotive engineering than anyone. Please go back to my post and show me were I said that.

 

However, if Ford wanted to, they could build a much better MKS (Taurus SHO) than what is on the market right now. And it doesn't take rocket science to figure out how:

 

1. Move the battery to the trunk. Both cars have ample room back there, and it will help with weigh distribution (yes I never said there wasn't a problem with weight distribution)

 

2. Eliminate FWD bias. Or provide an override so that the bias can either be RWD or eliminated at 50/50 altogether. Since everything is electronic, its simply a mater of interpreting the feedback from the various sensors that exist now. This shouldn't be something that would require an entirely new engineering effort (at least I dont think so).

 

3. Replace the dampeners with a set of electronic ones. And move from coils to air springs. That way, the driver isn't stuck with Lincoln-like ride (soft and under-sprung) when they don't want it, or something too stiff when they don't want that either.

 

4. Easy(er) way to disable traction control. Something that goes along with #3.

 

Go read the quotes about the Audis that Richard posted. Then explain why the superior Audi AWD system can't overcome the understeer caused by poor F/R weight distribution. We'll be waiting........

[RichardJensen]

News Flash, I didn't say it was. i said its a lot LIKE the haldex, because it is!. With a few slight differences. I'd argue that Ford simply re-engineered the existing Haldex and made their own slight changes to it. But there are more similarities than differences.

You don't know how the Ford AWD system works at all, do you?

 

Well, allow someone who does to enlighten you:

 

Ford's "Intelligent AWD" system is the second generation of the ControlTrac AWD system developed by Ford & Borg-Warner. IT IS NOT MADE BY, DERIVED FROM, OR RELATED TO THE HALDEX SYSTEM.

 

It DOES NOT use a center differential, therefore it CANNOT be run full time.

 

http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/def_turnfull.html

Edited October 20, 2009 by RichardJensen

[akirby]

I guess it depends on how much you believe Edmunds, but here's a quote from their review of the Acura RL with SH-AWD:

 

That's not F/R torque - that's side to side torque transfer. Overdriving the outside wheels in a turn will definitely change the handling but that's not the question here.

 

A nose heavy RWD car will understeer just like a nose heavy FWD or FWD/AWD car. It's simply physics.

 

Could Lincoln make the MKS handle better? Sure, if they wanted to sacrifice ride quality for pure performance.

Would sending 100% of the torque to the rear wheels or splitting it 50/50 full time make it handle better? Nope.

[RichardJensen]

Or Ford could add significantly to the cost of the platform in an effort to please those who cannot be pleased.

 

---

 

Actually, I do agree with Morgan about an adaptive suspension of some sort---that's a minimal investment/high return undertaking.

Edited October 20, 2009 by RichardJensen

[TomServo92]

That's not F/R torque - that's side to side torque transfer. Overdriving the outside wheels in a turn will definitely change the handling but that's not the question here.

 

A nose heavy RWD car will understeer just like a nose heavy FWD or FWD/AWD car. It's simply physics.

 

Could Lincoln make the MKS handle better? Sure, if they wanted to sacrifice ride quality for pure performance.

Would sending 100% of the torque to the rear wheels or splitting it 50/50 full time make it handle better? Nope.

 

He asked for one FWD-based AWD car that was praised for it's handling. I gave him one.

[rmc523]

Could Lincoln make the MKS handle better? Sure, if they wanted to sacrifice ride quality for pure performance.

Would sending 100% of the torque to the rear wheels or splitting it 50/50 full time make it handle better? Nope.

 

Then all the reviewers would complain that "while it handles rather well, the ride is not very smooth - surely not what one would expect from a Lincoln."

[Deanh]

Or Ford could add significantly to the cost of the platform in an effort to please those who cannot be pleased.

 

---

 

Actually, I do agree with Morgan about an adaptive suspension of some sort---that's a minimal investment/high return undertaking.

my bet is when the Taurus gos to a global platform things ( frt rear bias ) will improve, which can only improve things, and hopefully, ever esculating curb weights also get adressed....just me?, but it seems to be getting out of hand....I realize the design by commitee ( safety, insurance greenies etc etc ) can be ( literally ) fingered as responsible, but.........

[RichardJensen]

Mondeo's got pretty significant front weight bias as well.

 

It's not like the laws of physics and the necessities of packaging are suspended in Europe.