blazerdude20 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 http://www.insideline.com/lincoln/mkz/2013/2013-lincoln-mkz-to-start-at-36800.html The base 2013 Lincoln MKZ Premiere gets the 2.0-liter four-cylinder EcoBoost engine, Sync with MyLincoln Touch, leather-trimmed seats and first-row power seats. The top-of-the-line 2013 Lincoln Preferred with a retractable panoramic roof starts at $45,125, including shipping. It also gets 19-inch polished aluminum wheels, a heated steering wheel and a THX II premium audio system with 14 speakers. The 2013 Lincoln MKZ is $195 less than its closest Japanese competitor, the 2013 Lexus ES 350. The 2013 ES 350 starts at $36,995, including an $895 destination charge. Answers the question from the other thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) The top-of-the-line 2013 Lincoln Preferred with a retractable panoramic roof starts at $45,125, including shipping.It also gets 19-inch polished aluminum wheels, a heated steering wheel and a THX II premium audio system with 14 speakers. This sounds like a great package and like most here I;m very keen to see the reception this car gets... The new MKZ seems to offer just as much, if not more than both ATS and CTS and although not able to match CTS-V, I wonder about MKZ with a 3.5 Ecoboost and AWD... Edited July 24, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I wonder if Lincoln has a retractable hardtop option in the cards for MKZ in the near future? Yes, I know the new panoramic retractable roof panel is a nice option, but having another open roof option could be interesting. Think more Volvo C70 style.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I wonder if Lincoln has a retractable hardtop option in the cards for MKZ in the near future? Yes, I know the new panoramic retractable roof panel is a nice option, but having another open roof option could be interesting. Think more Volvo C70 style.... I doubt we'll see any 2-door variants in the cards for the MKZ or Fusion. More likely would be a wagon or hatch variant akin to what is offered in Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I doubt we'll see any 2-door variants in the cards for the MKZ or Fusion. why not think outside the box and do a 4 door convertible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 why not think outside the box and do a 4 door convertible? I really doubt the structure was designed for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Love that design, now that is one beautiful car. That color is fantastic too! Any word on other motors other than the EB2.0? 3.5L or 3.7L? Like another user posted, EB3.5L? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Any word on other motors other than the EB2.0? 3.5L or 3.7L? Like another user posted, EB3.5L? According to the build site, the three engines are the 2.0EB, D37, and 2.0 Hybrid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Love that design, now that is one beautiful car. That color is fantastic too! Any word on other motors other than the EB2.0? 3.5L or 3.7L? Like another user posted, EB3.5L? According to the build site, the three engines are the 2.0EB, D37, and 2.0 Hybrid. Apparently the 3.7 may not be long for the MKZ, with a third EB engine taking its place in the lineup, perhaps the EB2.7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 with a third EB engine taking its place in the lineup, perhaps the EB2.7? You mean fourth, right? 3.5L EB, 1.6L EB, 2.0L EB, 2.7L EB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Apparently the 3.7 may not be long for the MKZ, with a third EB engine taking its place in the lineup, perhaps the EB2.7? I see that the Lexus E350 gets 21/31mpg with its 268hp V6 to the MKZ's 22/33mpg I4 EB with 25 or less hp. Color me stupid, but I would rather have the V6 with its marginally worse mpg and smoother power with less vibration. Too bad you can't get the MKZ V6 for about same price as EB. And still not sure if Ford made mistake not offering V6 Fusion on SE and up trim models. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 You mean fourth, right? 3.5L EB, 1.6L EB, 2.0L EB, 2.7L EB? I haven't personally heard of an effort to get the EB3.5L in MKZ, though that's not to say it won't happen. I know there are Fusion ST mules fitted with that engine, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 And still not sure if Ford made mistake not offering V6 Fusion on SE and up trim models. Most of the mainstream midsized 4 door sedans have gone to 4 cylinders, I don't see a problem there. A V6 ST........sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I haven't personally heard of an effort to get the EB3.5L in MKZ, though that's not to say it won't happen. I know there are Fusion ST mules fitted with that engine, however. Oh. I thought you meant 3rd EB engine for Ford overall, that's why I listed the 1.6L EB from the Fusion. If you're talking about just for CD4 then it's the 3rd one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Oh. I thought you meant 3rd EB engine for Ford overall, that's why I listed the 1.6L EB from the Fusion. If you're talking about just for CD4 then it's the 3rd one. I apologize, I was discussing the CD4 program specifically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) I see that the Lexus E350 gets 21/31mpg with its 268hp V6 to the MKZ's 22/33mpg I4 EB with 25 or less hp. Color me stupid, but I would rather have the V6 with its marginally worse mpg and smoother power with less vibration. Too bad you can't get the MKZ V6 for about same price as EB. And still not sure if Ford made mistake not offering V6 Fusion on SE and up trim models. Unfortunately for the Lexus ES, you top out with the Camry's engine. And the Camry's Avalon's driving dynamics. (Edited to add: No official Fusion/MKZ numbers are out yet.) Unrelated, but any time I put in a ZIP code on Lexus' build-and-price site, it tells me that it's invalid. The only one that ever worked was one in Manhattan, NY. :shrug: Edited July 24, 2012 by papilgee4evaeva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 smoother power with less vibration. Citation needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Citation needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V6_engine Six-cylinder designs are also more suitable for larger displacement engines than four-cylinder ones because power strokes of pistons overlap. In a four-cylinder engine, only one piston is on a power stroke at any given time. Each piston comes to a complete stop and reverses direction before the next one starts its power stroke, which results in a gap between power strokes and noticeable vibrations. In a six-cylinder engine (other than odd-firing V6s), the next piston starts its power stroke 60° before the previous one finishes, which results in smoother delivery of power to the flywheel. In addition, because inertial forces are proportional to piston displacement, high-speed six-cylinder engines will suffer less stress and vibration per piston than an equal displacement engine with fewer cylinders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V6_engine V6 engines are naturally balanced. That is known. That doesn't, however, mean all I4's are inherently out of balance or more prone to noticable vibration than all V6's. In fact, most reviews I've seen have lauded the I4 EB's for their NVH characteristics. I want a specific citation saying that the 2.0 EB in the MKZ doesn't rev as smooth and vibrates more than the V6 in the ES350, which is FordBuyer's assertion. Edited July 24, 2012 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) V6 engines are not naturally balanced. Edited July 24, 2012 by RichardJensen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) It just means it takes a little more work to get a smooth I4 than it does to get a smooth V6 or I6. In the end it still comes down to execution. Edited July 24, 2012 by akirby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 And really, with the amount of sound deadening in vehicles these days, I doubt a typical driver operating under a typical RPM range, in a vehicle with a drive by wire throttle will notice any secondary vibrations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I guess the posters on here that own and drive an EB I4 and have lots of experience with V6 vehicles can tell us better if they are smooth and vibration free as their V6 that they may still own also. For example, if there is even slight vibration to inside rearview mirror that I always experienced in I4's. My last I4 was a 2006 Focus company car that I got brand new, and it had slight buzz in mirror and not near as smooth as my V6 Taurus. I know the newer I4's are counterbalanced better, but I don't know if they can completely compete with V power. If an EB 2.0 could give me 25% more fuel mileage than 3.5 V6, I would accept the trade-off, but unfortunately, the fuel mileage advantage is like 5-7% as in 21/31 to 22/33 and less hp. And Ford is confusing me by making EB 2.0 more expensive in Edge, Taurus, and Explorer, and now with MKZ luxury vehicle, all of a sudden V6 is the more costly, luxurious, faster engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 So you're basing your judgment on the notoriously poor NVH C170 Focus, and Ford's estimated mileage. Just so long as we're all clear on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I wonder if Lincoln has a retractable hardtop option in the cards for MKZ in the near future? Yes, I know the new panoramic retractable roof panel is a nice option, but having another open roof option could be interesting. Think more Volvo C70 style.... I doubt we'll see any 2-door variants in the cards for the MKZ or Fusion. More likely would be a wagon or hatch variant akin to what is offered in Europe. Just for argument's sake....an MKZ coupe rendering artandcolour did (I think he posted here for a short while) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.