Don't Read this review of the 2013 Lincoln MKZ

[Anthony]

No seriously, don't.

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/07/capsule-review-2013-lincoln-mkz/

 

Well, don't say I didn't warn you. TTAC strikes again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Didn't I tell you not to read it?

[Anthony]

tl;dr He absolutely hated the car as if it were the worst thing ever produced by any automaker....but yet gave surprisingly few reasons why.

[RichardJensen]

I'm willing to take your summary and Edward Gibbon's advice to skip over this as it "furnishes neither amusement nor useful information"

[Anthony]

I'm willing to take your summary and Edward Gibbon's advice to skip over this as it "furnishes neither amusement nor useful information"

 

 

Good call. In my best old man on a lawn voice, "It's malarky".

[Hugh]

This is the same guy who thinks Lincolns should be the 2002 Continental concept and the whole vapourware argument: “Just build it and people will buy it.” I’m glad you don’t run my company. You think the cast of Entourage in a ’61 convertible is the business case for Lincoln? F$&% Off!

 

Now, having a faulty falling apart (relative) demo is interesting where the supplier should have known better and corrected this issue. I would have considered that if I was having this car represent my company. Or if I hold this reviewer in such contempt, why give him ammunition?

 

The large sunroof has been noted to cut visibility when deployed. Keep that in mind and Lincoln made the right choice to have it available. It different and gets people into the shops. You can’t Out-Euro/Asian and expect to win again, old news. It’s a luxury show-off piece and I’d buy it just for that. Just me though.

 

Summer Sport tires on a demo. Of course they will have the top-end for review. So do the other companies. You review lesser trims over time and if the numbers are middle of the pack, so F&$%ing what? You have the emotional fallacy of “Not good enough”. It meets and beats the competition and where it is last place is still academic at best. It has to have what 400hp, 40MPG for 40K? Get bent!

 

Now, this picking the pepper out of the fly s#%& is common to reviewers and hating Ford is fine. However, the reviews from others are mixed and overall positive so this review is above the others because it’s the “Truth”? I call BS because TTAC is not all that. The contributors behave like self-righteous, effete snobs. If I grant one thing, Lincoln should never have provided that car in that condition. That is a show-stopper right there. TTAC has given favourable reviews to Fusion, Mustang, F-150 hell even last–gen MKZ was ‘not bad’.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Hugh

[2005Explorer]

tl;dr He absolutely hated the car as if it were the worst thing ever produced by any automaker....but yet gave surprisingly few reasons why.

I agree it sounded like it was the worse car he ever drove. The only thing that I don't understand is why Ford delivered this car to him to review with a broken fuel door. That isn't the first impression you want to give to someone reviewing you car.

[fordmantpw]

I agree it sounded like it was the worse car he ever drove. The only thing that I don't understand is why Ford delivered this car to him to review with a broken fuel door. That isn't the first impression you want to give to someone reviewing you car.

 

I'm sure it was a press car, probably been through the ringer 100 times.

[2005Explorer]

I'm sure it was a press car, probably been through the ringer 100 times.

Your probably correct, but in the future they probably want to go over it carefully before they deliver it to another person to review. I know a minor thing, but when you are presenting your latest high dollar luxury car you do want it to appear perfect.

[fordmantpw]

Your probably correct, but in the future they probably want to go over it carefully before they deliver it to another person to review. I know a minor thing, but when you are presenting your latest high dollar luxury car you do want it to appear perfect.

 

Look at several of the latest reviews for Ford products. MT got an Explorer that was falling apart, and several others had issues. I agree with you to a certain extent, but Ford has more important things to do that making sure their press cars are in tip top shape. Because, you know, each reviewer will beat the crap out of it so Ford can fix it again.

 

With that being said, a fuel door should have been a relatively quick and cheap fix.

[Anthony]

Look at several of the latest reviews for Ford products. MT got an Explorer that was falling apart, and several others had issues. I agree with you to a certain extent, but Ford has more important things to do that making sure their press cars are in tip top shape. Because, you know, each reviewer will beat the crap out of it so Ford can fix it again.

 

 

Agree... but also disagree. Reviews are an indirect form of marketing, so I think it's important that any manufacturer keeps their press fleet presentable. If they can spend millions on advertising, then they can spend thousands on maintaining their vehicles that consumers will see in a magazine or online publication. Bad press will cost them more in the long run then keeping their vehicles in order.

 

That being said, this review was beyond ridiculous... and who knows if they would have even caught the fuel door mishap if it didn't happen during an inspection.

[fordmantpw]

Agree... but also disagree. Reviews are an indirect form of marketing, so I think it's important that any manufacturer keeps their press fleet presentable. If they can spend millions on advertising, then they can spend thousands on maintaining their vehicles that consumers will see in a magazine or online publication. Bad press will cost them more in the long run then keeping their vehicles in order.

 

I hear ya. Also, some of the press cars, IIRC, are pre-production models as well, so they don't have the final details in them, and they are used to shake down some of these very issues. I'm not sure if that was the case here or not.

 

Of course, this was TTAC, so Ford knew they were going to get dinged regardless, so they didn't waste their time making the car presentable.

[ZanatWork]

I still don't get those idiots. I got banned from the site by Farago (sp?) years back, because I pointed out all the ways and places he'd contradicted himself...and found out they had what was a "agree or don't post" policy. I had a lovely tirade from him, and an email argument that he kept going for months. He was wrong, kept being wrong, and I was already posting and moderating on better (any) car sites, so I got to treat a horrible person horribly. That's a great way to vent frustrations!

He had to admit that I was right, repeatedly, which was fun as well.

As to them bombing the MKZ...I doubt I'll read it, and I agree both that press cars are somewhat non-representative and that Ford still should be more aware of the condition of said cars.

That said, the Continental concept got more attention (which is the point of advertising, right?) than any concept I recall from Lincoln since. Retro was very in, Ford had gorgeous concepts pulling previous glories back into view, and let's face it...you can describe most car profiles nowadays as "melted bar of soap". The styling efforts on those concepts stood out a ton in a sea of melted soap vehicles.

Yeah, I know..."The LS platform was too expensive to develop" vs. "Lincoln lost how much money and status being forgettable for years?" and so on. I don't think there would be much disagreement that the "Ford trim level" approach thrilled no one.

The MKZ just won an award for best compact luxury vehicle somewhere, and TTAC hadn't matterred for years. I don't know or care why he didn't like the press car, but I have to say, in fairness, Lincoln's past decade is well worth criticism.

[Hugh]

If it was a pre-production, TTAC doesn't have to but ethically maybe state that fact. Again, if Ford doesn't care, why give them anything to use against your product? That's not a smart thing to do even for someone as perceived as petty as TTAC.

[Hugh]

I feel the criticism of Lincoln last decade is founded to the extent that it's spread across the whole organization period. We all know the history and it is debatable however, this review is plain ridiculous.

[SoonerLS]

Bad press will cost them more in the long run then keeping their vehicles in order.

Maybe, but the market isn't bearing that out right now, and, realistically, how many people even know about TTAC, let alone pay attention to it when they're shopping for cars?

 

BTW, the only comment I have about the article itself is that he apparently doesn't understand history. He said the DN101 (which, I'm assuming was the '96 Taurus redesign) was supposed to knock the Camry off as America's favorite car, but that's not really true--it was really an attempt to wean Ford off of fleet (low-margin, low-spec rental fleet sales, in particular). The Camry didn't really even challenge for the top spot 'til the end of the run for the 1st Gen Taurus..

[Anthony]

Maybe, but the market isn't bearing that out right now, and, realistically, how many people even know about TTAC, let alone pay attention to it when they're shopping for cars?

 

 

Because, this is far from the first time Ford has released a "not ready for prime time" vehicle into the press fleets with the results of that showing up in the review. It also means if that car is still in the press fleet (wanna bet it is?) that it's going to another journalist after TTAC...and another and another and another....

Edited July 25, 2013 by Intrepidatious

[RichardJensen]

While I think you can make a valid argument that Ford should be doing a better job with it's press fleet, and some things that occur make you wonder if the press fleet is one of the few remaining bits of old Ford nepotism/feudalism.................. I question the value of a presentable press fleet, in some ways it seems like throwing good money after bad.

 

Of course, Ford has the resources to upgrade their press fleet. But you have to question the value of sending a top notch, ultra clean, pristine MKZ to a writer like this. 'Pearls before swine' is the phrase that occurs to me.

[grbeck]

Maybe, but the market isn't bearing that out right now, and, realistically, how many people even know about TTAC, let alone pay attention to it when they're shopping for cars?

 

BTW, the only comment I have about the article itself is that he apparently doesn't understand history. He said the DN101 (which, I'm assuming was the '96 Taurus redesign) was supposed to knock the Camry off as America's favorite car, but that's not really true--it was really an attempt to wean Ford off of fleet (low-margin, low-spec rental fleet sales, in particular). The Camry didn't really even challenge for the top spot 'til the end of the run for the 1st Gen Taurus..

 

Initially it was the Honda Accord that knocked the Taurus out of the top spot. The Accord claimed the number-one slot from 1990-92. The Camry really wasn't the main threat until the 1992 version appeared.

Edited July 25, 2013 by grbeck

[RichardJensen]

Yeah. The 1992 version with the dashboard from the '86 Taurus.

[grbeck]

Of course, Ford has the resources to upgrade their press fleet. But you have to question the value of sending a top notch, ultra clean, pristine MKZ to a writer like this. 'Pearls before swine' is the phrase that occurs to me.

 

It's always important for a car company to put its best foot forward, especially with a model as important to a brand as the MKZ is to Lincoln. At the very least, fix the broken fuel-filler door, given that he harped on it throughout the story. This IS something that would immediately turn off a potential customer.

 

Deliver reviewers a car as well prepped as one delivered to a paying customer. I seriously doubt that a dealer would deliver a car in that condition to a customer.

Edited July 25, 2013 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Yeah. The 1992 version with the dashboard from the '86 Taurus.

 

That 1992 version was benchmarked by Ford when it developed the 1996 Taurus, according to the book CAR by Mary Walton, and was referred to as a "little Lexus" at the time. It was so good that even Toyota couldn't afford to continue making Camrys that good.

[fordmantpw]

That 1992 version was benchmarked by Ford when it developed the 1996 Taurus, according to the book CAR by Mary Walton, and was referred to as a "little Lexus" at the time. It was so good that even Toyota couldn't afford to continue making Camrys that good.

 

Well, you can't really consider the '96 Taurus a good effort on Ford's part. Outside of the style (inside and out), it was a good car, but sheesh was that ovoid thing horrible looking!

[Anthony]

MFT Version .000081

 

 

[silvrsvt]

Well, you can't really consider the '96 Taurus a good effort on Ford's part. Outside of the style (inside and out), it was a good car, but sheesh was that ovoid thing horrible looking!

 

 

Why wasn't it? It was a major refresh of the car from 1986...the styling was horrible, but IMO Ford's styling from 1996 till 2005 was a mess anyways. `

[fordmantpw]

Why wasn't it? It was a major refresh of the car from 1986...the styling was horrible, but IMO Ford's styling from 1996 till 2005 was a mess anyways. `

 

The styling was my reasoning. The car itself was a good car (until they let it rot on the vine), but the styling was atrocious! It was the worst of the bad styling from Ford IMO.