Don't Read this review of the 2013 Lincoln MKZ

[SoonerLS]

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.

I was active in the SHO community at the time, and my review of the '96 SHO was that it was built on a much better Taurus than the previous car, but it lacked the soul of the 3.0/3.2 SHO--and the oval theme wasn't exactly awesome. (I may also have said something about the female design lead and gotten called a Neanderthal. ) That center stack, in particular, was beyond stupid, IMHO.

Edited July 25, 2013 by SoonerLS

[ANTAUS]

I do not think he actually drove the car. If anything it was more of a rant of stupid artificial items than the actual experience of driving it around a bit. Ive driven it, and I was actully impressed of how well it drove for a FWD vehicle. Granted, it's not something I would buy but not a vehicle I would complain to anyone about either.

[fgll]

I certainly believe that something is fishy with this writer/article, unless the car was delivered by FORD in that condition, which is hard to believe.

The same kind of fueling door used in the MKZ is used in all FORD cars sold in North America. After so many thousands of cars have been sold with the same system, if this is a real issue, then the problem and its corresponding recall will have risen and published a long time ago, isn´t that strange? Maybe this writer is not smart enough to use this simple fueling system and broke the door himself just to rant about it, who knows?!

[RichardJensen]

Deliver reviewers a car as well prepped as one delivered to a paying customer.

 

Not if the outlet is TTAC.

 

What is their influence, and what are the odds of the writer trying to put together an even *remotely* useful article?

 

Spend money where you get the greatest return. People use TTAC to justify, not to alter, their opinions. They don't influence anyone worth influencing.

Edited July 25, 2013 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

TTAC, the vindication of a fool

[EBFlex]

I didn't think it was that bad. Certainly there are/were issues, but the scary part is some of the comments of people who have checked out the car or owners of the 2012 and older cars. Some had very unfavorable opinions regarding the new one.

 

TTAC is far more fair and balanced than they used to be. They certainly do not favor one brand over another. And now that the piece of sh!t Bertel Schmitt is gone, TTAC is really is getting better. With Jack at the helm, it's going to be a great site.

 

And their contributor, Doug DeMuro writes very funny, light hearted articles. He has a great one on why Lincoln will come back and a comparison between the Town Car and MKT Town Car. Links are below, try and laugh a little, they're funny:

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/04/lincoln-can-and-will-come-back/

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/05/dougs-comparison-lincoln-mkt-vs-lincoln-town-car/

[papilgee4evaeva]

I didn't think it was that bad.

 

You have low journalistic standards, then...

[RichardJensen]

They certainly do not favor one brand over another.

 

They favor clicks over all else, and will do whatever they can to obtain them. And their commenters..... Let's just say that I wish I had a buck for everyone on that forum that doesn't own the car they claim to.

[EBFlex]

You have low journalistic standards, then...

 

Not at all, but thanks!

 

They favor clicks over all else, and will do whatever they can to obtain them. And their commenters..... Let's just say that I wish I had a buck for everyone on that forum that doesn't own the car they claim to.

 

Any website wants clicks. And while that could be the case with the commenters, it's just an assumption. I have no reason not to believe them. I am one of those commentators and do not fib about what I drive.

[RichardJensen]

So, since 'any website wants clicks', what do you think TTAC wants more?

 

A boring, but reasonable assessment of the MKZ that won't be noticed by anyone, or an incendiary piece that rips it to shreds?

[EBFlex]

So, since 'any website wants clicks', what do you think TTAC wants more?

 

A boring, but reasonable assessment of the MKZ that won't be noticed by anyone, or an incendiary piece that rips it to shreds?

 

I don't know, I think either type of review would have generated around the same amount of views. It's not like their review is plastered on the front page of Fox News or Yahoo.

 

And sifting through the review, I think he had some legit complaints. Sure he could have sugar coated them a bit better for the sensitive types, but the moon roof ruining rearward visibility is a concern, we all know the issues with the MyTouch system, a fuel filler door that almost falls off is unacceptable, etc.

 

I'm not saying it's the new standard for reviews, certainly there are better, but the issues raised are concerning.

[RichardJensen]

Oh noes! The moonroof ruins the rear visibility!!!

 

 

DON'T BUY THE MOONROOF.

 

 

Oh noes!!! MyTouch is terrible!!!!

 

 

Why don't you email that complaint to 2011. You know. Back when it was a legitimate issue.

 

 

Oh noes!!!! Other dumb reviewers just like me trashed this car that I get to drive around for free.

 

 

Grow up.

[RangerM]

I read the review. It seemed harsh, but the question isn't (or shouldn't be) was the review overly harsh, but was the criticism without merit?

 

Did the reviewer lie? Outside of the MLT issues raised, which have been resolved as I understand it, I'm not sure where any deception was. (why wouldn't a press car have the latest software update, anyway?)

 

As to the sunroof/moonroof, it seems legitimate to point out that feature comes with a (fairly important) compromise. I see it as roughly equivalent to the 60,000-mile timing belt. Sure the belt is quieter, but you can expect to spend hundreds of dollars in a couple of years so you don't ruin your engine. Many don't take that into account when they buy their Honda, and are shocked when they do.

 

The fuel door was particularly egregious. Why bother providing the car, if you're not even going to try?

[grbeck]

Not if the outlet is TTAC.

 

What is their influence, and what are the odds of the writer trying to put together an even *remotely* useful article?

 

Spend money where you get the greatest return. People use TTAC to justify, not to alter, their opinions. They don't influence anyone worth influencing.

 

Then Ford shouldn't have provided the reviewer with a car in the first place.

 

Does Ford have any evidence - based on research - that people only use TTAC to justify their opinions, and that the therefore site has no influence? If that is the case, then don't provide them with ANY car, because the worst thing that a reviewer will say is, "Ford refused to provide us with a test car." And if no one pays any attention to that site, it won't matter.

 

Ford should either do it right (make sure that all reviewers receive a properly prepped car) or not do it all (meaning, don't provide cars if the company does not believe that this particular site or publication is influential).

 

Giving any reviewer a car with a broken fuel-filler door smacks of sloppiness and low standards.

Edited July 26, 2013 by grbeck

[RichardJensen]

Did the reviewer lie?

Did the reviewer EXAGGERATE is a better question which gets right to this:

 

 

Giving any reviewer a car with a broken fuel-filler door smacks of sloppiness and low standards.

 

TTAC's writing and editing are the equivalent of that broken fuel door.

 

Finally:

 

Does Ford have any evidence - based on research - that people only use TTAC to justify their opinions

 

Oh, I wouldn't say they've gone that far into detail on TTAC, but we are, collectively, more aware of TTAC than typical customers, and would any of *us* take TTAC seriously?

 

And does Ford know how people decide to buy their cars? You bet yer bippy they study this *all the time*. They are constantly evaluating the purchasing process, because that's how you succeed in this business.

 

And they have *clearly* stopped purchasing magazine test results. They basically gave Motor Trend the finger and still ended up with the best selling fullsize SUV on the market. I think *they* know what they're doing here.

[aneekr]

'Pearls before swine' is the phrase that occurs to me.

 

I got that impression too. Pearl = potential premium car customers; Swine = Lincoln MKZ or the entire Lincoln Motor Company brand.

[RangerM]

Did the reviewer EXAGGERATE is a better question which gets right to this:

I can accept your belief in the reviewer's exaggeration, however even if there is (and Ford could prove) a negative bias, why give the critic(s) extra--or any--ammunition?

[akirby]

I believe Ford has figured out that these online reviews and to some extent even the larger magazine reviews simply don't matter when it comes to sales. CRs reliability data is probably the only thing in print or online that have some measurable impact on what people buy.

 

Have you ever heard someone say "I was going to buy this vehicle but then I read that TTAC review and decided against it." I haven't and that goes to MT, R&T, C&D and everything with the exception of CR reliability.

 

Especially when the best you can possibly get from MT, C&D or TTAC is a "meh - it doesn't suck" review.

[RichardJensen]

I can accept your belief in the reviewer's exaggeration, however even if there is (and Ford could prove) a negative bias, why give the critic(s) extra--or any--ammunition?

 

Because the review was written before the writer even got the car.

 

The reviewer criticizes the MKZ for having summer tires on it. Well, what if the vehicle came with all-season tires on it? You'd get complaints about that instead ("the test vehicle came equipped with poor handling all-season tires that did little more than squeal and shriek their way around corners")

 

The bottom line: There is no point in trying to please those who cannot be pleased.

 

I'm of the opinion that Ford should've sent the guy a sack of pig crap and asked him to review that.

Edited July 26, 2013 by RichardJensen

[SoonerLS]

What I wonder is how the journalist "pool" works. I've hear Brian Cooley, et al, at CNet talk about the "pool cars," as though there's a central pool of cars that journalists from various outlets get to take as review units. Does Ford say, "Here you go, dork at TTAC, here's an MKZ to review," or does he just go get one from a central lot where all the outlets have access?

 

In other words, had Ford even seen that MKZ since the fuel door latch broke?

Edited July 26, 2013 by SoonerLS

[RichardJensen]

Outside companies manage press fleets. The vehicles are delivered to reviewers, and are supposed to be cleaned and prepped before hand.

 

Could they do a better job of this?

 

Probably.

 

Do I think that an outlet that gleefully ran a "Ford Deathwatch" series should even be getting press fleet vehicles? I do not. I think Ford should tell them to go pound sand the next time they ask for a fleet vehicle.

[Anthony]

Do I think that an outlet that gleefully ran a "Ford Deathwatch" series should even be getting press fleet vehicles? I do not. I think Ford should tell them to go pound sand the next time they ask for a fleet vehicle.

 

 

They seem to be very fond of their "Deathwatches"....

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/tag/suzuki-death-watch/ (Suzuki)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/09/chrysler-death-watch/ (Chrysler)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/gm-deathwatch-part-1-this-time-its-forbes-doing-the-countdown/ (GM)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/freep-initiates-toyota-deathwatch-brand-to-die-from-boredom/ (Toyota)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/10/tesla-death-watch-31-huffpost-pronounces-tod/ (Tesla)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/04/after-latest-layoffs-fisker-delaware-plant-empty-time-for-fisker-death-watch/ (Fisker)

Edited July 26, 2013 by Intrepidatious

[phil1336]

Because the review was written before the writer even got the car.

 

The reviewer criticizes the MKZ for having summer tires on it. Well, what if the vehicle came with all-season tires on it? You'd get complaints about that instead ("the test vehicle came equipped with poor handling all-season tires that did little more than squeal and shriek their way around corners")

 

The bottom line: There is no point in trying to please those who cannot be pleased.

 

I'm of the opinion that Ford should've sent the guy a sack of pig crap and asked him to review that.

Living here in SE Florida, Palm Beach County to be exact, I know exactly what your talking about. Why would someone who lives in the Tropics (unless they are Seasonal residents) want All-Season Tires on their Vehicle? Might want to anticipate a once in a hundred year 1`` Blizzard or plan some Off-Road Mud Fun? On the other hand, back when I lived in New England, I had a new 1990 Honda Accord EX that came with Summer Performance Michelin Tires that slid over the pavement in both rain and sleet, snow, or slush. Totally useless! Your point is well taken. Some people can`t be pleased, period! Even when they compliment or praise (anything) its always negated with "but" or "too". Its too hard or too soft, too hot or too cold, to bland or too spicy, sliced too thick or too thin. I myself (hate) Stereotypes but anyone who has visited this area and Boca Raton, FL in particular knows exactly what I`m talking about. It`s "too" bad, "but" its true!

[EBFlex]

They seem to be very fond of their "Deathwatches"....

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/tag/suzuki-death-watch/ (Suzuki)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/09/chrysler-death-watch/ (Chrysler)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/gm-deathwatch-part-1-this-time-its-forbes-doing-the-countdown/ (GM)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/freep-initiates-toyota-deathwatch-brand-to-die-from-boredom/ (Toyota)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/10/tesla-death-watch-31-huffpost-pronounces-tod/ (Tesla)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/04/after-latest-layoffs-fisker-delaware-plant-empty-time-for-fisker-death-watch/ (Fisker)

 

I hope that Tesla one works out...fingers crossed

 

Because the review was written before the writer even got the car.

 

The reviewer criticizes the MKZ for having summer tires on it. Well, what if the vehicle came with all-season tires on it? You'd get complaints about that instead ("the test vehicle came equipped with poor handling all-season tires that did little more than squeal and shriek their way around corners")

 

The bottom line: There is no point in trying to please those who cannot be pleased.

 

I think he would have been pleased with a quality vehicle to review. And he was not complaining about the tires that came on the car, he was calling Lincoln out for putting the same tires as on a $400k+ Ferrari 599 GTO to prop up driving impressions and handling. Last I heard, those tires are not even offered on the MKZ. That may have changed though, I haven't looked into it as the MKZ is not a car I want or need.

 

I read the review. It seemed harsh, but the question isn't (or shouldn't be) was the review overly harsh, but was the criticism without merit?

 

Did the reviewer lie? Outside of the MLT issues raised, which have been resolved as I understand it, I'm not sure where any deception was. (why wouldn't a press car have the latest software update, anyway?)

 

As to the sunroof/moonroof, it seems legitimate to point out that feature comes with a (fairly important) compromise. I see it as roughly equivalent to the 60,000-mile timing belt. Sure the belt is quieter, but you can expect to spend hundreds of dollars in a couple of years so you don't ruin your engine. Many don't take that into account when they buy their Honda, and are shocked when they do.

 

The fuel door was particularly egregious. Why bother providing the car, if you're not even going to try?

 

Very well said. Thank you.

Edited July 27, 2013 by EBFlex

[RichardJensen]

I think he would have been pleased with a quality vehicle to review. And he was not complaining about the tires that came on the car, he was calling Lincoln out for putting the same tires as on a $400k+ Ferrari 599 GTO to prop up driving impressions and handling. Last I heard, those tires are not even offered on the MKZ. That may have changed though, I haven't looked into it as the MKZ is not a car I want or need.

 

1 - Nope. If the vehicle were delivered in concours condition, he would've still griped about MLT and the sunroof because, well, an MKZ in perfect condition would have the same sunroof and MLT.

 

2 - Edmunds did the same bellyaching back before the MKZ's final specs were released. They assumed that those tires would not be available.

 

 

 

 

 

They are. And by the way, they're not just mounted on the Ferrari 599. They're also mounted on the BMW M5.

 

And that, by the way, just lets you know the extent to which this review was already written.

 

The tires are a legitimate part of a legitimate option package (the "Handling Package"), that a legitimate customer can actually purchase, and these legitimately available, legitimate tires result in a vehicle that can perform certain instrumented tests on par with the BMW M5, which also comes equipped with these tires.

 

But----again, this basically bolsters my case---our reviewer is not interested in the legitimacy of these tires. Rather, he's content to parrot the outrage of eight-months-ago-Edmunds, and talk about how 'these tires are on the Ferrari 599', as though they were not sold on any other vehicles, and as though they could not be purchased off the rack at any reasonably well stocked metropolitan Michelin retailer. As though, somehow, Ford were guilty of sending out a *ringer*, instead of equipping a vehicle with *actual production tires* that are *actually available on this vehicle.*

 

Thanks for further establishing my point.

 

If a reviewer is going to take Ford to task for sending out a fleet vehicle EQUIPPED WITH OEM TIRES, then Ford had no hope of obtaining a positive review, and should have sent the guy a bag full of angry hornets and an open can of Coke instead.