jcartwright99 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I have been waiting and waiting, as this may be my next car (in 400 hp form) but two reviews have trickled out. Positive! it looks like both hybrid and 2.0 were tested. Take a look. http://driving.ca/lincoln/mkz/reviews/road-test/first-drive-2017-lincoln-mkz http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/lincoln/2017-lincoln-mkz-review My favorite compliment: "But here’s the thing: As much as I craved to sample the powerhouse V6, the MKZ’s standard engine — a carryover but retuned 2.0L turbo — behaved so well and spooled out so much fun that few will go pining for more." A worrisome comment: "And despite the MKZ’s exotic looking interior and exterior, space is an issue. Head room for front passengers is limited, and leg room for rear passengers is non-existent when the front seats are set for a six-foot tall person." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 "And despite the MKZ’s exotic looking interior and exterior, space is an issue. Head room for front passengers is limited, and leg room for rear passengers is non-existent when the front seats are set for a six-foot tall person." Isn't this the case for most cars? Did it have the panoramic sunroof? Is the headroom because of the angle of the windshield? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I've never heard of front headroom or rear legroom being a problem on the CD4 MKZ. Definitely not on the CD4 Fusion. Any current MKZ owners want to comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcartwright99 Posted June 15, 2016 Author Share Posted June 15, 2016 Isn't this the case for most cars? Did it have the panoramic sunroof? Is the headroom because of the angle of the windshiel I think a lot of the "there isn't much room" has to do with the ever increasing size of the midsize car. One could contend that an accord and camry are now fullsize cars. In the luxury arena, with the addition of even smaller cars like the A3, space and proportions of preconcieved sizes are all over the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermans Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I've never heard of front headroom or rear legroom being a problem on the CD4 MKZ. Definitely not on the CD4 Fusion. Any current MKZ owners want to comment? I have a 2013 with the pano roof. No issues for me,front or back and I'm 6-3+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I have a 2013 with the pano roof. No issues for me,front or back and I'm 6-3+. That's what I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Why is it that rear legroom is ALWAYS a complaint in reviews? Not everybody is Wilt Chamberlain.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) The MKZ has a low arching roof and so does the Fusion, both cars are criticized as cramped but the MKZ actually has less room than Fusion. I definitely feel the MKZ is cramped, but there is allot of legroom in the footwell which means I can sink into the car fairly comfortably even if my head is always near the ceiling or door frame. For me the car sits like a sports car and wraps around you like one so I'm surprisingly comfortable in an MKZ, although visibility is pretty terrible because I have to lean back. And sure, rear legroom is terrible but welcome to Ford in 2016, only the Edge/MKX and Explorer/Flex/MKT get roomy backseats. The 3.0T is coming in the fall so we probably won't see reviews of that one unfortunately, but we will of the Continental I'm assuming. Edited June 15, 2016 by BORG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 The MKZ has a low arching roof and so does the Fusion, both cars are criticized as cramped but the MKZ actually has less room than Fusion. I definitely feel the MKZ is cramped, but there is allot of legroom in the footwell which means I can sink into the car fairly comfortably even if my head is always near the ceiling or door frame. For me the car sits like a sports car and wraps around you like one so I'm surprisingly comfortable in an MKZ, although visibility is pretty terrible because I have to lean back. And sure, rear legroom is terrible but welcome to Ford in 2016, only the Edge/MKX and Explorer/Flex/MKT get roomy backseats. I swear sometimes it seems like you're looking at and driving completely different vehicles than the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 The MKZ has a low arching roof and so does the Fusion, both cars are criticized as cramped but the MKZ actually has less room than Fusion. I definitely feel the MKZ is cramped, but there is allot of legroom in the footwell which means I can sink into the car fairly comfortably even if my head is always near the ceiling or door frame. For me the car sits like a sports car and wraps around you like one so I'm surprisingly comfortable in an MKZ, although visibility is pretty terrible because I have to lean back. And sure, rear legroom is terrible but welcome to Ford in 2016, only the Edge/MKX and Explorer/Flex/MKT get roomy backseats. The 3.0T is coming in the fall so we probably won't see reviews of that one unfortunately, but we will of the Continental I'm assuming. IIRC, the 3.0 won't be immediately available in the Continental either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 IIRC, the 3.0 won't be immediately available in the Continental either. I don't think for public consumption, but I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to get 3.0 models out for reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 A few have been built, but a majority have been the 2.7 and 3.7. A few 2.0 China cars too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 The MKZ has a low arching roof and so does the Fusion, both cars are criticized as cramped but the MKZ actually has less room than Fusion. Correct. Here are interior volume measurements for Fusion, MKZ, and a few competitors: Fusion: 100 cu.ft. MKZ: 99 cu.ft. Accord: 103 cu.ft. Camry: 103 cu.ft. Avalon: 104 cu.ft. ES 350: 100 cu.ft. Sonata: 106 cu.ft. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 From the driving.ca write "The suspension and steering also tighten, and feedback is respectable. It almost feels, dare I say it … German." What is he afraid of, being heckled by his fellow comrades? Not a bad review for a Canadian site who all love to whine about & bash Lincoln, as noted in the Canadian sourced autoguide.com article. If a writer is going to write something so extreme as "leg room for rear passengers is non-existent" they should have the cojones to back it up with an image proving their point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 You can't see or feel a 1% difference in overall interior volume. I'll take the word of people that own them over anybody else as to whether headroom or legroom is tight. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 It has been pretty well known since the latest generation MKZs and Fusions were introduced that the MKZ was short on rear seat room compared with the Fusion. MKZ rear leg room: 37" MKZ rear head room: 36.6" Fusion rear leg room: 38.3 Fusion rear head room: 37.8" These numbers are on the Lincoln and Ford sites, respectively. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 But that doesn't mean it qualifies as "cramped". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 But that doesn't mean it qualifies as "cramped". It's all relative. MKZ's rear seat may be quite spacious compared to Ford Mustang, but "cramped" compared to Toyota Avalon which has 39.2" of rear legroom and 37.9" of rear headroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 The problem is defining "Cramped"....some people don't like the cockpit feel that some Ford products have...that doesn't mean they don't have enough space in them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It's not relative at all. If you sit in the back seat and your knees don't touch the seatback and your head isn't touching the headliner and your leg isn't touching the door the. It's not cramped. Period. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It's all relative. MKZ's rear seat may be quite spacious compared to Ford Mustang, but "cramped" compared to Toyota Avalon which has 39.2" of rear legroom and 37.9" of rear headroom. You have to take in account the Avalon is full-size, the MKZ is mid-sized. Is it smaller than the ES350, yes...by 1 cu ft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdegrand Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I've never heard of front headroom or rear legroom being a problem on the CD4 MKZ. Definitely not on the CD4 Fusion. Any current MKZ owners want to comment? I've had my 2016 MKZ since last October. I have no complaints at 6 ft tall. Regarding rear legroom on the MKZ, I'm not bothered, since I bought this car for style and performance. I think similar owners will agree, it's designed for drive, visibility and comfort. If you are concerned with extra backseat room.....buy a minivan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It's not relative at all. If you sit in the back seat and your knees don't touch the seatback and your head isn't touching the headliner and your leg isn't touching the door the. It's not cramped. Period. Given the car's exterior footprint, the MKZ's interior embodies poor space efficiency. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) MKZ is a bit of form over function and the compromises that comes with staying so close to the Ford it's based upon. The MKZ is definitely an outlier in its segment because the interior is so tight for a midsize. Going forward that will likely change as Lincoln moves toward a more classic luxury design similar to its competitors. Edited June 17, 2016 by BORG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 You have to take in account the Avalon is full-size, the MKZ is mid-sized. Is it smaller than the ES350, yes...by 1 cu ft. MKZ's exterior dimensions are actually close to Avalon's. The Lincoln is slightly shorter than the Toyota but a tad wider and taller. MKZ: Length: 193.9" Width: 73.4" Height: 58.1" Wheelbase: 112.2" Avalon: Length: 195.3" Width: 72.2 Height: 57.5" Wheelbase: 111.0" In the USA, Avalon is considered a full size car by the EPA because its total interior volume (passenger + trunk space) hits the threshold of 120 cu.ft for that classification; MKZ's volume is 115 cu.ft. 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.