akirby Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Given the car's exterior footprint, the MKZ's interior embodies poor space efficiency. Period. You keep changing the argument. Nobody said it was efficient or as big as the competition, only that it wasn't "cramped". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdegrand Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 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. Also looking at Avalon sales downward spiral in the last couple months,compared to the increasing sales of the MKZ. AVALON was only 500 units ahead of the MKZ...3700 versus 3200 respectively. Now, with the refreshed look of the MKZ, it will be interesting to see how the MKZ sales will do. I'm excited for Lincoln. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdegrand Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 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. Just a comment on visibility.....like with many cars, some people require more to see. Try removing the passenger headrest....boom....you now have that extra view you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdegrand Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 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. Just a comment on visibility.....like with many cars, some people require more to see. Try removing the passenger headrest....boom....you now have that extra view you want. 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. Everybody seems to focus on rear legroom for the 3rd passenger. If you take the time to compare FRONT LEGROOM for the PRIMARY passenger/driver , you will notice immediately the impressive advantage. Toyota Avalon versus MKZ... 42.1 inches versus MKZ 44.3..now that's impressive front legroom. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdegrand 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. Speaking of Toyota Avalon....Let's compare the Most Important Legroom that the DRIVER appreciates.....FRONT LEGROOM. TOYOTA AVALON has 42.1" front legroom compared to MKZ at 44.3 front legroom. That's an impressive 2 inches of difference that NOBODY seems to point out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Speaking of Toyota Avalon....Let's compare the Most Important Legroom that the DRIVER appreciates.....FRONT LEGROOM. TOYOTA AVALON has 42.1" front legroom compared to MKZ at 44.3 front legroom. That's an impressive 2 inches of difference that NOBODY seems to point out. That's because reviewers expect that people will only ever be driving around with the likes of Wilt Chamberlain or Andre the Giant in the back seat at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdegrand Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 That's because reviewers expect that people will only ever be driving around with the likes of Wilt Chamberlain or Andre the Giant in the back seat at all times. Ha! Ha! Andre the Giant.....you're showing your age! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Speaking of Toyota Avalon....Let's compare the Most Important Legroom that the DRIVER appreciates.....FRONT LEGROOM. TOYOTA AVALON has 42.1" front legroom compared to MKZ at 44.3 front legroom. That's an impressive 2 inches of difference that NOBODY seems to point out. You've just pointed it out. Congratulations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 You keep changing the argument. Nobody said it was efficient or as big as the competition, only that it wasn't "cramped". You refused to acknowledge the assertion that MKZ's interior is cramped relative to Toyota Avalon and other sedans in its class. I'm done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Ha! Ha! Andre the Giant.....you're showing your age! I'm 2 months shy of 27..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 You refused to acknowledge the assertion that MKZ's interior is cramped relative to Toyota Avalon and other sedans in its class. I'm done. But the Avalon and MKZ aren't in the same class. One is full size, the other is mid-size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 But the Avalon and MKZ aren't in the same class. One is full size, the other is mid-size. Just to argue the point, the ES (which is the same class as the MKZ) is based on the Avalon platform, which in-turn is based on the Camry platform. IMO getting bent out of shape about rear seat room in a car is pretty ridiculous, since a rear seat passenger (at least in the US) is being temporarily inconvenienced vs walking some place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdegrand Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 But the Avalon and MKZ aren't in the same class. One is full size, the other is mid-size. FYI....The classification of midsize sedans is 105-110 inch wheelbase. The full size sedans are classified by the EPA as Large cars. Either way, Large/Full size sedans must exceed 110 inch wheelbase. Both Avalon and MKZ exceed 110 inch wheelbase, thus both are, in fact, classified as Large or Full size sedans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 You refused to acknowledge the assertion that MKZ's interior is cramped relative to Toyota Avalon and other sedans in its class. I'm done. I didn't acknowledge or deny it because it was completely irrelevant to my original statement that the MKZ back seat wasn't cramped - which is what the review said. Apparently some people don't know the difference between an objective statement (it's cramped) and a relative statement ( it has less room than some competitors). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 FYI....The classification of midsize sedans is 105-110 inch wheelbase. The full size sedans are classified by the EPA as Large cars. Either way, Large/Full size sedans must exceed 110 inch wheelbase. Both Avalon and MKZ exceed 110 inch wheelbase, thus both are, in fact, classified as Large or Full size sedans. What is the SAE classification? I know they are different than the EPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 Just to argue the point, the ES (which is the same class as the MKZ) is based on the Avalon platform, which in-turn is based on the Camry platform. IMO getting bent out of shape about rear seat room in a car is pretty ridiculous, since a rear seat passenger (at least in the US) is being temporarily inconvenienced vs walking some place. As in "My knees are squished." or "I lost the crease to my pants." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 (edited) I did talk about front legroom in the MKZ, I said it was very generous...which is great for my long legs. I see nobody is talking about headroom however which is actually one of the MKZ's biggest issues, especially in the backseat. Headroom: Lexus ES Front/Rear: 37.5"/37.5" Lincoln MKZ: 37"/36.5" That's a substantial difference when you combine the 4-inches less of rear-seat legroom in the MKZ than the ES (37 vs 41.9). The MKZ also has an inch less of rear hip room and shoulder room than the ES. Incidentally, the MKZ has a longer wheelbase than ES so technically it should be able to do better on those legroom dimensions. So yeah, MKZ is cramped in some areas but the driver is doing okay. If you need a spacious sedan, the MKZ isn't your car, but Lincoln doesn't need to sell to a huge customer base like ES. Edited June 18, 2016 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 I will say this, these interior dimension concerns should be no problem with the Continental. Plenty of room no matter where you sit. They did a great job maximizing space. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 I have a 2013 with the pano roof. No issues for me,front or back and I'm 6-3+. If a 6'3" person has no problem with headroom in the rear then it's not "a problem". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 If a 6'3" person has no problem with headroom in the rear then it's not "a problem". Unless you are 7' tall says Shaq. Oh wait he drives a Buick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdegrand Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 I did talk about front legroom in the MKZ, I said it was very generous...which is great for my long legs. I see nobody is talking about headroom however which is actually one of the MKZ's biggest issues, especially in the backseat. Headroom: Lexus ES Front/Rear: 37.5"/37.5" Lincoln MKZ: 37"/36.5" That's a substantial difference when you combine the 4-inches less of rear-seat legroom in the MKZ than the ES (37 vs 41.9). The MKZ also has an inch less of rear hip room and shoulder room than the ES. Incidentally, the MKZ has a longer wheelbase than ES so technically it should be able to do better on those legroom dimensions. So yeah, MKZ is cramped in some areas but the driver is doing okay. If you need a spacious sedan, the MKZ isn't your car, but Lincoln doesn't need to sell to a huge customer base alike ES. You FAILED to mention FRONT legroom comparison between ES and MKZ.....ES (41.9") versus MKZ (44.3"). Wow....talk about cramped areas in the Most important position for the DRIVER! It's like saying to the new car dealer:"I want to give up a few inches of front legroom so if I have a rear passenger it can be a little more comfortable!" Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 Unless you are 7' tall says Shaq. Oh wait he drives a Buick... I found those ads funny when the driver's seat was literally on top of the rear seat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnLover Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 OMG I'm gonna puke reading this thread! Are you people midgets? We got a 2010 MKZ and its tight as hell! I've been in a distant friend's new CD4 as well, and it stinks too! I'm going to reiterate here...... Lincoln needs another sedan, in RWD-bias form, in between the MKZ and Continental. I don't need a muscle Lincoln, I'd just get a CTS-V. I say they should just do the S550 platform and not wait until the new decade..... Be a mix like Lexus, then I think the brand image will begin to rise, along with better and better driving dynamics, better powertrains, better quality control, better service, better materials, better styling, etc...... Fuel economy has always been an issue and it hasn't stopped other luxury brands from building on the tradition, just a crutch for Ford to save and make the most profit........ The whole brand needs to be redone..... Needs new execs at Ford and Lincoln, they're heads are bigger than their bodies, and they only care about more money than they can count. So aggravating they would kill the perfect flagship town car, when it should've been revised for 2010, on a new platform, even the Mustang, and the LS is the biggest disgrace, should've indefinitely went on the Mustang platform and used a 5.0...... Bunch of asshats over there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnLover Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 The greenhouse is very bad on Lincoln sedans currently, terrible headroom, and terrible blind spots...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 You want legroom in a S550 Mustang? You had best not have legs. 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.