Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
AutomotiveAddicts

Aviator Reviews

Recommended Posts

https://www.jdpower.com/cars/expert-reviews/2020-lincoln-aviator-review

 

I could care less about EV only range.  Driving it ANYWHERE with that wonderful ecoboost disabled seems like a total waist of availble resources to me!  Especially when "the Aviator Grand Touring averaged 80.6 MPGe through full battery depletion" and then it still gets better milage than the gas only models after battery depletion. PLUS, all that power is ready and waiting whenever you get the urge... so why neuter it to go 18 miles as an EV when you can do 80.6 MPGe as a PHEV while having a lot more fun!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by CoolScoop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CoolScoop said:

https://www.jdpower.com/cars/expert-reviews/2020-lincoln-aviator-review

 

I could care less about EV only range.  Driving it ANYWHERE with that wonderful ecoboost disabled seems like a total waist of availble resources to me!  Especially when "the Aviator Grand Touring averaged 80.6 MPGe through full battery depletion" and then it still gets better milage than the gas only models after battery depletion. PLUS, all that power is ready and waiting whenever you get the urge... so why neuter it to go 18 miles as an EV when you can do 80.6 MPGe as a PHEV while having a lot more fun!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A higher EV range will by necessity also give you a higher MPGe.  And if you want "a lot more fun" - just think if it had 50 more hp and 100 lbs more torque - at zero rpm. My complaint is that it does not have enough EV power - but that would also result in you and yours being happier with greater total hp.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlexLexusAviator said:

I don't really see the point of having that EV only mode at all.  To be fair, it seems that Porsche Cayenne is not super fast in EV mode either. Go figure

It is the Henry Ford curse, after shredding those Dodge Boys and Willy Durant on the back roads, he was never able to sneak the car home.  Now they've created an SUV sleeper where the boys will be boys, only they will be able to sneak home in pure EV.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, msm859 said:

A higher EV range will by necessity also give you a higher MPGe.  And if you want "a lot more fun" - just think if it had 50 more hp and 100 lbs more torque - at zero rpm. My complaint is that it does not have enough EV power - but that would also result in you and yours being happier with greater total hp.

 

But 80.6 MPGe is fine with me... plus I'll have that Instant electric torque and that ICE power working together instead of having one system lugging the other system around for no reason.  Just the battery already weighs 300 pounds... nearly half of what the EV system adds.  I wouldn't want it to be any heavier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mustangchief said:

where the boys will be boys, only they will be able to sneak home in pure EV.  

 

That sure would have come in handy in my youth,,,,,,

 

HRG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

That sure would have come in handy in my youth,,,,,,

 

HRG

I guess there is a good reason to use EV mode... sneaking home after boys night out!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet that’s the largest motor and battery they could fit without special modifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dealer got their demo unit in today. It accelerates smoothly and is nice to drive. Plenty of room in the second row. But the dang driver seat sits way too high. I moved it as low as it would go and my sight line was only a few inches below top of the windshield. If I flipped down the sun visor it blocked my view of everything but the HUD. The only way I could get my sight line lower was to lean the seat way back.

 

Am I missing something on the adjustment or has anyone else noticed this. The headroom for the Aviator is 38.7" with the vista roof and my '12 Explorer is 39" from the lowest part of the cushion to the lowest part of the roof (twin panel moonroof). The '12 spec was 41.4" but I think that was without the moonroof. I just can't figure out if it was just how i had the seat, or is the lip of the roofline lower, or if the seat just wasn't lowering all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wheeling said:

May be you are too tall for the Aviator?😜

6'1" hardly seems too tall.  I am starting to wonder if there was something wrong with the seat, still had plenty of headroom.  Do they just figure everyone likes to lay the seat back into the second row when driving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke aside, that't can't be the case. The demo you tested must have something wrong with the seat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What version of Sync have Lincoln Aviator??? Any essential updates? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, buzduand said:

What version of Sync have Lincoln Aviator??? Any essential updates? 

 

Sync 3.  They're brand new so all should have the latest version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5,167-pound vehicle scoots from 0 to 60 mph in 5.4 seconds and completes the quarter mile in 14.1 seconds. That slays the Cadillac XT6, which needs 6.8 and 15.2 seconds, respectively, and also beats the Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 4Matic. But it lags behind the BMW X7 xDrive 40i, which gets to 60 mph in 5.0 seconds and hits the quarter mile in 13.6 seconds.

 

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lincoln/aviator/2020/2020-lincoln-aviator-reserve-and-plugin-hybrid-first-test-review/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grand Touring plug-in hybrid Aviator electrifies the gas engine, but the extra motors and batteries contribute to its 5,838-pound heft. Some of us felt that it didn't feel fast enough given its 494 hp and 630 lb-ft of torque. The lack of power shows up in the test results, too. The hybrid is only three-tenths quicker than the gas Aviator in the quarter mile.

 

5.1 seconds? I was expecting 4.8 seconds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Wheeling said:

The Grand Touring plug-in hybrid Aviator electrifies the gas engine, but the extra motors and batteries contribute to its 5,838-pound heft. Some of us felt that it didn't feel fast enough given its 494 hp and 630 lb-ft of torque. The lack of power shows up in the test results, too. The hybrid is only three-tenths quicker than the gas Aviator in the quarter mile.

 

5.1 seconds? I was expecting 4.8 seconds. 

You need to read again.  It said three-tenths in the "quarter mile" not 0-60.  Although I find that hard to believe.  The extra torque of the electric motor should make it quicker at least 0-60 even with the weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Wheeling said:

You are right, but that makes it even worth., isn't it?

It would be worse, but  I don't see how that could be.  It would totally destroy their "performance" emphasis story for the hybrid, which is their explanation for the limited electric range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, msm859 said:

It would be worse, but  I don't see how that could be.  It would totally destroy their "performance" emphasis story for the hybrid, which is their explanation for the limited electric range.

Lets talk performance:  5838+Lbs  and a 13.8 1/4, you think that is not performance?  Here are a few "cars" that ran a 13.8 stock

1)  2013 Taurus SHO

2)  2005 Mustang GT

3)  2003 Mustang Mach 1

4)  1971 Mustang Boss 351

5)  1969 Mach 1

6)  1969 Boss 429

 

Maybe if you stripped out all the luxury it would feel fast.  Be assured it is fast enough to pass or accelerate out of a mess, all the while massaging your fanny.  I drove a 69 Mach 1 for a while and can tell you a pet rock in the passenger seat could feel the difference in ride.  I'm ecstatic as I age, I can go just as fast as I did in the 69 and have my aching bones pampered.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is really no practical difference between 4.8 and 5.3 unless you're actually drag racing or (more likely) bench racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If performance gain is not that obvious, then efficiency should be the objective. Looks like the GT gains 3 mpg than the regular non-hybrid Aviator. Is that worth the money? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, akirby said:

There is really no practical difference between 4.8 and 5.3 unless you're actually drag racing or (more likely) bench racing.

 

I've got 90 feet of on ramp to the freeway every time I head south, like to work.  It is the shortest on ramp I've come across and I do it every day.  Going from 35 to 70 to merge is crazy, especially when the person in front of you panics and stops, then it is  0-70 in about 45 feet.  That half second is helpful, but any 0-60 time below 8 is enough oomph.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mustangchief said:

 

I've got 90 feet of on ramp to the freeway every time I head south, like to work.  It is the shortest on ramp I've come across and I do it every day.  Going from 35 to 70 to merge is crazy, especially when the person in front of you panics and stops, then it is  0-70 in about 45 feet.  That half second is helpful, but any 0-60 time below 8 is enough oomph.  

I agree that it is fast enough and I would not care if the regular and the GT were both the same quickness - I was/am more interested in the electric range - although I also agree that Lincoln should make sure there is no performance compromise going green.  However, everyone has said Lincoln was more interested in performance over mpg and that is why it has limited electric range and limited electric power.  If they are in fact the same basic performance than that defeats that argument.  Although I still have a hard time believing they have the same performance.  Even with the extra weight the electric motor should make it quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From every first drive, each said the GT felt significantly quicker from a start. Here we have a test saying its inherit advantage isn't? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not focus so much on the Trap numbers, it brakes shorter, has better skid pad numbers, passes quicker, figure 8s faster, is a lot faster in the taller gears.  I'd bet a nickel it is tuned to not rush out of the gate to keep Grandma from getting whiplash.  The widening gap at higher speeds support that.  I'm sure if you want to monkey with the tune, it will launch pretty quick.  Another reason to harness that kind of power is to not snap the drive shaft.  Launching almost three tons into a 13.8 quarter at over 100mph takes a pretty beefy shaft to start with, applying all that torque would probably take an upgrade.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×