|
dissss posted:I think that for most purposes the Mondeo is a better family car than the Falcon - roomier, better interior, more comfortable and much more economical. 3 out of 4 are not true, especially roomier. Economical however, that a big one and that's very true. Other than that the Falcon really is a drat sight better - you have to be an idiot to pick a Mondeo for any other reason other than you want to save petrol (or an Aurion or a Camry or a few other large FWD's that arent as good as a Falcon). The whole economy thing is a problem for the Falcon but the thing is, it's not losing sales to cars with THAT much difference in economy. Hell, the Territory is cannabilising the Falcon and some variants are way worse in that respect. quote:In terms of pure passenger comfort, I don't think any non-luxury car can do it better than the Crown Vic. Sure, it was like driving a sofa, but also, it was like riding in a sofa. Tons of leg room, and you could fit five people's luggage in the trunk, along with two illegal immigrants. A part of me dies every time I get in a taxi or limo that isn't a Crown Vic or a Town Car. Now, it might have not lost a lot by being FWD, but it was RWD and it was fantastic for what it was. Dear Lord, no. Crown Vics are the best example as to how to do a RWD wrong. The fact that a RWD is best for a large platform and a Crown Vic is a misreble failure verses FWD's, that's enough to deserve it to be condemned as a failure - esp when Australia has been building much better RWD's the whole time.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:3 out of 4 are not true, especially roomier. Economical however, that a big one and that's very true. Other than that the Falcon really is a drat sight better - you have to be an idiot to pick a Mondeo for any other reason other than you want to save petrol (or an Aurion or a Camry or a few other large FWD's that arent as good as a Falcon). The whole economy thing is a problem for the Falcon but the thing is, it's not losing sales to cars with THAT much difference in economy. Hell, the Territory is cannabilising the Falcon and some variants are way worse in that respect. I think there is more usable space inside the Mondeo, and it definitely is a more comfortable car to travel in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
I love the panther cars but they really were antiques. The back seats aren't very good if you are over six foot, they handle like a barge, the V8 up front makes a lot of sound and fury but does not get you anywhere in a hurry. A V6 Accord was faster the the Marauder. I drive a LeSabre and the back seat is just as bad, cramped for people over six feet, low, and the exhaust tunnel eats a ton of foot room. The 3.8 V6 is a great motor, and I put the suspension from a Bonneville in and firmed things up a bit but that boat float is still there. I'm glad that large American sedans have left their land boat past behind them, if anything the Cadillac XTS is the last one left. Even the Crown Vics spiritual successor the Taurus is better in every way. I have a few classes with some local police and they have had the new Taurus Interceptors for a few months now and they love them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
One bad thing about a Crown Vic is that it sounds just like a taxi (obviously), so it's always distracting while you're driving cuz it feels like you're rushing somewhere in a cab.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Dear Lord, no. Crown Vics are the best example as to how to do a RWD wrong. The fact that a RWD is best for a large platform and a Crown Vic is a miserable failure verses FWD's, that's enough to deserve it to be condemned as a failure - esp when Australia has been building much better RWD's the whole time. Comparing the Crown Vic to the Falcon is just a level beyond cluelessness. Yes, the Crown Vic was never as good a car as the Falcon. It was never meant to be. The Crown Vic was pure simplicity and durability; body-on-frame, solid axle. Not remotely the same kind of car as the Falcon and not trying to be. You wouldn't knock an Elise for not being as spacious and comfortable as an M3 would you? Of course not, that'd be idiotic. The only thing the Crown Vic ever had in common with the Falcon was the fact that they depended almost entirely on fleet sales to survive. The difference being that Ford US just kept a cheap, ancient platform around for that until they couldn't use it any more. Ford Aus kept pumping money into a car nobody buys, now that's how you do RWD right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Commodores and Falcons are very very good cars for the segment - but the real problem is that the buyers who might want a big RWD have moved to crossovers and 4WD's. Even if you can get 200-300Kw engines, good handling, plenty of bells and whistles for a good price and most of us here would prefer that, the rest of the buyers are buying slower, boxier, worse handling but practical crossovers by the boat load. Also Australia never gets snow, and for some reason people get all  when they here "RWD" and "good in the snow" in the same sentence. That being said a good portion of the cars in ditches are Chargers/300's driven by dickbags with no regard of safety.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
dissss posted:I think there is more usable space inside the Mondeo, and it definitely is a more comfortable car to travel in. And it has always been at the top of its class for handling ever since the mid-90s. It's up there with the best-handling FWD everyday cars like the Mazda 6, Alfa 156 and 159 and Peugeot 406/407/508 (yeah I'm biased), and usually comes out slightly on top of all of them in tests. No, you can't do "maaad fully sikk skidz mate" in a Mondeo like you can in a Falcon, that's obvious. But it's a very very very good car apart from that minor detail. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
BabyMauler posted:I love the panther cars but they really were antiques. The back seats aren't very good if you are over six foot, they handle like a barge, the V8 up front makes a lot of sound and fury but does not get you anywhere in a hurry. A V6 Accord was faster the the Marauder. I drive a LeSabre and the back seat is just as bad, cramped for people over six feet, low, and the exhaust tunnel eats a ton of foot room. The 3.8 V6 is a great motor, and I put the suspension from a Bonneville in and firmed things up a bit but that boat float is still there. If you want a real back seat from that time period, the Concorde/Intrepid/300M were the hero cars. The back seats in those are incredible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
The Panther platform is the greatest, best car platform God has ever given man on the face of the earth  
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Good news everyone! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3vw9w9vevI
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
I love the "Dramatization. Do not attempt." as the old Lincoln drives through the fire and becomes the new one. "I'm gonna git me one o' them new Em-Kay-Zees outta this ol' Town Car. Now hold mah beer and watch this!" KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
My favorite part was Abraham Lincoln.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I love the "Dramatization. Do not attempt." as the old Lincoln drives through the fire and becomes the new one. I can't tell which is better this or the Ford commercial where they drive a Fusion off a cliff with the disclaimer "Do not attempt. Cars cannot fly."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
The car looked pretty good in that ad. It's a shame that it's, you know, not actually a good car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Drive on roads, not on people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:If you want a real back seat from that time period, the Concorde/Intrepid/300M were the hero cars. The back seats in those are incredible. Yah those cab-forward Chryslers were great. When the cabs in Boston weren't all Camrey's you could wait around for the unicorn Intrepid in a sea of Crown Vics. It was so great not having my knees sheered off. Are the 300/Charger good for taller people in the back? All my friends and I are over six foot so next car has to be good in the back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Good news everyone!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Wouldn't the MKS be the spiritual successor to the Town Car since it's a full size car and the MKZ be the successor the Continental since it's mid-size? Nevermind that the MKT livery edition is what's replacing the Town Car for fleet service. Also, why does the MKZ have an antenna on the driver's side rear fender? I would have thought that it would be integrated into the rear window like all other radio antennas are. Would the sliding panorama roof interfere with the signal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The car looked pretty good in that ad. It's a shame that it's, you know, not actually a good car. How so?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:How so? It costs the same amount of money to be less good than all the other cars in its segment. Alternatively, it costs way more money to look a little better than the Fusion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Q_res posted:I can't tell which is better this or the Ford commercial where they drive a Fusion off a cliff with the disclaimer "Do not attempt. Cars cannot fly." I've heard that essentially the entire reason that ads have to have those dumb disclaimers is because of the shitbird who tried to get the Harrier that Pepsi showed in one commercial as a joke prize if you collected 7 million bottle caps. He didn't get it, obviously, and then sued the company for breach of contract, wasting an enormous amount of time and money on everyone's part. So you can thank John Leonard of Seattle for demonstrating to advertisers just how phenomenally stupid and greedy the average American is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:So you can thank John Leonard of Seattle for demonstrating to advertisers just how phenomenally stupid and greedy the average American is.  Taking advantage of poorly thought-out sales and ad campaigns isn't greed, it's smart shopping.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It costs the same amount of money to be less good than all the other cars in its segment. Please, give a detailed reasoning of your experience with the MkZ and why you feel it is inferior to the Lexus ES.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
BabyMauler posted:Yah those cab-forward Chryslers were great. When the cabs in Boston weren't all Camrey's you could wait around for the unicorn Intrepid in a sea of Crown Vics. It was so great not having my knees sheered off. Are the 300/Charger good for taller people in the back? All my friends and I are over six foot so next car has to be good in the back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Please, give a detailed reasoning of your experience with the MkZ and why you feel it is inferior to the Lexus ES. It's a facelifted Fusion with a facelifted price, but the only options that it has that the Fusion doesn't are a V6, some kind of suspension gadgetry powered by pixie dust, and the sunroof, if you get one, is literally the entire roof that slides back over the rear windshield. Those may be good, but the base version is exactly the same as the top-spec Fusion for a lot more money. http://www.edmunds.com/lincoln/mkz/2013/road-test.html Also they enrage reviewers by ensuring excellent results on the handling tests with race tires that IIRC you can't even get stock on the MKZ. (They do come stock on the BMW M5 though btw) Edmunds' other article on the MKZ doesn't make it sound like the utter failure that first one does, but competitors are still better. Friar Zucchini fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Please, give a detailed reasoning of your experience with the MkZ and why you feel it is inferior to the Lexus ES. Here are some links for your reading pleasure: http://www.edmunds.com/lincoln/mkz/2013/road-test.html http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-lincoln-mkz-test-review http://www.autoweek.com/article/20121121/carreviews/121129978 Lincoln absolutely needed to hit a home run with this one for the long term viability of the brand and this car sure as hell isn't it. I'm not sure that it's vastly inferior to the new ES, but it does not provide the risk-averse Lexus ES buyer with much of a compelling reason to shift away from buying another Lexus ES. To out-ES the ES, you're going to have to blow it the gently caress away just because of the market segment that buys it. I should note that in those links, the Autoweek review is favorable, the Edmunds review is highly negative and the Car and Driver review is negative. edit: In fairness, if it were my money and you absolutely forced me to buy the ES or the MKZ, I might buy the MKZ on styling. But the target demo isn't going to like MyLincolnTouch at all. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Please, give a detailed reasoning of your experience with the MkZ and why you feel it is inferior to the Lexus ES. My biggest beef with Lincoln is their naming convention. Is the MKZ the big one or the small one or the SUV? Wait, they have two SUVs. I think. Also their styling has not particularly cohesive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
We're posting unfavorable articles on the MKZ here, might wanna actually read this one before you use it to show how the ES is better. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Comparing the Crown Vic to the Falcon is just a level beyond cluelessness. Yes, the Crown Vic was never as good a car as the Falcon. It was never meant to be. The Crown Vic was pure simplicity and durability; body-on-frame, solid axle. Not remotely the same kind of car as the Falcon and not trying to be. You wouldn't knock an Elise for not being as spacious and comfortable as an M3 would you? Of course not, that'd be idiotic. The only thing the Crown Vic ever had in common with the Falcon was the fact that they depended almost entirely on fleet sales to survive. The difference being that Ford US just kept a cheap, ancient platform around for that until they couldn't use it any more. Ford Aus kept pumping money into a car nobody buys, now that's how you do RWD right. I think the key to appreciating Panther cars is not expecting them to drive like a BMW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
leica posted:I think the key to appreciating Panther cars is not expecting them to drive like a BMW. I think you mean: the key to appreciating the Panther is having low expectations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
The MKZ is a problem as a product; I don't think it makes much sense over the Fusion, either. I also think it's a really bad idea to hinge a brand revival on this kind of product. If you're going to revive a brand, it needs to be a much more compelling product than a funny looking FWD armchair. Lincoln's ad campaign is targeted at younger buyers. Younger buyers don't buy ES competitors, they buy 3 series, A4s, maybe C classes. The ad campaign is completely lost on the people who are actually shopping for ES and competitors - old folks. Cadillac was on the right track with the CTS - it was RWD, it was edgy, they could justify a performance variant. Lincoln should've built something sportier, because that's what catches younger shoppers in this segment, even if they aren't actually sporty drivers. It's trying so hard to show some sort of soul through it's ads, but it has no soul in its product.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Also they enrage reviewers by ensuring excellent results on the handling tests with race tires that IIRC you can't even get stock on the MKZ. (They do come stock on the BMW M5 though btw) Except those tires absolutely are part of a package available on the car. It's a handling package that's exclusive to the V6 AWD car. That's why the Edmund's rage is so loving retarded and makes the article hard to take seriously. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Here are some links for your reading pleasure: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1212_2013_lincoln_mkz_3_7_awd/ http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1212_2013_lincoln_mkz_first_test/ But, congrats on cherry picking two negative articles I guess. Edit: Also on apparently not understanding the difference between "poorly received" and "bad". Q_res fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
I bet I've seen two dozen Crown Vics at auction with 500k miles, and a top of 800k miles. They have a lot of shortcomings but they are not a lovely car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:I think you mean: the key to appreciating the Panther is having low expectations. Don't compare it to something it's not? It's a (heavy) body on frame vehicle and is more compareable to an SUV than any modern sedan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
BabyMauler posted:Yah those cab-forward Chryslers were great. When the cabs in Boston weren't all Camrey's you could wait around for the unicorn Intrepid in a sea of Crown Vics. It was so great not having my knees sheered off. Are the 300/Charger good for taller people in the back? All my friends and I are over six foot so next car has to be good in the back. I own a Concorde and a 300C, the 300C is spacious in the back but nowhere close to the Concorde. blk posted:The MKZ is a problem as a product; I don't think it makes much sense over the Fusion, either. I also think it's a really bad idea to hinge a brand revival on this kind of product. If you're going to revive a brand, it needs to be a much more compelling product than a funny looking FWD armchair. Lincoln's ad campaign is targeted at younger buyers. Younger buyers don't buy ES competitors, they buy 3 series, A4s, maybe C classes. The ad campaign is completely lost on the people who are actually shopping for ES and competitors - old folks. Cadillac was on the right track with the CTS - it was RWD, it was edgy, they could justify a performance variant. Lincoln should've built something sportier, because that's what catches younger shoppers in this segment, even if they aren't actually sporty drivers. It's trying so hard to show some sort of soul through it's ads, but it has no soul in its product. Younger buyers hate FWD but buy the A4 over the C class?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I bet I've seen two dozen Crown Vics at auction with 500k miles, and a top of 800k miles. They have a lot of shortcomings but they are not a lovely car. You could say the same for any car commonly used as a taxi. I've been in a Proton Saga with close to a million KMs on it and that most assuredly is a lovely car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
The problem with the MKZ is that it's an upmarket Fusion, but the Fusion has already been moved fairly upmarket. The ES and A4 may be upmarket rebadges of cheaper cars but they're nowhere close to being the flagships of their brand. Lincoln needs a luxury flagship platform that's not a rebadge, or at least not such an indistinguishable one, and it hasn't had one in years and years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Except those tires absolutely are part of a package available on the car. It's a handling package that's exclusive to the V6 AWD car. That's why the Edmund's rage is so loving retarded and makes the article hard to take seriously. He's got a point when he says Lincoln needed to blow everyone away, though. Why would you ever buy a MKZ over the competition, other than to save a dying brand?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Comparing the Crown Vic to the Falcon is just a level beyond cluelessness. Yes, the Crown Vic was never as good a car as the Falcon. It was never meant to be. The Crown Vic was pure simplicity and durability; body-on-frame, solid axle. Not remotely the same kind of car as the Falcon and not trying to be. You wouldn't knock an Elise for not being as spacious and comfortable as an M3 would you? Of course not, that'd be idiotic. The only thing the Crown Vic ever had in common with the Falcon was the fact that they depended almost entirely on fleet sales to survive. The difference being that Ford US just kept a cheap, ancient platform around for that until they couldn't use it any more. Ford Aus kept pumping money into a car nobody buys, now that's how you do RWD right. Clueless? Oh I'm not sure that word applies to me on this one - the Falcon is a goddamn taxi and was and is designed to be built cheaply and be a tough as boot leather, simple and just works for 500,000 kms. Which it does. They are cop cars, they are courier cars, they get bashed up, beaten to the ground yet you still expect them to be usable after all the abuse. So dont try a elise strawman here - the Falcon IS what the Crown Vic is supposed to be. It just so happens it was done a lot better even when the Panther platform was new and the Falcon was the XD. And the XD was not exactly a good car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:was and is designed to be built cheaply Between T6 and GMs Zeta disaster, along with the fact that the Commodore and Falcon require holding your government up for money to exist as long as they have, it's safe to say that Australia has no idea how to build cheap cars. They're good at overweight and over budget, not so much the cheap part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 05:21
|
|