Ford Looks to (Finally) Revitalize Lincoln — Is It Enough?

[pragmatic]

Oh man that's funny!!

I look at it this way, two more cylinders with the same 3.5 or 3.7 liter displacement means smaller piston diameter with less surface area for fewer hydrocarbon emissions. ... snip ... I don't know what Ford's obsession is with V-6 engines and wrong-wheel-drive, but they really need to get over it if they want Lincoln to succeed and be seriously considered among the premium luxury car crowd.

Its all cost. They have v6 engines that can be enlarged to 3.7L (thanks to Porsche) if they took the V8 and destroked it or used a smaller bore they'd have a heavy 3.7L with little performance advantage over the V6. Clean sheet designs cost money.

I really don't care what the cylinder count is, just like I don't care what the valve count is (e.g. Chevy SB), I don't care what the displacement is, what I do care about is drivetrain - weight; package size; power and efficiency. How and OEM gets these four parameters to where they should be is up to their engineers.

 

[1LoudLS]

Oh man that's funny!!

Here's what I don't get. Maybe someone can enlighten me. Why is a small displacement V-6 with 2 turbos any better than a twin turbo V-8 with the same displacement?

because it is shorter to have two rows or three instead of two rows of four, and when you mount an engine in the wrong way, you also need to have a transaxle mounted next to/around it, you (well not me, but new car designers) more often then not want to go with a shorter engine to fit in easier, not every company has the balls to through a 4.6 in there sideways!!

also its not really better, it is just an illusion, whats is really better is more cylinders, more displacement, AND more boost!

 

[jmtiseo]

Sharing with all my facebook minions. That's awesome!

 

[thaywood]

because it is shorter to have two rows or three instead of two rows of four, and when you mount an engine in the wrong way, you also need to have a transaxle mounted next to/around it, you (well not me, but new car designers) more often then not want to go with a shorter engine to fit in easier, not every company has the balls to through a 4.6 in there sideways!!

That makes sense. But if the V-8 is the same displacement as the V-6, it shouldn't be much longer due to smaller diameter pistons. That is, if it is a clean sheet design and not based on the modular block.

also its not really better, it is just an illusion, whats is really better is more cylinders, more displacement, AND more boost!

Now that I can agree with

 

[brack86svo]

I am actually looking at a CTS-V becasue ford doesnt have a RWD V-8 6spd available... used of course. The best would be a v8 awd 6 spd car... I would drive that.

I bought an 05 CTS-V a month ago and love it. It's everything I wanted my LS to be. I still have the LS but, the woman drives it.

 

[Stopsign002]

I bought an 05 CTS-V a month ago and love it. It's everything I wanted my LS to be. I still have the LS but, the woman drives it.

I just wish I liked the styling on the CTS. I mean, its not ugly by ANY means, but its just not me. The LS is literally a perfect fit styling wise for me, hence my depression when I look at newer sports sedans and wonder what the hell I'm going to upgrade to in 5 years (or whatever). Currently the 5 series BMWs are probably the closest match for me, with Jags at a close second (Though the XKR-S is my dream sports car at the moment, it just sounds so amazing... )

 

[thaywood]

I am actually looking at a CTS-V becasue ford doesnt have a RWD V-8 6spd available... used of course. The best would be a v8 awd 6 spd car... I would drive that.

Actually, Ford does have a RWD sport sedan with a V-8 and 6-speed manual. The only problem is that you have to go to Australia to get one. It's called the Falcon. Too bad the brass at Ford are apparently too stoopid to see that there is a market for RWD, 4-door, V-8, manual transmission cars in the USA.

 

[regiment1]

Actually, Ford does have a RWD sport sedan with a V-8 and 6-speed manual. The only problem is that you have to go to Australia to get one. It's called the Falcon. Too bad the brass at Ford are apparently too stoopid to see that there is a market for RWD, 4-door, V-8, manual transmission cars in the USA.

Hmmmm....Not bad....

 

[1LoudLS]

if the V-8 is the same displacement as the V-6, it shouldn't be much longer due to smaller diameter pistons.

With the way they cram everything under the hood now days, it wouldn't take much for "much longer" to also be too long.

 

[Telco]

Actually, Ford does have a RWD sport sedan with a V-8 and 6-speed manual. The only problem is that you have to go to Australia to get one. It's called the Falcon. Too bad the brass at Ford are apparently too stoopid to see that there is a market for RWD, 4-door, V-8, manual transmission cars in the USA.

No, there isn't. At least, not enough of a market to matter. If there were, these cars would be here. Manual transmissions are dropped when less than like 10 percent of the car sold has them. When usage drops below 10 percent, it's no longer cost effective to offer the manual.

When the automatic went mainstream, there were two groups that liked the autos. They were the performance nuts and the tree huggers. The performance nuts liked the control and power, the tree huggers liked the fuel efficiency that direct drive provides. The automatics have gotten good though. High performance autos provide much closer control over shifting, and this gives a tighter shot group on ETs. Professional drivers (not all, of course) are turning to automatics because they are giving up more reliable, repeatable times. And now, the autos have gotten fuel efficient enough to turn the tree huggers off manuals because they have their allegience only to saving fuel. The group of people who want the control the manual gives has gotten a lot smaller than it used to be.

Gotta tell you too, I used to be in the manual camp but with software to control the trans the way I want it, I can't see running a manual anymore. I've got my truck set up so it goes to the exact gear I want depending on the situation, and it never misses a shift.

 

[Stopsign002]

No, there isn't. At least, not enough of a market to matter. If there were, these cars would be here. Manual transmissions are dropped when less than like 10 percent of the car sold has them. When usage drops below 10 percent, it's no longer cost effective to offer the manual.

When the automatic went mainstream, there were two groups that liked the autos. They were the performance nuts and the tree huggers. The performance nuts liked the control and power, the tree huggers liked the fuel efficiency that direct drive provides. The automatics have gotten good though. High performance autos provide much closer control over shifting, and this gives a tighter shot group on ETs. Professional drivers (not all, of course) are turning to automatics because they are giving up more reliable, repeatable times. And now, the autos have gotten fuel efficient enough to turn the tree huggers off manuals because they have their allegience only to saving fuel. The group of people who want the control the manual gives has gotten a lot smaller than it used to be.

Gotta tell you too, I used to be in the manual camp but with software to control the trans the way I want it, I can't see running a manual anymore. I've got my truck set up so it goes to the exact gear I want depending on the situation, and it never misses a shift.

Lol and I was just thinking on the way home how I miss downshifting and slamming on the gas to make that yellow light ;p

I just find manuals to be so much more satisfying, even if they aren't as good anymore

 

[thaywood]

With the way they cram everything under the hood now days, it wouldn't take much for "much longer" to also be too long.

That's true. That's another reason I hate wrong-wheel-drive. I had to put an alternator in my stepson's POS '92 Honda Accord a couple of months ago. Took me 2 frakkin' hours. I've NEVER taken 2 hours to change out an alternator in my life. Sucky FWD crap...

No, there isn't. At least, not enough of a market to matter. If there were, these cars would be here. Manual transmissions are dropped when less than like 10 percent of the car sold has them. When usage drops below 10 percent, it's no longer cost effective to offer the manual.

I have to differ. We don't have the Falcon because Ford is run by a bunch of limp wristed nanycboy pansy beancounters. There are more than just the FPV Falcons. The base Falcon has a 4.0L DOHC inline-6 that makes just about 300hp. It also has the choice of a 6-speed manual or 6-speed ZF automatic with manumatic shifting. They could still bring the Falcon here even if they didn't offer a manual. They're just to stupid to realize that people would buy these cars. Probably the same people who buy Chrysler 300's, Dodge Chargers, Pontiac G8's (R.I.P.), and vairous Mercedes, Jaguars, BMW's, Lexus, Infiniti's, Hyundai's, and any other RWD sedan that is sold in the USA.

When the automatic went mainstream, there were two groups that liked the autos. They were the performance nuts and the tree huggers. The performance nuts liked the control and power, the tree huggers liked the fuel efficiency that direct drive provides. The automatics have gotten good though. High performance autos provide much closer control over shifting, and this gives a tighter shot group on ETs. Professional drivers (not all, of course) are turning to automatics because they are giving up more reliable, repeatable times. And now, the autos have gotten fuel efficient enough to turn the tree huggers off manuals because they have their allegience only to saving fuel. The group of people who want the control the manual gives has gotten a lot smaller than it used to be.

Gotta tell you too, I used to be in the manual camp but with software to control the trans the way I want it, I can't see running a manual anymore. I've got my truck set up so it goes to the exact gear I want depending on the situation, and it never misses a shift.

I agree with most of that. However, personally, I hate automatics. I don't have a choice with my Mark VIII because there wasn't a manual offered in that car. But if I have a choice, I'll pick the stick shift every time. I love shifting gears. I l ove having total and complete control of my car at all times. Fvck a stinkin' slushbox. If I had my way, slushomatics would be illegal. Everybody should at least have the experience of driving a real car with a real man's transmission. I have always associated slushboxes with lazy people. It takes hand/eye/foot/brain coordination and skill to properly pilot a vehicle equipped with a proper manual transmission. With an auto, your just stick it in D and mash the gas...blah...Where's the fun in that? But that's just the way I feel about it personally. I love driving the Cobra because it has a manual transmission. There's nothing quite like the feeling of shifting your own gears.

Lol and I was just thinking on the way home how I miss downshifting and slamming on the gas to make that yellow light ;p

I just find manuals to be so much more satisfying, even if they aren't as good anymore

Couldn't agree more

Hmmmm....Not bad....

Droooooooooool

I did a little photochopping in Microsoft Paint to see what a 2-door and convertible Falcon would look like:





Right now they only make the sedan. A coupe and 'vert would be nice.

 

[LS4me]

I have to differ. We don't have the Falcon because Ford is run by a bunch of limp wristed nanycboy pansy beancounters. There are more than just the FPV Falcons. The base Falcon has a 4.0L DOHC inline-6 that makes just about 300hp. It also has the choice of a 6-speed manual or 6-speed ZF automatic with manumatic shifting. They could still bring the Falcon here even if they didn't offer a manual. They're just to stupid to realize that people would buy these cars. Probably the same people who buy Chrysler 300's, Dodge Chargers, Pontiac G8's (R.I.P.), and vairous Mercedes, Jaguars, BMW's, Lexus, Infiniti's, Hyundai's, and any other RWD sedan that is sold in the USA.

It's not the bean counters. Austrailian cars don't meet our crash standards nor the EPA's regulations. There is a reason GM doesn't sell the GTO here anymore; and it isn't due to the demise of Pontiac.

 

[Telco]

Lol and I was just thinking on the way home how I miss downshifting and slamming on the gas to make that yellow light ;p

I just find manuals to be so much more satisfying, even if they aren't as good anymore

I feel the same way. You feel more connected to the car when you're sticking your foot between the engine and transmission to move the gear you want into place by hand. Nevertheless... I only run autos because my wife has never gotten the hang of doing four things at once, and when she has to start on a hill with a stick she always winds up at the bottom of the hill regardless of what's behind her.

thaywood, you can disagree from now to Doomsday, it won't matter. The beancounters look only at sales numbers, and if an option doesn't sell enough, it's dropped. We as car people feel that the manufacturers should build what WE want, but the manufacturers don't give a flying fig about what our tiny little group wants. They only care about making whatever they can make the most of with the least investment. If that means pissing off the 5 percent of us that only like automatics to save the thousand dollars per car it takes to properly outfit a car with a stick, they drop the option. It's not just the trans, it's the clutch, routing, exhaust and interior pieces that they have to take into account. But if it makes you feel any better, I agree with your sentiment. I'm still waiting on Buick to build an all-new Reatta, only this time with a better design, rear wheel drive, 8 speed manual and a V8 that makes about 2lb/HP weight to power ratio.

:gr_devil: Oh, and no freakin' push button crap that controls the radio, HVAC, and everything else so when the display fails nothing works on the car and in order to adjust something safely you have to stop the car.

 

[thaywood]

It's not the bean counters. Austrailian cars don't meet our crash standards nor the EPA's regulations. There is a reason GM doesn't sell the GTO here anymore; and it isn't due to the demise of Pontiac.

Possibly true. However, the reason the GTO is gone is because, although it was a great car, it wasn't popular and didn't sell. The G8 (Holden Commodore from Australia), on the other hand, sold well and was very popular, until the demise of Pontiac. Now GM is selling the Australian Holden as the Caprice Police Persuit Vehicle here in the 'States. They're also talking about giving Chevy a version of the RWD Holden Caprice as a production car to possibly replace the Impala. Buick may also get a version of the RWD Holden. If GM can do it, why can't Ford? Both cars are from Australia. GM seems to be having pretty decent luck with their Holdens here in the 'States. So what's holding Ford back from giving the Falcon a chance? They're pansy-a$$ wussies, that's what.:lol: The ball-less bean counters running Ford are terrified to even take the slightest chance on something new. I'll bet they would probably hold up a cross and threaten to hose you down with holy water if you mentioned "rear-wheel-drive" or "V-8 engine" or "high performance" around any of them.

 

[Telco]

Possibly true. However, the reason the GTO is gone is because, although it was a great car, it wasn't popular and didn't sell. The G8 (Holden Commodore from Australia), on the other hand, sold well and was very popular, until the demise of Pontiac.

And why was the GTO not popular? Because when they were on the dealer lots as new cars, the dealers jacked the price up by some 10-12 THOUSAND dollars. The cars could not be had without a single option, and they came in at about 38,000. The dealers wouldn't let them go for less than 50 grand.

They should have released the GTO as a package for the LeMans, and they should have offered the LeMans with two smaller engines. Perhaps a turbocharged 3.8L V6 as a base LeMans and a 4.8L or 5.3L V8 as a Formula LeMans or something, then the GTO with a 6.0L. At the time I wanted one but couldn't swing the 38 grand and I absolutely will not buy a car with a "market markup" price on it. Even if I could count out hundred dollar bills for the car I wouldn't buy one with a dealer markup.

So far as the Falcon goes, I'd like to see that come over here as well, IF they don't get greedy and kill it off before it gets a chance to start like GM did with the GTO.

 

[thaywood]

And why was the GTO not popular? Because when they were on the dealer lots as new cars, the dealers jacked the price up by some 10-12 THOUSAND dollars. The cars could not be had without a single option, and they came in at about 38,000. The dealers wouldn't let them go for less than 50 grand.

It was also not popular because of its somewhat bland styling. I've heard a lot of folks said it looked too much like a Sunfire. But yeah, the price was a definite factor.

They should have released the GTO as a package for the LeMans, and they should have offered the LeMans with two smaller engines. Perhaps a turbocharged 3.8L V6 as a base LeMans and a 4.8L or 5.3L V8 as a Formula LeMans or something, then the GTO with a 6.0L. At the time I wanted one but couldn't swing the 38 grand and I absolutely will not buy a car with a "market markup" price on it. Even if I could count out hundred dollar bills for the car I wouldn't buy one with a dealer markup.

I agree.

So far as the Falcon goes, I'd like to see that come over here as well, IF they don't get greedy and kill it off before it gets a chance to start like GM did with the GTO.

Me too. At least GM did give the G8 a chance...until they killed Pontiac

 

[Telco]

Heh heh... yeah I forgot about how you couldn't tell it from one of the slowmobiles without looking really close at them.

 

[pragmatic]

Plus since they (GM) did a quick job getting i ready for the US market the gas tank was installed in the truck making it (the truck) fairly useless.