Jump to content
Create New...

Lincoln News: Lincoln To Offer A 2.0L EcoBoost As An Option For MKT Town Car


William Maley

Recommended Posts

William Maley

Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

August 2, 2012

Lincoln's replacement for the town car for livery services, the MKT Town Car, will have a fuel efficient option for those who are looking to save on their gas bills.

Motor Trend reports that the MKT Town Car for the 2013 model year will come with a 2.0L EcoBoost four-cylinder in a FWD configuration.

The 2.0L EcoBoost provides 235 HP and 260 lb-ft of torque. EPA rates the 2.0L at 20 City/28 highway/23 combined. That's considerably better than 3.7L V6 option that provides 300 HP and 275 lb-ft torque. EPA rates the 3.7 at 17 City/24 Highway/19 Combined. Note, the 3.7L V6 comes with AWD as standard equipment.

The MKT Town Car with the 2.0L EcoBoost starts at $49,845, about $1,100 less than the 3.7L V6.

Source: Motor Trend


View full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the 2.0t putting out roughly the same power as the V8 the last Town Car had though? Running it through a 6-speed auto instead, it should feel roughly the same in power as the outgoing sedan.

I truly hope that I am wrong, but my personal experiance of our over weight sedans with hi power 4 bangers is that they still do not seem to drive like a V8 powered version even when the horsepower and torque is about the same.

Wait and see.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my hope is when ford has the 2.3 ecoboost ready for the mustang that they move that in to the taurus, flex, explorer, mkt etc. that little bit extra displacement i think can help a lot for these larger fords.

I think ford is looking to lighten all its vehicles but the P90 volvo platform these are all on, i doubt they will try to replace it. so they need to boost up the engine IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

I previously mentioned, the turbo 4 has the same output as the outgoing V8.

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic Andi merge onto the freeway with authority.

And quietly and smoothly..two qualities 4 cyls aren't known for.

Merely a factor of sound insulation.... And you need to update your sampling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

I previously mentioned, the turbo 4 has the same output as the outgoing V8.

You guys can continue to harp on this spec sheet comparison, but I'm not buying into it until I experience it myself... engines have characteristics other than HP and torque, otherwise, the V8 would have been banished overnight with these magical turbo 4's.

I simply have not had the opportunity to drive any of the newer turbo 4's, as they all generally come in cars I can't fit into... and I haven't rented anything for a LONG time now... and quite frankly, with no new Pontiacs, I have not been compelled to stop by a dealership for anything but a handful of parts. This will be ending soon, as I plan on trying out some of the new stuff for kicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWD cars w/ 4cyl engines... not my area of interest, though I've probably driven Malibu and Fusion rentals w/ 4cyls and haven't noticed it. I have 3 rentals in the next 6 weeks scheduled, hopefully can avoid 4 cyls.

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of them would be turbo 4s so not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

True, but still just 4 cyls...it will be interesting to see how the current turbo 4 trend plays out...turbo 4s were fairly widespread in the 80s, most of them turned out to be crap and a passing fad.

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of them would be turbo 4s so not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

True, but still just 4 cyls...it will be interesting to see how the current turbo 4 trend plays out...turbo 4s were fairly widespread in the 80s, most of them turned out to be crap and a passing fad.

and still just as irrelevant. The Turbo-4s that are out now don't need to rev to get power or torque out of them. You're not going to be happy with a naturally aspirated 4 no matter what... we all know that already. The Regal GS Turbo-4 puts out more torque and at a lower RPM than the FWD Northstar did.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

I previously mentioned, the turbo 4 has the same output as the outgoing V8.

The MKT probably weighs 1000lbs more than the TC did...a 4cyl in the MKT is absurd as a 4cyl in the Enclave or Acacia would be..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of them would be turbo 4s so not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

True, but still just 4 cyls...it will be interesting to see how the current turbo 4 trend plays out...turbo 4s were fairly widespread in the 80s, most of them turned out to be crap and a passing fad.

and still just as irrelevant. The Turbo-4s that are out now don't need to rev to get power or torque out of them. You're not going to be happy with a naturally aspirated 4 no matter what... we all know that already. The Regal GS Turbo-4 puts out more torque and at a lower RPM than the FWD Northstar did.

Very true olds that the current crop of Turbo 4 or even Turbo 3 engines put out more than v6 or v8 engines did in the 80's or 90's. Yet when driving one of them, there still seems to be something missing from the over all experience of putting your foot into a turbo 4 banger compared to a v8.

I call it the seat of your pants experience, but I do not get a satisfying feel from driving a turbo 4 in comparison to a v8. Yes I am probably biased a bit from having big power V8's all my life, but when I push a small engine even turbo charged still seem to strain in my perception compared to a v8.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When picked up by my limo driver, I expect him to be able to get ahead in traffic and merge onto the freeway with authority.

I previously mentioned, the turbo 4 has the same output as the outgoing V8.

The MKT probably weighs 1000lbs more than the TC did...a 4cyl in the MKT is absurd as a 4cyl in the Enclave or Acacia would be..

You're wandering into SMK territory with just making up $h! numbers to suit your agenda.

The Lincoln Town Car is 4413 lbs.

The Lincoln MKT 3.7 V6 FWD is 4499 lbs.

For a total difference of 86 lbs.

Just the switch from a 3.7 liter V6 to a 4-cylinder turbo is enough to make up for the 86 lb weight gain, so there is even a chance that the MKT 2.0 will weigh less than a Town Car.

Add to the fact that the MKT has a 6-speed rather than a 4-speed so I would expect the MKT to out perform the Town Car. The 2.0T can make 280 ft-bl at 1700rpm - 4500, just 7 ft-lb less than the peak torque 4.6 V8 makes at 4600rpm.

Stop making stuff up just to suit your agenda.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of them would be turbo 4s so not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

True, but still just 4 cyls...it will be interesting to see how the current turbo 4 trend plays out...turbo 4s were fairly widespread in the 80s, most of them turned out to be crap and a passing fad.

and still just as irrelevant. The Turbo-4s that are out now don't need to rev to get power or torque out of them. You're not going to be happy with a naturally aspirated 4 no matter what... we all know that already. The Regal GS Turbo-4 puts out more torque and at a lower RPM than the FWD Northstar did.

Very true olds that the current crop of Turbo 4 or even Turbo 3 engines put out more than v6 or v8 engines did in the 80's or 90's. Yet when driving one of them, there still seems to be something missing from the over all experience of putting your foot into a turbo 4 banger compared to a v8.

I call it the seat of your pants experience, but I do not get a satisfying feel from driving a turbo 4 in comparison to a v8. Yes I am probably biased a bit from having big power V8's all my life, but when I push a small engine even turbo charged still seem to strain in my perception compared to a v8.

Limo drivers don't tend to care about such "seat of the pants" experience. They care more about fuel efficiency.

Oh good Cubie... down vote me because I bothered to go look up the numbers you couldn't be bothered to actually know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh good... down vote me because I bothered to go look up the numbers you couldn't be bothered to actually know...

Whatever...Wikipedia didn't have the weight numbers for the MKT..I assumed it was as heavy as the similarly sized Lambdas....it's just another ugly CUV... and I don't have an 'agenda' here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with Oldsmoboi on this one. Limo or hearse drivers aren't going to care about speed, and if you are in the back of a limo you can't hear the engine, and if you are in the back of a hearse you probably don't care about NVH characteristics. The Town Car V8 did have torque, but a transmission form the 80s as well. The MKT 2.0 has 260 lb-ft, less than the V8 but the transmission can make up for it. Fuel economy is the real thing here, many limos sit around idling or going at slow speeds in cities, so the 5 mpg extra is worth the slight drop in power.

Plus, the Town Car had only 1 engine choice, the MKT has 3, so if you don't like the 2.0T and want that seat of your pants experience in an ugly, pointless SUV, they make a 3.5 Ecoboost also. If looking to be critical of the MKT 2.0 Ecoboost, I wouldn't pick on it having a little less power, I'd wonder why it only gets 28 mpg, but weight and aerodynamics are no doubt dragging it down big time. $49k is a lot also, if it was $49k for that 2.0T with a hybrid system getting more like 30 mpg combined they would have something more marketable to fleets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with Oldsmoboi on this one. Limo or hearse drivers aren't going to care about speed, and if you are in the back of a limo you can't hear the engine, and if you are in the back of a hearse you probably don't care about NVH characteristics. The Town Car V8 did have torque, but a transmission form the 80s as well. The MKT 2.0 has 260 lb-ft, less than the V8 but the transmission can make up for it. Fuel economy is the real thing here, many limos sit around idling or going at slow speeds in cities, so the 5 mpg extra is worth the slight drop in power.

Limo drivers are required by law to be shut off after 3 minutes of idling, except in extreme conditions where the passengers require climate control. Last I checked, a 4 or 8 used the same amount of gas while off.

Also, I've always tipped better to drivers who got me from A to B quickly... most of my friends do, as well... and even mention this ahead of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with Oldsmoboi on this one. Limo or hearse drivers aren't going to care about speed, and if you are in the back of a limo you can't hear the engine, and if you are in the back of a hearse you probably don't care about NVH characteristics. The Town Car V8 did have torque, but a transmission form the 80s as well. The MKT 2.0 has 260 lb-ft, less than the V8 but the transmission can make up for it. Fuel economy is the real thing here, many limos sit around idling or going at slow speeds in cities, so the 5 mpg extra is worth the slight drop in power.

Limo drivers are required by law to be shut off after 3 minutes of idling, except in extreme conditions where the passengers require climate control. Last I checked, a 4 or 8 used the same amount of gas while off.

Also, I've always tipped better to drivers who got me from A to B quickly... most of my friends do, as well... and even mention this ahead of time.

Limo drivers rarely do shut off after 3 minutes and the "climate control" is an easy excuse for it.

You sit there with a stop watch during your limo ride? Do you require all acceleration to be full throttle? Even my 140hp, 14.9 second to 60 Oldsmobile can get you to the airport faster than the law allows without the secondaries ever opening.

All of this tempest in a teapot over a livery vehicle's acceleration....which is still likely better than the preceding model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search