Edmunds CarPool

I wouldn't say that the MKX is 11 years late to the party. Any time a new segment is created, it takes everyone else a little time to create a compeititor, if they so choose. Lincoln's focus at the time of the 1st RX was not the same as it is now. The original RX was a Camry Wagon sitting high off it's tires- nothing to really brag about other than it was the first of it's kind. It possessed all of the attributes of a Camry but shrewed Lexus marketing made us feel it was in fact this supreme luxurious vehicle. It's about time for a RX redo as well since it's riding on the last gen Camry's short unproportioned wheelbase with old school struts at the rear.

"The original RX was a Camry Wagon sitting high off it's tires- nothing to really brag about other than it was the first of it's kind."
 
Well that...and it clearly pushed Lexus into the "Best Selling Luxury Brand in America" position ahead of BMW and Mercedes. And it created a segment that every other luxury maker has been forced to enter if they want to make money (which Lincoln took 11 years to do...and -- surprise! -- they haven't been making as much money as Lexus over the past decade).
 
But otherwise it really isn't a very important vehicle...

The Lincoln MKX ten years too late I think is due to the fact that Ford was experiencing good sales with body on frame vehicles. Lexus caught many by surprise and look the results. No doubt the RX is one of the best selling luxury vehicles. Even the used ones have a strong resale value. Now, everybody is targeting the Lexus RX350 as a bench mark. GM, Ford, Hyundai etc are targeting their new products against the Lexus RX and some of them are very close or better (you be the judge). But as we know Lexus will raise the bench mark higher.

Apart from Lexus/Toyota's reputation for reliability and quality, it seems (from Karl's analysis) that the MKX and RX are equals. (I don't see the Rx's 5-speed auto or the MKX's 5 hp deficit as deal breakers.) So it will come down to personal preferences in styling and how the customer prioritizes reliability......

Hi Karl, Could you soon put an article about car service? THere are some nagging questions I need help on and I feel the dealer wouldn't necessarily give me the best answer.....

blackadder5639, Edmunds.com's Service articles from its "Tips & Advice" may be able to help you in the meantime.
 
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/service/articles/index.html
 
I also used to work in the service department of a BMW (May 2005 to June 2006) and an Acura dealership (July 2006 to November 2006, before coming here). If you have any specific questions you would like to ask, you are more than welcome to drop me a line through my CarSpace page. Just click on my hyperlinked username above and try to send a comment or e-mail. You may have to register for the site first, but I think it's a great site to be a part of (and no, you won't get any SPAM from it). I hope this helps and have a nice day!

I think this vehicle and the Edge are a significant step in the right direction for Ford. But, one thing that has bothered me for a long time, especially with Lincoln withering on the vine, is that Ford doesn't give the division's line up something to make the interiors more distinctive. It has long been the way that Ford seems to use one giant parts bin to outfit all of their interiors (among other things). It has to be more complicated and expensive to have things unique to the vehicle or at least the line, but I think if they really want to compete they have to do something more than putting a cheesy chrome or silver satin finish on the same buttons and controls that can be found in the average Ford. When I look at a Lexus interior, Toyota is not what comes to mind. But, if this ends up being a popular and reliable / trouble free vehicle (like a luxury Murano), maybe there wont be so much depreciation and it'll be the start of a new life for Lincoln - time will tell, hope so.
 
When I think about the overall picture for Ford, I do wonder where Ford would be without Mazda and Volvo to pull from - kind of a sad state of affairs.

Oh please, don't try to use that one on me. Just because a vehicle is "important" in terms of sales doesn't mean it's the greatest thing since sliced bread . The first RX was good at one thing (which happened to be the only thing most Toyotas were good for at the time). Besides, average car buyers are the most fickle of all consumers. They usually follow trends without thinking twice about why they need a different style of automobile. Everyone who was served well with a sedan or wagon instantly needed a car based SUV for what exactly again? I'm sorry, I forgot.
  
I personally didn't see the point of the first RX- it was a terriblty ugly Carmy wagon that sat high off the ground. What is ironic is that despite spawning this crossover market, most of the other offerings regardless of when they were introduced have taken the idea and made it much better. The RX has stuck to it's roots and barely improved. Alas, it still sells.. but you won't convince me it's the benchmark of the segment. If I were designing a clean sheet CUV, my aim would skip over the RX (ie GM Lambda).

Dang, 40k+ for a Lincoln?! Who are they selling to? The Mazda CXs are a far better deal and having driven them, they're not really that great either.
 
I will give the Aviator and Edge one thing: they're not bad looking. They're neither bland nor dowdy. Overpriced, for sure but at least their size and shape looks somewhat functional.

The MKX looks great.
 
The RX did too back when it came out - one of the first SUVoids that wasn't boxy. I've always thought that it's JDM name, Harrier, fit its styling well. (I do hate them because they're among the slowest-driven cars on the road, but that's another matter.) It's been a pivotal vehicle for Lexus (their first creative idea, imo, and instrumental in overtaking M-B in sales), for the CUV segment, and for the luxury SUV segment. And unlike the MKX, it looks worlds different from its Toyota equivalent. That's going to hurt the MKX if you ask me.

I'm sure it's not important to most, but being able to get the MKX without a sunroof pretty much seals the deal for me. Unless you really want one, consider going without - the headroom's great!

Thanks, Suby. I've sent you an e-mail on carspace.com.

I thought the RX has had 270hp since the 2007 model when it was changed to RX350. Am I mistaken? The 2008 RX is just getting some minor cosmetic changes and called "new" in typical lexus fashion.
 
The first RX was significant, but it wasnt a great vehicle. It wasnt too attractive, its power and handling were mediocre and it was small. It was a hit and I assume that was because it was one of the most affordable and smooth riding luxury SUVs available at that time. Lexus gets points for being first, but they havent had the best entry lux SUV in a long time. Even now I would get an MDX, SRX or X5 before an RX350. Lincoln may be late to the game but what difference does it make when more established players such as MB and BMW have yet to knock the RX off its perch at the top of the segment. While the RX was the first unibody vehicle in this class it should be mentioned that MB was actually the first with this type of vehicle because the ML came out for MY'98. MB was really first, but Lexus took the sales crown.
 
Wasn't Audi almost as late as Lincoln to the crossover party? Actually Audi was late to the SUV party period. At least Lincoln has had the Navigator and Aviator before the MKX.
 
BDC,
 
The MKX is not overpriced, look at its equipment levels. A loaded RX is about $50k which is way more than the loaded MKX as Karl mentioned. You cant just say "its a lincoln and thus it shouldnt cost $40k" without taking its equipment into consideration. And before we start talking about how it lacks refinement lets remember the Edge is quieter than the RX350 according to testing mentioned in the Ford ads so I would suspect the same is true of the MKX.

1487 - the RX is overpriced too - my personal valuation. I'm not saying others don't think it's worth 50k, but I wouldn't pay even 30k for a loaded RX, let alone 50k. This holds for many, many cars (5/7/6 series BMW included - I wouldn't pay as much as a 3 for any of them). Paying 30k for a Lincoln cute-ute seems a hard to swallow. It's a tall Lincoln...20k tops.
 
Ford ads said something about the quietness of an Edge, it must be true. 14, you don't really believe things in ads do you?!

It's true, the RX 350 has made 270 hp ever since it got the 3.5-liter Camry engine this year.
 
http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/rx350/2007/review.html
 
This time of year, when the model changeover means essentially two "new" model years are on most dealer lots at the same time (2007s AND 2008s in this case), is always interesting.

"Ford ads said something about the quietness of an Edge, it must be true. 14, you don't really believe things in ads do you?!"
 
Dont be ridiculous, you should know enough about product claims to know Ford (or anyone else) would get in trouble for making unsubstantied claims. Ford (and others) ususally hire an auto testing firm or use info garnered from tests in magazines for these claims. If you read the fine print at the bottom of the screen on the Edge commercials you will see where they got the information from. Have you heard Lexus dispute the claim? Of course not and there's a reason for that.
 
I wouldnt buy an MKX, but if you think it shouldnt cost more than $20k "because its a lincoln" you are a little out of touch with today's prices. And yes I understand that in your opnion anything other than a 3 series isnt worth much money but we do have to put aside your pricing opinion for a second (I know its hard) and look at what vehicles actually cost in 2007. As I said, the MKX isnt overpriced for what it offers.

1487, I can set up parameters for testing that will allow me to make many outrageous claims. Clever use of terminology can lead to all manner of results. Remember Ford's ad about people picking the Fusion over the Camry? Yeah, if you ask the question just right, it's true. I've driven the Fusion and the Camry and if someone asked which one was more fun to drive the Fusion wins hands down - even with just FWD it's more fun to drive a Fusion. Would I buy a Fusion? Not on your life.
 
Private valuation is all that matters in the end. The old Zephyr was marketed as a counterpoint to the ES, TL, 3 series. In the end the sales were so bad at that price point that Ford now sells the MKZ/Zephyr with rebates for less than 30k. The market spoke and the MKZ isn't worth 30k+ to its general buyers.
 
The Madaspeed6 is a fun car. You can grab them for 22-24k instead of the 28-30k msrp.
 
I'm not really out of touch. Ford just thinks too highly of their products. At the mid20s the MKZ would fly out of dealers as it's a decent counterpunch to the TSX (giving the buyer more for much less - like the G35 does against the A4/3 series).
 
The MKZ priced in the mid 30s loaded would attract attention. At 40k it's an uber-expensive Edge.

11 years to answer the RX. Next thing you know they'll have a mid size RWD sport luxury sedan with a V8.
 
Oh yeah, that's right they had one, and killed it last year.
 
Today, Lincoln makes NOTHING that I would seriously consider buying.
 
Ford needs a way forward compass.

Hi Blueguy, I think it boils down more to the perception of the brand.....and perhaps the fact that the average car buyer is not concerned about the fun factor. Looking at the Zephyr, I'd say the following worked against it:
 
- People consider Toyota/Lexus to be a better brand than Ford/Lincoln, and are willing to pay more for the former.
 
- Of course, the Zephyr had another thing working against it: it's relatively underpowered engine. Although 220 hp is really fast enough for all but hard-core enthusiasts and cops.......
 
- Although the Fusion is more fun to drive, average car buyers prefer out-and-out power to great handling. (An enthusiast would probably choose the Fusion and add upgrades like cold-air intakes.)
 
So the Zephyr wasn't necessarily much worse than Lexus' equivalent models but Lexus is percieved to be a better brand and is more pretigious. (Of course, I don't know about things like interior materials....but I bet the Zephyr wasn't much worse than the Lexus.)
 
So, based on what Karl has said, I believe that the MKX and RX are equally good and should hence cost the same in an ideal world. Of course, with better perception of Toyota's products, the RX will sell better. However, I'm sure Ford know this and if they keep making good products (and improve their marketing) they should eventually match Lexus' prices.
 
I don't know why the Mazdaspeed6 would sell for the same price as the Mazdaspeed3, though, considering that the former has AWD and thus should have near-Evo performance and a substantially lower price ($28k versus $35k for the Evo). Besides, the Evo looks too much like the car of a teenager........ Blueguy and karl, why is the speed6 struggling to get sales?

I like some of your points, though, Blueguy. In that ad, it seems people were asked whether the Fusion was more fun than the Camry, but not whether they'd choose a Fusion over a Camry! If the Fusion is targeting enthusiasts, that was an excellent question. But if it is targeting the typical Camry buyer, they should have rather marketed the superior handling as a safety feature and stressed how Ford have improved in quality (if there are indeed such improvements)!
 
I think the MKX is priced right. Ford have to market aggressively and effectively to send the message that the MKX is the RX's equal, if not better.....

Luxury cars are all about style and material. You buy a luxury furniture for its style and material. You buy luxury clothes for its style and material.
 
Do you choose a pair of Calvin Klein sun glasses because it can block UVA and UVB rays? Do you choose a pair of Kenneth Cole sunglasses because it can block UVA and UVB rays? Do you choose either one because they can hang comfortably on your face without irritating your skin?
Not really. You would just pick the one with the styling you like.
 
I'd chalk all of Lincoln's sales problems up to its choice of design language.
Lincoln decided to roll back time to the 60's.
Back in the 1960's, cars were styled with many straight edges, and flat surfaces, because they had to be designed on paper, and built with rudimentary tools. People were forced to design this way because of their technological limitations, not that people thought this was the absolute best styling conceived.
 
Choosing such a theme has retricted Lincoln's appeal to a limited audience: the later middle aged, and elderly, who are nostalgic about this era of styling, plus some converts.
This throwback styling does not have mass appeal.
This design language automatic limits Lincoln's maximum potential audience size.
Now, no one ever gets a 100% on a real life test. So Lincoln will only get a fraction of this already minute audience.
It's easy to imagine not all elderly individuals will want to go back to 1960, other than to get their youthful bodies and strength back.
 
According to JD Power's polls, 7% more of the MKX's buyers are ages 56+ than the RX, 10% more of the MKZ's buyers are ages 56+ than the ES.
http://www.jdpower.com/autos
This may suggest an elderly deviation of the receptive audience.
Lexus also attracts more female buyers than Lincoln, with its IS (51% vs 37%), GX (36% vs 26%), and LX (41% vs 26%).
The young are lost. The women are lost.
 
As for me, I can't stand looking at this throwback interior for more than a few minutes. The dash is too square and tall. It makes me feel clostrophobic and short, and that I may miss seeing something directly in front of the vehicle.
It may have all the amenities, but checking off all the boxes is the entry price.
After the contestant has met all criteria to enter the contest, the people will choose among the contestants based on styling.

You're right there, billt9. I think the styling of the Fusion/Zephyr/MKZ is ugly...both on the exterior and on the dashboard. The Fusion's dashboard has so many switches it's ridiculous....and I reckon they did a similar thing with the Zephyr.
Interestingly, however, the styling has been praised in the media! I don't know if they see the same car I see!
 
The MKX's styling is much better. It actually looks good. But there's something I don't like about it: it looks like a minivan with a hood/bonnet.....it does not look like an SUV or CUV. I guess it's because of all the straight lines like you said.
 
I also take back my earlier comment that 220 hp was enough for the Zephyr. Sure, 220 hp is plenty and more is almost unnecessary, but since luxury cars are about excess and not about necessity, they should have had a more powerful engine. I think since the Edge and the Taurus use 260 hp engines, the MKZ/MKX should aim for 300 hp........ Since the MKX looks almost identical to the Edge, there's little point for paying more for the MKX if it deosn't have a more powerful engine. (I know the MKX probably has better interior materials and equipment, but they're still too similar......)

bdc,
 
Just stop, please. NO need for all the excuses about why a Ford is quieter than a Lexus. There arent many ways to rig a sound test to be honest. You get the vehicles to a certain speed and take a measurement with a sound meter, its pretty straightforward. You are so hell bent on believing that no domestic vehicle can be superior to anything Japanese in ANY way that you are grasping for straws here.
 
"The MKZ priced in the mid 30s loaded would attract attention. At 40k it's an uber-expensive Edge."
 
Last time I checked the MKZ starts at $34k or so and comes with a decent amount of equipment. The MKZ is an uber expensive Edge in the same way the RX is an uberexpensive Highlander. Same difference so I dont see your point.
 
BTW, I'm still confused by your statement about the Fusion. You are saying that the fact that you like the Fusion but wouldnt buy one is proof that Ford twisted the results of those comparisons to make the public THINK that people actually preferred the Fusion. That makes little sense and is just plain wrong. You are hardly the first import die hard to come with excuses for the Fusion's placement in those comparos. My favorite excuse is "How can we believe those people were being honest when Ford paid for the event". Yes, I'm sure Ford is stupid enough to tell people what to say and how to fill out the score cards when they arrive.
 
mnorm,
 
your comments were so poignant.............as usual.

14, is there a difference among these questions?
 
"Which car is more fun on this track?"
"Which car of these would you like to drive on this track again?"
"Would you pick the Camry for a drive like this again?"
"Pick the car you think handled better on the track."
"Which car is best for roadtrips"
"Would you like the Fusion or the Camry if you were stuck in traffic?"
 
Do you think those questions could lead people to specific answers? This is a common tactic in market research. During one research event I attended, the handlers had us get in a base 5 series, bottom end GS, some Volvo, stripped E class and finally an A6. The A6 had music playing, the AC/fan was running and it was loaded to the gills. Guess which car you sat in last? Uh-huh. The Audi.
 
"Which car do you find more comfortable?"
"Pick the car that's most luxurious."

BDC,
 
Of course you realize none of those same tricks will be used in the "Aura versus Camry" and "Malibu versus Camry" comparisons that GM has told dealers to start doing in their showrooms.
 
Right? Right?

LOL Karl, why whatever are you getting at??
  
Blueguy is totally right, I remember many years ago when GM had consumers compare the Olds Achieva, Legend and ES300. The ACHIEVA for Christ's sake. Somehow it "won".
  
I participated an event similar to BDC's that compared the Legacy GT vs the E46 325i and the Volvo S60. Both the 325i and S60 were strippers and the Legacy was jammed up. There was a sand traction test on the autocross course, and they swapped the 325i sedan with the less balanced wagon for the lane-change test. I still whipped the 3 through it faster than the Subie, but it was pretty obvious to me that Subaru was sponsoring the event (you didn't find that out until the very end after the scoring). The questions were phrased to lead you to rank the Legacy higher. I still walked away pretty darn impressed with the Legacy, despite picking the 3 as my choice (shocker, I know).
  
Bottom line - whenever the manufacturer claims it, it should be taken with a grain of salt. No matter what the "fact" is, there are always ways to make it appear the way you want.

The Olds Achieva "challenge" was between an Oldsmobile Achieva, Honda Accord, and Toyota Camry if I remember correctly. The first car I used regularly was a 1993 Oldsmobile Achieva S. Let's just say I pushed it harder than it was ever intended to be driven. It had an *amazing* 2.2L SOHC inline-4 with a whopping 105 hp and a 3-speed auto if I remember correctly. We even had the VHS tape with the consumer comparison as well.
 
In May 2005, I participated in the Legacy GT vs. E46 BMW 325i vs. Volvo S60/V70 that R&T/C&D put on for Subaru of America at Hollywood Park in Inglewood, CA. That was the first and only time I've driven an LGT (all cars there had slushboxes). The LGT felt pretty nice, but I didn't push any of the three that hard as I didn't want to end up embarassing myself at the end. Mid-way through I started to think SOA had their hands in the event. At the end, my thoughts were confirmed when I entered the tent full of Scoobys including a WRC rally car replica they let me sit in. :o) I also had former SCCA Trans Am and IndyCar racer John Paul, Jr. riding shotgun with me when I drove the LGT for one of the runs. I also got to talk to Clint Mears, son of Roger Mears/nephew of 4-time Indy 500 winner Rick Mears/cousin of current NASCAR driver Casey Mears,who was telling me how he loved the STi and was planning to get one (don't know if he ever did).
 
The most fun I had that day if I remember correctly was having one of the pro drivers take us around one of the courses in the E46 325i with the back end hanging out and tires squealin'. :o)

Befor i get started let me just say that i am not preduduce to either car brand.
 
I just want to make a few short points.
 
All cars these days seem to be a bit expensive. 30k for a camry or accord?! Theyr good, but no that good. So i think it is a reletivly safe bet to say that most cars these days are overpriced.
 
The lexus (sort of) justifies it's higher price by offering things that are not avalible on the MKX. (like a ajustable air suspension) The RX also fetures a smother ride (which most people want), and is avalible as a hybrid. It also has some fetures that will play out in the long term, like better resale value, better brand appeal (unless your like 100 years old) and better reliability.
 
However, the MKX offers better handelling, more chrome, and comes close to the lexus in terms of quality for less money. So for somone who just wants a luxury cuv, the MKX should be able to deliver the goods at a lower price point.
 
That would be the rational thinking anyways. In reality, Lexus will probably continue to sell better, despite their higher price.
 
If it was my money i would buy an acura MDX w/ tech pkg.

Olds Achieva?! Would you believe there's a fan base for those? And that I was involved with them? Are you sure it was a 2.2, or was it a 2.3? If it was a 2.3, it was admittedly pretty lame, but a close relation to the not so lame HO Quad4 and downright cool W41 Quad4. When I was a senior in HS I bought my first car that I actually wanted (or thought I wanted anyway, I had crazy clutch issues). It was a semi-rare '94 Grand Am GT with the HO Quad4, only available with a not-so-willing Getrag (Get rag, ha ha) 5-speed manual. Due to emissions issues requiring smaller manifolds the '94 HO's had 175hp rather than 180 in the older versions. The W41 models were brought to market solely for racing success, much like the original M3. They had 190hp, lobed at idle, I think they had LSD, baffled fuel tank, shorter final and 5th gear, and other minor tweaks.
 
So there's some little known GM knowledge you can impress your friends with. GM, starting in the late 80s, made a powerful and economical 4-cylinder that met emission standards of the day w/o an EGR system, and was sorta reliable. (If you were effected by the faulty head gaskets that some ended up with.) Unfortunately emissions and refinement concerned castrated it into the 2.4 Twin Cam that everyone is probably more familiar with. It was refined enough for me, though it did sound like it was going to explode in the upper RPM range.

Brian, the Achieva S had the "weak sauce" SOHC 2.2-liter inline-4. The Achieva SL and other trims had the "good stuff' Quad 4 engines. The first engine went bye-bye before 90k miles if I remember correctly. We kept the car until almost 170k miles iirc. Man, that thing had a *lot* of electrical problems.
 
I think we've gone too far off-topic.

Suby, you're probably right. I think I have the video around somewhere, but I could have sworn that the point of the "test" was to show that the Achieva was "so good" it could compete with cars costing significantly more. Or I could just be remembering incorrectly and it was actually the Olds LSS that was compared to the ES and the Legend.

Brian, here's a page with detailed specs of the 1992-1997 Oldsmobile Achieva. It's too bad we don't have the same information here on our used car pages. :( I was wrong earlier. I said the Quad OHC had 105 hp and it apparently had 115 hp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Achieva
 
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1992-to-1997-oldsmobile-achieva-4.htm
 
I wonder if Karl is thinking, "I can't believe these guys are discussing the Oldsmobile Achieva on my blog."
 
Enough OT (off-topic)! :o)

No worries. Don't get me started on the '87-'89 Dodge Shadow CSX models. Had two -- and still think about them. Scary.

Haha. I'm going to embrace this OT plunge and make it worse! Karl what can you tell us about the CSX?
 
I used to dream about doing this project (even semi-recently) where I'd drop an NA tuned Quad4 into an '86-'88 Fiero GT. I was also throwing around the idea of mild turbo, but decided a high compression, high revving engine fit the "Domestic Exotic" stereotype I was going for better. I was hoping to generate around 220hp at the crank. Two problems derailed this dream. Straight bodied GTs are ubber expensive for what they are. Then one day I sat in a Fiero GT at the local car lot, and thought, what a POS, I hate this car. The pedals seems to be a couple inches offset to the side from where they should have been. The clutch was everything you don't want a clutch to be. It made my previously mentioned Grand Am seem like a 3 series in interior quality and ergonomics.

No-no-no-no...you don't want to get me started on CSXs.
 
My dad bought an '87 with less than 10,000 miles on it around 1990, and the first time I drove it I flipped out. It was FAST! Remember, this was in Denver, where the air is thin but a forced induction engine somewhat offsets this. The result? My dad's CSX would regularly beat up on stock 5.0 GTs and 5.7 Irocs. It was a dead-even race when I put it up against my Mopar friend's 1971 Dodge Demon that had a 340V8 and modified heads/intake/exhaust We ran them several times trying to find a real winner, but every time it was the same thing. The Demon would get a 1/2 length out of the hole, then the CSX would slooooowly real it in and be 1/2 length ahead at around 100 mph. Needless to say my friends were a bit freaked out.
 
Ultimately I bought the car off my dad at 95,000 miles. It needed a clutch, front half-shafts and the A/C recharged, but otherwise it was fine (my dad did the timing belt at 80K). I fixed those other items, put in a Mopar Performance (back then it was called Direct Connection) computer that upped the rev limit and turbo boost, and proceeded to rip on (and P-off) modified 5.0GTs and 5.7 Irocs. Oh yeah, it also outhandled and out stopped those '80s-era muscle cars, too.
 
I sold it at 124,000 miles, still running fine. Why? Because I scooped up a 36,000 mile 1989 version for $5,500. To this day that remains the best car deal I've ever made. The '89 version had the same horsepower, but a variable nozzle turbo design removed any hint of turbo lag. When you punched it the power hit like a sledgehammer right off idle. I put a chip in this one, too and again beat up on the majority of street-legal racers in the Denver area for several years.
 
Eventually I sold that car to my dad (see, there's a balance in the universe) and he drove it for several years. The bummer was the poor car kept getting hit! A drunk rear-ended me and totaled it, but I kept it as part of the insurance settlement and fixed it good as new. Then it got hit again after I moved to L.A. Then my dad got hit in it once. He fixed it, and the next time he got hit he kept the insurance check and sold it to a Carroll Shelby club president from Utah for 2,500 (even with accident damage and the salvage title it had had for years).
 
For sheer bang-for-the-buck (and I'm talking handling and stopping, too), I have yet to find a better ratio than those cars offered.
 
See, I told you not to get me started.

Great stories, Karl! Brian, shame on you for indulging the OT! j/k

the mkx is a good looking crossover, and should do well with a cheaper price than most luxury crossovers. The lincoln is by far better looking than the bland and cutish styling of the lexus. It also comes with some features of the higher priced variants. unfortunately the materials must take a hit for the feature list. My biggest complaints about the lincoln, is that it only comes with a v6, personally i much prefer v8's to everything else. Also it has no 3rd row option, which is increasingly important, especially for me. It is a good car and better then the higher priced Lexus, but i prefer the srx.