I am writing this from San Diego after just having turned in a Hertz rental. A Lincoln LS V8 with about a thousand miles on it. I was pleasantly surprised by it! Although I did not get a chance to test its engine performance - too much rain in the past few days here.

I liked many of the inside luxury touches - looks like American cars have come a long way since the introduction of the Q45 back in the early nineties.

The things I saw and many I liked:

1. Two person driver seat memory (just like the first-gen Q45's I had.). Lots of travel in the seat. I was able to adjust it to where it felt quite good. Very good seating surfaces, without being too hard or too soft.

2. Electronic parking brake, with automatic release when put into gear. Very, very convenient, indeed!

3. Seat heaters and coolers - both driver and passenger. Three level settings for each (cooling and heating). Neat!

4. Nice, reasonably tight suspension with a very nice feel on the highway bumps. Similar feel to the current Q45, but a teensy bit softer than the M45.

5. Dual driver and passenger temperature settings.

6. Lots of leg room in front and back. Automatic seat retractors when door is opened (like the Q.)

7. Very shallow trunk (top to bottom). But the back seats looked like they folded down, I think!

8. Decent, tight steering with less lock-to-lock than I would have expected on an American car. Nice road feel, without too much power steering and good road feel.

9. Nice look and feel to the leather, although not quite as good a feel as the current M45 and Q45. It did look a tiny bit plasticky on the dash - I do not know if it was leather.

10. Nice growl to the engine when pushed, but I could not explore limits. Too much highway traffic and too much rain. Argh!

11. Traction control can be disabled.

12. The front and back looked very clean. Overall length was comfortable, very like the M45 - felt "shorter" than the Q45.

13. Up-down gear shifter to the side, like the current gen Q45, M45 and G35.

On the whole, I think the Ford/Lincoln has a very nice car here. If its power is decent, and the cost is lower than the Infiniti or Lexus products, it may have some legs. I'd rank it one level behind the current Q45 and M45 cars, but certainly more luxurious and larger than the next tier of cars (like the G35 and Acura models.)

Z

Lincoln has been putting consistently solid cars on the road for decades, with the exception of the pile of crap 88-94 Continental -- oh god what a heap of garbage that was.

Some of the major complaints I read a year or so ago about the LS V8 are related to the interior, though I'm sure by now theyve made improvements. Some in the automotive press said the layout and switch gear was too Ford Taurusey.

They also complain about the styling being too conservative, but thats exactly how I like it. No surprise then that my favorite design is the very traditional Jaguar XJ8.

Did yours have THX sound?

-Jesda

I was looking at those when I bought my Olds Aurora. Had I got the Lincoln, I might not have ended up with my Q.

Ive never driven one, but they are HOT cars.. I really like the exterior styling... Classy, elegent and sporty.....

Jesda wrote:Did yours have THX sound?

Yes ... I think. There was a "DSP" button that brought up an "Ambiance" setting on the display, that could be adjusted for where in the car you wanted the optimum sound, etc. It did sound pretty darn good - better audio than the M45, but not quite as nice as the new Q45. Again, somewhat limited experience here, since the rain was pretty heavy yesterday, and I did not get to hear it much.

It also had a Sirius XM satellite service integrated into the audio system (no awkward separate pod-mounted unit like I have seen elsewhere) that I did not actually try out, so I am not sure how well or poorly that worked.

Z

elwesso wrote:I really like the exterior styling... Classy, elegent and sporty.....

Agreed! As Jesda said, somewhat conservative, but not old at all. It is different from the current Q45 and M45, so I cannot make a fair comparison per se. But, it did stand on its own quite well.

Z

WE KILL RENTALS....Thats a BAD car, very tight, responsive, and the V8 is full of power. I've only driven as a passanger but my buddy PITO was driving, and he can put on a show...almost lost my lunch a few times.My rental place has V8 nothing on their lot, only intrepids, impalas and such...

I almost bought one of those when I passed my old trusty Honda down to my sister. I went with a really good friend of mine who is in the used car business to the local off-lease auctions for vehicles. Saw a ton of them up for bidding (up here the LS is a very slow seller on the used car market). I Almost got an '01 model, with very low miles, fully loaded with the V6 engine. However, my wifes voice kept echoing in my head to "get a practical' family vehicle." I ended up with my Jeep.

But maybe one day, I'll still buy an LS.

Does anyone have a personal review of the 300C of current year? I REALLY like the styling, and know that I will never afford it, but I would like to know how they are holding up for build/quality feel. Power should be a given with 350 or so HP.

On a less excited story, I just returned from a business trip, but all I had to rent was a chevy Monte Carlo..... reminded me of my mothers old 1995 thunderbird... long long long, with huge doors that hit everything.


Modified by robmcole at 10:22 PM 10/21/2004

The new 300 has a bizarre quirk. The German-designed tranny, if bumped into neutral while cruising and put back into drive, will not reengage due to some electronic "safety" feature. Has to be towed to the dealer to be reset. Annoying. Pointless. Stupid. Damn Germans.

-Jesda

robmcole wrote:Does anyone have a personal review of the 300C of current year? I REALLY like the styling, and know that I will never afford it, but I would like to know how they are holding up for build/quality feel. Power should be a given with 350 or so HP.

I drove one in a Chrysler test drive event in July. Here's the thead wiht my review.

http://nicoclub.com/zerothread?id=73323

The LS has allways been a car I've been wanting to drive. It seem that Lincoln making a RWD car with almost 50/50 wheight distribution was a step in the right direction. One thing that pissed me off about the LS is that the manual transmision was only available in the V6. Now, they don't even make the stick. Too many lazzy Americans that don't want to use thier left foot ruins the fun for everyone.

Jesda wrote:The new 300 has a bizarre quirk. The German-designed tranny, if bumped into neutral while cruising and put back into drive, will not reengage due to some electronic "safety" feature. Has to be towed to the dealer to be reset. Annoying. Pointless. Stupid. Damn Germans.

-Jesda

Agreed!

Jesda wrote:The new 300 has a bizarre quirk. The German-designed tranny, if bumped into neutral while cruising and put back into drive, will not reengage due to some electronic "safety" feature. Has to be towed to the dealer to be reset. Annoying. Pointless. Stupid. Damn Germans.

-Jesda

Jesda I hope that is some sarcasm at its best. How much more of a safety feature do you want other than not being able to do stupid stuff like putting a car in neutral at cruise.

The 300C is a nice automobile but just remember there is a reason why you get power and luxury for a low price. The cheap "leather" and plastic feel is common to american luxury. Except Cadillac now.

I talked about the lincoln LS on this board before I got the Q. The LS is a nice performance sedan. The interior is pretty cheap. The center console is annoying with the sqeaky sound. But it is pretty fast and the autoshift is nice. The suspension is nice and tight on the 2001+. It has a euro feel to it, rivaling the BMW 5 series.

Many American cars look and drive nicely when new - the key is to look at one that's five years old! Sagging doors, chrome peeling off, rusty bolts everywhere under the hood, oil consumption that's "normal" - I'll never own a Furd again.

Heath

I've yet to see an ugly Mark 8. I have to get myself one, one of these days.

Now, as far as the Chrysler 300's tranny, how often have you accidentally bumped into neutral? And do you really want to pay for a tow and have to haul yourself to the dealer every single freaking time it happens? What if youre driving through barren desert or the middle of north dakota?

-Jesda

pito11213 wrote:Jesda I hope that is some sarcasm at its best. How much more of a safety feature do you want other than not being able to do stupid stuff like putting a car in neutral at cruise.

It's nice to be able to shift into neutral while cruising. When driving through the mountains, coming back down, I usually shift into neutral because there is no need to use the gas. In fact, you have to use the brake, or else you will hit 100mph very quickly while coming down.

BTW, when my Q was over heating, I would be get to about 90mph, shift into neutral, and shut the car off for a while. Kept me from killing the engine.

szhosain wrote:I am writing this from San Diego after just having turned in a Hertz rental. A Lincoln LS V8 with about a thousand miles on it. I was pleasantly surprised by it!

You experienced the best of the rental car. Go back and rent that same car when it has 10k~15k miles on it. It will probably be completely different. Rental cars don't last very long.

Jesda wrote:Now, as far as the Chrysler 300's tranny, how often have you accidentally bumped into neutral? And do you really want to pay for a tow and have to haul yourself to the dealer every single freaking time it happens?

If you check the manual, you will probably find that there is a way to reset this feature yourself. Usually, it involves completely stopping the car for about 10 seconds, shifting into park, then shifting into drive. Or, sometimes, shifting into Park (while stopped) and shutting the car off will reset the computer.

GMC Trailblazer has a stupid feature like that except it prevents you from shifting out of 4x4 Low. My friend roasted his transfer case very quickly because the computer wouldn't allow him to shift out of 4x4 low. Luckily the vehicle was/is under warranty.

robmcole wrote:

Does anyone have a personal review of the 300C of current year? I REALLY like the styling, and know that I will never afford it, but I would like to know how they are holding up for build/quality feel. Power should be a given with 350 or so HP.-----------------------------------------------------------

I actually drove the 300C and Magnum both north american and European versions awhile ago before the vehicle was released to the public at the test track in Auburn Michigan. My dad is an engineer with Daimler. They had a private family "test driving party" for the families of those who worked on the car. I guess it was a "make up" for all those ours of overtime.

If you run a search on this board you should be able to find it. I remember posting my impressions.

Q451990 wrote:Many American cars look and drive nicely when new - the key is to look at one that's five years old! Sagging doors, chrome peeling off, rusty bolts everywhere under the hood, oil consumption that's "normal" - I'll never own a Furd again.

Heath

Amen, Brother! At 10 years like my Q45, they are crumbling, burnt toast rather than good as new (if properly maintained).

Jesda wrote:Now, as far as the Chrysler 300's tranny, how often have you accidentally bumped into neutral? -Jesda

Personally, in almost 20 years driving, I've never done that.

I do agree that the interior looks very cheap in person. The tortoise shell look plastic is nice, but plastic arm rests on the doors, plastic everywhere, just cheap. Can't even touch the quality of my Q, or any Q's interior.

A bunch of up close Chrysler 300 photos I took (mostly interior) earlier this year:

http://q45.spilky.com/300c/

PMQ - Hate to keep (seemingly) pounding on you man, but putting an automatic in Neutral while whizzing down a mountain is a BAD idea.

Keep in mind that the fluid does not circulate while in 'N', so you're essentially resuming acceleration with a HOT and DRY gearbox.

I'd prefer to burn up a set of brake pads, or better yet, place it in 3rd and occasionally apply some gentle braking.

p.s. Amen x2 to Heath. Find me an American-made 1995 luxury sedan with 110K on it as nice as (and with comparable performance to) my Q and I'll buy it for you.

Thanks for the info AZ. I didn't know that.

Does that mean that the pump for the tranny fluid turns off when you put the tranny in neutral?

Heheh, I've been itching to mention sometime, that I have a 1990 Honda Accord EX that I bought in 1989 with 42 miles on it. It's pushin' 375,000 now.

I bought another Japanese car, my 96 Q45, precisely because of the years of blinking and shaking my head as I put yet another timing belt into that lil' 125 horse 4-banger. (it's gonna need another one in 7K miles, but I don' know if I want to spend the bucks this time)

It's rusted to hell over the rear quarters, but sheesh, most everything still works. I don't think I did anything special to make it last, either; just 3000 mile oil changes and regular service intervals, fixed stuff when it went bad, ran ethanol most of the time. It's still on it's original AC compressor, replced the alternator with a rebuilt at 230,000 miles, stuff like that.

Is this ... unusual, in your experience?

Can I expect something similar with the Q? I know it's not yer basic high volume car, like the Accord, but for almost three times the Honda's original list price, I hoped to get similar longevity.

PoorManQ45 wrote:Does that mean that the pump for the tranny fluid turns off when you put the tranny in neutral?

PQ -

Putting an automatic in Neutral is never a good idea at highway cruising speeds, however none of this applies to stick shift driving. Putting a stick shift vehicle in neutral decrease fuel consumption, and it doesn't hurt the tranny either because by design the tranny fluid continues to circulate and doesn't get hot. I've seen so many mobile trailer homes on the highway towing their small get-around cars on all four wheels (instead of placing it onto a tow dolly) and I question whether those automatic trannys will bond metal-to-metal by the time they get to their destination. Interestingly enough, many folks don't know about this so don't feel bad that you didn't know this.

Btw, I'm glad that the sarcastic remarks against you have toned down. I haven't stop by this site for a while because it appeared like this forumn consisted of only people who are in the "in-group" and outsiders are unwelcomed. That's truly unfortunate.

96Qowner wrote:Heheh, I've been itching to mention sometime, that I have a 1990 Honda Accord EX that I bought in 1989 with 42 miles on it. It's pushin' 375,000 now.

LOL. You brought Honda into this. Older modal hondas' will run forever if you do regular maintenence on them.

I don't know what happened to new models. I've been reading reports that Camry and some other model are having severe problems

SFBayQ45 wrote:PQ -

Putting an automatic in Neutral is never a good idea at highway cruising speeds, however none of this applies to stick shift driving. Putting a stick shift vehicle in neutral decrease fuel consumption, and it doesn't hurt the tranny either because by design the tranny fluid continues to circulate and doesn't get hot. I've seen so many mobile trailer homes on the highway towing their small get-around cars on all four wheels (instead of placing it onto a tow dolly) and I question whether those automatic trannys will bond metal-to-metal by the time they get to their destination. Interestingly enough, many folks don't know about this so don't feel bad that you didn't know this.

Thanks for the info.

SFBayQ45 wrote:Btw, I'm glad that the sarcastic remarks against you have toned down. I haven't stop by this site for a while because it appeared like this forumn consisted of only people who are in the "in-group" and outsiders are unwelcomed. That's truly unfortunate.

Ya, i've been trying not to argue. I learned just to not say anything if I don't know about something.

And yes, it is nice to not have the remarks.

The Lincoln LS can be a great car if the price is right.

Chrysler 300 Hemi C

I dont care if it leaves me stranded in the ghetto where I get could carjacked, robbed, and beaten. I MUST HAVE ONE.

Come on Japan, stop manufacturing transportation devices and start designing cars.

More where that came from:http://www.fast-autos.net/chry....html

PoorManQ45 wrote:You experienced the best of the rental car. Go back and rent that same car when it has 10k~15k miles on it. It will probably be completely different. Rental cars don't last very long.

A good point! I guess I did not mean to imply that the LS would hold up well as a rental car. What I wanted to say was that it had few enough miles on it that I could see what it would be like when bought off the lot. So, a new one would probably be similar in its internals and performance.

Of course, what really matters is long-term experience. There seem to be a lot of posts here implying that Ford/Lincoln cars do not hold up well after many years or miles. Which is unfortunate, because this seemed like a very well done car!

Z