7th Feb 2013, 15:34
Please give actual interior dimensions of the "full-size" 80s and 90s cars you're stating are smaller on the inside than the new small and mid-size commuter cars, and your source. Just stating things on here does not make them true, and I guarantee you will not be able to find physical evidence to back up your claim, at least correct evidence.
By the way, a Ford Taurus and Chevy Celebrity don't count as full-size cars. Sorry. Do you happen to own a '55 Mercury that is 22 feet long? Just curious.
7th Feb 2013, 23:00
Before you try to twist around what my comment says again, please reread my last one.
I never said a large was practical, what I said was VERSATILE. Meaning easier to load, get in and out of, and good handling compared to a full-size car. They guzzle gas? Well of course they do, do you honestly think people don't know this before they purchase them?
The Chevy S-10? Again, please reread what said, I was comparing the INTERIOR, not reliability. Funny, we had a 4 cylinder S-10 in our family and it was sold at 140,000. Yes, I know all about the head gaskets; if you are careful with the coolant (like you are with your Merc.) this won't happen.
So what if there was a 90's Lincoln in your commercial. I have seen numerous car commercials do that when they come out with something new. It's not like they are saying their former line up was bad.
And please, for the last time, and this was a "debate" on this thread back in October, and over 320 comments ago; today's smaller cars do not have more interior space as far as head and legroom than older full-size cars from the very past. Please don't give me the Ford Focus hatchback comparison, because that includes the cargo space as part of the interior.
Again, I went on a road trip with a new Camry that was rented. Once again I sat in the back seat at one point, and drove the car; the interior room is nowhere near my Town Car, or another example, my father's Park Avenue. It's not like you were cramped, but it's not the space of a full-size.
In the end, why do you comment here when you never have anything nice to say about these cars, and comment like we are all morons?
8th Feb 2013, 23:23
The biggest piece of junk I ever owned was a 2009 Camry (with a review posted on this site). Before that I had a Grand Marquis. From experience I can tell you that the Mercury had much more room than the Toyota, and I do believe that you and I got into this in the comments section of my own thread.
10th Feb 2013, 18:31
I saw that commercial too, and frankly I think the mid-90s Town Car looked better. One interesting thing I found out about the MKZ that interests me is that it has a programmable suspension, much like the Continental had from the late 80s up until they quit production. I would be curious to see how the "comfort" setting rides. Supposedly it is designed to please those who are fond of the big floaty cars of the past, but I have my doubts. I wish more manufacturers would take advantage of technology like this, or at least have a smoother suspension as an option, especially in larger luxury models. It really puzzles me why every cars seems to need to have sporting aspirations these days. Not everybody wants to drive a 2 seater with a souped up engine that can corner flat at 50 mph.
7th Feb 2013, 13:57
SUVs may be dying out where you live, but I see them in record numbers up here in New England. Most people who make decent money drive them around here. Also, remember too that people nowadays are having less kids, and they don't need the huge amount of room that an SUV offers.
And about the Lincoln commercial, I have to say that Ford thinks that the Lincoln MKZ will replace the Town Car as a flagship sedan, but it really won't. After reading several reviews, most critics agree that it really hasn't changed over the years, and offers very little over its Ford Fusion originator.
All of your posts seem intent on rewriting history. The Town Car was a huge hit until it got the bad restyling in 1998. The Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis continued to sell well until 2003, when the full-size market faded in favor of big SUVs. Back in the 1990s and early-2000s, the Panther platform was Ford's most profitable platform. Yet you talk like they were never popular. Get the facts straight before you start making such revisionist assumptions.