2013 Lincoln Mks Ecoboost Sedan 4-door 3.5l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Bentley designer calls Lincoln Continental concept a Flying Spur 'copy' [w/poll]

When you first laid eyes on the new Lincoln Continental concept, we'd wager you were likely impressed, because it's an impressive design. But if you also thought it looked familiar, you're in good company. According to Car Design News, design chief Luc Donckerwolke over at Bentley thinks the Lincoln concept bears more than a passing resemblance to another Continental: Bentley's own Flying Spur. "This behavior is not respectable. Building a copy like this is giving a bad name to the car design world," Donckerwolke told CDN, after posting some disparaging comments on Facebook and offering in jest to send over the tooling. "It is very disappointing, especially for an exclusive brand like Lincoln," added Sangyup Lee, his deputy for exterior design. The irony is further entrenched by the name, which Bentley only dropped from its Flying Spur in its latest iteration but still uses for the coupe and convertible models. Both automakers have a deeply routed history with the nameplate, but Lincoln's stretches back further, having first used the handle in 1939 before Bentley did in 1952. However it's not the nameplate that's the subject of controversy here, rather the design of the vehicle to which it's applied. So what do you think, did Lincoln borrow too heavily from its British counterpart? Related Video:

Mustang parts under the new Lincoln Aviator mean good things for Ford

NEW YORK — As we mentioned last night, underneath the new Lincoln Aviator "concept" there appears to be an independent rear suspension lifted right from the Ford Mustang parts bin. And while it's pretty cool on its face that Mustang rear-drive platform bits are being reused in the broader Ford universe, what this means for the next Explorer could be really cool. A quick caveat: The Aviator here in New York is very close to the production version, but it's not technically a production car. It looks hand-built, with temporary exhaust and some show-car touches. The suspension underneath looks exactly like a Mustang's, but the actual production Aviator will almost certainly use beefier components with the same basic design and geometry, since the Aviator will be much heavier than the smaller Mustang. That being said, we're fairly confident that even at this early stage, the Mustang-derived suspension seen in New York is a preview of what'll be under the production Aviator. Furthermore, Ford won't say it, but based on what we're seeing on Aviator, it's a safe bet that Ford will utilize the Aviator platform for the next Explorer. That would enable the economies of scale necessary to produce a brand new rear-drive-based SUV platform in the first place. It also means that the Explorer should be available without AWD — and given the stable of powerful EcoBoost engines, and the competent 10-speed automatic in the parts bin, a rear-drive Explorer has a shot at being a decent driver. Aviator wouldn't go rear-drive-based if driving dynamics weren't important; Explorer should inherit these priorities. More evidence: The Explorer spy shots we saw back in February sure share the Aviator's general proportions. Even back then, before Aviator was revealed, we were hypothesizing that an EcoBoost 3.5-liter-powered version could boast as much as 400 horsepower, if the Expedition's tune were adopted. Suddenly, the Explorer seems very interesting. So, an EcoBoost, rear-drive Explorer sure sounds like something Ford Performance would be interested in, right? We knew an Explorer ST is coming, but with 365-400 horsepower potential and a chassis designed with dynamics in mind, it doesn't seem like as much of a stretch as the Edge ST. And a performance-oriented AWD system is a possibility, too. That's an area where Ford has been gathering experience at a rapid pace. What do we not expect from a new Explorer? A V8.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.