So I had a chance to rent one of these this last week after two Ford Taurus cars both failed to operate properly. The locking & keyless start failed to work properly @ SFO rental center so we ended up with one of these. Funny that later that day it's locking system also failed once we were in SF proper. So we could not lock the car at all for the first day but at least it started reliably. Very odd ...

THis car moves pretty well and not that far off of the STR's performance in terms of acceleration.

The steering has zero feel.

The interior is not my cup of tea and it was all black which is also not a favorite for me. But it certainly had a lot more technical goodies than a 10 year old Jag ... It should!

But on balance I think I prefer a simpler car anyways. This car's advanced electronics can be an enormous distraction to one's driving if you let it be.

What did surprise me was the handling, save the steering, through the twisties of the Sierra foothills where I have a small ranch. This car is a much better handler than the STR IMHO. It's totally flat through the curves and inspires confidence to drive fast. The engine is also very smooth in it's power delivery. You'd never know it's turbocharged and that made carving the turns a delight.

But it's ugly as sin to my eyes.

The STR's chassis never has particularly impressed me. The front wheels go all wobbly when pushed hard on bumpy roads and I just don't feel that confident of it's grip. After driving this car I can see that our STR's could do with a suspension tune. The MKS was not harsh, it did not lean and yet it worked very well when pushed. The newer electronics are probably responsible for that.

The build quality was not as solid feeling as the Jag.

An interesting comparison.

 

Well the 0-60 is about the same 5.2 seconds but the STR will kill it in the quarter mile.

13.9 to 13.3-13.1 for the STR. Of course the MKS is AWD which is a big advantage to just RWD.

I have found the STR to have a great trade off between handeling and a harsh ride but the new cars do improve every year.

Fuel mileage is rated about the same 17/25 to the STR's 17/24.
.
.
.

 

Why do you think it will "kill" it in the quarter mile? The power statistics aren't overwhelmingly different, about 50 on HP and torque so yes it should lose.


The available 3.5L EcoBoost® V6 engine combines direct-injection technology and twin turbochargers to provide the performance of a V8 with the fuel economy of a V6. EcoBoost generates 365 horsepower* and 350 lb.-ft. of torque with an EPA-estimated rating of 17 city/25 hwy/20 combined mpg.**
*Horsepower figures achieved using 93 octane premium fuel. **Actual mileage will vary.

But the power delivery is superior in a way that makes the car actually faster in most driving situations IMHO. I bet the newer 5L supercharged and even the NA Jag engines are as well.

About that 93 octane fuel. The owners manual called for regular and that's what I used. It ran just fine too.

This new engine and drivetrain layout is very reminiscent of the one from the new Maseratis which has 50 + power though it sounds nothing like it! Just as ugly looking under the hood too. Maserati used to have such nice looking engines too.

I was just so pleasantly surprised by this car when going through the twisties. It would leave the STR behind IMHO or at least make the drive feel a lot more confident.

 

Sounds like the STR needs maintenance/repair of its suspension. How new are the various parts? Surely not on the originals or if so then that's why it feels as described!!

 

Nothing wrong with my car except that it's an 11 year old design.
When I bought it with 14K miles it was a lot of bang for the buck.
At the same mileage and price now it would still be that.
Not having 4WD here in the NE of the USA is a bit of a problem but I do have another vehicle for that. No winter conditions driving for the car are planned this year.

An STR is not so fast a car these days. The number of cars with 400 or near that HP is astounding.

It has 40K miles and drives about like it always did.
It still sounds tight and has less rattles than the 32K mile rental Lincoln did.
It just feels like a more solid car but with a different color scheme besides all black I get the Lincoln would seem far more luxurious inside. The seats were quite a bit more comfy but then the STR has those sport seats so it's a different vehicle in that regard.

 

These 2003-to-2008 S-Types remain great bang-for-the-buck vehicles as rear-wheel-drive highway cruisers if they are properly maintained. But compared to today's automotive technology, they are not particularly fast (that includes the STR) and they are definitely showing their age regarding their suspension parts, their engine bay plastic parts, and their electronic modules. Comparing them to most anything else built in 2014 isn't really applicable....

I just continue to enjoy the fact that I purchased my S-Type for essentially used Honda money nearly six years ago, I've maintained it properly, and at 86,000 miles it still meets my transportation needs well within the cost allocation margins I set up for it at the time of purchase. As long as those metrics remain favorable, it gets to stay in our stable....

 

Yes the plastic stuff is maddening but I think a whole lot of cars suffer from that now. If my car had the high mileage I guess I could attribute it's lack of handling prowess to age & wear but I think it's working about as good as it ever did. The reviews back then were rather tepid when compared with similar offerings from Audi & particularly BMW. I knew that going in and it's still plenty fast. The Lincoln just surprised me. The latest Ford Taurus non SHO is no match for the STR in any of the performance, comfort or build quality departments whereas that Lincoln is in some of those. It has the SHO engine which helps.

 

Thanks for posting the review. I have had my eye on that 3.5 liter Ecoboost V6 for awhile now and am very impressed with it in stock and modified form. With a Livernois tune ($600) you can get it up to 350-360awhp and 400-420awtq, and run mid 12’s all day long in the ¼. Pretty damn impressive, so much in fact, I am trying to convince my Dad who currently has a bolt on 04 GTO to switch to a Ford Flex with the same motor, in order to satisfy is weekly runs to home depot as well as his joy of speed.

I definitely agree that the looks of the Taurus and the MKS are not good, and don’t hold up well to the timeless styling of the STR. It’s definitely a good effort especially by the Lincoln, but $40K+ for a Ford, ugh.

Relative to the handling of the car vs the STR, I am sure as you mentioned that it has a lot to do with the age of the cars than the actual performance. Also, AWD definitely inspires confidence in the corners. One thing I have noticed after driving a lot of cars is the feel of the handling doesn’t always match up well against to the actual handling. My 3350lb Camaro with 275 fronts and 315 rears feels a lot more nimble than my STR, but when I take the same turn in my STR, I am going a lot faster, but it doesn’t feel like it. Interesting.

 

I think that is the thing I notice too. The STR just does not seem that fast or quick around corners until you try it in another car. The S Type in general is very smooth and quiet so it never seems to be straining.

What I meant is the MKS runs a 13.9 1/4 mile which is a good bit slower than the STR at around 13.1-13.3 and it traps at a lower speed which shows it has less horsepower.
.
.
.