Here's the link to the Ward's article.

 

Yet more evidence that MT's incessant criticism of the engine is comepletely groundless.

 

Very interesting read, good find! Makes me excited to see what we will see equipped with this engine in the future!!

 

i remeber hearing about a larger displacment version of the 3.5.......i think it was for a 3.7 that was supposed to be in lincolns. Anyone know if there are any "known" plans for that?

 

Here's a Ward's Auto article that mentions it but no details. Ford's been pretty mum about it.

 

So a D35 equipped MKX gets the same mileage as a 'Stang GT?

 

Yeah but the MKX weighs about 800 lbs more then a Mustang GT.

 

Of course, that itself raises a few questions: why does a loaded MKX weigh 4200 pounds while a similarly loaded Lexus ES weighs 3600?

 

First, I assume you meant Lexus RX (the ES is a sedan not an SUV).

Second, let's get some true numbers to work with. While the MKX does weigh in at 4200 lbs, the RX weighs in at 4100 lbs not 3600 (and that's straight from the Lexus web site).

BTW, the Lexus actually gets worse gas mileage than the MKX as well and requires 91 octane to boot.

 

Gahh, I'm an idiot. MKX ....MKZ....I flipped 'em.


Oh wait, I'm not the idiot, whoever invented Mercury's new nomenclature is the idiot.


But, now that we are talking about the MKZ, my question remains, why does it get Mustang GT mileage?

 

Well, the MKZ is rated at 18/26 whereas the Stang is rated at 17/25 (manual) and 17/23 (auto) so the Lincoln is slightly better.

 

I guess I can forgive the car's V8-comparable fuel thirst thanks to the fact that its badass and pretty quick...I'm just still mad that they changed the name.