A couple of weeks ago, I made a post about a recent Motor Trend test of the Lincoln MKZ lineup. In that post, I suggested that the testing itself was hurting Lincoln's image. The vast majority of the review was about performance numbers and that doesn't seem to be what Lincoln is after so, naturally, Lincoln cars don't put down numbers you can brag about. They're simply adequate. That doesn't necessarily mean they are bad cars though. For example, if someone were to take a Rolls Royce Phantom Coupe and compare its performance to a new Corvette Stingray Z51, the Phantom would come up really short. In reality, the Phantom Coupe is very far from bad or even average. It's simply not a performance car. In fact, it's so far from a performance car and offers so much more luxury and brand prestige than a Corvette that they would never be cross shopped, but you get the point. If you use the Corvette yardstick, the Rolls Royce would come up short. The opposite
No, it's not because it's called Mach 1 or the heritage that comes with the name, although that's pretty cool for Mustang fans. There are few cars out there that have the widespread track use of Mustangs. A combination of affordability, a decent RWD platform with endless aftermarket support and the potential to be competitive when properly set up makes them a staple in most track paddocks in North America. But being popular for track use comes with some headaches for manufacturers. It means that the car will be pushed hard by its customers and that will inevitably lead to discovering weak links . The vast majority of factory main-stream performance cars have limitations on track when pushed to hot lapping pace. That's not to say they are all equal - some are, without a doubt, far more durable and dependable than others - but nearly all require modifications. Mustangs are no exception. And their popularity also means those weak links are discovered fast, and marketing d