Only with shortened springs, O ring tires, a DIY satin paint job (AKA flat black primer waxed) a stove pipe loud exhaust and dingle balls hanging off the mirror.
Last edited:
Opinions on this 2006 Lincoln
- Thread starter Milkman
- Start date
- Status
$10K does seem high at first for a 10 year old Panther platform car, but looking on Auto Trader, it's probably pretty fair for the miles. Looks like you could save a lot ($2-4K) by looking at 50-60K mile cars though...that's not much more wear and tear when you're looking at 10 year old cars on a durable platform.
At that age, the car will probably need a fair amount of maintenance even with the low miles. Because of the low miles, you can count on most everything except the engine oil and filter being original. It might even have original tires and front pads. A 50K mile car with new tires and recent maintenance receipts might actually be a better deal. Not saying the 27K mile car would be a bad buy at $10K, but it needs to be checked out like any other 10 year old car, and something with a few more miles might actually be a better buy. Just something to keep in mind.
At that age, the car will probably need a fair amount of maintenance even with the low miles. Because of the low miles, you can count on most everything except the engine oil and filter being original. It might even have original tires and front pads. A 50K mile car with new tires and recent maintenance receipts might actually be a better deal. Not saying the 27K mile car would be a bad buy at $10K, but it needs to be checked out like any other 10 year old car, and something with a few more miles might actually be a better buy. Just something to keep in mind.
The CarFax shows this 1 owner vehicle being in for routine service 28X over those 27K miles. Documented for every 1,000 miles or so. Hard to beat that level of documentation. Apparently the owner loved to have it serviced.
When I got my car with 22K miles it was as clean as this one. No engine photos though. The exterior shots are taken in the rain or after a wash down which makes it hard to find any defects in the paint. When I bought my car I heard wind noise when test driving on the highway. I had it put into the contract that the source of that (once I found it) would be at their expense. It turned out it needed a new windshield seal and they paid for that plus a new windshield - about $200 as I recall.
At 27K miles I wouldn't expect you to have to do brakes until 45K-65K miles. Suspension is probably fine. While the tires are 10 years old, they could be fine for another few years. I didn't replace my original tires until they reached 12 years old and I saw the signs of dry rot. The Michelins were evenly worn out by 52K miles. But you should be able to get some money out of the dealer due to the 10 yr old tires. There's no tire mfg out there who will recommend keeping tires beyond 10 yrs.
The car has just been traded in and only on the market for under 2 weeks. At the initial listed price of $11,237 it won't last very long imo. Get a trans filter and fluid service tossed in there too.
When I got my car with 22K miles it was as clean as this one. No engine photos though. The exterior shots are taken in the rain or after a wash down which makes it hard to find any defects in the paint. When I bought my car I heard wind noise when test driving on the highway. I had it put into the contract that the source of that (once I found it) would be at their expense. It turned out it needed a new windshield seal and they paid for that plus a new windshield - about $200 as I recall.
At 27K miles I wouldn't expect you to have to do brakes until 45K-65K miles. Suspension is probably fine. While the tires are 10 years old, they could be fine for another few years. I didn't replace my original tires until they reached 12 years old and I saw the signs of dry rot. The Michelins were evenly worn out by 52K miles. But you should be able to get some money out of the dealer due to the 10 yr old tires. There's no tire mfg out there who will recommend keeping tires beyond 10 yrs.
The car has just been traded in and only on the market for under 2 weeks. At the initial listed price of $11,237 it won't last very long imo. Get a trans filter and fluid service tossed in there too.
They had a 2006 Lincoln Signsture for sale in Florida. It had 73,000 miles for $6700. Don't know what it sold for, but know it didn't last two days.
No matter how low of mileage and a golden reputation you buying a 10 year vehicle with lots of rubber parts and other items that degrade with age. The low mileage may be fooling into thinking this vehicle is newer and better then it is.
Good luck, I'd pay $7500 max given the age.
Good luck, I'd pay $7500 max given the age.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
The CarFax shows this 1 owner vehicle being in for routine service 28X over those 27K miles. Documented for every 1,000 miles or so. Hard to beat that level of documentation. Apparently the owner loved to have it serviced.
When I got my car with 22K miles it was as clean as this one. No engine photos though. The exterior shots are taken in the rain or after a wash down which makes it hard to find any defects in the paint. When I bought my car I heard wind noise when test driving on the highway. I had it put into the contract that the source of that (once I found it) would be at their expense. It turned out it needed a new windshield seal and they paid for that plus a new windshield - about $200 as I recall.
At 27K miles I wouldn't expect you to have to do brakes until 45K-65K miles. Suspension is probably fine. While the tires are 10 years old, they could be fine for another few years. I didn't replace my original tires until they reached 12 years old and I saw the signs of dry rot. The Michelins were evenly worn out by 52K miles. But you should be able to get some money out of the dealer due to the 10 yr old tires. There's no tire mfg out there who will recommend keeping tires beyond 10 yrs.
The car has just been traded in and only on the market for under 2 weeks. At the initial listed price of $11,237 it won't last very long imo. Get a trans filter and fluid service tossed in there too.
This car sounds like a winner no doubt about it. And honestly 11K is totally fair money for this car, if you look at it realistically. I would say buy it today and feel good about it.
The rubber isn't concerning me a bit, most of the common wear items made of rubber used when this was was built was EDPM rubber and more than likely this is an overly maintained garage queen.
The CarFax shows this 1 owner vehicle being in for routine service 28X over those 27K miles. Documented for every 1,000 miles or so. Hard to beat that level of documentation. Apparently the owner loved to have it serviced.
When I got my car with 22K miles it was as clean as this one. No engine photos though. The exterior shots are taken in the rain or after a wash down which makes it hard to find any defects in the paint. When I bought my car I heard wind noise when test driving on the highway. I had it put into the contract that the source of that (once I found it) would be at their expense. It turned out it needed a new windshield seal and they paid for that plus a new windshield - about $200 as I recall.
At 27K miles I wouldn't expect you to have to do brakes until 45K-65K miles. Suspension is probably fine. While the tires are 10 years old, they could be fine for another few years. I didn't replace my original tires until they reached 12 years old and I saw the signs of dry rot. The Michelins were evenly worn out by 52K miles. But you should be able to get some money out of the dealer due to the 10 yr old tires. There's no tire mfg out there who will recommend keeping tires beyond 10 yrs.
The car has just been traded in and only on the market for under 2 weeks. At the initial listed price of $11,237 it won't last very long imo. Get a trans filter and fluid service tossed in there too.
This car sounds like a winner no doubt about it. And honestly 11K is totally fair money for this car, if you look at it realistically. I would say buy it today and feel good about it.
The rubber isn't concerning me a bit, most of the common wear items made of rubber used when this was was built was EDPM rubber and more than likely this is an overly maintained garage queen.
Speaking of old rubber, both of my cars are between 14-17 years old. Haven't had any rubber parts fail yet on either car, other than the factory tires on the Lincoln at 52K miles. Keep the rubber out of the summer sun, extreme heat, etc. and they'll last.
The PCV hose, radiator hoses, serpentine belt, etc. and other engine bay parts on my '99 are as supple as new parts. I only replaced the 15 year old tires on that car due to age - the tires showed zero defects. Not a crack any where. My 2002 Lincoln does need a new drive belt now and the PCV is showing a small crack. But that's got 72K miles and is 4 years older than the OP's listed car.
The PCV hose, radiator hoses, serpentine belt, etc. and other engine bay parts on my '99 are as supple as new parts. I only replaced the 15 year old tires on that car due to age - the tires showed zero defects. Not a crack any where. My 2002 Lincoln does need a new drive belt now and the PCV is showing a small crack. But that's got 72K miles and is 4 years older than the OP's listed car.
I would go with an offer for 9K and then expect something around $9.5 as the selling price. A car with this low of miles means it sat and was short-tripped at best. It will show faults when it resumes normal activity.
Oh, and the "reliability" of these vehicles is a myth and borderline horrific. Sure, you can repair them for 1/2 million miles but you will pay for each and everyone of those miles as it slowly bleeds you out. Don't expect a Camry-level reliability... it just has a lower repair cost so the willingness to repair is higher.
Oh, and the "reliability" of these vehicles is a myth and borderline horrific. Sure, you can repair them for 1/2 million miles but you will pay for each and everyone of those miles as it slowly bleeds you out. Don't expect a Camry-level reliability... it just has a lower repair cost so the willingness to repair is higher.
My car didn't need a thing from 22K miles to 65K miles. Those were 4-5 yrs of trouble-free driving. Then I did tires, radiator (due to trans cooler leak), and a front left axle due to a $10 tone-ring cracking on the ridiculous potholes we got from the winter of 2 years ago. My 1997 went 232K miles and it had the original engine/trans, radiator, water pump, suspension, exhaust, AC, and tone rings/axles. It didn't start to nickel and dime me until around 150K-175K miles. And boy did it eat my alive in those last few years. I knew I should have dumped it in the 125K-175K mile range. I sort of look at the 3 repairs on this current car as sort of flukes. You're gonna get them almost no matter what you own.
So the fact that my 22K mile Lincoln was short-tripped by the first owner (3K miles per year) had no bearing on a higher failure rate my first 4-5 years of ownership. I can say the same thing about my 1997 Lincoln when I got it with 29K miles. It had one fluke repair with an air pump and then nothing of note except brakes/tires/fluids/filters for over 100K miles. That was probably the most trouble-free car I ever owned for the first 100K-125K miles (4+ years), though most of that was 100 commuter miles per day.
Some of the instruments can and will fail early on these though. The cruise control on my 2002 went out somewhere around 50K miles. Since I rarely go on the highway I don't care about it. It could be a simple fix or not. The cruise control on my 1997 Lincoln lasted nearly its entire life. The CD player stopped recognizing disks just in the past month on my 2002. Again, not a big loss to me. Maybe I'll get that looked at eventually when the radio goes. Funny how you forget some of those "little" things. The CD 6 stack player on my 1997 worked the entire 12 years of its life. Being at 14 years now on my 2002 - sort of have to expect some electronics to go. So I would agree that going with a 2008-2010 offers advantages to a 2004-2006.
So the fact that my 22K mile Lincoln was short-tripped by the first owner (3K miles per year) had no bearing on a higher failure rate my first 4-5 years of ownership. I can say the same thing about my 1997 Lincoln when I got it with 29K miles. It had one fluke repair with an air pump and then nothing of note except brakes/tires/fluids/filters for over 100K miles. That was probably the most trouble-free car I ever owned for the first 100K-125K miles (4+ years), though most of that was 100 commuter miles per day.
Some of the instruments can and will fail early on these though. The cruise control on my 2002 went out somewhere around 50K miles. Since I rarely go on the highway I don't care about it. It could be a simple fix or not. The cruise control on my 1997 Lincoln lasted nearly its entire life. The CD player stopped recognizing disks just in the past month on my 2002. Again, not a big loss to me. Maybe I'll get that looked at eventually when the radio goes. Funny how you forget some of those "little" things. The CD 6 stack player on my 1997 worked the entire 12 years of its life. Being at 14 years now on my 2002 - sort of have to expect some electronics to go. So I would agree that going with a 2008-2010 offers advantages to a 2004-2006.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Oh, and the "reliability" of these vehicles is a myth and borderline horrific. Sure, you can repair them for 1/2 million miles but you will pay for each and everyone of those miles as it slowly bleeds you out. Don't expect a Camry-level reliability... it just has a lower repair cost so the willingness to repair is higher.
Time is money, especially in the industries these cars are often used in. Horrific reliability isn't happening in those settings.
There is no magic to Panther cars (BOF RWD car with a pickup engine should be reliable), but nobody puts up with an unreliable car for mega miles just because it's cheap to fix. Love them or hate them, they are good, generally reliable cars. I don't like Camrys, and will almost certainly never own one, but I will admit they are good cars.
Oh, and the "reliability" of these vehicles is a myth and borderline horrific. Sure, you can repair them for 1/2 million miles but you will pay for each and everyone of those miles as it slowly bleeds you out. Don't expect a Camry-level reliability... it just has a lower repair cost so the willingness to repair is higher.
Time is money, especially in the industries these cars are often used in. Horrific reliability isn't happening in those settings.
There is no magic to Panther cars (BOF RWD car with a pickup engine should be reliable), but nobody puts up with an unreliable car for mega miles just because it's cheap to fix. Love them or hate them, they are good, generally reliable cars. I don't like Camrys, and will almost certainly never own one, but I will admit they are good cars.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Oh, and the "reliability" of these vehicles is a myth and borderline horrific. Sure, you can repair them for 1/2 million miles but you will pay for each and everyone of those miles as it slowly bleeds you out. Don't expect a Camry-level reliability... it just has a lower repair cost so the willingness to repair is higher.
What are you basing this on? I'm curious. These cars are the dominant choice of taxi and limo's for the exact reason you seem to be denying here: reliability. I've seen more 700,000+Km Town Cars than I've seen 300,000Km Camry's.
Nobody denies their reliability, there are plenty of things about the panther cars that you can criticize, but that isn't one of them. So as I said, I am curious, what is this based on?
Oh, and the "reliability" of these vehicles is a myth and borderline horrific. Sure, you can repair them for 1/2 million miles but you will pay for each and everyone of those miles as it slowly bleeds you out. Don't expect a Camry-level reliability... it just has a lower repair cost so the willingness to repair is higher.
What are you basing this on? I'm curious. These cars are the dominant choice of taxi and limo's for the exact reason you seem to be denying here: reliability. I've seen more 700,000+Km Town Cars than I've seen 300,000Km Camry's.
Nobody denies their reliability, there are plenty of things about the panther cars that you can criticize, but that isn't one of them. So as I said, I am curious, what is this based on?
Lot's of thought's and comment's here on the value of this car. In the end, it doesn't matter what any of us think. It's your money to spend and if it is worth the asking price to you, then buy it! You are the one that has to write the check. I generally use NADA. com or KBB. com as a general guide to a used car's value and nothing more. 99.9% of the dealer's out there are going to ask for absolute top dollar plus, but willing to come down some for a serious buyer. Good luck, and that is a nice looking car.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What are you basing this on? I'm curious. These cars are the dominant choice of taxi and limo's for the exact reason you seem to be denying here: reliability. I've seen more 700,000+Km Town Cars than I've seen 300,000Km Camry's.
Nobody denies their reliability, there are plenty of things about the panther cars that you can criticize, but that isn't one of them. So as I said, I am curious, what is this based on?
My "Limpin' Lincoln". I have covered this part of my vehicle history. The door literally fell off, as well as everything else not internal to the engine and transmission.
They were popular because they were still built off a frame. You could replace everything on it. You could be in an accident and unlike a unibody, there was hope for repair. It was easier to modify for commercial use. Keep in mind that fleet use is very different. Limos use them for the frame. Taxis because they are cheap, big, and for the size, easy to operate, and the best option to modify with for commercial use. I can absorb abuse (damage) well particularly if you have to rip the interior our frequently. Also, look at any alternative vehicle at the time. What was its competition? Now, if you want to say that they are more reliable than other common commercial vehicles of the early 2000s, I would agree. However it is not going to be better than other general commuter use vehicles (ie Lexus).
As a general rule, but especially with fleets, there is a difference between high miles and reliability. I run these vehicles far beyond what average folks will accept. I have mid-2000 Chrysler Minivans in my fleet. They are high-miles but that does not mean they are reliable. I can change EGR valves all day but that is not reliability. New transmission or dash-mounted cpu, easy.
However, to claim they are reliable is a bit of a myth. High mileage =/= reliability.
Remember what BITOG folks say all the time: the engine will outlast the body. The Vics/TC had the replacable/servicible body and heck, you could straighten a frame a lot easier that others. They survive for their body.
What are you basing this on? I'm curious. These cars are the dominant choice of taxi and limo's for the exact reason you seem to be denying here: reliability. I've seen more 700,000+Km Town Cars than I've seen 300,000Km Camry's.
Nobody denies their reliability, there are plenty of things about the panther cars that you can criticize, but that isn't one of them. So as I said, I am curious, what is this based on?
My "Limpin' Lincoln". I have covered this part of my vehicle history. The door literally fell off, as well as everything else not internal to the engine and transmission.
They were popular because they were still built off a frame. You could replace everything on it. You could be in an accident and unlike a unibody, there was hope for repair. It was easier to modify for commercial use. Keep in mind that fleet use is very different. Limos use them for the frame. Taxis because they are cheap, big, and for the size, easy to operate, and the best option to modify with for commercial use. I can absorb abuse (damage) well particularly if you have to rip the interior our frequently. Also, look at any alternative vehicle at the time. What was its competition? Now, if you want to say that they are more reliable than other common commercial vehicles of the early 2000s, I would agree. However it is not going to be better than other general commuter use vehicles (ie Lexus).
As a general rule, but especially with fleets, there is a difference between high miles and reliability. I run these vehicles far beyond what average folks will accept. I have mid-2000 Chrysler Minivans in my fleet. They are high-miles but that does not mean they are reliable. I can change EGR valves all day but that is not reliability. New transmission or dash-mounted cpu, easy.
However, to claim they are reliable is a bit of a myth. High mileage =/= reliability.
Remember what BITOG folks say all the time: the engine will outlast the body. The Vics/TC had the replacable/servicible body and heck, you could straighten a frame a lot easier that others. They survive for their body.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What are you basing this on? I'm curious. These cars are the dominant choice of taxi and limo's for the exact reason you seem to be denying here: reliability. I've seen more 700,000+Km Town Cars than I've seen 300,000Km Camry's.
Nobody denies their reliability, there are plenty of things about the panther cars that you can criticize, but that isn't one of them. So as I said, I am curious, what is this based on?
My "Limpin' Lincoln". I have covered this part of my vehicle history. The door literally fell off, as well as everything else not internal to the engine and transmission.
They were popular because they were still built off a frame. You could replace everything on it. You could be in an accident and unlike a unibody, there was hope for repair. It was easier to modify for commercial use. Keep in mind that fleet use is very different. Limos use them for the frame. Taxis because they are cheap, big, and for the size, easy to operate, and the best option to modify with for commercial use. I can absorb abuse (damage) well particularly if you have to rip the interior our frequently. Also, look at any alternative vehicle at the time. What was its competition? Now, if you want to say that they are more reliable than other common commercial vehicles of the early 2000s, I would agree. However it is not going to be better than other general commuter use vehicles (ie Lexus).
As a general rule, but especially with fleets, there is a difference between high miles and reliability. I run these vehicles far beyond what average folks will accept. I have mid-2000 Chrysler Minivans in my fleet. They are high-miles but that does not mean they are reliable. I can change EGR valves all day but that is not reliability. New transmission or dash-mounted cpu, easy.
However, to claim they are reliable is a bit of a myth. High mileage =/= reliability.
Remember what BITOG folks say all the time: the engine will outlast the body. The Vics/TC had the replacable/servicible body and heck, you could straighten a frame a lot easier that others. They survive for their body.
That's a lot of text that still doesn't explain what you are basing this on. As I said, I've seen tons of them, with the original bodies, go obscene mileage with just regular maintenance. They are inexpensive to own, which is why they are popular with taxi and limo (and I mean airport limo's not stretched limousine here). They weren't fast. They were decent on fuel. They had a bullet-proof powertrain that was pretty basic, which was a big component to their reliability.
If you've got a personal anecdote of one bad panther, I'm sorry, but that doesn't change the reputation of the platform, which is what I'm taking away from your posts at this point unless you'd care to elaborate further.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What are you basing this on? I'm curious. These cars are the dominant choice of taxi and limo's for the exact reason you seem to be denying here: reliability. I've seen more 700,000+Km Town Cars than I've seen 300,000Km Camry's.
Nobody denies their reliability, there are plenty of things about the panther cars that you can criticize, but that isn't one of them. So as I said, I am curious, what is this based on?
My "Limpin' Lincoln". I have covered this part of my vehicle history. The door literally fell off, as well as everything else not internal to the engine and transmission.
They were popular because they were still built off a frame. You could replace everything on it. You could be in an accident and unlike a unibody, there was hope for repair. It was easier to modify for commercial use. Keep in mind that fleet use is very different. Limos use them for the frame. Taxis because they are cheap, big, and for the size, easy to operate, and the best option to modify with for commercial use. I can absorb abuse (damage) well particularly if you have to rip the interior our frequently. Also, look at any alternative vehicle at the time. What was its competition? Now, if you want to say that they are more reliable than other common commercial vehicles of the early 2000s, I would agree. However it is not going to be better than other general commuter use vehicles (ie Lexus).
As a general rule, but especially with fleets, there is a difference between high miles and reliability. I run these vehicles far beyond what average folks will accept. I have mid-2000 Chrysler Minivans in my fleet. They are high-miles but that does not mean they are reliable. I can change EGR valves all day but that is not reliability. New transmission or dash-mounted cpu, easy.
However, to claim they are reliable is a bit of a myth. High mileage =/= reliability.
Remember what BITOG folks say all the time: the engine will outlast the body. The Vics/TC had the replacable/servicible body and heck, you could straighten a frame a lot easier that others. They survive for their body.
That's a lot of text that still doesn't explain what you are basing this on. As I said, I've seen tons of them, with the original bodies, go obscene mileage with just regular maintenance. They are inexpensive to own, which is why they are popular with taxi and limo (and I mean airport limo's not stretched limousine here). They weren't fast. They were decent on fuel. They had a bullet-proof powertrain that was pretty basic, which was a big component to their reliability.
If you've got a personal anecdote of one bad panther, I'm sorry, but that doesn't change the reputation of the platform, which is what I'm taking away from your posts at this point unless you'd care to elaborate further.
Looks like the car in the OP has sold according to the third link. Maybe the OP bought it but who knows.
Hello All,
I was a day late getting to the Dealer and they sold it.
Thanks for all of your input.
Let go Pens............
I was a day late getting to the Dealer and they sold it.
Thanks for all of your input.
Let go Pens............
- Status