Don't worry it has 12" wide tires and custom suspension front and back to deal with the extra power. At sub 3000lbs dry weight it will be a handful.

 

Ditto. I don't like it at all. Cheapens it a lot.

 

Checked out the Conti at the Chicago Auto Show, and was not impressed at all. The back seat that they spend so much time bragging about was one of the most uncomfortable seats I sat in the entire day. So bad that I went around and tried the other side. Then went and sat in the second car they had in the booth. Though they varied slightly, they all reminded me of the beds in those pullout sofas that have the bar running right through the middle. I also bonked my head on the low roofline more than once getting in and out. We're buying this year, and the Continental was (low) on the list of options, but it's definitely off now.

In terms of rear seat comfort (very important for our family, since we're all tall), our best finds at the show were the G80/G90, and surprisingly enough, the Q70L.

 

that is unfortunate to hear. Do you feel it was an adjustment issue (the seats are supposed to have tons of it) or just a design flaw? The press reviews seem to almost overly praise the rear seat comfort.

 

I'm not sure. I only played with one for a few seconds, was in/out on the other two. So it could have been, but I'm not quite sure what adjustment to make to remove the literal pain in my ***

 

Yes too bad to hear. I bet it was an adjustment issue.

 

Finally saw one in person last week. I liked the front not a fan of the rear but nice looking car overall.

 

When I drove the Continental and spent some time with the seats I came to the conclusion that they have too many adjustments. The seats are firm, and it takes forever to get them dialed in right, and then when you do, they feel like a set of "pretty good" seats, nothing special, you could get more comfort out of a set of really well engineered seats that require fewer adjustments to get right. When sitting in a Continental where I haven't yet adjusted the seats they feel like "My god, how could somebody sit on this seat?!?".

So lets say I spend the several days it would require to really get my drivers seat right. Passengers in my car are never going to have a really comfortable seat. Somebody gets into my car for 15 minutes, or even an hour, by the time they get the seat all adjusted after me showing them how we'll be where we're going. Whereas again, if I had a set of really well engineered seats with fewer adjustments comfort would be easier to find.

In short, IMHO the super multi 35 way adjustable seats are just a gimmick.

 

I think they rear would grow on you over time.

 

Well, of course, more adjustments usually never hurt. But, as I see it (and I sample a LOT of different car seats) the main problem today is not necessarily the number of adjustments, or the level of support (although some seats, particularly sport-oriented ones, have non-adjustable side-bolsters that are just too narrow for big wide Americans like me). The main problem, particularly with Asian-designed vehicles, seems to be not enough padding in the seats....and too-firm padding where they ARE padded. On most of today's seats, you tend to sit ON them, rather than IN them, which, IMO, is not the ideal way to drive, particularly with weak backs or legs. The front seats of Buick Verano, LaCrosse, Lincoln MKZ, the back seat of the Ford Taurus, and a few others are some of the exceptions....but, in general, today, IMO, most of the seats, like low-profile tires, emphasize sport-orientation at the expense of comfort. I still remember the big Buick I had in college...its front seat was LITERALLY like a big, wide living room sofa....you got in and sunk way down into it. It was just a joy to drive. A lot of folks laugh at that kind of design today (including some on this forum)....but those of us who experienced them cannot deny the level of comfort they provided.

 

Using this vehicle as an example I would disagree, IMO the number of adjustments to these seats actually hampers their overall comfort.

 

I tend to prefer a properly supported seat, not a cushy couch to roll down the road. Recaros have always been my benchmark. To me a seat does not need dozens of adjustments if it is properly designed from the start. Some of the most comfortable seats i have ever sat in were those that were designed right from the start and had minimal adjustments. Having tons of adjustments on what at baseline is a bad seat design in the end is just an electronically polished turd. I do agree with MMarshall, companies today seem to think, lets make it rock hard, for that sporty feel. No, use multiple densities of foam, not to make a couch, but to make it firm where it needs to be and soft in the areas it should be. If properly designed you should be able to, at minimum, take a 3 hours drive, and not feel like you have been put on a torture rack when you get out.

 

How? because of the large number of cracks and gaps required in the seat-structure for all of the adjustable sections to move back and forth (or up and down)? To some extent, I could agree with that.....but again, the softer the padding, the less you will probably feel those gaps.

 

I think the multiple seats adjustments are a good thing for the Continental. I believe it's an option. I think a luxury car should have this option. Too bad the LS460 seats seam primitive to the Continental. I believe the GS has 24 way adjustable seats?

Also, American cars usually have these types of features. So I am not surprised. Not a gimmick at all.

 

Yeah 30-way adjustable seats on the Continental is pretty cool. The GS has 10-way standard, 16-way on F-Sport, and 18-way on Luxury pkg. The current LS460 iirc has an optional 20-way. The LS500 will have 28-way.