I have been accused of directly affecting the price of Mark IIs by busting the myths about it.

I believe, in fact, that I've increased the interest in owning Mark IIs by busting the myth that they were difficult to work on. By easily busting the myth that every single car was road-tested, even in 2 feet of Michigan snow and slush, he seems to think that I should adhere to what the magazines said, not what Ford said. I don't believe Ford claimed that all engines were dyno-tested or that they track-tested all the cars.

He says I've always been nice to him about his fantasizing, but still insists that I should let lore stand, when it's not doing a service to the car, or the people that built it.

When we promote fantasy, does the truth even matter?

Many of us here work on these cars, and have worked on other brands. What is physically different from other Fords, and especially Lincolns, that would make a Mark II more difficult to work on, other than the fact that you have to pull the engine to get the trans out?