Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1198199201203204222

Comments

  • smithedsmithed Posts: 444
    "What does Hyundai need right now - how about a 'luxury' brand like Jaguar - even though that brand has lost some of its luster under Ford?"

    Isn't it funny that a Jaguar became a more reliable vehicle under Ford and it "lost luster'? :confuse:
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Isn't it funny that a Jaguar became a more reliable vehicle under Ford and it "lost luster'?
    Granted a seeming contradiction, and also something that that is probably true - Jaguars did become more reliable , BUT is it also not true that many 'lusterous' brands (eg BMW,MB etc.) are not necessarily so reliable primarily due to a very high level of mechanical (and technical) sophistication. I would contend that about the only 'luxury' brands out there that maintain a high level of reliability despite high levels of sophistication are Japanese - not German, Italian, or British.
  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    "Isn't it funny that a Jaguar became a more reliable vehicle under Ford and it "lost luster'?

    Better phrased: "Isn't it sad that Ford mismanaged Jaguar into a brand that lost luster, despite making an enormous investment to improve its reliability?"

    The reliability improvements, and the improvements to the signature XJ sedan, were just about the only things Ford did right with Jaguar. The fatal blunder was to take the model line downscale: first the $40,000 S-Type that was transparently available for $10G less as a Lincoln, then the coffin-sealing $30,000 X-Type (also offered as a station wagon!) that was even more transparently a tarted-up Ford Mondeo. Can you say "Cimarron"?

    I talked to someone who was associated with Jaguar marketing at that time. The problem was that Ford saddled Jaguar with annual sales goals that were so unrealistically high, Jaguar had no hope of even approaching them except by going so far downmarket that their long-term brand equity would inevitably be damaged. Which is exactly what's happened.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    but even still - would'nt you think that Jaguar remains a 'luxury' brand despite whatever Ford may have done to it? Lincoln yet another brand name that is suffering - believe that GM is doing an adequate job elevating Cadillac but Ford seems to be doing the opposite with Lincoln, much like what they did to Jaguar.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    I'm still trying to understand FoMoCo's thinking on the $40K price tag for the '09 Lincoln MKS and it doesn't even offer a V-8. If anything...the MKS is what the Montego should be. I'm wondering if they will drop a Ford version above the Taurus???
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    I'm wondering if they will drop a Ford version above the Taurus???

    Maybe I am wrong but isn't the MKS just a rebadged Taur/Hundred?

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    No...the MKS is all new with a 3.7 V-6...not using the 3.5 as seen in the Taurus/Montego, but it is based on the same platform as the Taurus though.
    2009 Lincoln MKS
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    do you really think that a simple 3.5-3.7 engine size increase makes the MKS really any different than the 500/Taurus that spawned it? 'All new' is an interestingly variable definition with the mfgrs. these days.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Right... same platform. Why would Ford need another version? Now.... drop the 3.7 into the Taurus, tighten the suspension, add some ground effects and call it an SHO. Nah, never happen, lol!

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Actually...yeah, because it goes beyond simply changing the engine being used. If you noticed they also said direct injection to be used to increase power to equal the power of a V-8, but offer better FE. Not to mention the technology that'll be available. However...all that aside, I'm not convinced enough to pay $40K+ for one. The Genesis will blow the MKS away easily for under $40K, offer more room, more power and just as many amenties (except for heated rear seats).
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Same reason GM has 4 versions of the Lambda platform (Outlook, Acadia, Enclave and Traverse). I guess they figure to flood the market with the same platform sans varying available options depending on which brand you choose.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    more power does not a new car make necessarily - the Taurus is really the same car as the old Five Hundred with the same basic engine but with 60 added horsies. Direct injection is fine and a lot of mfgrs have already 'discovered' it - your Azera 3.8 should logically be capable of well over 300hp with DI but that in itself would not make it a 'new' car - just a bit more energetic.
    The 'bling' packages are logically going to be even more extensive on something Lincoln is going to price at $40k when you can buy basically the same car for $15k less as a Ford. But 'bling' doesn't necessarily make for a luxury car either.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    The Taurus IS the 500, Ford messed up when they changed the name to the 500 and folks weren't buying, so they changed it back to Taurus to give buyers something to recognize.

    The MKS is a newer car based on everything else that has been done to it...even the suspension is done differently. Just because the same platform is used, it doesn't mean it has to be the same car. Isn't that an argument we already had and you proved that point to me???
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Lincoln, in my mind, no longer makes a 'luxury' car. Instead Ford has systematically been bastardizing the brand with what are really Fords. Guess it must be cheaper for them to do it that way. Either way, don't believe that there remains any Lincoln labelled product that isn't also available as something much cheaper. At least Caddy had the sense to reserve at least some parts of their line as something different - and better.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    That's exactly how I feel. I do feel what you're saying, but I guess they are trying to separate it by using real aluminum and real wood trim and offer things that aren't available in the Mercury/Ford line-up.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Ford has systematically been bastardizing the brand with what are really Fords

    When hasn't this been the case? 40 years ago? The Mark was always a Thunderbird/Cougar, the Town Car was a CV/GM, the late 80s/early 90s Continental was a Taurus. The only car they ever put out in recent years that wasn't a badge job was the LS. BTW, a damn fine car that never caught on.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the LSs that tonycd mentioned - but, then again, those were relabelled Jaguars but also something you couldn't have with a Ford/Mercury label on it. Lamented the passing of the LS.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    The LS was to Licoln as the GTO was to Pontiac...IMO.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Should have worded that better.... not a badge job from the Ford stable :surprise:

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Same reason GM has 4 versions of the Lambda platform

    Just imagine if Olds was still around, they may have 5. How many versions of the Trailblazer are there? I think even Saab has one. Just crazy IMO.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    You're absolutely right!
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    And on that note, let's head back to the subject, 'kay? ;)
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Pat, I have a suggestion, why don't we turn this place into "Large Sedan Lounge" so the regulars here can talk about anything that's interesting in the large sedan market without a strict boundary? I have faith in the regulars here that we all respect each other (to a degree :P ) so we are fully capable of taking care ourselves without much of the "baby sitting" just like in the Luxury Lounge.

    What do you think?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Ford messed up when they changed the name to the 500 and folks weren't buying, so they changed it back to Taurus to give buyers something to recognize.
    Some of us are old enough to remember Galaxy 500s :cry: , not that I can recall anything remarkable about that particular car.

    but no matter

    they changed it back to Taurus to give buyers something to recognize.

    and then to their amazement they discovered that they had ruined that name as well - and it still doesn't sell. The Taurus was a pretty contemporary (and successful) car 20 years ago or so.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    BTW, I think you'll find that the current 500/Taurus isn't really related to the previous generations of Tauri at all (except for possibly that wonderful DT 3.0 ;) that (unfortunately) was reused). The current Taurus coming instead courtesy of a Volvo S80- perhaps the reason for the car's height, boxier proportions, and generally good safety ratings.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    If you noticed they also said direct injection to be used to increase power to equal the power of a V-8,

    Maybe their V8, not a BMW V8. :)
  • [the Taurus is really the same car as the old Five Hundred with the same basic engine but with 60 added horsies]

    I've heard this repeatedly now: "the Duratec 3.5L is just a bigger version of the old unrefined Duratec 3.0L."

    It actually takes a lot more than just bumping up displacement by 0.5L to get an additional 60 HP. Just like comparing the Lexus ES300 (210 HP) to the ES350 (272 HP). They had to do a lot more than just increase displacement to get that additional 62 HP.

    The fact that they kept the "Duratec" label means nothing. They've done it before: look at the first year of the "Triton" 5.4L V8 in the 1997 F-series. It made only 230 HP. The current "Triton" 5.4L makes 300 HP and provides better fuel economy. Both engines have the same label, but other than displacement, they have little in common internally.
  • smithedsmithed Posts: 444
    Thanks,

    That's a good analysis of what happened. Trying to make Fords out of Jaguar. :shades:
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Both engines have the same label, but other than displacement, they have little in common internally.

    The heads went from 2 to 3 valves and some sort of variable valve timing was introduced. The basic engine design and bottom end are very similar if not identical.

    You are right about the Toyota example though, the 3.0/3.3 have nothing in common with the 3.5.

    Ford's 3.5 is considered "all new" however, I do wonder how much of the "old" 3.0 was used. They share the same 60 degree architecture and similar valve layouts.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    LOL Well...they didn't specify, but I would go along with that thought!
Sign In or Register to comment.