Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Where Is Ford taking the Lincoln Motor Company?

1…5859616364…90

Comments

  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    The XJ8L has been considered, however, our home on the hill would be easier to reach in the Snow with an AWD. There isn't a Jag dealer within 50 miles & the nearest dealer has prices higher than a huntchbacks [non-permissible content removed].
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    Euphonium, based on your posts, I know you like the TC, and like me, you would have likely bought a newer one if they had kept the old girl up to date. Have you considered an MKS? Not as much room for sure and a less user-friendly trunk opening, but they are a pretty fine vehicle to drive.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    After considering the MKS, it would be at least 10k more economical to instead buy the Taurus Sho with AWD.

    In the process of Sho shopping, it appears the factory is selling a "gadget goer". To get what is needed would require a special order.

    Vibrating seats, heated or cooled, Navigation, Synch, hole in roof, distance sensors are not items to be appeciated. The $295 added charge for the Red forces a dark Black interior. The Limited offers a Tan interior, but no Ecoboost engine.

    As of last week, you could not order a Limited Taurus with the Ecoboost.

    Computer sequential production of Ford vehicles has given way to Bundling of gadgets.

    Would be interesting to see an AWD 4 Door TC with at least the Mustang V8 and 5 speed tranny. :)
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,136
    For the price of a new Lincoln or late model Jag, you could probably have that AWD TC Franken-car built to your spec. You've already got a nice car to use as a body donor, right? :shades:
  • madlockmadlock Member Posts: 42
    There are indeed other differences between MKS and Taurus besides sheet metal and $10K. MKS comes with another year of base warranty, and it's NVH properties are considerably more refined. Furthermore, the interior materials are appreciably better in MKS. Taurus may be a better overall value in the strictest sense, but the MKS doesn't command a meaningless premium.

    A lot of inconsistencies in features among badge brothers an the product heirarchy reflect Ford's emphasis upon bringing the most improved product to market as quickly and economically as possible. To not offer BLIS on MKS, EcoBoost in Flex SEL, but no non-SHO Taurus, massaging seats, and the lack of a simple backup camera in a non-SHO Taurus because it's spoiler-mounted and despite a badge-embedded alternative used in F-Series, Flex, and others are all similar examples.

    With more cash andless uncertainty, 2011 will hopefully see many of these discrepancies cared-for, including why a Performance Package fitted SHO is made to forego so many of the other niceties that otherwise make 2010 Taurus such a terrific, nay the best, mainline large sedan available in North America by a wide margin.

    As for Ecoboost, despite Mustang's 2011 butching-up, it would indeed have been nice to see EcoBoost work it's way to RWD platforms, including a Panther platform swansong. A V8 Ecoboost would indeed make a Police "Interceptor". As for Town Car and/or Grand Marquis, as much ad I happen to love both, the world probably doesn't need roads full of turbocharged airport livery drivers or white-shoed buffet-seekers dragging each other from red lights in order to make their tee times and doctor's appointments, do we? Polygrip doesn't make a strong enough product for that demographic. :)
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    The Taurus was really the first "clean-sheet" design under the new Ford management model and business plan and Ford is spending the money on Ford first and Lincoln second.

    I see this (the Taurus) as a great sign of even bigger and better stuff from Lincoln over the next 2-3 years.
  • speculatorspeculator Member Posts: 116
    Now that Ford has decided to replace the Crown Vic Police Interceptor for 2012 with the fwd Taurus,it is only logical to believe that a rwd drive Lincoln sedan is dead. The Caprice police variant is rwd. If Ford were going to compete with Cadillac,It would certainly make there bread and butter fleet sales leader rwd to compete with the Chevy and thus a Lincoln premium pltform variant based on a rwd Ford police vehicle to compete with Cadillac. I hear that the Mustang for 2014 will be smaller than the present vehicle but may be rwd with an irs. It all depends on the cost of such a vehicle and on international demand. The only way to justify the production cost of the new Mustang with rwd and irs is to develope an international market for it. Why not do the same with Lincoln? Lincoln still has some cach'e to its name in the world.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Where does Lincoln have that supposed cache in the world? Lincoln has been an also-ran for many years now, and the MKZ/MKS'MKT have done little to turn that around.

    Not that Lincoln couldn't, with a concerted effort. Look at what Hyundai did in a few short years. They went from Daewoo-style economy car mediocrity to building the Genesis, the Genesis coupe, the Equus and the 2011 Sonata, while renewing all the rest of their extensive line-up--and in the process became a sales leader. All Lincoln has to do (ok, it is a tall order) is build exceptional vehicles too, and all will be forgiven.

    But so far, Lincoln has largely squandered their newest chances. The MKZ could have gotten more differentiation at its Zephyr introduction, but the beancounters did not think it was really necessary. Turns out it was.

    The MKS is a decent and competitive car with almost zero Lincoln DNA is its Japanese-style look (except for the grill). The MKT was a stunner in concept form and would likely have defined a new genre, like the Explorer and Navigator did back in their day. Instead we got a carefully dumbed-down looking MKT (so as not to offend as much) and now it looks like a too-long station wagon. We know Americans unfairly dislike station wagons. Translation: unremarkable sales.

    So where from here? I do think the MKR would be a logical step, but given the Taurus Police Interceptor, I doubt anyone at Lincoln yet understands what makes a truly aspirational vehicle. The small Lincoln C could be a surprise hit with its full size passenger room in an era of higher mpg standards. But I have no faith that they will bring it to market without dumbing it down a la MKT. What else is in the pipeline?

    As long as the Ford brand is on a roll, I doubt anyone is overly concerned about the mish-mash at Lincoln. Besides, Lincoln sales have finally stopped their many years long nose dive. But for how long will even that hold? The moving targets are moving much more quickly today.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I'd say it's pretty hard to argue with the "beancounters" decisions given Ford's recent miraculous financial turnaround. And I don't question their desires for Lincoln - Mulally made that clear a year ago.

    They obviously put the money into new drivetrains (all new V8s, new diesel, new V6, ecoboost V6 and I4, 2nd gen hybrids, etc.) and new market segments (MKT, Flex, Fiesta, unibody Explorer) and new technology (Sync, MyFordTouch, etc.).

    Yes, a new roof and doors, upgraded interior and a 3.7L/3.5L EB powertrain upgrade would certainly help the MKZ, but there is limited opportunity there due to the popularity (and publicity) of the Fusion and Milan. I think they went a little above and beyond to give the MKZ a brand new interior right in the middle of a design cycle.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Ford has big plans for Lincoln including a new RWD platform in the near future. They just can't afford to implement it all right now.

    Patience, grasshopper.
  • speculatorspeculator Member Posts: 116
    Actually the Lincoln brand still has some cache in the U.K. I had clients from the U.K. who purchased Lincolns from me.The most popular were the Marks and LS series eventhough they all were LHD. I would say that about 75 % of those, still own them. It still is possible to bring Lincoln back to its former glory. For god's sake, Buick is considered to be a premium car in China.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    A hand full of enthusiast buyers doesn't make an entire market feasible. Any European presence would be an afterthought - U.S. and Aussies would be driving the development which probably means big V8s and ecoboost V6s. I think any type of Euro volume would require dedicated European powertrains which drives up the cost and makes it hard to justify financially.
  • speculatorspeculator Member Posts: 116
    If that is the case then the new rwd Mustang and its irs is not feasible. Ford would have to dedicate one model for its rwd line-up. If to make that feasible it has to have international sales. The sales of Mustangs in other markets is not very great. For international sales it would have to smaller than it is today. But you have made a good point as to why Ford will not make the Mustang on an entirely new platform that can accomodate an irs. The present platform is paid for and it would be hard to develope an export market to help pay for a new Mustang rwd platform. It is the same for Lincoln.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    1 - the new mustang with new engines should sell around 200K/yr, more than enough to support a dedicated platform if necessary (assuming drivetrain and other parts sharing). This was enough to justify the all new platform for the 05 mustang.

    2 - you're forgetting about the Aussies. A global RWD platform would be shared with them, not with Ford Europe, since they already have RWD V8 capable platforms. Same reason that the Fiesta was jointly engineered with Europe.
  • speculatorspeculator Member Posts: 116
    200 thousand sale of a new Mustang. Where is that number coming from? What about the competition from Chevy? Right now the Camaro has recently out sold the Mustang. Assuming that Chrysler is still around, what about the Charger/ Challenge?. These are all competition. The only thing I can think of in order for the Mustang to reach that number is to produce a car that is cheaper to build and has a really cheaper base price than it competition. Does any body remember the Mustang II? It was certainly cheaper that what it replaced. It was so cheap that no one wanted it. Another thing, it would be lucky if total auto sales in the U.S. hit above 13 million total sales in 2012. If it does, it would probably hover around that number for quite a few years. The auto market will probably never hit the 15 or 16 million mark again until about 10 years from now. That's according to those who watch the industry. Ford already has determined that the new Falcon will be based on the U.S. Taurus platform which is based on a Volvo platform. Read some of the Aussie Auto mags. The same platforms that Ford is going to base all of its domestic products on are going to be used in Aussie land. I hear that the Aussies are really teed off at Ford for going fwd in Australia. It's this one world Ford formula.
  • madlockmadlock Member Posts: 42
    edited March 2010
    2011 Mustang is a whole new ball game. With power parity having been established with Camaro and Charger, Mustang simply becomes a class apart and above its bemuscled brethren. Neither Camaro nor Charger has Mustang's "daily driver" chops; and any subjective aesthetic bias Camaro may win due to the simple vagueries of personal preference are usually worn away once the vehicle is actually seen, or especially, touched. Add real-world grown-up practical benefits like SYNC, an honest-to-Jesus world class navigation suite, and all of the other "real world" sensibilities Ford has engineered into Mustang without detracting one iota from the fun it's meant to inspire, and the narrow band of drivers to whom the narrow range of circumstances in which Mustang's "live axle" matters, the broad marketplace has to really be willing to make some Olympic caliber rationalizing before either alternative becomes even nearly equally-compelling as Mustang. While there's no doubt that a true IRS would only be reasonable for Mustang's next wholesale platform development, 2011 Mustang is simply the state of the art in American muscle without a credible peer.

    What does this mean for sales? There will certainly be new motivation for current Mustang owners to make their next purchase, and it will win the lion's share of present "fence sitters" who, until now, had to consider a more expensive GT to match LS/LT power. Ford also enjoys its media darling halo on behalf of its indisputably-Improved product and the propriety of it's own renaissance, a message that tends to play well to the "all-American" segment mindset in which endless entitlements and bailouts aren't as popular as they are among the left-leaning CamCord owners who suddenly don't know what to do with their Priuses now that Oz and Toyota City seem to be co-located. Atop organic demand within the marketspace and the very real potential to win business away from other RWD models at a much lower price point, 200K units may seem optimistic, but it's certainly not pie-in-the-sky. My pre-order goes in next week.

    As for the D3 successor to Panther, the Commodore-based Caprice, while being a terrific driver's car, especially for the money, otherwise has no inherent advantage whatsoever over a Taurus interceptor, nor do the mythical benefits of an RWD law enforcement vehicle whose ONLY benefit is price and whose many disadvantages are fundamental to any fleet operator in a climate with rain or snow. Not only does Taurus provide an inherently safer platform by virtue of its available drivetrains, its larger mass puts physics even more squarely in safety's favor, period.

    Price, therefore would be Caprice's only conceivable buyer's advantage, but that's only as much of a challenge as Ford decides will exist. Furthermore, with a common-platform and drivetrain LE truck based on 2011 Explorer, fleet maintenance cost advantages will help offset any difference in acquisition cost among fleet operators of both.

    There are plenty of options today for RWD and cheap, yet Panther and Crown Vic continue to rule the day. When combined with just about any council member in any city where GM doesn't have an established U.S. assembly facility would have a very tough time indeed remembering to constituents at election time the justification for choosing to support a bailed-out GM over the self-sustaining Ford when spending further public funds.

    That's not to say there won't be police fleets operating Caprices, Chargers, Impalas, or other vehicles as their mainline patrol vehicles, but the truth is that Taurus is likely to enjoy greater momentum and support, even as an entirely new platform to law enforcement operators than many existing models that are already in service. (At least, in a JUST world, it would.)
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Ford has announced that Mercury will be shut down at the end of the year. Lincoln/Mercury dealers will be consolidate with Ford dealers or bought out if necessary.

    Lincoln will receive 7 new or significantly updated models over the next 4 years including a C class vehicle and unique engines.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    Let's face it...they were as similar, or more similar, than the GM middle cars, like the Cutlass, LeMans, Chevelle, and Skylark...the only difference between Ford and Merc was slightly different grill, taillights and dashboard...remember the Maverick and Comet???...Sable and Taurus???...aside from a 2% styling difference, who really needs Mercury???...Lincoln, as a potential luxury brand, makes sense to me, but Mercury should have been eliminated when GM killed Oldsmobile...
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Yes, and GM should have also killed either Cadillac or Buick as well. At present, Buicks have more amenities on them than their Cadillac cousins do. It's an upside down situation once again.

    As far as Lincoln goes, IMO every Lincoln should come with an Eco-Boost standard to differrentiate it from Ford.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Ford already confirmed that all Lincolns will have unique drivetrains and they'll all be offered with an Ecoboost option.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Buy the Eco boost Taurus and save 12 grand.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    An ecoboost Taurus (SHO) will not save you 12 grand compared to an ecoboost MKS in my area - not by a long shot.

    You also would give up choices in interior colors and a host of features like dual panel moonroof, power moonroof shade, swiveling headlights, power tilt/telescope wheel, more compliant suspension, better weatherstripping/door sealing, lined door pockets, park assist, front parking sensors, drastically better leather, soft trim on lower doors, longer warranty, wide vision exterior mirrors, and styling that doesn't look like a female version of a Chrysler 300.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    Then kill Buick...FWIW, Cadillac still has SOME cachet as a luxury car and the brand name could be "re-built"...to make Buick the top of the line in amenities is foolish...so, we would be down to Chevy, Caddy, GMC truck and Corvette (which may or may not stay part of Chevy)...
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    edited June 2010
    Very nicely said. Ever since they restructured just over a year ago, I have always felt they made a huge mistake getting rid of Pontiac and keeping Buick. At the time, Buick had only 2 or 3 [non-permissible content removed] models and already had a true/more prestigious luxury division in Cadillac.

    GM should have kept Pontiac and got rid of Buick. They could of scraped all the Pontaic models and maybe 4-5 brand new completely different sport oriented Pontiac models. Pontiac could have become their sport oriented division to compete with the likes of Scion. They really missed out on a huge opportunity there I think.

    Now, GM has two luxury divisions, one true/prestigious and more recognized Cadillac division that competes fairly well with its Japanese and German competition and another cheaper, less prestigious, entry level luxury Buick division. The problem now, is that Cadillac is going to always be a ceiling for Buick. No matter what Buick does, they can't get too good as to have better materials, more features, etc that would make them better than Cadillac. Buick is and always will be a poor man's Cadillac, as long as Cadillac is in existence. So to me, its redundant and not necessary to have both Buick and Cadillac. If I had a choice only between these two, I'd be in a Cadillac every time.

    What will be interesting to see is if GM really screws up and actually turns Buick into a division that actually begins competing with Cadillac for sales, mainly b/c even right now, the mid and high trim levels of Buick models intrude into the price ranges for the lower end Cadillac models. :sick:

    Bottom line, should have kept and completely retooled Pontiac and got rid of Poor Man's Cadillac, Buick. GM would have been much more balanced had they had this structure.

    Chevrolet: Fully Mainstream Division
    GMC: Professional Grade Division for Industry/Businesses
    Pontiac: Mainstream Sport Specific Division
    Cadillac: Top Level Luxury Division

    In this structure, they would have had every group of the car market covered.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I've got to wonder if Pontiac wasn't maintained because Chevy already has Camaro and Corvette. Grand Prix was ruined with lousy rental cars. I think they kept Buick only because of China sales and concerns over eliminating the division here affecting cultural issues there. I think the old management thought they could make Buick near luxury and Caddy upper luxury, but with most import luxury makes widening their price spectrum this concept is kind of OBE.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    The best of the five divisions that should have been retained are:

    Chev - Olds - Cad

    Re: trucks? Make up your mind. Two truck divisions are not needed.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    If there is room for a mid level car these days, that makes sense because in its heyday Olds was a good combo sport and luxury. Unfortunately, GM totally misplayed Olds and blew the brand. John Rock made a valiant effort to resurrect it to its successful market segment, but it was too late.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Pontiac was a ruined and dying brand. Years ago, they were worth saving, but Pontiac had become little better than Mercury in recent years.

    Buick was saved because it is a very successful brand and very important to GM's bottom line. It is GM's biggest seller in China, and you must remember that GM sells more cars in China than it does here. In China, it has prestige, and it lives comfortably there with Cadillac. Here it is still transitioning from a blue hair car to an Acura fighter. With the Encore, Lacrosse and Regal it is on its way. Lucerne will soon be kicked to the curb, and more new models are planned.

    There has always been room for Buick under Cadillac. Some overlap is necessary for both to have a range of models, but Cadillac has a different focus with its emphasis on rear wheel drive, and V model halo cars that can kick the pants of anything else out there. Chevrolet can cover many bases: economy, quality mainstream, sport, utility as well as style. Ford hasn't the resources to manage more than two brands right now. What they are doing, they are beginning to do quite well. But GM's advantage here is having more brands, brands that are meaningful. Even Chrysler is looking like they have a shot at making it now, and setting aside the European partner brands, they still have Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram.

    Success can certainly be achieved with just two brands: Honda and Toyota (although Scion is a third) certainly have done it. But Honda has seemingly reached an asymptote, and Toyota has stumbled with quality and cannot rely on Lexus to carry it through. Ford may be relegated to being a successful smaller manufacturer now that all brands but two are gone. We shall see.
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    I don't care what the hell is happening in China, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, etc with their car markets. The last time I checked, the US is not any of those countries. All I care about is the US car market. In THIS country, there was no need for GM to have two luxury divisions. Its all redundant and a waste. No matter what Buick does, they can never pass Cadillac without seriously hurting Cadillac and taking away their sales. They could have retooled Pontiac to have 3-4 unique, sports oriented, affordable models that could have directly competed with Scion and some other sport oriented companies, like Nissan or Mazda, etc.

    GM needs to start thinking like Ford, who actually is making much better progress than GM. Last time I checked, Ford, like all the foreign car companies, only has 1 luxury division, Lincoln. They don't need a poor man's luxury company below that to fill some void that isn't there.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2010
    Ok, you are obviously right. Not caring what happens in the rest of the world, or how that might affect GM's decisions about products offered, is obviously the right way to go. So sorry.

    But Ford took over sales dominance for what? A month or two this year? GM, as beaten and bankrupt as it was, is now outselling Ford again. I can't say to them that I know how to do it better. How is Ford's progress, notable as it is (and I am a lifelong Ford man), so better than GM's right now? GM's sales are bigger, and this from a recently bankrupt company.

    Oh, and as for all other companies having one luxury car division...
    What about Mercedes (and their Maybach division), and BMW (and their Rolls Royce division), and Volkswagen (and Audi and Bentley and Bugatti and Lamborghini and Porsche divisions), and Chrysler and Fiat keeping Abarth and Lancia and Maserati and Ferrari around even though all cater to the higher end, not to mention Tata with both Jaguar and Land Rover (ok, LR, though luxurious vehicles, are SUVs for the most part). But you are right and none of this matters as it is mostly not in the US (although Maybach and Rolls and Audi and Bentley and Lamborghini and Maserati and Ferrari and Porsche, etc. are), and VW is growing at a rate that may soon put it at #1 worldwide. I'd love to see an American company do that. But with only two divisions, Ford has an even greater uphill battle to get that prize.
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    I'm talking more affordable luxury divisions! Almost 95% of the US pop can not afford aa Rolls Royce, Bentley, Lamborghini, etc and those exotic luxury companies are a far cry from Buick.

    It seems you haven't learned anything from GM bankrupt and almost 30 years of quality/reliability problems. BEING NUMBER 1 IN SALES IN THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A GOOD THING! The companies who have been number 1, have had the most problems (GM, Ford, and Toyota). Plus, GM's market share has begun declining again so top sales means jack squat.

    Ford products are wining more awards and have higher quality/reliability then anything GM is at yet with their products and did not have to take billions in tax payer dollars to stay afloat like your precious GM did or declare bankruptcy after taking billions in gov't loans and bailouts and still not being able to pay the bills and make a profit! Take a look at CR, MT, RoadTrack, or any other car website and you'll see the position of Ford is far higher than GM. Let GM mass market and try to be the highest sales volume, it will just lead them back down the same path as before to ever pending doom. Remember, the more volume you sell, the more quality control things are missed. Remember the Toyota fiasco a few months ago?

    I'm so sorry my opinion of GM's decision in restructuring last year doesn't sit with your almighty praise for what GM did. Its just opinion man, take a chill pill.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    The jury is out as to whom needs to take a chill pill here. Fortunately, this is not an important topic, and neither one of our opinions holds much weight (nor needs to) in the scheme of things.

    In fact, I have little praise for GM overall...just noting that from some perspectives, the Buick move made sense, and the company itself seems on the mend. Of course only time will tell. I don't dismiss the many new GM models as failed efforts, and neither does the auto press (nor do I think that you do). Cadillac's planned move upmarket may not work out well, but it certainly could. For Buick to cover the Acura and Lincoln competition may not work here either. But it is working so far in China, and it is possible here.

    Meanwhile, Pontiac was a more damaged brand than Buick. Could GM have rebuilt Pontiac? Sure. But they still would have had to keep Buick, or risk losing the larger market they now have in China. And like it or not, we need to sell more goods to the Chinese.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Buick doesn't bother me as much as GMC, although I think GM could kill both in the U.S. and be better off in the long run. I think GM is keeping Chevy on the lower end and using Buick for the higher end whereas Ford is using one brand to do both.

    Can anyone justify GMC? I just don't get it. Give the GMC dealers the same vehicles with a Chevy badge (sorry - CHEVROLET) and be done with it.
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    If Buick is catering to the higher end what the hell is Cadillac catering to then :confuse: the other other high end? c-mon, just simply ridiculous
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Allen, GM kept GMC, due to GMC sales. Now, you and I know there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Silverado and the Sierra, but many consumers apparently see it differently. There are those who will buy a GMC product, but will not buy Chevrolet. Chevy sales would pick up if GMC died, but apparently not enough to cover what they both sell together. And going forward, you will see more differentiation, as well as a great use of the Denali lineup.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I've heard that argument, and if there was more differentiation I might actually believe it. But just like those who say they'd buy a mercury but never the Ford equivalent - I just don't buy it, at least not in enough numbers to justify keeping a separate cloned brand.

    As for whatever new they're planning - the question would be whether the same thing applied to Chevy would work just as well. Witness Ford and the Titanium/Platinum F150s.

    How many people cross shop the GMC and the Chevy and pit the dealers against each other? Remember the camaro and firebird? Ford only had one pony car while the GM dealers undercut each other to the point both got cancelled.

    For all of Ford's past sins, not having 2 truck brands was one of the smartest things they ever did (or didn't do).
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I'm thinking the main reason GM kept GMC was to add some truck volume to its relatively low volume Buick and Cadillac franchises? Doesn't Ford recycle a lot of truck/cuv's as Lincoln models?
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    But they can just as easily change the name from GMC to Chevy Trucks and sell exactly the same vehicles they do today just with a different grille and badge.

    The analogy would be for Ford to rebadge the F150 and Expedition as a Mercury and Lincoln.

    GMC exists for the same reason Mercury exists. Ford bit the bullet and killed Mercury. GM needs to do the same for GMC and Buick if it wants to get serious.

    Look at Ford and GM's sales volumes, then look at their plant capacity and employees. Huge difference.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2010
    Ford did do such rebadging with Mercury and Lincoln (and still offers the 1997 F150-based Navigator), but it hasn't worked as well for them. ;)

    You fail to point out, Allen, that GMC sales by comparison to Mercury are large. Chevrolet would indeed pick up sales if GMC closed, but not enough to equal Silverado and Sierra together. Further, GMC has plans to introduce models that are not shared with Chevy. Already the Acadia and Terrain do not share styling (not even greenhouses) with the corresponding Chevrolet models, and that differentiation will grow. GMC is actually going a bit upmarket from Chevy, which Mercury failed to do in comparison with Ford in its last years.

    You may be right of course. But if GM can maintain four brands (instead of eight), they still have greater potential (if not the reality...time will tell) to attract more and different kinds of customers. Like Buick and Cadillac for example. Buick will cover the $25,000 to 45,000 market pretty well using front wheel drive (and some AWD). Cadillac will be more the $40,000 to $90,000 market, using mostly rear wheel drive and AWD.

    There is always overlap of course. Ford and Lincoln overlap. Some people will prefer the Volkswagen CC, and others will go for the Audi A4 (I am a CC person and would not buy the A4, but that is another story). VW sells more cars overall by having both available.

    Finally, you know darn well that if Ford had the money and resources, they would have kept and developed Mercury. That was the plan, but it just could not be sustained without hurting the core brand's chances of success. Ford went it alone, and kudos for that, but to make it work it did mean making some severe cuts (in ways other than the past methods of delaying new models and giving short shrift to quality).
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I'm thinking whether GM could sell the same number of trucks using just Chevy is moot, because I think it is more about making sure their non Chevy dealerships have enough volume to keep afloat. Most GMC is sold through combo dealers with Buick or Cadillac.

    Most of, if not all, Lincoln is just plushed up Ford so I don't think there really was a place for Mercury any more.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    I think that companies should immediately "cease and desist" in attempting to reach #1 in market share...GM had #1 and lost money...what they need is PROFITABILITY, pure and simple...Honda never tried to have the volume of Toyota, but they have usually been profitable (I think I am correct on this)...

    Take ANY business...why be #1 in volume, what does that means to customers who think???...to say I go to the #1 volume plumbing supply house means nothing if they aren't there next year due to too much overhead...I want a profitable company (altho I would never know what goes on behind the scenes, what I want is a business owner who understands about profitability over market share)...

    Why anyone would want #1 market share is beyond asinine to me
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,136
    edited June 2010
    They lose money with every sale, but they can make up for it with high sales volume. And if it fails, just send the labor off to some third world social and environmental criminal, no matter the longterm consequences. It's the backbone of thought for every irresponsible cookie-cutter MBA golden parachute clone out there.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Being #1 in the US does seem to be a jinx. I agree that margin and cash flow are more important than market share. Unfortunately, if you are a publicly held and listed American corporation there is tremendous stockholder and investor pressure to show growth. Couple this with the fixed cost load of an automaker and it is hard not to chase volume and revenue growth. Higher volume tends to lower overhead and therefore yield a pricing or margin advantage. The only other way to pull it off really is to develop a niche or have product so desirable that buyers will pay more for the product. BMW is an example of desirable product and Honda, at least until recently is an example of niche in that although it has a lot of different models people have been willing to pay a premium for the product to get on board the Honda train. You'll notice that neither is an US company. However, as more entrants expand their offerings moving upscale even these two will face pressure to expand in order to hold or expand margin in the near future. Truth is, auto manufacturing is an ugly business to be in financially right now and it is very difficult to "cream" the market in a highly competitive environment.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Very well said, berri. Us armchair quarterbacks don't lose a dime by sharing our opinions. The manufacturers, however, are taking huge gambles in what is a cutthroat business right now. Cars are no more expensive today than they were in 2000, but they include more quality and more equipment for the same price. Ford has taken a new road, and so has GM. It is fun and easy to critique manufacturer decisions, but it is life or death for many brands right now.
  • savethelandsavetheland Member Posts: 671
    GM differentiates it brands much better than Ford. Ford as a company traditionally had no clue how to differentiate brands and had no idea what luxury buyers want. Ford could not sell luxury cars in Europe where it eventually terminated Scorpio and cannot sell luxury cars in US also, even though it is its own home market.

    Buick is absolutely different from Chevy and Caddy and GMC does not look anything like Chevy and has it own dedicated audience. I do not see why GM has to kill these brands and reduce its market profits share - just to satisfy few armchair CEOs from Edmund forums? Did you make research how much money will GM save or loose if it terminates these brands? If yes where are numbers? Is this thread about Lincoln or GM?
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...I was at the Carlisle All-Ford Show earlier this month. Ford had a course set-up to test drive some of its new cars. One of them was a Lincoln MkZ. It was a disappointing car for something with an MSRP of $42K. It only has a V-6 and a rather spartan interior. It barely seemed like a $28K car. My wife's 2005 Buick LaCrosse seems downright decadent compared to the new MkZ.

    What a Lincoln should be:
    image
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    that higher volume means lower "per unit" costs, but if you must give away your profit in massive rebates, then your profit from "economy of scale" evaporates...

    So, while the buyer gets the advantage of the lower price, if the company goes bankrupt have you really received a great deal???...if the car never breaks, yes, if it is a lemon needing constant repair from a dealer that is no longer in business, no...

    Just to be #1 in market share should not be the goal for any business...

    After all, I could probably be the largest law practice in the state if I did bankruptcy for free and took 0% fees on accident cases... ;) :P :cry:
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Take a look at a Chevy pickup and a GMC pickup and tell me where they did all this "differentiation".

    There is no viable reason to make 4 vehicles that are clones of each other with minor differences (like the Lambdas). 2 is plenty and only if there is sufficient differentiation (like Ford is planning for Lincoln - different greenhouses, engines, sheetmetal, interiors, features, etc.).

    There is too much competition to spend resources on keeping a bloated dealer network alive. Ford has realized this and is fixing the problem. GM only went halfway. We'll see who's right in a few years I suppose.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Both could be right, Allen.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited July 2010
    And not meaning to push anyone's buttons here, but GMC sales were up over 45% in June to 28,500 (for the month), Buick was up almost 53% to over 13,000 in June, Chevrolet was up 32% to over 141,000 units for the month, and Cadillac sold almost 12,000 units.

    Ford's sales were up 16% to over 155,000 (still beating Chevy, yes!), but Lincoln decreased over 11% to 6,300. Lame duck Mercury outsold Lincoln handily at 9,250 units, even though everyone now knows Mercury is slated for death.

    Buick and Cadillac share no models or platforms (like for example how the the Taurus and MKS are related between Ford and Mercury). Ford of course is in much better shape than it was and its quality is now absolutely stellar. But the company is still in debt to the tune of almost 30 billion dollars. Thankfully, it is like the little engine that could, and it is chipping away each month at that debt.

    Still, GM is now fielding excellent products as well, and has more of them to offer. People are really pretty fickle, and I wonder how important Ford's decision not to take government money will weigh on people's buying decisions in a year or two. Already, a fair number are obviously loving the new GMCs and Buicks. And now the Regal is making a big advertising splash...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    I know what you are saying Allen, but at least the Chevy and Ford pickups no longer share any body panels (even if the greenhouse remains the same). And don't forget the Acadia and Terrain have their own personalities now. They have their own bodies, like the Taurus and MKS do. You cannot call the Chevy Traverse and the GMC Acadia clones, if you are not willing to do the same with the Taurus and MKS. I don't think any of them are clones, like the Fusion and Milan (or the previous Equinox and Pontiac Torrent were).

    I guess I don't understand the vitriole for GM. They are an American company that screwed up and is clawing its way back, and yes, due to government help. Ford gets accolades for not requiring it, but GM has shown now they have good designers and engineers and are going to make a go of it. They are paying back their loans as well. If they do really well, then taxpayers are better off. I'd love to see America dominate the industry again, rather than Korea and China.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles