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?

1686971737490

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Your link doesn't work but the only thing I could find on bing.com was the concept vehicle. Here are side shots and they do NOT look alike to me or any other reasonable person. Aside from the fact that they both have 4 doors and 4 wheels.

    Just admit that you will never like the MKZ because YOU know it shares a platform with the Fusion - regardless of what it actually looks like or how it actually performs or how the general buying public accepts it.

    image
    image
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    Hmmm....the front is entirely different, the rear is entirely different, the "C" pillar is completely different, the shoulder line is altogether different, the wheels are totally different, the accent line on the bottom of the doors is different, the curve of the roof meeting the rear deck is different.

    Wait a minute! The dam* tires are the same color! Allen, the the heck is wrong with you? You must be blind not to see that these cars are indentical!
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    Personally I don't know which picture is what, but the upper one looks like something from GM. Where the hell are the door handles?
    (That's a snipe at GM)
    There are only so many ways you can package a vehicle toward the ends of economy. That is that it meets the needs of fuel economy, the needs of the buyer, and the needs of Ford to economically produce at a price point.
    Here is hoping that dependability will be the main point is Ford's stable. As pointed out earlier, GM has real issues in that area and I know lifelong GM people that are now looking at Ford for the first time in their lives.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    The top one is the MKZ concept. The production version will have a different rear and door handles.
  • They don't share anything that I can see...not door glass, not any of the greenhouse or lower body, or any body details. They both use current styling trends, yes. But someone seems to have an axe to grind and is determined to grind it down until there is nothing left. Edward, you must be a fun guy at a party. :P

    And get this...I admit to being one of Lincoln's harshest critics these past few years, but here I am actually defending Lincoln's effort here in a totally weasel-y way (not to mention being called Allen's partner...sparring partner maybe). This is all sort of funny, especially the vitriole. What fuels your continued rant?

    BTW, there is no Toyota version of the Lexus IS, and there are no Nissan versions of Infiniti cars. However, the Lexus ES350 has been very successful using the same architecture as the Camry. The Audi TT and A3 and Q3 all share architecture with the VW Golf (a terrific design in its own right). An Audi and a Lamborghini share an architecture. The VW Phaeton and the Bentley Continental Flying Spur share architecture. The Buick Lacrosse and the Cadillac XTS share architecture, but no body or interior bits. The Chrysler 300 and Dodge Challenger use the same architecture. Heck, the Taurus and Explorer use the same architecture. Porsche and VW share some architecture.

    But what am I doing? All this and more has been said before. It does not sway Edward. No matter what other models have been successful with platform sharing and differentiation, that does not matter. So I am done. We all have opinions. In the end it is all up to the marketplace.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    What excites me more than the new body style - and complete departure from the look of the Fusion - is the new electronically controlled suspension. The previous MKZ not only looked like a Fusion but it drove and rode like one, too. That is not a terrible thing - the Fusion is a good driving car. However, one would expect the MKZ to be even better. The new CCD should help the MKZ meet or surpass expectations.

    The new CCD suspension on the MKZ and MKS should go a long way toward providing a larger step up from their platform mates. I will be test driving a new MKS as soon as they are available to check out the difference in ride/handling compared to my 2010.

    I have been very pleased with my MKS but it rides and drives no better than a new Taurus. In fact, both the MKS and the new Taurus ride more stiffly than my wife's 2008 Taurus. If the continually controlled damping and driver adjustability work as expected, both the MKS and MKZ should ride and handle better than previous versions.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    not to mention being called Allen's partner

    I thought you'd find that amusing.

    Or horrifying.....
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    The MKZ looks good, but I like the lines of the '13 Fusion better.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Nobody can say that this is a rebadged Fusion (and you know who you are).

    I love the rear treatment and the interior is stunning. This is a great first step for Lincoln.

    On the customer service side, in addition to upgrading dealerships Lincoln is partnering with Les Clefs d'Or - the prestigious international association of hotel concierges - to train Lincoln staff at the Lincoln Academy.

    Lincoln is serious this time and they're following through on their long term plans to put Lincoln back onto the luxury map.
  • edward53edward53 Member Posts: 113
    Yes we can. The car has obvious similarities to the Fusion. The difference is that The MMZ is about 2 inches longer and is about .75 inches taller. If you put the vehicles side by side you will notice that their profiles are similar. Really!
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    You can put any number of vehicles from totally different manufacturers side by side and see similarities if you try hard enough. There are only so many ways you can do a 4 door sedan.

    The difference is that The MMZ is about 2 inches longer and is about .75 inches taller.

    That's one difference. What about the other differences? V6 engine; suspension; wheels; doors; hood; grille; headlamps; taillamps; roof; glass; trunk; bumper; gauges; dash; console; shifter; seats; steering wheel; fenders; quarter panels; thx audio, etc. etc. etc.

    In other words - almost everything.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Did they get rid of that awful cheap hood prop-rod?
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    Based on the photos and information from Lincoln's website, it seems to me that the MKZ should be at or near the top of the list for entry level luxury cars.

    The exterior looks great to me - with the exception of the C-pillar. I don't really care for the six-window look. The interior looks near perfect. It looks like most of the items one expects from a luxury car are available - except for power tilt/telescope steering wheel and power adjustable pedals. The specs say the tilt/telescope is manual but the pictures appear to have the power button on the side of the column. Otherwise, heated steering wheel, massaging seats, heated/cooled seats are all available. Best of all is the adaptable/adustable suspension. The push-button transmission is cool. No, it damn well better not have a prop-rod hood!

    As far as I am concerned the optional sliding roof is disappointing. It doesn't open very far and automatically closes even more if you go over 45 MPH. Worst of all, it drapes down over the rear window. This reminds me of the cheap-assed sunroofs some GM cars have - where the sunroof just plops up over the roof. A moonroof that neatly tucks in between the roof and headliner is much cleaner. Thankfully, that is also an option for the MKZ. There was a lot of hype about the sliding roof an it might appeal to some but I wouldn't have it even for free. The original retractable hardtop on the 1957 Ford was a masterpiece of technology at the time. This......not so much, IMHO.

    The 3.7 engine should move the car nicely and be competitive with other cars in this class. The turbo 4 should also work nicely - lots of torque - and strong MPG. Of course, I would prefer the 3.5 ecoboost. I also hoped that the 8 speed transmission would be available at launch but that is apparently not the case.

    I look forward to the arrival of the MKZ later this fall. I doubt one will find its way into my garage but it appears to be a great effort and should double MKZ sales.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I would be shocked if it did not have power tilt/telescope tied into the memory. That would be a major faux pas on an otherwise fantastic vehicle.

    I think you would feel differently about the roof once you see it in person. We have the Vista roof (also known as the BAMR - Big [non-permissible content removed] Moon Roof) on our Edge and it's basically the same. There is not enough room in the headliner for such a large opening on a sedan. It won't be for everyone but at least it's optional for those that want it.

    I expect the 8 speed tranny will show up next year along with a 2.7L Ecoboost V6. And I wouldn't be surprised to see a top end model with the 3.5L Ecoboost within a year or two.

    I still can't believe some people would scoff at this - it's probably the best vehicle Lincoln has done in decades - even though I agree with you on a couple of the exterior styling cues.

    My problem is I want stellar fuel economy so I'll be looking at a Fusion 1.6L EB that gets 26/37. I can't see spending the extra money on a FFH or MKZ hybrid but I'll at least look at both.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    I have only seen videos of the roof so the real thing might impress me more. At least it is different. I like the dual panel roof on my MKS.

    I agree this is the best effort in a long time. With the enhanced dealer experience that has already begun, this should generate more interest and sales. The new MKS coming in 2014 will be welcome, too.
  • I really like the 2013 MKZ from what I see so far. However, the rest of the lineup is not competitive, given the fast paced changes in the market. The warmed over 2013 MKS and MKT are stuck with the overall shapes that doomed them in the marketplace in the first place. The MKX, with all its improvements, is still obviously an Edge with lipstick, and the poor Navigator, once the king of the world, is not even a player anymore. That old body with new clips has been around since 1998, and that 300 hp V8 is outclassed by everything in its class.

    I suspect that Ford will continue to pour money into Lincoln now, until it either becomes other than a laughingstock...or until Ford goes down...who knows what the future brings, but things change far more quickly now. Ford likely cannot succeed over the long term with just one marque...I am not thinking of a company right now that has. Two marques can probably do it, but poor Lincoln is such damaged goods. Mercury with its photocopy Ford products still had a better reputation when it died.

    Anyway, I see how GM and Chrysler are now growing like gangbusters. Each has many marques still, although they both have cut their marque lists considerably. GM with Chevy, Buick, GMC, Cadillac, Holden (the Chevy Caprice here), Opel and Vauxhall. Opel is providing Buick with a lot of help, and Buick is a star currently, given its status in China and growing presence here again. But Opel is a drag on GM overall, and whether GM will be able to move fast enough to compete with athletes like Hyundai-Kia and the newly power-housed VW remains a question.

    VW has taken the opposite tack from Ford and Honda (which also is struggling a bit with its luxury brand), and has now 11 separate marques in the group, plus several more they can re-introduce without buying anything (Auto Union, DKW, Hoirch, NSU (remember the wankel engined Ro 80 from the late 60s)? VW had a major slump for awhile, but in this past year knocked Toyota down to #3 (GM is again #1). VW projected becoming the largest car maker by 2018, but now are on track for 2016. Quite a renaissance. Meanwhile, as many new models as GM has in the pipeline and on showroom floors for all its brands, it could go down in the next few years with all that is happening in Germany, China and Korea.

    It is an interesting time. My long love for Lincoln does not blind me to the fact that they aren't renewing their lineup as fast as other manufacturers have figured out how to do. MKZ is a bright spot, but they need about six more, and within the next 18 months, I imagine, to become a player again.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Ford could rush new Lincolns but there is no need. Ford is comfortably profitable and is investing in long term success, not short term profit. Dealers are upgrading and I think that's just as important as the products in this market. The new design chief is putting his stamp on the new stuff. Apparently he wasn't able to change a lot on the MkZ - even so it turned out pretty good.

    I still think they might have a surprise up their sleeve based on the new mustang platform.
  • That Mustang surprise is an excellent idea. The new Mustang itself that is coming allegedly with Evos styling would wipe up the Camaro. A few inches to the wheelbase, and voila, 4 door.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    I see how GM and Chrysler are now growing like gangbusters.

    Ya think? Give Ford, (or me) $50 Billion dollars, and I'll go like Gangbusters too! :confuse:
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Where else could Chrysler go but up? As for GM - they're still doing the same old GM tricks. Local Chevy dealers are advertising that they'll finance a Sonic for you with a 500 credit score. Chrysler is doing some good things and GM is a little better but they need more focus and to stop trying to be #1 at all costs.
  • GM is light years ahead of Ford in China, and it is Asian markets that will count the most in coming years. Ford is wising up and plans to introduce 15 new models in China in the next few years, but in that same time, GM will introduce more than 4 times as many that are designed from the ground up to fit that market. Ford is doing well in the US, and now even owns their blue oval trademark again. Can't fault that. But Mulally gets paid too many millions to do what any number of clear heads within that organization could have done years ago.

    I know, woulda, coulda, shoulda. But to slam GM and Chrysler for actually figuring out how to not toss all the government funds right down the old rathole they were formerly stuffing their own funds into is a bit of sour grapes. These two companies, like Ford, employ a helluva a lot of people and allow a whole lot of suppliers and their employees to exist too. The TARP funds are being paid back, not lost.

    It's anyone's call how laissez-faire we ought to be as a country in order to be pragmatic rather than ideologues, but both Chrysler and GM are prospering right now. Will that continue? I have no crystal ball. Ford, GM and Chrysler could all be gone in 5 years for all we know. I hope not, but Britain used to have a booming car business too.

    The growth in the Korean companies is phenomenal now that they have figured out how to keep renewing their fleets completely every four years or so. Japan is not out, and it is only a matter of time before China finds its niche here. Even if it doesn't, projections are that the US market will become less and less a determiner of a company's success.

    Ford needs to revive moribund Lincoln and find a way to pitch it internationally, or create another luxury brand from scratch without the baggage of the long slow ruination of the once proud Lincoln brand.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    All I was pointing out is that Chrysler is simply getting back to respectability and their huge growth this year is due more to how far they had fallen. I think they are headed in the right direction for sure and have some great products.

    GM is a lot better but they have not cut their overhead and excess capacity as much as Ford has and they put all their hybrid eggs in the Volt basket and "mild" hybrids. They are decontenting chevys so they don't compete with Buicks and they're offering financing to people with questionable credit. They have an expensive Volt but they don't have any EVs or less expensive full hybrids.

    They may do better in China and if so hopefully that will help the bottom line. But Ford simply couldn't afford to go after China before - they were too busy trying to stay in business - without government handouts. And they are handouts until GM and Chrysler pay back every penny they borrowed (which we both know won't happen).
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Bah, Ford got handouts too.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Bah yourself. Those were loans, not handouts. Ford paid back every penny they got from the government. GM and Chrysler have not. I have no problem with government LOANS as long as they're paid back.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2012
    Here's a better link then with a handout grant for $92.7 million to Ford in 2009 for battery research.

    GM, Chrysler, Ford Share in U.S. Grants for Batteries (Bloomberg)

    I bet with a bit of digging I could find all kinds of grants to Ford for infrastructure development and employee training and research. Here's one laundry list.

    Some of us don't think there's a problem with government/industry partnerships. If building a highway exit and putting in a rail spur creates jobs, go for it (that's exactly what happened in Chattanooga with VW). If VW pulls out for some reason, those "grants" won't be repaid either.

    Sorry, I like Ford and own some stock, but I don't think they are any more "pure" than GM or Chrysler for not taking the same bailout offer. Remember, Ford lobbied for the bailout, knowing that if their Detroit competitors went the "regular" bankruptcy route, a lot of suppliers would fail too, and that would hurt their recovery efforts as well.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited May 2012
    "And they are handouts until GM and Chrysler pay back every penny they borrowed (which we both know won't happen)."

    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Chrysler had repaid its government loans.

    As for GM, I believe the stock that the government took as collateral has to go to ~53 before our federal government breaks even. Any sale of GM stock below that price represents a loss. Since GM closed at 22.44 on Friday, it'll be a while before the government is repaid, if ever.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Again, I have no problem with government loans. But GM is making a nice profit now while the taxpayers got hosed. Why shouldn't they pay back the difference in the stock value if they're making billions now? A regular loan with full payback would have yielded the same result. What about all of the old GM shareholders that got hosed?

    If GM had failed and therefore was not able to pay back the loans then that's one thing but that's not the case here.

    I think that's part of the reason they haven't changed their business model as much as they should - they believe if they get in trouble again the government will bail them out.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Chrysler had repaid its government loans.

    Correction follows:

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2011/05/truth-behind- -chrysler%E2%80%99s-fake-auto-bailout-pay-back/145552

    I made my point so I'll be quiet now.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2012
    Fair enough although you could say the government got what they bargained for (stock in exchange for financial backing). Meanwhile, here in Michigan, us taxpayers see the auto industry as about the only bright spot - the hosing would be much worse if GM and Chrysler had folded along with all the ancillary jobs.

    Investing entails risk. Don't have much sympathy for the stockholders of Old GM. If you want to bail them out, I want to get in line for some of my lousy bets. :shades:
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here Steve and I certainly agree that loans were appropriate at the time. But consider this scenario:

    Old GM stockholders were allowed to keep their shares.
    GM was given a loan and protection from creditors but has to pay back every penny.
    GM was required to maintain all of their old obligations (including warranty claims - a whole other nasty subject by itself).

    GM would be in the same place they are now but the taxpayers and shareholders would not be out billions of dollars.

    And it's only an investment if it's voluntary. Nobody asked me if I wanted to invest MY money in GM.

    Chrysler is better - at least they still have to pay back the $3.5B government loan. I just don't like them advertising that they've paid back the loans when they didn't. It's like me having a car loan, refinancing it and saying that I paid it off.

    And I don't necessarily blame GM and Chrysler. I blame the government for allowing it.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2012
    My feeling is that if they had been more viable, like Ford was, they could have either hocked everything (like Ford) or obtained private pre-bankruptcy financing (that's the norm in big Chapter 11s). The financing wasn't there so we got what we got.

    In other news, it looks like Ford is looking more to the Australians for revamping the look of Lincolns.

    Lincoln goes inside-out with Australian designers (caradvice.com.au)
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Just the fact that Lincoln has a dedicated design team is a huge step. The new C segment vehicles (rumor is both a car and CUV are coming) should be very telling.
  • It's not as if Australian Fords, although they still offer rear wheel drive, have won a lot of attention for their outstanding body designs. :P

    Revamping of Lincoln has started again in earnest, but previous re-set attempts were underway 10 years ago. Perhaps like Hyundai, they will be able to start with the mediocre and build a real brand over time. However, their proposals for new models don't now go much beyond the MKZ and an Escape spin-off. Unfortunately, the 2013 MKS piffle of changes means that model will likely be with us for at least a couple more years. It's anonymous at best, like the Volvo S80 and the Acura RL. The MKT is just ungainly, and also destined to be around at least a couple more years. I saw one drive by yesterday, and I must say it is not aging well. The Navigator is an embarrassment at this point, like the Town Car ended up to be. I continue to beat a dead horse of course, but even if Ford didn't have the money to do the number of models GM has been able to do, even in its bankruptcy, why didn't any of those guys earning the big bucks see that they were pouring all their limited resources into non-descript, even homely looking iron?

    Ford will survive as the American Honda--models with good reputations and a luxury brand that seems to be an also-ran for the time being. With its loans, Chrysler has been able to take advantage of synergies with its European brands/owners to get new models to market quickly both here and there. GM is propped up by China: both Buick and Chevrolet sell in excess of 50K units there per month, and with all their joint ventures GM sold 2.5 million vehicles in China in 2011. The stock loss to taxpayers is only real when the stock is sold, and nobody knows what the market will do in the coming years. There were many times when the old GM stock price exceeded what the government needs in order to break even. Stranger things have happened. ;)

    The Honda model has worked for Honda, and may work long-term for Ford. We shall see. Meanwhile, get that new Lincoln team some amphetamines.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    MKS is waiting for a new platform most likely a widened and lengthened MKZ platform (CD4). A new C segment crossover and car are rumored for next year as well as a mid-sized crossover based on the Explorer platform (why doesn't Caddy have a Lambda version?). Navigator and Expedition are waiting on the new F150 platform. MKX is also waiting on a new platform.

    The team and plan are in place - you just have to be a little patient to see the outcome.

    BTW - where is the CTS hybrid to compete with the MKZ hybrid? I bet the MKZ hybrid outsells the CTS-V sedan.

    Lincoln won't be BMW or Mercedes but they can be Lexus in a few years.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    (why doesn't Caddy have a Lambda version?).

    Because the Escalade sells very well and is extremely profitable.

    The next 'slade may be Lambda based.
  • edward53edward53 Member Posts: 113
    Cadillac is going high end while Lincoln just strives to be while sharing all of its vehicles with Ford platforms. Cadillac's new ATS is rwd with optional awd . It will also have V variants. What does Lincoln have to compete with it besides what will be a vehicle based on a Ford platform? Also I would expect the CTS -V to have lower sales volume as compared to any Lincoln and not just the MKZ -hybrid because the V variants start at over 60 K. And from what I understand is that the MKZ hybrid will be base priced at the same as the 6 cylinder MKZ.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Cadillac is sharing new platforms with Chevy (Camaro specifically) - how is that going "high end"?

    RWD does not equal "high end" luxury vehicles. It does allow for higher performance but in the luxury vehicle game that doesn't always translate to better sales or more profit.

    The 2 biggest sellers for Lexus are the FWD based ES and RX.

    Why is the new XTS FWD based? Why does it only offer a 304 hp 3.6L V6 while the much older MKS offers a 365 hp 3.5L Ecoboost V6?

    What does the XTS offer that the MKS doesn't?
  • edward53edward53 Member Posts: 113
    edited May 2012
    Perhaps you did not know it but the platforms that are going to Chevy are the obsolete platforms that Cadillac will not use any longer. Gm's plans at least for now are to let Chevy have discontinued Cadillac platforms for the new Camaro and it upcoming Caprice SS will use the present Camaro platform. The present Alpha cannot handle a V8 as would be required for the Camaro and Caprice SS . So Lincolns will get Ford platforms and Chevy will get obsolete Cadilllac platforms. I am not writing that these Ford platforms are bad for Fords, but I am writing that they are not Lincoln worthy. The XTS is nothing more than a more expensive Buick. Buy a Buick and save money.

    Another thing, the all new Mustang is not really all new at all. The platform is the same platform as now except it will have an irs as was originally planned for it.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    So it's a good idea to use obsolete platforms? If the new platform is really good then it shouldn't matter that it's shared by both a luxury and non-luxury nameplate provided the rest of the vehicle has the appropriate design, style, performance and features.

    I can take a basic stick frame house and build either a $150K house or a $250K house based on the finishing materials and mechanicals.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited May 2012
    On what do you base your statement that "the all new Mustang us not really all new at all...?"

    I don't have any first hand information, but I've read in more than one source that the next all-new Mustang will be smaller and lighter, in addition to featuring IRS. The smaller, in particular, suggests that it'll probably have a new platform. We'll see.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    edited May 2012
    Using an old platform worked for the successful Chrysler 300, might as well work elsewhere. I bet Caddy or Lincoln would love to be able to use a just-obsolete S/7/LS platform for an actual large competent car.
  • I love saying provocative things in order to get this moribund forum cooking.

    As to XTS v. MKS...they are remarkably similar in a lot of ways, nearly the same length and wheelbase. Their base engines have similar size and power. They are FWD based, stop-gap "flagships" until both brands have time to issue something better. Both of them have too much body length to wheelbase, as bulky pretend full-size FWD cars tend to have (Audi being an exception)

    However, the XTS is good looking and has gotten reluctantly good reviews from the auto press for its lines (the press really doesn't want to like this sort of car). The interior is where it really shines over the MKS. Despite a slightly shorter wheelbase, it has a much roomier back seat than the MKS does (routinely knocked for its tight quarters in back). Both have large car trunks. Given that the XTS shares a platform with the Lacrosse, the large trunk is unexpected. The other part of the interior is its quality and ambience. The press loves the interior style and finish of the XTS, which bests Mercedes in execution.

    Now, both are cars running in Toyota Avalon territory until something better can be brought to market. In two years, Cadillac will have a larger RWD flagship that will at least offer a V8 as an option. Lincoln is going for an improved MKS. Seems to be the story of Lincoln's existence...Cadillac achieves and then abandons the "standard of the world" quality--and then shoots for it again, while Lincoln dithers with mediocrity, and a stellar design every 30 years or so.

    They got burned by the Mark II in days gone by...a car more expensive than even what most of the European high end had to offer, and it was pretty to boot, but it didn't sell (too expensive). The Continental brand went down at the end of the 50s. The 60s Continentals were distinctive, but that distinctiveness became bloat in the 70s. The 1990 Town Car and the 1998 Navigator were resurrections of good, but like with Ford and the original Explorer and the original Taurus, they had no idea what to do for an encore, because they didn't really understand the appeal and why these models had icon status in the first place.

    I got old somewhere along the way, and no one ever asked me what would work better. But I bet everything I have and all that of my neighbors in this co-op that I could have stopped some really stupid decisions from being approved during the past 40 years, and I am no Einstein. Bean counters did a lot of damage of course, but even so, what bozo thought that the 1996 Taurus was a credible follow-up to the 1986 Taurus? Who in charge really thought delusionally that the 2007 Navigator was a fitting replacement for the way the 1998 took the market by storm?

    I am not privy to any inside information, so it just boggles my mind that people have been paid good money for so long to come up with such mediocrity.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    So you totally ignored the MKS 365 hp drivetrain option missing in the XTS? Somehow I'm not surprised. Of course if Caddy had that advantage we'd hear about it endlessly. Although I suspect you're just pushing buttons now.

    We don't know what Lincoln has in store for the MKS yet. It will definitely have more rear seat room. Whether it's based on a longer wider CD4 platform or some new Global RWD platform is still up in the air.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited May 2012
    Very well said, gregg_vw! The only point that I would qualify is your comment about the '96 Taurus. It was maybe a double, to borrow baseball parlance, but I applaud Ford for having tried to hit another one out of the ballpark, as it did with the original Taurus. The bigger problem is that, instead of reboubling its efforts as the '96 platform aged, Ford basically gave up on the industry's most important market segment.

    Since I'm not into SUVs, I won't comment on the '07 Navigator, but I agree with everything else you wrote in your post.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2012
    I love saying provocative things in order to get this moribund forum cooking.

    Bah. (me too :D )

    I remember when the Olds Toronado came out. Competed with the Thunderbird and based (all per Wiki) on the Riviera and Eldorado RWD platforms. But - this full size luxury car was FWD. That "stopgap" had a 26 year run.
  • I didn't totally ignore anything. You know damn well that I know that the MKS offers the Ecoboost. That's great, but so what???? The car isn't selling!

    Cadillac is also dragging its heels getting the upper end options available on the XTS, but they probably don't give a crap that it doesn't have a hot engine right now. It will sell based on its presentation...and the fact that Cadillac has some legs right now, and the MKS is still an unknown to most buyers. Not to mention really dull in the styling department. :P

    We all know there is a market for FWD luxury floaters yet, and Cadillac has hit that sweet spot with this introduction. Still, that demographic is beginning to circle the drain. Even so, the compromised XTS should do fine until the RWD blockbuster arrives. Meanwhile, Cadillac is outselling the MKX with the SRX, and the Nav with the Slade. The ATS is out next month, and the new CTS will be out next year.

    This is cut-throat. Even with all their effort, Cadillac may still fall on its face. It has before. My repetitive message, NO car company is sitting back or standing still while Lincoln finally gets its sh*t together.
  • Back then, FWD was exotic...it was t*ts...it brought memories of Cord. AND there was about a mile of sheetmetal between the front wheel and front door cut out. None of this engine in front of the front wheels stuff that was so innovative with the state of the art econoboxes of the 70s and 80s. It wasn't stopgap...it was it. Then, things changed. The last FWD Toronado was a very weird thing that adopted the space-saving proportions of the transverse engined FWD plebeian rides which had become common by then.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Let's see how well the XTS sells. I don't think it will do any better than the MKS. It's not a very hot segment. The STS and DTS both failed. As for styling - I'd say the XTS will turn off as many buyers as it turns on. The MKS, while nondescript will not offend as many buyers. And the tech is virtually identical.

    You keep saying that Lincoln can't survive long enough to get the new vehicles out. And I keep saying that Ford is profitable and can afford to wait for the long term Lincoln plan to take hold.
Sign In or Register to comment.