Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Car is ready in 4 days, excellent. Go to pick it up - The two new front tires are mounted with the white letters outside, so they don't match the rear ones. They purchased a new right front wheel that I did not need, because the wheel was in the back of the car - it just needed a new tire. Plus, they did nothing with the spare. I now have 2 wheels and a cut tire sitting in the luggage area, no spare, an extra wheel I don't need, and mismatched tires. Mind you, I KNOW these people. Did they offer to do anything about it? Anything at all? NO. I'm sure I can get it all fixed, but my point is, this ain't even close to my Lexus experience down the street.
If I had the inclination to write about my last Lexus experience here, you would understand. The difference is incomprehensible.
I'm not sure you can actually train the staff from these old "Mercury" stores to treat customers like a Lexus store, but I applaud their efforts to do so.
If Lincoln can't provide a similar luxury dealership experience as Lexus then they will not succeed the way they want to succeed.
The really strange thing is that we do not have a Lincoln Explorer or Cadillac Lambda. At this point that would make more sense than keeping the Navigator and Escalade.
However, Cadillac will have a Lambda, but they must assure that it is sufficiently different from the Buick, and getting several other models to market has had priority. The ATS almost requires that they re-do the CTS to lessen the overlap, so that is what they are doing. Then within their line of sedans, comes the larger than CTS rear drive sedan.
They will re-do the Escalade next year, because with the GM pickup architecture being all-new at the same time, they can make weight reductions and fuel economy gains, along with other refinements. That market is no longer hot, but there will still be consumers who want the larger, more rugged machines with greater tow capacity (horse trailers, boats, etc.). The Escalade still sells in reasonable numbers. It's just not the hot thing it inexplicably was.
Lincoln has the Audi Q5/Acura RDX rival coming, based on the Escape, but that leaves the MKX too close, within an inch or two in all dimensions of the others (and it is actually about half a foot shorter than the SRX). I suspect the Lincoln will be sized like the new Escape, which will render it smaller than its competition and the MKX--though interior space will be competitive. But will it take the rest of the bit of market the MKX has?
The new Buicks are fine but it forces the Chevys to be too cheap. GM still wants to be #1 and they think having more brands will help instead of looking at profitability. They're still doing some of the things that got them into trouble and I'm worried if we have another economic downturn they'll need another bailout.
Meanwhile, you have to remember the different ways that Ford and GM brands were viewed. I think it was easy for Ford to absorb Mercury customers. With a couple of exceptions, Mercurys were never seen as anything other than fancier Fords, and Ford fostered that, especially in the past three decades. I never heard it said that Mercury owners would go elsewhere if Mercury was axed.
Lincoln began slipping toward fancy Ford status in the same way as Mercury, once it was shut out of PAG, and left hanging by Bill Ford. Mercury needed re-invention, but there was no money to do it. Lincoln still needs re-invention. That is underway.
Meanwhile, in their death throes, GM had to downsize in a hurry. Although they had the current VW plan of fielding more than a dozen brands (Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Cadillac, Saturn, Hummer, GMC, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall, Daewoo, and SAAB, plus hookups with Isuzu, Suzuki and Subaru), they had no idea--unlike VW--how to differentiate and market--and justify--so many brands. Given how many GM brands have now gone away, they have almost downsized proportionally as many brands as Ford did (if you exclude the ones they severed partnerships with).
Opel and Vauxhall remain moneypits that need to be fixed, but just like troubled European Ford, they still provide the rest of GM with designs used successfully elsewhere. GM axed Pontiac (GM's Mercury), Oldsmobile (almost complete overlap with Buick), Saturn (its time came and went), Hummer (ditto), Daewoo (who cares?), and SAAB (sob). :sick:
However, GMC buyers, for whatever reason, have always seen GMCs as superior to Chevrolets and rarely cross-shop them. Ford had no such strong brand difference, real or imagined. Oldsmobuicks were also more distinct from Chevys than Mercurys from Fords, but GM did not need and could not sustain both brands.
GM is still rebuilding, but all four remaining brands are doing well by comparison to where they were just a few years ago. All have new models coming out, and all have modernized their product lines. They are behind Ford in engine design, but they know it and are working on it.
Will it be enough? No crystal ball here. All the US companies remain vulnerable to failure if they cannot renew their lines rapidly and consistently from hereon in. Europe has most of the uber-luxury market. Japanese and Korean companies have both shown the ability to turn on a dime faster when market tastes change, and to blanket the market with models for every niche, without causing themselves huge losses. American companies remain at a competitive disadvantage in some ways. That will have to be completely fixed or they will continue the decline as happened to the British industry.
As I have said before, Ford and GM have taken different paths to recovery. Ford's course makes the most sense for Ford (especially since they chose not to take bailout money), given the value of Mercury and Lincoln had sunk to the point where both could have gone away, and not affected Ford's bottom line.
Right now, Lincoln constitutes about 4% of American Ford sales. GMC/Buick/Cadillac currently constitute about 32% of American GM sales. With GM, Cadillac's decline was precipitous, but it never sunk to being perceived as merely a Chevrolet with lipstick. Buick continued to be a star in China throughout GM's implosion, and it attracted a different buyer set here than Chevrolet. And then there is that weird GMC cache that continued to exist, even if it made no sense to you or me.
Finally, shuttering brands is expensive. Especially under circumstances when a brand is making money, employing people and sustaining suppliers, it is not an easy call to just axe it. However, GM can still downsize if times call for it. On the other hand, Ford has nothing left to rid itself of, since currently the Lincoln brand is irrelevant (I sincerely hope that changes).
My point is GM could kill GMC and combine Chevy and Buick and have the same sales volume but with far less overhead. But that's not how GM thinks. They are scared of killing brands and want to be #1.
I've worked on 8 and 9 figure corporate business cases. If you try hard enough you can come up with a business case to justify just about whatever you want to do, but that doesn't mean it's the best choice. The best example would be having 2 different systems that do the same thing. Individually each one can make a business case for keeping it. But if you look at it from a corporate standpoint and compare those 2 business cases with one where you only keep one, keeping one almost always wins out.
Ford has one global leader who isn't afraid to make those higher level decisions. That's why Ford now has one Fiesta, one Focus and one Fusion worldwide not to mention Transit Connect and the new full sized Transit and C-Max.
GM still operates individually with each brand making their own business cases and management allows them to do it. It's not wrong per se but it's definitely not the most efficient.
I believe they also subsidized Cadillac with other brands which is a recipe for failure long term. Hopefully with the new products Cadillac can now pay their own way as Lincoln will be forced to do.
As for GMC, the only segment where D3 still has strong market and pricing power is trucks, so GM needs to keep trucks in as many of its franchises as possible right now. I don't think dumping GMC is strategically smart right now while GM is rebuilding because it is profitable and a very positive cash flow contributor to both GM and its dealer network.
Now Ford; While I respect their successful internal restructuring and business gamble, I don't think their decision to avoid a BK restructuring was quite as noble as some proclaim. I think the biggest reason behind it was to allow the Ford family to continue controlling the company with a small portion of the equity through their family super shares. Lincoln is getting close to sink or swim, and unfortunately I think Ford needs a strong luxury product to help enhance profit margins, particularly if gasoline prices down the road further erode truck profits. Otherwise, narrowing margins will constrict the company in the global market battles.
The arguments about the cost of shuttering a brand are interesting and contradictory. Some claim it requires a significant upfront cost expenditure, but others say part of that is through illusory accounting. Another school of thought is that more brands give you more market channels to stuff and increase sales volume while the incremental cost of another brand is not all that expensive.
Interesting stuff and it will be an interesting situation to follow while history develops.
Ford and GM are not and have not been the same type of conglomerations. Furthermore, there are many different business plans that would have worked (or not worked) for either Ford or GM. There is not one that clearly the best for all, no matter what.
You chart the course and you try to navigate it. Every situation has its drawbacks. You are focusing on the benefits of all eggs in one basket, not any of the possible drawbacks.
Nice reminder as well that sales volume is good, as long as it is not engendered by giving away the store to chase sales figures. It looks like GM, Ford and Chrysler have all curtailed that crazy behavior quite a bit, compared to 2008 and before.
If somebody likes a Buick Regal or GMC pickup are you honestly suggesting that they would NOT buy the exact same vehicle with a Chevy badge on it?
I'm not suggesting they kill the vehicles - just rebrand them.
You don't think people cross shop GMC and Chevy pickups and let the dealers bid against each other? That's the same thing that happened with Chevy and Pontiac dealers with the Camaro and Firebird.
Can they make it work? Sure. But you'll never convince me it's the best business plan.
The Pontiac brand was ruined long before its demise, Saturn had few fans left, and GM gave up on revamping Oldsmobile midstream. I don't think any remaining Pontiac or Saturn buyers had significant objections to buying a Chevrolet. Ergo, no more reason for those brands and that's why they were axed. Olds was subsumed by Buick, although very clumsily at first. And Buick as I have said over and over to your deaf ears was the main star in GMs crown in China...a big star. Ford had nothing like that going on.
GM chose a business plan that your confirmation bias will not let you consider as a reasonable decision for them. No, they would have been better off taking Ford's path. You cannot know that, but it doesn't matter anyway. Time will tell, as it always does.
You're rationalizing GM's business decisions. Killing Pontiac and Oldsmobile and Saturn was ok but killing Buick isn't. GMC has some supernatural appeal that the same exact truck with a Chevy badge doesn't. Yeah, right.
Re-read my last several posts. I try to find what may be similarities and differences among companies and brands. I often say that the jury is still out. I try to be thoughtful, even if I don't always succeed.
I am rationalizing GM's business decisions? Well, of course I am! We are also rationalizing Ford's business decisions. You are rationalizing Ford's decisions. That is the best we can do, because neither you nor I know all that went into making some extremely difficult decisions for Ford, Chrysler and GM.
It is possible that all three companies' current business plans are reasonable and flawed. I think there is always a danger of overestimating desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities of anything we currently favor.
So let me repeat, every situation has its drawbacks, as well as advantages. In order to reduce bias and improve critical thinking, it helps to keep in mind that when you choose something, you also choose to give up something else. If Ford's way is sound for them, and IMHO I think it is, then it need not be defended by attacking another decision by a completely different company and culture.
I don't think it is likely that all three companies will survive long-term. I have no idea which one or ones will fail, but I do know from history that attrition of American companies and brands appears to be the trend here. But that is beside the point, if there is one. :P
Perhaps we ought to get back to discussing where Ford is taking Lincoln, and Lincoln's product line-up and sales, compared to the competition. I am done commenting on your insistence that GM's business plan should have included killing Buick and GMC. Frankly, as Rhett said, I don't give a damn, but some errant brain cells apparently thought I did.
There isn't much to talk about for Lincoln until the MKZ arrives.
So when's that new MKZ gonna show up?
Seems I recall an Allen on this thread who not so long ago who envisioned Mercury becoming Ford's niche brand. It likely did not happen for lack of funds and resources, not because other manufacturers do not have such arrangements.
VW is toying with becoming number one in the world with all their recent growth. Yes, several of their brands are struggling, but several are growing like gangbusters. The bottom line is looking very healthy. Might they make even more profit by dumping some brands? Possibly. But meanwhile, they are already making gobs of profit, and it allows them to field more brands, support more industries and more workers in more countries, and produce a totally non-essential brand like Bugatti that will never make them any money but gives the world a car that is beyond aspirational. VW sells Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Scania, SEAT, Skoda, Suzuki (in litigation), and Volkswagen, not VW/Audi.
Should they eliminate SEAT and Skoda? Arguments can be made. However, it is hard to argue with being able to be the most profitable auto company in the world, while still being able to employ 400,000 employees worldwide.The wide range of vehicles and brands in a myriad of countries provides more choice for consumers.
Nissan/Infiniti is actually part of Nissan/Renault/Citroen/Chang'an Automobile Group. There are firm plans now to revive the Datsun brand. Are they nuts?
Seems I recall an Allen on this thread who not so long ago who envisioned Mercury becoming Ford's niche brand. It likely did not happen for lack of funds and resources, not because other manufacturers do not have such arrangements.
Looking at Kia/Hyundai, a huge threat to American manufacturers, it is clear that both brands will seek to establish their own premium brands before the end of the decade.
I could also begin to point out examples from China and India, both countries now having many manufacturers and brands, and both with huge populations and growing economies destined to eclipse the North American market.
So, as I have said so many times that I bore myself, both two brand and multi-brand structures exist successfully. I believe it was Bertrand Russell who said we ought to only entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. Any dogmatic philosophy, even our own, should be taken with a grain of salt. I simply cannot say that I know that Ford's or GM's approach is better. I have thought (knowing we can get in trouble when we begin to believe our own thoughts :P ) that each has found a way that works for them to salvage something from the mess they both created.
Of recent vehicles, I had an 09 Malibu LT2, that is the leather I4 A6. After a short time I noticed Saturn built on the same body. One better than the other? Unfortunately mine was in the shop several times and the loaners were rent-a-wrecks. That is Enterprise vehicles that were not good enough for the airport. And none measured up to the level of mine. Moving to the A6 tranny was definitely a good thing, but then there were the bads. Two major areas of concern. One with steering and that it was difficult to keep in a straight line and others had similar/alike complaint. Driving over a slight road surface change would make the car react. So touchy that taking your eyes off the road for a second could put you in the next lane. But the worst part of it was that about once every thousand miles the electric power steering went nuts and would steer hard right. Because of the sensitivity of my achy old hands I'd frequently wear leather gloves. One occasion, doing 65 on interstate, it did it for at least a full second. Thankfully I had both hands on wheel and was able to hold it. The force was so intense that it made my right shoulder painful for a few days. Downright dangerous and deemed unfixable.
The other major area was with the braking systems. That is the anti-lock, traction control, and electronic stability systems. Per GM, if you lost control such as in a slide, the system was to automatically cut power, and apply corrective braking at corners if necessary to correct direction in accord with steering wheel position. I learned it was not working, simultaneously learning that the tires were bad on wet road. Per window sticker the vehicle had touring tires, a step up from the cheaper all-season passenger tires on it. I cut power myself when the back end started coming around and did corrective steering. There was no indication of the system doing anything and I did not notice any of the lights coming on. Heart pounding, I dug into it. The logical said it was something to do with electronic brake control module since any of those functions depended upon it. And such was happening with some of the early Olds Aurora. I had a '96. Turned out the module was being eaten by high voltage spikes generated when the cooling fans cut on and off. Mine already had the fix, a short jumper harness that added diodes to suppress those spikes and never had a moment of such troubles. (An aside, I wish they killed Buick instead and that someone was still building with the unusual steering suspension system that vehicle had) I had the dealer check, and sure enough there was a recall for some of the Malibu, but my VIN not included. I checked, no diodes. 13 years pass and they have the same problem with the same exact fix. (Can you say brain dead?) Other issues with the braking were that it acted like a caliper stuck several times and on one occasion called for a red light stop. I stopped in the intersection with the anti-lock chattering away and pulling hard as if a caliper froze.
Not a cheap vehicle, but not expensive either. Pretty good on gas and reasonably responsive, but lemon.
Continue in next post so I don't run out of room.
Now my 2010 MKS. No major issues, only the TSB fix for noisy front brakes, replacing all parts. I considered the Ford dealer because of long ago experience at Mercury Lincoln. (My brother-in-law worked there) Both need major face lifts, the lincoln far more than the Ford. Unfortunately Lincoln also uses rent a wreck.
So how much did this new guy have to do with the mentioned GM products?
Can someone tell me what he did with new MKZ?
Someone said MKS is stodgy. So be it. There is only so much you can do with a body and maintain aerodynamics. The gas mileage is somewhat variable to buyers, but when prices go up they avoid gas guzzlers.
I've seen the 2013 and it has superficial changes for most part. They may have made trunk opening bigger which is seriously needed. I don't know weight of MKS, but mileage is rather poor compared to 4400# Lacrosse CXS with V6. And the 2010 MKS has far less power in the 3.7L. Better in the 2013 by adding to variable valve timing, but they did not add DI, direct injection, which could seriously up power and likely why the GM 3.6 has more power and better mileage. But then that would put the 3.7 close to the 3.5 turbo, likely. And getting that high powered engine means AWD at a real gas penalty. I understand the usefulness of AWD, but for me it would be an extreme premium, price versus usefulness plus gas penalty. The ugly part is the way they are packaging options. What good is a glass top?
The MKS seats are a huge step up from GM's relative to comfort, comparing cooled seating types.
My opinion, add heated steering wheel, blindspot protection, and a couple of other options without forcing 3.5 AWD glass top. Electronic suspension too, if done properly. The Lacrosse called it part of touring package which was a mis-naming. You had normal and sport mode. Normal could be hard with some sway, involved GY tires I'm sure. Sport would stop sway and make it harder. I don't get how they call it a luxury car?
Areas I consider short on my 2010: Paint not durable enough. Carpet appears very cheap, low density, and not wearable. Wheels seem to be a pain to get clean looking. If anyone know the secret to keeping them nice, I'd like to know.
I'd really like to see FLM add HUD, heads up display.
And moving to LED lighting for exterior might be nice. The current headlight system is the best I've seen.
I gave Lincoln a shot 12 or so years ago, and I'll be dead before they get back to where I would even remotely consider buying another of their products.
But that's just me.
The rest of you can argue about GM vs Ford until the world looks level.
I'm buying stuff that's made elsewhere.
As are most people.
I can see where dealer franchises are probably the biggest driver for keeping GMC/Buick. Perhaps the cost of buying out those dealers is prohibitive compared to the cost savings. At least that is a sound financial reason.
I would feel better if GM wasn't pushing factory financing on Sonics to folks with 500 credit scores. Mitsubishi tried that and it almost put them out of business.
Way ahead of you, Allen. I know that is exactly what you said, and what I knew you said. What part of what I said suggested that you suggested that Mercury could be a niche brand but not have unique products? You just like to argue, I think, even when there is nothing to disagree about.
But kudos for acknowledging that GM may have some different problems in downsizing than Ford did.
Ah well, meantime there's more news about the brand, including the "entry level crossover" based on the Escape platform. (USA Today)
Funny, when I did a Bing search for Lincoln just now, two of the four ads that flopped up were for Mercedes and Acura. The rest were from Lincoln. So someone is paying attention.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/13/is-lincoln-getting-its-own-version-of-the-for- d-escape/
Does this ring a bell?
"The downside for Lincoln is that high satisfaction may reflect a loyal, but dwindling, customer base," the survey said.
Lincoln received a score of 90 on the 100-point index. Lexus followed in 2nd place at 89, while Buick notched an 87 score. Cadillac, Lexus and Toyota shared the top score in the survey last year. Subaru's score of 87 was called the "lone exception to luxury-plate dominance this year," by the survey, which is based on customers' evaluations of the quality of their vehicles."
Lincoln Grabs Lead in New Customer Satisfaction Survey (Inside Line)
Good point, personally, I'd go anywhere but Chevrolet - the plainness and designed in ugliness of Chevy has always repulsed me.
Me too - so WHY do they perpetuate it? I haven't found ANYBODY who likes it.
"Our ambitions aren't to be number one," said Farley. "Our idea is to be more personal — think of your neighborhood tailor."
2013 Lincoln MKZ First Model From All-New Lincoln Design Center (Inside Line)
Lincoln will turn more profit on half the volume of Cadillac because Caddy is spending billions trying to chase BMW. Caddy's approach may be more popular and good for some consumers but as a business strategy I'm not so sure it makes sense.
Well, at least they have a more realistic plan now. I think that with the MKS and MKT launchings, they still more or less planned to continue a rivalry with Cadillac and others. It has taken them a long time to realize that "as good" is not good enough in this very competitive environment, and to build sales back to significant levels (right now Lincoln could go away and not affect Ford's bottom line at all...except maybe in a positive way) would take far more dedicated resources than Ford can afford. Lincoln at this point has no reputation and does not stand for anything. Their present line contains nothing most people would want to buy and drive, with the possible exception of the new MKZ. (I'd certainly consider an MKZ hybrid if I hadn't already chosen a Volvo).
Funny they are only now establishing a separate design studio for Lincoln. One would have thought they would have done that with the ramp up of resources given to the Lincoln brand last year. Better late than never. Once the current line-up is wiped away (years yet), the boutique image may be possible.