-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Comments
They just need a stellar dealership experience and a complete lineup of cars with luxury features and unique, gorgeous styling. The rest will take care of itself over time.
Well, yes. Rocket science it is not.
However, you and Lincoln and everyone else on the planet now admits that for too long they thought they did not actually have to do that to keep in the game.
For some reason, Jaguar, Aston, Land Rover and Volvo are still in operation today, after being cast off as crippled (and at fire sale prices) several years ago. All have solid plans for growth. Mazda is growing again as well. It is also possible that Lincoln-Mercury would have sold more vehicles and generated more profits than Lincoln has alone. But we will never know now.
However, Mercury was the only real casualty of all this bad planning.
In GM's case, they destroyed the storied brands of Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Saab, as well as Saturn and Hummer. They managed to save Buick and Cadillac, both of which are growing steadily. But they are being pummeled now, because they cannot get their new trucks to market fast enough, as their current ones are beginning to languish.
Ford continues to have a gold mine in the F150. Without that, Ford would be hurting, despite all its good works. Lincoln needs its own model that will hold it through thick and thin (like the Town Car did for so many years). Do all models well, as the Ford division has started to do, but have one that really stands out.
http://autos.aol.com/gallery/2013-lincoln-mkz-review/
"Now that all those brands have been sold off by Ford after years of managing those badly and racking up billions in losses, it is back to Lincoln. It's as if Ford was married to Lincoln and then went off and had a series of affairs with European beauties only to find itself back at home with the girl Ford married a century ago to make the best of it."
And the question isn't whether Lincoln alone is better than Lincoln/Mercury. It's whether Ford/Lincoln is better then Ford/Mercury/Lincoln. There is no Mercury vehicle that can't be just as successful as either a Ford or a Lincoln. Having Mercury doesn't add anything - it just splits the same pie 3 ways instead of 2.
A push button transmission! Where is Andre? You don't have to wait to get the DeSoto back!
Now, for another perspective on your harping about the inefficiencies of too many brands, please read the following article. It explains how the inefficiently run VW group is the most profitable in the world.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/06/how-volkswagen-is-run-like-no-other-car-compa- ny/#continued
It also explains why GM is no longer as profitable as it used to be years ago, when it was a bunch of companies.
Perhaps Lincoln Motor Company needs to become a real motor company at some point, rather than a marketing ploy.
1. your belief may not be the reality of the situation,
2. and even if your belief is correct, the point of the article is that VW can do what it does, profitably employ tons more people than any other car company, and keep growing and profiting while doing so.
Cutting more and more jobs has not always paid off for its rivals. It is something to think about.
German mfrs routinely buy their own cars then reselling them to dealers as used cars and count the sales as new car revenue. We're talking 20% - 29% of German sales.
So yes - I take those VW results with a huge grain of salt.
The question is how long this can be sustained and whether it's a short-lived bubble? If it's not then more power to them.
Haven't yet seen even close to a stellar dealership experience. My Lexus and Lincoln dealers are in the same Auto Mall, around the block from each other. The difference is still staggering, because only Lexus is stellar.
I think Lincoln is moving the right direction with product, but I really have my doubts that current franchisees or dealer principals "get it". Lincoln has ordered store upgrades, loaner fleets and standards - but the individual dealers must make those changes and generally pay for the upgrades themselves. So what happened in Vegas was, one dealer folded, a Ford dealer picked up the brand (so you can just imagine what kind of service you'll get there, sitting in the "lounge" with the Focus owners), and the other dealer has a nice store, but the service is still "Saturn", which is what the store used to be. And that owner also has a Cadillac dealership around the block, where the service is horrendous as well. So far, they have 1, count it, ONE loaner, an MKT, which you must be pretty important, or a pretty big tipper, to get. Otherwise, you're invited to call Enterprise. Not even close.
The cars are very important. But the service is too, and I see that being the main problem for Lincoln Motor to fix.
Now ,what does Stutz have to do with Lincoln. It is this, Stutz's bodies and interiors were hand made, but they used a GM frame and running gear from a Pontiac Grand Prix .
Sure, the Stutz was way more luxurious and expensive than any other American car but when it was road tested, its performance was still that of a Pontiac Grand Prix. It was no where worth the price of 30k.
So, we have Lincoln building a more Luxurious and expensive Ford platform based vehicle . In the end though it is still a more expensive Ford with Ford type platform performance dynamics. Ford is following the Stutz hand book as described by Mr. O'Donnell.
Most premium car buyers of this generation know what they are buying. The serious question is can Ford convince these folks that Lincoln is really a world class premium vehicle that can be as exclusive in performance and snob appeal as the world's other premium class vehicles? I seriously doubt that that can be accomplished by taking a vehicle aimed at sales volume and then producing a differently styled upmarket vehicle based on it. The upwardly mobile informed discerning buyer wants a premium vehicle that can fly with the eagles. It is doubtful that Ford can convince these buyers that Lincoln fulfills this demand. Apparently , though I am not the only one as I read in a N.Y. times article that Mr. Mulally has no qualms about folding Lincoln up if sales don't improve
Stick a stake in Lincoln's heart and call it dead.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Ford-tipped-to-pull-Australia- n-production-by-2016--pd20120730-WNRUN?OpenDocument
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/07/ford-to-shut-down-australian-manufactur- ing-in-2016/
Above are links to articles concerning Ford shutting down production in Australia after 2016. Everyone was praising Ford for not accepting the auto company bailout in the United States. Well people, it seems Ford received over 340 million Australian dollars as aid to modernize without having to repay it back to the Australian taxpayer. I have a feeling that if Ford could have gotten the same deal here as in Australia ,it would have taken the bailout deal. So it turns out that Ford is just another leeching corp after all.
That's just one I know about off-hand, plus they went to DC and testified on behalf of the auto bailout.
Ford is just acting like a corporation. It's Australia's fault if they didn't get any guarantees or pay-back provisions for giving Ford money.
Yes but that's only a very small portion of the luxury car market. What about all the people buying Acuras and Lexus ES350s and RX350s?
This isn't about winning magazine comparisons or impressing snobs - it's about making vehicles that can be sold at a profit. Cadillac is finding out that you can't win BMW buyers even with similar performance because the appeal is in the brand name not in the vehicle itself.
Just because Lincoln isn't what YOU think it should be doesn't mean it won't succeed. I honestly don't know why you come here and spout off about it constantly. If you don't like what Lincoln is doing go buy a German car and leave us alone.
So did GM and Chrysler.
If you owned Ford stock before the crisis and you didn't sell it - you still own it and it's worth considerably more now than back then.
If you owned GM stock you got screwed.
The money that Ford took from the government was to invest in new technology and was available to all manufacturers.
The money that GM took from the government and never paid back was for general business operations.
Apples and Oranges. Just ask the shareholders.
Didn't buy a whole lot since I've been burned on other stocks.
The point is that Ford takes tax money and they also benefitted from the bailout by not losing suppliers to bankruptcy.
Shareholders aren't guaranteed a return on their investments though so no sympathy there.
It would be nice though if more of the bailout money came back to the government. Oops...what does this have to do with Lincoln Motor Company (a motor company which doesn't really exist)?
Au contrare: Despite the inadequate Taurus underpinnings, which cause a front suspension inadequacy, and other acknowledged weaknesses, the limosine roofline, huge back seat, headroom and legroom space, quality leather and other materials used and sophisticated instrumentation made the car a perfect "business sedan". It wasn't the "best" car Ford ever made, but the design was outstanding. Even the V-6 Essex engine did well enough, and economy was good. I raced a Cadillac of the era with the 4.6L Aluminum Leaker, and beat it handily, for those who think the power was poor. I was very disappointed with the new Continental that debuted in 95. The rear seat room was gone. So was the headroom. It was an upgrade in power with the V-8 and had tons of electronics, wasn't bad to drive, but was not a roomy business sedan any longer. And I never warmed up to the Town Car enough to go that route. Of course, when the 98 TC debuted, it was ruined. Not even luxurious anymore. Left me in a bind, so I bought a Navigator instead. NO, the Conti was ANYTHING but a rebadged Taurus.
In hindsight, which is often 20/20 (but useless), killing both Mercury and Lincoln, while keeping either Jaguar or Volvo, may have worked better. Neither of those brands, though troubled, had the baggage of being "gussied up Fords," and both are still seen as luxury brands.
However, what's done is done. Lincoln can still rise, if the investment is made and the importance of differentiation and delivering the best has truly sunken in.
My "rebadged Taurus" comment was just a joke for the people who still like to call the new MKZ just a rebadged Fusion.
I agree that Jaguar has a much higher perception of luxury in addition to having better luxury vehicles than Lincoln. But I'm not so sure that keeping Jaguar would have been a better move.
Remember that the reason they got rid of the PAG brands was to free up the investment capital that they would have required and put it all towards saving the Ford brand. Or to look at it another way - had they not sold Jaguar they might not have survived the downturn like they did.
But I also think Ford has the ability to make a lot more profit on a revamped Lincoln than they could with Jaguar even without the luxury image.
If Ford thought Jaguar would be more profitable they could have bought it back and killed Lincoln.
As things stand I think Lincoln will have to introduce some RWD models to really succeed, starting with a luxury version using the next generation Mustang platform.
Volvo Car Corp. is struggling but just got a $1.2 billion loan from a Chinese bank and they are still looking for more money. Sales are lagging. (WSJ)
Ford got 1.3 billion from Geely for the sale.
Considering that Ford BARELY had enough cash on hand to make it through the downturn - the extra Billions required probably would have sunk them. Or at least hindered the turnaround of the Ford brand significantly.
If you consider "success" getting good reviews from enthusiasts and the media - ok, I'll buy that.
If you consider "success" as selling a reasonable number of vehicles at a decent profit - no way.
Let's open 2 Lexus car dealerships. I'll sell the FWD models and you can sell the RWD models. Who do you think will be more "successful"?
I know that Audi and Acura rely almost exclusively on FWD architecture, but they haven't been as successful, by your metrics, as BMW, Mercedes and Lexus. Wouldn't you agree? For this reason I would bet on Cadillac over Lincoln.
Everybody says this, but I'm not sure I believe it. Are you thinking that people go into the dealership for a GS or LS but leave with a RX or ES?
Do you think it's easier for Cadillac to win over BMW and MB owners or for Lincoln to win over Audi, Lexus and Acura owners?
And let's say that Cadillac and Lincoln end up with the same sales volume. Ford probably spent 25% of what GM had to spend for platforms.
Again - I'd love to see a high performance Lincoln but it would be a niche vehicle. They need lower cost higher volume higher profit vehicles to survive.
Maybe the automotive press and performance car buffs, who are generally positive on RWD, raise the value assigned to this architecture, but that's unlikely to change any time soon.
As for Audi, its halo sportscars, the R8 models, use RWD architecture. I believe that the Acura NSX replacement will too, although I'm not certain. I've read that this future Acura model will incorporate Hybrid technology in its AWD drive system.
I would summarize my point by saying that while having some RWD models may not be essential for Lincoln, going forward, it would be very helpful.
A high performance niche vehicle would help Lincon achieve preater sales in its near-luxury models, in my opinion. That's the main point of high proces niche vehicles, since they're often loss leaders.
I think that a sport coupe or sedan built off of the next generation Mustang platform, which will finally feature IRS, could be a relatively high volume model for Lincoln. I'd consider it a slam dunk.
I don't see the GS and LS as any kind of "halo" vehicle that would draw in buyers. I think Lexus RX and ES buyers are looking for luxury features and a luxury dealership experience at entry level prices.
The R8 would be the best halo candidate along with the RS vehicles for Audi.
You could use Acura as a case study and say that their sales are low because they don't have any RWD vehicles but I don't think that's the reason for low sales.
It sounds like there will be a RWD Lincoln built off the mustang platform so I guess we'll have to wait and see. Sales of the new MKZ and new MKC (small crossover) will be very telling.
Regarding profitability, to the best of my knowledge these automakers don't break out such things as the profitability of individual models, margins, or their contribution to break even, etc., so we can only make educated guess regarding profitability.
80 percent of BMW 1 series owners actually think their vehicle is FWD.
1) Audi has a FWD layout, usually with AWD to compensate, and has been on a meteoric trajectory for the past decade with that platform, plus, it's not the A8 that is selling, it's the A6 & A4.
2) The Lexus ES is by far the best selling Lexus Sedan, and has been since about 1993. And it's FWD only. Part of it is the value/price proposition, but the FWD doesn't seem to hurt it at all.
3) The perceived status of the brand seems to matter a lot more than platform layout these days in the sales results. Not as true when Cadillac started their comeback, but is today. Lincoln is going to have to re-establish some Panache before it will be perceived as a player again, somehow. Cadillac did it with the Art & Science styling, despite abysmally ugly interiors at the early period, and the RWD layout.
Big cars are dying as are their V-8 powerplants. I fear for the Lexus LS' future. The 7 series is not a great seller as well, the S Class will be the last large survivor. Things are changing fast in the Luxury Lines.