Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Huge population, huge corrupt public sector / obedient party member "middle class" and lots of sweatshop zillionaires with both public sector graft and party connections. Maybe a small part of the population, but 2% of 1.3 billion is a big market. Also a huge landmass, plenty of room for roads, and quick to build when safety and environmental issues are meaningless and labor is expendable.
Mega Ghost Cities
Yep - the top selling model in 2011 was the Buick Excelle - a version of the Cruze with over 250K units sold. The Chevy Cruze was #3 with 220K sold. Foreign brands represent 9 of the top 10 models. Car sales in China topped over 18 million - the highest in the world.
is that they live on bicycles, and that their roads are like the paths taken by our settlers with their Conestoga wagons...in other words, even if they buy the cars, do they have multi-lane roads to drive them???
You are using old stereotypes of China. Depending on how it's calculated, cities such as Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin are in the top ten most populated cities in the world. They are urban with an urban lifestyle with an upwardly increase in wealth and spending power. Just like in America in the 20's, people are leaving the rural areas for better jobs in the cities.
...it took us many years for high-speed highways to be built, with a population from 100 to 200 million (back then, now 320 million)...
We didn't have a government willing to spend whatever it takes to build the infrastructure to bring the nation from 3rd world to 1st world overnight. One can travel across China on highways. In fact Shanghai alone has 31 highways per wiki. Greater Shanghai has four ring roads.
...we invented the car and gasoline...where are their service stations, the car dealers, the tire shops, etc???
Actually, we didn't invent the car - we just popularized it. As for the support system, it's located where ours is - along side the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads.
I see it more of GM investing in China like Toyota and Honda did in the United States 20 years ago. Build plants in the largest market in the world to support that market.
Some day you will see more Chinese built vehicles sold in North America - Honda already sells a Chinese made Fit in Canada. But you will also see cars built in Germany, Korea, South Africa, India, et al. We live in a global market.
But the cost of manufacturing in China is already going up. I was speaking with an business contact who told me his company was bringing production back from China to the US because the cost of labor and shipping was eroding the cost savings.
GM has also formed strong technical links with a Chinese automotive manufacturer who will probably end up stealing their info and then using the corrupt Chinese government and phony legal system to steal the info and screw them over.
GM has been building cars in China for almost 20 years. Yes, the Chinese are very good at copying. Yet they have been unable to copy well enough to design their own car that can compete outside of China.
Bottom line: US taxpayer bailout dollars being used to eventually move jobs overseas while GM mismanagement may be resurfacing???
Should they invest in plants outside the largest market in the world making cars that are too expensive to sell in that market? IMHO, that's not good business. I'm a for real GM shareholder and understand the need to be in that market. I would prefer that the Chinese innovation culture was more like ours but one has to deal with the climate that's current.
China could reform, but it will take a bloodbath to make it happen.
BTW, I don't think comparing MKZ and ATS sales means much. They are in different categories, the ATS being much smaller and aimed at a different audience. Further, ATS is a size class Cadillac has not tried to sell since the ill-fated Cimarron decades ago, and there is no pent-up demand for it, as it has been on sale since the second half of last year.
Actually, neither are the CTS and MKZ exactly direct competitors, though closer than MKZ and ATS. The current lame duck CTS is six model years old, and the new one is almost here. It will remain RWD and will be bigger than the MKZ.
MKZ does have to straddle some of the greater variety of Cadillacs until Lincoln has more new models on offer. The current MKS, MKT, MKX and Navi are all placeholders until new iron steps in, as none of these models can expect to increase their market share in their current forms. When it arrives, the MKC should bump overall Lincoln sales up. If they ever design an MKR sedan for real, that could also bump up Lincoln reputation.
At some point, Lincoln will have to become a name in other markets, like Buick and Cadillac have already begun to be. After all, it is a world car market now, and the Ford brand is riding it. (So is Chevrolet.) Looking at sales in the US no longer tells the real story. Ford and GM are both bloody messes in western Europe, but are doing very well with sales in parts of Asia. Asia is where it is at right now, and Lincoln ain't there.
I think MKZ sales will level out around 3500/month which is a nice improvement over the old one and a step in the right direction. I don't really expect it to hit 50K/yr until it gets a styling refresh to bring it fully inline with Max's styling direction and it gets more Lincoln exclusive drivetrains and features and the dealer experience changes start showing up.
MKC will be the real test with 100% Max styling and hopefully new features. I expect it to match SRX sales and will help a lot with Lincoln volume and profits.
The new CTS will be larger and more expensive and that doesn't usually translate to more sales (maybe more profit per unit though).
The question is whether the ATS/CTS strategy is going to result in increased sales or if it's just going to split Caddy's previous CTS sales between 2 vehicles on 2 platforms.
I don't think anyone criticizes BMW for having a 3 series and a 5 series, or Mercedes having a C Class and E Class (and now CLA Class), or Audi having an A4 and an A6 (and soon A3 sedan), not to mention the small and medium Infinitys, the small and mid-size Lexus RWD models, the small and mid-size Acuras, and so on and so on. Jaguar is adding a sedan below the XF. Moving downmarket just a tad, Buick has enhanced its sales somewhat by having both the Verano and the Regal.
Yes, in having more models, one sometimes does cannibalize some sales of the other. But if overall sales and market share (and showroom traffic) increase, it is often worth the trade-offs, or most companies would not be doing it. Profit after all is why they are in business, and making the best products gives one a better chance at good overall profits.
The first and current CTS generations used their own dedicated platforms, but the 2014 CTS will share its platform with the ATS.
Maybe GM is starting to get it? Get what? Ford's solution to re-making Lincoln?
GM has spent a ton of money on Cadillac. To go back to dressed up Chevys at this point would make no sense. They have re-built some market share--not an easy task in this VERY competitive and crowded market. They have re-established some credibility. They now have a market in China and a beginning one elsewhere.
This fight is not going to get any easier at all. Platform sharing can work, if the engineering and details are done with great care. So can FWD/AWD.
But the market continues to demand greater exclusivity. That is one reason why VW uses completely different architecture for the Passat and CC and A4 (the A4 is engineered with the engine further back, like a RWD design). It could be coincidence of course, but Audi sales have grown remarkably since Audis have stopped looking like mainstream FWD models.
Making excuses for Lincoln will not help them. This brand needs to pull out some stops, whether they share all platforms with Ford or not. I doubt that there is any cheap way anymore to gain purchase in a field of luxury brands that is light years better than it was just 10 years ago. Starting to get it? Let's see if Lincoln is starting to get it first.
The MKZ will sell, as there is a market for Avalons and ES350s and Azeras. But these are not the cars that are garnering accolades and building the reputations of their brands. Lexus can cater to this crowd and make big bucks, because after all, they are Lexus, and in addition to the 350, they have many exclusive models as well.
There is not much of a market remaining anymore for cars like the Taurus and Impala and and Lacrosse and XTS. As that market shrinks slowly, the slack is being taken up by mid-sizers, small CUVs and compact cars. GM sees the writing and that is why there will be a RWD full-size Cadillac and a RWD Buick Regal. I fear a re-designed MKS, even if not so tall and ungainly looking, will still not attain lots of sales, because FWD large cars in general are losing ground.
The MKC will be coming into one of the market's current sweet spots. If it can catch a break, it may outsell the older SRX. But where are the innovative ideas that create market categories...past examples of Ford being many: Thunderbird (4 seater, and later 4 door), Mustang, Explorer, the Mark coupes, Navigator? The MKT debacle was about as bad a botch as the ovoidly weird 96 Taurus and the Edsel.
Focus groups will often lead you astray. I've been in a few, and I cannot imagine how that data garners such importance, when studies show that people will say and do things in these conditions that do not translate at all to their behavior in the real world.
The Taurus should stand as a ready and constant reminder to Ford how easy it is to botch a better idea. Or how easy it is to go from top to bottom because you think you understand what is going on when you really don't have a clue. They have managed to claw back some respectability to the Taurus name after so many years of mucking it up. But it is still stop-gap, and Ford knows the current Taurus could easily be a better machine than it it is.
Transfer that to Lincoln. The MKZ will satisfy many customers but it will not change Lincoln's reputation. Subsequent iterations and products will have to do that. Maybe Lincoln is starting to get it?
You're putting too much importance on "reputation". The only thing Lincoln needs is good luxury vehicles that are nothing like Fords.
And no - it doesn't make any difference if they start with a Caddy or a Chevy - platform sharing is platform sharing.
For pity's sake, I cannot imagine anyone would make an outcry if Ford used the Mustang chassis as a basis for a Lincoln model. People have been crying for that for years. And it would only improve the Mustang. Further, I don't think anyone would confuse a Camaro with a CTS, even when they eventually share some of their architecture. Same with Mustang and Lincoln.
You say the darnedest things sometimes trying to illustrate your point that Lincoln is doing just fine now with their plans. Yes, in fact the only thing that Lincoln needs now is good luxury vehicles that are nothing like Fords. They do not have that now, and the MKZ is not yet an example of that.
Reputation is important, and it is built. Lincoln squandered its reputation, and intends to build it back.
If Lincoln could differentiate its vehicles from the Fords sharing the same architecture, as much as the ATS and 2014 CTS are differentiated from each other, that would be terrific. But even so I predict that if Lincoln survives, they eventually will have at least one model that Ford does not offer...unless of course it is related to the Mustang...in which case we will all cheer.
The MKZ is only about 80% of where Lincoln wants it and it needs to be. But even so it seems to be selling very well with minimal capital investment compared to what Cadillac has spent on the ATS and CTS to date. That's a win by any stretch of the imagination and it tells me that they're on the right track.
What if the MKZ continues to outsell the ATS and CTS?
I'm at this different dealer because previous worked on rear brakes and then it started veering to left with brake apply. Mechanic said he did not see problem. Service writer drove, said no problem. I showed him and told me I had to talk with service manager. Service manager drove and said not a problem, blamed it on road. Then they are testing on wrong road for all vehicles they take in. Luck happened, Lincoln repshowed up, he drove. Yes there is problem, but not brakes, must be alignment. All within green area except toe. They aligned and I paid. Still goes left with brake apply even though straight handling has improved a bit. NOTE: anytime I ask for align at tire shop they bump all settings toward nominal. Not this bunch of clowns and now my steering wheel is crooked. Also for any further work I need to take back to previous shop, the ones that resulted in hard pedal and weak brakes after working on front brakes. Service like this can kill you. Then I learn son-in-law is having issues with this dealer as well on a new powerstroke 4x4.
These situations roll down hill from Ford so don't bye the buck passing. And if you've got some dream vehicle, you need to have someone else build.
I told sales they were daft. You can not fix, why would I want another.
Lincoln rep comment on first bunch of clowns, "they're withering on vine."
I conclude FL is and so is the rest of Detroit.
You also state that "you're either sharing a platform or you're not." Well, let's go back a few years to when you claimed that buyers could not tell that the Explorer and Mountaineer shared the same body. Well, I begged to differ on that, and I beg to differ on your black and white thinking now.
The 2014 CTS and ATS will share a platform, but no dimensions. Different wheelbases, length, width and height. Two different sizes and classes. Yes, they share a platform, but not in the way Fusion and MKZ do.
If the Mustang and a Lincoln sedan share a platform, you will also see completely different cars for different buyers. Ford will not put a Lincoln sedan on the same wheelbase and dimensions as a Mustang coupe.
The VW Phaeton, Audi A8, Bentley Continental coupe and convertible, and Bentley Flying Spur sedan all share architecture. Nonetheless, they do not share dimensions or much of anything anyone can perceive. The A8 uses aluminum architecture. Yes, they all share some underpinnings, but they are not perceived to be related like for example the Sonata and Optima are (which incidentally don't even share a windshield).
The next Camaro will be based on Cadillac architecture, not the other way around. The next Mustang could easily be based on Lincoln ideas of what that architecture should be. There is long precedent for that within Ford. The 1961 Lincoln was accompanied by the 1961-63 T-bird. The later Mark coupes were issued with luxury Thunderbirds.
Even within Ford now, there is platform sharing that spawns some really different creatures: Taurus and Explorer, and Flex and MKT with a longer wheelbase. Setting aside that the MKT was not one of their better ideas, no one confuses it with a Taurus (or MKS).
So you can do what Cadillac does at great expense and develop platforms that are RWD and not much shared, or you can use a good platform in many different and creative ways.
Or you can do what Lincoln has been doing with MKS, MKX and MKZ and hope for the best, i.e., "what if the MKZ continues to outsell the ATS and CTS?" Stranger things have happened. (Witness the Camry still near the top of the mid-size charts, despite its excellent competition.) But it is not a good bet in this fiercely competitive premium market.
I don't think many people notice at this point that the Fusion and MKZ do share a windshield, front door glass and all hard points. They did a good job differentiating the bodies. But I do hope this is the last time they cheap out details like that.
Fords have gotten better, much, much better, and the performance and level of equipment you can get on a Fusion Titanium is little different from many MKZs. Ford has moved many of its models upmarket.
I think that is why current Lincolns strike some people as Mercurys. They are not as different from Fords as when you compare a Malibu and a CTS. The difference is more like comparing a Malibu and a Regal, or an Impala and a Lacrosse.
So there is platform sharing and platform sharing. Ford has already proven it can completely differentiate vehicles using the same architecture as a base. Heck, no one would ever think unless you knew that the previous Volvo S80 and Taurus shared architecture. Ford did it then (unfortunately, neither model for different reasons took the market by storm.)
So, do it NOW, when you intend to offer a real premium car. Dedicated platform, shared platform, hybrid platform, who the hell cares if the resulting premium vehicle has its own personality, and even better can run with the best?
However - using the same platform for the Camaro would either result in a less than perfect Caddy platform (if it's cheapened for the Camaro) or a far too expensive Camaro platform (if it's not cheapened). Both can work but there would have to be compromises somewhere and the same would apply to mustang/Lincoln.
Personally I don't care about platform sharing as long as the vehicles are different enough and both are well executed. I was simply responding to those folks who always say that platform sharing is terrible when Ford does it but have maintained Caddy was better because the platforms were not shared. Now that GM is sharing even the Caddy platforms they can't really say that any more.
BTW - my comment was about the Explorer and Aviator because the Aviator had a unique interior and I stand by it.
The ATS platform for a future Camaro will NOT be a "far too expensive Camaro platform." It's a better size for a Camaro than the current Holden platform. It is obviously a very adaptable platform. Lincoln could execute a similar plan at some point. Whatever compromises you think are necessary could be handled with varying lengths, wheelbases, height, width, suspension tuning, even unique front subframes (Hyundai's solution to creating the Sonata and Azera).
But bottom line, everything is a compromise, even deciding to build a unique platform with its inherent costs and possibility of killing other potential models. It just depends on how much compromising you are willing to accept as "acceptable."
Also--you previously did make the same claim about the difference between the Explorer and Mountaineer, as you did with the Explorer and the Aviator bomb.
I went to a Lincoln dealer to inquire what is meant by value pricing . It was comparing prices of similarly equipped Lincolns against similar BMW, Cadillac, Mercedes, Audi, Hyundai Equus. The comparable Lincolns beats them in price by at least 7K. Now to a premium buyer , I'm wondering why are these other makes more expensive than a Lincoln. What is the Lincoln Lacking?
Nobody is implying that Lincoln will be world class. Lexus ES and RX aren't really world class either but they sell a heck of a lot more of them than anyone else and since they're based on cheaper Toyota platforms they're making tons of cash.
I'll take the Lexus model for Lincoln right now (and the profits that come with it). Caddy can have the magazine comparos.
Yes, Lincoln can adopt the Lexus model...except, oh yeah, Lincoln forgot to design 3 sizes of rwd sedans, as well as the fwd based sedan and CUV. Oops.
As do I, stand by Allen: Having owned both a Navigator and Aviator simultaneously, I'm completely conversant with the complexities of the two. The Aviator totally emulated the Navigator, inside and out, and only a "car guy" would notice the Aviator was an Explorer under the skin, albeit with a hot 4.6L 32V engine - but that person would likely also note that the Navigator is an Expedition under there, except for the 5.4L 32V engine.
Those were two genious vehicles and sold well. The Navigator has now been "Taurused" like a dog-tired rental slug - so sad.
Most could give a rip less, and yet there are the lengthy treatises. It's nice that there's actual passion for the brand. I'm sure those who share it could fit into a fairly small venue, larger than a phone booth (remember those?), but not by much.
It's all about selling (or, more likely, leasing) to the masses. The actual enthusiasts are directed to the exits, at which the door may or may not hit them on the way out.
Ask Ford if they care.
I think they do - but in Corporate America (or family held businesses), survival is all about profits - if Lincoln can generate profits - they'll care. It was Bill Ford (and probably still is) who didn't give a rat's [non-permissible content removed] about Lincoln, and let the brand languish in it's own blood. Reviving it will take time, but Cadillac was worse, and they did it. It just takes Capital, a great design theme, performance and a little time to do all that. Most of all, it takes a sustained plan - and that has always been Ford's problem. Consistent sustainability.
How well would their latest design sell had it contained a 5.4 V8 with a 6 speed tranny? We'll never know.
The 4.6L was capable of producing SO MUCH more HP & Torque than it was tuned to put out, it would have more than done the job of making that T/C a hot rod Lincoln - of course, MPG would have been sacrificed. The InTech version got 300 HP in the old Continental and Aviator. The 5.4L wasn't necessary.
Yes, they would give a lot for a car that sold like those old T/Cs. However, I don't look at that ad as portraying the 97 as a relic - notice they don't show a 98 + in that Ad, even they know it sucked. I see it more as an evolution from their best "effort", to the new iteration....
You might be right about the commercial, maybe I saw the fire breathed on the old car as negative. Those refreshed 90s TCs were a modern pinnacle, IMO. The whale models that followed were a step down, especially the later variants. Earlier TCs were improved as the design aged, the last was not.
I think the new MKS (on a stretched CD4 platform) will finally be competitive but there simply isn't a very big market for large sedans. The market is moving to small and mid-sized cars and crossovers.
Please elaborate???