Leaderboard

I still think a Mustang based Lincoln could work by giving it powertrains that would NEVER go into a Mustang like the 3.0TT or the 3.5TT as a halo type vehicle, hell even pair them with an electric motor and bring back the Grand Touring trim. This would obviously sell in very low numbers but would give Flat Rock another vehicle and generate traffic for Lincoln. It should focus on smooth effortless power be an anti Mustang so to speak. Revive the Mark Series? Maybe maybe not could be it's own thing. It probably won't happen but it's a shame to me that we will never see either of those engines in a Mustang from the factory since that would be considered "sacrilegious" I think a Bronco based Lincoln could work too it would have to have a fixed roof and worked on sound deadening to give it a quiet ride. I also think they should try to do something with CD6 give the Aviator a coupe like counterpart. ANYTHING

We are past the mule stage. Prototypes are wearing production body. The three stages of vehicle test builds: Mule These are engineering test builds that are often hacked up bits and pieces of other things clubber together to test specific components (e.g. suspension, cooling, drivetrain etc). Other times they don't appear to be "mules" at all because the component they are testing could be completely hidden under the sheet metal of existing cars (e.g. electrical systems or new transmission) - Mules in plain sight. Prototype These are design locked-in test builds with production-ready body panels and exterior. All the design engineering is done and they are validating to see how it all fits together, or for durability testing. They are often camouflaged to hide key exterior design features or elements. Sometimes there is even tacked on fake bits to throw people off. Pre-production These are test builds during training or test runs to validate the factory tooling and settings. Pre-production vehicles and usually used for experimenting with trim levels impact for build time, color mix-matches, and emission testing. e.g. they may build a batch with no sunroof and a batch with sunroof to see any run time variance. Or they try painting bumpers in different ways to see if color still match. The article suggests that Ford has already locked in the designs since they are using the term prototype.

I'll file it under "believe it when I see it". They've treated Lincoln as the red-headed step child for a while. They finally gave it some attention for a bit, and now back to the back burner. Hopefully they'll soon announce the Chinese Corsair coming here (at least as a stopgap) to keep that segment void filled, while also offering a refresh for us, and then adding the Bronco version if rumors are true.

As the title states I got married last Saturday and me and my wife both wanted a classic car for our photo shoot. Flash back a few months ago when I did the Lincoln Kennedy Blvd Cruise and I met a great guy there who had a white on white 67 convertible and he really came through for us. We don't have all the photos yet just a 'preview' but the ones we got so far look great. The car got a lot of attention everyone loved it especially my wife. The photographer asked if the car could be moved back into the sun for some of the other shots and the owner told me to go for it so I got to back it up and drive it forward a little, my first time driving a 60s Continental which was fun too. The first black and white shot my wife likes so much we have talked about getting it blown up and printed on a large canvas and hanging up somewhere in the house.

"Mules" and "prototype" are auto industry standard jargons with precise meanings. So Farley using the word "prototype" in an interview with auto journalist was very specific messaging to people who know what that means. Lots of internal process and communication with supplier changes when you go from mule stage to prototype stage. Basically, you go from "still working on design" to "now working on getting it to production". The vehicle development program switches from being designer/engineers lead to production planning/procurement lead.

I expect every vehicle we purchase going forward (with the exception of my next Super Duty) will be electrified. Either BEV or EREV. The driving dynamics are so much better.

Currently in a hybrid (2025 Maverick Lariat) and seriously considering a Ford based EV for my next purchase due mostly because I have retired and drive a lot less and I believe that the technology is at the tipping point of wider adoption. The future is EV despite what the current administration in Washington thinks.

How about both?

Thanks for the video my friend. Voelcker is a contributing editor to Car and Driver and wrote an article in the January/February 2026 issue of that rag recently with themes similar to what's in the video: EVs are not going away. At whatever rates of adoption, they will continue to grow as a percentage of every global market, including some of those outside the wealthiest cohort. As one engineer noted long ago, the automobile is one of the very few remaining high-volume consumer products we've not yet electrified. It will take generations, but it is happening.

This is the reason it’s going to be difficult to get a deal. Any time good ole lord Trump feels like he’s getting slighted a threat is issued. This is pure stupidity and weaponization in regards to tariffs.

100% predictable Trump threatens Canada with 100% tariff if it makes trade deal with China https://ground.news/article/in-the-event-of-an-agreement-with-china-trump-threatens-canada-with-a-100-tariff?utm_source=mobile-app&utm_medium=newsroom-share

Well they no doubt have overcapacity but I still believe they will have to set up some kind of supply chain over here and provide some employment other than dealers or it’s a raw deal. In Canada I cannot see anymore greenfield assembly plants being built. Final assembly that is, maybe battery plant here or there or some kind of components. In the US, if the Chinese ever even infiltrate that market one or more of them are gonna have to build a vehicle plant in the USA.

Nowhere to go but up....

She is big, bad, and beautiful!!!

Only if they have fake exhausts on them 😂

Latest updates to the car include a new power window motor in the driver's door, restored Marchal driving lights and a 90 day temporary plate. The driving light covers came from an '86 Capri 5.0L that I had years ago. I still need to adjust the aiming of the driving lights but there's no hurry for that, especially with the nasty weather we're having right now. It was -5°F here this morning and we are supposed to get 6-10" of snow starting tonight.

Not sure if they got canned, but the team leaders got a big-time dress down by management, MN-12 came in overweight and over budget.

Culture. Remember this saying? Technical problems can be remediated. A dishonest corporate culture is much harder to fix. Dishonest corporate culture is what I experienced the entire time I worked at Ford and Visteon in the 1990s and 2000s, though that rotten culture actually goes back several decades prior. As mentioned in other forum threads, the lessons learned from Ford's skunkworks might finally introduce at least a partial "fix" that Ford's corporate culture overall so desperately needs.

Thanks for that info my friend. It's good stuff, but I think Ford's CE1 products, Universal Electric Vehicle Platform, and Universal Electric Vehicle Production System has GM beat when it comes to family of low-cost EVs. GM big shots like Mark Reuss and Mary Barra can huff and puff all they want about family of things that is low priced, but if their company wants to be successful in that area, they'll need to develop an entire ecosystem. Ford's already doin' it.

I totally agree with you, hopefully common ground is found and a deal can get stamped out at some point this year.

Let me explain how this happened. Corporate processes and decision making 101. At the beginning there are cost, date and mpg targets and a lot of pressure to meet those targets. Managers are compensated based on meeting those targets. There were generally no repercussions for things that happened after launch. The engineers initially found they could only meet the mpg targets with the dry clutch so they used it knowing it was at the design limit. By the time the engineers realized there was a serious problem it was so late that making a change would have delayed the launch significantly and more importantly would no longer meet mpg targets either. When middle managers were given this information they chose to ignore it and continue because it would have negatively affected their performance and compensation. The only choice the engineers had at that point was to escalate the issue to VP level or higher which probably would have been suicide. The managers probably said it would just cause some extra warranty claims for a few buyers. That's how it works when you tie compensation to the wrong KPIs. That's why I said the only way to fix it is to change compensation and make it worse to lie or say nothing than to say hey we have a problem and figure out how to fix it regardless of the consequences to the schedule and mpg targets. if my old VP had been in charge the managers who knew about the problem but did nothing would have been fired. The way it should work is you identify the problem and do a risk assessment that says these are the options - do nothing, change the tranny, change the engine, change both. Each one has a short and long term cost and pros/cons. This is run up the chain to at least the VP level and then whatever the executives decide you go with. At that point the managers have done everything they can do. The process by which the original decision was made should be revamped so it doesn't happen again. Now it's entirely possible the executives would have made the same decision depending on how the severity of the problem was estimated. But if it was underestimated then that in itself is a problem that needs to be fixed. Change your processes so you don't underestimate. The real solution is to reward employees far more for long term success rather than just meeting short term objectives. Ford tried this - holding product teams accountable for warranty costs after launch e.g. but that gets really difficult because the original folks may have changed jobs or left the company. To me the best solution is to hold everyone accountable for meeting targets including quality and warranty costs. And I think Farley is doing that or at least trying. Hold people accountable for their decisions including termination for egregious offenses, tie compensation to the correct KPIs and make quality the highest corporate objective and you'll see changes.

Canada doesn’t want to truly decouple from the US. What’s Carney supposed to do just sit there and be compliant with everything that Trump is doing? I was told not to get too political on this site so I’ll leave it at that. I hope when the smoke clears a deal is reached. I work for this company and have been laid off for almost two years, I would like to see a deal reached. Ford has only a tiny footprint left in Canada anyways. All this what I call crap going on is nothing but anxiety.

Very cool! Congrats to you and your new bride!

Very nice and congrats on the nuptials!!

Worst part is its not the first time Ford has done something like this. They really need to throw out that mentality bad. Granted this was how many years ago but it seems to keep happening. Pinto, EcoBoost Coolant Leak issues, Explorer Exhaust leak issues, 5.4 Spark plug issues, to a far lesser extent the cheap plastic panel on the 02-05 Explorer/Mountaineer/Aviator where all of them are cracked by now because they went cheap instead of using a stronger material. There are a ton of examples. You'd think with all the warranty claims they would tread more lightly on these things but they sometimes throw caution to the wind and let their reputation take a serious hit.

This honestly seems like the best thing to do. I’ve always thought we needed the Everest in the USA, but it didn’t make much sense for ford to have both it and the Bronco. By making it a Lincoln, they get a Land Cruiser competitor for cheap and don’t have to reengineer the Bronco for a fixed roof.

the 19.2KW L2 charger is EU only. I.E. 3 phase 240v Common Outside of North America

The Threat Posed to the U.S. Auto Industry by Chinese Imports Remains - Alliance for American Manufacturing Now, the president hasn’t said anything about reducing tariffs on Chinese auto imports, which he mentioned favorably in Michigan. They were raised to 100% during the Biden administration, and Trump placed an additional 25% tariff on all auto imports after his return to office. There’s also a Commerce Department rule in place that will bar Chinese software and hardware in automobiles; it’s set to take effect next year. Both are considerable hurdles to Chinese auto imports. The president appears focused on locating production inside the United States, no matter who owns the factory. But we should pump the brakes on that (pun intended). Chinese auto companies ultimately answer to the Chinese Communist Party and no one is driving analog cars these days; modern automobiles are connected. The reason that connected vehicle software and hardware ban is coming is because there are security risks inherent in the widespread adoption of Chinese-made ones. Not to get all paranoid but wiring a car with that stuff and connecting it to wifi could allow it to serve as a listening device, a vector for malware, or simply enable it to be turned on or off. That’s why the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) applauded the Commerce rule when it was announced. What’s more, we’ve warned about what a flood of heavily subsidized Chinese vehicles would mean for the millions of American jobs supported by automobile manufacturing. An auto assembly plant making Chinese vehicles in Michigan would add those assembly jobs, but displace U.S. supply chains with Chinese ones. And, by a wide margin, most jobs in the American automotive industry are in auto parts manufacturing. This is import competition that our government should not invite. AAM wrote in a 2024 report that “the introduction of cheap Chinese autos – which are so inexpensive because they are backed with the power and funding of the Chinese government – to the American market could end up being an extinction-level event for the U.S. auto sector, whose centrality in the national economy is unimpeachable.” That remains true. But despite those aforementioned considerable hurdles to Chinese autos that subsequent U.S. administrations have erected, Chinese autos may still come anyway; the Wall Street Journal reported last week that Chinese auto giant Geely, which owns the Volvo brand and has a South Carolina assembly plant, is considering expanding into the U.S. in the next few years.

Wet clutch had more torque capacity. The dry clutch was fine with lower power engines. The 2.0L exceeded the design limit and the engineers knew it and raised the issue but mgt told them to STFU and do it anyway.

We have a few of these in Florida, their burgers are very good!

A 1-2 punch with a Lincoln bronco and mustang would be incredible, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm imagining a far more affordable take on something like a g-wagon and Aston Martin. That would boost profits substantially for the bronco platform, and give mustang yet another vehicle besides a mustang sedan to share it's platform with and make it most cost effective to invest in and build. Those two products would give Lincoln a huge shot in the arm in the appealing vehicle department.

Full size trucks are mainly for the USA and Canada. Ford's small cars were for Europe and the rest of the world. What hurt Ford's small cars in the global market was the PowerShift transmission and to a degree, its timing belts in oil. Ford is known to develop or approve stupid designs that other manufacturers have avoided. Lubricating things that don't need lubricating (timing belt in oil) and not lubricating things that need to be lubricated (PowerShift dry dual-clutch transmission). Ford fixed most of the issues with the Mk4 Focus (both mechanical and interior space issues), but this is when Ford decided not to make it a global car.

Great speech.

You’re absolutely correct, it’s a known fact that China has tons of excess capacity. I just believe if they ever start selling in the USA they’re gonna have to open an assembly plant there overcapacity or not to infiltrate US market. I’m not saying there is gonna be tons of Chinese plants but there will be one one day I believe in the US.

North American market is one thing but we know how demanding Chinese buyers can be regarding fresh products, Tesla can’t afford to slide with modest refreshes, there are too many good competing Chinese BEVs now…

Yea, all good stuff. But the two charging related features that really make this EX60 appealing are: 19.2 kW Level 2 onboard charger Built-in NACS port

That's a fair point too. Tesla has started updating their products more recently, but leaving products largely unchanged visually for so long doesn't work in the market. It worked for Tesla when they were basically the only EV game in town, but as competitors come online, it'll have an affect.

...but never learned to do well. Stick with just the burgers, Ford.

Took a few outdoor photos with the different wheels and tires today. Definitely need to adjust the ride height sensors to drop it down a bit. Seriously considering painting the stainless wheel arch trim body color as well. On the later SE models just about all of the body trim including the bumpers was painted body color. Not saying I would go that far but it definitely gives these cars a much more sinister look.

My hybrid Maverick will go 500-600 miles between fillups as a matter of routine....