mercurymichael

I'd say the LaCrosse is superior to the Taurus. It is far better looking and that has nothing to do with grapes. It is an opinion however, just like your opnion that the new Taurus is better than the previous Sable. Quite franklin I would hope so, anything else would be regression. Bottom line Nick, and for what ever reason you do not get this or refuse to accept it, not everyone wants to see themselves coming and going. I am always going to head for something that is a little more special than average.

PAG is what got L/M in trouble to begin with. If they had invested the billions they wasted on washed up Euro brands in L/M instead, they would more than likely have had a very strong and diverse division rather than mediocre Ford clones.

Actually Ford, Chrysler and GM have been very successfully with mulitple brands for decades. Toyota does have 3 brands and considering a 4th. VW, BMW both have 3 brands. Bottom line this was Ford's decision and a poor one in my opinion. L/M was neglected for 20+ years. It will be very difficult to turn Lincoln around and without Mercury's additional volume, small as it may now be, L/M dealers will be severely hurt. Nice as Fords may be these days, buying a Lincoln at a Ford dealer is like buying a Cartier diamond at Zales.

Why does Ford have to reflect Asian counterpoints? How says their strategy is the best? It may have been successful for them, but that does not mean it will be for Ford. Ford does not a have a great track record for maintaining success. That goes all the way back the the Model T. Throughout their 100+ years of existance they have had great success followed by near disaster. So when Ford branded cars and trucks wane from favor, as the most definately and eventually will, and there is no Mercury branded and most likey no Lincoln branded vehicles to help add the the bottom line, what will they do? That is where and why a multiple brand strategy makes sense--the strong can carry the weak until problems are resolved.

Does a particular other brand appeal to you suddenly now that Mercury is gone? Or are you going to consider a different brand just to spite Ford for killing its Ford-clone-with-a-different-badge brand? Face it, the closest thing to a Mercury is a Ford or a Lincoln. Mercury buyers aren't going to suddenly say that Hyundai or Nissan or Buick are the equivalent of their Mercury and flock there. They are, for the most part, going stick to the brands and dealerships they know. And what brands do they see next most often and what do those dealerships sell? Fords and Lincolns in most cases. Actually this is where you are most definately wrong. I have only ever driven Mercury cars, 6 in total. I would have probably bought another Sable, my 4th, if they were still around. Milan is okay and might have gone there. As it stands, I would by a Buick LaCrosse based on style and content and price. It is the closest thing as to what a Mercury is or was. Acura would be another example, however I do not like Asian cars. The only potential Ford I would consider would be a resurected Thunderbird, that seats 4. Again that would be based on style, content and price. I do not like the new Taurus, Fussion, Focus or Mustang and have no use for tucks, suvs or crossovers. Lincolns are simply to expensive for me. Yes I did like the Lincoln/Mercury dealership I shopped at, but with only Lincoln there is no point. The Ford dealers here are terrible-service and ESPECIALLY SALES STAFF! So unless there is a resurected Thunderbird and Chrysler pulls something out of there hat, Buick here I come!

I would rather walk!

Perhaps Obama should stop needlessly flying Airforce One so much--that burns mure fuel on take off than I do all year! Seriously though, I do agree that we should reduce our dependence on foriegn fuel--especially when we have so much of our own! I also think public transportation that is CLEAN, SAFE and CONVENIENT should be an option, but this truely only serves larger cities. It is expensive and somewhat pointless in medium-small towns and even more so in rural areas where most of the US population lives. Where are the trains? An increase in both passenger and cargo trains would help take a lot of semis off the road and jets out of the sky. These are the two areas that use the most oil--not everyday Joe driving to work! The push for electric cars makes no sence as we do not have a grid to support it and if we did it would require more coal to fuel it. $7 a gallon fuel will only punish everyday Joe and Jane. The rich will still drive whatever and pay whatever for fuel. Overall, the true problem that NOONE ever mentions is the over popultion of the USA and the rest of the world.

Wouldn't that require extra investment--Mercury was sooooo distracting you know!

LM4EVR I think you are entirely correct. Mercury, Pontiac, Olds etc. has nothing to do with living in the past but a combination of the erroding middle class in America and the fact that we as a nation continue to give away our manufacturing and wealth to foriegn nations. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard people justifing purchasing a Honda or Toyota because it was build in the US by American workers. They never take into consideration that all of the profits benefit a foriegn government or that if they purchased a domestic car built in the US that it would employ an American worker and the profits would remain here where they belong. In addition, if enough people purchased domestic cars built in the US, it would employ more American workers as demand increased leading to reopening or building of more factories. Yes, quality was an issue once upon a time and the domestics earned the rep they received, but the idea that domestics are not as good as foreign cars is living in the past. The number of quality issues between manufacters is minute and often not serious at all. As far Mercury's demise I do blame Nassar and the Ford Family for not staying on top of what was happening. At the beggening of the 90's when Ford could not build enough trucks and SUVs they completely forgot about the car side of the business. They let the Crown Vic, Taurus and Thunderbird age and die on the vine--did not even try! Did not bother to replace the Contour and let the Escort and Mustang get long in the tooth as well. Since Mercurys and Lincolns are all based on these cars in some form or another and no time or money were invested the L-M division suffered along with Ford cars. The quick fix: Mercury and Lincoln trucks and SUVs! Now that SUV's and trucks are somewhat passe, L-M was left with some quick rebadges and next to no advertising. Then they started starving Mercury which has led to where things are today. 1985 was Mercury's banner year selling over 500k cars. In 1985 the was the Grand Marquis in 2 dr, 4dr and Colony Park wagon and 2 trim levels. Marquis first half or the year and Sable in the last half in both 4dr and wagon and 2 trim levels, Cougar in 2 trim levels, Capri in multiple trim levels, Topaz in 2dr and 4dr with 2 or 3 trim levels and Lynx in 2dr, 4dr, wagon and LN-7 with multiple trim levels. In 2009 Mercury sold 90 some thousand cars with a 31 years old Grand Marquis, an aging Mountaineer and Mariner in various trim levels, Milan and an almost Sable (3-4 months). 2009 was one of the worst years ever for auto sales for everyone, not just Mercury. Overall I would say they did pretty well considering what they were given to work with and they were running 25-33% ahead in 2010. I do see potential for Mercury if they were to be given some product and advertising. Meanwhile, Lincoln now has 6 models and cannot match Mercury in sales. This is just how I see it.

I have been a Mercury fan all of life. I have owned 6 different models in my 40 years -- all Mercury. I am looking to trade in the next 12 months and I find no Mercury of interest. I have no use for a SUV, the Sable had been discontinued (not a first choice anyway), the Grand Marquis is beyond dated--almost a characture of its former self. This leave the Milan. Not a bad looking car, but it has a very plain interior and it screams Fusion. It reminds me very much of the Fairmont/Zepher twins. The only other option is a future Focus something or other--again not of interest to me. It makes me sad to say it, something I thought I never would, but I am looking at Buick. The 2010 LaCrosse is absolutely amazing and exactly where Mercury should be. High style, high content. I think it is probably the best looking Buick since the 60's and even seems to have a little bit of Mercury DNA. With rumors of a new Riviera coupe on its way, it looks as though Buick is returning to not only it's own successful, former formula, but one that once made Mercury successful as well. Unless there is a top secret Cougar (larger than the Mustang) or Sable in the works, I think I will be leaving a brand that I have been loyal to for such a long time.

I am saddened with the lose of the Sable and possibly Mercury as a whole. I agree whole heartedly that Mercury needs to be better distinguished from ford--even if they were merely dumbed down lincolns like in the 40's and 50's. I'm secretly hoping that when the Grand Marquis is put out to pasture, Mercury will get a Sable version of Taurus. This will have given the program a couple years to make money and fund a new Mercury. But it needs to be modern not conservative. The original '86 looked much more modern than the '86 Taurus, but then they turned it around over the years and made the Sable the conservative one and sales fell off along the way. The '88 Cougar vs. '88 Thunderbird is another good example of this. Mercurys should always be formal and upscale in appearance, but sleek and modern. Think '67 Cougar vs. '67 Mustang. Mercurys that followed this formula over the last 70 years, regardless of size and catagory, have always been the brands best sellers. The current Grand Marquis sells well by default only (the last remaining full size, v-8, body on frame) and I think it's sales and conservative existance confuses Mercury's product planners.

Large taillamp lenses that do not completely light up--what is the point? exposed windshield wipers-they should duck behind the back edge of the hood I too hate airbags, highmount brakelamps, child seat hook up points, child locks and most of the government mandatory "safety" crap that just adds weight and expense to a car side markers that are not integrated into over all design--just stuck on (current Malibu) "blue" headlights door locks that do not unlock with when door handle is pulled dull dash boards--very few have any flair or design anymore extremely large hazard light buttons smack in the middle of the dash cigarette lighters and ashtrays--should be optional airbag warning stickers needless advertising of cars features on fenders, dashes etc red dashboard light i.e. Pontiac--they are light one big trouble light gone bad nets for map pockets interiors with little illumination engine compartments without a light imposible to remove oil filters front seats that have room to move back further, but have too short of track rear door windows that do not roll down completely--or even close to it dash board symbols instead of words dash board typesets not consistant headrests that do not tip forward new style power window butons--more government mandates just to name a few

I actually do not think it is that bad. I do think it would serve better as a Mercury than a Lincoln, especially if Mercury is to become the "scion" brand of Ford. Design has to move forward and evolve at some point. There may not be a lot of FoMoCo heritage here, but it may be what it takes to capture some of the 75%+ of the total American market share that does not belong to Ford Motor.

Yeah, they only finished #2 on JD Powers reliability list this year! I have had 3 Sables, 2 Cougars and 1 Grand Marquis--all trouble free. Seems to me that most people ripping on one brand or another are the same ones who tear the crap out of their cars, do not maintain them properly and then blame the brand. I've seen and heard this of all brands, foreign and domestic.

I would not buy a Ford. I agree there could and should be better distinction between brands, but Fords do indeed seem like a poor man's car regardless of content. I would not buy a Honda/Toyota for the same reason--they are common and there is nothing special about them. Yes I would look at Buick, Chrysler and Saturn preferribly something American if there were no Mercury. I would not consider a Mazda or Volvo and unless they are truely going to make Lincoln a bargain basement $, I cannot afford one. I guess my big thing with Lexus, Acura, BMW, Mercedes and the like--most of the ones you see on the road are all low-end models. People buying what the can at the lowest posible price so that they say they own a .... This is what is squeezing out the middle brands like Mercury. Lincoln and Cadilllac were always high end regardless, there was no entry level--you either played or you didn't. I think in the long run this will hurt the luxury brands when people discover that they too are common and may eventually make them middle brands. Why else would M-B bring back Maybach and BMW buy Rolls!

And no, I would not necessarily buy a Ford if Mercury went away. I get treated very nice at my Lincoln-Mercury dealership. Ford dealers, in my experience, act like jerks. I might go to Buick, or even Chrysler, if they built something nice looking that wasn't junk. I agree with you whole heartedly. I'm a Mercury lover at heart--dispite the fact that there has not been much to love of late! There are some nice looking Buicks on their way--same goes for Chrysler. It may only be badge engineering, but I do not want a car that looks like every other car. While Mercury styling is not as sharp as in it's past, it is still better than Fords.

Lincoln's best show car since Mark IV. If they come close in reality it will be awesome. It is not vehicle category I would not consider until now!

Style and personality were never big selling points for the Sable or Grand Marquis after all. I completely disagree. Style has also, and even in these week days at Mercury, been the selling point. The original Sable was much more stylish than the Taurus, as was the Cougar vs. Thunderbird, Grand Marquis vs. Crown Vic, in the same time period which was also around the time of Mercury's sales peak. Even the thinly disgusied Fords: Monarch, Marquis, Lynx, Topaz, Mystique, Monterery, Montego, Milan have come off looking somewhat more formal and high end, or the baby Lincoln which is exactly what Mercury's place has always been. Could Mercury thrive with more style, personality and less obvious re-badge--absolutely. Are unique engines and powertrains that important to Mercury--not at all. An earlier post mentioned dumping all the Ford "limited" model and letting Mercury fill this role--that is how it was originally designed and exactly what would work best. It would also allow Lincoln to move back up in the stratusphere where it belongs.

Actually I think it may have potential. It is obviously in show car drag. Slap a Mercury grill on it and you could have a Cougar.

Several years ago Chevy tried to sell it's Nova in Mexico--this is a classic marketing disaster!

Horrible name, horrible color. Perhaps it is the color, but does not look as high end as the show car did. Interior looks like a sea of cheap plastic. However for it's segment it does look pretty damn good. Terrible name though -- when I hear it I can only picture the last one they sold here by that name.

I don't see were updating the Mariners drivetrain or giving Milan a hybred is truely investing in the brand. Mercury would have neither if Ford wasn't adding these features to their own sister models. I do not want to see Mercury go away. There is room for it in the line up. Especially as Ford sells off PAG. This gives Lincoln room to stretch and be the luxury car it should have always been--even go global as new, better models are introduced. There will still be a gap between Ford and Lincoln where Mercury can thrive-especially if it is ever given an identity again. It does not have to be volume, niche will work. Someone suggested a Pontiac approach of being Ford's sporty division, this could work, but it would take work and comitment from Ford.

My vote would be a new Thunderbird/Mark IX/Cougar. If these were not an option, then invest in increasing model ranges to include a Fusion ot Taurus (next gen) coupe or both. Reality is that if the coupes were done correctly and distiguished from the sedan, they could bare the names of Thunderbird/Mark and Cougar, but only if they were done correctly. Simply removing two doors from the Fusion/Taurus would not do justice to those nameplates.

I think it is fine that Lincoln is trying to redefine luxury. It has done this before ( the 60's Continental was a smaller, cleaner designed car than the competition and a huge success for example). Therefore the twin Force may be a better selling point down the road than a v-8, etc., etc., etc. However the lack of actual names seems way too copycat. I thought it was horrible when Cadillac did it and now for Lincoln to follow suit seems desparate. i understand the alledged reason is so that people see a Lincoln for a Lincoln, but I do not think that is good. When I see a Mercedes, I simply see a Mercedes. I couldn't tell you if it was a, b or c nor do I care to learn. It is the same when I hear of a Mercedes xyz--I have no idea what model is being referred to. Same goes for BMW, Lexus, Cadillac and the rest. It is just uninteresting. It has no image to enhance like some of the great names of the past. Would Mustang have sold as well if it were just and F-2+2. Names carry weight and image with them if they represent and are well thought out. If a 20?? Continental came out as a truely advanced, state of the art, global, luxury car and not a stretched Taurus, no one would consider it an old man's car or question the name. It would truely be continental.