akirby

But none of those rebates are restricted to cash buyers only. Maybe Dean meant "buying" as opposed to "leasing".

Should be SVT, not SHO.

It sells well in certain areas (like California) and not so well in others. It will never be a huge volume vehicle but it doesn't need to be in order to be successful.

Cash or finance - I don't think it matters.

Why would you praise publications that are so blatantly biased and inconsistent?

Doh! Not sure how I got those confused but the point remains that the TL is not a rebadged Accord.

You don't know how Lincoln is currently being developed.

I've been told the ES doesn't share any body panels with the Camry - although to me they're hard to tell apart. The TL is also unique from the U.S. Accord because it's based on the Japanese market Accord. I don't think it's mandatory if you just want to sell volume mid luxury vehicles at modest prices, but I think you need bespoke designs if you want to compete at the higher luxury levels. Especially for Lincoln who doesn't have the luxury reputation of Lexus. The bespoke suspension is just electronically controlled shocks and probably different springs - I don't think it's an entirely new expensive suspension. But either way I think it's money well spent since it will not only match or exceed the competition but it will further distinguish the Lincoln models from Ford models.

We've owned 3 also - a 93 OHV Explorer, a 95 OHV Ranger and a 97 OHC Explorer. Never had a problem.

The problem is the side profile because they share doors and roofline, just like the Edge and MKX. And the lack of unique drivetrains. All of that will be fixed going forward.

Yes, that's what I'm telling you. I have faith that you won't be able to tell that the Fusion and MKZ are even on the same platform. Even the drivetrains and suspensions will be different in addition to all of the visible bits. I wouldn't be surprised if the wheelbase is also different.

GM reminds me of the person who wants to lose weight but isn't willing to exercise. So they constantly overlook the real problem (excess capacity, duplication of products) while looking for a quick fix that will never work.

That's usually a fuse.

That wasn't the point at all. The point was that cheaper vehicles ALWAYS sell better than more expensive vehicles. The market starts to shrink when you get over $30K. It's not just Traverse and Enclave - it's Traverse, Enclave and Acadia. And the Enclave should be a Caddy. The current MKX isn't any better but for the umpteenth time - the current Lincolns are not the future Lincolns. Absolutely completely wrong. Again.

Why are you comparing anything to what Lincoln is doing right now? What they're doing right now is not what they're planning to do at all. Apples and oranges. And you can't compare Buick to Lincoln - at least not across the board. The Regal competes with the Fusion, not the MKZ. And you are still totally misunderstanding what we're trying to say about GM. Nobody is saying the new products aren't decent - some are really nice. What we're saying is GM can make the very same nice products with 2 brands instead of 4 and be much more profitable and focused. Ford sells almost as many vehicles as GM with half the employees and half the brands. That's really all you need to know.

How much is a Taurus SHO or a Mustang GT500? They don't need to sell a lot of them.

Chevy is only down market because GM chose to put them there. If you converted the Buicks to Chevys then that would no longer be true. Look at what Ford did with the Taurus - no reason Chevy couldn't do that if GM wanted to. You're thinking just like GM - trying to justify keeping the status quo instead of looking at all the options and making the tough decisions that nobody wants to make. Lack of stable leadership with an eye to the long term future is really killing GM.

The Aviator was not a "SHO" Explorer by any means. At best it was just a higher trim level with a few more HP (and a flawed cylinder head design).

Is it really that hard to figure out?

Exactly. It's not a warranty issue at all and 2.5 weeks is way too long to report a delivery problem.

Buick is only one step removed from a rebadge. What about Traverse and Enclave? Change the Enclave to a Caddy and put Chevy badges on all the rest. Continue to use the Buick badge in China but it's not needed here.

So you signed the delivery inspection form, waited 2.5 weeks, took it to a different dealership and you're upset they won't fix it? Sheesh.

It probably is profitable, but that's not the question GM should be asking. It should be asking whether it's more profitable to keep GMC or kill it. If 90% of GMC buyers will buy the same vehicle with a Chevy badge (and let's face it - there's less difference between a GMC and Chevy truck than there was between a Ford and Mercury) then keeping GMC is the wrong business decision. It isn't worth the overhead.

Obviously Ford is working on something in conjunction with the new F150 that's a couple of years away. Why would they divulge anything about that plan now? What are they supposed to say? "We're killing the Ranger because we're putting the investment into a super fuel efficient smaller F series pickup." Ford says whatever it needs to to protect future product plans. I don't understand why people are getting so hung up on words.

Why would Ford throw away all that "profit" from these highly sought after diesels? They have the engines ready to go in Europe - it wouldn't be that hard to bring them over IF they thought they could sell them at a profit. And why haven't any other mfrs done the same thing? A small number of VW buyers does not make an entire market. Until American consumers change their minds about diesels there just isn't enough money in it for most mfrs.