akirby

I loved this ad for the VW Beetle a few years ago. 0-60? Yes.

How fast do you need to go to deliver flowers?

I agree. I think the issue for me is more that the MKZ styling just doesn't wow me any more than the Fusion styling so it makes it harder to justify the upcharge. Similar issue on the MKX/Edge although I think the MKX grille helps to distinguish it more than the MKZ grill. I look at what Caddy did with the SRX as a good example of differentiated styling that separates a luxury vehicle from non luxury vehicles and now that Lincoln has a dedicated design team I believe that's what we'll see across the board. Finally.

I know it's fuse 29 in the Edge but I thought it was a different one on the Explorer. At any rate it's identified in the OM.

Different tuning and different exhaust and intake design accounts for most of the differences.

Tragic and disgusting at the same time. But it's not as bad as the idiot who was driving drunk, ran off the road, rolled the Explorer and killed himself and one or two passengers who were not wearing seatbelts. The family sued Ford because Ford didn't use windshield style safety glass in the door windows which would have kept the drunk incapacitated no seatbelt wearing idiots inside the vehicle when it rolled. And they won. I know Ford appealed the verdict but I never heard the final outcome. We need some serious legal reforms around liability lawsuits.

Did you try pulling the fuse or disconnecting the battery to reset it?

Bingo. The MKS will be a lame duck for a year or two until the new one arrives. But this is about the long term plan so that's ok.

Not that you're biased or anything.........

I think the Fusion Energi will end up being more fuel efficient than the Volt. Volt goes 35 miles on battery but only gets 37 mpg once the ICE kicks in. Energi goes about 20 miles on battery but after that is a normal hybrid getting 47/41 mpg. Volt needs a more efficient ICE to counter the energy loss converting from mechanical to electrical and back to mechanical energy.

Or look sideways every now and then.......

Today they only use the powershift DSG and the manual. You can't get a conventional ATX today - thus the discussion.

Quite often, actually. Probably because I own a 06 Fusion. Quite often I have to look twice to figure out if it's a Fusion or MKZ (or Edge vs. MKX). I have the same issue with the Camry/ES350. But Borg said the fact that they shared doors didn't matter and to me it's the single most important factor that prevents the Lincoln from standing out and thus why I'm glad the new one no longer shares doors or greenhouses.

No, because you didn't say whether you intended to keep it past 6 years or estimated what it would be worth. But 4 cylinder models will also fetch somewhat of a premium over less fuel efficient models so you'd really need to get real numbers and factor them in. It's pretty clear that you want a hybrid and all the number crunching is just your attempt to rationalize it. Consider it rationalized and go get one.

No but apparently you're too stupid to understand the difference between keeping one model that's already been designed with a strategic advantage (conquest sales and high ATPs) to a shared platform with shared engines built on a shared existing production line for a market segment that is 10 times the size of the small truck market segment and growing instead of shrinking and which doesn't siphon sales from another Ford vehicle line that sells 600K/yr and adding one model that requires a new (for the U.S.) platform and production line, new drivetrains (none of the proposed smaller engines are currently RWD) into a shrinking market and which could be in conflict with other Ford truck projects already underway for the U.S. and which would most certainly take some market share away from the more expensive and more profitable F150. You can't simply compare a new Ranger with the current lineup. You have to compare it against what Ford expects to have in place in 2014/2015 and the only people who know that is Ford - and their actions (or lack thereof) are evidence that they believe they have a better option on the table - and we won't see it for another year or two at least.

Fiesta was a global vehicle yet it took an extra year to modify it to meet U.S. standards. I'm sure the changes required for T6 would be small but it's not accurate to say that it already meets all the standards especially when it hasn't been tested.

Of course there's a market. Nobody is saying there isn't a market. I'm sure Ford could sell 100K T6 Rangers with no problem (but at least 20K of those would be cannibalized F150 sales so the net would only be 80K). But that's not the issue. The issue is 1. how much would it cost to do that (it's not cheap to start up production of a new vehicle besides the vehicle development and certification costs) 2. what resources would be required and which other projects would be impacted. 3. what is the incremental ROI to do this versus the other projects Don't forget that any potential ROI from a Ranger has to be compared against whatever Ford is already working on internally that we don't know about. And I think even you would agree that if Ford had a plan to sell at least 80K more F150s that it would likely generate more profits and be less expensive and easier than selling 80K new Rangers because F150 capacity can be increased without opening a new plant or doing any additional certification and testing.

Citation? And even if that was true it doesn't eliminate the investment required to ramp us U.S. production. If it was as easy as you make it out to be then it would have already been done. If they don't need to do anything because they're the market leader then why are they doing a new one for 2014? And if they need to do something for 2014 to be competitive then why aren't they doing things NOW? That's entirely possible, but you can't come to that conclusion just because new vehicles are being developed. You think there are untapped sales just waiting for new products but you don't have any objective data to back that up.

BTW - that wasn't a pricing strategy. That was just a decision that their business wasn't worth the time and effort required to complete the sale. We were basically telling them to go away without actually telling them to go away.

There is a difference between haggling over price and wasting your time with unreasonable demands. I understand it's a cultural thing but that doesn't mean american businesses have to accept it. If I went to India I wouldn't expect the local businesses to work like they do here.

Seriously??? Look at these quickly and see if you can tell which is which at a glance. I sure can't.

You didn't say performance was one of your criteria. You only mentioned fuel savings. And there is no way you're going to make up the cost difference of a hybrid over a non hybrid I4 Fusion in 6 years. Your math is all wrong. You're not going to save more than $200 in fuel per year with the hybrid vs. non hybrid so you're only saving $1200 over 6 years while you're paying at least a $3K premium up front and probably closer to $5K. Look - I'm NOT telling you NOT to buy a hybrid. You clearly want a hybrid and the Fusion hybrid clearly outperforms the Camry hybrid - so why not just leave it at that and go buy the Fusion hybrid and be done with it? OTOH - if you really do want to save money then you need to consider other options and be honest with the cost calculations when you do the comparison. I just hate to see you make an objective decision based on incorrect assumptions and data.

If you took your argument to the Board of Directors to get funding you'd be laughed out of the board room. If it makes sense for FORD to do what you want then it would make sense for other mfrs to do it also. And if it was such a good business plan then SOMEBODY would have jumped on the bandwagon years ago. It's like saying Ford should offer manual transmissions on every vehicle because it would increase sales just because you and a few other people want them. If it was a viable market strategy then SOMEBODY would have jumped on it already. Why? Why does Ford need to have Cheap anything - especially Cheap trucks that replace more profitable F150 sales? Another case of what YOU want Ford to build - not necessarily what makes sense for Ford to build. Of course I did. Sorry.

Who said it was an electric hybrid? There are other technologies that could be cheaper. Even so - you're not the only one buying a pickup.

I think that was the problem - it was a Ford stylist, not a dedicated team of Lincoln stylists. Plus you have to remember it was originally designed before Mercury was killed and Ford decided to make the investment in Lincoln.