KinneticBrian

I will agree that Ford is going to have to step it up with Lincoln and in a major way, but I am also confident that Ford can do just that. My two cents worth are that first, they need to scrap that confusing naming scheme they have and go back to building at least some cars with real names on them. Given the scraps that Lincoln has had to play with for the last 10 years, I think they have done very well. Cadillac is today exactly what it has been for the last 40 years or so - a lot of puffed up hype of an over-rated, under-built product. My family for years owned both Cadillacs and Lincolns and the Lincolns were always vastly superior to the Cadillacs in quality and durability. The last really good, solid Cadillac they built was the 1996 Fleetwood Brougham and that isn't saying much, being that the one our local Funeral Director drove went through multiple transmissions and suffered from electrical gremlins as did my father's Brougham with it's bi-polar burglar alarm and intermittent power windows (a nice option during a thunderstorm). I recently drove a DTS and although I like the styling of the car, the fact that the radio didn't work at all, and that the leather seats felt more like vinyl than leather left me more than unimpressed. I'd love to see Lincoln bring out three "halo" cars. (And yes, I know I'm dreaming here) Mark Series two door perhaps built off of the Mustang GT Chassis and offering a convertible. Continental - four door, high performance sports sedan. (Flagship) Fulcrum (For the lack of a better name) Large, imposing executive class rear wheel drive sedan. And while I'm on the subject of naming - "EcoBoost" sounds OK, but now Ford has their version of it. Cadillac has the touted (and abysmal) Northstar engines - Why can't Ford apply some cool name to the engines that go in the new Lincolns? Such as "Olympus" or something that denotes strength and athleticism. EcoBoost sounds like some sort of digestive enhancing yogurt or a laxative. And if it hasn't been done so already... when the Town Car and Dr. Kevorkian are finally introduced - can someone see if he'll do a 2 for 1 special and send the Navigator to that great Lincoln Dealer in the sky? I'm excited to see what Ford will do with Lincoln now.

Having been in Law Enforcement back in the 80's and 90's I can say that the 80's and 90's era Fords may not have been as fast off of the line as their Chevrolet counterparts, but that they made up for it in a lot of other ways - dependability and comfort being chief among them. My first patrol car ever assigned to me was a 1982 Ford LTD "S" that had been previously used by the Ohio State Highway Patrol. I was a Deputy Sheriff and this car was assigned to me until our department could get me a newer car. Not one time did that LTD let me down. The 351 V-8 with that awful variable venturi 2 barrel carb was strong enough to sustain runs in excess of 90 mph and never miss a beat. The next car I had assigned was a 1985 LTD Crown Victoria, again a used Ohio State Highway Patrol Car. I put some stainless steel trim rings on the wheels which really snazzed this one up, and in full dress black and white with gold stars on the doors and three whip antennas on the decklid, this car looked the part of the flagship of the fleet. The LTD Crown Vics were just classier by far than the Chevrolet Caprices. Following this car, I was transferred into a 1984 Plymouth Gran Fury temporarily (thank GOD) until my 1987 Chevy Caprice was outfitted. This is where the differences became profound. The Plymouth cornered or took a twisty road better than the Ford and especially the Chevy which had awful handling. The Chevy on straight line accelleration would pull away from the Ford and waste the Plymouth on takeoff, but the Ford would catch up to it. At 95 mph, the Ford was solidly on the road - no float or drift. The Chevy began to get very floaty at higher speeds. The Ford's handling was always predictable too where the Chevy was light in the rear end and could get very skittish. The biggest difference though was that my Chevy spent more time in the shop with electrical problems, rear diff problems, transmission problems and overheating problems that none of my Fords did. Truthfully - if you could have combined the cornering of the Plymouth, the accelleration of the Chevy and the handling, comfort and durability of the Ford you'd have had the perfect patrol car.

So let's see, the same network that fields people like that shrieking Rachel Maddow, "tingle down my leg" Chris Matthews and the "Glittering Monument of Colossal Stupidity and Insanity" Keith Olbermann has weighed in on just what is wrong with Detroit. Funny how these know it alls have all the answers and smashing America is always central to them. I agree with some of this list, like many others on here. For example, the Vega, Citation and Aztek are among the worst cars in history. Why not put the Cadillac V-8-6-4 models of the 80's on this list? Or all GM Diesel Cars? Or the Cadillac HT-4100's? These cars would have had to improved to be abysmal in dependability. How about the Chevy Trucks of the 70's that rusted away within 4 years? Or did we forget the super-ugly Daewoo based Pontiac "LeMans"? Incidentally, I owned a Jeep Cherokee and am trading my 2001 Lincoln Continental in on another one. The Continental is just too big. I'll reply with my "Top 10 cars that sent one down the smokestack of the competition" or "Cars Chris Matthews would only be caught dead in". 10 - 1997-2005 Jeep Wrangler - Rugged, all-american orginal and an icon of the spirit of the great outdoors. 9 - 1969-1978 Ford LTD/Mercury Marquis - Spacious, dependable and unashamedly American - lovable cars to drive. 8 - 1997-2001 Jeep Cherokee - Go anywhere, do anything and hands down super-dependable. 7 - 1964-1967 Pontiac GTO - "Gran Turismo Omologato...translation="Blowa Offa U Doors Jap Crap". 6 - 1987-1992 Ford Mustang GT - Brutally fast, great handling and cheap to own/maintain. 5 - 1984-1991 Lincoln Mark VII LSC - Put Europe on notice with a serious driver's car. 4 - ANY Vintage Ford F-Series Truck. You want a truck? Buy a Ford or settle for much less. Toyota & Nissan? Make me laugh. 3 - 1961-1969 Lincoln Continental - As classic and iconic as anything Mercedes Benz ever built, or ever will. 2 - 2005-Present Ford Fusion - Putting Japan on notice that we DO build great cars here. 1 - 2009 Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX - One upped Lexus and Toyota at their own game. In all there are others that should be on this list - some for admittedly stupid sentimental reasons, such as the: 1971-76 Pontiac Catalina/Grand Ville. Those damned cars looked good for years after they were built, held up remarkably well and were safe and comfy. My great grandfather owned several. 1980-1984 Buick Park Avenue. My parents had a couple of these that actually "out-Cadillac'd" a Cadillac in terms of ride quality, quietness and sheer comfort. And they were great on gas. 1977-1979 Lincoln Continental Mark V. I own two of them, and I defy any Japanese or European automaker to create an equal, much less better driving experience. The view from the driver's seat in one of these is best described as a "vista" and you glide down the road in commanding elegance and unrivalled comfort. My two STILL get looks of admiration. Put another way - can anyone here imagine Jock Ewing driving a Lexus or an Infiniti as "Ewing 1"? 1970-1979 Lincoln Continental - Massive, commanding and unashamedly American. The 1972 Presidential Lincoln Continental epitomized this style and placed it boldly on the world stage. Reruns of Hawaii Five-O and Cannon featured several of these grand old sedans which were as elegant in motion as they were parked. They commanded as much respect as a Mercedes Type 600 for a reason. 1968 Mercury Park Lane Brougham - IMHO one of the finest looking Mercury Sedans ever built. Big, sleek and powerful and the perfect car for Jack Lord to bring hoodlums to justice with. So my list is long, I guess my question is this - with cars like the above mentioned, the Lincoln Continental Mark II & III, The boattail Rivieras of the 70's, the Cadillac Eldorados of the mid-70's, the Pontiac Firebirds and yes, the Ford Rancheros, with cars like this being part of our automotive pedigree, just what the hell do we have to be ashamed of? The only thing I can think of is that we have shamelessly thrown away more heritage and distinction than the rest of the world will ever have. Cars didn't sink Detroit because we're not sunk. We may be down, but not out. Stupid ruled the day, but we are coming around. I wonder what the list will look like when we discuss "10 Boneheads that Sunk the News Media"?

It's sad to me to see the demise of Pontiac. My great-grandfather's brother was a Pontiac dealer, and my family drove several different Pontiacs over the years. My Dad drove a 1972 GrandVille 2 door for a while and my Great-Grandfather preferred and drove mostly Catalinas and Bonnevilles or Executives. I always remember they were very dependable, nice cars. I had a 1989 Firebird Formula that I liked, but that was the most uncomfortable, poorly built car I have ever owned. I bought it with 11,000 miles on it and it had more squeaky plastic, rattles in the dash and liftgate and it had no shortage of electrical gremlins too. It was the most beautiful car...broken down in the shop. I think that the overarching thing here is the fact that GM has trotted out no shortage of truly ill conceived, poorly executed vehicles since the late 1970's/early 1980's and the American Public didn't want it. Take for example that Pontiac went from the division that brought the respected GTO's of the 60's and the '69 Grand Prix became the company that brought us such stellar cars as the 80's-90's Bonneville, the horrible Grand Prix of the early 90's (my brother had one that the driver's door fell off of) the Sunfire, G-5 and J-2000. Cadillac has been in a downward spiral in terms of distinction and quality since the mid-1970's with the lone exception being perhaps the newest CTS. One model does not a comeback make. Chevrolet? One look at where the Impala began and one look at the dreadful car that it is now and that is perhaps the most demonstrative example of GM's decline in terms of quality. I rode in a 2009 Impala the other day and I was astounded at how flimsy and cheap this car really is. A Ford Taurus shames the Impala. In fact it is an insult to compare the two. I've been a Ford guy my entire life, thank God they've got the good sense to get the company building great cars like the 2010 Taurus, MKS, Fusion and the new F-Series. I'm sad to see the General go down, but they did it to themselves - the Government just hastened it along.

I just looked at a new Malibu and for my money, it is a nice competitor for the Fusion and solidly gets Chevy back in the ballgame going up against Honda and Nissan. This car really shames the Impala and make it look like the lame, cheap, warmed over Lumina that it is. I did think though that 28k for the LTZ is a little pricey though.

For what it's worth, it seems like to me that the CTS and MKZ are two totally different cars aimed at two totally different groups of driver. If I had to choose one, it'd be the MKZ hands down. That car is a proven performer, reliable, well made and for my money is a nice car for a great price. For a gen-1 version of a Ford Product it's a great platform to build off of. That being said, I like the new CTS as well, except for the shape of the back door windows which look like they were grafted off of a '65 Galaxie. They just don't seem to really fit the rest of the design, but that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me either. What is a deal breaker for me is Cadillac's notorious reliability problems. We have several Cadillacs in our fleet and except for a couple, they are pretty trouble prone. I do wish Ford would have continued building the 2002 Lincoln Continental. That's been my favorite car in Lincoln's lineup over the past 10 years. I'm looking for a silver one now as it's time to bid the Jeep a fond farewell and to update my '88 Town Car. If I can't find the Continental I want and the lease rates are attractive I may be saddled up in an MKZ before all is said and done.

As a Jeep owner, I can honestly say that the demise of the Commander and Compass can't happen fast enough. I also hate how DaimlerChrysler canceled the Cherokee so that the lame gen-1 Liberty would sell and then had the nerve to "Hummerize" the Wrangler. I've owned my last Jeep - It's all Lincolns and Ford F-series for me from here out.

It seems to me as though Mercury definitely has a place in the Ford lineup. What would be really cool to see is Ford make this a near-luxury division to compete with Buick at GM or with Chrysler. Bringing out a new Marquis Brougham or Park Lane as an AWD sedan with a V-8 to compete with the Lucerne would be a nice addition. Maybe even something as screwy as a Miata based roadster called the XR-7 to bring new buyers into the showrooms. Then reskin the Grand Marquis and make it look a little more distinct and aim it at the livery companies. I'd sure hate to see Mercury die.

WRONG - Lincoln was the best selling luxury brand as recently as 10 years ago. In the 70's, 80's and 90's Lincoln's sales were solid. The new MKZ seems to be proof that the tide is turning. Town Car sales have falled off due to a horrid, outdated design but the Town Car isn't the whole brand. Wrong again - Buick has to have a solid base in the U.S. to survive. This brand has one of the highest loyalty percentages in the States and for a reason. Buick builds solid, dependable cars and has a reputation as such. Cadillac is struggling against BMW and Mercedes Benz because they've essentially re-created the Cimmarron in this BLS. This Anti-American nonsense is typical though. Do me a favor - get past the politics of hating the U.S. because of the President and give our products a fair chance. They're built by honest, hard working people and to be condescendingly trashed, along with the heritage these cars have is insulting. By the way, if Rover was so great, why is it dead? Why did they never sell in volume in the States? Contrary to what the arrogant Europeans think, the U.S. does NOT need Europe to survive, nor do we care what Europe thinks of us, our cars or our heritage. And what is a "premium" European Car exactly? A Bimmer or a Mercedes with an interior about as comfortable as a jail cell? To me, a premium car is a Rolls Royce Phantom or a Maybach, neither of which are terribly profitable due to low consumer numbers. As for BMW and Mercedes? I've driven a 7-Series (pathetic) that belonged to my boss, and am little more impressed by the S-Class he brought in. Give me a new Cadillac DTS over either of these tragic European cars. Of course we're seeing European "superiority" in the monumental belly flop of the Airbus Company on the wings of the A380 (and Europe talks about OUR thirst for petrol?!)

Oh don't get me wrong, from a styling standpoint I liked the '81 Imperial and nearly bought a silver one. The fuel injection problem they had was really bad. I knew a guy who had a yellow one that he ended up pulling off the fuel injection system from and retrofitting a 4 barrel carb from a police package Gran Fury. I think if anything, the Imperial - if it comes into being - will only hurt the 300 with the DUB crowd.

I don't care if they do build this thing, as my Dad and his Dad would say "It's still a Chrysler". Chrysler has been for a long time, on a marketing par with Buick and Mercury and will never rise above that. I remember the 1981 era Imperial and how that Mark V knockoff was supposed to drub the Eldorado and Mark Series out of existence. It didn't. To me, the Imperial concept has all the style of a Checker Cab and less personality. Contrary to what the so called auto experts say, it doesn't really resemble a Rolls Royce. The Phantom is a large, elegant looking car. All this Imperial will do is look like a cheap polyester imitation that it is and be a monumental flop at best. I agree with Nick - Chrysler should focus on a more economical cars.

Screwy idea here, but... Since the Panther Platform is fully amortized and has been for years; is dependable to a fault, flexible in terms of use and pretty much exclusive to the market, why not reskin the cars until an all new RWD platform can be developed? For example, bring back the 1990-1997 Town Car and call it "Town Car Signature" with some minor styling mods like hidden headlamps knife edge fenders and maybe louvres ala the Mark V. Power this car with a 300 hp version of the 4.6 V-8 to make it a little more exclusive. Pick up the crisp lines, vertical taillamps and squared fenderwell openings of the 1968 Park Lane Brougham and meld it to the Grand Marquis with the current Town Car's quad headlamps and market it as a "Park Lane" or "Marquis Brougham". For the big Ford, go back to the '70's and style the new sedan inspired by the '73 Thunderbird with it's sleek, smooth style, full width taillamps and low roofline. Bring back the "LTD" name with Crown Victoria. I guess what's sad here is that this platform has so much potential yet is so badly underutlized. This platform is the very thing Ford could use to really differentiate itself in the market, and could do so in a low investment, high reliability scenario which they need.

Lincolns being marketed as Rovers is a joke. In fact, Ford developing Lincoln as a brand to appease the European market is absolutely certain to destroy the brand outright. Lincoln needs to come back as an American brand. Distinct in style and character. Cadillac has not found much success at all in European Marketing despite millions of dollars developing the "International" Seville or STS. Upgrading Lincolns products is where I definitely agree. I like the MKZ as an entry level car, but is it something special? Hardly. Yes it is a nice car, and I am probably going to be leasing one soon, but there's nothing special about it. My disdain for the current Town Car is well documented on this board, as is my disgust toward the Navigator and Mark LT. The Town Car has a great brand identity in spite of the stale at best current model. A restyle of this car that picks up cues of the '90 to '97 Town Car with the knife edges of the Mark V, suicide doors and a big shot of power under the hood would help. Where the European flavor could come in is with an all-new Continental that takes styling benchmarks and aim at the Mercedes CLS and then a Mark IX that uses the size and profile of the Bentley Coupe as it's benchmark. Keep the MKZ where it is and update it as soon as possible. As to Thunderbirds, I have had a lot of exposure to the early '70's Birds through an engineer friend of my family who had a '72 and a '78 until he died a few years ago. Both in mint condition as he kept everything. The '72 was a car I always loved with it's clean lines and power to burn. I also owned a '78 with the 351M which off the line wouldn't get out of it's own way, but once rolling did just fine. I miss my '78 for some strange reason, perhaps that it was my first car. One thing for sure I can say... Lexus and BMW may be the latest thing going, but those brands will never reach the legendary status in the U.S. that Lincoln and Cadillac or even Thunderbird enjoy.

The Wal Mart of luxury? Are you kidding me? How is a Cadillac so much better? Let's see... the garbage Northstar Engine which leaks oil like the Exxon Valdez, would overheat in Switzerland in January. Then you have the STS and SRX which have styling by Sears & Roebuck with a Saks Fifth Avenue price tag and are selling about as well. Lincolns are much more dependable and long lasting than Cadillacs. When is the last time you saw a DeVille or DTS in livery service, let alone with over 300k on it. I know two livery owners who sing the praises of the Town Car. Granted, Lincoln needs some new product, but to equate these cars with Wal Mart (cheap wanna be stuff) is an insult.

Edmunds called this lame thing the "Mount Olympus of SUV's?!" What the hell is that about? This lame, badge engineered piece of Toyota-Junk is a joke. Anyone who buys one obviously hates their money. This thing, like the Chrysler Aspen is the answer to the dumb question nobody asked. It lacks style and originality.