goingincirclez

Cadillac finished it: The whole "Art & Science" thing was regarded as unique and out of left field, but look closely. The cues are definitely Sentinel. A - finished - Sentinel.

YES! Thank you! The Sentinel is the one I was thinking of. And yes, I hated it at the time and STILL do... and it seems Ford got a hangover themselves after it debuted. But just tell me that Cadillac didn't take that ball and run with it....

Just making sure you realize we are on the same page: I DID say that he runs dangerously close to GM puffery... but what else would you expect from a former and legacy GM-er? That said, I do think there are merits to some of what he says about Lincoln. A lot of those sentiments have been said and argued here. I just thought the presentation was interesting. --- STILL can;t find that damn Lincoln concept from the late 90's! It was a long coupe that took Ford's then-current "new edge" styling over the top to the point of killing it, and then POW Cadillac was all about it.

You're right about the concepts... something would be lost. Invariably something always is. I mean, the MarkX concept had the eggcrate grille that looks SOOOO much better than what ended up in production on the MkX. And yet, for myself I can't help but think that those concepts had more to begin with. They're undeniably, exclusively Lincoln, and American. No confusion with Toyo-San there. I'm not intending to dog on the MkS, because I too think it's a handsome car. And the market (which currently precludes me) will ultimately decide its fate. But still it doesn't make me say Oh My God - because I've seen it before. And Delorenzo is 100% dead-on accurate about the problems with taking Lincoln global as a result. Need to fix NA perception first. ---- The real kicker is that whole "GM revived Cadillac" thing he's all about, was born of GM taking the styling from another Lincoln concept and running with it. I will have to find the concept, I can't recall it right now.

This week's Autoextremist (which runs dangerously close to GM puffism some days) is very relevant. Make sure to read the top article.. And ESPECIALLY check the pictures. Now what's in the past is in the past, and I'm not purely espousing or championing a move to "retro" Lincolns or anything like that... but for crying out loud you can't possibly say the MkS looks better than any of those concepts (except, ironically, the 2000 Continental which suddenly seems dated in the front end). Autoextremist.com I especially like the way he put it, to paraphrase: "What car is going to make anyone stop and say "Oh My God - that's a Lincoln?!"

I'll take the blue '88 parked next to it instead, thanks. Man, that's what mine will look like someday... just a darker shade of blue. Got the 5.0 HO, NOS interior parts and other goodies all lined up / in hand for it and everything.... just no space for the build. Ever notice how good those cars look on the road today, some two decades later? Timeless. :shades: (Incidentally, the one in the pic is an '88 instead of '87 by virtue of the all-black (no chrome) rear window trim).

Hear, hear! Now that would be a welcome touch of "retro".

That recessed area is where the separately-applied Ford logo would go.

Very nice update. A little reserved, but it looks classy. I see shades of the 90-97 F-150 in the front end, and those were always my favorite. Nice to see how the bombastic Super Chief concept cues played down into "production". Something about the '04 F-150 looked like it was trying too hard, when it didn't really have to. This one looks all business without pretense.

Unfortunately that's almost a requirement to fulfill the purpose of a "B" car. A "B" car's primary reason for being is to offer an economical package: cheap to buy, cheap to own, cheap to maintain. NOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE (i.e. Mini, Miata, etc) but by an large, especially from volume makes in the US (like Ford), this is why you have a B car. Bigger wheels are more expensive to begin with. Bigger wheels also mean more unsprung weight, which is a drag on both performance and fuel economy (Fe being a PRIMARY reason why most people "settle" for a B car in the first place!). Bigger wheel wheels also need larger tires, which are expensive to replace. Bigger wheels generally need a wider tread to remain stable, which adds to rolling resistance and thus hits fuel economy once again. Bigger wheels also cause a harsher ride and wear suspension parts quicker, due to the necessary lower aspect ratio of the tires. Now I'm not saying that Ford SHOULDN'T offer bigger wheels as an option for those concerned with looks. But there are very good reasons why small wheels are used on small cars. The Verve could well break with those conventions. But if the market is not quite ready to bite on the "volume premium small car" idea, Ford should be ready with both sets - just in case.

"I know! Let's get rid of this whole nasty 'upper' and 'lower' thing altogether!"

Excellent, from the side the greenhouse isn't as symmetrical as what I extrapolated from the angled views (i.e. No FiveHundred-itis). I do have one nitpick: those taillights are as tacky as a dime-store in Hollywood. They remind me of those piss-poor custom pinstriped taillight jobs that people do to old Nissan trucks and Chevy S-10s. Fix those and I have but two words left to say: BUILD IT. NOW. (OK that was three.)

That would be sweet, and a definite step in the right direction. The fact that they've been so mum with leaks and other design insights has me very hopeful that they're planning to come from left field with something just like that. How wild would that be... Ford gets the box and Lincoln gets the curves. Proper Lincoln Distinction! I sure hope so... because for credibility's sake they can't afford to phone in a GLC (grille, light, & chrome) job, a-la MkX, again.

Yeah. What would be cool is if they lowered it a little bit. The headlights have a subtle arrowhead look to them... if they pulled it off right, your eye would follow the flow in the sculpting, to the headlights which then "point" right to the blue oval... would be very sneaky subliminal. The more I look at that car the more I love it. Just wow. There is nothing like this out there right now. It WILL blow the segment apart if they can release it looking like that. I AM curious to see a profile shot though. If you pay attention, the greenhouse looks very symmetrical... I'd like to see how they get away with that in a dead-on side view.

Wow... the sedan looks wicked! I like it a lot. It will be interesting to see how well that "Bass Mouth" grille translates or is accepted here. Personally, I'm not enamored with it but I don't quite dislike it either. Look carefully at the Focus and Mondeo models shown though, and you can see how the "bass mouth" is toned down. So it does indeed seem to have a thematic precedent across the lineup. And finally... it just feels weird to be reading about looking at Fords on a chinese site...

Yeah, well it remains to be seen if the MkS is a true touchstone for consistency in things to come, or if it will be another flash in the pan... just like the LS was. If they keep on the same M.O. as they have with the rest of the lineup, it very well could be. The MkFlex will be the next test.

I get that. Your point, as I understood it, was that "Mercuries never cost that much more than Fords, ergo they were never meant to be considered [upmarket/ near-luxury / better than Ford / etc etc so on]..." And I conceded that point. But if we're going to discuss Mercury then it must be pointed out just what you're getting (or not) for that price. I attempted to illustrate how, if not in price, that Mercury once "bridged the gap" to Lincoln in terms of styling... which offers its own measure of exclusivity. Or in segments where there was no comparable Lincoln, and hence no gap (and no need for a bridge), they at least offered enough distinctive styling apart from Ford as their raison d'ete. Today you have people everywhere asking what Mercury's purpose is. It does not fill a price point. Nor does it meet a style point, design language, or differentiation metric. It really is mostly a trim level. And as Lincoln plays downward in the pricing scheme, with little in the way of styling / sheetmetal uniqueness unto itself, Mercury is left with nowhere to go. So yes, in a line of thinking... it can be argued that Lincoln has indeed become Mercury. MkS notwithstanding.

A fair question... which begs looking at what "mercury used to be" one more time, when it was successful. Maybe the prices were always similar. I don't know, as I never crossed-shopped them back in the day. But what I do know is that from the mid-80's until the late 90's, you might have paid nearly the same price as a Ford, but what you got was a car that looked markedly different, even a little upscale. Consider: 1983-1997 Thunderbird / Cougar : Not a shared panel aft of the B-pillar. Notchback design on MN12 Cougar evokes a 2-door Town Car (back when the Town Car looked good and was not a total joke). Mustang / Capri - Blocky front and bubble-back hatch may not have caught on, but were certainly unique. Parts still sought by Mustang guys wanting something "different". Tempo / Topaz: 4-door Topaz lacks quarter window, again looks more upscale. Later Topaz looks like a baby Continental or Town Car while Tempo continues to look like a baby Taurus. Taurus / Sable: 1st-gen Sable actually shares very little sheetmetal! '96 redesign still keeps unique Mercury signature of no quarter window. Grand Marquis / Crown Vic - perhaps the most similar pair, but until 1998 the Marquis still looked unique (again with the signature lack of a quarter window). Villager - Nothing like the Aerostar or Windstar. "The Minivan the drives like a Car". Funny how that caught on (even if it was secretly a Nissan). In addition to the distinct Mercury cues to separate them from their Ford brethren, the entire Mercury lineup enjoyed unifying themes such as lightbar grilles and/or "fade-to-black" taillight treatments. You could pick any one of the above cars and know it was a mercury even without the badge. It all started downhill when they gave Merucry the Mountaineer, which initially was the most rushed, hideously-tarted Explorer you could buy. Yet people fell for that (SUV craze you know) and so here we are. Nowadays, what is a Mercury? Just a Ford with different lights and grille. Ford apparently was unwilling to spend the money on tooling to differentiate them beyond that, and the market has responded by calling the bluff. And what is a Lincoln? Just a Mercury with a different motor and/or interior. I mean, Fusion -> Milan -> MkZ? Really, it's almost as bad as Granada -> Monarch -> Versailles all over again.

Hopefully that was the case and they all met a fitting end. That car made the Aztek look sleek!

Hmm... tough call. Most of the 1980 Bronco's I've seen had F O R D on the front of the hood. But the hood and grille were interchangeable with later model years... so you could have a custom in that pic there.

Agh! The horror! The Horror! :eek5: Hard to believe they had the audacity to dress that brick in a "25th Anniversary" edition. Which removed the opera window entirely. Egad. Best line about the ThunderBrick: "The 1983 T-Bird made the '82 look like the box it came in".

:lol: and here I thought my fondness for Granadas would would never serve me. That was also the year there was a Mercury Cougar Station Wagon (yes indeed... all together now: "Yipe!") - proof that Ford has done far more inexplicable things in the past than now. BTW, that Mercury Cougar? Was the Mercury "twin" to the Granada after the name "Monarch" was dropped for 81. See previous comment re: Ford Basketcase Syndrome...

Actually, the blue oval's first reappearance in the US was in late 1981, when the 1982 Ford Granada went on sale. The car was little changed aside from that. In 1981, the word "Ford" had been spelled atop the grille (and trunk) in block letters. The car was dropped for 1983... so one way to tell an 81 and 82 apart is the Ford logo. Example

Heh... that's the first photo I've seen where the 08 Focus actually kinda sorta almost looks good! Trying to figure out what might be different... no of course nothing is different? And then I realized... ...it's because they completely hid the front air dam inside a shadow.

Quite true. Bullshit names like "Liberal" and "Conservative" are largely meaningless monkers that only serve to create a fake distinction and keep the masses polarized. Add in the same rehashed hot-button issues like abortion, alternative lifstyles, taxes, education, healthcare, so on and so forth... and nothing ever gets done. The same issues debated today are the same ones from 2000, 1992, and before I was old enough to pay attention on my own but my parents remember the same old same old. George Washington warned us about the dangers of a purely two-party system. And stubbornly polarized fake ideals ike "Liberal" and "Conservative" are exactly what he meant.