morgande

1. I never said MPG wasn't important. I said I would have preferred more emphasis on its performance because its a performance car. The performance was barely mentioned (at least from a text standpoint). 2. The quote doesn't make sense. They compare a V8 RWD $30k+ vehicle to a 4-banger/V6 FWD that cost mid $20k? What does that prove? PS: 4x4 wannabe.... there is no factual evidence in that post. So there was nothing to 'confuse me' with. I gave my opinion....and my reasons. Your certainly entitled to disagree. Argue your point...but keep the rhetoric at home please. Final note: I don't see why there is so much animosity towards me...just because I might argue you a point you don't agree with. I don't bash Ford. I don't hate Ford. I own a Ford. I've own two of their cars in my lifetime. I encourage my family and friends to evaluate their products and incorporate them into their buying decisions. Just because I might not agree with the direction the company is going sometimes doesn't mean I don't support the company as a whole. Other people are free to express their ideas on this forum....about what they like and don't like. But when I do it...suddenly my race gets called into question. My maturity. My background. Its an attack on me..not my stance. Arguing points in one thing...but it seems some people are not given the fair shake of doing that. Suddenly its an attack on them...and not their opinion. I can see if I was a person who came on this board to only post negative comments, only bash Ford. I don't do that. I might give my opinion..sure. But I don't bash the company. I support the company. But still...I have to put up with pointless attacks on my character...just because its something to do. I've grown tired of it. Can an admin please close this thread. I'd appreciate it if I just died and went away.

By 1 MPG? Two completely different cars? Different manufactures. Different looking body styles. Different colors. Different interiors. Different equipment options. And 1mpg is going to be a difference maker? I can say you neglect to inform a person that the delta is only 1mpg. That's just capitalizing on the fact that the customer wasn't very informed. But you want to sit here and tell me that someone would walk away from one vehicle over another...in this case of a Mustang and a Camaro...over 1mpg?????????

Guy owns more cars than anyone else I can think of...Im sure he knows what he was talking about. Again, this is not a purist argument here... So let me see...a person (guy or gal) is going to say to themselves: "I would get the Camaro V6 but the Mustang has 1 mpg better fuel economy so I'm going to go that route instead". You would never in your life see a 1mpg improvement. You'd never notice it. Its purely bragging rights. Period.

Cheap compared to the GT..it most certainly is!!!! V6 base: $22,195 GT base: $29,645 What other 300 hp SPORTS CAR do you know of that can be had for under $22k ($500 rebate will bring this under 22)? My heads not in my rear end. I'm arguing my point. Surely you can argue yours without any needless rhetoric or immature insult? Or is such a reasonable request beyond your feeble brain's ability to comprehend, let alone honor?

But if you took the time to actually READ my post, you would see that I'm not trolling. I dont come on BON and state something trollish like "Nobody wants to by a piece of crap Ford" or something else idiotic like that. I posted this last night after watching game 2 of the NBA finals (when I saw the Mustang commercial) and I typoed the spelling of his name by accident. Flag me for not fact-checking his name...fine. But to call me a Troll because I did, without actually reading my post and trying to get an idea of where I'm coming from....makes you a lemming in my book!

Really Nick? This is not a debate on the purist concept of what is and is not a sports car. The Mustang is considered a sports car in terms of its category for most of the buying public. It sure the hell isn't a sedan. Jay Leno's Garage calls it a sports car - http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/at-the-garage/sports-cars/2011-ford-mustang-gt/ Amazon sells a book called "Mustang: The Affordable Sportscar" - http://www.amazon.com/Mustang-Affordable-Sportscar-John-Gunnell/dp/0873413105 MSN's Most popular sports cars (mustang is #2) - http://editorial.autos.msn.com/listarticle.aspx?cp-documentid=434651 Get the point? I never said that people ignored fuel efficient. I said its not the most important selling point when selling a performance car. Key word: Performance. Nobody is going to pick a Mustang V6 over a Camaro V6 because the stang has better fuel efficiency! Its not a bad thing...buts not the selling point!

You can get 26mpg on a 430hp vette. So the Stang isn't the first to produce both high performance and still have some decent MPG to boot. As I said before, the new V6 gets 45% more power over the outgoing model. That is a feature that should stand alone. It warrants its own text fly-by in the commercial. It need not be combined with 31mpg in order to sell to public, it can sell itself alone. For every spot in that commercial that said '31mpg [insert here]', it should have read "305 hp [insert here]". And then in the last spot, show the Mustang parked in a green pasture full of trees and state "31mpg green". It would be the last feature that is advertised. It hits home. Its the last thing you see, but it doesn't overshadow the fact that this is a 300+ hp sports car...its not the puny Mustang V6 from before ".

Well lets see....there is no more Ford GT. No TBird. Not much else in blue ovals arsenal to call a sports car. So the Mustang IS a sports car for FoMoCo and it has been so for some time. People buy the V6 because its cheap. It has nothing to do with fuel economy. It has EVERYTHING to do with price of the freaking car. Again....31 mpg should not be focus on selling this car. It should be icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Ford is showcasing the icing, and forgetting about the cake. Argument stands.

When you buy a Mustang, what are you buying it for? The MPG or the performance? Even in V6 trim, its still a performance car. There is a striking difference between a sports car and a sporty car. I would call a Mustang (regardless of V8 or V6) a sports car. It is not a sporty car. The Fusion is sporty. You expect a performance car to be about performance. They mentioned the MPG 4 times!!!!!! 4 different times. And when they did tell you about the cars performance, it was referenced it terms of its MPG again. So it was a total of 5 times they told you it gets 31 mpg. Clearly that is the selling point for this car. It gets 31 mpg. But what about...I dunno...the performance? Isn't that a big deal too? After all, this is a Mustang right? What are the priorities for this car? Is the focus to make a fuel efficient car as sport(y) as it can be? Or is to make a performance car still have good fuel economy? Too vastly different philosophies. I think Ford is too obsessed with fuel economy right now. Make it a focal point...sure. But don't make it the focal point. As if to say that the its the primary goal for everything. Especially when your talking about a car that is not about MPG in the first place.

So I am a troll? How do tell...am I a troll?

The first commercial you air sets the tone for what you want to be known for. You might go through many different commercials to highlight specific features, but the first debut commercial sets the stage for the main selling point of the car. In the case of a performance car, I expect that main selling point to be performance related. The first...let me repeat that...THE FIRST...thing they should have mentioned was the new V6 with 305 hp. It makes 45% MORE horsepower than the 2010 model. MPG is a 19% increase. Now, everyone knows that increasing MPG is a far more difficult task than power...which is why it should be touted. But when updated model makes almost 50% more power than the outgoing model, and were talking about a PERFORMANCE CAR, that is the feature. Anyone who looking at a Camaro or a Hyundai Genesis coup now can easily add the V6 Mustang to the list. When before it wouldn't have even been a consideration against the other two. I did watch the whole commercial. Perhaps YOU didn't. For the first 8 seconds, you see the car. And the push button start at the end is about a second worth of viewing time. So....from 10 seconds in, you don't see anything meaningful (no car shots, no text displays of features) until you get almost 30 seconds in. That is 20 seconds of purely useless footage. From there, the remaining two features of the car that are showcases (SYNC and hands free) are done so WITHOUT USING THE CAR. A unicycle acronym for hands free is cleaver, but stupid for a feature you want to display on a car. And what does an umbrella have to do with SYNC? On and that CAR (which is the whole purpose of the commercial) doesn't show up again to almost 45 seconds in. 15 seconds wasted trying to showcase features about the car without showing the car. You never get a real shot of the interior. And when the car does show up, its has 0 focus on the frame. Its just 'there' along with the 20 billion props used on the commercial. Pretty big deal? What is? The 40 mpg maybe? Ok I get that. Thats one feature that is hard to show in a commercial by showcasing the car. You just gotta text-display it and more along. But what about hands free? What about SYNC? What are those things? A customer would walk away never knowing the car had hands free phone and infotainment capability by viewing this commercial UNLESS they already knew it had them in the first place. All in all, you see the car for exactly: 25 seconds...and not even all 25 of those seconds show something unique. There are two basic shots of the car, one far off, and another view of the passengers. That's it! I don't see how you can defend a commercial for a car that barely shows the car. Its nearly as bad as the 'safest car in America' Taurus commercial a few years ago. TERRIBLE!!!!!

Oh, and I know a few of you lemming will be quick to say that performance Mustangs have always been about the GT. You want a real mustang, get a GT. But from a critical standpoint, the V6 has always been laughable. Finally even the base model V6 has some performance features worth mentioning. No longer is the GT the only thing worth mentioning. Remember, the Mustang is a sports car...at least for Ford it is. And I think that the focus of marketing this vehicle should be that the new V6 is about performance first, and its fuel economy as an added bonus. Not the focal point.

I don't know who is signing off on these latest commercials, but they SUCK. Just saw the Mustang Pony car commercial. The main takeaway: it gets 31mpg. The Mustang is a muscle car. Right now, its the only sports car in Fords lineup. It new V6 puts out almost as much power as the old V8. Its almost 100 hp more than the old model V6. By V6 Mustang standards, its in a class by itself. But the main takeway of the commercial: 31mpg. They mention it 3 times! The average Mustang customer is not buying a Mustang (even in V6 form) because it gets 31 mpg. Is 31 mpg good? Sure! Should it be featured? Most certainly. Is it the main selling point? Hell no! And it NEVER EVER SHOULD BE. If it is, then Ford has indeed gone to shyt. This is a Mustang, not a Prius! Fiesta. 40 mpg. Ok....its a great feature. A small, subcompact is suppose to get great MPG. You expect it to get good MPG, thats why you buy one in the first place. But 40 mpg is impressive. But every other subcompact also gets good MPG. So what ELSE does it do besides deliver good MPG?????? Go ahead and showcase the MPG, but can I see something else it does? Can they AT LEAST show more of the car?????????? There are more needless naked unicycle stuntmen who get more more camera time than the car (ok they weren't naked). But Almost the entire commercial is showcasing something that has NOTHING to do with the car. Noting worst than a car commercial that isn't about the car. Ok, I get it...Ford is very much interested in showing the world that Toyota and Honda aren't the only car companies that can make a car with good MPG. But there is a law of deminishing returns. Fuel efficenty doesn't sell sports cars. You want to showcase MPG, do it on the Fusion Hybrid and the Fiesta. The Mustang should be about a 300hp V6 that still manages 31 mpg, not a 31 mpg Mustang that just happens to have 300 hp. Priorities people!!!!!!! Alan Murphy has shown himself to be a very shrewd businessman. I give him a lot of credit. But I also know that he secretly wants Ford to be Toyota. And I get the feeling that his non-car-guy underpinnings are starting to show. A Mustang that is all about MPG is a step in the wrong direction. I think both of the commercials need to be re-done ASAP.

Interior shot of 2010 Fusion: http://z.about.com/d/alternativefuels/1/0/u/L/-/-/10FusionHybrid_24.jpg Interior shot of 2010 MKZ http://www.clutchd.com/wp-content/gallery/19_march_2009-2010-lincoln-mkz/2010-lincoln-mkz-5.jpg Interior shot of 2010 Camry http://images.newcars.com/images/car-pictures/original/2010-Toyota-Camry-Hybrid-Sedan-Base-4dr-Sedan-Interior-Front-Seats-2.png Interior shot of 2010 ES http://image.modified.com/f/26253733/modp_0909_05_o+2010_lexus_es_350+interior.jpg

You taking that out of context. I was saying that the MKZ is basically appealing to set of buyers who are Ford Loyalist (or Lincoln Loyalist), and who don't want to spend a lot of money. That has nothing to do with the comparison of a Fusion/MKZ and a Camry/ES based on price points. The value add of the ES over the Camry has nothing to do with price.

You still don't get my point. The step-up only works when there is enough disparity between model A, and model B. If model A encroaches too much into model B, then Model B has to evolve into something else entirely to make sense. It has to go in a completely different direction to maintain relevance. Im not saying that the Fusion should de-evolve to give the MKZ breathing room. I'm saying take the MKZ into a whole new category.

What are you talking about? Who mentioned anything about price? Your arguing that the business models are the same because the price points are the about the same? I'm saying that a ES is a far more logical 'step up' to the Camry than the MKZ is to the Fusion. The business models are 'similar', but the execution is all wrong. Look at what you get in a Camry verses what you get in Fusion. Do you see the disparity? There are a lot of luxury-like features that are available in a Fusion that you can't get in a Camry. You have to 'step up' into an ES to get those kinds of amenities. If you can get the same feature...pound4pound...on a lower class vehicle, when why buy the higher class vehicle? Whats the value add? THAT is my point! There is nothing that Lincoln offers that is special over the Ford equivalent. THAT is my point!

Pay me now, vs pay me later. The more Ford waits for the right 'time' to introduce RWD, the more chance of either: There will never be a 'right' time and Lincoln will never see RWD again. By the time Ford finally does figure out how to do global RWD on the cheap, Lincoln will be dead anyway and it won't mater Sometimes it better to take the pain up front, verses limping along with bandages and half-effort attempts until you find the optimal time to execute. Some might be a critic of GM for investing so much into Cadillac, but I applaud them. If GM wants Cadillac relevant, they have to take the pain up front and that's exactly what they are doing. If they risk waiting, Cadillac falls further from grace and you get to a point where the brand isn't worth saving anymore. I'd argue their execution could probably be a little better, but I at least applaud the effort. And based on Sales, it appears they are in a far better position than Lincoln is. The MKZ is the problem. Or at least its a symptom of the problem. Just because its overall development cost is low because its badged doesn't justify a half-effort attempt to compete in the first place. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. What does Ford want MKZ to be? An ES fighter? It can't possibly be an ES fighter. Lincoln isn't build to compete with Lexus. The product placement strategies are all wrong. The execution is all wrong. Everything is at a miss match. Toyota makes a very basic Camry. And then prices the ES as a great step up into the Lexus brand from a Camry. The Camry isn't watered down, but its not world-class either. Its just kind of there. Ford made the Fusion very much so world class. They had to make it better than a Camry in order to compete, and so they did. The result is the Fusion is a far better car than the Camry. But now the issue is that the MKZ isn't much of a step up. Its not much different than a Fusion. And its going to be hard to make the MKZ an attractive entry point for Lincoln when the Fusion offers what it does. There is less value to move from a Fusion to a MKZ vs moving from a Camry to an ES. Pound for pound, there is little that MKZ has that Fusion doesn't. Same power trains. Same technology features. Remember the MyLincoln system, how is it any different than MyFord? Where is the value add? I can go on and on. And I won't even mention Cadillac because the MKZ doesn't compete with the CTS. The bean-counters philosophy combined with the chicken-egg paradigm means that Lincoln won't be seeing RWD anytime soon if ever. It's a pipe dream at best. So how would you address this? Build a better MKZ? Even if you hang completely different sheet metal on it, give it standard AWD, and 300hp it still has to deal with the fact that the Fusion undercuts its at almost every major point. And even then, I hardly doubt that Ford would even go that route. Seems to me like your happy enough with low volume, high profit margin vehicles. They might only appeal to die-hard brand loyalist, or bargain basement shoppers who don't want to spend the money for something more up market. It might make you a little bit of money in the short run, but it is killing you in the long run.

there is a faw in this argument. Profit margin is based on the simple philoshophy that you sell for $A and it cost you $B to make. The goal is to lower $B as much as possible while increase $A. How does this work when your entire focus is based on price? Lincoln is marketed as affordable luxury. So they sell cheaper than there competition. As such, they have to now build for cheaper so they can somehow pull profit. But it's less profit than your competitors, because you have to lower your margine to compete. Lincolns don't command enough margine alone to be profitable for a standalone dealer based on the current volume. So you either gotta increase margine or add volume. It's hard to add margine when you compete on margine at the same time. Granted you can use manufacturing saavy and other cost cutting endeavors but that will only get you so far. So if you can't increase margine you sell more. But again, this is lux car market. It's not based on volume. And Lincoln is struggling with low volume as it is, so volume isn't the answer. If Lincoln dealers are going to survive standalone then Lincoln needs to move up market. That means abanding the current strategy and going heads up with the market leaders.

so let me get this correct: the Lincoln LS failed because it was RWD??? Or did it fail because internal beuracracy at FoMoCo resulted in an expensive platform from the get-go coupled with a product lauch that was never class leading to begin with and was left for Dead almost from the get-go? But I get it now, it had nothing to do with poor execution, management, and that often-emulated-never-duplicated Ford Bean Counter philosophy? RWD doesn't work for Lincoln. The MKZ/zephler are the idols of the industry and Ford has re-written the history books on how to build a luxury sedan people want to buy. Gotcha!!! Thanks for clearing that up!

Being as how they didn't announce anything about RWD....I can't get excited about it. This SHOULD be what #1 was, but instead Ford rather do everything on the cheap. Those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

And how do you propose they do that? Just charging more? If people aren't responding to the vehicles, they won't suddenly respond to them more simply because they cost more. Acura is a joke. Their claim to fame is 'power through efficiency'. They are the absolute bottom feeders of the luxury market (not counting the domestics). At least Infiniti stands apart from Nissan. You see no overlap between models (besides the big SUV). But Acura models that don't overlap with Honda's still overlap! Acura ZDK and Honda Crosstour aren't the same, but you wouldn't even know it. Only thing good going on with Acura is their SHAWD. I hope to God Lincoln is aspiring to be Acura. Talk about low expectations...

Have you taken a look at the sales figures? Lincoln has product....more than Mercury at least. And they still sell less. There is a large portion of the buying public that believes Mercuries are better than Fords. They wouldn't buy a Ford, but they might consider a Mercury. It's because of these people that Mercury outsells Lincoln (at least partly). Adding more product to Lincoln won't solve its problems. Especially given what is coming out of the Ford Brand. Nobody wants to buy a MKS when the Taurus is as nice as it is. Nobody will buy a MKX when the Edge is as nice as it is. You can try to fill the 'holes' in the lineup buy bringing over the popular Mercury Models into Lincoln, but your still going to sell the same amount of vehicles. It just be a Lincoln Mariner instead of a Mercury. Sales #s will be the same. I guess marketing support would go down, so you'd make more $ off the same volume, but the goal is sell more cars. Mercury appeals the a lot of buyers who like that price point, but don't want to buy a Ford (even though they know Mercs are Fords in one way or another). This is the fact that is keeping these dealers lights going. My Ex wife and my girlfriend won't buy Fords. No matter what I suggest. No matter what the reviews say, no mater how much they like them in person. When it comes down to spending their own money, they wouldn't consider a Ford. But they would consider a Mercury. Lincolns were outside their price range. Ex popped for a Nissan Murano (used), and the GF bought a Mariner (new). Lincoln doesn't need 'more' product so much as they need different product. Its has to be vastly different that the strategy that Ford has used with Lincoln thus far. It has to be product that is vastly different and superior to what anyone can get from a Ford dealer. Its going to take a while to get to the point where Lincoln dealers can stand on their own two feet without the need for Mercury. Just adding product alone won't get them there. They new and different product, but they will need a crutch to hold them until Lincoln is healthy. And that crutch is Mercury.

You Kill Mercury, then when about the LM dealerships? Lincoln doesn't sell enough to stand by itself (from my understanding). You can't make these Lincoln Dealers pick up Ford franchises, in some case there is a rival Ford dealer already down the street (or in some cases right across the street). Being that Mercury is keeping these LM dealerships lights on, I would argue that Mercury isn't the problem. Ford invest very little in Mercury, yet they outsell Lincoln, whom gets more attention anyway. What would happen if Ford turned its attention to Mercury instead of Lincoln?

Here is a link to Cadillac sales for May. Some interesting bites: Buick Enclave: 4715 (+ 14.9%/y) Buick Lacrosse: 5452 (+ 211.9%/y) Caddy CTS: 3489 (+ 19.7%/y) Caddy SRX: 4081 (+ 654.3%/y)