LSFan00

Lincoln's not showing a billion dollar investment, imho. Nor is it paying homage to the original Continental/Mark VIII or any other Lincolns of yesteryear. Maybe they are meeting their sales goals, but from what I've read of Lincoln dealer's thoughts there is more frustration than RJ implies.

The Mark VII and VIII were great cars. Glad to hear of a distant successor.

I think the crux of the argument for this is that as CAFE etc. drive up vehicle prices and economy standards both, the cost to go to diesel is more apt. It's already being largely accepted by luxo buyers, up around 30% just YTD. Now that the right kind of (low sulphur) diesel is widely available in the US, it's adoption only accelerating. The cost to Ford of having this option available (in a few years) is not that dramatic.

I'd just note that an "overly firm" ride in a review of this Lincoln, is not what was found in the mechanically similar Fusion, nor likely in the referenced Euro sedans that actually do, typically run out the door over 10K more than an MKZ. If you drive a loaner 300 HP car fast for a few days you're gonna see sub-20 MPG whether it's a Subie, Lexus, Benz, BMW, Lincoln, or for that matter a 2.0T Buick Regal with 30 less HP.

I'm a big fan just because, but I still don't get how a 5 cylinder, @ slower RPM's as in a Diesel, is going to run as smoothly as a 4 or 8.

I think it is great. Only 18 percent of Michigan is unionized nowadays anyway. Around a third of union members will probably choose not to pay dues now, but that this was able to get passed is a reflection of the downward trend in manufacturing employment that the unions have been complicit in (and the fact that the union is overtly politicized now also made it much more possible; Under freedom to work, Michiganders will have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union. They won't be forced to pay union dues if they don't want to, and they won't lose their jobs because of it. And if they want to pay dues voluntarily, they have the freedom to do that, too. There's one thing this proposal for workplace fairness and equality does not do, though. It does not end collective bargaining in Michigan. That bears repeating. Under freedom to work, Michiganders still have a guaranteed right to collective bargaining, as protected in federal law. What's more, this proposal has no impact on police or fire unions.

500 is a nice toy car, but I'd be suicidal were I depending on selling enough of those to pay bills each month. Throw a plug in hybrid version of 1.0L Ka into the mix and you might have a winner city car.

They probably will, but they really need something to do with all of that capacity in Europe. Making a niche product to grow share locally is one thing to do, as is exporting a niche product (such as a van).

Interesting/entertaining video vs. GTI.

Saw a fusion @ dealership yesterday. It is the real game changer deal. Won't buy one this year, but I will buy one. Knew it before I sat down.

Couldn't they make the next Taurus/MKS RWD w/ Falcon and expand Explorer production by moving them out of Chicago?

GM had a terrible executive (or 4 in a row), and then was run by the Government. It's a miracle they're still even able to make also-ran cars and trucks.

Adv. $$ spent per unit sold (and per customer show room visit) would be a pretty hilarious comparo to the 500. And, notably, Fiat does advertise (not sure if they have one) a performance model too. When Fiat also has a competitive badged version of the Dart/Chrys 200 or whatever, wake me up to this concern.

Here is another more direct culprit/explanation; CAFE. Typical government program that leads to an inverse result; larger/less efficient trucks/SUV's. In 2006, CAFÉ altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are. A car such as the Honda Fit, with its footprint of 40 square feet, has to achieve 61 mpg CAFÉ, or 43 mpg IRL by 2025 to comply with regulations. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a full-size truck like the Ford F-150, with a footprint of 75 square feet, only needs to hit 30 mpg CAFÉ, or 23 mpg IRL, by the same timeframe. How the fix is in On the surface, the footprint requirements can be viewed as logical; a compact, fuel-efficient car like the Honda Fit, should be able to hit tougher targets, by virtue of its small size, aerodynamic profile and powertrain choices. Without any advanced technology like direct-injection, lightweight steel or aluminum construction or even low-rolling resistance tires, it manages a respectable 28/35 mpg IRL, while offering a practical, fun-to-drive package. The Ford F-150 has a very different mission; it must be large, durable, powerful and able to meet the needs of a full-size pickup, and will naturally be less conducive to achieving the kind of fuel economy that a Fit can. Unfortunately, the footprint method has the opposite effect; rather than encouraging auto makers to strive for unprecedented fuel economy in their passenger car offerings, it has incentivized auto makers to build larger cars, in particular, more car-based crossovers that can be classified as “trucks” as used to skew fleet average figures, much the same way the PT Cruiser did. Full-size trucks have become a “protected class”, safe from the most aggressive targets, while compact trucks have become nearly extinct as a result. CAFÉ’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup. But the Ranger happens to fall into the “dead zone” of the CAFÉ footprint formula. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint. The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for. Equipped with a V6 and an automatic transmission, it would only return 14/18 mpg IRL, a figure that can be equalled by certain version of Ford’s V6 and V8 F-150 full-size pickups. By 2025, a theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFÉ. The 75 square foot F-150 would only have to reach in the high 30s CAFÉ. Ford will offer a new Ranger in world markets, but again, it won’t come here. GM, on the other hand, plans to offer their new mid-size Colorado and Canyon trucks here, but the reasons for Ford and GM’s divergence aren’t as cut and dried as they are in the case of Mazda and Volvo. Ford has decided to offer full-size trucks exclusively, with the V6 options as a means of attracting economy-minded buyers, and perhaps taking advantage of CAFÉ regulations (not to mention, sell more F-Series, which are immensely profitable). GM’s strategy is to forgo to advanced V6 powertrains that Ford offers, and market their full-size trucks alongside their smaller stable mates. If Ford offered a Ranger, it could theoretically cannibalize sales of the lower end F-150s, while muddling their marketing message. GM will presumably have no such conflict. Chrysler is rumored to be taking a third route; offering advanced V6s in their RAM trucks, while exploring a car-based compact pickup, possibly based off of a Fiat product. A truck like that would be a huge boon as far as CAFÉ compliance goes, and put a decisive nail in the coffin of the Dakota, which offered a V8 engine in a compact body.

Just once I hope Ford stencils "Ranger" on some of their camo vehicle to mess with the pathogenically focused fans. Preferably something based on the Focus chassis.

There isn't much space whilst the D4 CUV's (Explorer/Edge) are still around (and yes also the 400 or so Flexes they sell per month). Once that chassis fades away who knows if the next gen is based on Focus/Escape etc.

The question remains whether a case will be made for CNG, not diesel. CNG means weight at the back end, but the same engine. Could also be sold, potentially, to police fleets as a real operating-cost advantage, and make the Mustang, at that point, kind of a specialty halo car for the green crowd too (globally).

it would be great if the Mustang were to herald some new consumer LPG era. Maybe a new republican admin/congress will help allow the auto makers to game the new standards by allowing CNG to be treated/calculated differently in the numbers.

Just as the new Focus/Explorer (Titanium/SEL/Limited) functionally euthanized a need for a compact Lincoln priced over them due to the features/content improvement vs. their NA predecessors, the new Fusion basically is a much more attractive vehicle than the Lincoln equivalent and kills the need (for the 45+ yr old buyers who will buy most of them) for the MKZ. Engine/moonroof options don't really matter. It's a long term, regional, dead end. Lincoln is just dying a slow death.

Fusion looks better, would never look to pay a premium for this car vs. Fusion SEL/Titanium.

The present Escape/Fusion won't hold up as well in 3 years though due to the impending body style changes; the Focus is probably the safest bet, but it depends how you trim one out vs. a Fusion/Fiesta. Higher trim=more depreciation. Just ask the rental companies.

Fair enough. I'm probably the only person to have traded in a babied LS for a '12 Focus. Habits die hard...

I installed the upgrade from a download/my own usb drive a few days ago and used it on an 800 mile trip. No problems, seems a lot quicker to respond. Only glitch is that the darn thing doesn't like to come back to the same AM station if you turn the car off and turn back on. (Easy answer is to find the program on Sirius and just listen there.)

Idiotic arguments against a $50MM light rail project down a street with no rush hour traffic? Ok. This project would have helped zero commuters, and cost a fortune. Decrease taxes and you might get more business support some day. Detroit voters have elected the wrong party/politicians consistently, and are paying the price.

Light rail down Woodward in Detroit? Ok. . Skip to 2:30. They could call it UAW rail.