stpatrick90

I direct you to this link. No one says it isn't happening. I mean the fact that Ford has issued how many reflashes is evidence in itself that there was a problem that needed remedying. My link

The Corollas was and is cheap. I maintain that the Corolla is the worse car in its class, that isn't to say it is a bad car but rather that it doesn't have any endearing qualities that make it stand out.

He was saying those cars were better relative to the Cavalier and Corolla he had and I think that speaks volumes to the terribleness of those two cars. He can't help it that the company provided many less than stellar cars and just so happens that out of all of them the Cavalier and Corolla were the worse. The Corolla might be reliable but that is the only enduring quality it has. Why would anyone ever buy a Corolla is beyond me, the compact class is full of cars that are better.

No I think there would be less criticism if it were done by market position as that is the traditionally accepted way. If you were consistent then the Accord would technically be the number one selling fullsize sedan. What I dislike is your indecisiveness in classifying cars along traditional lines, your methods are wishy-washy at best. Also none of the major publications have compared an Equinox and Edge, a simple google search shows only the Car Connection has done so and they are hardly an automotive authority. I am not saying that the vehicles can't be alternatives or compared to vehicles in other classes. I simply don't understand your apprehension to prescribe to generally accepted automotive norms.

I think that you probably should classify vehicles based on what their competitive set is, not entirely on size. While the Equinox is larger that most compact CUV/SUVs, it is still the class it most directly fits in - you never see an automotive comparison test between an Equinox and an Explorer for instance because they really aren't in the same class. And while the Equinox maybe longer than the Edge, that Edge is much wider. Also while the Traverse is longer/larger that most of its peers, it still is always compared to the Explorer, Highlander, Pilot, CX9, Durango, etc - you never see an automotive comparison test between the Traverse and the Expedition or the like because they really aren't in the same class. Another example would be the Accord, it technically is a fullsize sedan but people don't compare to the Charger, Taurus, and Impala. Simply put you put too much merit on the size of a vehicle when determining its class, you need to look at what a vehicles competitive set is.

You categorization is off. The Taverse only has two more cubic feet of passenger volume. Traverse Length 205.0 Width 78.4 Wheelbase 118.9 Height 70.4 Headroom F/R 40.4/39.4 Hip Room F/R 59.1/57.8 Leg Room F/R 41.3/36.8 Shoulder Room F/R 62.0/61.3 Passenger Volume 154 cu ft Explorer Length 197.1 Width 78.9 Wheelbase 112.6 Height 70.4 Headroom F/R 41.4/40.5 Hip Room F/R 57.3/56.7 Leg Room F/R 40.6/39.8 Shoulder Room F/R 61.3/61.0 Passenger Volume 152 cu ft

-179,595 because the Windstar in 2001 was on the V platform. The Windstar was switched to the V platform in 1999. All the same the D186 had impressive sales volume.

Ruining what name? The Ford Galaxy has always been an MPV since its inception in 1995. If you were referencing the full-size car that Ford made from 1959 - 1974 that was spelled Galaxie.

I completely understand and agree that the current dealership situation is making matters worse. I also think that despite people hating on some of the current Lincolns that they are actually quite competitive and truly good cars. I love my MKS and compared to a E-Class or 5 Series it is every bit as well built and offers almost as many features for considerably less (only downside is that it rides/handles a bit worse but that is being remedied with the new MKS). I am quite optimistic that with a refreshed lineup and a complete dealership consolidation that Lincoln can succeed.

Here you and it doesn't change the fact that Lincoln sales don't measure up. I understand Lincoln doesn't need to chase volume but there has to be some viability for dealerships also.

My S6 has complimentary service so I don't really recall the price of a regular service such as an oil change, I will have to inquire the next time I get it serviced. The S6 is the only car that I get serviced always by a professional whereas in the summer and fall with my other cars I usually do my own oil changes and such. However in the winter when it is too cold for me to tinker around doing oil changes I get them done at the service center at the dealership that I bought them from and I usually get a good offers in the mail such as $29.95 for the works (which is an oil change, tire rotation and inspection).

I disagree. None of Lincoln's sales are really middle of the road save for the MKT which only has two true competitors. *The GS is in the process of rolling out a new model so it sales were rather weak last month. Please note that I made this chart quickly and that some of the classifications are a bit of a mess. Also I compared the MKZ to entry level cars such as the 3 Series, C Class, etc because the have similar starting prices and I also compared the MKZ to cars that occupy the same size class as it such as the 5 Series, E Class, etc. I don't feel the MKS really compares to cars like the A8, 7 Series, S Class and the like but I included their numbers in there as well.

Their sales really reflect that....and before you say sales aren't everything they certainly are important to an extent. We have to remember that even once Lincoln reduces its number of dealerships that it will still have more than the average luxury brand which means it will need to have a sales volume that is sufficient to carry those dealerships. Like I said I don't doubt that Lincoln can rebuild its tarnished image to the extent that it can charge a healthy premium for its cars. However I do feel that it is going to take time to get there and that the MKZ that will debut next year will be the first step of many towards that goal.

Do you really think Lincoln can get away with selling a car that is more expensive than the established marques even if it has more content? I think that they will eventually be able to do that but they first have to reestablish their image and get people into their showrooms.

You are buying the Badge when you buy the entry level BMW/Audi/MB. They can get away this but Lincoln can't. Maybe sometime far down the road Lincoln can.

I certainly understand that however historically the MKZ hasn't been compared to them nor do I see them comparing it to those cars in the future. The fact of the matter is that the MKZ is going to remain the entry level car for Lincoln and pricing it above the competitions entry level pricing would probably be counter-productive for Lincoln. Lincoln has to be able to draw in customers to start buying their cars and you don't do that with a lineup that all starts at $40k.

I certainly agree that overlap is inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing at all. However the assertion that the MKZ should start at $40k base is a bit much. For instance a BMW 328i starts at $35k, MB C250 $35k, Audi A4 $33k, Lexus IS $34k and Lexus ES $37k. I think it would be a bit optimistic for Lincoln to assume that it can start that much higher than these cars. That is not to say that a high end MKZ can't eclipse $50k either.

The new MKZ will no longer reside on the CD3 (old Mazda platform as you put it). It will share a platform with the new Mondeo/Fusion which is the EUCD platform.

I don't think it will be the MKZ because they say the personal concept car will occupy the $40k to $60 and that would mean a $5k jump in the price of the MKZ if it is the MKZ.

I understand the notion, don't get me wrong. However all the added cost that goes into differentiation could be spent to make the original product, be that a Tahoe or Silverado, even better. Having redundant models is not efficient even if you sell them for a slim markup.

I agree completely. If someone thinks that the Liberty is somehow more effeminate than the Escape they are just being unreasonable. It isn't just the fact the Liberty has more capability than the Escape, it is also the fact that the styling of the Liberty has a lot of hard-angles that make a very squared off shape, nothing about the styling is soft; especially when compared to the Escape.

See this is where you are jumping to conclusions. I have never once claimed that the Escape will necessarily be a sales success. I am waiting to see how the market reacts to the new Escape before I come to any conclusions. Yes I do happen to like the styling of the new Escape but that doesn't guarantee it success on any level and I would never make such a silly claim either. Just because some inserts "in my opinion" doesn't mean much if they try asserting that "opinion" as something more concrete.

LS Commercial LS Commercial 2 I particularly like the slogan "There are those who travel, and those who travel well" The other aspect that I like about these commercials is that they are relatively simple and to the point.

I certainly agree. The redundancy of the brands is excessive. GMC is nothing more than a Silverado, Equinox, Tahoe/Suburban, Colorado, Express, and Traverse with a few altercations; what purpose can this serve? Buick at least is a bit more justifiable given its huge success in markets like China. Also Buick at least has some unique cars in its portfolio that aren't blatant badge engineered cars.

I believe that the T1 platform is related/based in some part upon the P platform that underpins the F150. I don't recall to what extent they share but if it is anything measurable then there probably is some level amortization to be had. The only viable option Ford has for the Expedition/Navigator is to increase the parts they share with the F150 and from what I understand that is what the plan is.