BrewfanGRB

Yeah, I noticed that--it's very glaring. Also annoying: The Silverado ads where they don't mention Ford but babble about "high strength steel" forgetting to mention it's 700 lbs heavier.

What? Normally, I'd say "that's preposterous" but I won't, because it's GM. But...how...how does that many even a TINY bit of sense? Are the Mexican-built Silverados sold outside the US?

You say you don't like to debate a certain way, but you have to be all passive aggressive and make your political views known. Since you're a big fans of facts, let's use them: 1) President Obama cannot "ram-rod Fast Track through". Congress has to give him Fast Track authority--which EVERY PRESIDENT in modern times has been given--and that authority merely allows him to negotiate the terms of the treaty. 2) CONGRESS (not President Obama) then must still ratify the treaty before it carries the weight of law. 3) Your analysis of the Constitution is flawed--since treaties were always considered to be something the founders contemplated and expected as a way of the country operating in the world. Not only are they "legal" they are entirely constitutional. You not liking a treaty does not mean it's illegal, unconstitutional or even bad. This does not even mean I like TPP as it's been reported on thus far. Regardless of my politics, I try to be objective.

New Rule: You can't criticize something you can't spell. (This is Grammar Nazism, not politics).

There's a VERY good reason it should: Because people will pay it. When more people, like you, say "no" to paying it, costs will drop. There's absolutely NO REASON for them to charge anything less than the equilibrium point, at a minimum. They are not the Salvation Army. I realize this may sound snotty, but I can only say it like this: I'm always baffled by people saying things like "That price is ridiculous!" or "No way it should be that much!" Well, no one is forcing anyone to pay anything for anything. Prices are "ridiculous" on a product or "that much" because far more people are ok paying it. The availability of a true full-size sedans is a function of this exact same thing. Either: 1) The demand for such a product isn't there at all 2) They can only rent a limited number of those vehicles at the price-point they need to maintain the margin they want or 3) Other products rent easily with even higher margins and basically squeeze out a lower margin product. It's frustrating for you and your family, certainly, but there's noting untoward or bad going on here.

You're right, I haven't. I've not done ANYTHING near serious research or shopping. Just doing a "build and price" for each vehicle doesn't really tell me what the out the door would be on each with my desired options. Certainly not likely to pay sticker on a slow-selling ATS. If anything, that probably complicates my long-term decision-making.

I didn't, to be honest. I guess I have to say that for one thing, I'm still a ways away from being ready to buy...but I'm extraordinarily torn about what exactly I want. Part of me doesn't want a 3-series because while it's a great CAR in terms of handling, power, etc...there's something "meh" about the interior. My brother-in-law has one and whenever I look at the center console, I'm just uninspired. Plus...my brother-in-law has one. The A4 is interesting, but to be honest, if I went "foreign", it would be the C-class. I should absolutely consider leasing. My brain needs to change its mindset. I live across the street from work. I have no commute. (Another reason I've no compelling reason to GET a new car right now). But you saying it should be enough to make me think it--leasing is better.

Admission: I got a GM Buypower card a few months ago. (Mainly for the 0% intro APR and no annual fee). While liked the MKZ interior, I just could not get myself to warm up to the exterior. I LOVE the ATS. I think it's gorgeous and even with 2.0T, it should be plenty fast. Plus, Cadillac does put a lot of tech into the car. I put all my recurring spend on that card. I figured-that money gets spent every month either way, rack up a small-ish amount by the time I'm ready to buy, all good. But whenever I go to periodically poke around on the Cadillac site, it's discouraging. SO expensive. I mean, by the time you put any of the worthwhile options in it and the 2.0T, you can't stay under $42k. And most of the time, it's ~ $45k. Ridiculous. Plus, I feel bad for even thought-cheating on Ford. The CTS is even worse. I'm baffled by what CTS buyers are doing. Or think they're doing. They have a CTS now and are just getting another, not realizing the change and just paying the ridiculously inflated prices for the CTS? A part of me feels bad for Cadillac and GM--because the cars are awesome. But they've completely screwed the pricing. The other part of me has no sympathy at all--they screwed it up and it's only their fault. So I'm back on-board with my eventual new car being an MkC. Probably. Unless they apply similar design language in the Continental to the MkZ. *drools* Getting X-plan makes up for the lack of a card affiliated with Ford.

"This despite research that apparently indicates that a surprising 80 percent of owners think that their BMW 1 Series is front-drive" This is all I ever need to say from now on when people mindlessly clamor and whine that Lincoln needs a RWD platform. PEOPLE DO NOT BUY BMWs BECAUSE THEY ARE RWD. Ok, fine. SOME do. But clearly not enough to make any meaningful impact. Look, if your buyers don't even know what they're buying, why bother making it RWD just because "enthusiasts" say its better. You only need to remember what I always say in this situation (and you know what that is). If you want a RWD sedan, so damned bad, buy something else and stop whining about what Lincoln is doing.

!!

Really? (Or is that snide haha?)

I think those last couple shots really make this stop gap look pretty good. Still can't avoid the full re-do but I really think this is a well-done refresh to get them to the redesign.

And there it is! Your PREFERENCES are just that...and are perfectly fine to have. But they have absolutely nothing at all do with making Lincoln a profitable luxury competitor. Again, you conveniently choose to ignore that BMW/MB/Audi have been doing this for decades and have never really had to bring their entire operations back from the brink of death. Lexus has crazy popular and profitable boring, mass-market vehicles that it's made into perfectly acceptable offerings long ago. Lincoln needs to build the foundation of its operation to fund the build-out of the rest. You can happily have a preference for an S550 competitor but your assertions that Lincoln's failure to offer one means they suck, aren't improving and will never be better is either you being obtuse, a troll or simply not a very smart person. What is wrong about improving and offering great vehicles in the entry lux sedan, small lux CUV and lux midsize CUV to generate sales and profits and THEN creating a great S550 competitor?

What is about RMC's post is so difficult to understand? You're using the existence of vehicles that ALL of us agree are substandard as evidence of where Lincoln is GOING, which is EXACTLY the debate...not where it IS today. Does the MKS need a wholesale redesign? Yes! Does the MkT need to be chopped if not completely re-done in a fundamentally different way? Yes! Does the Navigator need to be improved to properly compete with the Escalade? Yes! NO ONE is arguing any different. It's only in your "You're not as preposterously mad about this for some reason like I am therefore you're all fanbois who ignore the TRUTH" mindset that makes you think we don't care. The fact of the matter is you come across like a fact-denying, logic-avoiding, hypocritical tea partier. And if you are one of those people, that would actually explain EVERYTHING about your posts. Also: Why do you refuse to answer akirby's questions? WHY does Lincoln NEED a halo car? You simply do not understand the economics of this. You repeatedly reference Audi, Lexus, etc...as makes that should be emulated. Yet, you fail to recognize or acknowledge that the RX is NOT the best selling small luxury CUV or the ES one of the best selling entry luxury sedans BECAUSE they have the LFA. It's not like Lexus built an LFA and then 40 year old, upper middle class mom said "Well, shit, I have can the soccer mom version of THAT!" They build the LFA because the RX and ES make Lexus gobsmacking amounts of profit that allow them to do projects like the F series. I simply do not get what the problem is with accepting Ford making profits off what Lincoln is offering. Your opinion is irrelevant: It's irrelevant to the market itself and it's irrelevant to what Ford needs to do to accomplish it's only reason for existence: Make a profit. You've not offered a SINGLE piece of evidence to prove Ford: 1) is dragging its feet purposely on redesigning it's Lincoln portfolio 2) that offering what YOU think they should would significantly generate greater profit than their plan or 3) that there's even a market for what you suggest they do.

I'm just stunned. My condolences to his family and friends. I'm in for a donation to to help his brother finish the 'vette project. A tough loss for our own virtual family as well.

I know you're thorough on these things because you enjoy it anyway, but thanks for taking the extra time to write up a detailed review. You captured the small things that I think a lot of us are interested in, as well. Also, great gallery in Photobucket. I'm really pumped now to make the C my next vehicle, even if I have to delay to make it work. I now have zero commute, so my Fusion will last a lot longer and I can probably live with it longer...but it makes it harder to justify a $45=50k vehicle. I also can't shake this desire for a CPO Grand Cherokee Overland. I'm hoping in 2 years or so, there will be nice availability of CPO C's.

Oh man. For some reason, I had it in my head that it was end of year. I truly admire the work Alan did. Kudos to Bill for recognizing his own weaknesses and the guts to hire an "outsider" and to Alan for standing his ground for the hardest of the hard decisions. They saved the company.

They will balance the portfolio if the market demands a balanced portfolio. I still continue to struggle with this concept of "hoping" for X or Y. Why? To what end? There is only ONE purpose to do ANYTHING. And it is NOT and NEVER will be "because a few guys on the internet think it would be nice, or cool." You know what that one purpose is. I couldn't care less what Ford's or Lincoln's product mix is. I am one person. If they don't make something I want to buy, I'll just buy it from someone that does. That doesn't make Ford a horrible company or deaf to the market or anything else. I AM ONE PERSON and I am immaterial. But if I like the MKC and that's really what I want anyway, it's absolutely irrelevant what Lincoln's portfolio holds.

So why did you buy one, if you're smarter than the rest of us and figured that out? Also, I thought you said (because, again, you're the only smart one around) Ford saved $10-20 per axle. So which is it? A dime or $20?

Huh? I...yeah, never mind.

RWD can be boring? Impossible! Everyone tells me RWD is the ONLY true way to drive a vehicle. It provides amazing feel and control and FWD is garbage. Yet, here is a RWD vehicle characterized as boring. I'm confused.

I'd agree with that, as well. There should be more (or better) scrutiny of diminishing returns and whether we've reached that point. Personally, I think collision avoidance has to really be the last thing out there before the leap to driverless vehicles.

I've never pulled the "But what about the po' wittle children!?" line. I couldn't care less. That's someone else's problem. Not mine. I care about ME. I want morons who have no business driving to have less risk of smashing into ME and injuring ME. Is your entire post correct? Absolutely. Did I know and understand all that? Yes, of course. My argument has never, ever been "If it just saves one life, it's worth whatever it costs." It's never, ever been that IIHS is altruistic and that its true first goal is safety. I absolutely know what its and the insurance companies' first goal is: PROFIT. (You know, just like I say about Ford whenever someone says "Ford needs to build a RWD whatever or Lincoln needs to do Y"). Profit is good. Profit gives me a paycheck. Lastly, the only thing I will note that you did not consider (at least in the context of the post) is collision frequency and injuries. You looked solely at fatalities. And it's true, even though the risk of a vehicle crash fatality has been exponentially higher than the risk of a fatal plane crash, the real risk has never been very high. And that risk continues to drop for a variety of reasons, most of which do NOT have to do with safer vehicles, per se. But MY original point (if you go back and read it) was only ever about being involved in a collision (since we are talking about "collision avoidance technologies") and the injuries, even if minor, that result. Collisions ARE relatively frequent and minor, even if simply irritating, injuries are not exactly commonplace but are far more frequent than fatalities. And those collisions and the injuries that result, DO have meaningful economic costs. Since reducing fatalities further in a meaningful way will be hard, reducing collisions because of those costs, is worthwhile.

For the record, if you look at what *I* replied to you on, with respect to what jp said, at that point, it was not about IIHS or the insurance industry (or didn't seem to be). It was profit in general. Then you gave your "don't take my money and make me feel like you did me a favor", thus MY response. So you think Ford's own research into vehicle safety, development of new features (ala inflatable seat belts), is just millions and millions that they freely spend (above and beyond what would be needed simply to meet regulations) out of wondrous altruism and a pure interest in my safety? Or that perhaps, ROI metrics are applied to that spending and that it's used a differentiator in the market to extract higher margins and additional profit? And that when they advertise those features, and all the attention they give to making a car "safe for your family" it isn't to make you feel good about the purchase? So I will say, YES, EVERY COMPANY, INCLUDING FORD, does things that are designed to make you spend money and make you feel like they did you a favor. Also: Ford is part of any multitude of organizations that lobby with the sole goal of avoiding legislation or initiating legislation that reduces their expenses. Lastly, I will reiterate what I've said before: If the consequence of me avoiding a collision and avoiding an injury is my insurer making a larger profit, I will make that trade-off every day of the week. A minor collision or a very minor injury might not be a huge deal, but it's certainly worth NOT having it happen at all if that can be done reasonably. I understand you don't think avoiding collisions and injuries is reasonable if that avoidance is only because an insurer sought profit. I don't agree with you. I also understand that every dollar I spend, aside from charitable donations (and even that's not entirely true), generates a profit for someone. Assuming the receipient of this profit hasn't broken the law or operated in a grossly negligent manner, I couldn't care less about what they "say" or "do" to get me to spend that money. If I buy cheap t-shirts I know are made in Bangladesh, I'm accepting the risk that I could be funding child slave labor. You might argue, reasonably, the t-shirt maker just shouldn't do that. Well, *I* don't have to buy that t-shirt...and if no one did, the t-shirt maker would have no choice but to do more to absolutely assure me there was no child slave labor used or move production to a location I could implicitly trust didn't use child slave labor. If the t-shirt maker LIED about where the shirt was made (i.e., said it was made in America but actually made in Bangladesh) then yes, they are awful and I will hate them for it. But I won't hate them for making a shirt in Bangladesh or even using child slave labor (assuming it's legal) because they're only doing it because I'm buying the damn shirt.

x