TBirdStangSkyliner

I see WorldCarFans has a short story and gallery. http://www.worldcarfans.com/115041892432/2016-ford-taurus-officially-revealed

.... and the styling was so plain on 1996 Sentra's that air molecules ran away from them.

You guys who really dig this generation of the Taurus should be paying attention in a year or so. You might have one of the best new car buying opportunities of your life.

Your point needs at least two assumptions to be true for selling CD6 sedans at something less than $70K to be a negative for Ford. The first is that lower price sedan sales would parasite the sales of the more expensive CUV's. This can't be proven either way without definitive consumer research. My hunch is that sedan sales would be far more additive than parasitic. The second is that a profit can't be made at the price and volumes that the sedan market would afford. This also can't be answered without more data, including cost and sales projections. It would seem that CUV's and maybe a higher line Lincoln would cover much of the platform cost. The Taurus tops out at about $38K with AWD, Premium Package, Driver Assist Package, and some other common upgrades. That leaves $10K to $15K for a CD6 sedan without bumping into a strata near the $70K range. Then, there is the question of when will the CUV's start to wane in popularity and will larger AWD sedans become more popular when this happens. Every type of vehicle that became the most popular American people mover has eventually peaked and dropped-off. What is it worth to Ford to already have a strong market share in two or three alternatives to CUV's as a hedge-bet? I don't know the answers to these questions definitively, but I think it is more complex than sedans won't fetch $70K as will utilities.

It is sad that the best, and only good, Horbury era design was the MKR which was never built.

I am a serious potential buyer for this car and have waited for the new Taurus generation. So far, I am ice cold on its design. I am awaiting the reveal to make final judgement, though. The rear-end in this series of pictures looks like every generic car since about 2010. The front would have looked fresh in 2013, but now nearly everyone has copied the six-sided Fusion grill. If the Taurus hit the market today in this form it would be as uninspired as any car available. It would easily take the dull, insipid crown away from cars like the Camry, Passat, and Legacy. In a year and a half out from now it will look even more terribly dated. Please, don't let these pictures really foretell the USA production model.

Wow, after looking at the Continental off and on yesterday, the Taurus looks extremely ordinary. So many other companies have copied bits and pieces of the Fusion that the look is getting a bit "fleet-ish". It's a different size of car, but Chevy is boasting about the next Malibu being a styling break through with some teasers that seem to add credibility. Audi's concepts are signaling change. There does seem to finally be signs of a major shift in styling paradigms, maybe the Taurus isn't pushing the envelope far enough for how long it will be on the market.

Autonews is quoting Matt VanDyke that the return of the Continental name doesn't necessarily mean the end of the MK naming scheme.

That was definitely better than the "Machete", hopefully they trademarked it.

Lincoln doesn't need a priest as the GM guy said, but the Versailles is past getting last rites. I actually had one for my driver's ed car in a public school. I wonder what the back story was to that.

If they kept the trademark on "Premier", that would be a good name for the MKZ. I've heard "Zefire" through the years from people's lips as much as "Zephyr". The lack of marketing the car didn't help with bringing back a name that hadn't been spoken in America since the days of art deco. Capri could be the name of a Mustang based Lincoln if one ever happens. The Mercury versions are mostly forgotten in the USA. The prowess of the original Lincon models could be alluded to in ads and brochures.

This is a very nice looking car, especially for one with FWD proportions. I also applaud not using the split wing grill. I would like to see a little less droop in the rear fender lines and maybe the trunk lid. In the sculpturing on the hood, I'd like to see about a third to half the amount of physical relief in the details. This would give it a little cleaner design. In a Continental, less-pronounced styling features is usually better looking. They did do restraint well with this car, except for the hood and the rear fender line a little. I think the production car also needs to use the corporate logo in either the grill mesh or the headlight detailing. Doing it in both seems too busy and contrived. I was starting to worry that Lincon was heading down the "me-too road" with BMW, Hyundai, and others with excessive creasing, flame surfacing, and endless switching between concave and convex surfaces. The MKC and MKX both went partially down this path, to my eyes. The "Car and Driver" MKS concept, which was reportedly rendered from insider sketches, showed the trend increasing. I bet they feel a little sheepish today as they missed the mark by the width of a continent. The real concept shows an overall good balance between contemporary trends and classic Lincoln and luxury car styling. I really like the interior as luxury cars should have more classic looking cabins than mass produced models. If Lincoln can execute quality, packaging, and pricing successfully, the XTS is toast and Lexus might actually find themselves losing some hard to conquer customers.

There is an obvious problem with moving the MKS upward to become worthy of being called a Continental, but stopping shy of making it the RWD/AWD flagship. This would make it necessary to price the latter car into the eyewaterring territory of the 7-Series. If they don't take the RWD flagship that high, then the Conti can't be much more than Lincoln's me-too version of the XTS.

Fair enough, assessing opportunity costs is a difficult thing to do and moreso when a brand has a high perception rating in a particular group. The take for millenials on MFT is likely relatively low, too. You can't deny either that the well publicized issues with MFT haven't been a negative to Ford and a boost to competitors such as Toyota. I am not bashing Ford, but I do wish that MFT would have been much less of a negative for them. I do think that they did a lot of things right and have reaped benefits, and that these would have been greater without this niggling issue. I am also fairly sure that the value and perceptions about the quality and desirability of the Microsoft brand, relative to it's major competitors, has been in decline for several years. Apple has certainly passed it (some signs have shown it as having possibly peaked, too).

Yes, there is a Microsoft operating system that is known or at least has the perception of consuming a lot of resources, hardware that should be configured with input from Microsoft to facilitate these demands plus those from the interface and applications. The results of this multi-headed monster have been freezes, slow performance, frustrated consumers, and poor reviews; including JD Power and Consumer Report nightmares that have resulted in gross misconceptions about overall Ford reliability. There is likely blame to be shared by all parties, but Microsoft's role can not easily be dismissed.

I mentioned that same information on Ford's popularity with millenials a week or so ago in a post here. That doesn't mean Microsoft gets the same score or isn't even dampening the enthusiasm some with this age group. The role of millenials in the ascension of Apple and Samsung can't be denied. Most of this generation that I know buy a Windows product only if they can't afford an IOS equivalent, and then they are a little discrete and sheepish about having done so. All sorts of tech is in their conversations, but rarely Microsoft. They barely even bother to tell Microsoft jokes anymore. I'm not in this generation, but I will never buy another Windows PC. I'm done with the overhead and hassles those require. I do like our XBox Kinect a lot, however.

I dunno, the Microsoft partnership with MyTouch may have damaged Ford more than did the Navistar PowerStroke Diesel, the Firestone 500, and Firestone ATX/Explorer OEM tire partnerships combined. Millenials appear to be beyond being done with Microsoft.

That's true about the GT as far it having the makings of being a car that go head to head against any Ferrari. But the decades of consistency and fanaticism for that brand has it perennially selling out its production runs at highly inflated prices. With the super-rich continuing to emerge all over the world, it's cachet has long-term value.

Now that FCA has spun-off Ferrari, they have nothing with more appeal than Mama Boo Boo on crack to bring into a merger with Ford.

It is a few years further out that I would worry about lost market share opportunity in this time period affecting the balance of the corporate battles.

I think your explanation is accurate. There is a lot of value in having a stable history of being the volume leader (see Camry). Maybe giving up space and a few other things to maintain the appearance of that linkage to the glory days creates a net-sum gain in volume. I'm guessing a lot of people will more realize the compromises of the current iteration when they buy their next generation Explorer.

Icecapades did a nice job of articulating the supply and market share issue. There has to be a rational balance between years of bleeding red to chase market share, as the company formerly known as GMC did, and being heavily confined by production three-plus years into an up business cycle. Sure there are good excuses, but excuses aren't solutions. No one ever hits the rises and falls of markets perfectly and being on the conservative side of the miss is often the best. Still, Ford is falling further behind in being able to compete with Toyota with new product development over the long-term. This seems unfortunate at a time when there are so many other good things happening, such as being the favored brand by Generation Z.

The most important of these numbers has to be the out of box success of the F150. This is the "hugest" thing that could have happend last month given the F150's financial importance to Ford and that it came to market during an unexpected free-fall in fuel prices. I am honestly stumped by this love for the Explorer. It seems to be the least competitive of the higher sales-volume Fords within a market segment. It feels less space efficient than several competitors (Pathfinder, GM Lambda triplets, Durango) as it fits on its old bones while trying to look more like the SUV it used to be. No one of any physical stature wants to ride behind the front row in the one in my employer's fleet. Space for laptops and lunch boxes in the cargo area gets tight quickly. It seems to offer less handling prowess and ride quality on the highway than other CUV's while appearing to shake, float, and flex more on gravel roads (well, except for the Lambda's). It's fuel economy isn't much better than the V6 Durango. The Durango can do a lot more things better; such as usually keeping fairly-well crushed gravel on the outside of the factory tires. I just don't see where the Explorer fills any niche or combination of niches as well as its competition. It gives way noticeably in important areas without picking up a fair return on utility in other areas. On the upside, it does have pleasantly low NVH on the highway. It also shows the power of a corporation doing well on many fronts. I can't imagine it isn't being buoyed by the overall success of the Ford brand and the sales volume of more class-leading products, like the F150 and Fusion. I think we see in these sales numbers that Lincoln is still a viable brand, hurray!, but the current product stategy and styling direction is still falling short of being able to maintain prolonged sales for new models. This doesn't mean that the MKZ isn't an important stopgap to the future.

The first generation four-door Pathfinder had an incredible mix of attributes. My best college buddy had one when we were both in grad school at the University of Montana. We took that on hunting, flyfishing, camping, backpacking, climbing, and floating trips over a five state area. Sometimes girlfriends or fiancee's went and they weren't treated to a miserable ride. It was a vehicle that could win the Dakar and comfortably drive four people across several hundred miles to a backcountry adventure. If the original Bronco would have had four doors, it would have been this kind of vehicle for it's day. This is the sweet spot for Ford (obviously updated), and not a Wrangler clone or the mini-Hummer/Wrangler like thingy GM is setting to send out for a butt-kicking. You can't beat a legendary icon by copying it, even if you can boast Toyota's reputation for quality and customer satisfaction.

Why does the new car smell in my GT remind me of Tim Hortons donuts?