DOA: Mercury and Mark LT

[RichardJensen]

My point was that, if you want a less grotesque tan interior for the Fusion, even if you have the cash for the SEL model, you wouldn't be able to get it

Because if the Milan -wasn't- there, you'd have -more- Fusion interior choices?

 

What makes you so certain that would happen?

 

I mean the difference is between a charcoal gray and a warmer brown, with a different kind of fake wood ('Wales Mahogany' vs. some sort of fake walnut).

 

Do you really think someone said, "Hey this is uglier, let's put it in the Fusion" ?

 

Do you really think if there wasn't a Milan, the Fusion would've gotten the charcoal gray and 'Wales Mahogany'?

 

And if they did, what about the people that prefer the walnut & warmer brown?

 

Your assertion that an interior color and a kind of fake wood on the Fusion prevent it from being 'the best it can be' is ridiculous. I mean, really, how can you possibly expect anyone to take this seriously? Who would agree with you on this?

Edited September 5, 2007 by RichardJensen

[pcsario]

Because if the Milan -wasn't- there, you'd have -more- Fusion interior choices?

 

What makes you so certain that would happen?

Because that's what already happens in the countries where the Milan isn't sold, they get other color combinations, including that one.

 

Dunno if that's still the case, but I recall some of the first Fusions for Brazil or Mexico had that interior, minus the aluminum inserts and the different gauges.

 

I'm not arguing those changes would make the Fusion's interior "best in class". I'm saying the hundreds of millions of dollars saved by not making a redundant rebadge, would have been better spent in improving every aspect of the Fusion, which isn't a niche car like the Mercury is. And yes, we're talking about a considerable sum here. It's not pocket change like you constantly imply.

 

Anyway, both interiors are mediocre in nature, but the Mercury at least looks less ugly.

Edited September 5, 2007 by pcsario

[RichardJensen]

I recall some of the first Fusions for Brazil had that interior, minus the aluminum inserts.

Did the Brazilian Fusions have -MORE- interior options? The same? Or less?

 

Besides, can you objectively -prove- the Fusion's interior scheme worse than the Milan's?

 

Look at this:

 

 

How much of a difference do you really see here?

[pcsario]

Well, which car would YOU buy based on those pics?

[Mark B. Morrow]

Pcsario:

I can't imagine that it cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" to badge engineer the Milan from the Fusion. Certainly there are some design and production costs of the different parts. The Mercury will appeal to different buyers than the comparable Ford. Some think the Mercury has a more upscale image others may like the looks better. I wholeheartedly agree that the cars should be more distinct and that someone at Ford needs to decide what Mercury is supposed to mean to the consumer and then market it properly.

 

There are probably two ways to go at this point if Mercury is going to hang around. One is to further distinguish the Mercury offerings from their Ford bretheren and give the buyer something more for the money. The other might be to use Mercury as a marketing arm for Ford products from Europe/Australia with no overlap with the Ford line. If the cars are really different they can appeal to a completely different buyer at a higher price point. The original Capri of the '70s was an example of a good job. The Merkur was a good car hampered by really bad marketing. My brother had an XR4Ti which was a blast to drive. It had no Ford counterpart. Mercury didn't need another name which just confused customers. The dealers that sold Mercury Capris could have sold Mercury a XR4Ti. There is lots of good product out there in the Ford universe that we don't get here like Mondeo, S-Max, KA, Cabrio and Falcon.

 

If the only other option is to kill Mercury and take the hit from the dealer body, Ford might be better off trying option 2. If it works, Mercury has a reason to live. If it doesn't, they can kill it.

[RichardJensen]

Well, which car would YOU buy based on those pics?

Honestly, I wouldn't buy either. I'd buy a 4-cyl Milan Premier with the Alcantara interior package.

 

Apart from that, I'm not judging based on photos. I'd have to spend time in each.

[suv_guy_19]

Well, which car would YOU buy based on those pics?

 

 

The Mercury does look good there, but so would a Fusion with a black interior. If you like black or course wyou won't pick the tan/brown interior.

Edited September 5, 2007 by suv_guy_19

[pcsario]

Pretty smooth way of getting yourself out of that one, nice. B)

[suv_guy_19]

Pretty smooth way of getting yourself out of that one, nice. B)

 

 

What, you mean with honesty.

[rmc523]

Did the Brazilian Fusions have -MORE- interior options? The same? Or less?

 

Besides, can you objectively -prove- the Fusion's interior scheme worse than the Milan's?

 

Look at this:

 

 

How much of a difference do you really see here?

 

I usually dont agree w/ pscario, but I prefer the darker black upper dash of the Milan, its more tasteful to me personally.

[suv_guy_19]

I usually dont agree w/ pscario, but I prefer the darker black upper dash of the Milan, its more tasteful to me personally.

 

 

But there, you just proved Richard's point. It's more tasteful to you personally. You, like me, probably like the Milan exterior better as well. It's all a matter of taste.

[pcsario]

What, you mean with honesty.

No I was talking to RJ there.

 

Still, you bring up an interesting point. Every single time the tan interior for the Fusion is shown, someone always says "but it looks decent in black".

 

What if someone doesn't want a black interior?

 

Seems even people who like the Fusion here, admit the tan interior is a disgrace in comparison.

 

I wouldn't choose it either if I had to, so we're in agreement.

Edited September 5, 2007 by pcsario

[pcsario]

But there, you just proved Richard's point. It's more tasteful to you personally. You, like me, probably like the Milan exterior better as well. It's all a matter of taste.

Au contraire. The Fusion could be just as good. He just proved why RJ's stance of denying superior efforts for everyone is wrong.

 

Plus, save for the wood inserts, you can also get the Milan interior in black.

Edited September 5, 2007 by pcsario

[RichardJensen]

One is to further distinguish the Mercury offerings from their Ford bretheren and give the buyer something more for the money.

Y'know, it helps to take a look at Mercury's sales numbers for the year while speculating about their demise.

 

Total Mercury volume is off 11%, almost exclusively due to the Monterey (canceled), Mountaineer (what else is new?) and the Grand Marquis (what else is new?)

 

Volume for the mainstream retail products is pretty consistent, and the Mountaineer is down less than the Explorer year over year.

 

---

 

For 2006, Mercury sales were down 7.7% vs. 8.1% for Ford, but that included 4k units from the cancelled Monterey. Eliminate those 4k units and you are looking at about a 5.5% decline for Mercury vs. 8.1% at Ford.

 

---

 

For 2005, Mercury sales were up 1.2% despite an 8k unit decline in Monterey volumes (factor out the Monterey, and sales are up c. 7%). Compare that with a 4.7% decline at Ford.

 

---

 

For 2004 (the first full year of the new F150), Ford volumes fell 4.0% while Mercury fell 4.3% (including about 15k Montereys, without which, the decline would have been over 10%.

 

---

 

The question this raises is 'How sick is Mercury?'

[suv_guy_19]

Au contraire. The Fusion could be just as good. He just proved why RJ is wrong by denying superior efforts for everyone.

 

Plus, save for the wood inserts, you can also get the Milan interior in black.

 

 

I actually, for once, do agree with you, on the two tone that is. I would point out though, that based on the Taurus now having one, the Fusion may get a two tone interior in the refresh. But the Fusion is just as good, whether you think so or not. Interesting images getting attached to the posts. lol

Edited September 5, 2007 by suv_guy_19

[RichardJensen]

What if someone doesn't want an all-black interior?

 

Seems even people who like the Fusion admit the tan interior is a disgrace in comparison.

What?

 

So, for instance, the fact that the Edge looks better in that flaming copper color than it looks in, say, creme brulee proves what exactly?

 

Where do you get off calling the tan interior 'a disgrace'?

 

Seriously. What basis do you have? Your opinion and that of a few people that prefer the black interior? Based on what? Photographs?

 

Ridiculous. Abso-frickin-lutely ridiculous.

[RichardJensen]

Pretty smooth way of getting yourself out of that one, nice. B)

I'm not a fan of tan interiors in general. I prefer slate gray.

[RichardJensen]

I actually, for once, do agree with you. I would point out though, that based on the Taurus now having one, the Fusion may get a two tone interior in the refresh.

The Fusion -has- a two-tone interior.

 

Pcsario just doesn't like the tones, and as he has done in the past, he assumes his tastes are both universally and absolutely correct.

[akirby]

Here's your 2 tone black upper dash. It's called Medium Light Stone. Looks almost the same to me.

 

 

[suv_guy_19]

Here's your 2 tone black upper dash. It's called Medium Light Stone. Looks almost the same to me.

 

 

 

 

And now, they are almost identical. The Mecury symbol on the steering wheel does look nicer that the blue oval though. More eye catching.

[RichardJensen]

Using media photos to prove points about anything other than layout is foolish.

 

Do I need to repeat myself?

 

For some people here, I probably do.

[rmc523]

And now, they are almost identical. The Mecury symbol on the steering wheel does look nicer that the blue oval though. More eye catching.

 

That Fusion interior looks MUCH better than the one pscario posted. I agree w/ you about the Mercury emblem on the steering wheel too. The guages on the Milan are a bit more interesting too (not THAT big of a deal though)

[armadamaster]

GM tried their notorious "name change game" and killed off Olds with a lack of product, and now they are doing the EXACT same thing to Buick and we'll just see where that goes.....

 

GM was foolish to drop Olds, I've heard it cost them millions to close Olds out, but SAAB was a bargain....

 

Mercury IS the Grand Marquis, if you don't keep up with your number one seller, then WTF are you doing?

 

The Mark LT was a joke and a bad idea from Day 1. The Blackwood failed, but let's rebadge it with new bodystyle and that'll work!

[suv_guy_19]

GM tried their notorious "name change game" and killed off Olds with a lack of product, and now they are doing the EXACT same thing to Buick and we'll just see where that goes.....

 

GM was foolish to drop Olds, I've heard it cost them millions to close Olds out, but SAAB was a bargain....

 

Mercury IS the Grand Marquis, if you don't keep up with your number one seller, then WTF are you doing?

 

The Mark LT was a joke and a bad idea from Day 1. The Blackwood failed, but let's rebadge it with new bodystyle and that'll work!

 

First of all, the GM is not Mercury, becuase that's not what they're about anymore. Second, the Mark LT was not the Blackwood, not even close. You know noting. The LT was a filler. It did an OK job at that.

[armadamaster]

First of all, the GM is not Mercury, becuase that's not what they're about anymore.

 

I'm sorry, I must be lost...then which Mercury nameplate is the best selling Mercury ever?

 

Second, the Mark LT was not the Blackwood, not even close. The LT was a filler. It did an OK job at that.

 

Oh, WOW was I ever off...one gussied up rebadged Ford truck for Lincoln to another one....you're right, BIG difference.

 

You know noting.

 

I do know how to spell nothing.