jpd80 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Most vehicles on the market are a mix of consumer driven and research driven products. With such a diversified and fickle market, a successful company must be both a follower with stock products and a leader with cutting edge vehicles. That's how we get cars people want and also something new that sells! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) Also, if your focus is on your competitor's product you basically are ceding market analysis to them. You miss chances to discover untapped consumer desires because you're too busy trying to build the world's second best 5-Series, 3-Series, Camry, etc. Benchmarking has its place; however, it, like market research, is no substitute for innovation. Ford has to focus on the marketplace, not its competitors. Now that's scary...not only did you just made the business case for the Navigator.....you made it for the Town Car. Edited November 21, 2007 by Armada Master Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Now that's scary...not only did you just made the business case for the Navigator.....you made it for the Town Car. hey. There's a market for the Town Car. It's nowhere near as big as you think it is, but it is most assuredly there. It's an executive car par excellence; if you need to be driven places, there's, pound for pound, no better vehicle. More commodious than a DTS, cheaper than a Rolls.... The Town Car has a distinct lot to fill, and I don't think the MKS or any other vehicle should fill it, or could fill it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 hey. There's a market for the Town Car. It's nowhere near as big as you think it is, but it is most assuredly there. It's an executive car par excellence; if you need to be driven places, there's, pound for pound, no better vehicle. More commodious than a DTS, cheaper than a Rolls.... The Town Car has a distinct lot to fill, and I don't think the MKS or any other vehicle should fill it, or could fill it. Hey, mark it on the calendar. We agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Hey, mark it on the calendar. We agree! There should be a conservative and big sedan priced in the general vicinity of the MKS to provide yeoman's work as an executive car. It doesn't have to be BOF but it does need to do what the Town Car does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 There should be a conservative and big sedan priced in the general vicinity of the MKS to provide yeoman's work as an executive car. It doesn't have to be BOF but it does need to do what the Town Car does. That's where we differ, I believe the business case for the Panther platform filling that role through 2020 is an obivous one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joihan777 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Here's my question. When was the last time a Mercury vehicle had a starting price several thousand dollars higher than a Ford product of similar size? I don't think it's =ever= happened. If you want to go back to the idea of Mercury as an 'intermediate' brand, well that takes you back to the Johnson administration, $.25/gallon gas, and the movies of Elvis Presley. It's not as though just 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago there was an appreciable difference between Ford & Mercury. Heck 30 years ago there wasn't that much difference: BTW, it's not easy to find pics of mid 70s fullsize Fords/Mercuries. I think because they were all very very ugly. So any assertion that Lincoln is becoming Mercury needs to be matched by the appearance of Lincolns that 1) look like Fords with 2) the same optional equipment as Fords and 3) almost the same starting price as Fords. Also, let's address this Lincoln = Buick argument while we're at it. Let's compare the MKZ with the LaCrosse and the MKS with the Lucerne. MKZ list price: $29k LaCrosse list price: $24k MKS list price: $38k Lucerne list price: $26k Lincoln is -hardly- becoming the new Buick. I always thought Lincoln was designed to compete with Cadillac and it was Mercury's job to compete with Buick/Olds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 That's where we differ, I believe the business case for the Panther platform filling that role through 2020 is an obivous one. You gotta be fucking kidding me...you want to use the same platform for 41 YEARS?!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 You gotta be fucking kidding me...you want to use the same platform for 41 YEARS?!?!?! Why not? The B-52 has been around longer than that. Some people....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I always thought Lincoln was designed to compete with Cadillac and it was Mercury's job to compete with Buick/Olds? And the point of that post is to illustrate that this is still the case. LaCrosse/Lucerne are priced smack dab in the middle of Sable pricing, not any comparable Lincoln product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 OK, taking a step away from the Panthers AGAIN, lets get back to Lincoln and Mercury. In my experience, and from what I know of Ford's history, the base price on the Mercuries and Fords were not so far apart. From the 70s back, one usually couldn't get a mercury as stripped down as a base Ford clone. The Mercury usually had a handful of features that were "relatively" exclusive to Mercury and Lincoln, though, that came and went. One of the big things that tended to set the Mercuries apart from regular Fords was in the power and sometimes handling department. Save for Ford's vehicles that were intented to be sporty, there were usually engine packages and occassionally handling setups, that were exclusive to Mercury. That was how they would appeal to the gentleman that wanted something more than could be found in a Ford, but couldn't quite make the step up to a Lincoln (nor, would likely want to as the Lincolns weren't as performance oriented anyway). Take it into the 80s and 90s, and you see Ford cutting out the differences in the two brands. Mercury might have a few skin details different here and there, maybe an exclusive grill or color, possibly maybe an exclusive option, but nothing else different. With rare exceptions, there wasn't a Mercury produced that had better on the road performance than its Ford counterpart. They had so denuded the styling differences, that, aside from decals and maybe an exclsuive color, the interiors were usually copies of each other. Oh, the Mercury might have a digital dash available that the Ford didn't, but that doesn't make the car. Then, by the end of the 90s and the beginning of the 2Ks there were almost no differneces anywhere. The sable was on the way out. The GM was going to get an under the skin upgrade. The villager was on the way out, to be replaced by a complete failure of a clone of the Freestar. The Mountaineer was still almost a complete clone of the Explorer, but, was being cut off at the top by the Aviator and from below by the Premium edition Explorer. There was so little differentiation for Mercury products the customers, en masse, pretty much said, "What's the point?" and walked away. What is Mercury today? Well, they're getting more differentiation on the exterior apliques and some exterior body panels (there's almost no mistaking a MAriner for an Escape). They mercifully are not getting fender vents (which, unfortunately, leaves the side of the Sable a very boring solid barely creased expanse of sheetmetal). The Mountaineer might as well not exist. Got a minivan? Nope. the Milan, which may be the best looking of the CD3 triplets, is a decent product. It has just enough external differentiation to make it seem unique, and I do see a few of them on the road. Where do I think that Mercury should go? Here's my plan. Mercury needs a small car. It needs to be produced on the continent to have a prayer of being profitable. I suggest that Ford produce a 5 door hatchback version of the US focus to be sold on Ford dealership lots, and, a visually differentiated version for Mercury lots. The Mercury version needs different lights front and back (I suggest that for the hatchback, the lights be on the hatch, with a safety light integrated into the rear bumper), different door panels and front fenders. The exterior panels aren't going to be that big of an expense, and the different hatch lighting and skin arrangement won't be a show stopper either. I suggest, however, that the mercury have an interior that is at least 50% different from that of the focus. That is where I want the most money invested. Increased NVH improvements and a classy and stylish interior. Packaged right and designed right, this should be able to sell for several thousand dollars more than a comparable Focus. I understand that the existing Focus is just a stopgap until C2 or whatever the next gen C class car in the US is based on. The above couldn't have been done this last time around because of money problems. But, its fairly obvious that FoMoCo will still be around in 5 years, so, there's still time to do this with the next gen platform. #2, the Milan is a good starting point. I like the direction this car is going in so far. My only suggestion here is more money invested in a more differentiated interior. I think that the existing interior is a letdown and that any future interior should reflect the stylish approach that Mercury is trying to convey. As long as the powerplants and handling are competitive, that's enough for me and their target demographic. However, EVERY safety feature available in the parts bin should be standard. #3, The Sable, as it stands right now, is as visually distinctive as a slice of toast at a bakery. Its slab sided and boaring. The interior is passable, but not for a Mercury. The sides need at least one additional crease or character line. Where ford uses fender vents, a euro style side marker would be good. In fact, I wouldn't mind a small, tasteful backlit mercury "god-head" right there. (nothing larger than a silver dollar). It would just break things up a little right there. Again, Mercury should have a much more differnetiated interior. #4, The Mountaineer shouldn't exist. There should be a mercury version of the Taurus X, and it should have been styled after the Meta One concept. By now, it should have evolved to have a family resemblence to the Mariner. I don't envision anyone walking to a Mercury dealership looking for an off-road capable vehicle. There have always been premium Explorers for that sort of thing. With the Minivan out of the picture, the Mountaineer gets sales by loyalists wanting something to haul three rows of people. I bet you can count on one hand the number of Mountaineers sold in a year without the third row since the Monterey was canned. (if that's even an option). A well appointed Sable X would have cleaned up over the last few years. It would have been there during the CUV crazes early days and would now be an established product. (assuming that it would have been marketed at all, I still haven't EVER seen a TV ad for the Sable that actually featured it, instead of having it on a raised area behind Jill as she raves about Mercurys line of new products.) That gives them cars in small medium and large, and SUV/SUVs in two and three row flavours. That's good coverage on the market that excludes pickup trucks. While I would love to see Mercury sell a sport coupe/roadster, the brand itself isn't healthy enough for that right now. If they did go that route, I would strongly suggest starting with the RX-8's platform, stretching it slightly, and using a twinforce 2.5L 4 banger as the top engine. Doesn't need the little half doors from the RX-8, use the stretch to lengthen the doors, add a little leg room to the front and back seats, and a touch in the trunk. As for Lincoln, while I like the MkZ, Navigator and think that the MkS has a future. I find the MkX not differentiated enough from the Edge (atrocious egg-crate grill excluded). The Town Car is fine as it is until it dies. However, all the efforts there seem underwhelming. I get no emotional reaction from any of their vehicles. I look at a Caddy, and I see something that has guts in the design. BMW may not be a design powerhouse, but, they have a strong design tradition, and, most importantly, a strong brand indentity. (you know that a BMW will drive well before you even put your ass in the seat). MB has a rich design and technology tradition that they are in the process of discovering. Lexus is dug in on the Value and Quality end of the segment. Infiniti is trying to out value Lexus while out perform BMW. They are achieving neither, but instead, managing an attractive balance between them both. What in the world is Lincoln trying to do? Out Value Lexus? They seem to be practically cloaning the Lexus line with vehicles that may be just marginally more visually interesting, but aren't really better in any way, save for AWD here and interior room there? While I found the 2000 continental concept very visually appealing in a retro sort of way when it was first introduced, (and yes, that is the epitome of slab sided), I do not think that going hard retro is the way to go for Lincoln. Nor do I think a wholesale change to RWD muscle cars is the way to go either. Take a look at this week's auto extremist for someone else's well spoken (though, I can't quite agree completely on the style) diatride on Lincoln's direction. The industry has moved away from block long ocean liners for vehicles and the lines of those vehicles only work on cars that long in relation to their height. While I don't have the answers on the sstyling question (there are people much better able to answer those questions than myself), I do know that they really don't stand out enough, and the MkS will be one of the least likely to be noticed of the entire line. I still believe that Lincoln should stake a claim with "responsible luxury". They have the opportunity here, before GM starts rolling their two mode system out all over the place, to put stakes down on this parcel of the industry. The Gen II hybrid pack is within a year or so of production. There's no reason that it can't find a home in the MkZ. If they have any way at all to mate it with a V6, they should do so ASAP and find a way to put it in the MkX and the MkS. And, if the TF3.5LGDITT is the fuel economy powerhouse that they claim it is, it should be available in the Navigator as soon as its ready to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 You gotta be fucking kidding me...you want to use the same platform for 41 YEARS?!?!?! If it ain't broke.... Besides, it's been working for (insert fullsize truck platform here) and the Jeep Wrangler quite awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 If it ain't broke.... Besides, it's been working for (insert fullsize truck platform here) and the Jeep Wrangler quite awhile. Wow your a bigger jackass then I thought...the isn't the same as a WW2 Jeep and nor is the 04 F-150 related to the older models :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Wow your a bigger jackass then I thought...the isn't the same as a WW2 Jeep and nor is the 04 F-150 related to the older models :rolleyes: And the Panther frame is not the same as in 1979 either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 And the Panther frame is not the same as in 1979 either. Thank you good sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 I really hate to add to this mess, but, one thing that causes a LOT of people to run a chebby at the track instead of a ford is the interchangability of GM's. Bust a rocker arm or pushrod etc at the track and everybody has a spare. Bust a part on your ford and even if somebody has the same engine but different year/different build date/different whatever then your stuck. Since all I have ever raced is fords I know first hand, all to well that you must bring your own specific parts to the track. Ford has gotten better by narrowing the "main engines" to 302/351W and 429/460, so now there is a lot better chance of finding spares if you focus on these two. But still the differences in these engines can be very many too. 41 years with the same chassis? Sounds bad but it would be a dream for people who actually work on cars. Everybody on here seems to want new-new-new, doesn't matter how good something is, change it for changes sake. No I don't want everything 41 years old either, but continuity can be a good thing. I think a major part of bringing the mustang back to life and turning it into the "57 chevy of the 80's" was the fact that the fox chassis and the compatability of the components. 78 fairmont-93 mustang, what's the price of a steering rack or the availability of one? Cheap and lots! If you only buy new or lease you will not know or understand what I'm talking about. But, keeping a chassis or other parts to ensure compatability can be a good thing in my opinion. ok, here comes the "that's why ford is doing so bad, they don't lead change" crowd..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 And the Panther frame is not the same as in 1979 either. Well it sure hasn't changed enough to call it all-new either.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Sounds bad but it would be a dream for people who actually work on cars. And how many of those people buy new cars? The whole point of having a new car is outside of maintenance on it, there shouldn't be any major component failures on it for at least 150K miles or so. You have to look at it in the big picture, not what you want in a car, but what will sell and make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 And how many of those people buy new cars? 124K of them so far this year. matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.