Mr. Farley, meet Lincoln

[goingincirclez]

This week's Autoextremist (which runs dangerously close to GM puffism some days) is very relevant. Make sure to read the top article..

 

And ESPECIALLY check the pictures.

 

Now what's in the past is in the past, and I'm not purely espousing or championing a move to "retro" Lincolns or anything like that... but for crying out loud you can't possibly say the MkS looks better than any of those concepts (except, ironically, the 2000 Continental which suddenly seems dated in the front end).

 

Autoextremist.com

 

I especially like the way he put it, to paraphrase: "What car is going to make anyone stop and say "Oh My God - that's a Lincoln?!"

[suv_guy_19]

This week's Autoextremist (which runs dangerously close to GM puffism some days) is very relevant. Make sure to read the top article..

 

And ESPECIALLY check the pictures.

 

Now what's in the past is in the past, and I'm not purely espousing or championing a move to "retro" Lincolns or anything like that... but for crying out loud you can't possibly say the MkS looks better than any of those concepts (except, ironically, the 2000 Continental which suddenly seems dated in the front end).

 

Autoextremist.com

 

I especially like the way he put it, to paraphrase: "What car is going to make anyone stop and say "Oh My God - that's a Lincoln?!"

 

I can say so, because I like Infiniti and Lexus in terms of styling. They look very good. The MKS builds on that. I think we should wait and see what happens to it. As for the concepts, most of those could never have been built without many changes. They don't look finished, edges would be rounded, etc.

[RichardJensen]

There's a point in all that gobbledygook, but it's pretty darn hard to find.

 

This is Pete at his absolute worst. Covering up his statements of the obvious (Lincolns should look like Lincolns) with so much crap and hysteria that it is simply impossible to take him seriously.

 

And what is up with the devotion to yesterday's concept cars? GIVE IT A REST. The 2000 Continental was NOT all that and a bag of chips. It wasn't even the bag of chips. It was everything that Pete excoriates in J Mays' retro futurism.

 

The Mark IX, Mark X, and Continental were all patent exercises in retro futurism. What the Continental concept didn't lift from the '61 Continental, the Mark coupes did.

 

---

 

Not buying it Pete. Your insights aren't.

Edited November 21, 2007 by RichardJensen

[goingincirclez]

I can say so, because I like Infiniti and Lexus in terms of styling. They look very good. The MKS builds on that. I think we should wait and see what happens to it. As for the concepts, most of those could never have been built without many changes. They don't look finished, edges would be rounded, etc.

 

You're right about the concepts... something would be lost. Invariably something always is. I mean, the MarkX concept had the eggcrate grille that looks SOOOO much better than what ended up in production on the MkX.

 

And yet, for myself I can't help but think that those concepts had more to begin with. They're undeniably, exclusively Lincoln, and American. No confusion with Toyo-San there.

 

I'm not intending to dog on the MkS, because I too think it's a handsome car. And the market (which currently precludes me) will ultimately decide its fate. But still it doesn't make me say Oh My God - because I've seen it before.

 

And Delorenzo is 100% dead-on accurate about the problems with taking Lincoln global as a result. Need to fix NA perception first.

 

 

----

 

The real kicker is that whole "GM revived Cadillac" thing he's all about, was born of GM taking the styling from another Lincoln concept and running with it. I will have to find the concept, I can't recall it right now.

Edited November 21, 2007 by goingincirclez

[RichardJensen]

The real kicker is that whole "GM revived Cadillac" thing he's all about

I'm not buying that. BMW being worried about GM finally 'getting it'? Wrong. GM product development has had no overhauls; they haven't done what they need to do to be lastingly competitive. GM's 'revival' is, right now, in the aged hands of Bob Lutz, suddenly the hero of Pete D's fantasies, instead of the arch villain he was a couple years ago.

 

What GM has done is gamble billions on Cadillac that would've been far better spent elsewhere. Now you've got a company that just had to write off $39B in tax credits because it doesn't think it will be able to use them any time soon.

 

----

 

Not to make this a topic about GM, but I find this optimism about GM to be misplaced, as I consider their product revival to be incredibly shallow. They have no systems in place to ensure quality (Outlook & Acadia recalled within weeks of launch, GM still in the bottom of CU reliability ratings, GM IQS getting worse, not better), and no systems in place to continually improve products, nor do they have a true customer focus.

[goingincirclez]

Not to make this a topic about GM, but I find this optimism about GM to be misplaced....

 

 

Just making sure you realize we are on the same page: I DID say that he runs dangerously close to GM puffery... but what else would you expect from a former and legacy GM-er?

 

That said, I do think there are merits to some of what he says about Lincoln. A lot of those sentiments have been said and argued here. I just thought the presentation was interesting.

 

---

 

STILL can;t find that damn Lincoln concept from the late 90's! It was a long coupe that took Ford's then-current "new edge" styling over the top to the point of killing it, and then POW Cadillac was all about it.

[TomServo92]

STILL can;t find that damn Lincoln concept from the late 90's! It was a long coupe that took Ford's then-current "new edge" styling over the top to the point of killing it, and then POW Cadillac was all about it.

 

Is this it?

[NickF1011]

Is this it?

 

 

Wow. That thing is an eyesore. I'm MUCH more pleased with the current direction Lincoln is headed -- that being FORWARD instead of throwing styling darts into the past hoping that something sticks.

[FordBuyer]

You can see many of the design themes used on those Lincoln concepts in present day Ford Motor vehicles. One of the concepts had the front end of the present day MKX on it and another had the front end of the 2007 Montego on it plus another concept had the front end of present Fusion on it. Another Lincoln concept looked almost exactly like latest generation Thunderbird. So in many ways these concepts did find a life on present day vehicles. The only reason Ford doesn't use suicide doors is because of safety just as you see no hardtops anymore. You have to have B pillar unless convertible and even then you have to add safety equipement in case of rollover like rollover bar.

[goingincirclez]

YES! Thank you! The Sentinel is the one I was thinking of.

 

And yes, I hated it at the time and STILL do... and it seems Ford got a hangover themselves after it debuted. But just tell me that Cadillac didn't take that ball and run with it....

[Mark B. Morrow]

The MKR was a car that would have everyone say "That is a LINCOLN". Retro-futurism or not, I really like the direction the Continental Concept and the Mark cars were heading. Too bad Ford didn't have the foresight or cash to go there. The MKS is a very nice car. I am sure it will sell to expectations. It doesn't have the presence of the concepts. Everything in the luxury sedan class is starting to look alike. I really miss the good old days when you could tell a Lincoln from a block away.

[RichardJensen]

But just tell me that Cadillac didn't take that ball and run with it....

I dunno. The Sentinel to me reminds me of an MST 3K quip about Guiron, the 'bad-guy' in a 60s Japanese monster flick:

 

 

Tom Servo: "I know, I know, don't laugh. They made me in a hurry."

 

The Sentinel doesn't look like anything to me, not Cadillac's Art & Science, not anything.

 

It doesn't look finished. It looks like they designed it and glued it together at the last possible minute like so many 4th graders trying to finish a papier mache volcano for the science fair.

 

 

Except it does have the Bow-wave grille.

[FordBuyer]

The MKR was a car that would have everyone say "That is a LINCOLN". Retro-futurism or not, I really like the direction the Continental Concept and the Mark cars were heading. Too bad Ford didn't have the foresight or cash to go there. The MKS is a very nice car. I am sure it will sell to expectations. It doesn't have the presence of the concepts. Everything in the luxury sedan class is starting to look alike. I really miss the good old days when you could tell a Lincoln from a block away.

 

I would agree there. The MKS does look much like a Lexus. Hopefully if a RWD MKR is built it will use more Lincoln design cues and less Lexus cues. I would think Ford would it it's built. My only complaint of the new Focus and MKS is that they look too much like Japanese product which for me is a negative. IMO, the Fusion went its own way and doesn't look generic Japanese. So hopefully Ford did good job on Fusion and only improve on already great design. Maybe that is why Edge sells so well, It's not the interior, but the great cutting edge American looks that make it a great seller.

[goingincirclez]

Tom Servo: "I know, I know, don't laugh. They made me in a hurry."

 

 

The Sentinel doesn't look like anything to me, not Cadillac's Art & Science, not anything. It doesn't look finished.

 

Cadillac finished it:

 

 

 

 

The whole "Art & Science" thing was regarded as unique and out of left field, but look closely. The cues are definitely Sentinel. A - finished - Sentinel.

[one2gamble]

There's a point in all that gobbledygook, but it's pretty darn hard to find.

 

This is Pete at his absolute worst. Covering up his statements of the obvious (Lincolns should look like Lincolns) with so much crap and hysteria that it is simply impossible to take him seriously.

 

And what is up with the devotion to yesterday's concept cars? GIVE IT A REST. The 2000 Continental was NOT all that and a bag of chips. It wasn't even the bag of chips. It was everything that Pete excoriates in J Mays' retro futurism.

 

The Mark IX, Mark X, and Continental were all patent exercises in retro futurism. What the Continental concept didn't lift from the '61 Continental, the Mark coupes did.

 

---

 

Not buying it Pete. Your insights aren't.

 

 

"yesterdays" concept cars were recognizable as Lincolns and should have been further developed into production cars. They werent perfect, but they were good.

[RichardJensen]

IMO, there was no 'next' with the Continental inspired concept cars. That's the problem with them. It's like "okay, now what?" You get a car that looks good for a while and then what? You revive the '70s Lincoln look with covered headlights, upright grille, and oval opera windows?

 

MKR at least provides something that can be developed.

[one2gamble]

IMO, there was no 'next' with the Continental inspired concept cars. That's the problem with them. It's like "okay, now what?" You get a car that looks good for a while and then what? You revive the '70s Lincoln look with covered headlights, upright grille, and oval opera windows?

 

MKR at least provides something that can be developed.

 

 

you design a new skin, what do you mean whats next? Theres room for improvement in every design.

[RichardJensen]

you design a new skin, what do you mean whats next? Theres room for improvement in every design.

I mean how do you evolve the design? Look at the VW Beetle & the PT Cruiser: stylistic dead ends. The new New Beetle looks like the old New Beetle. Closer to home: look at the S-Type. How well has that design aged, and what exactly has Jaguar been able to do with it to keep it looking fresh?

 

How do you design the 2nd generation retro-revival Continental? What cues do you carryover, or do you just invent something from scratch?

 

Because if you invent somethign from scratch, what's the point in going retro? And if you don't invent something from scratch, you get a very stale design.

 

I just don't think the '61 Continental should be tapped for 2007 design. It's a dead end.

[RichardJensen]

Plus my original beef with the reference to the Continental was that it comes after DeLorenzo takes Mays to the woodshed for wallowing in retro-futurism.

 

It's a critique of DeLorenzo's disjointed thinking more than anything else.

 

---

 

But I don't think the Continental concept had any future because it had altogether too much past.

[goingincirclez]

I mean how do you evolve the design? Look at the VW Beetle & the PT Cruiser: stylistic dead ends. The new New Beetle looks like the old New Beetle. Closer to home: look at the S-Type. How well has that design aged, and what exactly has Jaguar been able to do with it to keep it looking fresh?

 

 

To that you can add the last Thunderbird... which looked like a melty cartoonish version of the classic.

 

The other problem with revived designs and even just names (GTO) is that the originals persevere through enthusiasts, who are often hyper-critical and unwilling to flash a candle toward the new. You have to really nail every facet of the mystique that an original seems to possess.

 

Ironically, Ford has experienced some success with this, as the new Mustang is maybe the only revival that has worked. Although it may be approaching thin ice, there are still possibilities.

 

The problem with a revival is the esoteric question: what makes a classic design, a classic design?

 

What design makes a Lincoln, a Lincoln? After all, the original Contis were gorgeous cars. But then the faux-Rolls grilles, and padded oval opera windows were very much everything Lincoln stood for 10-15 later and were incredibly popular in their time. Which holds more wieght?

 

But I think most would agree... a Lincoln that looks like a Japanese car, while respectable on its technical merits, is perhaps not what a Lincoln should be.

[one2gamble]

I mean how do you evolve the design? Look at the VW Beetle & the PT Cruiser: stylistic dead ends. The new New Beetle looks like the old New Beetle. Closer to home: look at the S-Type. How well has that design aged, and what exactly has Jaguar been able to do with it to keep it looking fresh?

 

How do you design the 2nd generation retro-revival Continental? What cues do you carryover, or do you just invent something from scratch?

 

Because if you invent somethign from scratch, what's the point in going retro? And if you don't invent something from scratch, you get a very stale design.

 

I just don't think the '61 Continental should be tapped for 2007 design. It's a dead end.

 

 

go take a peak at a corvette, what makes that design so different than the conti?

 

look at the mustang

 

There are places to go, you just have to have the right designers.

[RichardJensen]

go take a peak at a corvette, what makes that design so different than the conti?

The show car was a resurrection, 40 years after the fact, of certain design cues.

 

The Corvette represents about 40 years of continuous development of the themes introduced back in '68.

 

The Mustang may be the 'retro futurist' example that tests the rule, but we haven't seen a 2nd generation Mustang yet. My personal opinion is that the '05 Mustang was -better- than the '67. More cohesive, more compact, more powerful.

 

Also, we are talking about individual cars here.

 

How would you apply Continental design cues to CUVs? To smaller sedans? To SUVs?

 

Lincoln doesn't need a single retro-futurist car, like the Continental. They need a design language that can be applied to many different vehicles.

 

----

 

Which do you prefer? The S-Type or the XF? The XK or the XJ?

 

-----

 

And if I may add one more point: It is very very risky to hang your company's future on the workings of individual geniuses (in response to your "you just have to have the right designers" comment). If your idea is, "hire only geniuses", it's not going to work.

Edited November 21, 2007 by RichardJensen

[joihan777]

I like the Mark X the most. Kinda wish Ford & Lincoln would co-develop a new Thunderbird/ Mark X:

(Of course MKX wouldn't work)

[one2gamble]

The show car was a resurrection, 40 years after the fact, of certain design cues.

 

The Corvette represents about 40 years of continuous development of the themes introduced back in '68.

 

The Mustang may be the 'retro futurist' example that tests the rule, but we haven't seen a 2nd generation Mustang yet. My personal opinion is that the '05 Mustang was -better- than the '67. More cohesive, more compact, more powerful.

 

Also, we are talking about individual cars here.

 

How would you apply Continental design cues to CUVs? To smaller sedans? To SUVs?

 

Lincoln doesn't need a single retro-futurist car, like the Continental. They need a design language that can be applied to many different vehicles.

 

----

 

Which do you prefer? The S-Type or the XF? The XK or the XJ?

 

-----

 

And if I may add one more point: It is very very risky to hang your company's future on the workings of individual geniuses (in response to your "you just have to have the right designers" comment). If your idea is, "hire only geniuses", it's not going to work.

 

 

consider the MarkX concept with the egg crate grille, a Lincoln staple. It looks just as at home on the tbird based coupe as it does on the current MKx. Styling cues that point to certain things can make a model line cohesive in nature. You dont have to slap the same bits on everything.

[danup]

The 2000 Continental isn't retro-futurist, it's futurist--it's slab-sided and unapologetically different, and I think that's what De Lorenzo is wanting. Look at Cadillac--A&S is thought of as a distinctly American style not because it's got particularly American design cues, but because it's particularly distinct; there's nothing else like it, and since this singular style is from an American company, it's American.

 

The MKS is a great-looking car but it doesn't show me anything, other than yet another attractive grille (say what you will about Lincoln, every post-LS grille has really attracted me), that I can't see in the foreign luxos. The 2000 Continental looks less distinctive in a post-Interceptor, post-300C world, but it's still different, particularly in the interior, which melds futuristic interior design with an 80s velour-and-chauffeurs aesthetic in a way that seems like a great way out of the more-wood mindset that dominates luxury interiors now. If they had unveiled it now, seven years after the fact, instead of the MKS, it would hit the news harder--and I think that says more about Lincoln than this whole article could.

 

Lincoln doesn't necessarily need a "halo" car, it needs a focusing car, an Enclave or a CTS or a 300, something GM has done very well even when the division (Aurora) fails. I don't think the MKS is that car. (Incidentally, I'm not a GM fanboy--I drive a Fusion--I just don't know enough about the foreign luxury marques to give Lexus or Infiniti examples.)