Ford Europe bosses demanding Mercury closure?

[TStag]

Another report which gives the impression that Ford Europe is questioning why they must lose profitable international brands like Aston Martin, Land Rover and possibly Volvo, yet Ford USA does not have to act on loss making Mercury.

 

I can't help but think Ford Europe is aiming to get the money markets/ big shareholders to lean on Alan Mullaly to close Mercury. Ford USA could well be about to get the European backlash from demanding that PAG is broken up. Most international companies have the internal politics after all.....

 

If I were a Mercury fan that called for JLR/ Aston to be sold off I'd b very worried that FOE will win this one. It's hard to see how Ford USA can defend Mercury....

 

 

What Ford needs is Ford of Europe

 

Edward Lapham

Automotive News

March 4, 2008 - 9:00 am ET

 

The news that Ford Motor Co. trimmed its second-quarter North American production schedule by 10 percent isn't a good sign, even when compared with the struggles of other automakers trying to wade through a shaky U.S. economy.

 

But if Ford can achieve CEO Alan Mulally's goal of making global automotive operations profitable next year, the company ought to have enough staying power to make it in the long term, thanks in large measure to Mulally's One Ford concept.

 

That's because at least some new Ford products being developed for Europe will be heading to North America, too.

 

For example, the Fiesta subcompact that Ford unveiled in three-door and five-door versions here at the Geneva auto show is coming to North America in 2010. Given what's happening to the price of gasoline in the United States, it might be smart for Ford to also federalize a version of the next-generation Ka sub-subcompact, which likely will be unveiled in Paris in the fall.

 

This is a strange auto show for Ford, which is expected to announce this week that Jaguar and Land Rover have been sold to the Indian automaker Tata. Everybody knows it but nobody is talking about it because Ford execs didn't want to overshadow the debut of the redesigned Fiesta.

 

Over here, things still look much better for Ford, and a big reason is product. For years, it has bugged me that Ford -- and to some extent, General Motors -- had good products in Europe that didn't come to North America.

 

At the Fiesta unveiling, I wondered out loud: Why Ford is such a different company in North America than it is in the rest of the world?

 

A Ford alum gave me a simple explanation: Ford of Europe is run like a business, without the added baggage of political and family issues that bubble up in Dearborn.

 

As an example of what is considered muddled American thinking, some Europeans -- especially Anglophiles -- question why Ford would unload storied brands such as Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover, while keeping the Mercury brand on life support.

 

And, they ask, why didn't Ford do a better job of nurturing the Jaguar and Land Rover brands? And, by the way, what's going to happen to Volvo?

 

Obviously, Ford needs more in North America than just an infusion of European product. It must be the right European product.

[RichardJensen]

This is what you're saying :blah:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what the article said: :blah:

 

And trust me, I am being charitable in assessing the distance between what the article says (and a poorly written article it is, too), and what you think is going on.

Edited March 4, 2008 by RichardJensen

[TStag]

This is what you're saying :blah:

This is what the article said: :blah:

 

And trust me, I am being charitable in assessing the distance between what the article says (and a poorly written article it is, too), and what you think is going on.

 

Really this is not the only article to say the following:

 

"A Ford alum gave me a simple explanation: Ford of Europe is run like a business, without the added baggage of political and family issues that bubble up in Dearborn.

 

As an example of what is considered muddled American thinking, some Europeans -- especially Anglophiles -- question why Ford would unload storied brands such as Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover, while keeping the Mercury brand on life support."

 

 

Do you seriously think that Ford directors from Europe are going to be happy to lose JLR and Aston and possibly Volvo? Remember their bonuses are determined by the sucess of their business. If they feel that the loss of these companies to FOE will impact their own personal bonuses than I'm confident that the knives will be out.

 

Your kidding yourself if you think international companies don't work this way. I work in an international comapany that works exactly in this way. Right now FOE will be looking to sink the knife into Mercury and if they fail to do this then the slightest blip in a Ford USA turnaround will give them amunition on the money markets against the Ford US board. I think Ford wn ambivelance towards Mercury's future suggest that Ford USA knows they have already lost this battle.

 

So the sale of JLR and possibly Volvo could = the end of Mercury. It's office politics on the global scale.

[ironhorse]

Ed Lapham is a hack.Automotive News is a rag. He is anti-domestic and especially anti-Ford. Ford of Europe will always be Ford NA's little brother .

[RichardJensen]

Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about, "Ford directors from Europe"?

 

Do you have the slightest idea who you're referring to?

 

Name names. Put up or shut up.

 

===

 

As to the "keep Mercury get rid of JLR", that again is "some Europeans", most generally those who don't understand that Mercury turns a consistent operating profit, and would cost money to close, whereas JLR has never been a consistent source of operating profits, and would make money for Ford if sold.

 

Now, put up or shut up. You tell me who your 'European directors' are, or you can just float away.

Edited March 4, 2008 by RichardJensen

[NickF1011]

Hmmm...odd that the only reference to Mercury actually losing money was your own baseless conjecture, TStag. Nothing new for you to be way off base though.

[RichardJensen]

Ed Lapham is a hack.Automotive News is a rag. He is anti-domestic and especially anti-Ford. Ford of Europe will always be Ford NA's little brother .

Amy Wilson is the only journalist in the national media whose opinion about Ford is worth a dime. Whether it's Business Week, Fortune, Forbes, or the assorted hacks at C&D, MT, Automobile, or Ed Lapham, you can't find anyone else who knows Ford better, and who has better contacts at Ford.

 

Okay, I don't hate Gritzner @ AW, or the guys at Road and Track, but that's about it. The rest of them can be lumped together and traded even up for their weight in pig crap as far as I'm concerned.

[TStag]

Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about, "Ford directors from Europe"?

 

Do you have the slightest idea who you're referring to?

 

Name names. Put up or shut up.

 

===

 

As to the "keep Mercury get rid of JLR", that again is "some Europeans", most generally those who don't understand that Mercury turns a consistent operating profit, and would cost money to close, whereas JLR has never been a consistent source of operating profits, and would make money for Ford if sold.

 

Now, put up or shut up. You tell me who your 'European directors' are, or you can just float away.

 

You name the directors that haven't called for Mercury to be axed. It works both ways. I have suggested that FOE directors are most likely calling for Mercury to be axed judging by the sheer number of articles that I've read saying that FOE bosses are spitting blood over PAG's break up. Show me the board room evidence they are not. There are lots of articles saying that FOE staff are furious at Ford USA having one rule at home and one rule abroad for brands.

 

Now that JLR is being sold it's fair game for FOE people and enthusiast to start to turn things on their head and look at US operations. You said Mercury makes an operating profit, but how look carefull at those profits and ask if it really is profitable consitently. Is it profitable now? Would it be profitable if it had to stand alone from Ford? I mean let's follow your arguement. Why doesn't FOE start it's own version of Mercury. Are you saying that Mercury's model is so good that FOE should replicate it with it's own version? Also why do so many other people on this very site argue Mercury should be closed. If it is a profit center why are so many US ford fans calling time on Mercury?

 

You may hate what I'm saying but your niave if you don't think office politics like this happen at board level. I mean that's sooooooo niave!

[suv_guy_19]

You name the directors that haven't called for Mercury to be axed. It works both ways.

 

 

No, the burden of proof is on you.

[Harley Lover]

What you don't seem to understand from Richard is that FOE reports to Ford USA in the personage of Mullaly. It really doesn't matter what anyone in FOE thinks about Mercury - and frankly they would be quite clueless if the thoughts attributed to them in the article are accurate. They would need to have a deep understanding of franchise law in the US, for example. They would have to understand that franchise laws vary in each state, and understand the differences in the laws from state to state. They would have to understand that the prospect of attempting to unilaterally discontinue the product for those franchises would result in catastrophic lawsuits against Ford that would take years and billions of dollars to settle.

 

No one expects the FOE execs to understand that, because it's not their job.

 

And Richard is right about Lapham, of all the writers at Automotive News, he is the shallowest and dimmest of the herd. Making your point on his back is a losing proposition.

 

One more thing - the thought of any FOE director calling for Mercury to be axed is laughable - I can't imagine anyone in Europe being stupid enough to stick their nose into a part of the operation that isn't their responsibility. It goes against everything Mullaly represents, and I imagine he would snap back quite aggressively towards someone dumb enough to "call for" such an action that is outside their realm of responsibility. Would you want to intentionally put yourself in Mullaly's gunsight?

Edited March 4, 2008 by Harley Lover

[TStag]

What you don't seem to understand from Richard is that FOE reports to Ford USA in the personage of Mullaly. It really doesn't matter what anyone in FOE thinks about Mercury - and frankly they would be quite clueless if the thoughts attributed to them in the article are accurate. They would need to have a deep understanding of franchise law in the US, for example. They would have to understand that franchise laws in each state, and understand the differences in the laws from state to state. They would have to understand that the prospect of attempting to unilaterally discontinue the product for those franchises would result in catastrophic lawsuits against Ford that would take years and billions of dollars to settle.

 

No one expects the FOE execs to understand that, because it's not their job.

 

And Richard is right about Lapham, of all the writers at Automotive News, he is the shallowest and dimmest of the herd. Making your point on his back is a losing proposition.

 

Look all I'm actually saying is that a huge number of articles seem to be saying that FOE has the knives out in the board room. I call it office politics. It happens in every company. Even Ford!

 

If Ford wanted to close Mercury for nothing it probably could. Could they not just issue Ford shareholders with seperate Mercury shares. Then wait for the inevitable?

[silvrsvt]

If Ford wanted to close Mercury for nothing it probably could. Could they not just issue Ford shareholders with seperate Mercury shares. Then wait for the inevitable?

 

once again you pulling assumptions out of your ass again...

[Harley Lover]

Look all I'm actually saying is that a huge number of articles seem to be saying that FOE has the knives out in the board room. I call it office politics. It happens in every company. Even Ford!

 

If Ford wanted to close Mercury for nothing it probably could. Could they not just issue Ford shareholders with seperate Mercury shares. Then wait for the inevitable?

 

What I'm saying is that I don't buy it (the knives), because Lewis Booth is very much in line with Mullaly, FOE is selling out its production, and looking to add more capacity, which all adds up to they are most likely focused on continuing their success and building upon it, not fretting over business areas that are not their responsibility. I realize the British press tend to be gossipy, but this just doesn't make sense.

 

And no, Ford cannot close Mercury for nothing. Quite the opposite. As I mentioned in my previous post, all of those Mercury dealers are independent franchises (it had nothing to do with being shareholders), and they would sue Ford, and most likely win, if Ford were to unitlaterally cut off their supply of product. Ford's choice to emphasize Lincoln (most of these dealers are Lincoln/Mercury duals) is the best solution, because Ford will supply more, varied products under the Lincoln banner, which will sell for higher margins, and those products can supplant Mercury at those dealerships, while still giving the dealers products to sell. It's a win all the way around.

[RichardJensen]

What you don't seem to understand from Richard is that FOE reports to Ford USA in the personage of Mullaly.

Ford NA stops at Fields Desk.

 

Mulally's direct reports meet with him weekly, on Thursdays. Occasionally, there are 'lieutenants' there, but for the most part it's Mulally and his direct reports. They are as follows, in no particular order.

 

* Mark Fields (Ford Americas, Ford North America)

* Lewis Booth (Ford of Europe AND Volvo/PAG)

* Donald LeClair (CFO)

* Joe Hinrichs (Global head, mfg./quality)

* Derrick Kuzak (Global head, engineering/PD)

* Jim Farley (CMO, Ford NA marketing)

* John Parker (Asia/Asia Pacific/Africa)

 

Now, theoretically, the CEO of Ford Credit would be there (Mike Bannister), but I don't know if he is on a regular basis.

 

The idea that Booth's lieutenants (whom I can only guess are TStag's "European directors") would have knives out, with which to battle Fields' 'lieutenants' is preposterous. The forum instituted by Mulally and Mulally's temperament do not make such a scenario likely.

[blazerdude20]

europe bosses dont have room to demand sh*t. let them try and watch alan and bill tell them to shove it.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Another report which gives the impression that Ford Europe is questioning why they must lose profitable international brands like Aston Martin, Land Rover and possibly Volvo, yet Ford USA does not have to act on loss making Mercury.

 

I can't help but think Ford Europe is aiming to get the money markets/ big shareholders to lean on Alan Mullaly to close Mercury. Ford USA could well be about to get the European backlash from demanding that PAG is broken up. Most international companies have the internal politics after all.....

 

If I were a Mercury fan that called for JLR/ Aston to be sold off I'd b very worried that FOE will win this one. It's hard to see how Ford USA can defend Mercury....

 

 

What Ford needs is Ford of Europe

 

Edward Lapham

Automotive News

March 4, 2008 - 9:00 am ET

 

The news that Ford Motor Co. trimmed its second-quarter North American production schedule by 10 percent isn't a good sign, even when compared with the struggles of other automakers trying to wade through a shaky U.S. economy.

 

But if Ford can achieve CEO Alan Mulally's goal of making global automotive operations profitable next year, the company ought to have enough staying power to make it in the long term, thanks in large measure to Mulally's One Ford concept.

 

That's because at least some new Ford products being developed for Europe will be heading to North America, too.

 

For example, the Fiesta subcompact that Ford unveiled in three-door and five-door versions here at the Geneva auto show is coming to North America in 2010. Given what's happening to the price of gasoline in the United States, it might be smart for Ford to also federalize a version of the next-generation Ka sub-subcompact, which likely will be unveiled in Paris in the fall.

 

This is a strange auto show for Ford, which is expected to announce this week that Jaguar and Land Rover have been sold to the Indian automaker Tata. Everybody knows it but nobody is talking about it because Ford execs didn't want to overshadow the debut of the redesigned Fiesta.

 

Over here, things still look much better for Ford, and a big reason is product. For years, it has bugged me that Ford -- and to some extent, General Motors -- had good products in Europe that didn't come to North America.

 

At the Fiesta unveiling, I wondered out loud: Why Ford is such a different company in North America than it is in the rest of the world?

 

A Ford alum gave me a simple explanation: Ford of Europe is run like a business, without the added baggage of political and family issues that bubble up in Dearborn.

 

As an example of what is considered muddled American thinking, some Europeans -- especially Anglophiles -- question why Ford would unload storied brands such as Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover, while keeping the Mercury brand on life support.

 

And, they ask, why didn't Ford do a better job of nurturing the Jaguar and Land Rover brands? And, by the way, what's going to happen to Volvo?

 

Obviously, Ford needs more in North America than just an infusion of European product. It must be the right European product.

 

Just in case you have not noticed T-Stag just about every car maker is US is suffering with negative sales at the moment bar just a few.

and just to give you an example of a few Europeans that cant sell into US market.

 

Jaguar sales down -10%

Land Rover sales down -9%

Volvo sales down -9%

 

Mercury are selling into the tough US market so they are suffering, they don't have a fresh new booming market like Land Rover do in Russia and China to fall back on, if l was Mercury l would try to start making cars that can be sold in a global marketplace start at the bottom like Ford are with the Fiesta, use the old Japanese trick of reverse engineering the best in Europe something like Peugeot 207 that was the best seller in 2007 make a carbon copy of it using best bits from the Ford parts bin and go global with it.

 

What is that make you think FOE would sell any better into any country that's sliding towards recession, Europe looks like they could be heading the same way as the US. FOE are only doing well because they have expanded into Russia & China earlier than the rest, but the rest ae arriving now as well to fill their boots as well so Land Rover sales will take a tumble when the rest get up to speed.

 

I don't think Ford of Europe should start telling the US what to do as even they would find it hard sell here at the moment, they should keep their noses out. Jaguar, Land Rover & Volvo sales prove a point it not easy to sell cars in the US at the moment.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/by-the-...-february-2008/

[rkisler]

The idea that Booth's lieutenants (whom I can only guess are TStag's "European directors") would have knives out, with which to battle Fields' 'lieutenants' is preposterous. The forum instituted by Mulally and Mulally's temperament do not make such a scenario likely.

 

You are correct.

 

Another silly post from Tstang.

 

Lewis Booth is a consumate business person. His background is finance and strategy. The temptation of a person at this level is to intrude into areas where one is not an expert (like design) simply because one has power, but that is not his style. He's done a great job.

 

Certainly there might be some in Europe who would like to have more investment for their products as they have been doing pretty well lately and they might believe they could leverage the funds effectively. But if anyone were looking at Mercury for funding, they would find mostly empty pockets turned inside out. Mercury models probably go for around $25-50 million max for differentiation. That ain't gonna buy you much of anything. In fact, if the differentiation is done intelligently, the incremental volume for Mercury pays for the investment. And, right now, there is no LM without Mercury.

[Watchdevil]

It's costing Ford very little if anything to rebadge a few models with different grilles, trims and lights and sell them alongside Lincolns. That's a major difference considering Volvo-Jaguar-Land Rover are virtually totally different companies operated by Ford with expensive unique products that have very little in common with F-L-M vehicles. The whole idea of Ford selling off parasite brands is to focus on the core of Ford itself and strengthen it's relavence in the market.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Watchdevil

[Edstock]

What a jerkoff article.

Another report which gives the impression

Gives the impression? Impression? The report gives your dim, reptilian forebrain an impression? That's all, and you post this crap?

 

Ford of Europe is run like a business, without the added baggage of political and family issues that bubble up in Dearborn.

This is the Ford of Europe that was run like a business that just about went bankrupt in the 80's and 90's, with a disastrous loss of marketshare, right? That Ford of Europe?

 

Family issues? What family issues? Bill Ford turned the outfit over to the Mull and his team. It's done, and any other family members can go pound sand. So, with the ascension of the Mull, there are no family issues.

 

As an example of what is considered muddled American thinking, some Europeans -- especially Anglophiles -- question why Ford would unload storied brands such as Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover, while keeping the Mercury brand on life support.

Why would Ford unload storied brands such as Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover? Because Aston is a management time-waster, for the money it does earn, Jaguar will still need investment as will Land-Rover.

 

And, they ask, why didn't Ford do a better job of nurturing the Jaguar and Land Rover brands? And, by the way, what's going to happen to Volvo?

 

Please provide specifics of how Ford could have done a "better job of nurturing the Jaguar and Land Rover brands". Otherwise, that's just an opinion with no FACTS. LR makes money, so that seems to have been OK, or are you saying that LR should be even bigger and more profitable? Given how Ford took the abysmal quality of the LR2 and turned the company around, I think the statement is cheapshot bullshit.

 

"And, by the way, what's going to happen to Volvo?" Well, why don't you ask Volvo, or do some research?

[P71_CrownVic]

My God...this thread takes "blind cheerleading" to a whole new level.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Blind chearleading? WTF?

 

Lets get one thing very straight here.

 

Mercury is, for all practical purposes a freaking TRIM LEVEL of Ford. They sell exactly 0 unique vehicles. There is not a single product on their lot that isn't 95% the Ford that its based on and about 5% differently colored or slightly differently shaped parts. From a cost perspective on the production side, mercury is miniscule as a "brand". However, because they are, indeed, a brand in the eyes of US franchising laws, they can not just be discontinued like a trim level. As has been mentioned, it would cost Ford billions in lawsuit losses if they just up and closed the Mercury brand. No one is going to want to "purchase" the brand as they would be completely beholden to Ford for the first few years of their existence as an "independent" brand. Then, given the current absence of independent Mercury dealers, they would IMMEDIATELY have a competitor operating on the floor of almost EVERY Lincoln dealership in the US. That would be corporate suicide. No one in their right mind would want that if they had ANY INTEREST AT ALL in Ford surviving as an independent company.

 

Jaguar, save for the X-type, and after the demise of the S-type will share no platforms with Ford. Land Rover, excluding the LR2 which is built off of the C1 platform, is in a similar situation. Aston Martin shared nothing but a few common suppliers and electronic components/switches with ford. They were independent operations run under the corporate umbrella that were easily divorced from the core auto operations. In the process, Ford pocketed over 2 billion dollars, and managed to retain profitable supplier contracts with the new companies on the short term, netting them some additional continuing money for a while. In the process, they avoided the significant amount of risk that operating in the mid and upper end of the EU market entailed.

 

Should Ford rid themselves of Mercury at some point in the future? Possibly. As soon as it is unprofitable to produce the trim level and support it with a modicome of advertising, it needs to get with every dealer in the US and work out a migration strategy that replaces any moving Mercury products with decent replacement Lincoln products in exchange for the dealers signing away their Mercury franchise rights. That's the only way that closing Mercury makes sense for everyone.

 

It is not inconceivable that the coming handful of new Lincoln products is not exactly what I said. Look at what Lincoln is getting...

 

MKS is easily a better Sable.

They are rumored to be getting a version of the next gen escape, a replacement for the Mariner?

The MkZ already exists, but, a rumored future Lincoln performance coupe could be a decent Milan replacement in the lineup.

The MkT could be perhaps a Mountaineer replacement.

What else does Mercury sell? Oh, that's right, nothing else. Well, the Grand Marque, but, really, with the TC moving to the same plant that the GM is produced at, and adopting its proportions, isn't it already replacing it?

 

So, it could already be in motion in front of all of our noses. I'm no chearleader. I'm pissed that Ford couldn't put together a decent Cougar off of the mustang platform. I'm upset that Mercury never got a sporty version of the Focus (especially a sport wagon). I'm dumbfounded that they couldn't manage the Meta One when Chicago most certainly had the capacity to produce it (and given the existence of the montego/sable, the tooling to make it couldn't have been that complicated to pull off, Mountaineer sales weren't going anywhere, and Mercury had lost their minivan. That speaks to me of willfull mismanagement of a brand that could have used anything, especially when Lincoln was withering on the vine as well.

[Edstock]

I'm dumbfounded that they couldn't manage the Meta One

 

Yes. IMHO, the Meta One looks like it was what the stylists really thought the Freestyle should have looked like. The grill and headlights accented the body's angularity, and looked more aggressive.

 

IMHO, if the Freestyle had looked like the Meta One, it would have done a lot better.

[Mark B. Morrow]

There is no basis for comparison between Mercury and JLR Aston or even Volvo. Mercury has no individual plants to support. Mercury cars run down the same lines as Fords. The cost of develpoing the trim variations in Mercury models in negligible and it gives Ford an additional outlet for sales.

 

I don't know that you can even quantify Mercury's "losses" especially compared with the costs in closing down Mercury dealers leaving them to go on Lincoln alone.

[syrtran]

Should Ford rid themselves of Mercury at some point in the future? Possibly. As soon as it is unprofitable to produce the trim level and support it with a modicome of advertising, it needs to get with every dealer in the US and work out a migration strategy that replaces any moving Mercury products with decent replacement Lincoln products in exchange for the dealers signing away their Mercury franchise rights. That's the only way that closing Mercury makes sense for everyone.

 

It is not inconceivable that the coming handful of new Lincoln products is not exactly what I said. Look at what Lincoln is getting...

 

MKS is easily a better Sable.

They are rumored to be getting a version of the next gen escape, a replacement for the Mariner?

The MkZ already exists, but, a rumored future Lincoln performance coupe could be a decent Milan replacement in the lineup.

The MkT could be perhaps a Mountaineer replacement.

What else does Mercury sell? Oh, that's right, nothing else. Well, the Grand Marque, but, really, with the TC moving to the same plant that the GM is produced at, and adopting its proportions, isn't it already replacing it?

 

So, it could already be in motion in front of all of our noses. I'm no chearleader. I'm pissed that Ford couldn't put together a decent Cougar off of the mustang platform. I'm upset that Mercury never got a sporty version of the Focus (especially a sport wagon). I'm dumbfounded that they couldn't manage the Meta One when Chicago most certainly had the capacity to produce it (and given the existence of the montego/sable, the tooling to make it couldn't have been that complicated to pull off, Mountaineer sales weren't going anywhere, and Mercury had lost their minivan. That speaks to me of willfull mismanagement of a brand that could have used anything, especially when Lincoln was withering on the vine as well.

While I've been one of the posters who fears that Mercury is done for, it's still possible for Mercury to be relevant in a new Lincoln world, at least for now. The one thing that Milan/MKZ and Sable/MKS allows LM is for Lincolns to be a little more "exclusive" - um -start at higher prices. Milan allows MKZ (with new styling, of course) to be a $30k+ sedan, and Sable allows MKS to be $35k+, while the LM dealer doesn't worry about losing a sale. Mercury gets to "fill in the gaps" like it did all those 70 years ago.

 

Hopefully, in this scenario, Mercury gets to keep an exclusive on the Mariner. I don't personally see a need for a Lincoln "cute ute." They need a new "Tracer" (horrible name, call it Comet :D), too. I'd also love to see (and buy) a new Cougar, but there would need to be some pretty specific differentiation from the possible MKR - a vehicle Lincoln seriously needs, for image reasons.

 

 

Something just occurred to me: With LR going to India, do we lose TStag, as well?

[macattak1]

I know I am in this late, but....

 

And the glaring problems just off the bat...

 

There is no such thing as an international company. There are companies that do business internationally. But they are always run from some home office, where ever that is. The company I worked for was one of the largest international companies. But it was run from the Home Office, not by proxy votes from all over the globe. Because if it was it would be one huge mess because they do things totally different Malaysia to Germany, Ireland to USA, Costa Rica to South Africa.

 

Further, Jag was a recent purchase. How long has Mercury been a part of Ford? And how much have they pumped into Jag and how much into Mercury? Pump $10 billion into Mercury and tell me what will happen?

 

Finally. Who bought who? Who started what? Daimler 'merged' with Chrysler. Who ran that? The ones with the money and the owners at the home office. In Germany!

 

Peace and Blessings