Mercury needs the MAX-es

[ZanatWork]

As I look at the tiny amount of potential vehicles headed for Mercury in the near future, I'm puzzled as hell by the lack of either C-or-S Max news in that direction. If any Euro vehicles seem uniquely suited to Mercury's aim at the kind of young college elitist wannabes and/or women who tend toward imports, those people movers are very attractive and would seem to have a market between the more square-jawed Ford vehicles and the higher-line Lincolns.

 

Mercury should have something besides a compact, a sedan, and a small crossover. Granted, in my perfect world they'd have a Cougar Eliminator with the upcoming 5.0...but in the current Mercury trend, the Max vehicles seem like no-brainers.

[RichardJensen]

Totally disagree.

 

Mercury is still a value proposition vis a vis its competitors. Feature for feature, Fords, Mercuries, and Lincolns cost less. You would destroy that by importing federalized x-Maxes.

 

Consider: any volume would be (IMO) in the 15k/year range, give or take, based on Mercury volume vs. Ford volume, and the volume of other Mercury products. That's far too small to support any independent effort. Mercury products must be thinly disguised Fords if Mercury is to remain profitable.

 

You would kill Mercury most assuredly if you embarked on a grandiose brand expansion program. Look no further than Saturn to see a scary example of what titanic overreach does to a brand.

 

And while it can certainly be argued that GM 'did it wrong', the reality is that the chances of success are so small and so dependent on unpredictable and unrepeatable chance occurrences that it would be the height of irresponsibility to take that course.

 

If Mercury is ever to reach a point where it can sustain such adventurous product planning must take a conservative path to get there. Gambling will not be rewarded.

[jpd80]

Besides all that, Ford is only a short while away from having a comprehensive C car product range

available in North America, why import products when the right ones will be available in the near future?

The addition of new Focus based products to Mercury's range will boost their sales no end.

Edited August 9, 2009 by jpd80

[Noah Harbinger]

Look no further than Saturn to see a scary example of what titanic overreach

 

Pun intended?

[Harley Lover]

Totally disagree.

 

Mercury is still a value proposition vis a vis its competitors. Feature for feature, Fords, Mercuries, and Lincolns cost less. You would destroy that by importing federalized x-Maxes.

 

Consider: any volume would be (IMO) in the 15k/year range, give or take, based on Mercury volume vs. Ford volume, and the volume of other Mercury products. That's far too small to support any independent effort. Mercury products must be thinly disguised Fords if Mercury is to remain profitable.

 

You would kill Mercury most assuredly if you embarked on a grandiose brand expansion program. Look no further than Saturn to see a scary example of what titanic overreach does to a brand.

 

And while it can certainly be argued that GM 'did it wrong', the reality is that the chances of success are so small and so dependent on unpredictable and unrepeatable chance occurrences that it would be the height of irresponsibility to take that course.

 

If Mercury is ever to reach a point where it can sustain such adventurous product planning must take a conservative path to get there. Gambling will not be rewarded.

 

Richard, I think the production of C chassis vehicles at Louisville makes it at least possible that Ford could afford to give Mercury a bespoke product. I don't know what kind of sales level would be necessary to make a business case for such a plan, but following along the lines of Ford's strategy of hitting singles and doubles instead of home runs with products, perhaps Mercury could benefit from Louisville.

[2b2]

deifinitely agree NO IMPORTS (not anymore)

however

when the EUCD/CD3 unification happens

I expect to see some kind of _-Max at Merc

but

I wonder if it'd be feasible profit-wise to use the innards of an Edge & the outards of a Milan to offer something (narrower, lighter, longer) in that category sooner?

 

Also [repost]

I'd *love* to see them build more Mariners!!!!

& variations on a theme

plus of course a 7 pass Mariner...

 

...considering a Hybrid drivetrain exists

AND the 3.5 is supposed to fit in a 3.0 engine compartment,

seems these could be perfect one-size-DOES-all vehicles!

Don't choices from 40mpg to 400hp sound good? (just ballparking)

 

 

ps

anyone know (mainly about the 3.0v6) what combining Atkinson cycle with PIP & CAT would yield?

Edited August 9, 2009 by 2b2

[RichardJensen]

Richard, I think the production of C chassis vehicles at Louisville makes it at least possible that Ford could afford to give Mercury a bespoke product. I don't know what kind of sales level would be necessary to make a business case for such a plan, but following along the lines of Ford's strategy of hitting singles and doubles instead of home runs with products, perhaps Mercury could benefit from Louisville.

It's a differential equation involving expected additional volume, expected additional cost per unit of overall volume, and expected change in average transaction price.

 

IMO, it would be difficult for a non-Lincoln product to satisfy that equation. Lincoln products can sustain ATPs up to $10k higher than Ford, and that pays for a lot of differentiation. Mercury, not so much.

[waymondospiff]

It's a differential equation involving expected additional volume, expected additional cost per unit of overall volume, and expected change in average transaction price.

 

IMO, it would be difficult for a non-Lincoln product to satisfy that equation. Lincoln products can sustain ATPs up to $10k higher than Ford, and that pays for a lot of differentiation. Mercury, not so much.

Agreed on most fronts.

 

However, wouldn't Ford's new "top hat" designs give Ford the ability to alter Mercurys more? I'd think that the next-gen Escape, for example, could feature a blocky Escape, a rounded Mercury, and perhaps one of those oh-so-trendy-oh-so-German-what-the-heck-is-it tall hatchback things (like x6 & Acura's ZDX) that would make for an interesting proposition at $25-30K in a Mercury showroom.

 

Even if the top-hat solution is too expensive, I don't understand why Mercury can't have a midsize crossover - an Edge with a waterfall grille - that seems to be a gapping void in the lineup.

[RichardJensen]

However, wouldn't Ford's new "top hat" designs give Ford the ability to alter Mercurys more?

Cost of separate stamping wouldn't decrease with Ford's top-hat methodology.

 

The next MKZ will probably retain the safety cage, floorpan, and suspension/subframes of the CD4s, but have 100% unique sheetmetal.

 

However, higher volume and higher ATP should cover those costs. With Mercury, you would need a similar bump in volume * ATP which seems unlikely.

Even if the top-hat solution is too expensive, I don't understand why Mercury can't have a midsize crossover - an Edge with a waterfall grille - that seems to be a gapping void in the lineup.

That's because the Edge (like the Taurus & Flex) ends up pretty solidly in base Lincoln territory at higher trims. Granted that Mercuries carry higher ATPs than Fords, Ford would rather see that money spent on a lower trim Lincoln than an optioned out Mercury in part to help amortize the cost of differentiating the Lincoln model that is baked into all Lincoln models (e.g. sheetmetal).

 

If you want a Mercury Edge it becomes harder to justify greater differentiation in the Lincoln Edge.

[rmc523]

deifinitely agree NO IMPORTS (not anymore)

however

when the EUCD/CD3 unification happens

I expect to see some kind of _-Max at Merc

but

I wonder if it'd be feasible profit-wise to use the innards of an Edge & the outards of a Milan to offer something (narrower, lighter, longer) in that category sooner?

 

Also [repost]

I'd *love* to see them build more Mariners!!!!

& variations on a theme

plus of course a 7 pass Mariner...

 

...considering a Hybrid drivetrain exists

AND the 3.5 is supposed to fit in a 3.0 engine compartment,

seems these could be perfect one-size-DOES-all vehicles!

Don't choices from 40mpg to 400hp sound good? (just ballparking)

 

 

ps

anyone know (mainly about the 3.0v6) what combining Atkinson cycle with PIP & CAT would yield?

 

A 7 passenger Mariner? I don't know about that.....

 

That Milan crossover thing, I'm liking for some reason, althought it looks just like a jacked up sedan at the bottom.

Edited August 9, 2009 by rmc523

[jpd80]

That's because the Edge (like the Taurus & Flex) ends up pretty solidly in base Lincoln territory at higher trims. Granted that Mercuries carry higher ATPs than Fords, Ford would rather see that money spent on a lower trim Lincoln than an optioned out Mercury in part to help amortize the cost of differentiating the Lincoln model that is baked into all Lincoln models (e.g. sheetmetal).

 

If you want a Mercury Edge it becomes harder to justify greater differentiation in the Lincoln Edge.

Yes, it's important not to supply products just because you can,

Mercury would lose its uniqueness and become more like a GM "me too" brand.

Edited August 9, 2009 by jpd80

[ZanatWork]

Totally disagree.

 

That's okay, Richard, because you're dead wrong.

 

Mercury is still a value proposition vis a vis its competitors. Feature for feature, Fords, Mercuries, and Lincolns cost less. You would destroy that by importing federalized x-Maxes.

 

That argument makes no sense. The "Maxes" are on existing platforms and would be unique from the other Ford offerings in both market niche and overall approach. Even just one of them would be a good product to help add diversity to a tiny lineup.

 

Consider: any volume would be (IMO) in the 15k/year range, give or take, based on Mercury volume vs. Ford volume, and the volume of other Mercury products. That's far too small to support any independent effort. Mercury products must be thinly disguised Fords if Mercury is to remain profitable.

 

On the contrary, the vehicles in question are, as mentioned, on already shared mechanicals and Mercury has often had one unique product all its own previously. Given that the C-Max might have a mechanical twin in an eventual Focus-based people mover (depending upon market realities), the investment is spread even further.

 

You would kill Mercury most assuredly if you embarked on a grandiose brand expansion program. Look no further than Saturn to see a scary example of what titanic overreach does to a brand.

 

If I wanted to have someone indulge in a ridiculous overstatement like that, I'd petition for P71's return. 1 model, maybe 2, is "grandiose"?!?

 

And while it can certainly be argued that GM 'did it wrong', the reality is that the chances of success are so small and so dependent on unpredictable and unrepeatable chance occurrences that it would be the height of irresponsibility to take that course.

 

Yeah, boy, betting with a wildly attractive product on existing mechanicals is just an IMMENSE leap...golly, almost two sidewalk cracks!

 

If Mercury is ever to reach a point where it can sustain such adventurous product planning must take a conservative path to get there. Gambling will not be rewarded.

 

As gorgeous and award-winning products already proven are the vehicles in question, pardon if I find "gambling" to be a strange statement. Sorry Richard, we generall agree, but I don't see and basis behind your "points" here.

[RichardJensen]

Of course you don't see any 'basis'--but that hardly disproves its existence.

 

I will address your valid counter points:

 

the vehicles in question are, as mentioned, on already shared mechanicals

 

Right now Mercury products are stamped at the same plants in coordination with Ford stamping. If your proposal is to import sheetmetal and assemble stateside here are your additional costs:

 

Instead of stamping and staging for assembly order at the plant, Ford will need to pack stamped sheetmetal in Europe for shipment to the US and subsequently insert that sheetmetal into the assembly process. This will cost far more than producing a slightly altered Mercury, and, IMO, will not obtain a commensurate increase in volume * ATP.

 

The cost of interior componentry, fascias, and glass, as well as expensive door subassemblies (e.g. power windows, locking mechanisms, speakers) will be substantially higher as well, as they will need to be shipped to the US for assembly.

 

Again, would this cost produce a volume increase * ATP value that exceeds the current product's? Doubtful, IMO, very doubtful.

 

Your costs would be even higher if you imported the entire vehicle.

 

So, regardless of globally shared mechanicals, if little is shared with the local plant, then you're still looking at high costs.

 

1 model, maybe 2, is "grandiose"?!?

In a word, 'yes'. An expensive to build unique Mercury that fails to meet planning assumptions by a wide margin could shift the overall balance sheet status for the brand from asset to liability.

 

betting with a wildly attractive product

As gorgeous and award-winning products already proven are the vehicles in question

'Wildly attractive' is a matter of opinion. Unless you can find 15-20k people a year who agree with you to the extent of actually buying said product............

 

You assume that a vehicle designed without even ten minutes of input from an American consumer will be 'wildly attractive' for this market. Sorry, I cannot even begin to agree with such an extreme assertion. Also the Ford F150 won the Motor Trend truck of the year award--does that make it suitable for export to Europe?

 

There are a couple other points I want to address--they aren't in direct response to points I raise, but I think they're worth addresing:

 

Even just one of them would be a good product to help add diversity to a tiny lineup.

Why is it necessary that Ford add 'diversity' to a 'tiny' lineup? What arguments are you prepared to marshal in support of this assertion that the Mercury lineup needs 'diversity'?

 

Mercury has often had one unique product all its own previously

I think we both agree that Ford has not always been the best run company. I would point to previous 'unique' Mercuries and note that none of them saw a tenth birthday, and only one of them made it to five. In short, they were failures and should not have been approved in the first place.

 

The longest lasting unique 'Mercury' was the first Capri, and it was imported straight from Europe back when you could do so with almost no modifications--and when exchange rates made it a fairly profitable undertaking.

Edited August 10, 2009 by RichardJensen

[timmm55]

For s unique product, Mercury could import a version of the Falcon. The exchange rate is a lot better than Europe. And since GM abandoned the reasonably prices G8, Ford has a wide open opportunity.....but I'm sure they'll see it as a "lesson learned."

[saintlaz1]

The last thing mercury needs are the c/s max, mercury does not need to turn into a family hauler brand. its bad enough we dont have a coupe.

[2b2]

excuse my butting in...

Why is it necessary that Ford add 'diversity' to a 'tiny' lineup?

imho/NO-Doubt

Mercury needs more than 2 models, Mariner & Milan, to hold on to an identity

so it needs more models.

 

Since redundancy isn't OK, the additions must increase diversity.

 

-----------

 

Imho (again) now is not the time for unique PLATFORMS

but by using tophats with designed-in modifiable components

& careful timing with existing vs new platforms**,

Fomoco ought to be able to give the appearance/perception of more diversity than there is under the skinS -- think Infinti's last decade may provide clues.

 

 

** with multiple factories earmarked for C3, it makes sense to stagger their re-gearing

so for a time, having same-segment models on different platforms is an engraved invitation to diversity

Edited August 10, 2009 by 2b2

[RichardJensen]

Mercury needs more than 2 models

Mercury is getting a Focus clone.

 

Since redundancy isn't OK

Why not?

 

with multiple factories earmarked for C3, it makes sense to stagger their re-gearing so for a time, having same-segment models on different platforms

Huh? So Ford should build Mercuries at one plant and Fords at another? Or Ford should stamp Mercuries in, say, Maumee and ship the sheetmetal to Hermosillo despite the presence of a stamping plant at Hermosillo?? Plus rollouts will take less than a year going forward.

[waymondospiff]

That's because the Edge (like the Taurus & Flex) ends up pretty solidly in base Lincoln territory at higher trims. Granted that Mercuries carry higher ATPs than Fords, Ford would rather see that money spent on a lower trim Lincoln than an optioned out Mercury in part to help amortize the cost of differentiating the Lincoln model that is baked into all Lincoln models (e.g. sheetmetal).

 

If you want a Mercury Edge it becomes harder to justify greater differentiation in the Lincoln Edge.

 

Fair enough - Mercury can't support models that cross into Lincoln territory. Considering Lincoln territory is $35K & up, pretty much every Ford minus the Fiesta & Focus reach into that range. If rumours of a Lincoln-ized Escape/Kuga are correct, that's one more vehicle Mercury can't support.

 

That'd leave Mercury with rebadged Fiestas, Focuses, and base-model Milans 'cause of the 4cyl engine. Then Mercury is just a way to add lower price points to the Lincoln showrooms. Is that the end goal for Mercury? Just to add value to Lincoln franchises?

[RichardJensen]

3.0L (or 2.0L ecoboost) Milan, yes. AWD 3.5L sport Milan, no.

 

Mercury exists for two reasons:

 

1) It supports LM dealers.

 

2) It provides a broader customer base for Ford's products.

 

However, its existence is quite tenuous and a dose of high expectations could kill it off entirely.

Edited August 10, 2009 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Fair enough - Mercury can't support models that cross into Lincoln territory.

Mmmmm....... Lincoln Territory

[2b2]

nah, Jpd^

just a Territory with the L-M "Star&Wings" Package

Don't ever let anything diminish Ford-Au's special position

(not to say you won't get Other Lincolns ...& Mercs!!!)

 

Mercury is getting a Focus clone.

Yeah - good - hope it's enough FOR NOW - tho we don't know when their 'now' is yet, could be 2011cy

& imho

Merc needs more**

 

Why not?

Do you seriously believe One nameplate offering 2 models for the same niche is sensible?

(THIS much patience, I don't have - ask someone/ANYone else)

 

Huh?

1. So Ford should build Mercuries at one plant and Fords at another?

2.Or Ford should stamp Mercuries in, say, Maumee and ship the sheetmetal to Hermosillo despite the presence of a stamping plant at Hermosillo??

3.Plus rollouts will take less than a year going forward.

1. why not?

ex: when the last-gen Taurus/Sable was winding down & the 500 was out and Fusion was coming,

what if Fomoco had started the new cars off exclusively as Mercs? or Lincoln-Mercurys?

conversely with the C170>>C3 change over (a larger, more important one afaik) what if Merc kept the current Mariner but got the first C3 car?

Imho Fomoco has a mild>bad case of the Chevrolet-Disease ie Chevy got everything (frequently first) whether the other 'brand-lets' needed it more or not -- we've seen how well that served GM!

2. "huh?"

getting ridiculous there, no?

3. define "rollouts"

vehicle design takes 2-3 years

a factory redo takes about a year (and costs LOTS, best not to do them all at once)

a careful launch IS taking almost 6 months for the Taurus & MKT

there WILL be significant C170/C3 overlap - this COULD be USED (ie effectively)

4/**.

"more" can mean doing more with available resources & platforms -- tho it's more WORK.

Imho NO platform used/sold in the U.S. is being fully utilized

- lack of tophat updates (no names = redcardS)

- one body-style only with diff grilles (too many to count)

((why can't modern design & mfg methods make diversity affordable?))

- diff factories making diff versions (Chicago sedans, Oakville Cuvs)

hopefully this is getting 'cured'

...Mercury exists for two reasons:

1) It supports LM dealers.

2) It provides a broader customer base for Ford's products.

However, its existence is quite tenuous and a dose of high expectations could kill it off entirely.

 

A high dose of NOTHING will do it quicker (apologies to O.Wilde)

If a brand serves a business purpose it must be supported (see GM for a bad BAD example)

Lack of support diminishes said business overall.

Lack of visible support negatively impacts consumer perception & therefore sales.

 

A 'small footprint' for Merc WILL serve F.M.L. temporarily...

...as long a Mercury doesn't evaporate in the process

 

I truly hope SomeOne at FMC understands bell curves:

Lincoln will NEVER naturally out sell Ford OR MERCURY!

Whether the F::M::L proportions should be 4-2-1 or 9-3-1 or 16-4-1 etc, IF Lincoln is doing its job and serving ITS role - it's only place is in "1" ...ie First Place

and the other 2 'volumize'/multiply from there

 

edit - forgot to use any smilies

so starting this off with a post icon

& ending with

Edited August 10, 2009 by 2b2

[Gnostic]

Totally disagree.

 

Mercury is still a value proposition vis a vis its competitors. Feature for feature, Fords, Mercuries, and Lincolns cost less. You would destroy that by importing federalized x-Maxes.

 

opinion

 

Consider: any volume would be (IMO) in the 15k/year range, give or take, based on Mercury volume vs. Ford volume, and the volume of other Mercury products. That's far too small to support any independent effort. Mercury products must be thinly disguised Fords if Mercury is to remain profitable.

 

opinion

 

You would kill Mercury most assuredly if you embarked on a grandiose brand expansion program. Look no further than Saturn to see a scary example of what titanic overreach does to a brand.

 

opinion

 

And while it can certainly be argued that GM 'did it wrong', the reality is that the chances of success are so small and so dependent on unpredictable and unrepeatable chance occurrences that it would be the height of irresponsibility to take that course.

 

opinion

 

If Mercury is ever to reach a point where it can sustain such adventurous product planning must take a conservative path to get there. Gambling will not be rewarded.

 

opinion

 

 

Richard you are a tool sometimes.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Gnostic

[NickF1011]

I saw this thread title...and thought....Mercury is geared toward women....so Mercury should get...MAX...I's?? Nevermind.

[akirby]

The plan is to fix Ford first, then Lincoln. At that point any remaining L/M dealers should be sustainable on Lincoln volume only. At that point Ford either finds a niche for Mercury vehicles (not rebadged Fords or Lincolns) or they kill it. There is no room for 3 tiers of vehicles or for rebadging just for the sake of volume.

[battyr]

The plan is to fix Ford first, then Lincoln. At that point any remaining L/M dealers should be sustainable on Lincoln volume only. At that point Ford either finds a niche for Mercury vehicles (not rebadged Fords or Lincolns) or they kill it. There is no room for 3 tiers of vehicles or for rebadging just for the sake of volume.

 

Ford, Lincoln and Mercury should be treated as "One Ford". They all need to be fixed at the same time and as part of one plan. If Ford can't do this then they should get ride of them.