Falcon and Mustang to Share Components

[ausrutherford]

There is nothing mechanically wrong with the LS. People just did not want to buy them.

 

Actually there was...DEW was not made for AWD.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Lincoln will always succeed on the books as long as their marginal transaction price difference over the comparable fords exceeds break even over the amortized differential costs of making a Lincoln from a Ford platform.

 

Lincoln may never become a major player in the luxury market as long as they are just tarted up Fords, though.

 

I expect that, if GRWD ever gets back off the ground (and that's a long shot for the next 4-5 years) then Lincoln will dip into it heavily. Until then, there's no business case for a company that is only just recently breaking even to dump gobs of money into the fruitless excercise of trying to build up lincoln in the minds of buyers. Make solid products that offer value and no hassel for the customers, year after year, and word of mouth will grow. Value for Lincoln is a different animal then Value for Ford.

 

As for individual products, I believe that, over time, as improvements are made to the base products, and then Lincoln gets to further improve them, we will se the mimprove. The MkZ can do better. It needs to grow to two different versions, an EB 2.0L version and another with the 3.7L that's in the MKX. Further more, there needs to be, for the next major revision, provisions for a high performance model. The foundation for something like that is already there. If they can get an EB 3.5L in there with it's AWD system and tune it well enough, it will be substantial competition for anything in its size class. If they can get the transmission beefed up enough th handle it, I don't see where a 400hp/400 lb torque awd MkZ would be a bad thing for anyone. It's not going to sell a lot, but, it will attract attention.

 

The MkX improvements are very well thought out and I feel that, as word about it spreads, it will start to slice into the RX350s pie a little. It is already a better product than the new SRX with this update. It only needs the 2.0L EB setup to offer a fuel economy alternative.

 

The MkS is a good, solid product. The EB offering is competitive in its class. Its main problem is that it just doesn't stand out in any one area enough to get a lot of attention. It needs to move that next step up the luxury ladder in it's interior and I think it will start to get even more attention.

 

The MkT is, unfortunately, saddled with a body that, in the eyes of the few that I've talked to that even know it exists, homely all the way to "just plain wrong". The Flex suceeds in being a bit quirky while offering stunning utility and refinement. The MkT will not do as well as projected largely due to it not offering a whole lot more in any area than the Flex while being stuck in an outer shell that isn't generally considered to be attractive. In my opinion, I feel that the designers tried to go tastefully conservative with the MkT. This is a vehicle where agressive attempts at styling would have been more fruitful. I am not a designer and haven't gone to school for it, so I can't adequately state what I think needs to be done with it. All I can say is conservative is not an approach that should have been used there. Maybe a little less slope to the rear roofline. Perhaps a bit more turnup on the rear bumper area. Flame me if you want to, but, imagine a lengthened BMW X6 with the Lincoln grill on it. That's kind of where I would have gone.

 

And, has anyone seen a navigator lately? I can't even remember the last one I saw on a lot or on the street.

[NickF1011]

And, has anyone seen a navigator lately? I can't even remember the last one I saw on a lot or on the street.

 

The Navigator used to be the core of Lincoln. Now it has become the redheaded step-child. I think a significant makeover could go a long way toward recovering some of its sales. Let's face it. The current one is just flat out ugly.

[ausrutherford]

The Navigator used to be the core of Lincoln. Now it has become the redheaded step-child. I think a significant makeover could go a long way toward recovering some of its sales. Let's face it. The current one is just flat out ugly.

 

Well see a new one in a couple of years. I just hope they change the engines this year.

[morgande]

Back to the main topic...

 

I think Ford needs 2 RWD platforms. A large and a small. Here is why:

 

Right now, Ford has tunnel vision on RWD. Only the Falcon and the Mustang are focal points. Everything else kind of rotates around these two cars. Does it HAVE to be like this? No! Ford needs 2 platforms. One that is designed for smaller cars, and one that is designed for larger cars. Lets break things down by type:

 

1. (small) 2 person roadster.

Ford currently has no small 2 person roadster. Most would argue they don't need one. And I can see their argument. But I think that somewhere in the equation Ford needs one. Maybe it ends up in Ford as something that contends with the Miata. Like that Cobra Concept from a few years back. Or maybe Lincoln. BMW, MB, Audi all have 2 seaters. So its not like there is no market for on the Luxury side. Even Caddy had one.

 

2. (small) Mustang.

The #2 issue that I hear about the Mustang is that its too big (#1 is no IRS). While the IRS thing can be argued to the hilt, I do agree that the Stang is grown over the years. I KNOW that Peter Hornsby goal was to shrink the Mustang. Return it back to the small coup that it was. I'm thinking something that is about the size of a Mazda RX8 or a BMW 1 series.

 

A small RWD platform could be the foundation for these types of vehicles. The advantage of being, you don't have to think about stretching it to fit vehicle sizes it wasn't intended for. Its small by design, engineered for smaller cars, and can take advantage of things that best lend themselves to a smaller design. If Ford wanted to take this platform and hang a roadster off it, it wouldn't be too crazy a concept because it was engineered small anyway.

 

GM failed with the Kappa because you can't badge engineer two cars off one platform and justify the cost if they are low volume to begin with. Mustang has the volume to support its own platform. Its done it like that for years. Keep it small, and Ford can risk the low selling 2 seater without the heavy cost. This is how Mazda does the RX8 and the Miata. It can def work!

 

3 (large) mid-sized sports Sedan.

4 (large) mid-sized coup.

5 (large) full-sized sedan.

6 (larger) stretched sedan.

 

Build all these off the Larger RWD platform. Stretch the WB to accommodate whatever size you want. Widen it as needed. But it would never be intended to produce anything smaller than a Mid-sized car. This is perfect ground for Ford to build a Thunderbird, or the MKR, or the Falcon. And it won't impact the Mustang!

[ausrutherford]

I wonder if there is going to be a 4 door coupe like Thunderbird, if the Mondeo CC that EU had planned is killed. EU could get it which would statisfy all the RWD fans...FJ included.

[RichardJensen]

Seems a lot of the Lincolns are having difficulty maintaining any momentum though. MKS is slipping. MKZ and MKX aren't really setting anything on fire. The new MKX is a big step forward, at least for that model, but the brand as a whole has a long way to go in my opinion.

Yeah. The whole world is collapsing around our ears.

 

BMW sales 2008 > 2009 down 21%. Lincoln sales 2008 > 2009, down 22%.

 

Everybody had a bad year last year. Lincoln picked up market share.

[RichardJensen]

For who? For Lincoln? Or as a whole? If the MKZ is proof that you can make more money in the US on FWD, then how do you explain the Caddy CTS?

Ford: borrowed $23B from private lenders. Did not go bankrupt.

 

GM: was given $60B from the US government. DID go bankrupt.

 

If that doesn't illustrate to you that GM's strategy with Cadillac was wrong, I have no idea what will.

 

(oh, and before you [blah blah blah] about how that doesn't prove anything, consider: GM spent a fortune on Cadillac and still went bankrupt--Ford spent very little on Lincoln and is still a viable company--if that doesn't show you what company had their priorities straight, well....................)

[NickF1011]

Yeah. The whole world is collapsing around our ears.

 

BMW sales 2008 > 2009 down 21%. Lincoln sales 2008 > 2009, down 22%.

 

Everybody had a bad year last year. Lincoln picked up market share.

 

I'm not saying they are on the verge of going out of business. I'm saying they are havnig difficulty coming up with a thoroughly successful product. I was looking at Lincoln's sales early from the 2001-2004 time frame. They had several vehicles selling north of 3000 units per month in the Town Car, LS, and Navigator. Now they have none.

[morgande]

Ford: borrowed $23B from private lenders. Did not go bankrupt.

 

GM: was given $60B from the US government. DID go bankrupt.

 

If that doesn't illustrate to you that GM's strategy with Cadillac was wrong, I have no idea what will.

 

(oh, and before you [blah blah blah] about how that doesn't prove anything, consider: GM spent a fortune on Cadillac and still went bankrupt--Ford spent very little on Lincoln and is still a viable company--if that doesn't show you what company had their priorities straight, well....................)

 

oh good lord! Are you serious? For spent little and gained little. Spin the #s all you want. Lincoln gaining marketshare? yeah...but they had nowhere to go but up! Its called negative elevation. You should read about it! Lincoln gained. how much? How quantitative is it? By how many percentage points? I assure you, the Luxury leaders aren't loosing any sleep over Lincolns so-called 'gains'!

 

GM as whole was in the toilet. It wasn't because of Cadillac. Or just because of Cadillac. While Cadillac might have lost sales over 2009 (who didn't). They still far outsold Lincoln. By considerable margin. With respect to GM, Cadillac is one of the BRIGHT spots. One of the few good things going for them. Cadillac has MINDSHARE (at least with respect to US luxury market). You might want to read up on that concept too. Nobody has Lincoln on the radar. Nobody. Lincoln doesn't have anything. So far down it went, it had nowhere to go but up.

 

And you want to talk about some god d&am bankruptcy. B.S

[battyr]

Ford needs to decide what products they need in RWD. Then they can design or redesign the plantform/platforms to meet those needs.

 

These are the choices:

 

1. No RWD - Give up major market share.

2. Mustang RWD only - This could hurt sales in Australia. I believe Ford needs a unit-body, RWD SUV.

3. Mustang, Falcon/Taurus/Lincoln, Territory/Explorer - My Choice

4. Mustang, Falcon ..., Territory..., Long wheelbase for Police Interceptor/Taxi/Town Car.

 

Solutions:

 

1. Develop better FWD/AWD/Hybrid Electric.

2. Keep redesigning and upgrading current Mustang.

3(a). Redesign the Falcon and make it a Mustang out of it.

3(B). GRWD.

4. GRWD.

[RichardJensen]

I'm not saying they are on the verge of going out of business. I'm saying they are havnig difficulty coming up with a thoroughly successful product. I was looking at Lincoln's sales early from the 2001-2004 time frame. They had several vehicles selling north of 3000 units per month in the Town Car, LS, and Navigator. Now they have none.

Ford sold over 4M vehicles in 2000. They sold 1.6M last year.

Edited January 15, 2010 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

While Cadillac might have lost sales over 2009 (who didn't). They still far outsold Lincoln.

Lincoln down 22%, Cadillac down 32%, and that was with the new and much heralded CTS on sale the whole flippin' year.

 

And they outsold Lincoln by about a five to four ratio. Or, to put it in terms you can understand: If Lincoln outperforms Cadillac by 20-50% per year (as they have recently), they will catch Cadillac shortly.

 

---

 

As far as the GM bankruptcy goes, as far as the SIXTY BILLION DOLLAR GIFT to GM made by the government, that serves as an indictment of EVERYTHING GM did. From Cadillac to Saturn, you don't get recapitalized by Uncle Sam because you've done things right.

 

For all the money that GM spent on Cadillac, and they had spent $5B on 'new' Cadillac alone by 2006, according to contemporary reports, they weren't getting enough ROI to keep the lights on.

 

That money, in short, was wasted.

 

It's not a question of Ford spending a little and getting a little. It's a question of misplaced priorities at GM.

[NickF1011]

Ford sold over 4M vehicles in 2000. They sold 1.6M last year.

 

...and that has what to do with Lincoln not having any truly successful models today? Lexus still manages to sell thousands of ES's and RX's a month. BMW still manages to sell thousands of 3-series a month. Lincoln fell behind with its products and its reputation. It's on the slow road to recovery, but it is definitely sloooooooooooow.

[Edstock]

I assure you, the Luxury leaders aren't loosing any sleep over Lincolns so-called 'gains'!

Patience, Grasshopper, patience.

[RichardJensen]

...and that has what to do with Lincoln not having any truly successful models today? Lexus still manages to sell thousands of ES's and RX's a month. BMW still manages to sell thousands of 3-series a month. Lincoln fell behind with its products and its reputation. It's on the slow road to recovery, but it is definitely sloooooooooooow.

You can't use the results from ten years back as a yardstick.

 

Nor can you use another company's performance as a yardstick.

 

The end results of comparing one company with another, or one company with results from years ago are either a sense of complacency or a sense of futility.

 

As ol' Henry said, 'the only history that matters is the history we make today.' Not everything Henry said would've squared with Deming's principles, but that would.

 

Lincoln would be handicapped by taking Cadillac for a model (especially given that Cadillac failed to 'save' GM, which was its mission.) Lincoln would also be handicapped by comparing today's results with those from a decade past.

[ausrutherford]

Heres thr facts...Caddy is unprofitable...Lincoln is profitable...isnt that what matters?

[morgande]

Lincoln down 22%, Cadillac down 32%, and that was with the new and much heralded CTS on sale the whole flippin' year.

 

And they outsold Lincoln by about a five to four ratio. Or, to put it in terms you can understand: If Lincoln outperforms Cadillac by 20-50% per year (as they have recently), they will catch Cadillac shortly.

 

Stop spinning the #s. Let me put it in terms you don't want anyone to see. You talk about percentages as if they can exist stand-alone. 20% of what? What does that mean? How many vehicles did they sell one year vs the other. not the delta between the two.

 

2009 2008 +/1

 

Caddy

109,092 161,159 -32.3

 

Lincoln

82,847 107,295 -22.8

 

 

Caddy sold 26,245 more vehicles than Lincoln in 2009. That's over 30% more cars than Lincoln did. How about 2008? Caddy sold 53,864 more vehicles that Lincoln did 2008. Just over 50% more. So based on these numbers, you make the argument that Lincoln is gaining market? Perhaps... but outselling means selling more than the other guy. Lincoln is not outselling anyone. There sales took less of a hit than anyone...but thats because there wasn't much to hit in the first place. Lets take a further look. MKZ vs CTS.

 

CTS

38,817 58,774 -34.0

 

MKZ

22,081 30,117 -26.7

 

Again same thing. Cadillac sales took a bigger hit. 34%. Beats Lincoln sure. But its not like the MKZ it outselling the CTS. It isn't. Still outsold nearly 2:1.

 

 

As far as the GM bankruptcy goes, as far as the SIXTY BILLION DOLLAR GIFT to GM made by the government, that serves as an indictment of EVERYTHING GM did. From Cadillac to Saturn, you don't get recapitalized by Uncle Sam because you've done things right.

 

For all the money that GM spent on Cadillac, and they had spent $5B on 'new' Cadillac alone by 2006, according to contemporary reports, they weren't getting enough ROI to keep the lights on.

 

That money, in short, was wasted.

 

It's not a question of Ford spending a little and getting a little. It's a question of misplaced priorities at GM.

 

GM had misplaced priories. yes. Ill give you that. No question. But not with respect to investing in Cadillac. Your waaaaaaay out there on that one. When you hear about GM, you hear about certain products. The Volt. The ZR1. The CTS-V. These products are important. They are the bright spots on GM otherwise dim outlook. We can talk about GM failures till the cow comes home. Re-inventing Cadillac is NOT one of them. Not to me. Cadillacs problem is getting rid of the stale image they had. Getting people to take a look @ their products. See where they are going. What they are capable of. And putting the quality back in Cadillac. That is GM problem.

 

Lincoln...lincoln doesnt have any product worth people coming back to. Granted...Ford has cleaned up its quality. Ill give them that 110%. Cadillac can take a lesson or two from Ford on that respect. But to attach GM for re-inventing Cadillac. Your smoking that good stuff. And I want some. Must be the sticky of the icky....

Edited January 15, 2010 by morgande

[akirby]

The LS should have never been built because the business case was flawed. It depended on 100K sales worldwide to justify the high platform costs and it never got above 55K or so. At those volumes (and with no real potential to hit 100k) the high platform costs killed it.

 

They could have solved the power problem with a supercharger (like Jag) but that wouldn't have solved the cost or volume issue.

 

The LS was abandoned because of costs and a bad business case.

 

A modern RWD sedan that can use shared high volume powertrains on a shared platform could easily survive on 50K units today.

[NickF1011]

You can't use the results from ten years back as a yardstick.

 

Nor can you use another company's performance as a yardstick.

 

The end results of comparing one company with another, or one company with results from years ago are either a sense of complacency or a sense of futility.

 

As ol' Henry said, 'the only history that matters is the history we make today.' Not everything Henry said would've squared with Deming's principles, but that would.

 

Lincoln would be handicapped by taking Cadillac for a model (especially given that Cadillac failed to 'save' GM, which was its mission.) Lincoln would also be handicapped by comparing today's results with those from a decade past.

 

You can use the results from 10 years ago if those results still make sense today, which they do. Lincoln should be striving for a heck of a lot more than a lineup of vehicles that can't break more than 2000 units a month in sales. Those are bad sales. Period. They should be higher. Ten years ago they were higher.

[RichardJensen]

You can use the results from 10 years ago if those results still make sense today, which they do.

No, they don't.

 

Point 11 of Deming's 14 points:

 

11. Eliminate arbitrary numerical targets

 

Eliminate work standards that prescribe quotas for the work force and numerical goals for people in management. Substitute aids and helpful leadership in order to achieve continual improvement of quality and productivity.

 

The numbers from ten years ago are as meaningful as the numbers from one hundred, two hundred and two thousand years ago.

 

What matters is this: 'Are you satisfying your customers?' 'Is your product line sustainable?' 'Do you have the potential to grow?'

 

Focusing on numbers is wrong-headed. If you focus on customers, the numbers will take care of themselves.

[RichardJensen]

based on these numbers, you make the argument that Lincoln is gaining market? Perhaps...

Thank you for boldly acknowledging something that is transparently self-evident. Please, sir, slide a bit farther out on that limb and let me know if the sky is, indeed, blue on a sunny day....

 

I am not talking about numbers, as such, nor am I talking about percentages, as such. I am talking about trends: Where is Lincoln headed? Where is Cadillac headed?

 

But, more to the point, Lincoln has identified a target audience that is currently underserved, and to which they have some affinity as a brand.

 

Now, granted, you seem to be incapable of grasping that there are over three hundred million Americans, and that they do not all share the preferences of your close companions and fellow travelers (a disadvantage of the urban experience is that it seems to balkanize us---no matter how crazy you are, if you're in a big enough city, you'll find someone else who thinks pretty much the same way you do, get enough people like that and you start to forget that there's any other way of looking at things). I am disappointed by that, as I would've expected someone capable of forming sentences to be equally capable of grasping the fact that his peculiar tastes are not shared with the public at large.

 

Thus, I would expect you to be capable of grasping that some people want Lincoln's products and are, therefore, buying them.

Edited January 15, 2010 by RichardJensen

[NickF1011]

What matters is this: 'Are you satisfying your customers?'

 

The few you have, sure.

 

'Is your product line sustainable?'

 

I'm guessing at least a couple of those models at current sales numbers are not.

 

'Do you have the potential to grow?'

 

Let's hope so.

 

Focusing on numbers is wrong-headed. If you focus on customers, the numbers will take care of themselves.

 

I'm not saying any arbitrary numbers at all. They simply have to be better than they currently are. Do you think the MKT can survive on the market selling less than 1000 units per month?

[ausrutherford]

The few you have, sure.

 

 

 

I'm guessing at least a couple of those models at current sales numbers are not.

 

 

 

Let's hope so.

 

 

 

I'm not saying any arbitrary numbers at all. They simply have to be better than they currently are. Do you think the MKT can survive on the market selling less than 1000 units per month?

 

If its making profit, it can. Ford wasnt expecting major sales.

[RichardJensen]

I'm not saying any arbitrary numbers at all. They simply have to be better than they currently are. Do you think the MKT can survive on the market selling less than 1000 units per month?

C'mon Nick, you KNOW what the market was like last year. Why raise the MKT--which hasn't even come close to a year on the market--as a peculiar failure, when one could just as easily make a case that the F-Series is in serious trouble (probably less than 70% factory utilization), that the Mustang is in trouble (worst year ever), etc.?

Edited January 15, 2010 by RichardJensen