The idiocy of a compact Lincoln

[Deanh]

From the beginning I've had issues with the design. It intentionally accentuates the square and squattiness of it with the low hips and trunk.

 

Here are some of the issues I refer to:

 

 

 

Things have changed a lot in design since 1976. Form following function has resulted in some relatively odd shapes (Prius for one) that never would have been seen as aesthetically pleasing back then.

I may be one of a minority here but i kinda like it, the color does nothing for it though...I saw a Dark blue version and quite liked it....would it work/ sell....I have no idea, BUT good or bad ( subjective ) it does stand out for sure, kinda reminded me of a modern take on the renault Megane.....

[RichardJensen]

See, Dean. That's the kiss of death right there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just compared it to a French car.

[Deanh]

See, Dean. That's the kiss of death right there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just compared it to a French car.

LMAO...I had a post post heart skip after I realized what id done...well, the Megane does have a Chinese transmission....lol.....meh, always liked the looks anyway of the pugs and Citroens as well....but that me, I like quirky....;

[timmm55]

IMHO the Pacer's problem wasn't the width......it was the heighth. Particularly the "bubble" effect.

 

A simple chop and channel, and it doesn't appear so odd anymore.

[timmm55]

I may be one of a minority here but i kinda like it, the color does nothing for it though...I saw a Dark blue version and quite liked it....would it work/ sell....I have no idea, BUT good or bad ( subjective ) it does stand out for sure............

 

LOL i removed the French quote!

 

Here's the blue one, I like it. But dark colors mask a multitude of sins.

 

[RichardJensen]

IMHO the Pacer's problem wasn't the width......it was the heighth. Particularly the "bubble" effect.

 

A simple chop and channel, and it doesn't appear so odd anymore.

 

Bearing in mind that your photo sort of disguises the width of said AMC product and subsequent punchline.

 

And in darker colors it only becomes more '81 Seville in its styling offenses.

[timmm55]

Back to the Forum Title......."The Idiocy of a compact Lincoln"........the only idiocy I see is a complete distain for something you don't know, can't see and don't understand.

 

It's called prejudice.

[RichardJensen]

Back to the Forum Title......."The Idiocy of a compact Lincoln"........the only idiocy I see is a complete distain for something you don't know, can't see and don't understand.

 

It's called prejudice.

 

"don't know"

 

I *do* know that attempts to sell weird troll-like luxury cars have failed miserably whenever they've been attempted (C30, A3, BMW 318, Mercedes A-Class)

 

"can't see"

 

I -can- see the Concept C and I find it abhorrent.

 

"don't understand"

 

I do understand that if buyers do not want a strangely shaped AUDI and do not want a strangely shaped VOLVO and do not want a strangely shaped MERCEDES and do not want a strangely shaped BMW, they, in all likelihood, do not want a strangely shaped Lincoln.

 

It's called "rational thought process"

 

----

 

Please. Don't call me prejudiced because I disagree with you. Don't call me prejudiced because I'm convinced that there are fundamental flaws in this concept.

 

It's not about ideologies.

 

It's about trying to sell the American public something that they demonstrably DO NOT WANT. It's not a question of finding just the right packaging for "Mrs. Paul's Petroleum Flavored Fish Sticks", it's about rejecting the entire concept as impractical.

 

I don't need to eat a pile of crap to discover that it tastes bad, and Ford doesn't need to build that hideous monstrosity to discover that it won't sell.

[Noah Harbinger]

"don't know"

 

I *do* know that attempts to sell weird troll-like luxury cars have failed miserably whenever they've been attempted (C30, A3, BMW 318, Mercedes A-Class)

 

"can't see"

 

I -can- see the Concept C and I find it abhorrent.

 

"don't understand"

 

I do understand that if buyers do not want a strangely shaped AUDI and do not want a strangely shaped VOLVO and do not want a strangely shaped MERCEDES and do not want a strangely shaped BMW, they, in all likelihood, do not want a strangely shaped Lincoln.

 

It's called "rational thought process"

 

----

 

Please. Don't call me prejudiced because I disagree with you. Don't call me prejudiced because I'm convinced that there are fundamental flaws in this concept.

 

It's not about ideologies.

 

It's about trying to sell the American public something that they demonstrably DO NOT WANT. It's not a question of finding just the right packaging for "Mrs. Paul's Petroleum Flavored Fish Sticks", it's about rejecting the entire concept as impractical.

 

I don't need to eat a pile of crap to discover that it tastes bad, and Ford doesn't need to build that hideous monstrosity to discover that it won't sell.

 

So it's more a disdain for the C-Concept vehicle (which I completely agree is ugly and would bomb), rather than the concept of "some really cool Compact Lincoln" which none of us have seen?

 

Do you think ANY C-class Lincoln is doomed to failure? Or just this one?

[Biker16]

Interesting. Ford's resurgence has come on the back of the Mazda derived Escape, Fusion and Edge, and other vehicles (Taurus, Flex, Focus) that are built on old EU platforms that were significantly upgraded with ONLY the NA market in mind. Not to mention the NA Mustang and F-Series.

 

Ford has gained market share in 19 of the last 20 months with a lineup that has only the slimmest of EU roots.

 

Contrast that with VW, a company that is as European as all getout, and which has lost more money per unit sold than Ford, over the last 7 years.

 

A company that has, if anything, gone overboard with its latest models in an attempt to de-Eurofy them.

 

By imitating BMW? They can STAND OUT by copying BMW's formula? And they can find LESS competition by going HEAD TO HEAD with the 3-SERIES?

 

Face it Biker. If people want a $35k compact with plastic seats, they're buying a BMW. They won't be satisfied with a Lincoln. Why would they? The only thing they're buying is the logo.

 

The only car sold in NA that originated in Ford NA is the crown victoria. even the mustang has origins back to the Jaguar S-type. they have failed at every from scratch car they have made since the 1st taurus.

 

now all ford cars will be based on FOE archtechtures, sans the mustang.

 

 

BTW: Can someone else explain this to me?

 

 

You are making this a Lincoln focus discussion, not a compact Lincoln discussion. if we were talking about a RWD compact Lincoln based on the mustang, would there be so many voices against this?

 

The 3 series is the best selling luxury car in the world. it is only 3 inches longer than the Fiesta product matters not size.

 

Nice.

 

Here's an even BETTER idea.

 

Ford should take the budget for, say, the next Mustang and spend it on lottery tickets.

 

Sure it's a risk. Heck, some may even call it a quote-unquote *gamble*, but not me. I think that Ford has to live in a world of 'try it'.

 

 

Is the MKZ, MKS, or MKT a success?

Is this Lincoln lineup sustainable?

The wasted $2.5 billion on current mustang floor-pan, is no comparison to the <300 million we would need for a new low volume top hat on C2.

 

If we don't develop new top hats for these ultra flexible architectures, we are wasting money building flex plants and flexible architectures.

 

 

Back to the Forum Title......."The Idiocy of a compact Lincoln"........the only idiocy I see is a complete distain for something you don't know, can't see and don't understand.

 

It's called prejudice.

 

I agree, he is prejudice.

 

he was for the styling on 500, still agianst the Transit, and for the 2005 Focus redesign.

 

He does not like change until it hits him in the head and it always does.

[RichardJensen]

So it's more a disdain for the C-Concept vehicle (which I completely agree is ugly and would bomb), rather than the concept of "some really cool Compact Lincoln" which none of us have seen?

 

Do you think ANY C-class Lincoln is doomed to failure? Or just this one?

 

C size CUV > C size sedan > (by a long shot) Concept C

 

I think a C class CUV with a hybrid powertrain would just KILL in the market.

Edited June 23, 2010 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

The only car sold in NA that originated in Ford NA is the crown victoria

Your point, earlier, was that Ford's resurgence "proves" that Americans want cars with European "DNA".

 

If ANYTHING, the European "DNA" has been an OBSTACLE for the Taurus/MKS/MKT, etc., as opposed to a plus (inasmuch as the P2 donor platform is a CUV platform).

 

 

----

 

Suddenly now it's all about Ford *not* using donor platforms engineered on this continent?

 

----

 

As far as the MKT & MKS. Yes. They are successes. They are successes the way the 2006 Fusion was a success.

 

----

 

And all I said about the 2005 Focus, in its defense, was that the C1 Focus didn't look all that different, and that most Americans wouldn't notice the difference.

 

You, of course, argued otherwise.

 

----

 

BTW: I just LOVE how you keep bringing up stuff I posted SIX years ago.

[RichardJensen]

Is the MKZ, MKS, or MKT a success?

The MKS & MKT have European "DNA", do they not?

[RichardJensen]

BTW, Biker, I have just about had my fill of you LYING about what I've said.

 

Henceforth, ANYTHING you say about what I've posted in the past will either come with a CITATION, or that portion of your post will be deleted.

 

Please note that I have pointedly REFRAINED from bringing up your past predictions, and I am hereby forcing you to either do the same, or furnish some proof of what I said.

 

It is TRUE that I defended the Five Hundred, INCLUDING ITS EUROPEAN "DNA" (it's a scaled up combination of the CDW220 Mondeo & an Audi A6 on a Volvo platform, after all). That was SIX years ago.

 

I am not going to DEFEND my record, and I am not going to attack YOUR record. I am going to ENFORCE silence on the subject, unless you can furnish PROOF for your characterizations.

 

Capiche?

[ausrutherford]

The MKS & MKT have European "DNA", do they not?

 

Hardly...P2 was heavily redone for the 500 and then even more so for the MkS and then some more to make a LWB for the MkT.

[RichardJensen]

Hardly...P2 was heavily redone for the 500 and then even more so for the MkS and then some more to make a LWB for the MkT.

 

I quote your fellow traveler:

 

The only car sold in NA that originated in Ford NA is the crown victoria. even the mustang has origins back to the Jaguar S-type. they have failed at every from scratch car they have made since the 1st taurus

 

Moreover, its chief drawback was inherited from the XC90: Its high H point.

[rmc523]

I wonder if they could be cheeky enough to offer lightly reworked Kuga as the Lincoln CUV

and develop a new SUV shaped Escape for Ford use...

 

 

I agree with the SUV-look new Escape idea, but I disagree that Lincoln should just rebadge a Kuga into a Lincoln model.

 

From the beginning I've had issues with the design. It intentionally accentuates the square and squattiness of it with the low hips and trunk.

 

Here are some of the issues I refer to:

 

 

 

Things have changed a lot in design since 1976. Form following function has resulted in some relatively odd shapes (Prius for one) that never would have been seen as aesthetically pleasing back then.

 

 

That definitely helps, but it's still not there IMO. And the Prius isn't aesthetically pleasing TODAY, either.

 

C size CUV > C size sedan > (by a long shot) Concept C

 

I think a C class CUV with a hybrid powertrain would just KILL in the market.

 

Tada:

 

 

[jpd80]

I agree with the SUV-look new Escape idea, but I disagree that Lincoln should just rebadge a Kuga into a Lincoln model.

 

 

Don't forget Mulally's original desire was to import the German Kuga and sell it as as a Lincoln,

I wonder if that plan has found some new viability...

[Inselaffe]

Yes, the VOSS is basically a synthesis of the SSI, APEAL, and IQS surveys, but IQS and APEAL are significantly impacted by the build quality of the vehicle, (including initial defects). Ford would need exceptionally bad dealers (basically, it would need to have the worst dealers in all of Europe, by a significant margin) in order to do as poorly as it does on the VOSS without having poor manufacturing factor into their low ratings. Dealership satisfaction is 20% of the total score with service costs being factor of a further 26% (cost of ownership).

 

My experience with the UK's Ford dealers, after owning 6 new Fords over a decade with my employee ticket, would range from just acceptable to as dreadful as you described.

 

This is how the VOSS is calculated for the UK:

 

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/lexus-dominates-jd-power-2010/250150

 

The 2010 UK Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Study (VOSS) is based on the evaluations of more than 17,000 online interviews from UK car owners after an average of two years of ownership. The study was fielded in December 2009 and January 2010. Owners provide detailed evaluations of their vehicles and dealers, which cover 67 attributes grouped in four measurements of satisfaction. In order of importance, they are: vehicle appeal (37%), which includes performance, design, comfort and features; vehicle quality and reliability (24%); ownership costs (22%), which includes fuel consumption, insurance and costs of service/repair; and dealer service satisfaction (17%).

 

No mention of SSI, IQS, or APEAL there. Note that the sample size is ~17000 (from a total over 2 million vehicle sales per annum in the UK), furthermore they are online interviews where the customer must at first be asked secondly be motivated to complete the survey. Vehicle appeal is the big one that goes against Ford when you consider their ubiquity and in many cases they are fleet/company cars that individuals are obliged to take. Also one thing that pisses me off is how people in the UK and Europe naively equate soft touch finishes and deeply chromed plastics with "Build Quality", a reason why VW/Audi are so regarded here. Looking at the individual vehicle scores the most striking thing about the results for Ford are just how average across the board they are. Other than concluding that ownership of Ford in the UK could be generalised as completely unremarkable, I am just not convinced of pinpointing any sort of meaningful individual conclusions from these results, especially that FoE needs some kind of white-knight to sort out the manufacturing quality. If there are any improvements that can be made from Ford NA's manufacturing quality procedures that would improve our damned TGW scores they would be more than welcome. However if they go barely beyond the simple things like making sure hose clips are put on correctly or bits of trim being fully secured, then they may not be adequate enough on their own.

 

An area for improvement could be reigning in the extremely short-term screw-everybody else Anglo/American attitude in Ford's purchasing, I say this as someone who has sat on both sides of the table of the Ford/Supplier relationship and this an area Ford has a lot to learn from the Germans and Japanese. Another thing would be do not ever have seperate "cost-reduction" departments in product development, the people in these teams are generally not clever enough to understand the thinking and development that goes behind component designs and implement changes.

 

If you want my opinion, european Fords are by-and-large mechanically reliable especially the gasoline engined versions. There do seem to have been issues with diesel powertrain reliability, DMF & fuel system failures. Out of the several Fords I've had there have been extremely few early defects and one unusual catastrophic failure at 2.5 years. The catastrophic failure although spectacular (a turbo-bearing causing diesel engine run-away) did not in itself piss me off, however the response of Ford Customer services and the dealership was atrocious in doing nothing more than the bare legal minimum repair (in my technical opinion insufficient) leaving me out of pocket for the duration the car was off the road and finally with a car I had much reduced confidence in.

 

I agree. Regardless of public opinion, they can't deviate from Deming's 'Plan > Do > Check > Improve' structure, and "Check" must include metrics besides the JDP IQS.

 

All laudable stuff, however when you've worked in product development as long as I have you become aware of the danger of this being thrown around far too cheaply. Like the weapons grade cock of a manager I've worked for (not Ford but another American icon) whose answer to absolutely everything is FMEA, nevermind that basic things like engineering drawing quality is in the shitter or tolerance stack-ups are not being performed. Also don't get me started on the hijacking of 6 Sigma by the BS artists.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Inselaffe

[rmc523]

Don't forget Mulally's original desire was to import the German Kuga and sell it as as a Lincoln,

I wonder if that plan has found some new viability...

 

Yes, and that I guess would've been ok a few years ago, but today with Ford's global products merging, you'll have part of the Ford lineup having the Euro look in a few years (Fiesta does and Focus will soon, etc) and then you'll have the baby Lincoln CUV sharing the same design cues until it's replaced?

 

I understand where you're coming from in saying that the L-M dealers will need product to sustain them until the Lincoln lineup is filled out and refined, but at the same time they don't want or need to shoot themselves in the foot by bringing a product to market that:

1) doesn't match the Lincoln rest of the lineup in any way

2) doesn't use "Lincoln" materials, and therefore

3) is not an accurate representation of what a Lincoln is and will be in the future

 

And I think these points are emphasized ESPECIALLY by the fact that it's a c-segment vehicle - many buyers of this vehicle will/would theoretically be new buyers to the brand -- buyers that Lincoln needs to "impress" (for lack of a better word) in order to move them up the Lincoln lineup from MK"G" --> MKX --> MKT, and same with the C-segment sedan (if there is one). I'd say a good chunk of the buyers of the small luxury vehicles today are the same buyers of your MKS,' MKT's, MKR's, MKContinentals, etc.(whatever other larger and more expensive vehicles Lincoln has planned) tomorrow.

 

 

I'd say Lincoln has one shot at a C-segment sedan and CUV (although CUV has more chance of success, IMO). Bottom line is that if Lincoln skimps on the details, quality, design, etc. of these C-segment vehicles, they'll be failures and will weaken the brand much more than they help it by tarnishing the brand's reputation (Cimmaron). On the other hand, if these vehicles are done right (by using Lincoln-exclusive tophats, interiors, powertrains, etc. -- all of which, IMO are necessary for their success), they can strengthen the brand by ushering in new customers (that will eventually step up with future purchases) to the brand and can put Lincoln at the forefront of the small luxury vehicle segment (which I do think is going to grow over the next several years) - being a leader rather than a follower, while maintaining and improving the image of the brand with the larger vehicles.

[jpd80]

while Kuga is short like a Focus it's as wide as a mid sizer at 72.5"

with around 56" shoulder room and around 37.5" rear leg room.

So that puts the cabin interior room at a similar size to the MKZ.

 

If any Compact was to stand a snowball's chance as a Lincoln,

it would be a variation of the Kuga.

[RichardJensen]

No mention of SSI, IQS, or APEAL there. Note that the sample size is ~17000 (from a total over 2 million vehicle sales per annum in the UK)

Thanks for the response.

 

In the US, JDP performs four vehicle quality surveys, the "Sales Satisfaction Index", which is primarily a dealer rating system, the "Initial Quality Survey", total defects after 90 days, "Vehicle Dependability Survey", defects over three years, and "Automobile Performance Execution And Layout", which is kind of a fuzzy rating that's best left up to JDP to explain: http://www.jdpower.c...l-study-results

 

The VOSS seems like a synthesis of three of those surveys (IQS, APEAL, and SSI)--even if it is not explicitly described that way.

 

Also, the percentages used to calculate the VOSS score vary from country to country. They're slightly different for France, for instance.

If there are any improvements that can be made from Ford NA's manufacturing quality procedures that would improve our damned TGW scores they would be more than welcome.

Ford has been implementing new QC measures with every new factory retooling/new product launch, as well as some other processes that have been rolled out across all plants, including:

 

- factory 'work groups' of engineers and line workers who receive a daily list of product issues, and an expedited issue tracking system. Most potential design/assembly issues will be in the hands of these work groups the day after they're reported.

 

- improved electronic surveillance of vehicles as they come down the line

 

- electric power tools, pre-programmed for the bolt/screw sequence, and the proper torque

 

- batch & hold quality assurance: vehicles are held up a thousand at a time (I think) while a random sample is subjected to 25 mile test drives. IIRC, a very very small sample will be pulled for extensive testing.

 

- improved manufacturing engineering. Some of it strikes me as being mere gadgetry, but they're using VR to simulate the build process with the goal of reducing awkward assembly steps.

http://www.digitaltr...-manufacturing/

 

- the most important step, IMO, is that they won't run the line full speed until they have five consecutive days of defect free builds. It's caused some pretty significant delays in the launch of a few products, but the overall results speak for themselves.

 

An area for improvement could be reigning in the extremely short-term screw-everybody else Anglo/American attitude in Ford's purchasing

Ford's been reducing its number of suppliers and tagging remaining suppliers as 'partners'--seems to be working well with Microsoft and Bosch, but with traditional suppliers (e.g. interiors), I'm not sure. Haven't seen the latest supplier surveys.

 

you become aware of the danger of this being thrown around far too cheaply.

Well, that was another one of Deming's points: Don't manage by slogan. Saying "Plan > Do > Check > Improve" is nothing. Doing it is something.

 

BTW: Maybe you should offer your services to Toyota. I think their FMEA team is a little screwed up---especially when it comes to electronics.

Edited June 23, 2010 by RichardJensen

[Edstock]

Well, that was another one of Deming's points: Don't manage by slogan. Saying "Plan > Do > Check > Improve" is nothing. Doing it is something.

Doing it is THE thing, IMHO.

 

BTW, is Ford still committed to Six Sigma, or whatever the hell it's called? Do they need a seventh, or down-size to just five of 'em?

[Biker16]

 

 

Moreover, its chief drawback was inherited from the XC90: Its high H point.

 

P2 S-80 had a high H point?

 

H point is not really platfrom dependent, if it were the Camaro would have the Same H point as the GTO.

[RichardJensen]

P2 S-80 had a high H point?

 

H point is not really platfrom dependent, if it were the Camaro would have the Same H point as the GTO.

Note the height of the orange colored cross members, and realize that the diagonal beam passes over them. That's why D3 has a high H point. You can eliminate those cross members--------if you want to reengineer the whole danged floorpan. H point is not absolutely determined by platform. But in this case it certainly is.

 

And this graphic should pretty well settle any questions about the antecedent for the D3 floorpan:

 

Edited June 25, 2010 by RichardJensen