The idiocy of a compact Lincoln

[RichardJensen]

Could I afford the extra couple thousand in this scenario to get the Lincoln-specific features? Yep. But I won't drive a small car to get them.

Exactly.

 

Enough people are willing to trade down a size in order to go from an Altima, say, to a BMW 3-Series.

 

But to induce people to trade down a size in order to own a Lincoln? Just not going to happen.

[jpd80]

Exactly.

 

Enough people are willing to trade down a size in order to go from an Altima, say, to a BMW 3-Series.

 

But to induce people to trade down a size in order to own a Lincoln? Just not going to happen.

And that's where the damaged perception of Lincoln has to change,

it's something that has to be earned over time and accepted by buyers.

 

It could take three, five, seven years or never depending on how quickly

Ford can change the Lincoln line up and start revamping that image....

[Inselaffe]

Mark Fields : fixed FoE (lest we forget what a mess FoE was 10 years ago).

 

All from the entire 6 months or so he was there?

 

Jim Padilla : -not- a product guy (greenlighted the Freestar, among other yawners). Definitely a process guy. Oversaw dramatic improvement in Ford NA quality. Joe Hinrichs has been responsible for seeing that discipline through since Padilla retired. Hopefully will improve quality at FoE in his new role as global mfg. chief.

 

I hope you've got a better frame of reference than those bloody JD Power customer surveys as a comparison of NA to Europe manufacturing quality. Internal measures like TGWs perhaps, but even they can be a bit lame (Personally if it's data I can't perform a Weibull Analysis on then it's most likely BS!)

 

I bet there are quality problems with some FoE products, but let's face it FoE products have considerably more variation and hence manufacturing complexity (powertrain options being the big one), it's not like one would be comparing apples to apples.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Inselaffe

[RichardJensen]

All from the entire 6 months or so he was there?

He was there closer to two years. And a pretty important two years. Unless you think FoE was in better shape in 2002 than it was in 2005.

 

I hope you've got a better frame of reference than those bloody JD Power customer surveys

There is no better reference than customer opinion.

 

Who pays the bills? Who generates the profit? Who pays your salary? If they aren't satisfied with your product, I don't give a DAMN what your internal TGW metrics say.

 

Spare me your contempt with mere 'customer' opinion. It's attitudes like the one you just expressed that delivered the US market to the Japanese on a silver platter.

Edited June 20, 2010 by RichardJensen

[Inselaffe]

He was there closer to two years. And a pretty important two years. Unless you think FoE was in better shape in 2002 than it was in 2005.

 

Don't get me wrong I think he's infinitely better than the jumped up purchasing clerks that were Jacques Nasser and Nick Scheele, and perhaps the best thing he did was NOT interfere too much with the plans that were already in place. However prior to his arrival you don't think a big part of this was down to the re-alignment of European capacity (i.e, closure of Dagenham and the offloading of Halewood to Jaguar) and the product strategy started in the late 90's, which spawned the C1 & C1+/EUCD platforms (with Kuzak and Parry-Jones as the chief facilitators) and the PSA diesel engine tie-up.

 

There is no better reference than customer opinion.

 

Who pays the bills? Who generates the profit? Who pays your salary? If they aren't satisfied with your product, I don't give a DAMN what your internal TGW metrics say.

 

Spare me your contempt with mere 'customer' opinion. It's attitudes like the one you just expressed that delivered the US market to the Japanese on a silver platter.

 

Get off your high horse! When did I say that that customer surveys aren't important, I said that they are extremely limited in measuring manufacturing defects, especially when only 24% of the said JD Power survey overall mark is "vehicle quality and reliability". You've been consistently expressing YOUR CONTEMPT for european manufacturing quality for a while now, when it's not entirely clear (but very likely) that the marks for these surveys apportion dissatisfaction at other areas of the buying experience.

[ausrutherford]

2010 F-250 Super Cab 4x2: $29,255

 

2011 F-250 Super Cab 4x2: $30,145

 

Increase in price: $910

 

Increase in price as a percentage of 2010 base: 3.1%

 

CPI increase Dec. 2008 to Dec. 2009: 2.7%

 

Price increase of Super Duty in real dollars, CPI inflation adjusted: $120.

 

That's a very small price increase.

 

Notably, it is not big enough to vault the SD into a new price bracket, as you are inferring will occur with the MKZ.

 

----

 

Consider, also, the 2010 Ford Fusion SEL I-4: $24,655. In 2005, a 4-cylinder SEL Fusion was $18,985. That's an increase of $5,670. But factor in cumulative CPI over the period, that's a $3,829 increase. Pretty hefty, right?

 

Wrong. The 2010 SEL has a standard automatic transmission (optional in 2006). That's an $875 option in 2010.

 

$2,954 price increase.

 

ABS? $595 in 2006, or $652 in 2010 dollars

 

$2,354 price increase

 

Sync? Not available in 2006, standard in 2010. $295 option in 2008 Focus = $309 in 2010

 

$2,045 price increase

 

Side airbags? Not available in 2006, call the value of the option in 2010 $600

 

$1,445 price increase

 

Stability control? Not available in 2006, call that option a $600 option in 2010 as well

 

$845 price increase.

 

Price increase per year, inflation adjusted, factoring additional standard equipment, over a 4 year period?

 

$211.25

 

-----

 

Any questions?

 

Did Ford add the MyTouch feature as standard in the F-150?...

[RichardJensen]

I said that they are extremely limited in measuring manufacturing defects

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).

[RichardJensen]

Did Ford add the MyTouch feature as standard in the F-150?...

 

The My Touch is not going to turn the MKZ into a 5-Series competitor.

Edited June 21, 2010 by RichardJensen

[Noah Harbinger]

He was there closer to two years. And a pretty important two years. Unless you think FoE was in better shape in 2002 than it was in 2005.

 

 

There is no better reference than customer opinion.

 

Who pays the bills? Who generates the profit? Who pays your salary? If they aren't satisfied with your product, I don't give a DAMN what your internal TGW metrics say.

 

Spare me your contempt with mere 'customer' opinion. It's attitudes like the one you just expressed that delivered the US market to the Japanese on a silver platter.

 

The problem with customer opinion is that it is often derived from influences that are unrelated to the quality of your engineering and manufacturing - i.e. the zeitgeist of public opinion favors Ford right now, so people will turn in survey responses that are a little more positive than they otherwise would have. Given that climate, the surveys will reflect more improvement than actually resulted from Ford's improvements to production processes. So there is risk that, if they pay attention to those surveys (and hence to fickle market opinion) more than the fundamentals of a high quality production process, they might become content with their current situation, and fail to make the continuous improvements that are necessary for them to maintain their current public opinion.

 

Uugh I need to go to sleep. Without quibbling over the details or wording technicalities, I'm sure you get the gist.

[RichardJensen]

they might become content with their current situation

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.

[jpd80]

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.

 

So long as they are committed to continual improvement and are prepared to

examine and question what they are doing, I think they are on the right path.

 

Being able to stop and look out side yourself once in a while sure helps.

Edited June 21, 2010 by jpd80

[ausrutherford]

The My Touch is not going to turn the MKZ into a 5-Series competitor.

 

Did I say it was? No, i said it would raise the price a couple 1000.

[silvrsvt]

Did I say it was? No, i said it would raise the price a couple 1000.

 

Um no....DeanH posted prices for the '11 Edge and it was only a $750 option...

[Deanh]

Um no....DeanH posted prices for the '11 Edge and it was only a $750 option...

not exactly, thats the Nav upgrade on an SEL....SEL and up the MyTouch is inclusive in the two "higher end packages ) ie 202a

[silvrsvt]

not exactly, thats the Nav upgrade on an SEL....SEL and up the MyTouch is inclusive in the two "higher end packages ) ie 202a

 

Ah I got confused

[BrewfanGRB]

Exactly.

 

Enough people are willing to trade down a size in order to go from an Altima, say, to a BMW 3-Series.

 

But to induce people to trade down a size in order to own a Lincoln? Just not going to happen.

 

"Enough" people are willing to trade down a size to get to the 3. I'm not. I don't care that it's a BMW. It IS a great car. It IS a fabulous driver. But, I won't pay THAT much money for a car that's smaller than my Fusion...and to have to buy an option to get real leather interior is ridiculous. Sounds silly...but "leatherette" in a $35k car? Get real, BMW.

 

It is money, obviously. But, it's size first. To ME, I won't drive ANY car the size of the 3 unless my budget demands it (meaning, I'm buying a non-lux vehicle the size of the 3 only because I can't afford anything else).

 

I think a C CAR is a bad idea. A C CUV would be ok (ala a mini-MKX or something), because I believe there is a market for that. Lincoln's first steps should be in continuing to differentiate their vehicles from their Ford cousins. Both in body style and features. Make it WORTH buying the Linc.

[Biker16]

The MKZ has a similar price range to the 3-Series.

 

Biker16 is suggesting a Focus-sized sedan with a c.$35k price tag, apparently on the assumption that Lincoln can do whatever BMW does, and succeed equally well at it.

 

Presumably, this means that this putative $35k compact Lincoln sedan should have plastic seats.

 

 

no you dumb fuck, It should be same size as the 3 series. which BTW is the same size as a Focus.

 

Size does not matter, the product does. You said Americans don't want European cars, you were wrong. it is that European DNA that has been making ford cars more desirable for over a decade. thinking like you caused Ford to abandon cars, beacause it is harder to design a great car, than a great CUV, there is much more competition and the margins are smaller, but simply because it is difficult does not mean it should not be done.

 

You live a world of Can't ford has to live in a world of maybe/ possibly/ try it.

 

If we do nothing we can neither fail nor succeed, we can afford to be bold.

 

This is an opportunity for Lincoln to stand out in the market, where there is less competition and where the right product could really takeoff and help rebuild the brand. to continue to build Lexus clones is no way to stand out in this crowded market place. Be different be Lincoln.

 

 

Don't be a coward Richard

[RichardJensen]

You said Americans don't want European cars, you were wrong.

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.

This is an opportunity for Lincoln to stand out in the market, where there is less competition

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.

Edited June 22, 2010 by RichardJensen

[timmm55]

Wow

 

25 pages of bashing a new idea (A compact Lincoln). Certainly the MKC is ungainly in it's styling, but the principal idea is good: a full size interior in a MUCH smaller footprint.

Edited June 22, 2010 by timmm55

[RichardJensen]

BTW: Can someone else explain this to me?

 

ME:

 

Biker16 is suggesting a Focus-sized sedan with a c.$35k price tag

 

BIKER:

 

no you dumb ****, It should be same size as the 3 series. which BTW is the same size as a Focus.

 

It's my theory that Biker never reads my posts, and this seems to confirm that.

Edited June 22, 2010 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

the principal idea is good: a full size interior in a MUCH smaller footprint.

Yep.

 

Sure worked for the Pacer:

 

 

It'll be so exciting! The MKC can be the SECOND wide small car.

[RichardJensen]

ford has to live in a world of ... try it.

 

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'.

[timmm55]

Yep.

 

Sure worked for the Pacer:

 

 

It'll be so exciting! The MKC can be the SECOND wide small car.

 

 

Not a very Original slam.

 

The Pacer was a good but a POORLY executed design that didn't fly.

Were all the planes before the Wright Brothers a bad idea too?

[RichardJensen]

Not a very Original slam.

 

The Pacer was a good but a POORLY executed design that didn't fly.

Were all the planes before the Wright Brothers a bad idea too?

 

The question is one of proportion--it's the minivan challenge on a small scale.

 

You want to put more space into a cabin than a certain vehicle footprint typically contains.

 

The only way you can do this is by making the cabin disproportionately large, with the key word being 'disproportionately'.

 

The Lincoln Concept C is a disproportionately scaled vehicle because it cannot solve its core design problem without assuming bizarre proportions.

[timmm55]

The question is one of proportion--it's the minivan challenge on a small scale.

 

You want to put more space into a cabin than a certain vehicle footprint typically contains.

 

The only way you can do this is by making the cabin disproportionately large, with the key word being 'disproportionately'.

 

The Lincoln Concept C is a disproportionately scaled vehicle because it cannot solve its core design problem without assuming bizarre proportions.

 

 

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.

Edited June 22, 2010 by timmm55