The idiocy of a compact Lincoln

[jpd80]

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.

That's not the same, GTO and Camaro are both on car platforms (V-Car and Zeta) with appropriate car floor pans.

D3 on the other hand uses the same floor pan for SUV and sedans which gives the sedan

a high H point and makes it look a bit odd compared to other sedans in the class.

 

 

Falcon and Territory share a lot of parts BUT, they don't share exactly the same floor pan.

Doing that compromises one or both vehicles, like Taurus and Explorer where the same

floor pan from the SUV was used to create the sedan. It's now a fundamental flaw with D3.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

What is No1 Best Selling Luxury Car in US?

US No1 best seller -

1. COMPACT Executive BMW 3 Series.

May 2010 Sales: 9,506

Change vs. May 2009: Up 11.4%

MSRP: $33,150 - $45,000

The BMW 328i delivers a special mix of sporting performance, practicality and European luxury in a compact package.

 

The rear-wheel drive 328i is available in coupe, sedan, wagon and cabriolet bodies, while the xDrive all-wheel drive system is available in coupe, sedan and wagon only.

 

LINK

 

BMW RWD 3 Series 9,500 US sales are a bit better than that in Europe, FOE still continue to impose the mass produced FWD Mundaneo we don't want on us with just 7,600 sales in May. FOE are out of touch.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[jpd80]

And for all of that BMW posted a $210 million Euro profit in 2009,

by my recollection Ford's profit was at least seven times that....

[Biker16]

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:

 

nice pictures.

 

 

In the case of the 500 and focus for that matter it is the Seats them selves, that are the primary determinate of h-point are the chair like seat in the vehicles, if we used the seat of the 2005 mustang the h-point would be lower.

 

[Biker16]

Just to clarify.

 

the FoE focus and mondeo are Are too "bland" for the US market.

 

that the 2005 focus was a better fit.

 

please clarifiy your opinions on the 500 this all I am asking.

 

there is no need to Edit posts.

 

Maderator have to be impartial, even when they are wrong.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Biker16
COMMENTS REMOVED. NO CITATION

[NickF1011]

if we used the seat of the 2005 mustang the h-point would be lower.

 

You also wouldn't be able to see over the steering wheel.

[RichardJensen]

Just to clarify.

 

the FoE focus and mondeo are Are too "bland" for the US market.

 

that the 2005 focus was a better fit.

 

The C1 Focus wasn't SUFFICIENTLY BETTER than the NA Focus to justify importing it. It was a dull bland boring looking vehicle just like its NA counterpart, and if that sleepy CDW220 Mondeo styling didn't cut it on the Five Hundred, why the heck would you suggest that it would be suitable for the Focus?

 

And regarding the impact of the D3 platform on the H point, I'll be blunt. You're wrong. Your photos have no scale indicator, nor are they even in similar settings. On what basis should I take your 'evidence' seriously? The fact that you fail to acknowledge that the MKS & Taurus are STILL being critiqued for an unusual seating position? I am to believe YOU instead of everyone else?

[Biker16]

The C1 Focus wasn't SUFFICIENTLY BETTER than the NA Focus to justify importing it. It was a dull bland boring looking vehicle just like its NA counterpart, and if that sleepy CDW220 Mondeo styling didn't cut it on the Five Hundred, why the heck would you suggest that it would be suitable for the Focus?

 

And regarding the impact of the D3 platform on the H point, I'll be blunt. You're wrong. Your photos have no scale indicator, nor are they even in similar settings. On what basis should I take your 'evidence' seriously? The fact that you fail to acknowledge that the MKS & Taurus are STILL being critiqued for an unusual seating position? I am to believe YOU instead of everyone else?

 

i sit in a focus every day, If you placed seats for a nissan Z in my car the H point would be 4 inches lower.

 

 

the same can be said for the 500.

 

did you ever thing that the cowl height and the Dash board are the real reasons for the H point being as high?

 

the pictures you posted don't proof the need for that high of an H-point.

[NickF1011]

Note the height of the orange colored cross members, and realize that the diagonal beam passes over them.

 

What diagonal beam are you referring to? The only diagonal beams I see in that entire structure are in the door panels and A/C-pillars.

Edited June 28, 2010 by NickF1011

[Biker16]

You also wouldn't be able to see over the steering wheel.

 

exactly, this is the reason for the high H-point,, IMO You would have to reengineer the Cowl and under dash to lower the steering wheel.

 

unlike C1 where the Cowl is less fixed, the D4 is a very hard point, that cannot be changed without great expense, this was a descion ford made on the Freesytyle/500. hte original P2 S80 did not have this problem, the S80 and xC70 had different h-points.

[Biker16]

The C1 Focus wasn't SUFFICIENTLY BETTER than the NA Focus to justify importing it. It was a dull bland boring looking vehicle just like its NA counterpart, and if that sleepy CDW220 Mondeo styling didn't cut it on the Five Hundred, why the heck would you suggest that it would be suitable for the Focus?

 

 

the Mondeo redesign took place in 2001, It fit what the market was going for in 2001. in 2005 the market had changed, and the Mondeo's styling was becoming dated. why did ford design 2 cars in 2005 on styling from 2001? i never sugested importing it, it should have been made here for our market.

 

In what way was the C1 focus not "SUFFICIENTLY BETTER" It was quieter, more features, safer, better quality interior, better Ride better, more fuel efficent, and it stopped better. In what Way exactly was it not "SUFFICIENTLY BETTER" than the 2005 focus refresh with it's mundane 2001 mondeo styling?

 

by your logic of not "SUFFICIENTLY BETTER" we would still have the original taurus, because all of the reasons the current taurus is better than the previous taurus, would not be enough to be "SUFFICIENTLY BETTER" for Ford to offer it.

 

The topic of this thread discribes you perfectly, you state your opinion without asking the right question. If linlcon were to offer a Compact car, what type of compact car would best fit lincoln? The Arrogance of this thread, the Arrogance of you.

 

Go ahead Edit my post, abuse your authority, again.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

the same can be said for the 500.

Contemporaneous engineer interviews specifically mentioned those bracing beams.

 

And even if you switch the blame from the bracing beams to the cowl height, you're still blaming EUROPEAN DNA.

[RichardJensen]

In what Way exactly was it not "SUFFICIENTLY BETTER" than the 2005 focus refresh

Looks.

 

And looks matter.

 

Because the Five Hundred was as much better than the Fusion as the C1 Focus was better than the C170 Focus. The Fusion was rougher, noisier, and overall much less sophisticated than the Five Hundred.

 

But it looked better.

 

----

 

And the market HATED the CDW220 Mondeo, whatever it WAS, it was NOT what the market wanted in 2001. FoE was a mess in the late 90s and early 00s. In fact, FoE had maybe three good years from '89 to '06.

 

Lest you forget, Ford was -the- number one brand in Western Europe in the early 80s, with over a quarter of all sales. Their decade long sequence of failures with the Sierra, Scorpio, Escort, Mondeo and Fiesta were directly responsible for their fall from overwhelming first place to 'continual dogfight for distant 2nd'.

 

And despite all their improvements, that's where they remain today.

Edited June 28, 2010 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Go ahead Edit my post, abuse your authority, again.

 

Because it's okay to repeatedly misquote things I wrote six years ago?

 

And the first post in this thread CLEARLY identifies the type of vehicle I consider inappropriate for Lincoln, and subsequent posts have elucidated the kind of vehicle I feel appropriate for Lincoln.

 

That you will not take the time to read my posts before savaging my opinions reflects poorly on you, not me.

[Biker16]

Looks.

 

And looks matter.

 

Because the Five Hundred was as much better than the Fusion as the C1 Focus was better than the C170 Focus. The Fusion was rougher, noisier, and overall much less sophisticated than the Five Hundred.

 

But it looked better.

 

So If i misunderstood your opinion on the 500, please clarifiy your thoughts on the 500? Did you like the car? and why? I can't go back and find what you posted 6 years ago, but from what i remembered you argued for the 500's styling, and against the 300s, am I wrong?

 

 

And the market HATED the CDW220 Mondeo, whatever it WAS, it was NOT what the market wanted in 2001. FoE was a mess in the late 90s and early 00s. In fact, FoE had maybe three good years from '89 to '06.

 

 

Lest you forget, Ford was -the- number one brand in Western Europe in the early 80s, with over a quarter of all sales. Their decade long sequence of failures with the Sierra, Scorpio, Escort, Mondeo and Fiesta were directly responsible for their fall from overwhelming first place to 'continual dogfight for distant 2nd'.

 

And despite all their improvements, that's where they remain today.

 

Was Ford North America's Record any better in the last decade?

[RichardJensen]

So If i misunderstood your opinion on the 500, please clarifiy your thoughts on the 500? Did you like the car? and why? I can't go back and find what you posted 6 years ago, but from what i remembered you argued for the 500's styling, and against the 300s, am I wrong?

The Fusion was, apart from styling, a distinctly inferior car, vs. its competitors, as compared with the Five Hundred.

 

Comparing the Fusion, which exceeded its sales targets, with the Five Hundred, taught me a valuable lesson that was subsequently applied to hypotheticals such as "Should Ford import the C1 Focus?" "Should Ford import the S-Max" and so on and so forth.

 

BTW: I said that the 300 was -not- going to be popular as a family car (it wasn't) and that any success it enjoyed would be short lived (it was).

Was Ford North America's Record any better in the last decade?

 

In about 12 years ('86 to '98), FoE lost over well over half of its market share (c. 25% to c. 9%), in about 12 years ('98-10) FNA lost about 47% of its market share (c. 28% to c. 15%). Ford had a 28% market share in '98 which was roughly what it was in 1960.

 

I'm not going to dig into the 8k filings and compare FoE losses per unit with FNA losses per unit over those time spans.

 

If you want to, be my guest.

[Biker16]

Contemporaneous engineer interviews specifically mentioned those bracing beams.

 

And even if you switch the blame from the bracing beams to the cowl height, you're still blaming EUROPEAN DNA.

 

what bracing beams?

 

I think you are losing it.

 

H -point can be adjusted by simply raising and lowering the seat.

[Edstock]

Was Ford North America's Record any better in the last decade?

Probably not, but the failure in NA was the SUV/pickup fixation, which resulted in stagnated sedan development. Ford EU had no such distraction, and managed to screw-up product development royally, and because of mismanagement, had only obsolescent engines. IIRC, they had to buy the 2.5 V-6 design from Porsche, as they were busy struggling to catch up with everybody with I-4's.

[RichardJensen]

H -point can be adjusted by simply raising and lowering the seat.

 

Right. Which is why the MKS and Taurus are STILL criticized (by some) for their high seating position.

 

Ford engineers opted to mount the seat ON the cross beam instead of in front of it, thus raising the seat about 2"off the floor pan.

 

By changing the seat frames, the MKS & Taurus lowered the H point about 2" from the previous model (inside line says 1.6"), but it's still widely criticized as being 'too high.'

http://www.insideline.com/ford/taurus/2010/2010-ford-taurus-sel-first-drive.html

[Edstock]

What diagonal beam are you referring to? The only diagonal beams I see in that entire structure are in the door panels and A/C-pillars.

They sure look like door beams. The illustration could be better, but you can see the front door beam attaching points on the left side of the door.

[RichardJensen]

Maderator have to be impartial, even when they are wrong.

Ignoring your false statements didn't work, as you kept making them.

 

Therefore I opted to remove them.

 

And if you were in the business of singling out any other member of this forum for such persistent attacks, you would receive similar treatment.

 

Your conduct is at issue--and, by all means go back and read my posts and yours, and tell me which one of us has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks. Tell me which one of us was the first to attempt to discredit the other by reference to comments made six years ago.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

 

The topic of this thread discribes you perfectly, you state your opinion without asking the right question. If linlcon were to offer a Compact car, what type of compact car would best fit lincoln? The Arrogance of this thread, the Arrogance of you.

 

Go ahead Edit my post, abuse your authority, again.

 

Americans are buying greater and greater amounts of 4-Pots cars they have now gone from minority to majority type of car in the past few year that most Americans want the V8 is almost dead dinosaur now.

 

Lincolns 6 cars sell just over a 1,000 united a month in an isolated North American market if they are not going to become another Mercury they will have to grow expand, as l can't see them being Big Al's part time hobby car company play thing for to long they WILL have to pay their way or they will end up photo in an auto history book as a great company that once was .

 

Lincoln have the potential to become a great company worldwide that gels well does not step on the toes of Fords line-up but the other 95% of car buyers outside North America won't want Lincoln Continentals as much as l love them but they would buy a compact Lincolns on mass, and the way North Americans are jumping on mass into cars with 4-pots at the moment like the BMW 3 series proves that thats the way the market is head.

 

If Lincoln does not wake up and start offering compacts they will end going the same way as the Dodo, something that won't happen to the 4 pot BMW 3 Series WORLDCARS.

[RichardJensen]

Hold your own posts up to the mirror, Biker, and look at them.

 

Tell me if they are in anyway defensible as a rational contribution to the topic at hand:

 

The question, as laid out in the original post is whether a car like the Concept C should be built. My opinion is quite clear, and supported primarily by reference to 2-box sub $30k luxury vehicles--vehicles that are approximately the size and price of this putative "MKC"

 

I've clearly elucidated my opinions on small Lincolns that have strong chances of success and small Lincolns that seem doomed to failure.

 

What have you provided in rational opposition? Have you done anything besides refer to the size of the BMW 3-Series and attack me personally?

Edited June 28, 2010 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

that won't happen to the 4 pot BMW 3 Series WORLDCARS.

You can't buy a 4-pot 3-Series in the US.

[Biker16]

The Fusion was, apart from styling, a distinctly inferior car, vs. its competitors, as compared with the Five Hundred.

 

Comparing the Fusion, which exceeded its sales targets, with the Five Hundred, taught me a valuable lesson that was subsequently applied to hypotheticals such as "Should Ford import the C1 Focus?" "Should Ford import the S-Max" and so on and so forth.

 

BTW: I said that the 300 was -not- going to be popular as a family car (it wasn't) and that any success it enjoyed would be short lived (it was).

 

 

Thank you for the Clarity. I thought you overcompensated, the design of the 500 was ugly, it wasn't that the Fusion was so different/bold it was it's combination of class competitive features and attractive styling, if all it took was grille to make it successful, more people would have bought the blinged Last gen taurus.

 

 

In about 12 years ('86 to '98), FoE lost over well over half of its market share (c. 25% to c. 9%), in about 12 years ('98-10) FNA lost about 47% of its market share (c. 28% to c. 15%). Ford had a 28% market share in '98 which was roughly what it was in 1960.

 

I'm not going to dig into the 8k filings and compare FoE losses per unit with FNA losses per unit over those time spans.

 

If you want to, be my guest.

 

Fine