Debate: Did Ford pull the plug on Mercury prematurely?

[NickF1011]

The Sable was about as different as the MKZ is vs the Fusion...and everyone complains about the MKZ not looking different enough vs its lesser sibling.

 

I wouldn't even call the 1st gen Sable and Taurus that distictive from one another. About where the first gen Fusion/Milan were is where I'd put it.

[mercurymichael]

You might want to brush up on your styling...the only different hardpoint on the Sable was the C-pillar (which was the fad in the 1980's with Mercury being different then Ford...I truly wonder how much that cost to change)..all the other changes where done in plastic, which is much cheaper then new sheet metal stampings...but not as distinctive. The Sable was about as different as the MKZ is vs the Fusion...and everyone complains about the MKZ not looking different enough vs its lesser sibling.

 

Actually the Sable had a longer wheelbase which Taurus changed to with the first major refresh.

[TomServo92]

Actually the Sable had a longer wheelbase which Taurus changed to with the first major refresh.

 

The first generations of both the Sable and Taurus rode on a 106" wheelbase.

[2005Explorer]

You might want to brush up on your styling...the only different hardpoint on the Sable was the C-pillar (which was the fad in the 1980's with Mercury being different then Ford...I truly wonder how much that cost to change)..all the other changes where done in plastic, which is much cheaper then new sheet metal stampings...but not as distinctive. The Sable was about as different as the MKZ is vs the Fusion...and everyone complains about the MKZ not looking different enough vs its lesser sibling.

 

This...

 

Looks quite a bit different then this...

 

Call it rebadging if you want, but it was a pretty darn good effort. I'd say a better effort then the last Fusion versus Milan. They even thought about details like the Taurus had a groove down the side, but the Sable was smooth. Sure you could tell the cars were sister cars, but they appeared to be sister cars with a very different personality. I believe the Sable even had a slightly different instrument panel. Even if you go back to cars like the Cougar versus the Thunderbird in the 80's and 90's there were more differences then the later Mercuries.

 

I do believe back then Mercury did have a different personality then the comparable Ford model. As time went on and Ford started to focus on all of their foreign brands that they purchased they started to cut back on spending some money in making Mercury distinct.

[akirby]

You must be joking. Those cars are almost identical except for the grilles and the rear wheel arch.

[2005Explorer]

You must be joking. Those cars are almost identical except for the grilles and the rear wheel arch.

 

Really? I don't see one body panel with the exception of the roof that would be interchangeable do you?

[akirby]

Really? I don't see one body panel with the exception of the roof that would be interchangeable do you?

 

I think you're hallucinating. Except for some plastic cladding and either a crease or a pinstripe they look identical to me. If they are different then it was a total waste of engineering.

[NickF1011]

Really? I don't see one body panel with the exception of the roof that would be interchangeable do you?

 

Hood, roof, a-pillar, b-pillar, door cut outs are all the same. Only major difference at all is the c-pillar and rear glass. The outer skins of the doors and fenders are SLIGHTLY different, but then again, they are on the Milan and Fusion also. They are hardly different vehicles, and frankly, it wasn't worth the effort then and isn't worth the effort now.

Edited July 13, 2010 by NickF1011

[akirby]

The Flex and MKT are prime examples of how to make totally different vehicles off the same platform. Taurus/Sable, Fusion/Milan - dead ringers by comparison.

[2005Explorer]

The Flex and MKT are prime examples of how to make totally different vehicles off the same platform.

 

Yes and considering the cost of developing the MKT do you really think they are making any money selling 500-700 a month? One can argue that it is still new and hasn't taken off yet, but sales have to improve for it to be considered worth the effort.

[NickF1011]

Yes and considering the cost of developing the MKT do you really think they are making any money selling 500-700 a month? One can argue that it is still new and hasn't taken off yet, but sales have to improve for it to be considered worth the effort.

 

Considering none of us have any idea what the cost of developing the MKT was, how can this point even be debated?

[akirby]

Yes and considering the cost of developing the MKT do you really think they are making any money selling 500-700 a month? One can argue that it is still new and hasn't taken off yet, but sales have to improve for it to be considered worth the effort.

 

It has the advantage of starting with a fully developed platform and drivetrains and a shared production line. It also likely has a high ATP with minimal incentives ($1000 right now) so they're definitely making a nice profit on the ones they sell.

 

Is it paying for itself right now? Who knows. If not then it won't be around in 2-3 years.

Edited July 13, 2010 by akirby

[2005Explorer]

Considering none of us have any idea what the cost of developing the MKT was, how can this point even be debated?

 

First of all I will put this disclaimer out so no one calls me a Ford hater:

 

I really like everything Ford has done with styling lately. All of their vehicles look great.

 

Except one... The MKT is UGLY! It looks like a beached whale to me. I am all for making vehicles look different that ride of the same chassis, but if the effort to make it look completely different results in something as ugly as the MKT then I am not for it.

 

From the little bit I have seen of the 2011 Explorer it appears to be a VERY attractive vehicle. I bet a person could take the 2011 Explorer give it some "MkZ love" and it would kill the MKT when it comes to sales. Being different does not matter unless different means being more attractive. If I am paying more for the Lincoln version it should look a lot better then the Ford version. Right?

 

Your right we don't know what the development cost was of the MKT, but considering it doesn't share one body panel inside and out with the Flex it had to cost something to develop. It is full of special limited quantity parts and all of that unique sheet metal has to be made somehow. If it did not cost substantially more to develop then the MKZ, MKX or even the MKS I would be pretty surprised. True the MkS was a totally new vehicle, but they used a lot of it in developing the 2010 Taurus so the costs were spread over 2 different vehicle lines. The MKT shares nothing with the Flex other then the D3 chassis and the power train.

 

I am all for Ford making Lincoln completely unique provided they can 1) make Lincolns even more attractive then their Ford counterparts 2) recoup all of their development money by having models that sell well in their market segments. If they can't do those two things why bother?

[NickF1011]

Except one... The MKT is UGLY! It looks like a beached whale to me. I am all for making vehicles look different that ride of the same chassis, but if the effort to make it look completely different results in something as ugly as the MKT then I am not for it.

 

Eh, the part of the MKT that loses me is past the C-pillar. The rear fender bump up and flat lack of detailing on the back end kill it. It looks great coming at you, but I hate being stuck behind one in traffic.

 

From the little bit I have seen of the 2011 Explorer it appears to be a VERY attractive vehicle. I bet a person could take the 2011 Explorer give it some "MkZ love" and it would kill the MKT when it comes to sales. Being different does not matter unless different means being more attractive. If I am paying more for the Lincoln version it should look a lot better then the Ford version. Right?

 

Looks being somewhat subjective, what you are paying for is the experience and features, something the Lincolns will continue to offer above and beyond the Explorer, even if you personally think the Explorer looks better.

 

Your right we don't know what the development cost was of the MKT, but considering it doesn't share one body panel inside and out with the Flex it had to cost something to develop. It is full of special limited quantity parts and all of that unique sheet metal has to be made somehow. If it did not cost substantially more to develop then the MKZ, MKX or even the MKS I would be pretty surprised. True the MkS was a totally new vehicle, but they used a lot of it in developing the 2010 Taurus so the costs were spread over 2 different vehicle lines. The MKT shares nothing with the Flex other then the D3 chassis and the power train.

 

I'm sure it cost more to develop than the MKZ, MKX, and MKS. All of those vehicles were admittedly done on the very cheap though, that's why. As for "sharing nothing but the chassis and powertrains", heck, that's most of the engineering and expense right there.

 

I am all for Ford making Lincoln completely unique provided they can 1) make Lincolns even more attractive then their Ford counterparts 2) recoup all of their development money by having models that sell well in their market segments. If they can't do those two things why bother?

 

Mullaly has said that all vehicle programs would be required to pay for themselves to continue existence. If the MKT lasts to a 2nd generation, then we know it made money.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Eh, the part of the MKT that loses me is past the C-pillar. The rear fender bump up and flat lack of detailing on the back end kill it. It looks great coming at you, but I hate being stuck behind one in traffic.

 

 

Have same problems when l get stuck behind a Mazda

[jpd80]

 

Your right we don't know what the development cost was of the MKT, but considering it doesn't share one body panel inside and out with the Flex it had to cost something to develop. It is full of special limited quantity parts and all of that unique sheet metal has to be made somehow. If it did not cost substantially more to develop then the MKZ, MKX or even the MKS I would be pretty surprised. True the MkS was a totally new vehicle, but they used a lot of it in developing the 2010 Taurus so the costs were spread over 2 different vehicle lines. The MKT shares nothing with the Flex other then the D3 chassis and the power train.

Apart from top hat and trim, the D3 underpinnings of Flex and MKT are shared,

expensive stuff like power train, suspension, electrical system, floor pan and basic frame design.

 

Yep, they're nothing alike.......

[T'Cal]

GM was smarter about platform sharing in that, for example, the Malibu, Monte Carlo, LeMans, Grand Prix, Century, Regal, Cutlass, El Camino, and Caballero all shared the same chassis in the late 70s and most of the 80s but they didn't share any body panels between brands. They even had different engine offerings. That continues today as the Malibu doesn't look like the G6, Aura, or LaCrosse, nor does the Lucerne look like the DTS, the Impala like the Grand Prix, etc.

 

Ford has all too frequently just tacked on a different grille and some extra chrome to make a Fairmont a Zephyr, a Crown Vic a Grand Marquis, a Five Hundred a Montego, a Freestar a Monterey, an Explorer a Mountainer, etc. My Marauder was far more Ford than it was Mercury using the Mustang engine and the CV taillights and trim. Sure, the Thunderbird and Cougar of the 90s were different as were the Taurus/Sable of that era, but those are the exceptions. For years, Ford went way too cheap for most of its Mercury line up. Still, last I read Mercury out sells Lincoln. It upsets me to think that sales would've very likely improved if Ford put forth some real effort in creating a true focus for Mercury by engineering distinctive, upscale vehicles. Instead, they killed it. That's very disppointing, and I've been a huge supporter of Ford and how it's managed its budget so much better than Chrysler and GM.

[akirby]

GM was smarter about platform sharing in that, for example, the Malibu, Monte Carlo, LeMans, Grand Prix, Century, Regal, Cutlass, El Camino, and Caballero all shared the same chassis in the late 70s and most of the 80s but they didn't share any body panels between brands. They even had different engine offerings. That continues today as the Malibu doesn't look like the G6, Aura, or LaCrosse, nor does the Lucerne look like the DTS, the Impala like the Grand Prix, etc.

 

Ford has all too frequently just tacked on a different grille and some extra chrome to make a Fairmont a Zephyr, a Crown Vic a Grand Marquis, a Five Hundred a Montego, a Freestar a Monterey, an Explorer a Mountainer, etc. My Marauder was far more Ford than it was Mercury using the Mustang engine and the CV taillights and trim. Sure, the Thunderbird and Cougar of the 90s were different as were the Taurus/Sable of that era, but those are the exceptions. For years, Ford went way too cheap for most of its Mercury line up. Still, last I read Mercury out sells Lincoln. It upsets me to think that sales would've very likely improved if Ford put forth some real effort in creating a true focus for Mercury by engineering distinctive, upscale vehicles. Instead, they killed it. That's very disppointing, and I've been a huge supporter of Ford and how it's managed its budget so much better than Chrysler and GM.

 

Sharing a platform to produce 2 basically identical vehicles (same features, price range, performance, etc.) just to have different styling is a waste of resources in today's automotive environment. Make one great vehicle or 2 totally different great vehicles.

[RichardJensen]

That continues today as the Malibu doesn't look like the G6, Aura, or LaCrosse, nor does the Lucerne look like the DTS, the Impala like the Grand Prix, etc.

Actually, that was dumb.

 

They imposed huge capital costs on those vehicles that necessitated unreasonable volume targets to amortize. Thus they could sell more Pontiacs and Saturns then Ford sold Mercuries, yet still fail to turn a profit on that volume.

[NickF1011]

Have same problems when l get stuck behind a Mazda [

 

It's always an exciting drive behind a Cortina though -- you constantly need to dodge the parts falling off it.

[mercurymichael]

Sharing a platform to produce 2 basically identical vehicles (same features, price range, performance, etc.) just to have different styling is a waste of resources in today's automotive environment. Make one great vehicle or 2 totally different great vehicles.

 

That doesn't leave a lot of room for Lincoln the way things stand today where the biggest difference is price tag. Don't tell the folks at Honda either. Or GM or Chrysler or toyota for that matter.

[NickF1011]

That doesn't leave a lot of room for Lincoln the way things stand today where the biggest difference is price tag. Don't tell the folks at Honda either. Or GM or Chrysler or toyota for that matter.

 

Precisely why Mercury was given the ax: To give more focus to distinguishing Lincoln from Ford. The only place you really see any overlap in features in other companies' luxury offerings is on their intro-level vehicles like the Lexus ES.

[akirby]

That doesn't leave a lot of room for Lincoln the way things stand today where the biggest difference is price tag. Don't tell the folks at Honda either. Or GM or Chrysler or toyota for that matter.

 

That's because Ford took the Ford brand upmarket (like the new Taurus) and they just started to take Lincoln further upmarket to distinguish it from the Ford models.

 

Lincoln will have 100% unique sheetmetal, interiors, engines and features like glass roofs. They just need a few more years to execute across the product line. Didn't you read the press announcement?

[silvrsvt]

GM was smarter about platform sharing in that, for example, the Malibu, Monte Carlo, LeMans, Grand Prix, Century, Regal, Cutlass, El Camino, and Caballero all shared the same chassis in the late 70s and most of the 80s but they didn't share any body panels between brands.

 

Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME!

 

The Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Regal and Grand Prix in the 1980's where the poster children for Badge engineering

[silvrsvt]

Yes and considering the cost of developing the MKT do you really think they are making any money selling 500-700 a month? One can argue that it is still new and hasn't taken off yet, but sales have to improve for it to be considered worth the effort.

 

 

 

So the Navigator is selling in the same numbers range...so its not worth it either?