Ford reported to either kill Lincoln or make Lincoln Stang

[Harley Lover]

I'm willing to bet all the best Lincoln models over the years were developed this way.

 

Then you would lose that bet. The 1961 Lincoln Continental with the suicide doors? Developed off the Thunderbird chassis, including engines. The reason it had suicide doors was in part because it was the only way Ford could make the 4 door and still use the Thunderbird hard points.

[jpd80]

Glad to be wrong the ES is a prissy, ugly, POS. Why is Ford mimicing Toyota by using Ford platforms for their luxury marque? I think I know the reason, the accountants have weaseled their way to the top of the company and are sapping the life out of it

Apart from Lincoln LS, every other Lincoln produced has been based on a Ford originator product,

not doing so would make costs prohibitive and force Lincoln to compete directly with Tier luxury marques

whilst retaining similar prices it charges for current shared product.

 

If that is accountants at work, then bring it on as the alternative of building loss makers is not an option

Lexus ES sold 6,200 units in December, MKZ should be so lucky to emulate that level of success.

Edited January 8, 2013 by jpd80

[duncan36]

Apart from Lincoln LS, every other Lincoln produced has been based on a Ford originator product,

not doing so would make costs prohibitive and force Lincoln to compete directly with Tier luxury marques

whilst retaining similar prices it charges for current shared product.

 

If that is accountants at work, then bring it on as the alternative of building loss makers is not an option

Lexus ES sold 6,200 units in December, MKZ should be so lucky to emulate that level of success.

 

Weasels make money hand over fist often(i.e. banksters) doesnt mean they're creating it justly. Also classic Lincolns like the Mark V were on their own platform as was the classic Continental mark II two-seater. So you may want to revise what you wrote incorrectly.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Weasels make money hand over fist often(i.e. banksters) doesnt mean they're creating it justly. Also classic Lincolns like the Mark V were on their own platform as was the classic Continental mark II two-seater. So you may want to revise what you wrote incorrectly.

As I understand it, the Mark V was a restyling and update of the Mark IV, itself a platform-mate with the Ford Thunderbird. When the Mark V came out, the Thunderbird downsized to the smaller Fox platform, orphaning the Mark V. So no, the platform for the Mark V was not bespoke to Lincoln, much like the XF's platform is not bespoke to Jaguar.

 

And yes, the Continental Mark II was its own platform, as far as I can find (can someone else confirm?)... but Ford lost a grand on every one they sold.

 

(Sources: WIkipedia, conceptcarz.com)

Edited January 9, 2013 by papilgee4evaeva

[Edstock]

Then you would lose that bet. The 1961 Lincoln Continental with the suicide doors? Developed off the Thunderbird chassis, including engines. The reason it had suicide doors was in part because it was the only way Ford could make the 4 door and still use the Thunderbird hard points.

 

IIRC, the 430 was an engine available in the 1961, AFAIK it was never available in a Ford. But I could be wrong.

[SoonerLS]

Also classic Lincolns like the Mark V were on their own platform as was the classic Continental mark II two-seater. So you may want to revise what you wrote incorrectly.

The Mark IV was a Thunderbird underneath, and the Mark V was a restyled Mark IV. If the Continental Mark II really was a Lincoln platform, that and the Mark VIII get you a grand total of two Lincoln platforms in 60 years--and the Mark VIII's FN10 was based on the T-Bird's MN12...

 

Edit: I'm not forgetting DEW98; it wasn't a Lincoln-specific platform.

Edited January 9, 2013 by SoonerLS

[ZanatWork]

The way you're quibbling over the semantics is really funny.

With the death of the Town Car, Lincoln was reduced to sedans, an SUV, and 2 CUVs. At this time, Lincoln was falling to a dangerous sales level.

This approach, which is based on fwd (with the SUV excepted), certainly did not bring success at a needed level, or none of the arguments would be happening.

The product mix has been consistently criticized for being too close to the "source vehicles" and for being too conservative. This is also why the whole premise of "...would take resources from where they're needed more" is junk; PROVE they're having a better overall use than they'd have bringing a potential spark to the showroom and to the perception of the brand. Ecoboosting much of the existing lineup didn't do it.

The funniest part of this? The gut buster? If this car is potentially late 2015 or early 2016 or whatever...the decisions are largely made, anyway. Maybe the MKZ/MKC sales could greenlight the rumored vehicle; we won't likely know for some time. Regardless, if Lincoln wants to compete where they say they do, it'll take a bigger and more varied approach sooner or later.

The second sentence does not follow logically from the first, and the first is poorly supported.

[duncan36]

The Mark IV was a Thunderbird underneath, and the Mark V was a restyled Mark IV. If the Continental Mark II really was a Lincoln platform, that and the Mark VIII get you a grand total of two Lincoln platforms in 60 years--and the Mark VIII's FN10 was based on the T-Bird's MN12...

 

Edit: I'm not forgetting DEW98; it wasn't a Lincoln-specific platform.

 

You and I really dont know how the platforms were developed. I've said many times its not a bad thing that Lincoln and Ford share platforms. All I'm saying is that its better if Lincoln platforms flow primarily from Lincoln to Ford rather than from Ford to Lincoln. Otherwise whats the point of Lincoln? If it cant produce platforms its just a dumping ground for Ford.

[papilgee4evaeva]

You and I really dont know how the platforms were developed.

 

Thanks to the Internet, we have the historical resources at hand, with technological and chronological detail. There's no conspiracy theory to be implied here.

 

I've said many times its not a bad thing that Lincoln and Ford share platforms. All I'm saying is that its better if Lincoln platforms flow primarily from Lincoln to Ford rather than from Ford to Lincoln. Otherwise whats the point of Lincoln? If it cant produce platforms its just a dumping ground for Ford.

 

What you want to see has never happened between Ford and Lincoln (save for DEW98 as mentioned) and likely won't.

 

[RichardJensen]

The way you're quibbling over the semantics is really funny.

 

It's not quibbling.

 

You dismiss the current lineup as 'too closely related to Ford products', and propose a solution that does not address this defect.

[jpd80]

IIRC, the 430 was an engine available in the 1961, AFAIK it was never available in a Ford. But I could be wrong.

MELs were optional on T Bird...'58 -'60?

[ZanatWork]

I've proposed many things many times. Greater differentiation in drivetrains (with emphasis on smoothness and torque in particular), interior space (Lincolns were known for being commodious), and bringing some of the "big Detroit mobster in an Armani suit" qualities in the execution. Big room, big power, and a certain balance of brash and class that celebrates some classic American arrogance.

The MKZ should be cheekier than the ES. The MKS needs some actual character next time around, because it fairly defines "large forgettable sedan" in its chosen company. The MKT...wow, either find a much better styling direction or bail out.

I'm well aware, as I've said previously, that many if not all models in the immediate future will share Ford components/chassis...but the Lincolns should gain in wheelbase at the very least. I'm all for Lincoln hybrids, but they should not deviate from the seamless feeling of power.

Luxury cars are supposed to be about the "experience", and I agree. Lincoln has proven that they can build quality and basic luxury...so now, Lincoln needs to add real panache to the mix. They need to find, in the overall driving experience, that quality that gets into the senses (and into some reviewers' pages) to an extent that the vehicles are just describes as "Lincolns"...not "lipsticked Fusions/Taurii/Expeditions" etc.

In this way, I feel Chrysler did well with the 300C. I think Lincoln could do it far better still.

It's not quibbling.

 

You dismiss the current lineup as 'too closely related to Ford products', and propose a solution that does not address this defect.

[All-Or-Nothing]

Ugh....the Lincoln Haters really ruin this place.

[akirby]

It's NOT the platform - it's what you do with it.

 

None of the current Lincolns - including the MKZ - represent Lincoln's future direction that was only started about 18 months ago.

 

Big room is gone. Today's luxury buyer doesn't want huge bench seats. Lincoln has already said it's not even considering a "large" sedan. I think the biggest we can expect to see in the next 4 years is a stretched MKS on a stretched CD4 platform.

 

Lincoln hater is a little harsh. I think negatard is more appropriate.

[akirby]

With the death of the Town Car, Lincoln was reduced to sedans, an SUV, and 2 CUVs. At this time, Lincoln was falling to a dangerous sales level.

 

This approach, which is based on fwd (with the SUV excepted), certainly did not bring success at a needed level, or none of the arguments would be happening.

 

The product mix has been consistently criticized for being too close to the "source vehicles" and for being too conservative.

 

The answer is in your own words and you can't even see it. The reason the current Lincolns haven't been a sales success is that they aren't exciting enough and they don't offer knockout styling or new features or a dealership experience that can compete with some of the other brands. It has NOTHING to do with sharing platforms with Ford. This is what Richard has been trying to tell you - there is no cause and effect relationship with the platforms driving slow sales.

 

This is also why the whole premise of "...would take resources from where they're needed more" is junk; PROVE they're having a better overall use than they'd have bringing a potential spark to the showroom and to the perception of the brand. Ecoboosting much of the existing lineup didn't do it.

 

I never said they're having a better success with whatever they're choosing to spend money on instead of putting it into a stupid halo car because none of us know exactly what would have been killed. But I trust Ford's judgement about what types of vehicles to build a million times more than some yahoo on an internet forum who doesn't build cars for a living.

 

I even pointed out where Cadillac did exactly what you're asking Lincoln to do. It was called the XLR and it no longer exists and it didn't do anything for Cadillac except siphon away profits. A great product led that turnaround. The DTS and STS were flops, so where is the "halo" effect of the XLR?

 

Halo cars can't sell other vehicles. Vehicles sell themselves.

[duncan36]

Thanks to the Internet, we have the historical resources at hand, with technological and chronological detail. There's no conspiracy theory to be implied here.

 

 

What you want to see has never happened between Ford and Lincoln (save for DEW98 as mentioned) and likely won't.

 

If you want to see how its done successfully look at Audi and its relationship to VW. Audi is an autonomous unit that makes its own decisions, has its own engineering from the ground up despite sharing platforms with VW. This isnt 1970 anymore and Lincoln cant get away with slapping a new body on a Thunderbird platform and calling it a day.

Either Lincoln becomes its own autonomous unit within Ford that makes its own decisions and helps build its own cars from top to bottom. Or wrap it up and close it down because its worse than useless it'll be a perpertual drain on Ford and nothing more than a dumping ground.

[SoonerLS]

Audi is an autonomous unit that makes its own decisions, has its own engineering from the ground up despite sharing platforms with VW.

If they're sharing platforms, how do they do the engineering "from the ground up"?

[All-Or-Nothing]

If they're sharing platforms, how do they do the engineering "from the ground up"?

 

 

 

Ha Ha....you beat me to it.

[NickF1011]

If they're sharing platforms, how do they do the engineering "from the ground up"?

 

Answer: they don't in many cases.

 

In other words, what Lincoln will be doing moving forward will be much more akin to the VW-Audi relationship than the Ford-Lincoln relationship has been for many decades.

[duncan36]

If they're sharing platforms, how do they do the engineering "from the ground up"?

 

Audi has created entire platforms and co-engineered platforms with the rest of VW group. Aka they are responsible for engineering all aspects of the cars they produce from the ground up. If you dont see the difference between that and Ford handing Lincoln the Fusion platform and Lincoln changing the styling and adding some options I suggest you withdraw from the discussion as you cant grasp simple concepts.

[NickF1011]

Audi has created entire platforms and co-engineered platforms with the rest of VW group. Aka they are responsible for engineering all aspects of the cars they produce from the ground up. If you dont see the difference between that and Ford handing Lincoln the Fusion platform and Lincoln changing the styling and adding some options I suggest you withdraw from the discussion as you cant grasp simple concepts.

 

What the heck difference does it make who engineers the platform? As long as the input is there to make sure the right capabilities are engineered into the platform, then whose name is on it is entirely irrelevant.

 

And if you still don't understand the differences between the past, current, and future Ford-Lincoln relationship when comparing the 2012 MKZ, 2013 MKZ, and future Lincoln designs, I suggest you withdraw from the discussion as you can't grasp simple concepts either.

Edited January 9, 2013 by NickF1011

[akirby]

Ford handing Lincoln the Fusion platform and Lincoln changing the styling and adding some options I suggest you withdraw from the discussion as you cant grasp simple concepts.

 

Who said what Lincoln did with the MKZ is what they're going to do with all the other new vehicles? We haven't seen a vehicle that has been designed exclusively as a Lincoln by the Lincoln team yet. Even then, Lincoln is on a tight budget right now trying to redo the entire lineup and upgrade the dealer experience at the same time so it may take a few years to get to the end state. Why don't you relax and wait and see what the new team does instead of bashing the old way of doing things?

[Hugh]

Audi has created entire platforms and co-engineered platforms with the rest of VW group. Aka they are responsible for engineering all aspects of the cars they produce from the ground up. If you dont see the difference between that and Ford handing Lincoln the Fusion platform and Lincoln changing the styling and adding some options I suggest you withdraw from the discussion as you cant grasp simple concepts.

No. Audi is from VW Group platforms which is shared across the board except Bentley and Lamborgini. The differences are the same as you will see in Ford/Lincoln. It has been mentioned that Lincoln will require better materials and features yet don't be surprised to see the similar/same switchgear (VW/Bentley for example). The VW/AUDI differences in some cases are plain stupid such as A3/Golf winter tires and wheels cannot be switched. A simple money grab from VW group plain and simple. Lincoln will have it's own division but it's budget is from the head corporation.

 

Edited January 10, 2013 by Hugh

[duncan36]

What the heck difference does it make who engineers the platform? As long as the input is there to make sure the right capabilities are engineered into the platform, then whose name is on it is entirely irrelevant.

 

And if you still don't understand the differences between the past, current, and future Ford-Lincoln relationship when comparing the 2012 MKZ, 2013 MKZ, and future Lincoln designs, I suggest you withdraw from the discussion as you can't grasp simple concepts either.

 

Of course it matters who engineers a platform. If Lincoln isnt engineering platforms its not building cars its a dumping ground for Ford product. Look at all the crappy Lincoln products with consumerate crappy sales like the MKS, MKT for evidence of how what Ford is doing with Lincoln isnt working at all.

Then look at companies like Audi which are roaring successes for how to organize a luxury brand within a larger automotive group successfully.

[fordmantpw]

Of course it matters who engineers a platform. If Lincoln isnt engineering platforms its not building cars its a dumping ground for Ford product. Look at all the crappy Lincoln products with consumerate crappy sales like the MKS, MKT for evidence of how what Ford is doing with Lincoln isnt working at all.

Then look at companies like Audi which are roaring successes for how to organize a luxury brand within a larger automotive group successfully.

 

Because we all know that the MKS and MKT are perfect examples of what Ford has planned for Lincoln.

 

OK.