1965 Lincoln: The Last Great American Luxury Car

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

The sharp-edged fender flares, or "flame surfacing" as Bangle named it when BMW rolled it out about ten years ago. This styling fad seems to be the tail fins of the new millennia. It has gone from Germany to Japan, to Korea, where Hyundai has taken it to the full 59 Caddy level.

[RichardJensen]

It's interesting.

 

The Conti differed from the T-Bird in length, interior appointments, NVH, and styling.

 

The MKZ differs from the Fusion in length, interior appointments, NVH and styling.

 

If one wants to assert that Ford's current strategy is not workable, one should point to something other than the '61 Conti.

Edited April 23, 2013 by RichardJensen

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

My brother had the Mark V. It had to be in the running, if not the outright record, for the smallest ratio of interior space to car length and/or mass. It was a huge car with ridiculously tiny accommodations.

[RichardJensen]

That's why the '77 B Bodies were so revolutionary.

[aneekr]

My brother had the Mark V. It had to be in the running, if not the outright record, for the smallest ratio of interior space to car length and/or mass. It was a huge car with ridiculously tiny accommodations.

 

I had similar thoughts upon seeing this very well preserved Mark V at a Chicagoland dealership a few years back. I had to adjust my camera for a wider angle in order to get the whole car into range.

 

Edited April 24, 2013 by aneekr

[Edstock]

The sharp-edged fender flares, or "flame surfacing" as Bangle named it when BMW rolled it out about ten years ago. This styling fad seems to be the tail fins of the new millennia. It has gone from Germany to Japan, to Korea, where Hyundai has taken it to the full 59 Caddy level.

 

Please show where Lincoln's MKC concept shows "flame surfacing".

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

I can't get you to admit that you see something you don't want to see. Google "flame surfacing bmw" and "flame surfacing Hyundai"' then tell me if you see those exaggerated creases over the fenders of the MKC and the concave/convex surfaces. Heck, Richard doesn't agree with me often, maybe he can do the same and opine. Michael Broderick isn't likely to see the equine facial features of his wife, like most of the rest of American men clearly do. If you like this focus/mariner/Hyundai thingy feel free to ignore my neighing.

Edited April 24, 2013 by TBirdStangSkyliner

[ehaase]

It's interesting.

 

The Conti differed from the T-Bird in length, interior appointments, NVH, and styling.

 

The MKZ differs from the Fusion in length, interior appointments, NVH and styling.

 

If one wants to assert that Ford's current strategy is not workable, one should point to something other than the '61 Conti.

The Continental and Thunderbird were on a dedicated luxury car platform. Ford doesn't have one now. I don't blame Ford. My understanding is that Lincoln didn't make big profits until the Continental became a tarted up LTD in 1970. A Lincoln version of the 1960 Falcon or the 1962 Fairlane would be more comparable to the Fusion/MKZ.

[RichardJensen]

The Continental and Thunderbird were on a dedicated luxury car platform.

 

Irrelevant: The Lincoln existed because it was adapted from a much higher volume and much less prestigious and much less expensive product. If not for the Thunderbird, it wouldn't exist at all.

Edited April 24, 2013 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

I can't get you to admit that you see something you don't want to see. Google "flame surfacing bmw" and "flame surfacing Hyundai"' then tell me if you see those exaggerated creases over the fenders of the MKC and the concave/convex surfaces. Heck, Richard doesn't agree with me often, maybe he can do the same and opine. Michael Broderick isn't likely to see the equine facial features of his wife, like most of the rest of American men clearly do. If you like this focus/mariner/Hyundai thingy feel free to ignore my neighing.

 

It's Matthew Broderick.

 

Further, your discussion of styling paradigms is, frankly, all over the map. The MKC is certainly not a stylistic departure, but then again, neither were many of the most successful selling Lincolns of the past 50 years. You yourself mentioned the cramped interior of the '77 Mark V. The Mark V was well-styled, but very much within the mode of the times; yet it sold more annually than any Mark series before or since.

 

If the purpose of the MKC is to sell in volume, there are other, more important considerations than the introduction of a new styling paradigm.

 

Finally, it's worth reflecting that new styling paradigms are a product of the work leading up to them. One cannot simply sit down and create a new styling paradigm, regardless of how talented one may be. New styles are about being at the forefront of industry-wide initiatives, not inventing them out of whole cloth. Telnack led the industry with the '86 Taurus & '98 Focus. He tried to lead the industry with the '96 Taurus. Worth thinking about......................

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

I agree that a new styling paradigm is often irrelevant to sales volume. I don't think that a company needs to make a habit out of being at the leading edge of design. However, I think Lincoln is in a very particular place where it needs to have a new stylistic hit. I can give Max a pass on the MKC because I think most of it had to pre-date his tenure. I hope the next Lincoln introduction is much more original and desirable, though.

 

And for m. Broderick you are of course right. I'm trying to get use to typing on an ipad which makes the most bizarre auto-corrections.

Edited April 24, 2013 by TBirdStangSkyliner

[RichardJensen]

They don't need a stylistic hit. They need sales. And gambling on styling to increase sales when there are other less risky means of doing so is irresponsible.

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

I think that unique, killer good looks is the least risky thing Lincoln can do to add sales volume. If you are down to a few last chances and most of your diffferentiation is sheet metal, it needs to make a statement that people notice and like. The .2 liters (12 cubic inches) of engine displacement isn't likely to be the hook. Unique platforms aren't in the business plan. Only one or two unique paint colors are apparently worth the risk to Ford. What change do you recommend at Lincoln to bring the brand back?

[RichardJensen]

I think that unique, killer good looks is the least risky thing Lincoln can do to add sales volume.

 

I disagree emphatically. Emphatically.

 

Coming up with some radical styling package is first of all time consuming, secondly it's expensive to test, and finally, it's difficult to test without bias. The vast majority of 'revolutionary' styling paradigms have been seen in mainstream vehicles (the '61 Conti is the exception, not the rule). This is because the budget is there to develop and test a variety of styles. And for each success there have been any number of failures where the execution or the research or the decision making process was deeply flawed.

 

How does Ford differentiate Lincoln? First, by differentiating Lincoln; eliminating the obvious-at-a-glance family relationship between products like the MKX & Edge. Second by providing best-in-segment performance in areas that are important to luxury buyers (e.g. NVH), and by winning the feature battle. Subsequent to that, the ownership experience needs to be top-notch, and needs to create a sense of lifestyle beyond vehicle ownership.

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

I think your approach would best work at Buick/Mercury pricing levels. At higher prices the volume would likely build much more slowly with a low risk approach. It raises the question of how much you can sink into marketing for the likely longer term duration. You would need to get dealers into spending more on upping the customer experience for quite a few years while the momentum builds slowly. There is also an assumption that the more established luxury competitors are going to be a static enough target in NVH and features to be surpassed. I don't like much about Lexus, but they have a perception of being impassable for NVH. It could be hard to win something so esoteric that it is measured on a log-scale.

[RichardJensen]

I think your approach would best work at Buick/Mercury pricing levels. At higher prices the volume would likely build much more slowly with a low risk approach. It raises the question of how much you can sink into marketing for the likely longer term duration. You would need to get dealers into spending more on upping the customer experience for quite a few years while the momentum builds slowly. There is also an assumption that the more established luxury competitors are going to be a static enough target in NVH and features to be surpassed. I don't like much about Lexus, but they have a perception of being impassable for NVH. It could be hard to win something so esoteric that it is measured on a log-scale.

 

Why would the volume 'build much more slowly with a low risk approach'?

 

I mean, that sounds good when you say it out loud, but where is the support underlying the sentence? It may seem self evident that risk and return are tied together in some linear fashion, but we're not talking about bonds being traded on an open market here. Risk and rate of return are affected by any number of independent variables.

 

Further, let's talk about NVH.

 

NVH measurement is esoteric, but NVH perception is undoubtedly, unquestionably, one of the primary 'value-adds' in a luxury vehicle.

 

Regarding Lexus and its NVH reputation, it's worth noting that Ford's donor platforms are already far superior to Toyota's. Ford is already ahead of Toyota before they begin tuning a Lincoln for Lexus-level refinement.

 

Now let's talk about being able to improve Lincoln products faster than the competition. Consider that:

 

- Lincoln does not need to invest any money at all in small cars. While BMW & Mercedes have their cash cows, they are also compelled to invest in smaller vehicles to meet CAFE requirements in the U.S. Profitable Lincoln products do not need to subsidize less profitable or unprofitable Lincoln products.

 

- Amortization allowances for Lincoln's shared platforms/powertrains are significantly lower than their German competitors, and significantly lower than any Alpha based GM product as well. This allows Lincoln to reinvest more revenue from each vehicle sold.

 

- Lincoln's shared platforms are already significantly better than competing platforms from GM, Toyota and Nissan.

 

Ford has not only been able to improve the F-Series faster than the competition, they have been able to improve the Fusion and Focus faster than the competition as well. Further, the new Lincoln products are not derived from segment-trailing architectures & powertrains, they are derived from segment leading architectures and powertrains.

 

Ford is already starting near the head of the pack in crucial areas with the MKZ and MKC, and the profitability of the underlying platforms ensures that they will have revenue to invest on improvement over and above the pace of the luxury sector.

 

There is no difficulty regarding funds, there is no difficulty regarding architectures, there is no difficulty regarding powertrains.

 

The challenges Ford has with Lincoln are as follows:

 

- Matching product to market

 

- Exceeding peers in improving aspects that are important to consumers

 

- Differentiating the product in customer perception

 

- Anticipating customer preferences

 

 

Now, if you want to take a dump on all that and throw everything at styling, to see if styling will sell your product, that's all fine and well, and maybe you can get a job working for AMC on that new compact they're working on.... I think they're calling it the Pacer.

Edited April 24, 2013 by RichardJensen

[StangBang]

A Lincoln version of the 1960 Falcon or the 1962 Fairlane would be more comparable to the Fusion/MKZ.

 

And the Lincoln version of the Falcon was indeed the Versailles... The Falcon platform was reworked to supply Fairlanes, Mustangs, Mavericks, Granadas and all their Mercury counterparts.

[StangBang]

Lincoln is dead. No one wants them anymore.

[lfeg]

It's interesting.

 

The Conti differed from the T-Bird in length, interior appointments, NVH, and styling.

 

The MKZ differs from the Fusion in length, interior appointments, NVH and styling.

 

If one wants to assert that Ford's current strategy is not workable, one should point to something other than the '61 Conti.

The T-Birds of that era were vastly different from the rest of the Ford lineup, especially in NVH. You cannot tell the difference by looking at the cars or the specs. But driving them you could tell. It was the opposite of what is now - the T-Bird (for a while anyway) was a Ford on a Lincoln platform.

[lfeg]

It seems that while disagreeing, Richard and TBSS have brought out one big point - Lincoln needs something to pull potential customers into the showrooms. You cannot sell a car if no one comes in to look at it. Class leading NVH is good, exclusive features are good, competitive powertrain tech is good. All will draw some into the showrooms. BUT, the one thing that will draw even better is styling that catches the eye and makes you want to look more closely. The Cadillac CTS pretty much proved this. The first interation was fairly run of the mill NVH, feature, and tech wise, but its styling, as polarizing as it was, caught the eye. (and I am not talking corporate earnings, I am talking floor traffic that leads to sales)

 

The 61 Continental had a style that caught the eye. In its day it was a car that the first time you saw it you thought "What Is That?". There were no large logos slatherd on the car, no gaudy badges. Just styling.

 

You do not need radical styling. You need styling that does not let you blend in to the visual backgroung wallpaper, as I am afraid the MKC will.

[akirby]

They do need standout styling but it doesn't have to be radical. I think the MKC concept was a perfect example and the MKZ just needs a few tweaks to the front end to get there.

 

BTW - Max has 100% control over the MKC start to finish.

[RichardJensen]

(and I am not talking corporate earnings, I am talking floor traffic that leads to sales)

 

Corporate earnings trumps floor traffic.

 

Further, people don't get 'pulled into showrooms' anymore. That's not how people shop anymore, at least not the people that Lincoln is targeting. Styling is an important consideration, but the brand's reputation, word-of-mouth, and other factors trump it.

Edited April 24, 2013 by RichardJensen

[akirby]

You need styling that does not let you blend in to the visual backgroung wallpaper, as I am afraid the MKC will.

 

The MKC does not blend into the background at all.

[lfeg]

Corporate earnings trumps floor traffic.

 

Further, people don't get 'pulled into showrooms' anymore. That's not how people shop anymore, at least not the people that Lincoln is targeting.

If there is no traffic, there are very few sales. And just where do people go to buy a Lincoln, Starbucks?

 

The whole point of using styling to get interest in the car is to have a potential customer see one (in person, in print, online, on TV, whatever) and get interested in looking further, be it online, at a dealer, etc. If the styling is totally forgetable or if it just blends into the background, why would anyone want to look further. Unless you are buying cars for the undercover unit.

[RichardJensen]

If there is no traffic, there are very few sales. And just where do people go to buy a Lincoln, Starbucks?

 

The whole point of using styling to get interest in the car is to have a potential customer see one (in person, in print, online, on TV, whatever) and get interested in looking further, be it online, at a dealer, etc. If the styling is totally forgetable or if it just blends into the background, why would anyone want to look further. Unless you are buying cars for the undercover unit.

 

People go to dealers to buy cars now, not to shop.

 

Further, adopting 'styling' as a major selling point skews the decision making process. I agree that the styling needs to be distinctive, and I think it is far far far far far far far too early to make judgments about whether the MKC is distinctive or not. Let alone other future Lincolns.

 

But getting to the main point of pushing styling as a differentiator: you invite bad decisions when you do this: You invite vehicles like the '96 Taurus, Aztek, Edsel, etc. And even when styling becomes a selling point (e.g. Cadillac), you end up locked into a corporate 'face' that, over time, stifles your freedom to innovate.

 

In speaking of how the process is managed in the corporate environment, too many bad things happen when you prioritize 'unique styling', rather than letting the style develop out of the overall program requirements.

 

When you look at the Taurus, the motivation for its aerodynamic form was a clear outgrowth of targets for drag and fuel economy, as well as a clear cultural trend away from the various 70s design aesthetics (padded roofs and other faux-retro touches). Nobody told Jack Telnack, 'hey, make something that doesn't look like anything else on the road' with no further input. With the '96 Taurus, you were in a whole other realm. The motive there was to be distinctive, and look what that brought about.