Lincoln Teases (Likely) MKX Concept to debut in China

[SoonerLS]

SN197

FYI, SN197 is the outgoing Mustang, so there won't be anything of it left to use. The '15 is S550.

Edited April 25, 2014 by SoonerLS

[fordmantpw]

Take a look at Mustang sales...

 

As for how much sharing take a look at how much could be shared with a cuv;

 

Firewall

Motors

Trans

Rear-end diff

Suspension

Steering

Ecm and electrical

Some interior componets

 

What would be the cost would be the obvious;

 

Top-hat

Ecm programing

Some interior

NVH

Suspension-tune

Some Lincoln-only features.

 

Awd would be debatable depending on what the upcoming Mustang based vehicles would offer.

 

How on earth can you share suspension between a sports car and a cuv that weighs 1500 lbs more?

 

Ditto steering and rearend diff. Firewall? Doubtful. You have to build a crash structure to support the extra weight.

 

If it was this easy, trust us, Ford would already be doing it.

[papilgee4evaeva]

 

 

2013 sales:

 

Nissan 370Z - 6561

All Nissan Group FM platform models - 78256

 

Ford Mustang - 77186

 

There are the numbers. Carry on with your debate, gentlemen.

[RichardJensen]

Firewall No. Different cowl heights.

Motors Yes

Trans Yes

Rear-end diff Maybe

Suspension No. Different ride heights, different weights.

Steering Only the rack.

Ecm and electrical There is no cost savings here.

Some interior componets There is no cost savings here.

 

ECM, electrical, and interior components will be shared with all vehicles, regardless of donor platform, thus there are no *savings*.

 

Now, let's discuss the additional cost items:

 

Top-hat

- Consisting of

--- 100% new front subframe

--- 80-100% Firewall

--- 90-100% new floorpan

--- 100% B pillar

--- 100% A pillar

--- 100% C pillar

--- 100% added D pillar

--- 100% new doors

--- 100% new rear subframe

--- 100% new sheetmetal

--- 100% new roof

--- 100% new hood

 

Ecm programing Irrelevant

Some interior Irrelevant

NVH Irrelevant

Suspension-tune Irrelevant

Some Lincoln-only features. Irrelevant

 

 

Items are marked irrelevant because they are costs incurred with any Lincoln, regardless of donor platform. Thus they do not represent an additional cost for a Mustang based Lincoln.

 

The problem with saying "Oh it needs a new tophat" is that there is almost nothing that can be shared between the Mustang and a CUV.

 

If you would like to have a bloated, heavy, overbuilt, oversized Mustang, you could share big chunks of the suspension, subframe and even the floorpan with a CUV.

 

But none of us want a Mustang like that, right?

 

There is a small possibility that you could share the firewall stampings and some small section of the floorpan stampings, basically the area around the doghouse and the driveshaft tunnel in the front seat. And that's about it. Possibly the wheelwells and engine & strut mounts, unless you have to tear up the whole front structure for crash mitigation purposes (you'll be dealing with a significantly heavier vehicle).

Edited April 25, 2014 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

And here's the TL;DR for you.

 

The Camaro & Challenger are not bloated pigs because GM and Chrysler don't know how to share platforms.

 

They are like that because GM & Chrysler *do* know how to share platforms, and those are the compromises you have to make to share platforms between sedans and coupes.

 

What Nissan has done is they've chopped off what? About a foot and a half? of the FM platform in the middle in order to produce a 2 seat coupe. If you think that's the direction Ford should go with the Mustang, then why didn't you buy a T-Bird twelve years ago?

[Fgts]

 

ECM, electrical, and interior components will be shared with all vehicles, regardless of donor platform, thus there are no *savings*.

 

Now, let's discuss the additional cost items:

 

 

Items are marked irrelevant because they are costs incurred with any Lincoln, regardless of donor platform. Thus they do not represent an additional cost for a Mustang based Lincoln.

 

The problem with saying "Oh it needs a new tophat" is that there is almost nothing that can be shared between the Mustang and a CUV.

 

If you would like to have a bloated, heavy, overbuilt, oversized Mustang, you could share big chunks of the suspension, subframe and even the floorpan with a CUV.

 

But none of us want a Mustang like that, right?

 

There is a small possibility that you could share the firewall stampings and some small section of the floorpan stampings, basically the area around the doghouse and the driveshaft tunnel in the front seat. And that's about it. Probably the wheelwells and engine & strut mounts, but that won't happen if you have to tear up the whole front structure for crash mitigation purposes (you'll be dealing with a significantly heavier vehicle).

Ok I see but im sure the MKX / Fusion had the same issues that this would have from a 3200lb base Fusion to a 4300lb MKX. Same thing from Foucs to MKC why a RWD Xover would be beyond Fords engineering staff?.

 

The Fox platform (though no cuvs were on that) shows how Ford can pull off a feat and still be profitable with RWD, from a 2900 lb V8Mustang to a 4000lb Continental.

[RichardJensen]

Ok I see but im sure the MKX / Fusion had the same issues that this would have from a 3200lb base Fusion to a 4300lb MKX. Same thing from Foucs to MKC why a RWD Xover would be beyond Fords engineering staff?.

 

The Fox platform (though no cuvs were on that) shows how Ford can pull off a feat and still be profitable with RWD, from a 2900 lb V8Mustang to a 4000lb Continental.

 

- First, the MKX shares major componentry with the Edge, and will also share significant componentry with the Explorer and the 7 passenger Lincoln CUV. That's probably in the neighborhood of 250k-300k in additional annual volume. Not to mention engineering efficiencies between these vehicles and the Galaxy & S-Max.

 

- Second, the Fox platform sedans were terrible. The Lincoln Continental sedan was a disaster. And in any event, NVH expectations and crash test standards mean that platforms are much less flexible than they were in the past.

[jpd80]

Falcon, Territory and Mustang could have been the foundation for a RWD program but look at the differences between the three of them,

Falcon and Territory at best share 50% of their parts, any less and the derivative elements would become less and more like Taurus-Explorer.

 

You can bet the farm that Ford looked at the whole RWD prospect and possibilities with product envelope in North America.

The reason Mulally chose FWD/AWD was that plants and product cycles were already in play and it was less disruptive and

less expensive to keep going with evolution of the existing plan, there was simply no proof that RWD products would improve ROI.

 

If Taurus is becoming less important these days, then there may be a case for a RWD sedan and Ute using Falcon, territory & Mustang mechanicals

but the cost of doing so would probably far outweigh any substantive benefits brought by those more unique models, sure Lincoln may have

ended up with X3/X5 competitor and the equivalent of Jaguar XK, XF and XJ copycats but none of that guarantees that Lincoln would

gain more sales and profit over the course Ford is choosing to take. If Ford wanted RWD luxury marques, it would have kept J/LR

Edited April 25, 2014 by jpd80

[papilgee4evaeva]

And here's the TL;DR for you.

 

The Camaro & Challenger are not bloated pigs because GM and Chrysler don't know how to share platforms.

 

They are like that because GM & Chrysler *do* know how to share platforms, and those are the compromises you have to make to share platforms between sedans and coupes.

 

What Nissan has done is they've chopped off what? About a foot and a half? of the FM platform in the middle in order to produce a 2 seat coupe. If you think that's the direction Ford should go with the Mustang, then why didn't you buy a T-Bird twelve years ago?

Incidentally, the Zeta and LX/LY platforms never spawned CUVs, either.

[RichardJensen]

Right.

 

 

There's also the question of competent execution. The Nissan platform was pretty widely touted when it was released, but I don't think that sales have met expectations, and I think they're having trouble justifying a major upgrade based on current volumes.

 

If Ford were to go a similar route and end up with a suite of vehicles that were RWD, but in other areas were so lacking that they did not appeal to customers, due to the high amortization costs of the RWD platform, the results would not be good, even if the products got a lot of ink.

[jpd80]

So winding back around to Lincoln, the Utility side of the equation appears to be coming together nicely,

MKC and MKX now look the goods, I hope that spurs Ford on to go all out on a new MKT/Aviator and next Gen Navigator.

 

On the car side, MKZ will continue to get better, MKS will be a fine addition, I hope Ford does the Mustang based Lincoln Coupe,

that will give Lincoln some teeth and an ATS-V / CTS-V coupe competitor at a fraction of GM's Alpha development cost...........

 

I see Lincoln springing from virtual obscurity to main stage in a very short time, China now looms large.

Edited April 26, 2014 by jpd80

[NNRT]

thanks for getting back to the MKX - some times people get a little overboard with facts and figures - that are meaningless to most people !

[BrewfanGRB]

Well you go put your money where your mouth is, where's your 2015 sport Xover?.. Make sure it fwd based too.

 

As for Ford operations I doubt you're Bill Ford Jr, my original point is the domestics in general need to stop leaving themselfs exposed in moderate US markets while all the imports not only make money but factories here. A RWD sport Xover can be done at profit.

 

Huh? Sorry, we're done here. I stopped reading at "themselfs".

[Fgts]

 

Huh? Sorry, we're done here. I stopped reading at "themselfs".

Ok, you got it Mr. online english doctorate.....

 

Still don't change the fact (imho) that a rwd lux sport x-over is needed.

 

LX and Zeta are big-car platforms, that won't work. My argument just one mid-size rear-drive x-over is needed from a lux domestic nameplate and it can come from a small to mid-size rear-drive car platform(ex: Mustang platform from Ford, Alpha platform from GM, even the upcoming mid-size RWD platform from Chrysler).

 

My bad to all for jacking the thread a bit but I didnt think it will get this crazy. Back to the MKX!.

[NickF1011]

Still don't change the fact (imho) that a rwd lux sport x-over is needed.

If it's your opinion, it's not much of a fact, is it?

[jpd80]

Let's hope that Ford puts the 2.7 EB and AWD into the MKX, that would make a very nippy performer.

[2b2]

Let's hope that Ford puts the 2.7 EB and AWD into the MKX, that would make a very nippy performer.

I heard UNofficialy but in no uncertain terms that

the MKZ will definitely get a Nano v6EB as a sport model

(didn't say if 2.7 or 2.9 but would be *near* 400hp)

so

imho an MKX with the same or similar drivetrain can be expected as well

[jpd80]

I heard UNofficialy but in no uncertain terms that

the MKZ will definitely get a Nano v6EB as a sport model

(didn't say if 2.7 or 2.9 but would be *near* 400hp)

so

imho an MKX with the same or similar drivetrain can be expected as well

 

Well if that's true then........... :happy feet:

Edited April 29, 2014 by jpd80

[ANTAUS]

Wonder how much they would have to beef up the suspension, brakes and platform to handle all that. Specially the brakes which has been a weak point lately.

[NickF1011]

Wonder how much they would have to beef up the suspension, brakes and platform to handle all that. Specially the brakes which has been a weak point lately.

 

Brakes are easy enough to upgrade. They just need to have the motivation to actually do it. Don't really see where suspension would be an issue, and it has typically been one of Ford's stronger suits anyway.