Lincoln To Get Bronco-Based Range Rover-Fighter

[rmc523]

Just now, akirby said:

Tennessee TRUCK plant.  This appears to be a new truck platform for multiple sized trucks.  Not just Ranger.

 

Yup, because Expedition and Navigator are made at Kentucky SUV plant.....

[akirby]

14 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

No, the Everest doesn't inspire passion, but I could see it being a great alternative to the Bronco for many folks.  It could be what the Explorer was before it became a soft roader.  It gives you the higher seating and more upright feeling that the Bronco has, but you don't have the trade-offs that you get with the Bronco.  Plus, it should come in at a lower cost than the Bronco as well.  My wife's (and many other women as well) favorite thing about the Bronco is how high it sits and the confidence when driving it.  That could be replicated with the Everest, but not have the expense and drawbacks of removable doors and top, nor the more spartan interior.  And, IIRC, it's shorter than the Explorer for those that don't need or want the extra length of the Explorer.

 

Essentially, this is to the midsize SUV crowd what the Bronco Sport was to the smaller size.  

Oh I know it would sell ok I just don't think it would be very profitable.  I don't see people paying MSRP or more like they did with Bronco and Bronco Sport.  That's why I see it as a filler product and I don't think they need a filler product right now.  Too many other things to invest infirst.

[akirby]

2 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Yup, because Expedition and Navigator are made at Kentucky SUV plant.....

When it opened in 1969 it only built trucks until SUVs were added in 2009.  

[HotRunrGuy]

27 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

No, the Everest doesn't inspire passion, but I could see it being a great alternative to the Bronco for many folks.  It could be what the Explorer was before it became a soft roader.  It gives you the higher seating and more upright feeling that the Bronco has, but you don't have the trade-offs that you get with the Bronco.  Plus, it should come in at a lower cost than the Bronco as well.  My wife's (and many other women as well) favorite thing about the Bronco is how high it sits and the confidence when driving it.  That could be replicated with the Everest, but not have the expense and drawbacks of removable doors and top, nor the more spartan interior.  And, IIRC, it's shorter than the Explorer for those that don't need or want the extra length of the Explorer.

 

Essentially, this is to the midsize SUV crowd what the Bronco Sport was to the smaller size.  

 

Exactly.  The Everest is about 9" shorter than the Explorer, and would fit in my garage similar to what our Edge does.

 

HRG

 

[Sherminator98]

19 minutes ago, akirby said:

Oh I know it would sell ok I just don't think it would be very profitable.  I don't see people paying MSRP or more like they did with Bronco and Bronco Sport.  That's why I see it as a filler product and I don't think they need a filler product right now.  Too many other things to invest infirst.

 

Lets make the assumption that the Lincoln is going to be more Everest then Bronco when it comes things. 

 

Then lets assume that the Bronco, Everest and Lincoln are sharing something like 60% of the same parts, with the major changes being sheet metal and interior details. Heck the Everest could use the Ranger interior for all it matters to make it different. 

 

I fail to see how the Everest couldn't be profitable, even if its a "filler" product for people who want something like Bronco, but not one. There is a demand for a more civilized SUV type product like the 4Runner, so why not go after it? 

 

The Mustang SUV is a bit more pie in the sky IMO. Maybe instead of it actually being an SUV it will be a high riding Sedan ala the Porsche 911 Dakar but with two extra doors? That would be be cheaper to do and would still let it be built at Flat Rock. 

[rmc523]

3 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Lets make the assumption that the Lincoln is going to be more Everest then Bronco when it comes things. 

 

Then lets assume that the Bronco, Everest and Lincoln are sharing something like 60% of the same parts, with the major changes being sheet metal and interior details. Heck the Everest could use the Ranger interior for all it matters to make it different. 

 

I fail to see how the Everest couldn't be profitable, even if its a "filler" product for people who want something like Bronco, but not one. There is a demand for a more civilized SUV type product like the 4Runner, so why not go after it? 

 

The Mustang SUV is a bit more pie in the sky IMO. Maybe instead of it actually being an SUV it will be a high riding Sedan ala the Porsche 911 Dakar but with two extra doors? That would be be cheaper to do and would still let it be built at Flat Rock. 

 

Everest already shares its interior with Ranger.

[fordmantpw]

36 minutes ago, akirby said:

Oh I know it would sell ok I just don't think it would be very profitable.  I don't see people paying MSRP or more like they did with Bronco and Bronco Sport.  That's why I see it as a filler product and I don't think they need a filler product right now.  Too many other things to invest infirst.

 

People were paying MSRP+ for everything then!  Hell, F150's were selling for $6-8k over sticker at the time too because they were so hard to get.  Had it not been for Covid, I think the Bronco likely still would have commanded MSRP+, but for a shorter duration.  But yeah, I don't see that for the Everest.  On the flip side, it doesn't have to sell for MSRP to make a nice profit.

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

fail to see how the Everest couldn't be profitable, even if its a "filler" product for people who want something like Bronco, but not one. There is a demand for a more civilized SUV type product like the 4Runner, so why not go after it? 

Didn't say it wouldn't be profitable.  But nobody is paying a premium for it like Bronco or Bronco sport.  I just don't think it would be a higher priority than all the other projects they're working on and I don't think they would build it at TTP and MAP won't have room.

[Texasota]

Between ce1, TTP and what we have learned from reliable information in this thread, Ford has a lot of stuff cooking on the stovetop. I hope they can make it all work and aren’t overextending themselves.

[rmc523]

17 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Between ce1, TTP and what we have learned from reliable information in this thread, Ford has a lot of stuff cooking on the stovetop. I hope they can make it all work and aren’t overextending themselves.

 

Don't worry.  They'll cancel their way to a "manageable" level soon.  lol

Edited February 25 by rmc523

[Texasota]

7 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Don't worry.  They'll cancel their way to a "manageable" level soon.  lol

[BenKohnen]

I do worry about that as well, taking too big a bite too quick. With the recall spree and assorted quality issues (mostly from 3rd party things but still, the vehicle is wrapped in the Ford/Lincoln name), FMC absolutely MUST deliver knockout products over the next couple years.

[jpd80]

This discussion also begs the question of what is happening at CAP in 2029,

will CD6 be done and replaced by something newer and better?

 

See this is the thing, you can’t talk about TTP in isolation and I’m waiting

for the other shoe to drop - I get that Ford imay not ready to say anything

yet because UAW agreement but clearly money will need to be spent there..

Edited February 25 by jpd80

[atomcat68]

23 hours ago, Andrew L said:

I would prefer if they didn't use a Mercury name and I really like Mainer and Mountaineer but that's just me.

 

Here are some concept names that Lincoln used in the past:

Anniversary
Contempra
Coronation
Futura
Indianapolis
Machete
Maharaja
Mardi Gras
Model L100
Navicross
Quicksilver
Sentinel
Star
Vignale
XL-500

 

 

I like Navicross for this. I would also be tempted to name it Mark Four, if is a serious off road four wheel drive vehicle like a Range Rover.

[fuzzymoomoo]

7 minutes ago, atomcat68 said:

I like Navicross for this. I would also be tempted to name it Mark Four, if is a serious off road four wheel drive vehicle like a Range Rover.

If I were in charge of Lincoln, I would stay as far away from the whole Mark ____ naming convention as I can. I understand its history but it just sounds old at this point. I can’t hear or read the name Mark___ and not think of a septuagenerian driving around at 15 mph below the speed limit and can barely walk. You’re not going to draw the kind of younger buyers Lincoln desperately wants to attract with that kind of image. 
 

Sometimes history is better off left as just that, history. 

Edited February 25 by fuzzymoomoo

[92LX302]

Surveyor. 

[passis]

Navigation-style: Polaris, Altair, Azimuth, Zenith.

Horse-style: Pegasus, Centaur. 

[bzcat]

5 hours ago, Texasota said:

Between ce1, TTP and what we have learned from reliable information in this thread, Ford has a lot of stuff cooking on the stovetop. I hope they can make it all work and aren’t overextending themselves.

 

Plenty of time for Ford to cancel it all when the next administration start enforcing CAFE laws again 🙃

 

But seriously, Ford is spending a lot of money on new model development now to catch up.

[T-dubz]

This Everest I could definitely see people paying msrp for. A few styling tweaks would make it even better.

This Everest no one cares about.

 

I think ford needs to let the Everest focus on fun and off road, similar to Bronco. No lariat, platinum or titanium trims, no chrome. Those will all be handled by Lincoln.

 

Below is how I would envision the trims. Maybe this would fail miserably, but I like it. These prices fall in line with the 4Runner and Lexus GX which I think would be its main competition.

 

Everest Sport - like an F150 STX $42k

Everest Tremor - mid range Off-roader $48k

Lincoln version Premiere - entry luxury trim $60k

Lincoln version Reserve - Mid level luxury $67k

Everest Raptor - Top of the line Off-Roader $72k

Lincoln version black label - Top of the line luxury $77k

 

 

Edited February 26 by T-dubz

[T-dubz]

double post

Edited February 26 by T-dubz

[tbone]

On 2/24/2026 at 1:35 PM, Motorpsychology said:

2029- retractable moonroof, 2030 fixed glass

Yer welcome.

 

Les Ismorr

Dept of Decontenting

This is why you better get the first model year. Anything after that is a role of the dice, lol!

[tbone]

14 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Ford is happy to oversaturate what they're good at.  They're oversaturating the truck market, why not do the same with SUVs that they're also good at.

 

A Mustang utility will appeal to a different customer than Everest would.

The other brands, who don’t have the strength in trucks, do it in the their car and CUV markets, so why not at this point. 
 

I concur, this Mustang and an Everest customer are not the same people. 

[tbone]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

Nothing about Everest inspires passion like a performance oriented mustang or off road Bronco.  It would just be a filler product at this point.

That’s an interesting opinion, because both of my kids think the Everest is awesome, as well as others who have asked me about it since they know I’m a Ford enthusiast. They were all disappointed when I told them that it isn’t coming here. Perhaps that will change now.  

[jpd80]

13 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Lets make the assumption that the Lincoln is going to be more Everest then Bronco when it comes things. 

 

Then lets assume that the Bronco, Everest and Lincoln are sharing something like 60% of the same parts, with the major changes being sheet metal and interior details. Heck the Everest could use the Ranger interior for all it matters to make it different. 
 

It already does, Everest is basically Ranger Stationwagon,

everything from the B pillar forward is the same.

Shares the 116” wheelbase with the four door Bronco.

 

a reskinned and better interior on the upgraded Everest may

make a better starting point for a Lincoln, that would also avoid

the touchy subject of Ranger and Everest internal competition.

 

13 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I fail to see how the Everest couldn't be profitable, even if its a "filler" product for people who want something like Bronco, but not one. There is a demand for a more civilized SUV type product like the 4Runner, so why not go after it? 
 

As mentioned previously, Bronco costs were carried by USA

and covered a big portion of T6.2 development cost plus the

gasoline powertrain modules.

 

Clearly, Ford USA wants to maximise Bronco sales and avoid

any chance of a lower cost SUV diverting sales away…..

that’s my theory because Everest was never intended for USA

and if the Lincoln thought is there, still loads ot rework needed.

Would make post 29 Everest top trims very luxurious indeed.

 

 

13 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

The Mustang SUV is a bit more pie in the sky IMO. Maybe instead of it actually being an SUV it will be a high riding Sedan ala the Porsche 911 Dakar but with two extra doors? That would be be cheaper to do and would still let it be built at Flat Rock. 

IF Ford was to reuse GE1 as a PHEV or EREV with say, 2.3EB then

a new kind of Mach E and legacy may be possible because GE1

is basically modified C2. With cast aluminium front, Center and

rear frames (skateboard)

Edited February 26 by jpd80

[tbone]

13 hours ago, Texasota said:

Between ce1, TTP and what we have learned from reliable information in this thread, Ford has a lot of stuff cooking on the stovetop. I hope they can make it all work and aren’t overextending themselves.

As far as I’m concerned, they have no choice at this point. The well is pretty damn dry right now.
 

Of the potential model names mentioned so far, I’m still liking Mountaineer and Ascender.  I don’t love the Mountaineer’s connection to the Mercury brand for the sake of the Lincoln brand, but it is a good name.  Surveyor isn’t  too bad as well. Navicross reflects crossover too much for me, and if this is supposed to be a serious luxury off-roader like the G-Wagon or Range Rover, that isn’t the proper image projection.