Last post on May 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
Lincoln Zephyr, Lincoln MKS, Lincoln MKX
#3256 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [akirby]
Apr 12, 2011 (5:37 pm)
First of all, Camaro is outselling Mustang, even with that interior you hate. Secondly, what is the big difference between having either two or three versions of "essentially the same vehicle?" Taurus and MKS are essentially the same vehicle. Fusion and MKZ are essentially the same vehicle. Expedition and Navigator are essentially the same vehicle. Edge and MKX are essentially the same vehicle. Traverse/Acadia/Enclave are essentially the same vehicle. So, like GM's mistake was to have three and not two?? Traverse/Acadia/Enclave are all selling well. Meanwhile the Lincoln versions of Ford's "essentially the same vehicle" are selling squat. So is your argument about two v. three. Having two hasn't added a damned thing to Ford's bottom line.
I've seen the spy photos of the new MKZ. IMHO, it looks sort of Audi-esque in a Lincoln new-grill sort of way. It will be pretty and may sell better than the current forgotten MKZ. That of course remains to be seen. Audi, btw, has offered an electronically controlled suspension for years. Not that it has gotten any good press, and apparently wouldn't deserve it anyway. As for Lincoln, how about a fine looking car that has better power, mpg, quiet and handling than the direct competition? Build it, I say.
I am reminded of the trouble Suzuki has encountered here (they go like gangbusters in Asia). Kizashi came along and is one of the best mid-sizers to appear in 2010, but it is apparently too little too late. Sales are in the toilet.
So I will cheer this crack Lincoln team on too, and hope they have the cojones to take some real risks (no focus group crap). But please lay off on the negative lobs toward GM. It is just sour grapes, as this screwed up company is issuing a lot of good stuff now. Ford needs to have some strong domestic competition. Four divisions are working for GM now. One division is working for Ford. With luck and a lot of skill on the part of the team you describe, maybe two will.
#3257 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [gregg_vw]
Apr 12, 2011 (8:08 pm)
It's not 2 vs. 3 - it's 2 vs. 4 when you throw in the new Caddy version. When Ford killed Mercury everyone said sales would fall because people wanted more choices and Mercury buyers wouldn't buy Fords. Last month proved that theory dead wrong. If Ford can sell more vehicles with 2 brands and low incentives than GM does with 4 brands and big incentives - which one makes more money?
Hyundai and VW both proved you can't sell $15K cars and $50K cars under the same brand. You need 2 brands as evidenced by almost every other major full-line car mfr. GM should kill Buick and GMC and compete with Chevy and Cadillac. It would drastically lower their cost structure.
You're the one who complained the loudest about the MKZ, MKX and MKS being too close to the Fusion, Edge and Taurus respectively and I agree with you regarding the current models. But Lincoln is fixing that by giving all Lincolns totally unique styling, sheet metal, interiors, features and drivetrains. They won't share anything with Fords except things you can't see.
In other words - Lincoln is attempting to do everything you've said they should do. So I don't understand why you're so skeptical about Ford and why you're so adamant about defending GM. The numbers (sales, incentive spending, profits, inventory days, etc.) don't lie.
As for the Camaro - it's barely outselling the mustang now. If GM has higher incentives then that certainly plays a part. But let's compare total sales over the last decade.......
#3258 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [akirby]
Apr 13, 2011 (8:21 am)
I may not be a genius on this, but there is no REAL reason for Mercury to exist...aside from the fact that we have HAD Mercury does not mean it must continue...that is a whole lot of unnecessary dealers to sell a brand that is "slightly upscale" from Ford, with real differences being different dash, headlights and taillights...while it may have worked in the last 50 years, maybe now it is outdated...
Just like Alfred Sloan's model became obsolete when the Impala broke the $20K mark, because you could buy a discounted Olds 98 decked out for less money than a decked out Impala...once that happened, you knew that the 5 step models of Sloan (Chevy-Pont-Buick-Olds-Caddy) were doomed, because the Impala often cost more than the "prestige car"...
Maybe Ford and Lincoln makes more sense (Chevy-Caddy, anybody?) as long as there is a discernible difference to make the Lincoln REALLY worth more, other than pinstriping and wire wheels...
#3259 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [akirby]
Apr 13, 2011 (3:57 pm)
No, Allen, it is not 2 vs. 4...it is 2 or 4. I am not adamant about defending GM. If anything, I am more adamant about introducing some objectivity into this basically fan boi thread. I would also say what Chrysler-Fiat has, all of a sudden, been doing right again. I can see the leaps that Hyundai-Kia have taken. That doesn't mean those companies have it down. Things these days can turn on a dime.
None of that changes my first love: Ford. And I have certainly been giving Ford credit. After all, Ford right now can sell more vehicles with ONE division, rather than three...the sales don't lie. My point is that nothing much would change if Lincoln ceased to exist right now. It would be great if Lincoln could rise again, and in the future, Ford may need Lincoln in order to sustain growth.
But to your perennial grip I say: Two divisions can work. Four divisions can work. I won't repeat examples, as you probably won't accept them anyway. OK, just one: right now, VW is knocking at the door of becoming the world's biggest automaker. Their profits worldwide are pretty decent too. And all those "extra" divisions are not just uber luxury brands like Porsche, Bugatti, Lamborghini and Bentley, but also more mainstream brands like VW, Audi, Skoda, SEAT, and to a small extent Suzuki (a very successful brand everywhere but the US).
Your suggestion that GM kill Buick makes no sense. The division is growing like gangbusters right now. Setting aside sales here, it is one of the most respected and successful brands in the world's largest car market (China) where it is perceived on a par with Audi. Meanwhile, Cadillac is making similar sales numbers here, and absolutely trouncing Lincoln. GMC does reach a different (and growing) customer base than Chevrolet (a friend just bought one and she loves it...she wouldn't consider the Chevy version, even if that makes no sense to you and me).
AGAIN, this company is recovering from a well-deserved fall that went far lower than Ford ever did. And here they are already, making money! Sure Ford makes a whole lot more right now, and hell yes, that is a good thing. But GM must make its own way, not follow a long-time competitor's plan.
All I have said, again and again, is stop the heck dissing GM just because they have four brands. I just don't get it. You keep trying to put Ford logic on another company, and meanwhile, GM is already doing ok in a very highly competitive, over-saturated (with brands, capacity, models, choices...mostly all good ones now). It will be a long time before sales return to pre-recession levels, if ever. Meanwhile, the vagaries of the market are going to kill good vehicles that from a quality standpoint probably deserve to live.
Oh, and the Camaro is "just barely outselling" Mustang. Well, my dear, that says means Camaro is doing ok. And it is NOT loaded up with incentives. Mustang has always been the king of this market (the Mustang II excepted), and always was the one to beat. Camaro is presently heavier, does not handle as well, and some think the interior doesn't measure up. But they do have the styling down, and in the ponycar market, styling can still rule. If Ford had not had the good sense to put both a new V6 and V8 into the Mustang at the same time, it would not be close to nipping at Camaro's heels. I got to give both credit for the good sales they have. But apparently, you don't.
#3260 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [gregg_vw]
Apr 13, 2011 (6:18 pm)
The only 2 full line brands for VW are VW and Audi - at least in the U.S. Buick is doing well, especially in China - I'll give you that. It isn't a question of whether it works - the question is what works better in the long run. Take every Buick and put a bowtie on it and it will still sell in the U.S. without the additional brand overhead.
But I don't understand how you can possibly defend GMC. Every vehicle is a clone of a Chevy with NO distinguishing features. Explain that one.
#3261 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [akirby]
Apr 14, 2011 (7:06 am)
Image, my friend. Image sells. Otherwise why do fancy VWs move better as Audis? GMC has been successfully marketed as more upscale and more rugged than a Chevrolet. Think of Coke v. Pepsi. In every blind taste test ever done, Pepsi wins handily over Coke. But things still go better with Coke: when presented with the two cans, people insist in greater numbers that they prefer Coke. This "ruse" of advertising and image building so to speak has been a success. It is something Coke almost lost years ago when it introduced the better tasting new Coke. Thus, Classic Coke came right back. That continuing successful brand image still garners more sales right now with Coke.
There wouldn't be such a proliferation of brands worldwide (in clothes, food products, most everything) if people weren't so brand conscious--and in the case of more expensive products, brand snobs. For GM to squander built-in perceptions on the hope that than the expense of converting GMCs back to Chevrolets (no small cost to manufacturer and dealers) added to the costs of re-educating people that a Chevy can get them the same things, coupled with the very real risk that these customers may be lost forever to other brands instead...well, it seems to me that is taking a risk that may not be justified at present.
Ford on the other hand had very little to lose by the time Mercury was euthanized. Old guys buying the big Mercury rather than the Ford was a dying proposition, and all other "signs of the cat" had long since faded in people's memories. What GMC still has to some extent is what Lincoln needs to rebuild: a sense among the buying public, real or imagined, that a Lincoln is a finer thing than an equivalent Ford.
#3262 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [gregg_vw]
Apr 14, 2011 (1:33 pm)
GMC has a better brand image than Chevy? If you say so. But what happens is you get Chevy dealers and GMC dealers negotiating against each other on what is basically the same product. Similar situation with the old Camaro and Firebird.
I think they're only keeping GMC to keep the dealers alive, which is the same reason Ford kept Mercury for so long.
We'll just have to disagree on this one for a couple of years and then we can compare both companies and see which one worked better.
#3263 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [akirby]
Apr 14, 2011 (2:01 pm)
I think that you simply wish GM to fail with GMC and Buick just because Ford failed every opportunity to have premium brands. It is just pure envy my friend!
#3264 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [savetheland]
Apr 14, 2011 (6:32 pm)
I don't want GM to fail. If I wanted them to fail then I'd be happy about what they're doing. I want them to succeed and I don't see them being really successful in the long run the way they're currently operating. They'll get by but if they would make the tough decisions that Ford has made then they'd be in a much better position to compete across the board. Just look at what they're doing with incentives - it's like they didn't learn anything. Maybe because they can't keep a CEO more than a few months.
It's not that Ford is doing something new and wonderful - they're just doing what all the other successful brands have been doing. And that's what I'd like to see GM doing.
#3265 of 4172 Re: Or, if I may make [akirby]
Apr 14, 2011 (8:18 pm)
BS, Allen. Ford did the only rational thing they could after screwing up every single premium brand they had. Hopefully Lincoln will rise again. Meanwhile GM has three premium brands that are all making more sales than Lincoln and all you can do is say how wrong they are. Reminds me how you used to insist people didn't realize Explorer and Mountaneer used the same body. I am done. You get the last word. Have at it.r