Last post on May 21, 2013 at 6:54 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
Lincoln Zephyr, Lincoln MKS, Lincoln MKX
#3832 of 4170 Re: Retained Value listings [hpmctorque]
Nov 26, 2012 (5:49 pm)
True. But Acura models, which in many ways are laughably like Lincolns in terms of "compelling," do nonetheless manage to demand very nice re-sale.
#3833 of 4170 Re: Retained Value listings [gregg_vw]
Nov 26, 2012 (6:31 pm)
Note that ALG uses base MSRP only (no options). This will favor cars with more standard features and lower incentives and discounts. You'd also have to look at the actual numbers to see if the difference from 1st to 10th is significant or not.
Not defending Lincoln - they're certainly not the best for resale right now. Just trying to interpret the data correctly and in context.
#3834 of 4170 The Fact Remains. . .
Nov 26, 2012 (6:40 pm)
that I'd rather own an Acura than a Lincoln. Oh, wait. . .
Actually I still own both, but haven't driven the LS on any kind of regular basis for over 3 years.
#3835 of 4170 Re: Retained Value listings [akirby]
Nov 27, 2012 (8:33 am)
Not defending Lincoln here either, but...
The whole re-sale argument is a crock. Those cars with greater incentives and discounts obviously sell for well below their MSRP. When resold, their resale value then looks very bad, when the percentage of value retained is figured from the MSRP, rather than the actual selling price. On the other hand, those cars which do sell at or near MSRP, do command more money as well at re-sale. Oftentimes, it is a wash for the car consumer, when actual money paid at purchase and money recovered at resale are used. In fact, a buyer is often better off dollar-wise with the car with lower retained re-sale, as the overall investment over three years or five years is less with a car that was discounted thousands in the first place.
That said, high re-sale value has captured the imagination of buyers for generations now. Thus, Lincoln, in order to become a real player again in this field, has to rebuild the perceived value of its products (and their resale) regardless of whether it results in any more actual dollars in consumers' pockets.
#3836 of 4170 Re: Retained Value listings [gregg_vw]
Nov 27, 2012 (9:17 am)
I think we just agreed on something. Watch out for lightning bolts.
The best gauge of resale value is lease pricing which uses residual values but also takes into account options and acquisition price. Outside of extreme subsidies (like the Volt) the cost to lease similarly priced vehicles should be the same give the same residual value.
If the lease cost for a 2013 Fusion is the same as a 2013 Accord similarly equipped and similar MSRPs then resale value percentage is irrelevant.
#3837 of 4170 Lincoln resale value
Nov 27, 2012 (11:54 am)
Lincoln's resale value should not matter to a buyer because if one purchases a Lincoln , one must understand that resale value will be low because Lincoln will always be seen as nothing more than a higher priced Ford. Lincolns have always had low resale value. The exceptions being the 68 Mark 3 - 74 Mark 4. So purchase one knowing that high resale value is not part of the equation.
#3839 of 4170 Re: Retained Value listings [akirby]
Nov 27, 2012 (2:25 pm)
We have agreed about some basic stuff quite a few times over the years. Rather than a lightning bolt, it is more like the tingle of a button battery in my mouth.
#3840 of 4170 Re: Lincoln resale value [edward53]
Nov 27, 2012 (2:58 pm)
You make some sweeping statements, Edward, but do not back them up. Some responses...
1. Acura, number one on the list, does the same thing as Lincoln currently does. All Acuras are gussied up Hondas at present.
2. Lincoln will always be seen as nothing more than a higher priced Ford? How do you know that?
3. Lincolns have always had low re-sale value. That is not true for all of Lincoln history, except for Marks III and IV, as you assert.
4. Lincoln has certainly had its ups and downs. No one denies that, not even Allen . Lincolns have not always been higher priced Fords. Going back to the early 50s, Lincolns shared body shells for a time with Mercury, but not Ford. They moved back to more platform sharing, but no more than Chryslers many brands at the time, or the Chevy to Cadillac spectrum.
Starting in 1961, the Lincoln had a completely different architecture from the big Fords and Mercurys, and that continued through 1979. The 1980 Lincolns shared a bit more with the large Fords starting at that time, but still offered a different wheelbase and a completely different, wider body. That significant differentiation continued until 1998, when the Town Car went to the Panther platform, albeit with a longer wheelbase, and no shared body panels or greenhouse. After that, Lincoln gave up on further significant development of the TC and it eventually met its inglorious demise.
The Marks shared some bodies with Thunderbird, but it was the Ford model that benefitted, since the cars were designed for Lincoln (e.g., 61-63 T-bird, 72-76 T-bird), and those T-birds were seen as luxury cars.
Lincoln did rather well with the rebadged Ford that became the Navigator, inventing a new and popular vehicle category. Those brands that jumped on the bandwagon did the same thing: they took an existing SUV and glitzed it up. Re-sale was not bad on those early Navs. However, the brand got lazy and others overtook it.
The Mark II was not a higher priced Ford. The LS was not a higher priced Ford. It was a lower priced Jaguar.
Lincoln historically has seen sales in excess of 200K (1989, 1990), and it outsold Cadillac as recently as 2000. The hubris of that achievement led to some very bad product planning that they are still trying to sort out.
Lincoln wants to become a global brand. They will not do so by simply tarting up some Fords. Lincolns were not always seen as higher priced Fords (as they mostly are now), and there is no reason to believe that what exists now, will always be.
#3841 of 4170 Re: Retained Value listings [gregg_vw]
Nov 27, 2012 (3:33 pm)