LA Auto Show: 2017 Lincoln MKZ

..I'd like a reporter to ask somebody important at Jaguar what they think of the Ford/Lincoln version of an XF..

 

 

Cap, how many times are you going to beat this dead horse.

The cars share NOTHING except for a modestly similar grill geometric shape. That's it.

As many times as I would like to mention it. If you do not approve, you can ignore the posts. If all you see is the grill then that's fine. I see nearly an entire front end, even the headlights.

Stardate 112615, latest Lincoln Log entry:  the starship has morphed... yet again.  Ship and crew have come under friendly fire for the 20th time in 2 years.  Everyone is demoralized.  Our own allies do not recognize us...  how to stop this insanity?

As many times as I would like to mention it. If you do not approve, you can ignore the posts. If all you see is the grill then that's fine. I see nearly an entire front end, even the headlights.

Of course, what was I thinking, pick it apart all you like...... yet talking up a FoMoCo product more than once will cause many (including yourself) to bring out the claws and criticisms.

Imagine that

Weird enough, I do have the right to pick apart any vehicle that I choose to. I've already said that I really like the front end. Just because I like it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve criticizm as well.

Here's something I know you'll enjoy. (apologies for the off-topicness and I couldn't make it a hot link from my phone)

 

As many times as I would like to mention it. If you do not approve, you can ignore the posts. If all you see is the grill then that's fine. I see nearly an entire front end, even the headlights.

 

 

Of course, what was I thinking, pick it apart all you like...... yet talking up a FoMoCo product more than once will cause many (including yourself) to bring out the claws and criticisms.

 

Imagine that

 

Yes, heaven forbid someone criticize anything made by Ford or Lincoln. Shame on them for not sharing your unwavering love of a company you just happen to work for. 

 

Weird enough, I do have the right to pick apart any vehicle that I choose to. I've already said that I really like the front end. Just because I like it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve criticizm as well.

Here's something I know you'll enjoy. (apologies for the off-topicness and I couldn't make it a hot link from my phone)

 

 

GT350R

 

Better street car, better track car, and even though not designed for the 1/4 mile, it was better there too.

 

Icing is 10k cheaper!

 

Dayum!

 

The GT350 is better on the street, track and 1/4mile as you said, and far cheaper too.

But don't fret GM fans, I hear there is something right around the corner to replace it.

Can you guys make a new thread for the GT350?

Oh don't turn this into a trash-talk thread. Both engines are world-class.

I fail to see how the other poster's handle is appropriate to use, if your last statement is accurate (and for the record I believe it is).

Just an observation.

The head honcho designers at JaguarLandRover and FordMoCo are 

 

brothers.

 

Maybe that explains their willingness to deftly evade intellectual property concerns.

Hahaha no $h!? That's pretty crazy. Well, I guess that makes things a little easier in some ways.

It makes you wonder which outfit got the talented one and which one got the copycat.

Then you look at the Fusion grille and realize that JagLandRover doesn't own Aston Martin.

...alrighty then. Mystery solved

Can you guys make a new thread for the GT350?

 

Oh don't turn this into a trash-talk thread. Both engines are world-class.

In fairness, we were just pointing out the design issues with the MKZ before someone decided to make things personal. Maybe we could start with removing the GT350 talk from here as well?

I fail to see how the other poster's handle is appropriate to use, if your last statement is accurate (and for the record I believe it is).

Just an observation.

Its a user name.

Get over it

*checks recent PM activity*

*checks above post*

*waits for verdict*

...in the meantime, ya. Lincoln.

...

Ya. Lincoln

*checks recent PM activity*

*checks above post*

*waits for verdict*

...in the meantime, ya. Lincoln.

...

Ya. Lincoln

Yes, I have PM'd you. But only as a response/reply to your PM to me.

I wasn't talking about you.

I was talking about admin. It was a productive discussion. Beyond that I'm not divulging any details.

:D

I wasn't talking about you.

I was talking about admin. It was a productive discussion. Beyond that I'm not divulging any details.

:D

The details are already known. And yes, you were talking about me - to the admin/mod.

Its a user name, get over it. That is the verdict.

Maybe. Or maybe not

Now. Lincoln.

Maybe. Or maybe not

Now. Lincoln.

Don't blow a valve cover now Bong.

I'm cool, meng. Chillin' like a villain

I like the idea of the MKZ getting a Driver’s Package Option that adds torque-vectoring capability to the all-wheel-drive system with hardware borrowed from the Focus RS.

The fact that Lincoln is "borrowing" anything from a Focus (even one as nice as the RS), as opposed to it being the other way around perfectly illustrates part of Lincoln's, and by proxy Ford's, problems.

I like the idea of the MKZ getting a Driver’s Package Option that adds torque-vectoring capability to the all-wheel-drive system with hardware borrowed from the Focus RS.

It will indeed be a bright spot in what sounds like an exceptional performance luxury value.

The fact that Lincoln is "borrowing" anything from a Focus (even one as nice as the RS), as opposed to it being the other way around perfectly illustrates part of Lincoln's, and by proxy Ford's, problems.

Agreed. Trickle-up hasn't worked to this point. It is unlikely to start now.

The fact that Lincoln is "borrowing" anything from a Focus (even one as nice as the RS), as opposed to it being the other way around perfectly illustrates part of Lincoln's, and by proxy Ford's, problems.

The Focus AWD system is developed by a third party supplier called GKN ... it is not a Ford developed technology.

In fact, the same system is apparently the new AWD for the LaCrosse and XT5.... so yeah.

If we base the so called "trickle" effect to sales, than I would say it has worked brilliantly.

Truth is, vehicles platforms and technology are co-developed and there is no trickling going on. Not if the vehicles are launched with months or several years of each other.

That is pretty much a forum myth.

 

The fact that Lincoln is "borrowing" anything from a Focus (even one as nice as the RS), as opposed to it being the other way around perfectly illustrates part of Lincoln's, and by proxy Ford's, problems.

The Focus AWD system is developed by a third party supplier called GKN ... it is not a Ford developed technology.

 

In fact, the same system is apparently the new AWD for the LaCrosse and XT5.... so yeah.

 

True but Ford still put it in the Focus RS first, which baffles me honestly. Oh, and I guess there shouldn't be a whole lot crowing about Vector Torquing AWD on a Lincoln when the competition has the exact same thing.

If we base the so called "trickle" effect to sales, than I would say it has worked brilliantly.

 

 

Truth is, vehicles platforms and technology are co-developed and there is no trickling going on. Not if the vehicles are launched with months or several years of each other.

That is pretty much a forum myth.

It is not a "forum myth". It is an automotive fact that some fans don't want to accept. 

 

I like the idea of the MKZ getting a Driver’s Package Option that adds torque-vectoring capability to the all-wheel-drive system with hardware borrowed from the Focus RS.

 

It will indeed be a bright spot in what sounds like an exceptional performance luxury value.

 

That also happens to be used by the competition. 

When better Lincolns are built, they'll drive like Buicks?

I agree with Wings on this one... the idea that a platform is developed for a certain car in a vacuum and then is trickled out to other cars in the future is largely a myth.  There are some examples of it happening, but when it has happened, the results have typically been less than ideal.   Usually a platform is designed with all planned variants in mind at conception.  

Where you may be seeing a "trickle" effect is when a certain vehicle's product cadence ends after another... thus the appearance of the Alpha camaro 2 years after the Alpha ATS and CTS.   It is not that the Cadillac trickled down to Camaro really, but that the Zeta Camaro's planned production run wasn't yet complete at the time the ATS was released.  That gave the Camaro team extra time to work on some more details and development..... but there was no real trickle down when it was planned that way from the start.

Where trickle down went wrong - The Zeta Camaro is an example of it.  GM made the most of it and re-launched one of their iconic vehicles, but the Zeta Camaro was always a reactionary move.  It was built on a large luxury coupe/sedan platform that was not intended to be turned into a pony car.... thus, in spite of GM's skill in overcoming physics, it had a weight disadvantage from the start.  Had GM planned for the Camaro to be on the Zeta platform from the start, they could have designed some weight out of it.

Trickle up doesn't always work either - The Chrysler 200 is an example of this.  It is built on a Fiat small car platform, and in spite of being one of the smaller vehicles in the mid-size segment, they had to throw so much steel at it to make it pass the safety regs that it is among the heaviest.  It's a good car, but when you have other mid-sizers that are as cavernous inside as the Passat for less weight and better fuel economy, it puts the 200 at a disadvantage.

As for the Focus RS AWD system - I am certain that it is tuned for the Focus and when used in a Buick will perform differently.  The way it works just sounds like a good, safe, proactive system that will do well in Grandma's luxury sedan or in a sport minded hot hatch.... and it sounds like it is better than the Haldex systems too. 

Torque vectoring has been around for years. Acura offers it... even old dead Saab offered it. This new system does it a bit better, but the next result will be the same for the typical driver.  Lincoln will not be the only one with torque vectoring... nor will they be the only one with a 400+ HP car with torque vectoring. 

Every single vehicle that will share a similar platform space with another family brand vehicle, and that wil share a similar production timeline -- is co-developed. There is no 'hand-off' to another brand to adjust to their needs.  Everything is developed using a systems engineering and development approach.  

This is 28 years in the business speaking, and NO not just at Ford.

Say a platform was developed for a certain vehicle, at a certain price point, to be competitive in that segment. Then, it winds up also being the foundation for a vehicle typically not competing at that price point... That's what I call "trickle down" chassis tech. Drivelines, gear ratios, and all that? Not as big a deal. But make no mistake, it's still something to consider, as Cadillac discovered with the ELR.

And let's be blunt here: some carmakers will get the benefit of the doubt if they have a good rep for really trying. Lincoln is not one of those carmakers.

I agree with Wings on this one... the idea that a platform is developed for a certain car in a vacuum and then is trickled out to other cars in the future is largely a myth.  There are some examples of it happening, but when it has happened, the results have typically been less than ideal.   Usually a platform is designed with all planned variants in mind at conception.  

 

Where you may be seeing a "trickle" effect is when a certain vehicle's product cadence ends after another... thus the appearance of the Alpha camaro 2 years after the Alpha ATS and CTS.   It is not that the Cadillac trickled down to Camaro really, but that the Zeta Camaro's planned production run wasn't yet complete at the time the ATS was released.  That gave the Camaro team extra time to work on some more details and development..... but there was no real trickle down when it was planned that way from the start.

 

Where trickle down went wrong - The Zeta Camaro is an example of it.  GM made the most of it and re-launched one of their iconic vehicles, but the Zeta Camaro was always a reactionary move.  It was built on a large luxury coupe/sedan platform that was not intended to be turned into a pony car.... thus, in spite of GM's skill in overcoming physics, it had a weight disadvantage from the start.  Had GM planned for the Camaro to be on the Zeta platform from the start, they could have designed some weight out of it.

 

Trickle up doesn't always work either - The Chrysler 200 is an example of this.  It is built on a Fiat small car platform, and in spite of being one of the smaller vehicles in the mid-size segment, they had to throw so much steel at it to make it pass the safety regs that it is among the heaviest.  It's a good car, but when you have other mid-sizers that are as cavernous inside as the Passat for less weight and better fuel economy, it puts the 200 at a disadvantage.

 

As for the Focus RS AWD system - I am certain that it is tuned for the Focus and when used in a Buick will perform differently.  The way it works just sounds like a good, safe, proactive system that will do well in Grandma's luxury sedan or in a sport minded hot hatch.... and it sounds like it is better than the Haldex systems too. 

 

Torque vectoring has been around for years. Acura offers it... even old dead Saab offered it. This new system does it a bit better, but the next result will be the same for the typical driver.  Lincoln will not be the only one with torque vectoring... nor will they be the only one with a 400+ HP car with torque vectoring. 

GM trickles down their goodies (like the LS, MRC, and platforms like the Alpha trickling down from Cadillac to Chevrolet). Ford rarely does that. They, more often than not, introduce a new feature, platform, or engine, start with Ford before it makes it's way to Lincoln. That has hurt Lincoln and that is my point here.

I do agree that trickle does not always work but if done right, like with the Alpha platform, it most certainly can and does work.

You're missing the point.  There largely is no trickle down.  A well planned product portfolio means these cars are developed in tandem regardless of the order of their release.  When things do trickle down, it is largely an unplanned thing. It could be a reaction to a sudden change in the market, or due to a new executive coming in (Lots of GM's trickle down in the previous decade was due to Lutz stirring the pot), or some regulatory change, or due to a larger corporate screw up as I think we'll see with VW in the coming years.

Trickle down as product planning is undesirable and ideally avoided. 

A well-planned product portfolio is a good thing. But I don't see how co-development of a Cadillac and a Camaro would result in anything less than a mutt. This was the method to the Lutz madness-make it good enough for the segment above you, then it'll sell in droves and thus become attainable for all. It's an old recipe. Ford originated it with the Flathead V8.

Regardless of whether the Alpha Camaro is a happy accident or a deliberate derivitive (I prefer the former just for ease of saying it), it has reset the rules for the game. I suspect that Mopar is taking notes and giving Alfa Romeo engineers funny looks as we speak.

A well-planned product portfolio is a good thing. But I don't see how co-development of a Cadillac and a Camaro would result in anything less than a mutt. This was the method to the Lutz madness-make it good enough for the segment above you, then it'll sell in droves and thus become attainable for all. It's an old recipe. Ford originated it with the Flathead V8.

Regardless of whether the Alpha Camaro is a happy accident or a deliberate derivitive (I prefer the former just for ease of saying it), it has reset the rules for the game. I suspect that Mopar is taking notes and giving Alfa Romeo engineers funny looks as we speak.

Then you need to understand the automotive development process better as this is largely the way things are done at GM ever since Lutz. To a degree, it really started with the 5th Gen Camaro, born out of that team's frustration in not having a flexible enough platform to work with. 

For Alpha, Cadillac set certain specs like frame construction, hard points, electrical systems.  After that, the Camaro team is free to do what they want within their own budget constraints.  It's like building two spec houses that have nearly identical floor plans but entirely different styles..... and a different furnace.  When they started on Alpha, the goal was to replace two aging and heavy platforms (Sigma and Zeta) into one and cover as many product lines with it as possible.   That is what flex platforms are.... that's what VW's MQB and MLB are, that's what Ford's D6 is supposed to be... and so on. 

You're missing the point.  There largely is no trickle down.  A well planned product portfolio means these cars are developed in tandem regardless of the order of their release.  When things do trickle down, it is largely an unplanned thing. It could be a reaction to a sudden change in the market, or due to a new executive coming in (Lots of GM's trickle down in the previous decade was due to Lutz stirring the pot), or some regulatory change, or due to a larger corporate screw up as I think we'll see with VW in the coming years.

 

Trickle down as product planning is undesirable and ideally avoided. 

I see what you are getting at but it does have it's benefits. I just don't think it is as bad as you are saying. I can accept that you do have far more insight on this than me though. 

The difference is here is that GM didn't want to dumb down Alpha to make it worthwhile as a Camaro or a possible future SS sedan, instead, the imposed a regime of continued improvement onto Camaro for the sake of building up Cadillac.

So, yes I think it's pretty believable given the production timelines and long development time of the platform that right around 2011/2 must have been when the Alpha Camaro was a go. 

It fits into the timeline of events, and that's the beauty of flexible architectures, you no longer compromise either vehicle, instead you get to amplify certain desirable attributes to match customer expectation and hence by exceeding them, give a sense of quality.

Now, Lincoln will be getting D6 first. What that means to me is that Ford cars as they are now are not going to get clean-sheet redesigns until after the first Lincolns to come off that platform.

So we'll see some new engines and transmissions hold the efficiency and power-train advancement front for Lincoln as well.

No where the hell is the co-developed 9 speed. I swear, if the Continental still uses the 6F... and this 2017 MKZ, will be stuck with a 6 cog unit in an era where Buicks have all but caught up everywhere except that Lincoln has options of more powerful engines.

Drew is correct, and surreal, there really is no measurable benefit, hence my original remarks that you disagreed with.

The planning and engineering of each feature, tech, etc. that will appear or not appear into each vehicle is done together and long before a single car is built, regardless of who sells one first.  They can either scale up said features or scale down, depending on where they start, price point they want to be at, etc.  But there is practically zero benefit to who gets what first. I say practically, just because.

Alrighty then.

GM allowed Chevy folks in on what has become an amazing platform at the planning level. I'm convinced.

It's good to know that GM no longer needs to rely on happy accidents to make amazing things happen. Here's hoping they don't forget that.

Drew is correct, and surreal, there really is no measurable benefit, hence my original remarks that you disagreed with.

 

The planning and engineering of each feature, tech, etc. that will appear or not appear into each vehicle is done together and long before a single car is built, regardless of who sells one first.  They can either scale up said features or scale down, depending on where they start, price point they want to be at, etc.  But there is practically zero benefit to who gets what first. I say practically, just because.

You really don't have a clue what I was getting at and with thirty years of Ford looking after ford first and Lincoln second, history is more on my side than you realize. Maybe the D6 platform with change that pattern but, as I just said, thirty years of these kind of promises by Ford on making Lincoln a real player through true innovation, tempers my enthusiasm just a slight. Sorry if you don't understand me not looking at everything through rose colored glasses on your favorite brand.

 

Drew is correct, and surreal, there really is no measurable benefit, hence my original remarks that you disagreed with.

 

The planning and engineering of each feature, tech, etc. that will appear or not appear into each vehicle is done together and long before a single car is built, regardless of who sells one first.  They can either scale up said features or scale down, depending on where they start, price point they want to be at, etc.  But there is practically zero benefit to who gets what first. I say practically, just because.

You really don't have a clue what I was getting at and with thirty years of Ford looking after ford first and Lincoln second, history is more on my side than you realize. Maybe the D6 platform with change that pattern but, as I just said, thirty years of these kind of promises by Ford on making Lincoln a real player through true innovation, tempers my enthusiasm just a slight. Sorry if you don't understand me not looking at everything through rose colored glasses on your favorite brand.

 

W/E

In the words of Drew, you completely missed the point.

I can no longer help you at this point.

Alrighty then.

GM allowed Chevy folks in on what has become an amazing platform at the planning level. I'm convinced.

It's good to know that GM no longer needs to rely on happy accidents to make amazing things happen. Here's hoping they don't forget that.

Eh.. maybe I'm not explaining it well or something.

It is no where near as compartmentalized as you are suggesting. One brand can be the lead brand to work on a platform, but all the brands that are planning to use it have input.  Cadillac took the lead here because priority was placed on making a world class platform for Cadillac, but the Chevy people (and Buick... and possibly Opel) were involved from the beginning.   People talk about "GM Parts Bin" when referring to things like door switches and headlight buttons, but it is really much deeper than that (and at other companies too). 

A flexible platform means that many variants can be built off the same platform.  Pick a front section, pick a mid section, pick a tail section, and then put your brand's skin around that skeleton.

Since I'm not doing a good job explaining it, here are some pictures:

Here is VW's MQB platform - Audi TT, Audi A3, VW Beetle, VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Passat (last gen), Volkswagen Tiguen, Volkswagn Touran

Here is Nissan's CMF platform - (Buncha Renaults and Euro Nissans)

Alright guys cool down, chill like villains if you have to...

Alrighty then.

GM allowed Chevy folks in on what has become an amazing platform at the planning level. I'm convinced.

It's good to know that GM no longer needs to rely on happy accidents to make amazing things happen. Here's hoping they don't forget that.

 

Eh.. maybe I'm not explaining it well or something.

 

It is no where near as compartmentalized as you are suggesting. One brand can be the lead brand to work on a platform, but all the brands that are planning to use it have input.  Cadillac took the lead here because priority was placed on making a world class platform for Cadillac, but the Chevy people (and Buick... and possibly Opel) were involved from the beginning.   People talk about "GM Parts Bin" when referring to things like door switches and headlight buttons, but it is really much deeper than that (and at other companies too). 

 

A flexible platform means that many variants can be built off the same platform.  Pick a front section, pick a mid section, pick a tail section, and then put your brand's skin around that skeleton.

 

Since I'm not doing a good job explaining it, here are some pictures:

 

Here is VW's MQB platform - Audi TT, Audi A3, VW Beetle, VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Passat (last gen), Volkswagen Tiguen, Volkswagn Touran

VW-MQB-01-450x234.jpg

 

Here is Nissan's CMF platform - (Buncha Renaults and Euro Nissans)

nissan-standards-450x333.jpg

I'm picking up what you're laying down. We're good. Really

 

Drew is correct, and surreal, there really is no measurable benefit, hence my original remarks that you disagreed with.

 

The planning and engineering of each feature, tech, etc. that will appear or not appear into each vehicle is done together and long before a single car is built, regardless of who sells one first.  They can either scale up said features or scale down, depending on where they start, price point they want to be at, etc.  But there is practically zero benefit to who gets what first. I say practically, just because.

You really don't have a clue what I was getting at and with thirty years of Ford looking after ford first and Lincoln second, history is more on my side than you realize. Maybe the D6 platform with change that pattern but, as I just said, thirty years of these kind of promises by Ford on making Lincoln a real player through true innovation, tempers my enthusiasm just a slight. Sorry if you don't understand me not looking at everything through rose colored glasses on your favorite brand.

 

Actually, I'd argue that Ford most of the time you cite, Ford was neglecting Ford as well. Except for the first generation Taurus, Ford was too busy with their foreign adventures of Jaguar, Land Rover, Mazda, Volvo and Ford Of German.... and that hurt Ford US a lot.  Again, aside from the first generation Taurus, all of the decent Fords had heavy input from their foreign ambassadors.

The original for Escort was an EU Escort that Ford of US butchered into the version we got.  It got butchered even further and turned into the Tempo.

The 90+ Ford Escort was based on a Mazda platform and thats the one that was good. 

The Ford 500 was based on the Volvo S80 platform, and today that platform is under the Taurus, MKS, Explorer, Flex, MKT, (am I forgetting any?)

The Lincoln LS was largely co-developed between Jaguar and Lincoln.

The Probe was a Mazda MX-6.

The rest of the Ford/Mercury/Lincoln car line-up in the 80s and early 90s were basically 1970s farm implements. 

Later, Ford realized that Ford of Germany was better at designing cars than Ford of NA, so we got the Focus, Contour (Mondeo), Cougar (not a big seller, but not bad car), and Fiesta. So Ford of NA could be left to do what they did best.... F-150. 

No one is arguing against the fact that Ford has been neglecting Lincoln for a number of years now, but there is a renewed interest in reviving the brand. That said, there is no reason that Lincoln must get a particular platform first.  Lincoln will get their new platform products as their product cadence dictates... they're not going to toss out an in-production car early.... that wouldn't be fiscally sound.