Spying: Lincoln Continental Transitions From Concept to Production

We all seem to be discussing our 'opinions' on these two vehicles just fine sean, without anyone's feelings getting hurt.

Why do you have to break that streak?  I even said thank you.

And I received that thank you just as genuinely as you meant it.

I'll trust the guy with "sales" in his name as far as judgements on a car's viability. Jes' sayin'

Here is my favorite angle, by far!!

The Genesis has a V8 and RWD, so I think that gives it a bit of an edge over the front drive V6 crowd.  I did just look up the price of an Acura RLX which is $54k base and $60k with a technology package.  I think Acura has a better reputation than Lincoln, and the RLX has awful sales volume, but only 315 hp or whatever they got out of the Accord V6.  I could agree with Drew's $51k starting point, if the content level is high. I think $49k starting will grab more attention though.

The Continental needs aggressive pricing, I'd almost suggest they sell it at a loss to get Lincoln back in the game if they are actually serious about resurrecting Lincoln.

Geez guys, we have no info on picing, we haven't even seen the production model, we have no crystal balls so the thing may flop, it may be a success, the buyin public will decide with their money.

Reviewing the incredible amount of luxury features that will be on the Conti, much of it standard, I thought I would go a bit further and prognosticate about some final specs we mostly talk about in forums.

4100lbs

415hp

425ftlbs

0-60mph in 5.3 sec

9 speeds channeled through new high torque AWD system

28mpg hwy

$65-70K

Instant hit in the market

Here is my favorite angle, by far!!

 

Ya, the side view makes the nose look swollen and flattened.

Just my opinion tho

^

Thanks for yet another positive opinion/remark on FoMoCo products bong. So glad you grace our Ford threads with your words.

Here again is my opinion on the CTS6.....and one that happens to be shared by many an automotive stylist as well.....

Here is my favorite angle, by far!!

 

.....and a bump for this sexiness.

^

Thanks for yet another positive opinion/remark on FoMoCo products bong. So glad you grace our Ford threads with your words.

 

Here again is my opinion on the CTS6.....and one that happens to be shared by many an automotive stylist as well.....

This is actually pretty cool. Could you throw in the Germans as well actually..?

My favorite German sedan,

Guys.

The MKS, AWD and all, didn't work.

The MKZ, AWD and all, didn't work.

The MXC is struggling to move 2,000 a month and is an also-ran in comparos.

I have sales numbers to back me up. I have comparo results to back me up. The styling thing is subjective. But again, Lincoln has burned through three distinct styling languages in three years, and the latest one is a highly derivative one.

Names, schnames. Give me RESULTS.

You keep putting the blame on the drive system. Do you really think those cars would have sold ANY better if they were RWD instead of FWD without ANY other changes?   I don't think so... and in fact they probably would have sold worse.

If the cars were RWD they would at the very least have caused the Chrysler 300 some serious hassles. With some chassis development they would have sent Lincoln in the right direction for future product. It took the CTS THREE GENERATIONS to get to where it is now. The first one was a rather flawed diamond, but it at least showed that Cadillac was willing to give something different a try. Actually, you could go back to the Catera... it was a SERIOUSLY flawed diamond. But once again, GM stuck with it because even if the first one didn't sell so well they at least knew it wasn't poaching Malibu sales.

If the cars were RWD they would at the very least have caused the Chrysler 300 some serious hassles. With some chassis development they would have sent Lincoln in the right direction for future product. It took the CTS THREE GENERATIONS to get to where it is now. The first one was a rather flawed diamond, but it at least showed that Cadillac was willing to give something different a try. Actually, you could go back to the Catera... it was a SERIOUSLY flawed diamond. But once again, GM stuck with it because even if the first one didn't sell so well they at least knew it wasn't poaching Malibu sales.

The MKZ is not even the same size car as the Chrysler 300.... There is unlikely to be any cross shopping there.... the MKS's interior is simply not up to snuff of even the lower end 300.   Again, you keep trying to hang these cars' failure on the drive wheels when it's the rest of the car that is the issue.  The MKS looks and feels like a consumer grade Ford.  It doesn't matter if the car is RWD and powered by puppydog smiles, it isn't going to sell as a luxury car if it doesn't feel like a luxury car inside. 

Even the Acura  RLX is selling poorly because it is such a dull car.  It really feels like an Accord DeLux in so many ways.  The switching the drivetrain to RWD would not change the fact that the materials and switchgear inside the car look and feel like consumer grade Honda.

You just cited the Catera and 1st Gen CTS as if they were proving your point when in fact it proves mine.  The Catera had fantastic handling and in the regions where the car was powered properly (i.e. not with the wretched Opel V6) it is a well respected performance sedan.   It had everything in your check list... it was RWD and had great handling, yet it still flopped.  Why? Because the interior was not up to Cadillac expectations and it had reliability issues.   The CTS addressed most of the reliability issues and did better than the Catera for it, but it was a 5-series sized car selling at a 3-series price... why? Because the interior was not perceived as 5-series level.  It didn't matter that it was RWD or that it used the same fantastic 5-speed auto that the 5-series used... the interior was simply not the luxury level people were expecting.  All of the same things can be said about the final STS... which did worse than the FWD model it replaced.

The savior for the Continental will be what they do with the interior... not which wheels are driving the car (which, again, is all of them)

We'll have to agree to disagree on much of that. The first-gen 300 had an awful interior yet still sold like hot cakes. The MKZ in RWD would have been much more compelling, but I agree that the MKS would have been more direct competition. Still, my point stands on THAT vehicle, then. And the last sedan that Lincoln sold that even raised an enthusiast's pulse?... the LS sedans. In RWD.

If the cars were RWD they would at the very least have caused the Chrysler 300 some serious hassles. With some chassis development they would have sent Lincoln in the right direction for future product. It took the CTS THREE GENERATIONS to get to where it is now. The first one was a rather flawed diamond, but it at least showed that Cadillac was willing to give something different a try. Actually, you could go back to the Catera... it was a SERIOUSLY flawed diamond. But once again, GM stuck with it because even if the first one didn't sell so well they at least knew it wasn't poaching Malibu sales.

In the luxury department going RWD is the norm, it wouldn't differentiate it at all, like Cadillac.

Standard AWD, that is a little diferent.

To think that the 300 sold because of RWD.

It sold because of it's low base price with a wimpy small V6 engine,  because of rental fleet and because it looked cool and 'gangsta.'

My buddy was one of the first to get one I recall, and they had to sell it because he could not drive it in Michigan winters, and had no clue if it was RWD or FWD.

And the MKZ would not only have NOT got more sales with RWD, but it would have lost sales.

The MKS lost sales because it got uglier as it aged.  Had ZERO to do drive line arrangement. 

We'll have to agree to disagree on much of that. The first-gen 300 had an awful interior yet still sold like hot cakes. The MKZ in RWD would have been much more compelling, but I agree that the MKS would have been more direct competition. Still, my point stands on THAT vehicle, then. And the last sedan that Lincoln sold that even raised an enthusiast's pulse?... the LS sedans. In RWD.

If it isn't obvious that their target clientel isn't the enthusiast by now..then I don't know what to tell you.

Making an enthusiast vehicle vs making a luxury vehicle are completely different.

Are you going to hound Buick for making only FWD vehicles when you consider them more lux than Lincoln?

We'll have to agree to disagree on much of that. The first-gen 300 had an awful interior yet still sold like hot cakes. The MKZ in RWD would have been much more compelling, but I agree that the MKS would have been more direct competition. Still, my point stands on THAT vehicle, then. And the last sedan that Lincoln sold that even raised an enthusiast's pulse?... the LS sedans. In RWD.

The first-gen 300 had a Hemi.  It sold on that primarily and the interior for the day was .. sufficient.  It wasn't spectacular, it wasn't bad. 

RWD allows you to put a V8 in a car.  If the 300 were a front driver, like the LHS, it would have a dopey 265 hp V6 still to this day, 10 years after introduction.  RWD gives the option of adding performance.  If Lincoln made the MKZ rear drive with the same 240 hp turbo 4-cyldiner then it would be a total waste.  So for Lincoln that doesn't  have any good engines, the platform doesn't matter as much.  Same can be said for a Lexus GS that offers the same 306 hp V6 from 2007, and only the low volume GS F has a different engine.   They basically waste the platform.  You have to combine engine, suspension, transmission and chassis all together to make a superior driving car to the front drive mediocre mass market stuff.

To think that the 300 sold because of RWD.

It sold because of it's low base price with a wimpy small V6 engine, because of rental fleet and because it looked cool and 'gangsta.'

My buddy was one of the first to get one I recall, and they had to sell it because he could not drive it in Michigan winters, and had no clue if it was RWD or FWD.

And the MKZ would not only have NOT got more sales with RWD, but it would have lost sales.

The MKS lost sales because it got uglier as it aged. Had ZERO to do drive line arrangement.

Same old wings. Yup yup yup

We'll have to agree to disagree on much of that. The first-gen 300 had an awful interior yet still sold like hot cakes. The MKZ in RWD would have been much more compelling, but I agree that the MKS would have been more direct competition. Still, my point stands on THAT vehicle, then. And the last sedan that Lincoln sold that even raised an enthusiast's pulse?... the LS sedans. In RWD.

If it isn't obvious that their target clientel isn't the enthusiast by now..then I don't know what to tell you.

Making an enthusiast vehicle vs making a luxury vehicle are completely different.

Are you going to hound Buick for making only FWD vehicles when you consider them more lux than Lincoln?

Luxury and sporty need not be mutually exclusive.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on much of that. The first-gen 300 had an awful interior yet still sold like hot cakes. The MKZ in RWD would have been much more compelling, but I agree that the MKS would have been more direct competition. Still, my point stands on THAT vehicle, then. And the last sedan that Lincoln sold that even raised an enthusiast's pulse?... the LS sedans. In RWD.

If it isn't obvious that their target clientel isn't the enthusiast by now..then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Making an enthusiast vehicle vs making a luxury vehicle are completely different.

 

Are you going to hound Buick for making only FWD vehicles when you consider them more lux than Lincoln?

There is no need to hound Buick. Buick knows its role-comfortable

 

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT!

If the rest of the vehicle is well done then the powered wheels means absolutely jack to the people buying these cars. They aren't performance oriented driver's cars. They are meant to be luxurious. Although, I personally do not find Buick to be luxurious, that is the general target they seem to be going after. Just plain quiet luxury. And with 400hp on tap for all four wheels I don't see how it will be a slouch either.

 

To think that the 300 sold because of RWD.

It sold because of it's low base price with a wimpy small V6 engine, because of rental fleet and because it looked cool and 'gangsta.'

My buddy was one of the first to get one I recall, and they had to sell it because he could not drive it in Michigan winters, and had no clue if it was RWD or FWD.

And the MKZ would not only have NOT got more sales with RWD, but it would have lost sales.

The MKS lost sales because it got uglier as it aged. Had ZERO to do drive line arrangement.

Sorry. You lost me when you said the 300 sold on the basis of fleets and the wimpy V6 engine.

Same old wings. Yup yup yup

 

Actually, he's right.  At release, Chrysler was selling base base base model 300s with a 2.7 liter V6 and cheap wheels.   They had a ridiculously low base price (lower than the Magnum, about $22k, I recall) because there was no Charger at the time and Chrysler was trying to sell a single the sedan to cover the now dead Intrepid, Concord, 300M, and LHS (dead for 2.5 years at that point).  Sales did well if you consider the 300 to have replaced the Concord and 300M, but they weren't great if you considered the lost sales from Intrepid.   A good many of those 2.7 powered 300s ended up in the rental fleets or got snapped up by gangstas on a budget. 

 

 

To think that the 300 sold because of RWD.

It sold because of it's low base price with a wimpy small V6 engine, because of rental fleet and because it looked cool and 'gangsta.'

My buddy was one of the first to get one I recall, and they had to sell it because he could not drive it in Michigan winters, and had no clue if it was RWD or FWD.

And the MKZ would not only have NOT got more sales with RWD, but it would have lost sales.

The MKS lost sales because it got uglier as it aged. Had ZERO to do drive line arrangement.

Sorry. You lost me when you said the 300 sold on the basis of fleets and the wimpy V6 engine.

Same old wings. Yup yup yup

 

 

Actually, he's right.  At release, Chrysler was selling base base base model 300s with a 2.7 liter V6 and cheap wheels.   They had a ridiculously low base price (lower than the Magnum, about $22k, I recall) because there was no Charger at the time and Chrysler was trying to sell a single the sedan to cover the now dead Intrepid, Concord, 300M, and LHS (dead for 2.5 years at that point).  Sales did well if you consider the 300 to have replaced the Concord and 300M, but they weren't great if you considered the lost sales from Intrepid.   A good many of those 2.7 powered 300s ended up in the rental fleets or got snapped up by gangstas on a budget. 

 

yup. In fact Chrysler still fills rental lots like no other American manufacturer.

And although there was a fair share of V8 300C's sold that was mostly unique in the American family sedan landscape, and that surely bolstered sales further....it was hardly the main reason for the sales gains.

Regardless, that was then, and now manufacturing, technology and the like have given us much better AWD systems, V8 power in a V6, etc.

 

 

 

To think that the 300 sold because of RWD.

It sold because of it's low base price with a wimpy small V6 engine, because of rental fleet and because it looked cool and 'gangsta.'

My buddy was one of the first to get one I recall, and they had to sell it because he could not drive it in Michigan winters, and had no clue if it was RWD or FWD.

And the MKZ would not only have NOT got more sales with RWD, but it would have lost sales.

The MKS lost sales because it got uglier as it aged. Had ZERO to do drive line arrangement.

Sorry. You lost me when you said the 300 sold on the basis of fleets and the wimpy V6 engine.

Same old wings. Yup yup yup

 

 

Actually, he's right.  At release, Chrysler was selling base base base model 300s with a 2.7 liter V6 and cheap wheels.   They had a ridiculously low base price (lower than the Magnum, about $22k, I recall) because there was no Charger at the time and Chrysler was trying to sell a single the sedan to cover the now dead Intrepid, Concord, 300M, and LHS (dead for 2.5 years at that point).  Sales did well if you consider the 300 to have replaced the Concord and 300M, but they weren't great if you considered the lost sales from Intrepid.   A good many of those 2.7 powered 300s ended up in the rental fleets or got snapped up by gangstas on a budget. 

 

yup. In fact Chrysler still fills rental lots like no other American manufacturer.

And although there was a fair share of V8 300C's sold that was mostly unique in the American family sedan landscape, and that surely bolstered sales further....it was hardly the main reason for the sales gains.

 

Regardless, that was then, and now manufacturing, technology and the like have given us much better AWD systems, V8 power in a V6, etc.

 

Actually chrysler's rental sales are WAY down, in fact they have the lowest fleet percentage of the 3 with ford as the highest.    And nice try at pushing ecoboost in that last part, A TWIN TURBO GAS SUCKING V6 with the same power as a v8.  Technology has given us turbocharged V8s that make those turbocharged V6 look like they are going in reverse and sometimes with even less displacement...........

Anyways, if i remember right, originally it seems like at least 50% of 300s were hemi C models.

 

 

 

 

To think that the 300 sold because of RWD.

It sold because of it's low base price with a wimpy small V6 engine, because of rental fleet and because it looked cool and 'gangsta.'

My buddy was one of the first to get one I recall, and they had to sell it because he could not drive it in Michigan winters, and had no clue if it was RWD or FWD.

And the MKZ would not only have NOT got more sales with RWD, but it would have lost sales.

The MKS lost sales because it got uglier as it aged. Had ZERO to do drive line arrangement.

Sorry. You lost me when you said the 300 sold on the basis of fleets and the wimpy V6 engine.

Same old wings. Yup yup yup

 

 

Actually, he's right.  At release, Chrysler was selling base base base model 300s with a 2.7 liter V6 and cheap wheels.   They had a ridiculously low base price (lower than the Magnum, about $22k, I recall) because there was no Charger at the time and Chrysler was trying to sell a single the sedan to cover the now dead Intrepid, Concord, 300M, and LHS (dead for 2.5 years at that point).  Sales did well if you consider the 300 to have replaced the Concord and 300M, but they weren't great if you considered the lost sales from Intrepid.   A good many of those 2.7 powered 300s ended up in the rental fleets or got snapped up by gangstas on a budget. 

 

yup. In fact Chrysler still fills rental lots like no other American manufacturer.

And although there was a fair share of V8 300C's sold that was mostly unique in the American family sedan landscape, and that surely bolstered sales further....it was hardly the main reason for the sales gains.

 

Regardless, that was then, and now manufacturing, technology and the like have given us much better AWD systems, V8 power in a V6, etc.

 

Actually chrysler's rental sales are WAY down, in fact they have the lowest fleet percentage of the 3 with ford as the highest.    And nice try at pushing ecoboost in that last part, A TWIN TURBO GAS SUCKING V6 with the same power as a v8.  Technology has given us turbocharged V8s that make those turbocharged V6 look like they are going in reverse and sometimes with even less displacement...........

 

Anyways, if i remember right, originally it seems like at least 50% of 300s were hemi C models.

 

Never mentioned EcoBoost.

Nice try yourself.

Your implication was plenty clear without you having to directly state it, and you know it.  Your attempts to play innocent by way of insinuations and semantics gets really old.

Your implication was plenty clear without you having to directly state it, and you know it.  Your attempts to play innocent by way of insinuations and semantics gets really old.

In my mind I was simply thinking about V6 engines today that are netting 325hp, in comparison to V8's of that era when 300 launched.  And yes, several automakers are making much more than that with turbo smaller engines.

Don't worry.

I am not expecting an apology.

Why would I apologize, you've done exactly what I said.  You implied superiority of EcoBoost engines, but left it vague enough that you could try and claim otherwise when called on it.  Then you bring out your just-in-case-you're-called-on-it response to try and make it look like everyone else is just out to get you or paint you in a bad light.  I'm just tired of it.  You did it on MT forums, and I thought we were done with that when a bunch of us moved over this way, but you just followed and continue to pull the same stuff.  I think those who've seen me posting for a few months, including yourself, can attest that I don't generally get into arguing about tactics.  I prefer to to stick to facts, figures, and vehicles themselves, but I have just had enough of your doing just enough to be able to pretend you're innocent and being harassed by everyone else type arguments.  I finally understand how Olds went from reasonable and interesting to read on MT to going full on rant against you guys all the time.  I was really enjoying that forum at one point, and this one even more so once moving here, but then there is you to ruin the experience again.  I apologize to everyone else here for airing my frustration, and I will try to keep from posting anything else for a few days so that I don't let out any more frustration.

We have an ignore feature.

We have an ignore feature.

And it works like a charm!!!

Why would I apologize, you've done exactly what I said.  You implied superiority of EcoBoost engines, but left it vague enough that you could try and claim otherwise when called on it.  Then you bring out your just-in-case-you're-called-on-it response to try and make it look like everyone else is just out to get you or paint you in a bad light.  I'm just tired of it.  You did it on MT forums, and I thought we were done with that when a bunch of us moved over this way, but you just followed and continue to pull the same stuff.  I think those who've seen me posting for a few months, including yourself, can attest that I don't generally get into arguing about tactics.  I prefer to to stick to facts, figures, and vehicles themselves, but I have just had enough of your doing just enough to be able to pretend you're innocent and being harassed by everyone else type arguments.  I finally understand how Olds went from reasonable and interesting to read on MT to going full on rant against you guys all the time.  I was really enjoying that forum at one point, and this one even more so once moving here, but then there is you to ruin the experience again.  I apologize to everyone else here for airing my frustration, and I will try to keep from posting anything else for a few days so that I don't let out any more frustration.

Did not read past the first line, when I saw you ONCE AGAIN were still ranting about something I never said.

 

We have an ignore feature.

And it works like a charm!!!

 

I think I kind of miss those multi paged rants you used to go on about.  

Wait

No I don't

I had dealership stuff to deal with so I couldn't really elaborate on my thoughts at the time. So anyways...

I don't rag on Buick because Cadillac exists. If Cadillac didn't exist then it might be a different story. If they were content to be an Acura/Lexus ES fighter then eh, ok. If they tried to steal the thunder from an aluminum-chassis large luxury sedan with the aforementioned ES-fighting product I'd laugh them out of the room.

Continental is a dud compared to these

 

 

Continental is a dud compared to these

A lot of cars are duds next to that Buick! But, as it sits, it is only a concept so I can only take it with a grain of salt.

One thing that irks me about G.  They show a beauty of a concept and it never sees the light of day, or if i does i is a mere shadow of the beauiful concep it is based on.  Anoher they should build:

Quite often, I suppose, when a concept is shown and it is very successful in the public opinion poll...yet goes nowhere....it is because they did not design it with a close enough intention toward production.  IOW, too far out there.

The exterior of the Avenir could easily go into production.. The interior would need to be realistic though, the concept is too far out there.

GM should merge with Chrysler and build the Avenir on the LX platform, lol.

GM should merge with Chrysler and build the Avenir on the LX platform, lol.

Drew, get off that fence and tell us how you really feel.

GM should merge with Chrysler and build the Avenir on the LX platform, lol.

 

Minus 1.pngMinus 1.pngMinus 1.pngMinus 1.pngMinus 1.pngMinus 1.pngMinus 1.pngMinus 1.png

I remember the Roger Smith era. Throw on another half-dozen of those for me too.

One thing that irks me about G.  They show a beauty of a concept and it never sees the light of day, or if i does i is a mere shadow of the beauiful concep it is based on.  Anoher they should build:

 

This is a gorgeous car. And other than the mirrors I don't see what is unrealistic about it either.  Maybe no bumper..? but there aren't really bumpers on cars at all anymore are there?

As a coupe that would be dynamite, and easily translatable to production form. It still might be, eventually...

But having seen it in person it would be a bit of a hard sell as a sedan. You'd have to throw in a more formal roofline, and the lack of styling knicknacks that make it look smaller than it really is doesn't play with big luxury sedans, where imposing is the name of the game.

Pshhh who cares about making it into a sedan. Look at that thing! Leave it as it.. Give the ole S Class Coupe some competition. Make sure there is a big V8 under the hood.. Okay I guess with the talk of CAFE I could deal with a smaller twin turbo V8 or even a silky smooth twin turbo V6(but still gobs of power).

 

One thing that irks me about G.  They show a beauty of a concept and it never sees the light of day, or if i does i is a mere shadow of the beauiful concep it is based on.  Anoher they should build:

 

This is a gorgeous car. And other than the mirrors I don't see what is unrealistic about it either.  Maybe no bumper..? but there aren't really bumpers on cars at all anymore are there?

 

I am sure there bumpers are still behind the sheetmetal, plenty of cars like that.  This could reall be a flagship of sorts and would certainly bring attention to Cadillac.

As a coupe that would be dynamite, and easily translatable to production form. It still might be, eventually...

But having seen it in person it would be a bit of a hard sell as a sedan. You'd have to throw in a more formal roofline, and the lack of styling knicknacks that make it look smaller than it really is doesn't play with big luxury sedans, where imposing is the name of the game.

Making this beauty a sedan would be blasphemy anyway.  Isn't caddy working on a new TT V8?  Perfect home right there.