Reminds me of a neighbor of mine. Since we’ve lived there, all their cars, bought new, have been only Mercurys, Saturns, Saabs, and even a Geo Prism. Only recently have they switched to Fords, but they still have a Mercury Mountaineer and a Milan.
If only they had also bought an early 2000s Oldsmobile, they could have turned their driveway into an Automotive Orphanage Museum.
Don’t be surprised when the Dodge and Chrysler brands become orphans in your neighbor’s driveway. A recent financial article inferred that FCA could not withstand a medium to severe economic downturn. This may be why Sergio made recent overtures to Mary Barra at GM
The jewels in the FCA crown are Jeep (SUVs world wide), Ram (pickups for N/America), and FIAT (Europe, S/America, and China). The Fiat brand is not the most profitable, but I double the country of Italy would let it die. The remaining Dodge and Chrysler sedans could be dumped to reduce development costs.
The resulting corporation would be FRJA (Fiat Ram Jeep Automobiles)
Many are quick to write off Dodge and Chrysler, but with Dodge selling over 517,000 cars and Chrysler selling over 324,000 cars in 2015, I don’t think that they are going anywhere.
FCA announced today that it is dropping the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart in favor of increased Ram and Jeep production. Any Dodge SUVs could be rolled up into the Ram brand. The 300 could hang around as a trophy model, but the R&D money will go to trucks, SUVs, and Fiat.
The writing is on the wall????
I think you’re right about Chrysler, but not Dodge, not exactly at least. Over at Chrysler, the 200 is out of the picture. If Sergio wanted to move Chrysler “downmarket” anyway, then they have no need for a premium sedan like the 300, so it will probably be deleted in a year or two. That leaves only the Pacifica, nee Town & Country. It could be rebadged as a Dodge or even a Fiat. Goodnight, Chrysler.
Dodge is a little more challenging. Sure, they *could* roll the trucks into Ram and cancel Charger & Challenger, and stick the Pacifica in Fiat’s lineup. But I think Challenger is useful as a semi-halo car, at least for the moment. And I highly doubt they’d cancel the Charger, as it doesn’t only sell on the performance image, but also to law enforcement, fleets, and rental agencies. So the Charger may end up carrying Dodge. Fiat handles the compacts, Jeep the SUVs, Ram the trucks, and Dodge the larger cars. Perhaps they could augment the Charger and Challenger with a sporting mid-sizer based on Alfa underpinnings, to replace the 200? Can’t imagine they would completely ignore the midsize market. Something has to be in the works there. Dodge would probably keep the Pacifica too, for minivan customers who want a “domestic” nameplate and/or have a good association with a previous Caravan.
Looking at the sales reports for 2015, they are not dropping the Dart/200 for lack of sales. FCA sold more Dart/200s than Ford sold Focuses and Chevy sold Cruzes.
My suspicion is this move is, if not entirely due to, then aided, by the rewritten CAFE standard that was enacted in early 2008. The entire methodology of setting fuel economy standards was changed. Instead of a sales weighted average of all models’ fuel economy, which left the automakers free to design any sort of car they wanted, the new standard micromanages vehicle design.
Under the new CAFE standard, each vehicle is assigned a target mpg, based on it’s footprint, the product of wheelbase and track. A vehicle with the rear wheels at the extreme end of the body, like an SUV will have an advantage over a sedan, that needs rear overhang to accommodate a trunk, as, with it’s longer wheelbase for it’s overall size, the SUV will be assigned a lower, thus easier to meet, target mpg.
Additionally, the new CAFE standard was intentionally written to make the target mpg for small vehicles harder to meet, to discourage their production (I read the entire regulation when it came out. It justified the discouragement of smaller vehicles with the meme that small vehicles are inherently unsafe in a collision with a large vehicle). Trucks are also assigned lower, thus easier to meet, target mpg ratings, than passenger cars.
The bottom line is the CAFE standard now motivates automakers to build large SUVs and not make small sedans, which is exactly what FCA is doing.
Chew on this: last summer, Ford announced that as of 2018 the Focus will no longer be made at Wayne Assembly in Michigan. To my knowledge, Ford has never said where offshore Focus assembly would be moved. Ford is subject to the same motivations as FCA wrt what CAFE motivates and the fact that large SUVs are more profitable than small sedans. Ford could be intending to drop the Focus at the same time that FCA is dropping the Dart/200, about 18 months from now.
So the new CAFE standard discourages small vehicles and sets arbitrarily high standards. I suppose they’re trying to push everyone into plug-in hybrids or full electrics, and large ones at that?
Hard to imagine a modern Ford lineup without the Focus…but I’m also kind of shocked that the Dart/200 outsold it. That must have been on the strength of the new 200, as I just don’t see that many Darts, period.
So the new CAFE standard discourages small vehicles and sets arbitrarily high standards. I suppose they’re trying to push everyone into plug-in hybrids or full electrics, and large ones at that?
The original regulation that I read went on at great length about how they determined what was technically feasible and cost effective, so that part is not exactly arbitrary.
The trick is how the standard is implemented to favor SUVs and disadvantage small passenger cars. Most automakers are OK with the new standards, as most automakers produce a wide range of very profitable SUVs. VW, which traditionally has not had a strong line of trucks and SUVs, cried foul. VW’s comment, which is quoted in the Wiki article about the CAFE standard:
“Volkswagen does not endorse the proposal under discussion. It places an unfairly high burden on passenger cars, while allowing special compliance flexibility for heavier light trucks. Passenger cars would be required to achieve 5% annual improvements, and light trucks 3.5% annual improvements. The largest trucks carry almost no burden for the 2017-2020 timeframe, and are granted numerous ways to mathematically meet targets in the outlying years without significant real-world gains. The proposal encourages manufacturers and customers to shift toward larger, less efficient vehicles, defeating the goal of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.”
Looking at the table of mpg targets in the Wiki article: a passenger car with a 41sqft footprint, like a Honda Fit, in 2018, will need to attain 45mpg according to the CAFE method of measurment (34 per EPA), while a “truck” which includes 4×4 SUVs with the same 41sqft footprint need only attain 37mpg (28 per EPA). That is a huge difference. The passenger car will be forced to use more exotic materials and technology to meet the standard, putting it at a cost disadvantage to the SUV.
Given the biases built into the CAFE methodology, the 2008 regulation that changed to this methodology reeks of being written by industry lobbyists as it favors the large SUVs the big three want to make, helps force small cars, with the big three have never wanted to make, out of the market and the enforced shift in the type of vehicle people drive will increase gas consumption, which no doubt delights the oil industry.
If we accept that these brands all lost the battle to foreign competition, lets think about what these orphans replacements might be. Perhaps a 4runner, an Avalon, and a Santa Fe?
Did the customer really win that battle, or were they just another victim?
“If we accept that these brands all lost the battle to foreign competition”
why would one jump to that conclusion?
I don’t accept these brands “lost” to the foreign competition at all. Every automotive manufacturer that produced the vehicles you see above are in far better shape than they were half a decade ago, and they’re making far better vehicles.
As for replacements, that’s easy. A Sable owner would feel right at home in a Fusion or a Taurus; Mountaineer drivers should have no problem going to the Explorer; and Outlook drivers can literally buy the exact same car in the Traverse/Enclave/Acadia trio. The customers lost no ground whatsoever.
I like to think that for those who would have wanted a Mercury today, the Ford Titanium trim levels covers it pretty well. Sure, it’s not a separate brand anymore, but it is at least noticeably nicer.
I don’t think they “lost” to foreign competition. I think they lost to competition in their own company. Who was going to buy a Mountaineer when you could get everything from the Explorer? Same with the Sable, why buy it when you could get a 08-09 Taurus?
Hopping over to GM, you could get a Traverse, Acadia or Enclave instead of the Outlook and get the same goodies. The Traverse was actually cheaper then the Outlook.
The problem with Mercury is it did not offer anything that did not look like the exact same thing on the Ford lot.
Sorry but the Mountaineer did not look like the exact same thing on the Ford lot. Ford did spend the money to give the Mountaineer an entirely different front clip and unique quarter panels in the 2002 and up models. Personally I know a couple of people who choose the Mountaineer over the Explorer including myself. I did it because of the value at the high end of the range. One of the others that I did ask said it was because the Explorer looked so plain looking and way to common. She did in fact replace it with a 14 or 15 Explorer. We still have ours as does the other person I know who bought one.
I have to go with jz and Ed on this one. Each of these “orphan brands” is made by a company that is still around and in better shape than before. The multiple brands under a single corporate umbrella is a holdover from Alfred Sloan’s design for General Motors in the 1920s, a paradigm that was pretty much out of gas by the 1970s.
It’s not like the imports affected only Mercury, Plymouth and Saturn. These were weakened brands that withered while others like Ford, Dodge and Chevy have stuck around.
In some cases, the spirit of the division lives on, but under a different name. Titanium-level and Platinum-level Fords are what Mercurys were supposed to be – a step up from garden-variety Fords.
I don’t necessarily buy that foreign competition was the downfall of these brands either, but it is interesting to think of what the modern replacements would be, should they want to stay with the same sort of vehicle.
Saturn Outlook -> Chevy Traverse (same platform)
Mercury Montego -> Ford Taurus (same platform)
Mercury Mountaineer -> Toyota 4Runner (still truck-based, unlike many currently)
If the Taurus is soon discontinued, I’d think they would go to either Buick Lacrosse or Toyota Avalon.
The Mountaineer of this generation was not “truck based” the chassis was unique and the suspension didn’t share anything significant with any pickup. Yes it had the same lug pattern as the Ranger but with radically different offset and of course they use the same 8.8″ gear set and differential in it’s IRS as used in pickups but also the Mustang and Ranger.
The post-02 Explorer/Mountaineer/Aviator was much less Ranger-based, with a new mid-size platform and IRS, but it was still very much truck-based. BOF and a longitudinally-mounted V6/V8 in a tall wagon body=truck-style SUV.
Badge jobs are pointless, what was the real value of Mercury by 2010? Just for those that remeber the 50’s like yesterday, and think others care about the name.
Reality, is the brand was little more than a different grille, whippee!
Customer “wins” by getting good Ford with Titanium trim.
I think even by the end, Mercury is still a very good brand. Many designs I just dislike were removed from Mercury versions. I never care for the first generation of Ford Fusion, and I dislike the interior for the tempo similarities, and its taillights pattern, while Mercury version looks far better to me. It’s the same with Five Hundred and Montego. But the image of Mercury is stalling after the discontinue of Cougar.
Saturn should never have been. The money would have been better spent building better GM cars across the other lines.
My next door neighbor just bought a new F150 Platinum. The seats are not only heated and cooled (front AND rear, I think)…they massage.
Ford. M A S S A G E.
On what planet would Mercury still be relevant? Maybe they needed to go away decades before Ford finally pulled the plug. And future Lincolns had better be SPECIAL if that brand is to have a future. The upcoming Continental looks like a step in the correct direction.
Ford division, at least, is doin’ it right. Which as a GM fan, pains me to say.
That said, I think there are some GREAT signs from the General, anyone see that new Cruze hatchback? And Volt/Bolt are hopefully well-enough made that people currently drawn to Prius and Leaf might give the electric Chevies a look. I also hope the new ‘Bu is more 2008 than 2013 in its execution.
And will Cadillac build the Ciel and/or Elmiraj? Will THAT be the “flagship” they’ve long rumored about building?
But undoing the damage to GM’s once-storied brands is a work in progress with many years of excellence to go before catching up with Ford in the minds of the public. Eliminating redundant brands was an important step toward that goal.
IMO Ford did it right. You may not like they they took a “screw Mercury” attitude since…oh, about 1958. (Some may argue it was baked into the marque’s DNA due to Henry’s initial ambivalence…I’ll concede that point if you want to make it) But history validates Ford’s actions and as a result they continue to reap the fruits of their labors.
Agree 100% regarding Saturn. The funds used to bring that division online could instead have brought us a better Cavalier and Sunfire, a better Saturn like dealership experience for Chevy and olds etc and made some more competitive products out of the early 90’s N and W-body cars which lacked things like airbags and OHC engine designs.
Gm is indeed turning out some very good product these days. The Epsilon Impala, the new 2016 Malibu that seems fully competitive with it’s peers, the new Volt and Bolt, the upcoming Lacrosse replacement and lets not forget the award winning new Camaro and mid size Colorado.
Joe, the early 90s Ns came with the Quad Four in both single and twin cam. The earlier Ns had various options: Iron Duke, Brazilian OHC four, V6s.
Agree 100% regarding Saturn. The funds used to bring that division online could instead have brought us a better Cavalier and Sunfire, a better Saturn like dealership experience for Chevy and olds etc
I can see setting up Saturn as a lab to experiment with both a different sort of dealer experience and a different sort of work experience at Springhill.
Creating a line of clean sheet products for the division to sell seems a bit over the top though. Maybe if they had offered a line that, while built at Springhill, was in fact a nearly pure European spec Opel, rather than the watered down versions that Chevy got, they would have differentiated product at lower cost. Imagine a Saturn S that was actually an Astra F.
Well, that wasn’t the only crazy idea Roger Smith had.
I agree on all counts. As sad as I was to see Pontiac and Olds go away, they were irrelevant, probably since at least the early ’70’s. Even their great successes, like the late ’70’s Cutlass could just as easily have been Chevys or Buicks. Plymouth has not been a truly relevant player in my lifetime (since 1967). There was nothing wearing a Plymouth badge that couldn’t have easily been called a low-end Dodge. And we’ve covered Mercury’s stepchildhood ad nauseum here.
What the thinning of the “American Brand” landscape has resulted in is a renaissance of sorts. We’re seeing money spent where it should be, and the products we’re getting at the dealerships are both higher quality and more enticing than they’ve been in 20 years. It’s only been in the last few years that I’ve begun to see new cars on dealer lots that I actually feel like I’d be excited about owning, and it’s been at LEAST 20 years since I felt that way.
Just as an example, Take a walk around an early 2000’s Chevy Impala. Take in the cost cutting in every nook and cranny, the uninspired styling, the generic sheetmetal that could as easily be wrapping a washing machine. Then walk around a 2016 Impala. THAT’s what the loss of Olds, Pontiac and Saturn got us. I think it’s worth it.
Now Saab, on the other hand, I just wish had never fallen into the hands of GM to begin with. Having owned 4 of them over the years I still grieve over the loss of some great engineering and truly pioneering products.
When you can walk into your Chevrolet dealer and drive out with a $72,000 Suburban (and I sat in one at the Harrisburg Auto Show last year), it’s hard to make the case that you’d have more prestige by driving a Buick, Oldsmobile or Pontiac.
I was like o_O at your $72,000 figure, then went to Chevy’s build and price site and found you can just brush $80k on a Suburban.
Then I went O_O
You’d better not go near a GMC dealership then!
I had to pick up my jaw off of the floor the last time I set foot inside a Buick/GMC dealer (picking up some parts, and wandered into the showroom for kicks & grins) and saw what they were asking for their flavor of the Suburban.
I agree, the “Saturn project” should have been a J body replacement for Chevy/Pontiac. Was a huge waste to create a ‘different kind of car company’ for it to lose money for 18 years. Same with Geo branding.
I think it may have been an attempt to get around the anti domestic bias of many buyers. It worked for a while too, many import buyers tried the SL Saturn that wouldn’t if it was just the 92 Cavalier. Higher transaction prices were charged too. But not high enough to pay for a massive development program and the high union wages paid at Spring Hill on what was still an inexpensive car. In the final add up, it would have been better not to bother borrowing the money for Saturn and just keep the Cavalier going with inexpensive upgrades as was done anyway, alongside Saturn. Borrowing so much money was a truly deadly sin that was eventually defaulted on in 08-09.
That’s a complete misunderstanding of what Saturn was, what it was intended to be, and the automotive climate within GM and the American auto industry in general under which it was born. There’s a reason why it was set up as a subsidiary of GM with completely proprietary product, not just another “me too” division. Why it ultimately failed was more reflective of the seismic shift in the auto market just as it was getting off the ground, management and structural turmoil within GM in the late ’80s – ’90s, the billions GM was losing hand over fist on other projects they launched at the same time as Saturn (for example, the corporate W-platform), and the failure of GM to develop and expand the Saturn product as originally intended. Saturn was launched and immediately starved for development and new product, then was forced to accept rebadged GM products built in other factories rather than have no product at all, thereby rendering the original concept and point of Saturn moot. There were books written about not only why Saturn failed, but the warfare going on within GM at the time that ultimately led to its crisis and near extinction in 2009. The mismanagement and ruination of the Saturn concept was a symptom of GM’s dysfunction, not the cause of it.
There was a local Lincoln – Mercury, Saab dealership in a small town near me in upstate New York. He looked pretty busy because he was constantly turning over inventory.
First the Saab franchise imploded, then the Mercury franchised evaporated. Word had it that he let go of the Lincoln franchise because Ford wanted him to invest big bucks to renovate the show room. Now he specializes in repairing Saabs and European brands as well as having a large used car lot.
Goes to show that more than consumers are impacted when a car franchise is voided.
That sounds suspiciously similar to a local dealer near me. Are we talking the Hudson Valley area?
Beacon – Fishkill
Well Chuck, we must practically be neighbors then! From what I can tell, the Brownell’s didn’t do badly; they have one of those Quicklane Centers now, which I would hope brings in a decent chunk of change for them.
That upgrade was a Ford strategy to cull the dealer herd. They did an analysis that showed Lexus had something like 700 dealers in the U.S., while Lincoln had a couple thousand. They wanted to stop dealers undercutting each other on price to get the sale, and they wanted the Lincoln dealer experience to be much better than it was. So, they laid the plans on the table and told the dealers that they needed to pony up for a cool million in dealer upgrades. Those that didn’t want to play ball were thanked for playing and told to take a long walk off a short pier.
If this guy was L/M-Saab, he must have decided to take the walk.
Here in the Harrisburg area, the two Lincoln-Mercury dealers were closed, and the franchise was given to a centrally located, long-time Ford dealer. The question is whether this dealer can provide the level of attention and service that Ford expects Lincoln buyers to receive, while simultaneously selling and servicing lots of Fords.
This dealer is located along the main thoroughfare that runs through Harrisburg’s western suburbs. The Lincolns are always parked in the back, and not visible from the road. That’s not a good sign.
The long-time Lincoln-Mercury dealer in Chambersburg, Pa., is still around, even with the loss of Mercury. It has not taken on any other brands since the decision to phase out Mercury, and still remains in business.
Yup that is the problem in the real world with their plan if they really wanted to keep and grow Lincoln. Around here a number of the Lincoln franchises went to Ford dealers too. Fact is at least at these dealers Lincoln is treated like the red headed step child and all they did was throw up a small Lincoln sign here or there. The interesting thing is that for 3 of the Ford-Lincoln dealers there was not a Lincoln dealer that near them.
The question is whether this dealer can provide the level of attention and service that Ford expects Lincoln buyers to receive, while simultaneously selling and servicing lots of Fords.
Especially considering the poll numbers. The only things keeping Ford out of the cellar of dealer experience ratings are all 5 of the FCA brands.
Ford could take a page from VAG. There are several dealerships in my area that carry VW, Audi and Porsche, but each has it’s own showroom. My VW will be due for service in a couple weeks, Maybe I mosey next door to the Audi store and see what it looks like.
there’s a Lincoln dealer near me which- if Ford is serious about upgrading Lincoln’s image- should be shut down. Their showroom is spartan with the salespeople seated at little more than card tables, their service department is terrible, and they just do the entire brand a disservice.
We lost many car dealerships because of these exact reasons. Some of them are still left standing vacant and crumbling like much of America these days. These were economically depressed areas to start with and many of these folks are still out of work to this day. Some of the former Saturn dealers are now Kia or VW.
I think it depends where you live. We’re booming in the South; Houston can’t expand fast enough.
Didn’t say I liked it….
I always recite pre-recession commercials for Saturn, Saab, Hummer, and Pontiac. The Oldsmobile brand, Plymouth, and even Mercury. Sure all the “crap” cars and mistakes produced lead the big three to this point in there history, but can’t we all agree it was a better time, seeing so much variety on the roads, and I speak for the late 80’s and through the 90’s until around 2010.
The baby boomers right now look back to Studebaker, Plymouth, Desoto, and Edsel! because it reminds then of there childhood, and a better time…. now of course they drive a new Hyundai, or the car they bought before they retired (1991 Plymouth Acclaim).
I do not see Chrysler in the auto manufacturing future and can Cadillac really last another 100 years, a hover Cadillac will be the last thing I want to see with my time on Earth.
Are driveway has an 86 Pontiac, 86 Mercedes, 95 Saab, and “old-GM” 2007 Saturn.
“..seeing so much variety..”
Again, what was the big deal about different grilles on same bodies? What is the true value? Just to feel like it’s 1958 again? Was it really exciting to see a Mercury version of a Ford by 2009? [Or GM equivalant?]
I used to like the true differing brands in the 60’s, but the Milan was a “just slap a Merc name on it, who cares?” Same with GM’s orphans.
“Mid price” brands were throw-backs to 50’s hula hoops, 60’s Bee hive hairdos, and 70’s disco. Were irrelevent after 1990. All the “brand managment” marketing b.s. did nothing.
Toyota’s Scion brand is floudering for same reasons.
Makers only need mainstream and luxury brands. Not ‘Mid/lux/sorta-lux-but not too much/disco/etc…’
Edit: Only car hobbyist long for Studebaker, Plymouth, Desoto, and Edsel. Most Boomers are buying SUV’s en masse and don’t want to buy what their Great-Aunt drove in 1957.
Mercury Milan feels more refined and better designed than the Fusion, even though they share almost all the mechanic parts and roof line. Another thing is the image problem, as too many Fusions on the street with pizza delivery signs devalue the model more or less, while Milan is largely intact.
Well, two of my three 4-wheeled conveyances are orphans: a Mercury (Mariner) and an Isuzu (Pickup).
Being a Kenosha boy I just can’t help myself.
Frankly, aside from a different grill and taillights there was absolutely nothing to recommend a Mariner over an Escape. But who couldn’t love THIS face?
Glad to see that the Isuzu pickup is still running strong!
Me too! Isuzu Trooper and Saab 9-3. Some parts are a bitch to get though…
Two orphans in my driveway: 63 Valiant and 05 ION.
Chas108: you are so right about Saturn: a great waste of resources and an intent better used on GM’s established brands.
And while I love my generally loathed by the masses ION, I admit that the whole Saturn affair was unnecessary.
What would I replace it with ? An equally loathed Sebring/200/Avenger. A Dart, Trax, Cruze or Sonic perhaps.
The days of palming off an Aveo as a Pontiac G3 just by rearranging the hash are over, thankfully. [But…. “We Build Excitement”…].
BTW: were you L200Boy on Saturn Fans ? Your avatar picture looks similar.
I always thought the Saturn hype (BS) for a decade plus, was too big to kill off, this beast. The Japanese small car target, moved by the time they had a car to sell. GM knew they had a problem with small cars. Being slow launching a midsize car hurt Saturn too. It was a popular topic. There was a Phil Donahue episode with 3,4, governors fighting over the Saturn factory location.
The automotive universe is slightly less awesome sans Mercury and Saturn.
There has been very little awesome about Mercury since 1957-59, the last time they tried to be a real brand as a full size car. The first generation Cougar was wonderful, but the name was whored out to a Thunderbird wanna-be, and worse. The last coupes to carry the Cougar name were neat, but it was obvious that Ford’s heart wasn’t in it. That car would probably have done better as the third generation Probe.
The current generation Titanium models are just as good as anything Mercury. And a lot more honest.
Totally agree Syke, I get tired of the crying over Mercury cancellation. I was a big fan of the old Cougars, but the rebadge jobs past 2000 were “who cares?”
And who really misses DeSoto or Edsel?
Yup. I saw this even back in the 1970s, when our 1971 LTD Brougham when fully-optioned, was almost identical in trim level and options to its sister Mercury Marquis. Different front-end sheet metal and taillights were about it, even back then.
At least in the ’70s there was still some mechanical differentiation between the LTD and Marquis. The Merc sat on a 3″ longer WB. After ’79 even that was gone.
The last Cougar WAS supposed to be the next Probe, but for whatever reason, Ford thought they would have better luck selling it as a Mercury. The FWD “sporty coupe” segment was starting to collapse by the end of the ’90s, and this car wouldn’t have lasted past the early ’00s either way.
It is probably good that the 99 Cougar wasn’t the third gen Probe. In my option, it would have been a disappointing update from the second gen. The hot handling Mazda chassis and smooth, rev happy V6 would have been dearly missed.
The Probe name was already damaged by then on top of the dying coupe market. I’m partial to the second gen Probe, so my opinion is quite biased.
The Cougar was ALWAYS a Thunderbird wannabee. The body lines on the original 67-68s are directly lifted off the 64-66 Thunderbirds, as were the wide sequential taillights. The 69s were pretty clearly aping styling traits from the 67-69 Tbirds as well, especially the revised nose treatment.
Syke, you forget 65-68 “In The Lincoln Continental Tradition” and the 250 million [same as spent on the Edsel, but in 60s dollars] Ford spent on the 69-72 “by Lincoln Mercury” offerings.
After the Bobcat, Monarch, Comet, Lynx, Mercury and the Fox bodied Marquis, Mercury was dead to me.
The Outlook was always the best-looking Lambda, so I’m glad they reused its rear for the Acadia facelift.
My wife and I used to own Saturns. They weren’t bad cars, but they weren’t great cars. Good, cheap transportation with an appetite for oil. The plastic panels weren’t bad for keep up appearances.
The Mercurys have CVT transmissions that were a nightmare for owners. You’ll see low-mileage Mercurys and Fords like this going for cheap because they are basically un-fixable.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Copyright 2011 - 2023 Curbside Classics. All Rights Reserved.