What's in store for the Lincoln MKT? If a report from The Truth About Cars has any idea, it looks like it could be going to a normal crossover shape.

 

A source tells TTAC that engineers are working on a project Known internally as ‘Aviator’. This project will be using the next-generation Ford Explorer as a base. No report as to what platform this will use, but some believe its the upcoming D6 platform which will allow for front, rear, and all-wheel drive configurations. The source goes onto say that there will not be a next-generation Ford Flex.

 

“We do not comment on speculation. MKT continues to be present in our lineup, with a new model in 2015. By 2020, we expect to expand the segments that we participate in by adding two new nameplates to the Lincoln brand. We have not provided any indications about the products or their names," said Lincoln spokesman Stéphane Cesareo in a comment to TTAC.

 

Source: The Truth About Cars

View full article

Shame that MKT never got a good style update, as the current one only got worse.  It is still one of the best vehicles in it's class though, which is somewhat divergent from the taller CUV's out there.  I liked the tallish wagon feel when driving it, and I am not so sure I will like a taller CUV.  

MKT needs to be killed with fire... enough said. It may be great for hauling stuff, toting kids, even have great materials and value... which Fords already deliver; which is why a model like this one for Lincoln doesn't help its luxury cred.

Helllooo Aviator.

Some people will always love the station wagon which this is, but more love the CUV.

There hasn't been much of a MarKeT for it so far, best to go in a different direction, with a real name.

I think the last two posts best sum up why Lincoln is moving toward a more CUV like vehicle, to be less niche like and more conventional and memorable.

 

I still can't help but think that if they at least adopted the new Lincoln CUV language into it, that things would have been different in the sales department.

 

I mean, duh. They were stupid for making it what it is to begin with.

I mean, duh. They were stupid for making it what it is to begin with.

 

Not true.

The vehicle is a very good large luxury people mover, hindered only by styling.

Edited June 6, 201510 yr by Wings4Life

Yes, in much the same way JFK's trip to Dallas was a success except for that twisty section during the limo ride.

Edited June 6, 201510 yr by El Kabong

Yes, in much the same way JFK's trip to Dallas was a success except for that twisty section during the limo ride.

HAHA

 

The saddest news for me out of this is that there is not going to be a new Flex.  That car sells really well when you consider it is basically a Taurus Wagon.  If you combine Taurus sales and Flex Sales, typically Flex is at least 1/3 of the total..... that is really good for a wagon..

You simply can't beat a Flex.  Had one myself and liked it better than my Explorer. 

And yes, Flex is going away too.

Does that mean Continental will take over as Lincoln's livery vehicle?

Well, that is certainly an option. I know I would not mind being driven in a vehicle like this....

It would be nice to see Lincoln take over that market from the S-Class

It ain't happening with Fusion bits.

It ain't happening with Fusion bits.

Have you not beat this dead horse enough over at MT.  Once again, there is no Fusion and certainly no Fusion bits in the Conti.

It ain't happening with Fusion bits.

 

I really don't think people getting picked up to go to the airport or the opera care about the platform under the car as long as the car is luxurious enough for them

Agreed. But consider the ramifications of that. That's what got us the Town Car as a Lincoln flagship. If they're able to do the Continental as a livery car and do a proper flagship down the road then good. But it's not what they need right now for this car-it must make an impact on the retail segment first, regardless of its underpinnings.

Agreed. But consider the ramifications of that. That's what got us the Town Car as a Lincoln flagship. If they're able to do the Continental as a livery car and do a proper flagship down the road then good. But it's not what they need right now for this car-it must make an impact on the retail segment first, regardless of its underpinnings.

 

Also true... but being used as an airport shuttle doesn't seem to hamper S-Class sales. 

Perhaps I need a better Air Miles card but I don't see a ton of them in Alberta airports.

Anyways, my point is this: S-Class limos work for two reasons... Well, three:

-if it's German it must be good

-if it's a great luxury car to begin with its ability as a limo is a given. The converse is not the case.

-thunderous depreciation in the segment.

There's a reason Cadillac shied away from calling the XTS a flagship. There's also a reason they're quietly making it go away.

This is not 1989.

Flexible manufacturing has changed everything, and so has modern powertrain and suspension technology, as well better engineering, CAE tools, etc.

 

Comparing cars from that era today, makes zero sense.

Perhaps I need a better Air Miles card but I don't see a ton of them in Alberta airports.

Anyways, my point is this: S-Class limos work for two reasons... Well, three:

-if it's German it must be good

-if it's a great luxury car to begin with its ability as a limo is a given. The converse is not the case.

-thunderous depreciation in the segment.

There's a reason Cadillac shied away from calling the XTS a flagship. There's also a reason they're quietly making it go away.

 

Try EWR, LGA, JFK, PHL, DCA, ORD, and MIA.... just a small sampling of my typical haunts. 

 

The reason Cadillac is moving away from the XTS is that it no longer fits the image they want to convey.  Lincoln is specifically going after "Quiet Luxury"

The Continental will probably be priced too high to be a livery vehicle.  They might push the MKS into that category.

 

The MKT needs no replacement, they have a MKC, MKX and Navagator, that gives them a small, medium, large SUV trio. 

This is not 1989.

Flexible manufacturing has changed everything, and so has modern powertrain and suspension technology, as well better engineering, CAE tools, etc.

 

Comparing cars from that era today, makes zero sense.

What are you talking about? Mediocre chassis engineering is still mediocre chassis engineering, regardless of era. Aside from possibly competing with a previous-gen version at the arrival gate I assure you nobody will seriously compare an S-Class to a Continental. Maybe in 2019 we can have this conversation. But certainly not today.

 

This is not 1989.

Flexible manufacturing has changed everything, and so has modern powertrain and suspension technology, as well better engineering, CAE tools, etc.

 

Comparing cars from that era today, makes zero sense.

What are you talking about? Mediocre chassis engineering is still mediocre chassis engineering, regardless of era. Aside from possibly competing with a previous-gen version at the arrival gate I assure you nobody will seriously compare an S-Class to a Continental. Maybe in 2019 we can have this conversation. But certainly not today.

 

So you are again suggesting that the new Conti is a mediocre chassis, yet you know almost nothing about it, other than the starting point, which is little more than fixed hard-point dimensions beginning with an all new chassis. 

Why is it that most in this industry already know what defines and contributes to a total system, which is the sum of it's parts and subsystems as well as, and most importantly, who they are all integrated together in that system -- except you?  Because concluding 'mediocre' at this point suggests what many of us already know about what is behind your intended remarks.  The car appears to have exactly what it needs, and more, to deliver on it's promises of the best Lincoln to date.  Good enough anyway to completely steal the spotlight from it's recent auto show cross town rival.

One fact alone propels the CT6 well beyond the Continental.  A RWD chassis.  Let alone all of the other art and science that has gone into the Cadillac.

 

 

This is not 1989.

Flexible manufacturing has changed everything, and so has modern powertrain and suspension technology, as well better engineering, CAE tools, etc.

 

Comparing cars from that era today, makes zero sense.

What are you talking about? Mediocre chassis engineering is still mediocre chassis engineering, regardless of era. Aside from possibly competing with a previous-gen version at the arrival gate I assure you nobody will seriously compare an S-Class to a Continental. Maybe in 2019 we can have this conversation. But certainly not today.

 

So you are again suggesting that the new Conti is a mediocre chassis, yet you know almost nothing about it, other than the starting point, which is little more than fixed hard-point dimensions beginning with an all new chassis. 

Why is it that most in this industry already know what defines and contributes to a total system, which is the sum of it's parts and subsystems as well as, and most importantly, who they are all integrated together in that system -- except you?  Because concluding 'mediocre' at this point suggests what many of us already know about what is behind your intended remarks.  The car appears to have exactly what it needs, and more, to deliver on it's promises of the best Lincoln to date.  Good enough anyway to completely steal the spotlight from it's recent auto show cross town rival.

 

Must be a Ford employee...

One fact alone propels the CT6 well beyond the Continental.  A RWD chassis.  Let alone all of the other art and science that has gone into the Cadillac.

No doubt the CT6 appears to have 'good bones' and some engineering prowess to back it up.

Trouble is, it will be sitting next to the CTS, which looks nearly identical, is only moderately different in size, and costs $20K less.  Oh, and that is not selling that well to begin with.  So I think the Cadillac could fail based on a combination of too much cost like the failed ELR, and consumer disinterest in that segment (large sedan).  CUV's are the hot ticket right now, plain and simple. Cadillac needs to invigorate that ASAP.  

Edited June 7, 201510 yr by Wings4Life

My Taurus x was pretty similar to the MKT and flex. Mkt and flex both great vehicles but became dated. I would imagine mkt/aviator will be next explorer clones. Ford had to prove they could successfully take the truck based version and move it to a car chassis, which they did. That means since they plan a new one in the future, they just clone a Lincoln version off it. All he next mkt needs to be is a 3 row edge really. I would like to see them still do expedition and navigator.

I would like to see a Flex replacement, but more of a cross between a minivan and wagon. Sounds strange but I think it could be done. Something not as lumpy as bloated as a van but not as boxy and strange as the flex. Really, just a three row Edge.

My Taurus x was pretty similar to the MKT and flex. Mkt and flex both great vehicles but became dated. I would imagine mkt/aviator will be next explorer clones. Ford had to prove they could successfully take the truck based version and move it to a car chassis, which they did. That means since they plan a new one in the future, they just clone a Lincoln version off it. All he next mkt needs to be is a 3 row edge really. I would like to see them still do expedition and navigator.

I would like to see a Flex replacement, but more of a cross between a minivan and wagon. Sounds strange but I think it could be done. Something not as lumpy as bloated as a van but not as boxy and strange as the flex. Really, just a three row Edge.

You kind of described the Explorer.

 

Explorer plays more to the SUV folks....higher ride height, butch styling, etc.

 

A new Flex should consider sliding doors.  After having them in our new Town and Country, they are really handy as long as the auto closers are working.

 

At least on our end, I sort of wanted to go with a Flex, but it was dated and didn't offer the room of the van.....neither did the Explorer.  

 

I looked for some used MKt's but decided the extra cost wasn't worth it.

Edited June 7, 201510 yr by regfootball

 

One fact alone propels the CT6 well beyond the Continental.  A RWD chassis.  Let alone all of the other art and science that has gone into the Cadillac.

No doubt the CT6 appears to have 'good bones' and some engineering prowess to back it up.

Trouble is, it will be sitting next to the CTS, which looks nearly identical, is only moderately different in size, and costs $20K less.  Oh, and that is not selling that well to begin with.  So I think the Cadillac could fail based on a combination of too much cost like the failed ELR, and consumer disinterest in that segment (large sedan).  CUV's are the hot ticket right now, plain and simple. Cadillac needs to invigorate that ASAP.  

 

All the major luxo makes cars look similar to each other. An Audi A8 has a similar look to an A6 and a BMW 5 Series looks very similar to a 7 Series. We won't even begin to talk about the Lexus lineup. The CT6 looks no more like a CTS than the four cars mentioned. It's called a family of cars for a reason. They do need to kick up the CUV program though as much as I hate that genre.

This is not 1989.

Flexible manufacturing has changed everything, and so has modern powertrain and suspension technology, as well better engineering, CAE tools, etc.

Comparing cars from that era today, makes zero sense.

What are you talking about? Mediocre chassis engineering is still mediocre chassis engineering, regardless of era. Aside from possibly competing with a previous-gen version at the arrival gate I assure you nobody will seriously compare an S-Class to a Continental. Maybe in 2019 we can have this conversation. But certainly not today.

So you are again suggesting that the new Conti is a mediocre chassis, yet you know almost nothing about it, other than the starting point, which is little more than fixed hard-point dimensions beginning with an all new chassis.

Why is it that most in this industry already know what defines and contributes to a total system, which is the sum of it's parts and subsystems as well as, and most importantly, who they are all integrated together in that system -- except you? Because concluding 'mediocre' at this point suggests what many of us already know about what is behind your intended remarks. The car appears to have exactly what it needs, and more, to deliver on it's promises of the best Lincoln to date. Good enough anyway to completely steal the spotlight from it's recent auto show cross town rival.

Must be a Ford employee...

Indeed he is. And that would be a good thing, if he didn't use it to do nothing but spout rose-coloured glasses PR crap about the company. If that comes off as harsh, allow me to show you what I mean right now:

I suggested the Continental would have a mediocre chassis compared to, say, an S-Class because it would be using Fusion bits. He then said this would not be the case and took a swipe at the Cadillac CT6.

The problem is that my claim can easily be proved correct. Here is a link:

http://m.caranddriver.com/news/2017-lincoln-continental-spied-it-really-is-happening-future-cars

And here is a direct quote from that link: "The setup will be bolted to a platform that we’re told is an enlarged version of the Ford Fusion/Lincoln MKZ’s global CD4 architecture. The rather extreme size differential between those smaller sedans and the Continental will place a great deal of the engineers’ focus on chassis stiffness; one potential drawback could be excess weight from additional bracing."

...and there goes his cred.

Edited June 7, 201510 yr by El Kabong

 

 

One fact alone propels the CT6 well beyond the Continental.  A RWD chassis.  Let alone all of the other art and science that has gone into the Cadillac.

No doubt the CT6 appears to have 'good bones' and some engineering prowess to back it up.

Trouble is, it will be sitting next to the CTS, which looks nearly identical, is only moderately different in size, and costs $20K less.  Oh, and that is not selling that well to begin with.  So I think the Cadillac could fail based on a combination of too much cost like the failed ELR, and consumer disinterest in that segment (large sedan).  CUV's are the hot ticket right now, plain and simple. Cadillac needs to invigorate that ASAP.  

 

All the major luxo makes cars look similar to each other. An Audi A8 has a similar look to an A6 and a BMW 5 Series looks very similar to a 7 Series. We won't even begin to talk about the Lexus lineup. The CT6 looks no more like a CTS than the four cars mentioned. It's called a family of cars for a reason. They do need to kick up the CUV program though as much as I hate that genre.

 

Having a familiar look is fine, typically, and probably only becomes a potential concern when they are so close in size.  So it would be that concern combined with the huge price delta, that should spell concern for sales. 

 

 

 

 

This is not 1989.

Flexible manufacturing has changed everything, and so has modern powertrain and suspension technology, as well better engineering, CAE tools, etc.

Comparing cars from that era today, makes zero sense.

What are you talking about? Mediocre chassis engineering is still mediocre chassis engineering, regardless of era. Aside from possibly competing with a previous-gen version at the arrival gate I assure you nobody will seriously compare an S-Class to a Continental. Maybe in 2019 we can have this conversation. But certainly not today.

So you are again suggesting that the new Conti is a mediocre chassis, yet you know almost nothing about it, other than the starting point, which is little more than fixed hard-point dimensions beginning with an all new chassis.

Why is it that most in this industry already know what defines and contributes to a total system, which is the sum of it's parts and subsystems as well as, and most importantly, who they are all integrated together in that system -- except you? Because concluding 'mediocre' at this point suggests what many of us already know about what is behind your intended remarks. The car appears to have exactly what it needs, and more, to deliver on it's promises of the best Lincoln to date. Good enough anyway to completely steal the spotlight from it's recent auto show cross town rival.

Must be a Ford employee...

Indeed he is. And that would be a good thing, if he didn't use it to do nothing but spout rose-coloured glasses PR crap about the company. If that comes off as harsh, allow me to show you what I mean right now:

I suggested the Continental would have a mediocre chassis compared to, say, an S-Class because it would be using Fusion bits. He then said this would not be the case and took a swipe at the Cadillac CT6.

The problem is that my claim can easily be proved correct. Here is a link:

http://m.caranddriver.com/news/2017-lincoln-continental-spied-it-really-is-happening-future-cars

And here is a direct quote from that link: "The setup will be bolted to a platform that we’re told is an enlarged version of the Ford Fusion/Lincoln MKZ’s global CD4 architecture. The rather extreme size differential between those smaller sedans and the Continental will place a great deal of the engineers’ focus on chassis stiffness; one potential drawback could be excess weight from additional bracing."

...and there goes his cred.

 

Sooooo.......you claim that your claim is proven correct by some journalists assumptions about a chassis they have not seen, nor know nothing about, and I now have lost all credibility because of it.

 

 

Okeedokee

A FWD/AWD transverse engine approach works fine for some luxury and near-luxury cars, like the current MKS, XTS, LaCrosse, Lexus ES, Avalon, Azera, Credenza, and RLX...the Continental could do well against those models.

Edited June 8, 201510 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

Sooooo.......you claim that your claim is proven correct by some journalists assumptions about a chassis they have not seen, nor know nothing about, and I now have lost all credibility because of it.

 

Yes.

Now, as far as this new Aviator goes...

If it rides on the premium platform then it should be a premium piece. My one concern is the report that Ford is considering putting the Exlorer on it as well. It's a good idea to do long-term, no doubt. But once again they need to let the premium variant get established first.

Nothing different that I see so far in the Ford and Lincoln model playbook from what Toyota and Lexus are doing w/ their volume models..the Lexus CUVs each share a platform w/ a mainstream Toyota model, and the ES shares a platform with the Camry...so this Continental would be to the Fusion how the ES is to the Camry..

Nothing different that I see so far in the Ford and Lincoln model playbook from what Toyota and Lexus are doing w/ their volume models..the Lexus CUVs each share a platform w/ a mainstream Toyota model, and the ES shares a platform with the Camry...so this Continental would be to the Fusion how the ES is to the Camry..

Except that it shares nothing with the Fusion, short of some hard points, a few common under body stampings, etc. 

The Conti will ride on a new CD4.3 chassis, which is heavily updated from the CD4 chassis.  

 

But again, it is the system(s) and the overall integration into the total system, that defines the car.  

 

Nothing different that I see so far in the Ford and Lincoln model playbook from what Toyota and Lexus are doing w/ their volume models..the Lexus CUVs each share a platform w/ a mainstream Toyota model, and the ES shares a platform with the Camry...so this Continental would be to the Fusion how the ES is to the Camry..

Except that it shares nothing with the Fusion, short of some hard points, a few common under body stampings, etc. 

The Conti will ride on a new CD4.3 chassis, which is heavily updated from the CD4 chassis.  

 

But again, it is the system(s) and the overall integration into the total system, that defines the car.  

 

So that is the platform the new Taurus will be on?   

Edited June 8, 201510 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

^

yes, both ride on new CD 4.3

^

yes, both ride on new CD 4.3

So like how the MKS shares its platform with the current Taurus.

Edited June 8, 201510 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

^^^ Ding ding ding

Edited June 8, 201510 yr by El Kabong

Nothing different that I see so far in the Ford and Lincoln model playbook from what Toyota and Lexus are doing w/ their volume models..the Lexus CUVs each share a platform w/ a mainstream Toyota model, and the ES shares a platform with the Camry...so this Continental would be to the Fusion how the ES is to the Camry..

This point is one of the big hangups I've had with guys who cite Lexus sales numbers-Lexus is both Cadillac and Buick to Toyota's Chevy. I don't like the LS a whole lot, but I have no problem calling it a luxury car. The ES, not so much. To be fair, Lexus has begun to differentiate Lexus from mainstream Toyotas again with the extra emphasis they're putting on stuff like the IS.

 

Nothing different that I see so far in the Ford and Lincoln model playbook from what Toyota and Lexus are doing w/ their volume models..the Lexus CUVs each share a platform w/ a mainstream Toyota model, and the ES shares a platform with the Camry...so this Continental would be to the Fusion how the ES is to the Camry..

This point is one of the big hangups I've had with guys who cite Lexus sales numbers-Lexus is both Cadillac and Buick to Toyota's Chevy. I don't like the LS a whole lot, but I have no problem calling it a luxury car. The ES, not so much. To be fair, Lexus has begun to differentiate Lexus from mainstream Toyotas again with the extra emphasis they're putting on stuff like the IS.

 

Lexus seems to be pursuing a two tier strategy---soft FWD based models like the ES and RX for the mainstream entry-lux,  and their serious models (RC, IS, GS, LS) RWD based to compete w/ Cadillac and the Germans..  Cadillac has a similar strategy.  Lexus seems to emphasizing performance w/ the F models and the violent styling, hoping it catches on against the established Germans.

Edited June 8, 201510 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

 

 

 

One fact alone propels the CT6 well beyond the Continental.  A RWD chassis.  Let alone all of the other art and science that has gone into the Cadillac.

No doubt the CT6 appears to have 'good bones' and some engineering prowess to back it up.

Trouble is, it will be sitting next to the CTS, which looks nearly identical, is only moderately different in size, and costs $20K less.  Oh, and that is not selling that well to begin with.  So I think the Cadillac could fail based on a combination of too much cost like the failed ELR, and consumer disinterest in that segment (large sedan).  CUV's are the hot ticket right now, plain and simple. Cadillac needs to invigorate that ASAP.  

 

All the major luxo makes cars look similar to each other. An Audi A8 has a similar look to an A6 and a BMW 5 Series looks very similar to a 7 Series. We won't even begin to talk about the Lexus lineup. The CT6 looks no more like a CTS than the four cars mentioned. It's called a family of cars for a reason. They do need to kick up the CUV program though as much as I hate that genre.

 

Having a familiar look is fine, typically, and probably only becomes a potential concern when they are so close in size.  So it would be that concern combined with the huge price delta, that should spell concern for sales. 

 

The ATS, CTS, and CT6 are no closer in size to each other than the competition, fact. Their sales struggles have nothing to do with that anyway. Lack of variants, as has been discussed many times, is the bigger problem for Cadillac.

 

 

 

 

One fact alone propels the CT6 well beyond the Continental.  A RWD chassis.  Let alone all of the other art and science that has gone into the Cadillac.

No doubt the CT6 appears to have 'good bones' and some engineering prowess to back it up.

Trouble is, it will be sitting next to the CTS, which looks nearly identical, is only moderately different in size, and costs $20K less.  Oh, and that is not selling that well to begin with.  So I think the Cadillac could fail based on a combination of too much cost like the failed ELR, and consumer disinterest in that segment (large sedan).  CUV's are the hot ticket right now, plain and simple. Cadillac needs to invigorate that ASAP.  

 

All the major luxo makes cars look similar to each other. An Audi A8 has a similar look to an A6 and a BMW 5 Series looks very similar to a 7 Series. We won't even begin to talk about the Lexus lineup. The CT6 looks no more like a CTS than the four cars mentioned. It's called a family of cars for a reason. They do need to kick up the CUV program though as much as I hate that genre.

 

Having a familiar look is fine, typically, and probably only becomes a potential concern when they are so close in size.  So it would be that concern combined with the huge price delta, that should spell concern for sales. 

 

The ATS, CTS, and CT6 are no closer in size to each other than the competition, fact. Their sales struggles have nothing to do with that anyway. Lack of variants, as has been discussed many times, is the bigger problem for Cadillac.

 

I think Cadillac's sales problems are a combination of lack of pertinent product (CUV's), increased prices, been-there-done-that styling with A&S, and finally the biggest factor, Buick.  

So Cadillac's biggest issue is GM's more successful Lincoln fighter. I think Boss Lady Barra can live with that, for now.

Edited June 8, 201510 yr by El Kabong