Derf00

What else could it offer to make it different/better than a four-dour Taurus SHO? Nissan tried and failed with a similar concept on their Nissan Altima 2-door coupe.

If they actually gussied the interior up with real leather and gave it a sport suspension and paddle shifters, that would definitely set it apart from the Taurus...and aim it squarely at the BMW 335 series

bomt

I think that the Mustang EcoBoost is great with the four
The Lincoln can have the EcoBoost 6.
The Lincoln needs another 6" of wheelbase and
a 1-button convertible.
Both will be great 'starting' platforms for the aftermarket.

Cruzinaround

Actually announcing the purpose of a Division geared towards putting what is learned in the arena of racing and popping it into the cars they produce as a test bed would not be a difficult hurdle to overcome. In fact just simply holding a press conference and announcing it would shine a spotlight on it.

Something as simple as carbon fiber bellows springs or Carbon brakes or carbon wheels typically used in racing setups and then "ported" over to consumer offerings would be innovative. And provide safer and lighter cars.

It doesn't take much to put a proof of concept out there... then to prove it is easy as pie if the value it provides can be quantified well beyond just dollars. When it works to show there is a combined return of safety and economy and performance then job done...you can then trickle that into the other divisions.

Pontiac was geared to be the proving grounds for RWD performance before the Government mandated GM drop it along with Saturn before bailing them out. But, they had the right idea and if they had continued with their agenda odds are it would have proven a success. Much like the Direction Dodge went with retooling their divisions.

In this case the resurrection of Mercury would serve the purpose of having a guinea pig division where if they can think of it...they can just try it. With an average of 18% increases year over year Ford can afford it... and if they open the innovation floodgates and are willing to try what shows promise then they will have more hits than losses. The world thinking is changing. Millennials are ruling the roost now as baby boomers are taking a back seat to their needs. So BMW' i8's, Tesla "D's". Porshe 918's, Koenigseggs.... etc etc...take those risks and target the wealthier sector. What FORD has always been historically known for is making what was once only the territory for the wealthy into something attainable.

When this innovation is executed to produce the desired outcomes...the Marketing will be the products produced will sell themselves. And the drive to excel for FORD is to continue to make such innovations attainable. Because if they do...people will buy it. And the sales people will make money providing a better value for their clientele's purchase. And the Marketing people would have been given all their bullets by the innovations that help bring the formerly unattainable into the hands of the working guy.

BoOm

---

JIM5.0

I very much doubt that it is as simple as you said. It all has to do with priority. Right now, FoMoCo is taking that 18% average increase per year in following through with its current investments; particularly its goals of make larger global impact than it already is.

Making such a move is no cheap nor easy feat and FoMoCo marketing has that globalization in its top priority. I doubt that FoMoCo can spare any marketing efforts or marketing funding to push propaganda to create a new division or resurrect a dead one (Mercury).

jz78817 already said that there isn't enough of a "gap" between regular old Ford and the more luxury division, Lincoln, to justify a Mercury division.
What I suspect is he also is implying is that it is not worth the marketing efforts to create a larger "gap" neither. That meaning the ROI of such a marketing effort to widen that "gap" would be too little or even a loss of marketing effort and money for taking that endeavor.
Why do I have a tendency to believe jz78817's word? Because I have a suspicion that he is a Ford employee and he would not be vehemently defending what he says if he did not know for a fact (he didn't vehemently defend his stance on keeping Mercury dead; I'm referring to other things that have nothing to do with this thread).

Marketing or sales, each one is nothing unless they both work together as a team to profitability. Sales is the frontline that brings money in; the direct observable factor that determines if the company is profitable. Marketing is the catalyst that COULD either make or break sales. In the successful companies, the marketing is executed skillfully and successfully, otherwise, that company would have gone under a long time ago. And if marketing is executed poorly, the sales will dwindle.

I doubt that FoMoCo would allocate marketing efforts or marketing funds to advertise to bring back Mercury. I'm sure that FoMoCo is too busy pushing its marketing arm to push harder into the global scene by taking those marketers, advertisers, and marketing funds to work to reach the goal to boost sales in international locations.
Additionally, I'm sure that FoMoCo is also preoccupied with taking money from that 18% increase to pay off the investments it made to R&D global platforms, global advertising, etc.

There are so many more worthwhile things to invest in that are more likely to yield much better returns than just bringing back Mercury.

Just saying...

Cruzinaround

At 1 billion per year of growth... they can afford it. And the pay offs for taking calculated risks would reap higher returns than 18%.

Hey if it were my company that's the risk I would be willing to take. The worst that could happen.... just close down that division. But even at a moderate performance...it would make money and a deep visual and emotional impact for the target audience.

I agree there is no gap whatsoever as each division WAS more of the same. If I were to bring it back it would not be a cookie cutter platform producing more of the same. It would be the Black ops division used to bring Innovative ideas into the mainstream. And that typically sells itself.

Again with a small percentage of the annual increase thrown at this annually...that 1 billion would not be missed. And as the company grows legs and starts to run away with the year over year increases the potential of an experimental division would more than contribute to it.

Again... not my company, but if it was then I'd resurrect and redefine Mercury. And allow that Division to become what Apple Computers and Google are. Trailblazers for the consumer trends. And even throw in a bit of Samsung and allow them to borrow other technologies and make it more attainable. Not exactly knocking off, but redefining the fit, form and purpose of already proven innovations, while striving to make more of their own. This would be where a Concept Lincoln vehicle like the one in this thread is launched, and proven.

If it were My FoMoCo I would opt to take all those other worthwhile investments which at the onset are always a risk and place them under the umbrella of "Mercury" as a seed division to test all of it prior to allowing those concepts, once proven, to branch out into the other divisions...it would work seamlessly without putting the big hits for risk on the plate of those other divisions.

Then the other Divisions would look towards their little brother division to test that latest concept out, prove its value then adopt it themselves.

With the rumor mill already buzzing about going back into racing with the resurrection of the GT... It would not be so much a fantasy to establish a new division whose sole purpose is to test and prove and take those calculated risks.

There's a guy doing that now who's likely going to kick the snot out of and redefine the auto industry.... His name is Elon Musk. Perhaps Ford needs an entire Division that does what he does.


Just saying

---

jz78817

the core problem here is that Ford practically just got done killing off Mercury. If Mark Fields or Joe Hinrichs went up in public and said it was being resurrected, people would be after them with pitchforks and torches.

The problem is that the billions of dollars it would take to do what you proposed are better used on the products which actually sell. God knows how many billions are being spent on the F-150 launch.

niche vehicles are not moneymakers.

An airbag-related recall was recently announced which is projected to cost Ford around $500 million. I can assure they would "miss" a billion dollars.

you can't treat a car like a consumer electronics device. The CE market goes on 12-month cycles, 18 months at the most. Automotive goes on 4-5 year cycles. Trying to design a car today for today's fad/trend means by the time it hits the market it could already be out-dated. then you've just flushed billions of dollars down the drain.

Cruzinaround

If he went out and just said that this was so with very little transparency as to why then let the pitchforks come out. If he Announces the strategy behind it and produces the agenda to achieve the desired outcomes then people will listen.

Those products that sell would stand to benefit immensely from the products that tackle the innovative concepts to be proven and those selling products would sell more once those concepts are proven and adopted.

No however, they usually are the ones to open our eyes to other possibilities, but they can be money makers for other divisions that adopt these concepts once proven. But, more important is the statement they make in the concepts they prove. The money comes from the demand they generate after proving the value beyond the dollar signs invested as a return on their investment for the consumer. That's the dig. Its what they give back and how they grow their audience through the public approval generated. Its a bit of grass roots combined with innovative strategy.



Assuming they don't learn from mistakes is a terrible way to live. Assuming that FORD is shouldering all the blame for a defective airbag is also naive when you consider they possibly only ordered the component from a source common to many automakers, but sometimes even with all the care taken there is still risk. In fact taking risks is what separates the potential for a genius move and making millions from everyone else. The people in life who simply settle .... don't make money. They just live. The goal behind innovations is to live better and make money doing so. This requires risk. Every name brand product you use required someone taking that risk. like the very computer you are typing your rebuttals on. It more than likely started as an innovative idea in someone's garage. So did many automotive companies. And along their journey they will occasionally have a hiccup.... its how they recover and learn from those moment that will determine how they will succeed.



The projects already in the pipeline will come to market within a year or two of starting a new division the rest will follow. And the components that go into the entire end product will have varying cycles. Some of which can be introduced sooner than later.

If you think that somehow sitting around and producing more of the ho-hum is going to continue to carry a company forward when they want to make a push into the UK with a lineup to challenge auto makers that pour a great deal of their money into the innovations sector is going to satisfy their targeted demographic then you're not seeing clearly.


Basically running a business that will succeed.... is not for pansies.

BoOm
---

jz78817

what "innovations" and "concepts" would require resurrecting a completely separate brand? I'm seriously asking; please be specific. 'cos I think making your #1 best-selling vehicle out of a completely different material (the aluminum F-150) which has never been done at that scale to be pretty darn risky and innovative. I think taking your signature performance car and re-designing it to try to sell it in markets you've never offered it before is pretty risky and innovative.

people love to point to Elon Musk, but tend to ignore why they are seen the way they are:

1) they're a very young company, so the people backing them financially don't expect immediate results. Tesla can lose money or just break even for a fairly long time.
2) Tesla was founded by a Silicon Valley star, and the tech press right now falls over themselves to praise every single thing to come out of SV. Something which turns my stomach. (Tech startups are another bubble which is going to burst very soon.)

besides, I've driven a couple of Model Ss, and while the powertrain and performance are all that was promised (if not more,) I was less impressed with the overall quality of the car. The doors were so flimsy and rattly that they sounded like they belonged on a 25-year-old F-150. interior squeaks and rattles were plentiful.

Cruzinaround

A new Division within the Parent company whose goal is to test and prove concepts prior to bringing those concepts to market. The internal black ops test mule division for a myriad of projects that without a dedicated budget and team to drive those ideas to market would otherwise fizzle away and be forgotten.

Two ballsy approaches in the F150 and the push into foreign markets with the Mustang required perhaps the 5 years or more to test and prove it to themselves internally. Much of what we're seeing now was not transparent for years prior. Had there been transparency through a dedicated proof of concept with a dedicated innovation driven division it may have come to market quicker since most of the time wasted was on market research. Allow the Market to weight in...and things happen faster. Its how crowd sourced and funded upstarts happen.

A resurrected moniker for a new division is not the same as bringing back a brand. They would effectively be reinventing "Mercury". But for the sake of argument...they can call it whatever they want and the approach would be the same. And the transparency offered would drive the public's demand for improvement over what they currently have. Being able to see for themselves just what is in the pipeline is innovative in and of itself. And it would offer immediate feedback on whether there would be any demand for these concepts and much less time wasted.

Basically.... those innovative concepts can be anything from a new infotainment system to an auto drive system to an EV initiative. ANYTHING that will address the wants and needs of the millennials which are their largest demographic audience at the moment and are the most sustainable earth minded audience the world has ever met.

Elon Musk is the man taking risks right now.... And using a common approach for the funding and the risks. Half of every dime invested is his own. He's willing to take the gamble with his own money and anyone who wants in knows that his risk is an educated one. He's not taking it to lose.

The Tesla S is more than fit and trim.... its a concept that proves the EV can exist in this world and that there is a demand. And the way he targets a direct buy philosophy completely pisses off the State run control that has gone out out control for so long that its corrupted. People don't like the middle man approach anymore. Its dated and not attractive.

The Tesla D is the next evolution of the concept Elon Musk set out to prove with the Model S. And From the initial feedback of it's intro this past week.... the fit and trim issue has been addressed. Along with performance and convenience. Attainability has not been addressed

Innovation from FoMoCo would be to take what is learned from this guy and make it more attainable. Something along the lines of a BMW i8 at the price of a Ford Fusion.

GM hit the nail on the head when they built and delivered on the EV1. It was so far ahead of its time and it was proof in motion and in the real world. What killed it.... The Petroleum Industry and the vice grip they had on the ******* of every auto manufacturer. The EV1 was what the Tesla is now. And had GM had the ***** then to roll with it and tell the Petrol Industry to screw themselves.... Then the Tesla you're complaining about today from a quality perspective would have been addressed decades ago. Literally.

just saying
---

Derf00

You're missing a HUGE detail in that scenario; Ford is a publicly traded company. Companies that push innovation aren't typically publicly traded, they are privately funded and eventually bought by publicly traded companies when their innovations have proven to be valuable to the consumer market and there is profit to be made. Not the other way around.

As a car company, check out Tesla. Burning through that much capital on innovations would have bankrupted Ford (or any car mfg) not to mentioned turned the general public against Ford for not building what the public demanded right now, not 10 years from now (Chevrolet EV1 remember that car? Right car, wrong time). The only reason Tesla survived for the nearly 10 years it took to get off the ground and start turning a profit is because Elon Musk is himself a billionaire and invested his own money when no one else was willing to.

The public in general is too fickle to allow a public company to have many failures before it starts to significantly affect the bottom line. Fisker Karma arguably more innovative than Tesla in some cases but publicly funded (government) too many failures/missed deadlines (but no more than Tesla). Canned.

Saturn and Pontiac failed because there wasn't enough money being put towards innovation. Saturn started off innovative with plastic panels for lighter weight and it's no haggling price scheme but that only lasted a few years and was a niche market. (not enough profit).

Pontiac became obsolete when NASCAR (Stock car racing) stopped being the See it race on Saturday and buy it at the dealer on Sunday project it originally started out as and GM wasn't willing (or able) to throw money at it to remain innovative. No, sadly in most cases, Pontiacs ended up being just sportier versions of something else GM had in its lineup elsewhere. Except for the CHEVY Corvette and Camaro...hmmm If they were Pontiac they would've gone Bye-Bye.

JZ78817 brought up a good one. F-150 aluminum frame. It's the first production truck to use one. That is pretty innovative. Lighter so it can use more fuel efficient engines and even tow more in some cases.

That is an existing vehicle with a very good reputation and Brand Recognition. That Frame will make or break that truck in the next couple of years as a great innovation or a total flop. You can't risk a whole division on stuff like that. The only reason I think they can pull off even using it is because they have experience with aluminum frames from the Ford GT. A niche vehicle that was highly successful. Again, came from Ford, not some new division or repurposed division that previously failed.

Car cycles take several years to run out (someone mentioned 4-5 years). This isn't the next iPod or Android phone that gets replaced in a few months. It's a piece of capital that people purchase to keep for many years. Cars are the second most expensive thing people will buy. The first being a house of course.

I understand your point about innovation but there's no justification for a whole new division for just that. They can continue introducing that kind of stuff in existing models. Less spot-light, less overhead, less media focus trying to tear them apart for every little detail. Happier bottom line.