If you saw a BMW or a Saab with a grille that wasn’t a BMW or Saab grille, you’d know right away.

I mean, grilles are one of the most used methods of brand imaging that isn’t a badge or letters.

You won’t confuse a Dodge Ram for a Chevy Silverado or an F-150, would you?

So the grilles on BMW and Saab may not be good design ideas, but they’re good marketing ideas. And good branding ideas.

I hate to use the word “gimmick”, but frankly, there needs to be something unique happening to get some attention. And a gimmick, or a highly distinctive styling gesture is what they need.

Like, think Cadillac. Upright headlamp clusters, wide grilles, tall thin taillights, fairly high waistline, wide third brake light….

BMW- Grilles, halo headlamps, Hofmeister kink, “flame surface”, even the blue propeller is distinctive etc.

Saab- Aero grille, Hockey stick windows, wraparound windshield.

What makes you think “Lincoln”? Not very much right now, to be honest.

And in terms of quality, it’s in many ways better than the Mercedes of the recent past that I’ve driven.

So is it because of your grandpa’s Town Car, or because of the car itself that you wouldn’t consider it a competitor to some that I mentioned? Because if I remember right, pretty much everyone on this board including you and me have stated that GM is in no way similar to quality and image 10 years ago. I don’t think being driven by a crowd of 80 year old’s is as bad as being a bargain basement car, so maybe you shouldn’t judge this by it’s badge either.

My 2 cents

All of you will continue to complain about pricing, despite this being a more powerful, larger and better optioned vehicle than all of the vehicles I just mentioned, aside from the Merc…

That rear end is totally anonymous. Too bad, because the front is distinctive.

I concur however that they’d better have a convincing product at this price point – seems a little high, but it may just be I haven’t shopped the “appropriate” competitors….however, the interior is a strong point to me. Love the chocolate seats and dash with the black.

I would however recommend that FORD just double down and at least ship a re-skinned FALCON as a LINCOLN. SOMETHING… ANYTHING… FORD is so far behind CADILLAC in their efforts to compete with Germany… and S.Korea it is really aggravating and embarrassing.

Just as with GM, FORD is sitting on an arsenal of winning cars and is doing nothing with them.

A Car like the MKS would make a great MERCURY, while doing something with the FALCON would build a great LINCOLN until a new purpose made platform can be developed and deployed.

They spent the money to build them they should get their money’s worth, especially now that they can’t afford they don’t need to.

As for F/econ, The V6 is one of the strangest engines around for F/econ. Almost really no one knows how to get high horsepower and high F/econ out of one at the same time. Not the Europeans, not the Japanese or the S.Koreans.

The big myth is that smaller displacement and fewer cylinders automatically means gets better F/econ. Until my dad wrecked his 1987 LINCOLN MKVII(7), last year, he could average about 22 MPG. Not bad for a 20+ year old car. Of course, he babied that car like a collector… Though that didn’t stop him from burning some rubber now and then. That 5.0L V8 got better F/econ than last year’s Turbo-boosted Fours from Japan. DETROIT figured out decades ago that if you gear the Transmission right you can get better F/econ from a monster V8 than a HO V6.

But today people turn their noses up at V8s because they think they waste gas. That thinking has led to a generation of non-thinking car-noobs and “don’t cares” who honestly think that all their problems will be solved with smaller engines.

Here’s an easy question, which wheel will turn longer, the light weight wheel or the heavyweight wheel, assuming the same amount of force? The Heavy wheel. The bigger engine will not spool down as easily so it does not have to work as hard to keep spinning. With proper gearing, the engine does not have to spool up as hard to get going from a stop preventing the F/econ from bottoming out, something a smaller, lighter engine has to work harder at because it is moving a heavier car and/or drivetrain. Using this, a large V8 can pull at least equal F/econ as a less powerful V6 and that same V6 could do even better.

The answer is in the Transmission. If a 21 year old, 3800-pound, car with the aerodynamics of a handsome brick, and the lower F/econ standards of the mid to late 1980s could manage the average the low the mid 20s in mpg from a driver who has an admitted lead foot, then the answer is gearing. FORD needs to optimize their transmissions more than trying to rely strictly on smaller engines. Working equally on both is ideal.

Seriously, if they can still wring 21-23mpg out of an F-150 with a V8, then getting 28-32mpg from a TT V6 in a mid-sized to large sedan should be a fine piece of cake.

Question – where can you buy a new A6 4.2 for $50k? The base one is $60k before options…I like the A6, but there is no question which is more reasonable – the MKS.

Smoother power delivery than a V8 with the economy of a V6 and AWD traction and security in a highend sedan and cuv spells success for Ford and nice upscale re-positioning for Lincoln. This will help Ford turn a profit a lot sooner than most people think, not 2011 but late 2009 thanks to EcoBoost!

Is it me or do the fuel numbers on the ECO Boost not make a whole lot of sense? Compared to the Yamaha V8 in the S80, this powertrain is only a couple of mpg better. I thought the point of these turbo platforms was to get the performance of more displacement/ cylinders whiel giving more significant mileage. It would have impressed me more if Ford could have managed this output while getting more like 18/26-27

g37s and 3-series are on a different scale size-wise, seems to me…if i had 40k to blow on a car i’d be looking harder at the smaller sedans, just my preference, but if this is a real lexus-fighter then good for ford…