surreal1272

It's well known that the Continental has a great interior, and recent Lincoln features like the seats and the audio systems are placed at or above top-end Mercedes features.

 

Add to that the trick AWD system that many in the industry recognize as one of the best, it's hard not imagine this car not doing quite well.

 

And in China i'ts going to sell. Really, really, well.

 

I'm not kidding. You don't have to like the car. But to pretend that this vehicle isn't delivering exactly what they say it does - namely top-end creature comforts,,, I can't help anyone not recognize that.

So if I don't think it measures up the same way you say it does (even though neither one of us have driven it), then my thoughts don't matter? Is that what you are saying? I mean if you can't help anyone recognize that (using your words here) then that must mean you somehow think your opinion has more weight than anyone else who disagrees with your assessment. Why the absolute thinking over something that is purely subjective up to this point?

BTW Suave, I'm not trying to sound like an ass but I just don't think you are seeing the whole picture on some matters and getting things twisted up. Nothing personal.

I think GM moving out of the rental business right now has nothing to do with actually reducing fleet sales.

 

They're revamping their model lineup as we speak and it means the fleet allocations have been deferred.

 

For example, the majority of Cruzes available are the limited model and the Cruze took a massive hit in sales when they reduced the fleet allocation that and the incoming 2017 Cruze.

 

Ford did exactly the same in 2011 and 2012. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/03/31/are-fords-sales-gains-better-than-they-look.aspx

 

Either way, it's short-term tactic to ensure adequate inventories for the new models.

 

This time next year, GM will UP fleet sales when the production has smoothed out.

 

I hate to look at short-term trends, while GM and Ford have historically always been fleet heavy of some kind, whether government, commercial or rental.

I think you are wrong. There reduction in rentals (with the subsequent rise in retail sales) has been because of the desire for more more profits, the same reason Ford did for many years. It was well discussed last year when GM announced such a thing.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-30/gm-pulls-back-on-rental-fleet-sales-in-search-of-better-margins

 

Don't know why you are ignoring that fact.

Just to be clear - I find all this back forth between Foarder this and General Moron this really stupid and petty. 

 

All this stupid nonsensical analysis of stupidity.

 

This kind of thread is always predictable. Sheesh. Now someone's gonna say, but they started it first!!

 

Trump did that recently and he was told by the top CNN anchor that it's the explanation of a 5 year-old.

 

Plumbuses are what we really need.

Then maybe you should pay attention to what someone is actually saying instead of what you think they are saying. Also, pay attention to current events more. Again, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-30/gm-pulls-back-on-rental-fleet-sales-in-search-of-better-margins

Sure.

 

I'm not playing this announcement up at all. In the Tesla thread I mentioned how paid deposits are much better indicators of purchase intention than this.

 

But yeah, in terms of paper stats, I was expecting this vehicle to be a total fail.

 

But on paper and in person, it's a lot more favourable than I thought. And it's competition in terms of core product is the Volvo S90.

 

I think the Volvo has a better interior, but more in terms of styling, not materials. We know for a fact that the Lincoln, surprisingly, will have a newer AWD system. We know that weights will be similar, because the Volvo Scalable Product Architecture is kinda heavy.

 

Based on how newer Fords and Lincoln have very pleasing road manners, it's not hard to imagine a more isolated, cocooned luxo-barge won't deliver on passenger comfort. 

 

I'll continue to say this. This car has created a brand awareness of Lincoln that is missing. Most likely someone will go to a Lincoln dealer without ever doing so ever before. 

 

I like this car. If I could swing the coin, I'd buy both this and the CT6. But if I could only pick one, I would test drive both. I'm not much of a hardened driver, looking to push the limit of the machine. I drive just 5 mph over the speed limit, and usually in the collector lanes. I like relaxed demeanor cars. And I like truly like the styling of the Lincoln far more than the LWB CTS....

 

So there you have it.

That's fair enough but it seems like you are just using your personal opinion of it to shape it's reasons for succeeding when that is not really best indicator of such. There's just a few million or more drivers that have to be convinced of the same thing. Just saying.

Uh, I'm not saying it's going to get 40,000 sales.

 

 

I think it'll do what Lincoln intends of it. It's going to do really well in China.

 

I like it a lot, and I was the among the many who thought it was more of the same.

 

But priorities are shifting. Drew already thinks in terms of style this is above the G90. I'm not alone among the many actually that like this vehicle.

 

And they've been quick to say it's not going up against some Mercedes S-Class AMG or Cadillac CT6-V.

 

They've been quite blunt about what the vehicle is, and and I'm very sure that some aspects are going to be very class-competitive. Such as the interior, the bespoke audio system and trick AWD system that can mimic RWD handling dynamics, such as using true torque vectoring to power outside corner wheels in a turn. 

Um, I never said that you did say that it would sell 40,000. I said that surveys mean jack squat. Don't know how you could read that any other way Suave.

 

And that is still not a very convincing argument (only because I have heard this said about multiple Lincolns over the last two decades with opposite results) but we can agree to disagree.

 

 

I don't see the utility in an explanation. A down vote reason is obvious usually.

While it is a clear valid point, a better discussion can be had if one is to explain their thinking and who knows, maybe you will want to change from a down to an up vote based on the debate.

 

Both have their point, I just like to better understand why people are thinking the way they do.

 

My downvote explanations will all be the same though..

 

-1

"Because you're acting like a douche"

 

I'm not sure how much discussion that will bring..lol 

 

I say this with all due respect ccap (because we have talked about this before), but what gives you the right to decide who is "acting like a douche"? What you find as "douchy", some other may see as completely legit. Seems kind of childish in a way and a waste of a legit down vote to me. No offense but that is just my take on it.

By killing the vote system, you kill in the internet cowards who can no longer hide behind their obvious trolling votes. If they can't understand that, then it is proof that they are part of the problem. The same people who say "it's no big deal" are the same ones who took part in said vote trolling (for example, working with another fellow troll to constantly "up vote" themselves to get themselves out the negative side of the column and make themselves seem like "objective" posters). 

 

My point is that if you are going to be allowed to vote down someone, then you should have to post your reason for such. If your down vote is a genuine in nature (with objective reasoning) as opposed to trolling and spiteful in nature, then they will have no problem down voting and explaining why. It's that simple. If that is not going to happen, then do away with the vote system altogether.

it's like stopping people in the mall, showing them a picture of a new car, and saying, would you like to have a new car?

 

SURE!

 

or its like getting 40,000 likes in Facebook.  it's a stretch to call them real buyers who will pick that exact model.

Which is the exact same thing that I have seen of every company yet some here think that Lincoln is the exception because some people (and yes 40,000 in this context is "some people") said that they "might" be interested. It's easy to market and push these meaningless surveys but I have seen very few bear any actual real fruit. Saying that one car will be successful, as a result of these surveys, makes zero sense to me when you understand the nature of these surveys. 

Well, it's a softer sedan, and softer sedans are doing much better than their hard-edged versions in the market.

 

I think it'll do as they expect, and any sales here will be a bonus. 

 

I would make the 2.7 the standard engine however. The 3.7 is really long in the tooth.

Umm...what? Based off of what information? All we know is that Lincoln has struggled in the sedan market just as much as everyone else (and more so in most cases) yet you think more of the same will make it better? Sorry but changing the name from MKS to Continental does not a barometer of success make so I don't know how can make that assessment Suave (knowing all that).

I'm not going to link to someone else's website. But if you go looking you'll find that GM's rental volume is down 43,000 units YOY. So, doing that math (and assuming that Ford snatched up, say, half that volume), you're looking at a nearly 70,000 unit sales swing just through fleet shifts.

As a GM guy I'll admit that I'd prefer to see them be the biggest automaker in the world, never mind NA. But I've been around long enough to know that being #1 without great product is a greasy pole indeed. And since nobody has been able to get those two traits to align yet, I'll root for GM to stay the course.

Some people don't understand the difference between fleet sales and rental sales and that's okay. They also can't seem to acknowledge the fact that rental sales have increased for Ford while it has decreased for GM. The GM rental sales argument was pointed out (by many Ford fans and GM haters) for years as a weakness for GM but now that the roles have reversed, they are oddly silent on that SAME fact occurring for Ford. The rest of us understand perfectly though.

Huh. Ultimately, the big question is- How many sales will this 'interest' result in?

Exactly. There was a lot interest in the last CTS too but that has not translated to great sales.

Let me also state, for the record, that I know Cadillac is not totally ignoring an increase in volume sales. That is evidenced by the new lineup of CUVs coming soon. However, to act like that should be their singular focus in order to increase sales/profits, instead of making sure each product they have is top notch and more capable of pulling higher profit margins per individual sale, is simply short sighted and bordering on ignorance. 

Wouldn't GM be better off if they were selling 300,000 Cadillac CTS per year (globally) at a $5,000 per car margin? If you told any exec at GM would you rather sell 300,000 Cadillacs or 300,000 Malibus, 100% of them would take 300,000 Cadillacs and zero Malibus.

This "Cadillac needs to limit volume to be exclusive" mentality is an excuse for poor sales. Should they limit the Escalade to 15,000 units per year to keep it exclusive, and turn away another 15,000 people willing to spend $85,000 on their product?

Let me say this one more time for you and others who keep making this stupid volume argument. Cadillac doesn't have to go high volume because GM doesn't need them to be. Thats what they have Chevy and (to a lesser extent) Buick for. It's not that hard to figure except to people like SMK who have to create a phantom argument that casts Cadillac in a bad light while all the other factors that got Cadillac here. By all means though, keep arguing about the one point while ignoring all other points. It's certainly got you all this far.

Wow Suave. Just wow.

Cadillac wants volume sales. Plain and simple.

 

That's why they're supposedly bringing to market 12 all-new models within the next 5 years to fill all the niches.

Really because that is not what they have been saying. They are more focused on profit per unit than per sales volume and that is well known Suave. 

 

Wouldn't GM be better off if they were selling 300,000 Cadillac CTS per year (globally) at a $5,000 per car margin?   If you told any exec at GM would you rather sell 300,000 Cadillacs or 300,000 Malibus, 100% of them would take 300,000 Cadillacs and zero Malibus.  

Well, you're wrong again. 300K CTSs is not what Cadillac as a brand is going for. As a whole, Cadillac would sit very nicely at 200-250K units annually. 300K of one series is NOT what they're looking for.

 

I am not saying make the CTS cheeper, I am saying sell 300,000 CTS per year and raise the base price $3,000 as well.

Cadillac just recently adjusted the CTS pricing/equipment level, and you think raising the price $3K and running the factory 24/7 is the answer. Wow.

 

The CT6 is the answer to a question no one asked, and the 2.0T model exists the same way that a 320i exists for the BMW 3 Series. 

320i is wretched. CT6 2.0T is not.

 

And that customer buying the base model CT6 is better served by a higher trim, loaded XTS that is far more profitable.

Not the same car and choice appeals to luxury buyers. I have no issue with the XTS getting phased out & the CT6 occupying that (general) spot in the catalog. It's a great move forward on many fronts.

 

Glad you responded before I did. This is getting just silly to the point of "why bother" when he just wants to make up new excuses to suit whatever ridiculous argument he is trying to make here.

 

 

By that logic, a Chevy Spark is a better car to buy than an Escalade.  And Escalade will lose $54,000 in depreciation in 5 years.  The Escalade has a 5 year cost to own of $87,000 according to NADA guides.  Yet it is Cadillac's number 2 seller and GM's #1 profitable car.   Why are people buying Escalades?    If depreciation is so bad and driving customers away, they should just stop making the Escalade by that logic.  

 

Which of course makes no sense, they will keep building Escalades as long as there are people willing to pay for them.  And GM will take their money and laugh all the way to the bank.

That is nowhere even close to comparable to what Balthazaar is talking about and you know it. And your Escalade logic can be easily applied to the fools who continue to buy the fifty year old G-Wagon. I'm sure MB gets a good chuckle on their way to the bank each day, as a result. 

 

His original point is how AMG cars depreciate fast, and cost $50,000 or more in depreciation.  

 

So let's compare 2 cars using NADA projections.   An S550 with a $97,400 MSRP depreciates $64,299, but an E63 with $101,700 depreciates $56,364.  So the AMG brand car holds higher % of value and loses less total dollars.  That debunks his theory that AMG badges hurt resale value, they help it.

 

An Escalade Platinum 4WD with $91,950 MSRP loses $56,333 in 5 years of depreciation.   Loses 61.2% of value over 5 years.

 

Let's compare to the G550, $115,400 MSRP, depreciation of $62,981.   Loses 54.6% of value over 5 years.  So yes it loses more total dollars, but it costs $24,000 more when new.  

 

Throw in a 3rd vehicle, a 2016 GL550 with MSRP of $91,300, virtually the same as the Escalade Platinum.  The GL550 loses $49,843 over 5 years, over $6,000 less than an Escalade will lose.  Balthazar wanted to say how horrible of a purchase a Mercedes is because it looses a big dollar amount in money, the Escalade is even worse, why not criticize it?

 

That is my counter to the argument,  personally I don't think the people spending $100,000 on a vehicle could care at all how it depreciates.  These are people that have money to burn, they'll spend 1 million on a house, $50,000 a year on property taxes and not really care.   Personally, I also like to buy a used car, after that first 3 years of depreciation has hit.

 

I don't care about when and how your "argument" started. You said,

 

"The Escalade has a 5 year cost to own of $87,000 according to NADA guides.  Yet it is Cadillac's number 2 seller and GM's #1 profitable car.   Why are people buying Escalades?    If depreciation is so bad and driving customers away, they should just stop making the Escalade by that logic.  

 

Which of course makes no sense, they will keep building Escalades as long as there are people willing to pay for them.  And GM will take their money and laugh all the way to the bank."

 

 

Which, again, can be applied to the G-Wagon yet you are oddly silent on that and still want to cherry depreciation values while ignoring the fact that the AMG risks further deprecation values because of dilution of the brand. Here's what you need to look at. What was the average depreciation of the AMG brands when there were far fewer choices compared to many choices that exist today and in the future. Look at that if you want to truly understand what is being talked about here. If you don't understand that simple concept, then maybe you just stop trying to argue that particular point.

 

Now, let's see what you pick out next.

By that logic, a Chevy Spark is a better car to buy than an Escalade.  And Escalade will lose $54,000 in depreciation in 5 years.  The Escalade has a 5 year cost to own of $87,000 according to NADA guides.  Yet it is Cadillac's number 2 seller and GM's #1 profitable car.   Why are people buying Escalades?    If depreciation is so bad and driving customers away, they should just stop making the Escalade by that logic.  

 

Which of course makes no sense, they will keep building Escalades as long as there are people willing to pay for them.  And GM will take their money and laugh all the way to the bank.

That is nowhere even close to comparable to what Balthazaar is talking about and you know it. And your Escalade logic can be easily applied to the fools who continue to buy the fifty year old G-Wagon. I'm sure MB gets a good chuckle on their way to the bank each day, as a result. 

^ Those are fine… IF mass market global sales numbers is your mission statement.

 

But that's not Cadillac's.

Not to mention he is constantly trying to compare MBs overall sales numbers with ONE GM company that has a mere fraction of models that MB has on top of the fact that the ONE company is not looking for volume sales (which he has been told at least million times up to this point). More cherry picking by SMK does not change that fact (go ahead and down vote that children).

Fact. Ford has more models than Chevrolet. They should be outselling them for the same reason that GM beats Ford MoCo. overall. More models.

Okay. So they're selling more fully loaded trucks.

 

And GM Silverado sales have levelled off. What's the point about fleet sales again? What point is anyone trying to make? I've said it before that automakers sell to fleet all the time.

 

I mean GM has practically surrendered the commercial segment. What's there not to benefit from?

 

I have never been the person to go after fleet sales. 

Then you haven't been paying attention over the last few years. For years, on two different forum sites, I have read countless posts form Ford fans who dogged on GMs fleet habit and rental sales. All we heard about was "retail profit margins vs. rental and fleet margins" and now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are nowhere to be found (well, one of them with good reason lol). Where were you during all of that (seeing as you were also at both sites)?

Seems someone else (not you Suave) glossed over the fact that Ford's rental sales have increased over last year (V6 Mustang anyone?) but that's none of my business.

Okay. So they're selling more fully loaded trucks.

 

And GM Silverado sales have levelled off. What's the point about fleet sales again? What point is anyone trying to make? I've said it before that automakers sell to fleet all the time.

 

I mean GM has practically surrendered the commercial segment. What's there not to benefit from?

 

I have never been the person to go after fleet sales. 

Where is this proof that GM is "practically" surrendering the Fleet market?

I like their commitment to power and performance. I still think I favor E450 vs E43, but it is the same car, and in a way giving it the AMG treatment for styling and suspension and steering set up makes more sense.  This also lets them batle BMW and S4, S6, S7 Audis, because Audi has RS cars too.

 

48 models sounds like a lot until you think C43, C63, C63 S and apply that to sedan, coupe, convertible.  That is 9 "models" but all a C-class.

It is a lot no matter how you try to sugarcoat it and it just dilutes the AMG branding.

I fail to see what the fuss is all about re. GM. They said they were going to cut back on fleet sales and they did. Meanwhile I have read in another place that nearly 2 of every 5 Ford sales are now fleet. If that's how you want to grow your brand then by all means do so. But don't be so naive as to think it's because of some groundswell by the car buying public. By the same token there were a lot less happy folks that month last year when FCA beat Ford in retail sales. This is just both sides of the same coin.

 

Then why is their growth in ATPs double the industry average?

 

Seems like to me they are getting favourable volume in their mix.

 

They're doing record commercial deliveries.

 

Conceivably they could be selling more higher trim F150s to businesses. Who knows. A mystery though how their transactions prices are increasing.

 

Also, a lot of Ford models are older now. The Focus and Fiesta are old, so getting more volume outta them makes sense. 

 

But then again, why do we continue to compare Ford's financial performance to GM?

 

It's because for the longest time even as a smaller firm Ford outperformed GM. The General finally getting its act together - I would expect, I WOULD DEMAND GM as a shareholder to beat Ford in retail sales. No $h!.

. Because of their upper end trucks. It's right there on the Ford link. Sorry but Bong has a point about the fleet sales and this is well known information at this point.

That it is, but the E-class has only grown about 4 inches in length in the past 25 years.  The late 80s E-class was 187-188 inches long, a 1996 E-class has length of 189.4 and a 2016 model is 192.1.  Height is up an inch and width up 2 over 20 years.  Small growth

 

The 1991 S-class was 205.2 inches long, the 2016 is 206.5 inches long.  So it also grew slightly over time, it actually downsized in 2000, then went back up in 2007.

 

But look at a 1990 Civicor 3-series and compare it to today, it isn't even close.

What about everything else? 

 

C Class?

CLK? S? SL? ML? GL? GLK? CLS? And all of the wagon and coupe variations that go with all of those.. have those all only grown 4 inches in 25 years? I would wager good money that isn't the case.. 

 

ML/GLE(whatever you want to refer to it as):

1997: 180.6 inches long

2016: 189.1 inches long

 

GLK/GLC

2009(first year it was made): 178.2 inches long

2016: 183.3 inches long

Exactly. As I told him, MB has been doing the same thing. They just do it a little differently by creating all these offshoot variations to disguise that very fact.

GM is not going to any of the things SMK has brought up and with good reason. Because they know better than him.

This is just making my head hurt. Is cherry picking the "in" thing these days?