SW17LS

He wasn't actually comparing the Edsel and the Continental

mmarshall

​​​​​​​I disagree. IMO, it was a clear implication that the new Continental would go the way of the clearly failed Edsel. I simply pointed out why, IMO that is not necessarily the case....but, of course, only time will tell.


I'll agree with you, though, that the Continental's designers should have filtered out more engine noise, softened the suspension a hair, and held the line on the useless and gimmicky electronic interior door releases.

SW17LS

I don't think any of those things are even at the top of the list of the car's problems. The bottom line is the car isn't special. It doesn't stand out in any way, doesn't make any sort of statement. A luxury item needs to make some sort of a statement, and this car doesn't. They'll sell a bunch of them to fleets, and maybe that will be enough for Ford, but nobody is going to look to this car and say "I'd love to be driving down the road in that".

mmarshall

Actually, from what I've seen of your posts, your main complaint with it seems to be the FWD, transverse-engine setup. That's what probably attracts you to the RWD G90 and CT6 (and maybe the K900?). No problem with that....I respect your opinion, and understand your reasoning on it. But I just don't see a great need for RWD under the conditions that the Continental is likely to be driven....on American Interstates, with American speed limits, by more or less sedate, conservative drivers.

Toys4RJill

I think you are way off. This Lincoln is not for the A8, 7 series crowd that are RWD. It's not even for the GS crowd. Just look at the starting price and the options. And no RWD is NOT going to make or break Lincoln.

mmarshall

Exactly. I totally agree with you, Jill, except for one thing....there are no RWD A8s. Quattro AWD is standard.

SW17LS

Its not just that, but that is an example of why the car isn't special.

A car can't be special when its based on a downmarket platform, and uses an economy derived layout. When you want something to be the flagship of your brand you want it to make a statement about what your brand is. The Continental should say "this is what a Lincoln is". Issue is...it does say what a Lincoln is and the answer is its a pretty nice luxurious car thats basically a rebadged Ford model. Thats what *every* Lincoln is...and by going that way with this Continental they have sent us the message that is all they ever are going to be. Thats fine, but that means they've abandoned any pretense of competing with the world's best luxury cars. This marque is not at all a peer of Lexus, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Cadillac, Jaguar, even Genesis at this early stage in their development...even Infiniti. Lincoln has shown us that they are content to be a lower tier, near luxury brand along the lines of Acura, or Buick, Volvo...hell even Volvo is trying harder.

A RWD/longditudinal setup is something that every high end, high performance car is. Thats not up for debate, its what it is. What sort of setup does a Rolls Royce have? Or a Bentley? or a Maybach or other high end Mercedes? How about BMW? It goes on and on. Does a car HAVE to be this setup? No. Can it GET BY being FWD? Sure. However, a top tier luxury car isn't something someone buys because it "gets by" or because its "good enough", it should be the best. This is just mediocrity. Thats fine in an entry level sub $50,000 car...but this Continental at $60-80k is an insult almost.

I don't know if you know anything about watches...but basically every fine watch has an automatic movement, lesser watches have a quartz movement. Its like a high end quartz movement Raymond Weil or Seiko. Its nice, but it will never be a special timepiece that people who truly appreciate nice watches will respect. Thats the issue you have with a transverse layout high end luxury sedan. Its just not done.

It goes beyond that though. It doesn't excel at anything. Its not the best looking, roomiest, most comfortable, best built, doesn't have the nicest interior, isn't the most reliable, the brand doesn't have the best service or the best dealers, its not the most stylish, doesn't have the most prestige, doesn't ride the best, isn't the most refined. Its the definition of mediocre. Now, you can say that not every buyer wants all of that...but this is the flagship.

If you look at all these flagship cars, they're all "special" is one way or another. They feel a certain way on the road and when you're in their presence, even the CT6 at a notable notch down in quality from the rest of the group, and even the G90 despite not really having a brand or heritage. This car doesn't feel that way at all, and you're going to see that in sales to end users. Sales figures might look great, but you have to remember every livery fleet in the country is buying a ton because it makes sense for that user.

In fact thats what it IS

Even so, the A8 is a transverse mounted rear biased AWD as almost all Quattro Audis are.

Toys4RJill

I don't think it does. Bentley and Jag come to mind.

mmarshall

Yes, but only in the sense that both are somewhat conservatively-styled on the exterior. Inside, the two are as different as Hillary and Trump LOL.

And, if you really want to get into the Copy-Cat theme, just compare the latest Cadillac CTS with the new CT6.........outside, you almost need a microscope to tell the difference, even in size.

SW17LS

The CTS and CT6 are both Cadillacs. If you said the CT6 looked like a Chevrolet or Buick model that would be the same issue, but they don't...this looks like exactly what it is, a nicely rebadged Ford.

mmarshall

Yeah that 2002 concept was a real looker. I was disappointed myself that it didn't make production. But the "suicide" rear doors, which were a big styling point on the Continental back in the 60s, wouldn't work in today's safety-oriented culture without a number of built-in interlocks, such as the system on pickup trucks and some rear-door "coupes" where the front doors have to be opened first, before the rear doors will swing out. That would (functionally) make this four-door almost as restrictive getting in and out as a two-door....the people in front would have to open their doors first.

MattyG

Not to drift the thread too much but there is a tradition from an American car maker of FWD luxury from 1966 - 1985. It was called the Oldsmobile Toronado (the horrible 1986 - 1992 version is not worth mentioning). Obviously that car was a two door luxury coupe vs this car being sold as an extended version of the Taurus platform.

But back on track buyers of this Conti will likely go the Audi way and equip it with AWD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmo...66Toronado.jpg

dseag2

Agreed. I saw the Continental at a recent local auto show and thought it was "nice" (though IMO the door handles are pretty weird), but that was about it. Nothing particularly compelling about it.

SW17LS

This is an important distinction. The Continental cannot be done the "Audi way". The Continental is always transverse engine and front biased AWD even when it's configured as AWD. Quattro Audis are longitudinal engine and rear biased AWD. Even most FWD Audis are not transverse engined.

mmarshall

The outside door handles (grips) are purposely designed that way...they don't actually move at all, but have electronic sensors inside of them that are linked to the car's key fob. If the fob is nearby, you just touch the inside of the handle with your finger, and the door releases....then eases back and latches shut automatically when needed. Inside, there are small square electronic buttons that release the doors....supposedly with emergency manual overrides, though I didn't actually see the manual releases. Although I think the outside releases are interesting, Steve (SW15LS) and I both agree that the inside electronic buttons are unnecessary, just a gimmick, and just something else to fail.