I dunno, I think the first mention of a lack of a sun visor it would have been to the junk yard to pick one up. At least after 40 years, that’s what works for me. The brackets were welded in place already, just had to find the holes through the headliner material.
In the old days, rather than adding options to a base car like a Biscayne, you were told you were better off to buy the next model up that already had those options, like a Bel Aire or Impala. Same thing with Ford. If you added too much you were better off to step up to a Mercury instead. I think most of that has gone out the window now though.
Don’t some of the comments make one think that Ford/Lincoln continues to miss an opportunity? Toyota uses the same platform (with some shortening and lengthening) to make cars ranging from Corolla to Camry to Avalon to Lexus ES as well as SUVs and minivans. And T is successful at it.
Just staying within the similar Camry/Avalon/ES 4dr sedans, some people “cross shop” between them but it is pretty clear what you get at each level for the price and why it’s worth it. I don’t believe Ford people aren’t smart enough to do the same between Fusion and MKZ. But I don’t understand why they don’t. If the MKZ was really on par with the ES, the ES wouldn’t be doing as well.
Oh, the ES has a better reliability reputation than the MKZ, and a much longer history. The ES has been near/at the top of that segment since 1991. I would have gotten an ES in 2011 to replace my '96 if I could find one without a sunroof. No such luck, the MKZ hybrid I got came with a very nice interior, sound system, and no sunroof.
To compare it to a Cimarron means one hasn’t driven an MKZ.
“the ES has a better reliability reputation than the MKZ, and a much longer history.”
That’s just it. Ford and GM have both had years of “higher end” makes/nameplates but haven’t delivered. It’s dang frustrating for people who want them to do better.
Toyota uses the same platform (with some shortening and lengthening) to make cars ranging from Corolla to Camry to Avalon to Lexus ES as well as SUVs and minivans.
The Corolla isn’t on the same platform as the Camry.
This is nothing new. This has been going on for as long as I’ve been buying vehicles (over 40 years).
"I don’t believe Ford people aren’t smart enough to do the same between Fusion and MKZ"
Waterbuff, I understand your point, and logic would suggest it has to be true… but the cars suggest that they weren’t.
Many years ago GM tried to pass off a crappy midsized car as a Cadillac with some automotive lipstick and eyeshadow, calling it a “Cimarron” and tacking thousands more on it. The public saw past the scam almost immediately, and it took years for Cadillac to recover from the damage. Cadillac is now, thank God, a totally new organization. They seem to have rediscovered what it is that luxury car buyers want.
Chrysler tried the same scam by dressing a K-car up and calling it a New Yorker, a name that used to represent luxury many years ago. That too was a disaster. A friend of mine who remembered the New Yorkers of decades past bought one. I went with him on a business trip, and the thing was an absolute piece of rubbish. He never openly admitted that he got screwed, but he never bought another Chrysler product.
I think reliability or at least perceived reliability and resale value has to do a lot with it. A 2 year old ES sells close to the price of the new model.
The Mercurys through the 1948 models, then the 1952 through 1956 models and then most of the 1961 later models shared engines and chassis with the Fords. This made Mercurys of those model years particularly good buys since the parts were readily available and a three or more year old. Mercury often sold for less than the same year Ford in equivalent condition. The same wasn’t true at GM. Each division had its own engine. Each division had its own engines. The 1955. Pontiac V8 was completely different than the 1955 Chevy V8. Since the upper level GM cars weren’t as common as the Chevy, some parts,weren’t as easily obtained. GM suffered a lawsuit back in 1977 when it was caught installing the Chevy V8 engine in the Oldsmobile 88 models… Both engines had the same displacement and many felt the. Chevy was the better engine.
As for the Lincoln MKZ, it may be an advantage that it is based on the Ford Fusion as the car gets older…
@MikeInNH I may be wrong about the smaller cars. But yet I have seen comments about how the MC platform used for Corollas etc was the basis for the K platform. This detail is not critical to my point about how Toyota successfully does something that Ford and GM don’t do well.
The more successful use of platforms by Toyota than Ford & GM is my point.
@“the same mountainbike” Thanks for bringing it up, but I try to forget the Cimarron because it was the same J platform as a Chevy Cavalier we had. At least the Cavalier was honest about what it was…
And I remember the K-car too. It was pretty sad in all forms, but it (with the minivan) seems to have helped save Chrysler at the time.
My point is that over the years, Toyota has been more successful (learned more?) than Ford & GM.
“Many years ago GM tried to pass off a crappy midsized car as a Cadillac with some automotive lipstick and eyeshadow, calling it a “Cimarron” and tacking thousands more on it. The public saw past the scam almost immediately.”
Many years ago, I knew a woman who bought a Cimarron, and only after she had owned it for a few months did she figure out that she had actually bought a Chevy Cavalier with some minor cosmetic alterations and Cadillac badges, albeit for exactly twice the price of that Chevy model.
She vowed that she would never again be cheated like that, and immediately went out and bought a Lincoln Versailles, which was actually a gussied-up Ford Granada–selling for twice the price of the Granada.
As a kid, I liked the looks of the 1946-48 Lincoln. The Continental of those years was, in my opinon, the best looking car on the road. Lincoln even had more cylinders than the lesser Ford makes. It had a V12 engine. Unfortunately, that engine had terrible problems and not too many people wanted a luxury car that burned oil.
As a,luxury car, Cadillac dominated the field of U.S. makes in the early to mid 1950s. The Cadillac V8 was strong and the gas mileage was amazingly good. Accoeding to Consumer Reports, those 1950-55 Cadillacs had a very good repair record. I really don’t know what I would choose as a luxury vehicle today. Consumer Reports really panned the Cadillac Escalade. Apparently, the Escalade is a dressed up Chevrolet Tahoe. I guess Cadillac didn’t learn from the Cimmaron.
The Seville used the G platform. No other GM car used it in either RWD or FWD forms until 1995. Then other full sized GM luxury cars like the Riviera and Park Avenue used it.
There were a number of iterations of the Seville. The 1980 vintage was actually a nice and unique car. I believe, however, that some of the other iterations were dressed-up more mundane platforms.
@db4690 I think you are correct. The first Cadillac Seville was introduced about 1976 or 1977. The chassis and body shell, except for the roof, was from the Chevrolet Nova. A more formal roof was grafted on. As I remember, the engine was a fuel injected engine that was a,V8 Oldsmobile. The next generation Seville was a,bustle back that was not related to the Nova. It offered the GM diesel as an option which turned out to be a disaster. One either loved or hated the style. The Cadillac DeVilles of the late 1970s were fine cars for the time. My. brother owned a 1977 Coupe DeVille and it was a fine, trouble free car. The Sevilles of this time period weren’t so great.
While that '76-'79 Seville had a start as a Nova, it was done right. All new body, high tech fuel injected V8, great interior, classic good looks. I’d like one today (one with the vinyl top, they made a few):
