Template talk:Lincoln vehicles

message: The Zephyr is not a direct replacement for the "LS6" (V6 LS) - it is smaller and on a front wheel drive platform (that has future AWD capability).  This is a new market entry for Lincoln.  Perhaps it needs it's own timeline?
Meanwhile - the MKS ("Mark S") as shown (and debuted) at the 2006 NAIAS is a Concept car "strongly hinting" at a full size luxury flagship - not exactly a direct replacement for the V8 LS.  It might conceivably be more of a replacement for the full size Continental class.
In any case it is ludicrous to assert that the smaller mid-compact (CD class) FWD Zephyr is a replacement for the midsize "plus" (DE class) RWD 3.0L V6 LS, and then say the larger full-size MKS concept is a replacement for the slightly heavier but otherwise "identical" 3.9L V8 version of the DE class Lincoln LS.
Rather than speculating (or worse yet - releasing confidential "inside information" on Ford's future products plans) Wikipedia must be limited in the articles and discussions to what Ford has publicly announced, and Wiki-editors must avoid spreading unverifiable gossip and rumors.  If and when Ford officially announces product plans, T-dot will be among the first in line to get the correct information properly posted. -- (posted  by T-dot)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have the MKZ slated as the LS replacement.  Ford has not designated this or the MKS as the LS replacement yet.  It has only been rumored or speculated in the press.  It is inaccurate information. -- (anonymous)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:OK I somewhat agree - the Zephyr / MKZ is not an exact replacement for the LS - BUT it is as close to being a replacement as any will come in the foreseeable future.  If you carefully read Ford's press release  you will see the following quote:
:: "Customer demand for Lincoln’s mid-size luxury sedan (Zephyr) has exceeded our expectations," says Al Giombetti, president, Ford, Lincoln Mercury Marketing and Sales. "We have taken a brand-new, well-received car and significantly improved it to draw a new generation of customers to the Lincoln brand." Lincoln Zephyr has become an immediate sales success. "Judging by reaction in the showroom, customers are clearly ready for an American entry-level luxury sedan," Giombetti says.
:Now - Ford has traditionally referred to the Lincoln LS as a mid-size entry-level luxury sedan, and is now marketing the Zephyr with the 3.0L V6 and the MKZ with the 3.5L V6 as a mid-size entry-level luxury sedan.  Please understand - I was the one who originally objected to calling the Zephyr (on a CD class chassis) to be the replacement for the LS (on a DE class chassis) in the Template.  But now - this is the way Ford marketing is officially stating it now - clearly implying that the MKZ is the replacement for the LS.  Thus I am now satisfied to concede the point that the 3.0L Zephyr / MKZ is a "sort of suitable" replacement for the 3.0L V6 LS, and the 3.5L V6 MKZ is a "sort of suitable" replacement for the 3.9L V8 LS - at least for the time being.  This is why I have changed the table, to match Ford's marketing direction.  Ultimately there may be a small V8 in the future for Lincoln's new midsize luxury sports sedan, but that is purely speculative at this point.  The larger "MKS flagship sedan" is also purely speculative at this time.  -- T-dot 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had gone ahead and made the changes without seeing this.  I reverted it.  I agree that the MKZ should only occupy one line, since it is still the same market niche as the Zephyr.  If the MKZ occupies both lines, so should the Zephyr.  Bok269 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, there will be a more upscale version of the MXZ that isn't available on the Zephyr. Nonetheless, both variables are plausable. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline Problems

message: At this point I would like to ask everyone (Kgie127) who posts comments on this page to please SIGN them. It is absoloutely irritating if you don't. One cannot possibly follow the dialog or make sense of it if one doesn't know talking, so please sign your comments. Thank you!
Yes, the Zephyr and MKZ took the place of the LS V6 as Lincoln's Entry-level luxury sedan. That's why they drop the LS V6 for 2006, so they wouldn't have two entry-level sedans. There is little to argue about, the LS V6 with a starting MSRP of $32k and the Zephyr with a starting MSRP of $29k are both Entrly-level sedans and 2005 was the last of the LS V6, 2006 the first for the Zephyr. Both belong in the same line because they are BOTH Entry-level sedans and their production spans did not overlap. Thank you. Gerdbrendel 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign Comments - Zephyr line-up 

message: Since the timelines were created on the V6 and V8 versions of the LS, and then the Zephyr and MKZ getting mixed in, I have been really troubled by how they have been portrayed.  I know there is some overlapping and class distinction and confusion, but the current timeline just looks ridiculous to me.
The LS is the LS - whether it comes with a V6 or a V8.  It is not 2 different car classes based on the engine selection.  In no other Ford / Lincoln / Mercury timeline templates do we see the same vehicle appearing in different timelines simultaneously as separate classes, based on engine selection or selling price.  The LS was designed from the very beginning as an entry-level midsize car for Lincoln, with a V6 standard and a V8 option.  The "entry level luxury" designation was specifically for and relative to the rest of the Lincoln line - not to be confused with - say - an entry level Escort or Fiesta.  The price ranged from a $30,000 base, up into the mid 40's when "loaded", and it increased generally with inflation and upgrades to top out in the upper 40's.  The V6 version was finally dropped because the car was not selling well, and supporting 2 different engine programs did not make financial sense.  The V6 LS was originally targeted to compete with Japanese and European luxury sedans, which usually came with V6 engines in the 3.0L class, and sometimes with manual transmissions available.  The manual shifting V6 LS was specifically aimed at the enthusiast crowd. The downfall of the V6 had nothing to do with the introduction of the V6 Zephyr.  The Zephyr "filled the void" left behind - but did not bring about the downfall of the V6 LS by any means.  It is also absurd to say the V6 LS competes with the BMW 3-series and the V8 LS competes with the 5-series BMW - especially given the price discrepancy.  The LS was marketed as a low-cost alternative to the 5-series BMW - as a sort of  "poor man's BMW" as it were.  But you just cannot compare these cars outside of that gimmic; and to say that the V6 LS is to the 3-series as the V8 LS is to 5-series - it is simply absurd.
I know some of the editors of this Lincoln timeline template are seriously committed to saying the V6 LS was an entry level car due to price, and the more expensive V8 was something more - a midsize luxury "BUT NO LONGER AN ENTRY LEVEL!" - and I understand the way of thinking there; but that just does not make it correct.  If this was a truly valid way of categorizing cars - then we should have at least 2 timelines for the Mustang, Ranger, F150, Explorer, Expedition, and almost all across the product line - because they also come with different engine selections and options, and have very wide ranges in price from "base" to "loaded".  Why should the LS be any different?  I do not think it should.  Furthermore - the MKZ and the Zephyr should be on a single line.  Just because the MKZ with have a 3.5L V6 does not mean it should be on 2 lines now.
I propose that one line (from the entry level and 2 midsize lines) be deleted altogether - just have "Mid-Size Entry Level " class for the LS from 2000-2006, then have the LS and Zephyr shown in the 2006 box, leading to the the MKZ in 2007.  Forget the engine size segregation on the LS, and then having to show the MKZ trying to stretch across 2 classes as shown.  And make the Continental to be on a separate "Full Size" line (which it was) - even though it was built on a "midsize" Taurus platform - the Continental was always classed as a full size car for the EPA (much bigger trunk, etc).  And as discussed elsewhere - there may be a new "full size" replacement for the Continental in a couple of years - perhaps based on the MKS - but DO NOT POST THAT YET until it is officially announced.  -- T-dot 23:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you're right cars are classified on the basis of their base MSRP- it doesn't matter what they cost loaded - I wrote that myself in the Luxury vehicles article. The LS was always an entry-level, right. But in 1998 the base MSRP of the LS increase, due to the drop of the LS V6, that the remaining LS V8 was pushed up a segment. Nevertheless you're right the LS should be one line. The LS has to be in a different line from the LS however since the LS is currently for '06 sold alongside the LS. The Continental was mid-size because its wheel base was 109.1" - 110 is required for vehicle to be considered Full-size. Let me know your suggestions. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 03:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplification Proposed 

message: Given that the 2010 MKZ is out, can someone add it?  Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 MKZ 

message: As the timeline of this template is starting to get rather long, I would suggest splitting it in half, making one before and after 1980 (which also seems to be the common cutoff point for automotive timelime templates, fixing another issue here).  That would allow for the inclusion of older Lincoln vehicles into a timeline as well.  --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  Most the other (US market) timelines are split 1950-1979 and 1980-present. --Vossanova o< 15:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of; it should be linked together to the main template now, and I might add it to the pages that need it in the next few days/weeks.  --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting template up