'Tier 2' luxury brands struggle to compete with elite Germans, Lexus

[IS-SV]

One of the best and simplest ways, IMO, to name a vehicle and avoid confusion (if one is not going to use simple straight dictionary names) is to do what Lexus and Mercedes do...one or two letters for the vehicle-line itself, and two or three number-digits for the engine size (in liters). Examples: ES350, C300, LS460, GL450, etc... That way, you know both the vehicle and the engine in one easy step. This system, IMO, should serve as a model for other automakers.

No kidding as we've said before. No need to recreate a naming scheme for Mercedes and Lexus because they have the sales successes and model recognition expected. In contrast is Lincoln's naming convention, hardly effective.

 

[mikeavelli]

No kidding as we've said before. No need to recreate a naming scheme for Mercedes and Lexus because they have the sales successes and model recognition expected. In contrast is Lincoln's naming convention, hardly effective.

And they have the sense to pick good letters. Some letters are better than others. Z, Q, J for example just don't conjure up images of luxury. They are oddball letters. The Lexus QS 400 or ZS 400 sounds terrible to LS 400. Infiniti switching everything to Q is as baffling as it gets, especially since Audi has actually made it somewhat tolerable.

 

[Gecko]

"MK" just doesn't sound like a good prefix to start with either :-/ (IMO)

 

[mmcartalk]

J for example just don't conjure up images of luxury.

Even though J has been used for decades in the top-line Jaguar XJ?................or are you referring to the use of J as a first-letter, as in the old Infiniti J30 and J35?

Infiniti switching everything to Q is as baffling as it gets,

What's annoying about Infiniti's system, at least IMO, is that QX means SUV or crossover, and Q stands for everything else. One of the worst naming codes in the industry. Audi, as you noted, has a much better system....Q is only for SUV/crossover; nothing else.

 

[Och]

"MK" just doesn't sound like a good prefix to start with either :-/ (IMO)

I think MK goes back to Mark series names that were once used by Lincolns.

 

[mmcartalk]

I think MK goes back to Mark series names that were once used by Lincolns.

Yes, correct. The Mark II debuted in 1956 (at the time the most expensive American car), the Mark III in 1968, the Mark IV in 1972, etc..... down to the Mark VIII in the late 90s. Most were large luxury-coupes, except for the original Mark Continental of the 1940s and the Mark LT full-size luxury pickup truck of 2005 which was unsuccessful. Lincoln tried to use the MK initials to carry on the tradition........but most of us here, including me, don't feel it was a good idea.

 

[Och]

Yes, correct. The Mark II debuted in 1956 (at the time the most expensive American car), the Mark III in 1968, the Mark IV in 1972, etc..... down to the Mark VIII in the late 90s. Most were large luxury-coupes, except for the original Mark Continental of the 1940s and the Mark LT full-size luxury pickup truck of 2005 which was unsuccessful. Lincoln tried to use the MK initials to carry on the tradition........but most of us here, including me, don't feel it was a good idea.

There were also Ford Marks, I know there was a Ford van that carried a Mark badge, and a bunch of other cars. Its pretty confusing, and honestly I don't really care to figure it out, since I don't have much interest in their products.

 

[CIF]

If Lincoln was so attached to the "Mark" name, they should have kept that as a name for one model only, and used other names for other models. Simple and logical. Not this current "MK" confusion.

 

[mmcartalk]

If Lincoln was so attached to the "Mark" name, they should have kept that as a name for one model only, and used other names for other models. Simple and logical. Not this current "MK" confusion.

I agree on the general MK confusion (though in my experience it is not difficult once you get used to it, like with us when we discuss cars every day). But Lincoln tried having just one Mark name (with the Mark LT full-size pickup), and it was a disaster...almost no one bought them. Of course, it could also be argued that Lincoln was not going to be able to sell pickup trucks, no matter what the name (the earlier Blackwood was also a disaster)...though Cadillac managed to sell some Escalade pickups with the Chevy-Avalanche-style dropping bed/cabin divider.

I understand your point, however....one vehicle only, with the Mark name, that WILL sell in at least a significant number, such as the big Mark coupes did from the 1950s to the 1990s.

 

[IS-SV]

I agree on the general MK confusion (though in my experience it is not difficult once you get used to it, like with us when we discuss cars every day). .

In my experience as frequent premium car owner/shopper, it's a nuisance to get used to. I'm like most actual premium car owners it seems, who don't know and don't care to know about lame MK naming scheme. The only reason I know MKC is rebadged Ford Escape is because I read it here frequently, lol. The rest of the MK alphabet soup has the logic of a random number generator, most actual premium car shoppers are oblivious. I'm a so called car guy that's lucky to know one or two of these models, not a good sign.

That seems to be reality of the MK naming scheme, since we are focusing on premium car naming schemes. Even Lincoln execs have recently brought it up publicly. Let's see if and when they fix it.

 

[mikeavelli]

In my experience as frequent premium car owner/shopper, it's a nuisance to get used to. I'm like most actual premium car owners it seems, who don't know and don't care to know about lame MK naming scheme. The only reason I know MKC is rebadged Ford Escape is because I read it here frequently, lol. The rest of the MK alphabet soup has the logic of a random number generator, most actual premium car shoppers are oblivious. I'm a so called car guy that's lucky to know one or two of these models, not a good sign.

That seems to be reality of the MK naming scheme, since we are focusing on premium car naming schemes. Even Lincoln execs have recently brought it up publicly. Let's see if and when they fix it.

Yup. This is also the same brand that names a car Zephyr after some 1930s car than a year later renames is MKT or whatever. Yeah thats going to make sales go up.

 

[mmcartalk]

Yup. This is also the same brand that names a car Zephyr after some 1930s car than a year later renames is MKT or whatever. Yeah thats going to make sales go up.

Just to clarify the "whatever".........the Zephyr was renamed the 1Gen MKZ. I'm with you, though....I preferred the Zephyr name. I even once considered an AWD version for myself.

Sometimes, though, it's hard to predict what will happen to sales after a renaming. A good example was several years ago, when Ford renamed the redesigned Taurus/Sable to Five Hundered/Montego. The public had gotten so used to the Taurus/Sable names (both from purchases and rentals) that sales plummeted. The renaming had been based on the Five Hundred having a similar three-chrome-bar grille to the classic Ford Galaxie 500 of the mid-60s. Ford changed the name back to Taurus/Sable within two years...and sales recovered, though it wasn't enough to help ward off the discontinuation of the Mercury nameplate itself.

 

[IS-SV]

^ Yes, more sad examples of poorly named crap cars way back when, not applicable today fortunately. (Zephyr, Sable, Five Hundred).

Whatever might mean, "how to further degrade an automotive brand with lame names and without trying too hard", (although Mike probably meant "whatever" to be C, X,Z, S).

Hopefully Ford/Lincoln learned something by now (by now means 2015 btw, post poorly executed MK naming scheme).... And if so, next they need to prove it....

Not sure why we need to keep re-explaining a poor automotive naming scheme of a brand that might not even be tier 2 (topic here) today...

 

[mmcartalk]

^ Yes, more sad examples of poorly named crap cars way back when, not applicable today fortunately. (Zephyr, Sable, Five Hundred).

While I respect your opinion, I don't agree that these were crap cars. In fact, the 1Gen Fusion/Milan/Zephyr/MKZ established a good record for reliability, and, especially with the mainstream Fusion, helped make inroads into the Camry/Accord dominance that class. The Five Hundred was also pleasant to drive and reliable, except for the weak CVT in the early AWD versions....which Ford replaced with a conventional 6AT.

Whatever might mean, "how to further degrade an automotive brand with lame names and without trying too hard", (although Mike probably meant "whatever" to be C, X,Z, S).

Lincoln's alphabet soup is indeed confusing for some...no question about that. I know the system, though, in spite of its confusion (like I also do with Cadillac and Acura), so I simply help sort things here and there, out of courtesy. I appreciate it when others do the same for me on features I'm weak in. I sometimes get confused myself, though, with Infiniti system.... IMO it is the worst of all.

a brand that might not even be tier 2 (topic here)

I'd say a solid Tier2 if you look at the MKC and (possibly) the new MKX...probably a 1.5 or so for the others.

 

[IS-SV]

s

While I respect your opinion, I don't agree that these were crap cars. In fact, the 1Gen Fusion/Milan/Zephyr/MKZ established a good record for reliability, and, especially with the mainstream Fusion, helped make inroads into the Camry/Accord dominance that class. The Five Hundred was also pleasant to drive and reliable, except for the weak CVT in the early AWD versions....which Ford replaced with a conventional 6AT.



Lincoln's alphabet soup is indeed confusing for some...no question about that. I know the system, though, in spite of its confusion (like I also do with Cadillac and Acura), so I simply help sort things here and there, out of courtesy. I appreciate it when others do the same for me on features I'm weak in. I sometimes get confused myself, though, with Infiniti system.... IMO it is the worst of all.


QUOTE]
.

Reliability isn't the only criteria for a decent car, but that's too subjective and unrelated to topic here to matter . And to your point, the Fusion is a good car and solid value, which is why the (rebadged) Milan, Zephyr/MKZ was/is redundant, overpriced and slow-selling. The slow selling unattractive Five Hundred rental car isn't worth commenting because the "buts" you mentioned are sufficiently crappy. Crap probably isn't the best of adjectives, but not that far off, not that it matters in this thread.

Nobody asked you to keep trying to explain alphabet soup, although I now see that's how you are interpreting it and doing so as a courtesy. We already have noted the don't know/don't care apathy of premium car buyers towards the no logic Lincoln naming convention (and agreed by just about all, Infiniti's too). What people here are doing is explaining why it's (naming scheme) is so useless and associating it with one of the poorest performing sub tier 2 (I like the 1.5 tier, btw) brands, that's all.

btw-Back to original question, here's what I was responding to, the word "whatever" Mike used above (see above to see context it was used in):

Whatever might mean, "how to further degrade an automotive brand with lame names and without trying too hard", (although Mike probably meant "whatever" to be C, X, Z, S).

 

[CIF]

On the subject of renaming mmcartalk, when a known car model is renamed, most of the time sales and reputation suffer. Looking at most of the renamed models in automotive history, the majority of them suffered negative consequences after the renaming.

I also agree with IS-SV in terms of the steep learning curve for Lincoln's confusing lineup. I too, as an enthusiast, am still somewhat confused by Lincoln's naming scheme. More importantly I simply don't care enough to put in the time and effort required just to decipher their naming scheme. Now imagine the average car buyer; they are likely to have zero understanding of Lincoln's lineup.

 

[mmcartalk]

I also agree with IS-SV in terms of the steep learning curve for Lincoln's confusing lineup.

No doubt...I also agree. That's why I provided it as a courtesy. In fact, it took a little while for me to get used to it myself.

 

[mmcartalk]

Since we're on the issue of Tier2 competition with Lexus and the Germans (and if it wouldn't require another thread), I'd like to see Hyundai/Kia create an upmarket division at least into the Tier2 (or higher) category. They already, IMO, have several good upmarket products (Genesis, Cadenza, K900, and Equus) that are selling under their mainstream nameplates. Hyundai has become an huge worldwide corporation, in some ways rivaling Toyota when it comes to size, money, and resources, and probably would have the resources for a new upmarket division if they chose to do so.

Mazda, of course, wanted to some years ago. There were plans for an upmarket Tier-2 Amati division (the Millennia was supposed to be that division's first American-market vehicle). But the bean counters at Mazda's then-parent company, Ford, nixed the idea, and the Millennia was sold as a Mazda instead.

 

[IS-SV]

Since we're on the issue of Tier2 competition with Lexus and the Germans (and if it wouldn't require another thread), I'd like to see Hyundai/Kia create an upmarket division at least into the Tier2 (or higher) category. Hyundai has become an huge worldwide corporation, in some ways rivaling Toyota when it comes to size, money, and resources, and probably would have the resources for a new upmarket division if they chose to do so.

.

Good idea, for another thread.

Btw - Not true, Hyundai is not even close to rivaling Toyota in size, money, and resources. In fact Toyota is worth over 5x (over 5 times based on market cap alone) what Hyundai is today.

 

[mmcartalk]

Good idea, for another thread.

Btw - Not true, Hyundai is not even close to rivaling Toyota in size, money, and resources. In fact Toyota is worth over 5x (over 5 times based on market cap alone) what Hyundai is today.

Honda managed to do a upmarket division (actually, the first for a Japanese manufacturer), and they are considerably smaller than Toyota. Based on what I've seen recently from Hyundai and Kia, they have some good candidates. But, as you say, perhaps a subject for another thread.

Since Tier 2 is part of the thread topic, an interesting question, at least IMO, is where does one draw the line between Tier 2 and Tier 1? Sales numbers? Prestige? Public image? Performance and/or design of their vehicles? Market share? Net company (or division) worth or assets? That alone might be a good discussion in determining who is who.