Lincoln Continental Production Version

[280Z Turbo]

Is there any reward for what you give up in practicality for a convertible, other than whatever pleasure you derive from driving around without a roof? Convertibles are heavier, noisier, more expensive, don't handle as well because they have a flimsier chassis... The only thing a convertible can do better than its hardtop counterpart is not have a roof.

To say the Thunderbird "didn't do anything well" and "there is no reward for what you gave up in practicality" is nothing more than an admission that you just don't like convertibles and don't get the fascination with them that some people have. But, letting go of that hang-up and looking at it more objectively, I don't know how you can say "it didn't do anything well". It was a comfortable car that rode well, had more-than-adequate power and looked cool. That's all it was meant to ever do. That's pretty much all any convertible can aspire to do.

I guess I expect more out of car than just not having a roof. It was a parts bin hodge-podge. It was at least better than a Sebring convertible, which was the ultimate "Generic car without roof".

I'm probably being too logical about something that isn't logical to begin with. Is it any more sensible to buy a car for handling/acceleration vs. buying a car for the way it looks? I suppose not.

[93JC]

I guess I expect more out of car than just not having a roof. It was a parts bin hodge-podge.

Name me a single convertible that isn't a "parts bin hodge-podge".

[280Z Turbo]

Name me a single convertible that isn't a "parts bin hodge-podge".

Miata?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Name me a single convertible that isn't a "parts bin hodge-podge".

LeBaron?

[Cookie Monster]

Name me a single convertible that isn't a "parts bin hodge-podge".

S2000

[Payman]

Boxster

[MX793]

Boxster

The original Boxster shared quite a bit with the 911.  Current one still shares some parts.

[SVT666]

Mustang

[93JC]

Miata?

Damn near half its parts are from the 3. GTFO.

[Soup DeVille]

Damn near half its parts are from the 3. GTFO.

All cars share parts these days.

[Cookie Monster]

Damn near half its parts are from the 3. GTFO.

Other than the motor and parts of the interior, what is?

[Payman]

The Miata/Spider, S2000, and Boxster were designed from the outset as convertibles, and the platforms were engineered as such, instead of reinforcements added to turn a standard unibody into a convertible. The Miata may use some Mazda parts bin stuff, but it's hardly a "parts bin hodge-podge".

[Payman]

Roadster... a 2 seat car with a convertible top, designed from the outset as such (Miata, S2000), or designed in conjunction with a solid roof version (Corvette, Viper).

Convertible... 2 or more seat car with convertible top, designed from existing unibody with added reinforcements to strengthen structure.

If 93JC is using the latter definition he may somewhat have a point.

[93JC]

All cars share parts these days.

Precisely, which is why "it's a parts bin hodge-podge" is a stupid fucking complaint.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Precisely, which is why "it's a parts bin hodge-podge" is a stupid fucking complaint.

Your statement is a parts bin hodge podge. You used the same letters over and over again.

[12,000 RPM]

Your statement is a parts bin hodge podge. You used the same letters over and over again.

From the Latin alphabet no less. So original

[Atomic]

Looks good, though I wish it channeled more 67 Continental. It's a little too conservative

The concept version was far more stylish. Spent much time admiring it last year at the NYIAS. Those added glitzy touches even seemed like overkill, thinking FMC / Lincoln was trying too hard. The Continental concept looked less conservative and had more elements brining something from era's past ('67) without it looking too retro. The critiques likely led Lincoln to go with a less risky design when finalizing plans. 12,000 RPM, I do agree with you but what a far cry this vehicle is compared with the MKS model it is replacing. BTW, FMC had to contend with pending threats of lawsuits from Bentley for stealing their design. I did not see the Bentley resemblance whatsoever. If anything came out of the attention, Bentley was bringing much attention to Lincoln and paying Ford a compliment.

Sedan sales are way down but there are few cars on the market today that speak "Large American Luxury Sedan" -- feeling good about the new Continental's chances for success.

[Madman]

The concept version was far more stylish. Spent much time admiring it last year at the NYIAS. Those added glitzy touches even seemed like overkill, thinking FMC / Lincoln was trying too hard. The Continental concept looked less conservative and had more elements brining something from era's past ('67) without it looking too retro. The critiques likely led Lincoln to go with a less risky design when finalizing plans. 12,000 RPM, I do agree with you but what a far cry this vehicle is compared with the MKS model it is replacing. BTW, FMC had to contend with pending threats of lawsuits from Bentley for stealing their design. I did not see the Bentley resemblance whatsoever. If anything came out of the attention, Bentley was bringing much attention to Lincoln and paying Ford a compliment.

Speaking of Bentley, I'm surprised there hasn't been a legal dispute over who owns the Continental name.  Granted, Lincoln used in first, in 1939, and continued to build the first generation Continental until 1948, when the name went dormant at FoMoCo for the first time.  Meanwhile, Bentley built their first Continental in 1952, after Lincoln had shelved the name.  Then Lincoln revived it in 1956.  Both Lincoln and Bentley Continentals were produced concurrently until Bentley dropped the name in 1965, where it remained unused until 1984.  Bentley Continentals have been built ever since.  With the exception of a one-year hiatus in 1981 (not counting the Mark Series), the Continental name was a mainstay at Lincoln from 1956 through 2002.

Considering both companies have long and storied histories using the Continental name, I suspect neither one can legally lay exclusive claim to it.  This is probably one of the few times in automotive history when two unrelated companies have been able to build and sell two different cars sharing the same model name at the same time.  It really shouldn't matter, however, since I'm positive absolutely no one will ever cross-shop a Lincoln Continental with a Bentley Continental!

[280Z Turbo]

Precisely, which is why "it's a parts bin hodge-podge" is a stupid fucking complaint.

I guess living in cold and desolate Alberta makes people cranky.

[SVT666]

I guess living in cold and desolate Alberta makes people cranky.

I was a lot crankier when I lived in Alberta.  I'm pretty chill now living in BC.

[93JC]

C'mon man, it's just such a lame complaint. It's the sort of complaint douchey magazine reviewers pull out of their bag of rote complaints when they can't articulate why they don't like a car. I'd rather you just said "I don't like the styling of the car, I thought it was a cheesy way of trying to capitalize on the nostalgia older guys had for the original Thunderbird. I thought it was terribly overpriced [it was!]. I don't like 'cruiser'-type cars, they don't appeal to me." At least that would be an accurate reflection of what you really feel about it, as opposed to "it uses parts from the Ford parts bin, wah wah wah, boo-hoo" bullshit.

[2o6]

I don't think it's an invalid complaint when a car should ideally be more bespoke and it's slapped together, not very special parts.

[93JC]

I don't think it's an invalid complaint when a car should ideally be more bespoke and it's slapped together, not very special parts.

It was a fucking Ford Thunderbird, not a god damn Bentley.

(... which, by the way, uses a slew of VW parts...)

[2o6]

It was a fucking Ford Thunderbird, not a god damn Bentley.

(... which, by the way, uses a slew of VW parts...)

Yeah, but they're hidden a lot better, and the car feels a lot more special than say, a Phateon or Passat. The Thunderbird's interior is a damn Lincoln LS with painted trim pieces. Ford couldn't have spent any more money to at least make the interior more special?

[Eye of the Tiger]

I always like the Cougar better.

[93JC]

For the price the dealers were asking for the cars, sure. That it uses a bunch of parts that also happen to be shared with the LS doesn't make it intrinsically bad. If they built the car to meet the price point it was originally meant to hit, and assuming the design and manufacturing of a completely different set of interior pieces costed nothing: would the interior have been any 'better', even if it used bespoke parts? It would have been different, to a point, but better? 'Better' materials? Tighter tolerances?

I'd argue no: it was built to a price point, and it used parts that were shared with a car that hit a similar price point. It didn't share interior parts with a Festiva, it shared parts with a god-damned Lincoln. Is that so bad, is that such a fucking travesty that it ruins the car?

[CALL_911]

C'mon man, it's just such a lame complaint. It's the sort of complaint douchey magazine reviewers pull out of their bag of rote complaints when they can't articulate why they don't like a car. I'd rather you just said "I don't like the styling of the car, I thought it was a cheesy way of trying to capitalize on the nostalgia older guys had for the original Thunderbird. I thought it was terribly overpriced [it was!]. I don't like 'cruiser'-type cars, they don't appeal to me." At least that would be an accurate reflection of what you really feel about it, as opposed to "it uses parts from the Ford parts bin, wah wah wah, boo-hoo" bullshit.

+1

[Soup DeVille]

Roadster... a 2 seat car with a convertible top, designed from the outset as such (Miata, S2000), or designed in conjunction with a solid roof version (Corvette, Viper).

Convertible... 2 or more seat car with convertible top, designed from existing unibody with added reinforcements to strengthen structure.

If 93JC is using the latter definition he may somewhat have a point.

Neither of those are definitions I've ever hear before.

[Soup DeVille]

C'mon man, it's just such a lame complaint. It's the sort of complaint douchey magazine reviewers pull out of their bag of rote complaints when they can't articulate why they don't like a car. I'd rather you just said "I don't like the styling of the car, I thought it was a cheesy way of trying to capitalize on the nostalgia older guys had for the original Thunderbird. I thought it was terribly overpriced [it was!]. I don't like 'cruiser'-type cars, they don't appeal to me." At least that would be an accurate reflection of what you really feel about it, as opposed to "it uses parts from the Ford parts bin, wah wah wah, boo-hoo" bullshit.

There is a sense one gets as to whether or not a car was slapped together, or whether it was well engineered, and it often hinges on a lot more than sharing parts with lesser stablemates. Ferraris use a lot of Fiat switchgear, that doesn't make them parts bin hodgepodges. Even dropping in an entire drivetrain can work if it's been well sorted out (The Audi TT comes to mind).

The Thunderbird just didn't feel right from the driver's seat, part of that is the inside just didn't mesh well with the outside.

[93JC]

The Thunderbird just didn't feel right from the driver's seat, part of that is the inside just didn't mesh well with the outside.

Fair comment.