CONTINENTAL MARKS MUST NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS LINCOLNS

[ContiFan]

Did anyone really expect marketing to be consistent? It not like it's engineering, or anything.

To me inconsistencies (or the appearance of inconsistencies) look bad. It's almost as if they don't care or can't be bothered to get their own branding correct. What else don't they care about or can't be bothered to get correct?

Occasionally leaving "Continental" off as in Mark VI vs. Continental Mark VI in marketing materials not so bad but some other things like reversing the names in my 1959 example above seem odd.

[Barry Wolk]

Nobody cared. Do you seriously think that anybody gave a single thought as to whether these cars would be around 50 years in the future, let alone 10 years? Get serious. It's an engineers job to build them. It is Marketing's job to name them and move them through the dealerships, and they operate on much looser standards.

[gkramer47]

Guys,

Barry is correct in that there was MUCH less thought given to the issue then than we have given. These are the same people that called an F-150 a MARK LT, so the issue of being able to infer anything from the combination of "Lincoln", "Continental", or "Mark" is specious at best. Whatever was percieved as the best way to sell more cars was the way they went.

Glenn Kramer

[Dermot]

...maybe!

[DPW]

To answer Barrys question, no I havn´t changed my mind on the subject. To me it´s always been rather clear that Ford sold these cars under the Make Continental.

[ContiFan]

Nobody cared. Do you seriously think that anybody gave a single thought as to whether these cars would be around 50 years in the future, let alone 10 years? Get serious. It's an engineers job to build them. It is Marketing's job to name them and move them through the dealerships, and they operate on much looser standards.

I am not looking at this as to whether or not Ford should've cared what people thought decades in the future but rather how they presented the cars then and what people may have thought at the time.

Companies spend big bucks on branding, branding guidelines, etc. Some of Ford's branding almost seemed silly. Were there practical reasons for it (perhaps there were - hence some of the discussions/debates here) or was it that they really didn't care or couldn't be bothered with the details? One would hope that in developing, building, and selling a high-end luxury car they could at least get the names "right."

[Barry Wolk]

You need to understand something about Ford and about business in general. I believe it was Henry Ford that said, "We're not in the car making business, we're in the money making business." Until that is understood, you'll not get that it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what sells cars, that's all. The rest of it is peripheral silliness, IMO.

[ContiFan]

You need to understand something about Ford and about business in general. I believe it was Henry Ford that said, "We're not in the car making business, we're in the money making business." Until that is understood, you'll not get that it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what sells cars, that's all. The rest of it is peripheral silliness, IMO.

Geeze, I'm not so much questioning that Ford may have had some of these marketing inconsistencies for what they considered "justifiable" reasons (even based solely on sales/profits), it's simply more of a curiosity as to the marketing thinking at the time. Why, for example, did Ford present the 1959 car as Mark VI Continental in brochures yet Continental Mark VI in advertising? No, it's not "engineering" but marketing is a huge part of business.

If next year Ford started marketing the 2012 MKT Town Car as the Town Car MKT in brochures and online but the MKT Town Car in print ads, I’d be curious as to why. Inconsistencies tend to create confusion and confusion usually isn't a good tactic for marketing products to make money.

Off to have some Maid Minute orange juice and Loops Froot cereal!

[Barry Wolk]

People can't remember what happened yesterday. What makes you think that 99% of consumers give a rat's ass about consistency? They don't.

[Dan Szwarc]

Off to have some Maid Minute orange juice and Loops Froot cereal!

That's what i'm talking about!

[Barry Wolk]

[Suicidekid63]

lol Those effin' cumuluonimbus clouds!!

[Barry Wolk]

To further dispel future nonsense that Continentals are different than Lincolns, you'll have to convince Ford that they are wrong.

In the 1977 Car Wiring and Vacuum Diagrams, Ford Parts and Service Division Training and Publications Department's Course 0337-001 The Mark V is separately listed from the Lincoln-Continental, therefore, the Mark V is not a separate brand named "Continental".

Here are two schematics for the Mark V and the Lincoln-Continental

Mark V



Lincoln-Continental



Ford must be wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Milsteads Garage]

The 59 and 60 mark series are the most controversial of them all when it comes to giving them a designation. It was even a jumbled mess when they re-introduced the Continental MarkIII in late 68. As a matter of fact I owned a "68 Mark III". Production records say that it was 1 of 7770.

[Barry Wolk]

Now you've done it.

It has been clearly established that the serial numbers for the Mark III has a 9 in them, meaning that there was no '68 1/2 Mark III. They may have been made in '68, but were early-intro '69s.

Please post data to show otherwise.