Delete a Message
DAF555
This is a very convincing compilation of material, I´ve been going it through back and forth several times now, and I find it hard to understand Fords marketing in any other way than that they considered Continental as a separate brand. Looking at the history it´s also very understandable that they wanted to use the heritage of Edsel Fords original custom built Continental Cabriolet from 1939 and the Mark II from 1956 to put the 1969+ Marks above the ordinary Lincolns. It´s also mentioned by Lee Iacocca in his autobiography from 1984, that this was his intentions with the Mark III, even if it doesn´t say anything about the brand of the cars.
This is also the reason why the original Mark III, IV and V are "erased" from Fords version of the history, they had nothing of the original styling concept in them. This is how it looked in the 1977 brochure: http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Lincoln/1977_Lincoln/1977_Continental_M- ark_V_Brochure/197720Mark%20V-02.html
However, this didn´t stop Ford from selling the 1958-59 models under the Continental brand, in 1960 the Mark V is sold under Lincoln name. See especially the 1959 brochure, it can´t be more explicit, Continental is a separate brand even after that the Continental Division closed down in 1958.
1958:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Lincoln/1958_Lincoln/1958_Lincoln_Broch- ure/dirindex.html
1959:
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/lincoln/59linc/59linc.html
1960:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Lincoln/1960_Lincoln/1960_Lincoln_Broch- ure/dirindex.html
From what I can find in different sources the intention with the Mark II was to build and sell at least 2500 per year for 4 years, to make profit. This happened only for 1956, for 1957 the orderbooks rapidly dried out and sales stopped at about 450 cars. So they decided to cut the losses and stop production. My guess here is that they then rapidly made an update of the coming new 1958 Lincoln models, putting a new roof on it and calling it Continental Mark III to have anything to sell for 1958. However, this was a different type of car and during 1958 they closed the division, moved the brand in under Lincoln-Mercury Division for 1959 and began phasing over the Continental name to a modelname under Lincoln for 1960.
Unfortunately the introduction of these coincided with the 1958 recession, when the autosales dropped by 31% over 1957 so sales was disappointing.
From what I can find this is the reason that the next generation of Marks re-used the number III when it was released in spring 1968 as 1969 model, the style with long hood, short rear deck and the "Continental-Kit" on the trunk lid showed the heritage back to the 1939 custom built car.
This time it was also a commercial success, according to Mr Iacocca it sold so well during the coming five years that it was largely responsible for giving the Lincoln-Mercury division a profit of almost 1 billion dollars the best year. The biggest success he had in his career, according to his autobiography.
Naturally this gave the Marks a special position at Ford, it was aimed right and it worked fine. I can´t see any reason for them not to try using the brand Continental from the beginning, and with the following success keeping it above the Lincolns. Looking through the material above makes that rather evident in my view.
The mentioned book from the Crestline series is also a strong argument, I don´t have that one myself but I´m familiar with the series. When coming to accuracy there are few books that can compete, they´re well written and detailed. They´re also made in close cooperation with the manufacturers historical archives. And given that it was released in 1987, one year after that the Continental brand was given up and again moved down to a modelname under Lincoln, only, it seems very strange that this fact was taken just out of the blue.
Finally, the VIN-argument, the detailed 17-character VIN-codes introduced in the early eighties required an individual character for the Make. The Continentals had their own as it seems. Not there that´s much of a doubt in my mind, but does anyone of you have access to an original Workshop Manual for these from the early eighties? I suppose it´s spelled out in it, like it is in my 1966 Shop Manual for Comet, Falcon, Fairlane and Mustang.
So far I see no reason to keep them listed as Lincolns.
This is also the reason why the original Mark III, IV and V are "erased" from Fords version of the history, they had nothing of the original styling concept in them. This is how it looked in the 1977 brochure: http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Lincoln/1977_Lincoln/1977_Continental_M- ark_V_Brochure/197720Mark%20V-02.html
However, this didn´t stop Ford from selling the 1958-59 models under the Continental brand, in 1960 the Mark V is sold under Lincoln name. See especially the 1959 brochure, it can´t be more explicit, Continental is a separate brand even after that the Continental Division closed down in 1958.
1958:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Lincoln/1958_Lincoln/1958_Lincoln_Broch- ure/dirindex.html
1959:
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/lincoln/59linc/59linc.html
1960:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Lincoln/1960_Lincoln/1960_Lincoln_Broch- ure/dirindex.html
From what I can find in different sources the intention with the Mark II was to build and sell at least 2500 per year for 4 years, to make profit. This happened only for 1956, for 1957 the orderbooks rapidly dried out and sales stopped at about 450 cars. So they decided to cut the losses and stop production. My guess here is that they then rapidly made an update of the coming new 1958 Lincoln models, putting a new roof on it and calling it Continental Mark III to have anything to sell for 1958. However, this was a different type of car and during 1958 they closed the division, moved the brand in under Lincoln-Mercury Division for 1959 and began phasing over the Continental name to a modelname under Lincoln for 1960.
Unfortunately the introduction of these coincided with the 1958 recession, when the autosales dropped by 31% over 1957 so sales was disappointing.
From what I can find this is the reason that the next generation of Marks re-used the number III when it was released in spring 1968 as 1969 model, the style with long hood, short rear deck and the "Continental-Kit" on the trunk lid showed the heritage back to the 1939 custom built car.
This time it was also a commercial success, according to Mr Iacocca it sold so well during the coming five years that it was largely responsible for giving the Lincoln-Mercury division a profit of almost 1 billion dollars the best year. The biggest success he had in his career, according to his autobiography.
Naturally this gave the Marks a special position at Ford, it was aimed right and it worked fine. I can´t see any reason for them not to try using the brand Continental from the beginning, and with the following success keeping it above the Lincolns. Looking through the material above makes that rather evident in my view.
The mentioned book from the Crestline series is also a strong argument, I don´t have that one myself but I´m familiar with the series. When coming to accuracy there are few books that can compete, they´re well written and detailed. They´re also made in close cooperation with the manufacturers historical archives. And given that it was released in 1987, one year after that the Continental brand was given up and again moved down to a modelname under Lincoln, only, it seems very strange that this fact was taken just out of the blue.
Finally, the VIN-argument, the detailed 17-character VIN-codes introduced in the early eighties required an individual character for the Make. The Continentals had their own as it seems. Not there that´s much of a doubt in my mind, but does anyone of you have access to an original Workshop Manual for these from the early eighties? I suppose it´s spelled out in it, like it is in my 1966 Shop Manual for Comet, Falcon, Fairlane and Mustang.
So far I see no reason to keep them listed as Lincolns.