Talk:Lincoln Town Car/Archive 1

Archive 1

2006 info

I have some doubts about the 2006 information added by 141.213.130.145. What I've read is mostly the opposite--the Town Car may go front- or all-wheel-drive soon, while the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis are likely to stay Panther-based for some time. RivGuySC 00:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see cites on speculative information - on such, we should especially ensure that the speculation reported is by others, rather than the Wikipedia authors themselves. Removed until we get some references. —Morven 04:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Getting good

Let's congratulate ourselves a little. It took a while, but this article is shaping up pretty nicely! RivGuySC 03:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Article

Hi, I have noticed that our article seems to be quite well received by others (knock on wood) and is featued in the car portal. I think adding a "good article" tag as on the Ford Taurus or Lexus LS article would be arporiate. Let me know. Thank you. Signature^brendel 07:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is appropriate. I started the article two years ago, and it's been great to see so many people pitching in. Town Car owners & fans know their stuff! RivGuySC 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs NPOV/OR/Crystal balling taken out.

There are a few assorted problems I noted in this article:

• Unencyclopedic POV -- Things like "the Town Car has earned its status," "generous dimensions," "continues to honor the time-tested luxury formula"
• OR -- goes hand in hand with the one above, editors are writing their own personal conclusions and ideas into the article, rather than citing those of authorities and reviewers.
• Crystal Balling -- "With the Wixom Assembly Plant closing in 2007, it is likely that the Town Car will end production as well." We're pulling that out of our ass if we include it. Yet another original conclusion.

This article has lots of information, but it needs to present it in a more encyclopedic form before it can get to featured quality.

Night Gyr 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but "Generous Dimensions" is not POV. Have you seen the car? Generous proportions is just a very elegant way of saying huge or large or oversized. The car is a foot longer than the Caddi DTS. Saying "Generous Dimension is the best way of describing the vehicle. Also the "time-tested luxury formula is a quote from NCTD- I'll make sure it stands out in the text as such. Concerning the Wixom plant there is no "Crytsal Balling." Ford said in its press release a few weeks back thst it plans to close Wixom in 2007. Whether or not that means the end of production for the Town Car we do not know. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I recently created a Lincoln Town Car userbox for my userpage and thought I would post an example of it here. Enjoy!

This user is the proud owner of a Lincoln Town Car.

Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Added Lincolns Online to the External Links area

Lincolns Online is a near-real-time source for Lincoln Town Car information. They have a message forum that provides invaluable repair informaiton along with technical articles on repairing and restoring these vehicles to like new (or better in many cases). The founder of the site is DaKat and the chief mechanical engineer is Dereck. I figure I've saved about $3000 in repair/diagnostic costs by visitng the site, researching, and chatting with others. It is a must if it involves the Town Car. (This unsigned comment was left by 68.204.147.169)

Yes, forums can be very helpful and often professionals are among those participating in the featured discussions. So, while Lincolns online may have a great forum with knowledgable members, Wikipedia policy states rather clearly that Forum should not be featured in the "External links section" as they are not exclusively written by professionals and do not have strict NPOV policies. You see, the external links sections is like a "Further suggested reading" section, it refers those you would like to research an article's subject more to professionally written articles on the subject. Thank you for understanding, if you would like to do more research on wiki policy regarding this subject I'll be more than glad to provide you with the link. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the policies will change to make Wikipedia.org worthwhile. Most of the articles are not written by "professionals" unless "self-proclaimed" means something. NPOV policies are vague at best. Sorry you all feel that offended and jarred by including the best Lincoln Site on the Internet on your page. (This unsigned comment was left by 12.151.80.14, who is likely the same user that appeared earlier under the IP number, 68.204.147.169)

I don't feel offend myself, I am merely stating that links to forums are froned upon by Wiki policy. But since there is no clear policy on the issue I am going to leave the link in. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

NO redesign?

Why is the Town Car production just being moved instead of redesigned? Cadillac's deVille,now DTS has undergone at least 3 changes since the Town Car was new in 1998. The body is almost 9 years old and people must be sick of looking at this same body style. What are Ford's plans? 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I of course am inarmored with the current body style and from the comments I get most people seem to take to it. But my POV aside, Ford has not yet anounced any plans to redesign the Town Car. (I do agree with you it is time for a re-desgin after 8 years, even though I love the current one ;-)) PS. Look at a DTS from the side, its a 2000 Deville. Happy editing! Signature^brendel 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The current body style is absolutely gorgeous but of course its time for some sort of change. 2006 would have been a good time to redesign instead of a name change and facelift on the DTS. I somehow feel that if Town Car sales do not remain brisk under the current body style, we will be faced again with the possiblity of its demise maybe in 2009 or 2010. This is another reason Ford should consider investing in a redo. 09:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

True, Ford really is milking the Town Car for profits instead of investing into a complete redesign to revitalize sales. Signature^brendel 17:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, faithful ones. There are plans for the Town Car in '08 and '10. Of course, plans can and do change, as the automotive marketplace and consumer preferences shift. But one can assume that, in general, Ford will tend to continue to invest in profitable programs, and tend to abandon unprofitable ones. There are an awful lot of baby-boomers entering empty-nest retirement age, and boomers have a taste for powerful, cool looking sporty-luxury cars, with lots of surprise-and-delight gadgets and features and innovative driver conveniences (and space), which also happen to make for great bragging points when heading for the golf course or the hunting-lodge cabin out in the country with friends. Be brave, Gerbrendel-meister. Enough said. --T-dot 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

I removed many images that seemed to just clutter up the article, and moved some around. I, or somebody else should find 2003 or newer Town Car to put in top infobox. Karrmann 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to have 03+ model in the infobox. Many car articeles simply use the best looking one. Truth be told the dirveway shot is the best pic we have of a TC on WP. All other shots are taking of cars that are somewhat dirty, on parking lots or on the street. Unless someone can put a just polished '03+ TC in a dignified environment and shot a pic with just the right lightin the pic should stay. (The currently best '03 pic has a Chrylser Mini-van in the backgournd- in order to take a good car picture, I mean a really good one, you needs to be able to move the car and have constant access to it.) Also, please leave the collages, they illustrate the design changes described in the article-they are not clutter. That, said I left most of your changes in place and thank you for your efforts. Happy New Year, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just let me get rid of that gallery in the second gen section. Karrmann 16:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppse that gallery is less than pleasing to the eye ;-)- so go ahead. But please leave the infobox image, it's the best pic we have of a Town Car and the most beautiful pic should be in the most prominent place, see Lincoln Continental for an example. Best Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

I personally don't see teh point in putting that side view image in the name section. How does itillustreate how the people are naming the car? We got pleanty of images in the Gen III section illustrating the Gen III, so I find the image redundant. Karrmann 01:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It just decorates the article. The image is free, I took it and it is quite a good shot. But if you truly think the pic doesn't add to the article and insist that it ought to go, we can leave it out. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't clutter the article at all, and it fits in very nicely right above the picture of the '78. I think it should stay, it's nice to have the side profile there. Now maybe if we put the same side profile of a '70s model underneath it, it would show the contrast between them and that would work even better.

Honestly, we should be thankful that we have high-quality posed pictures on this article. Many of the images here actually look like factory photos. --Sable232 03:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It should only be removed from the article if its presence is actually detrimental to the article, and that's not the case. I would say there are a few too many images throughout; it's the only auto article I've seen with three images stuffed into an infobox, and one of the few with any interior images. IFCAR 12:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because I'm the owner have complete 24/7 access to it-as we already have determined that owner can get the best pics of their cars. I put in the interior pictures and the multiple outside shots to illustrate the design changes described in the article. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the quantity of images so much as the way some are mashed together. A set of four for the 98-02 design (yours?) and a set of three for the 95-97 (also yours?). A fair number of articles also have a lot of different angles of the same car, obviously owned by the photographer, but generally presented in more space-efficient galleries. But, it doesn't really matter. IFCAR 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, you don't mind the pics, just they way they're arranged. I'll look into using some galleries. I put in so many pictures to illusteate all the design differences. Mine is the '02- the '95 TC is that of another author who worked on this article back in mid '05. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. But I don't really mind that much either, it's just something that I happened to notice when this related discussion turned up. Really, either way is fine. IFCAR 12:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - it might be just me fussing - but I still think this article has far too many images cluttering up the page. One side-view image (yes discussed above) is inexplicably repeated: appearing in an infobox grouped with others and also riding solo in an unrelated paragraph, which is really visually annoying. Other images are placed on both the left and the right sides, with a slender column of text down the middle sandwiched in between, in clear violation of the Manual of Style on Images. The article just seems to me to scream out: "Look!!! Super fanatical enthusiasts did this article and love to show off pictures of their cars!" - so it really starts to taint the neutral, encyclopedic POV - and look almost like a (poorly arranged) advertising brochure from Ford fanatical enthusiast's web site. That said, I really do like the idea of combined 3-view images in the infobox, with a couple of high quality exterior shots of the entire vehicle, which very clearly define and describe the overall shape and notable exterior features visually, and perhaps an interior shot (which should be biased somewhat towards the driver's side as a viewpoint in my opinion). Any other images outside of the infoboxes should be very few and far between, and only provided if absolutely essential to properly illustrate the text description. I hate to nitpick - and I know y'all worked hard on this - and I am a Lincoln enthusiast myself, but this many images just seem to me to be overkill, and may prevent any hope of achieving maintaining a good or featured article status (although I really have no personal interest in that beauty-show queen elitist mentality). --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. I have re-arrenged the pictures, so they are all on the right, except for the door panel shot of third generation-which I keep becuase it marks a major design change. I didn't even notice that the side-shot was repeated in the article. I am, however, gald to hear that you "I really do like the idea of combined 3-view images in the infobox, with a couple of high quality exterior shots of the entire vehicle, which very clearly define and describe the overall shape and notable exterior features visually". Regards, Signature^brendel 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For the second generation section, I perfer to have the montage under "1995" where I feel that it illustrates the article better, as it illustrates all the changes made to the car during its facelift, from the 1990-1994 Model in the infobox. I also think it makes the article look neater. Karrmann 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have moved the montage below the infobox on the right hand side, so the article looks less cluttered. Signature^brendel 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is another flaw in the pictures in this article. Under the section of the article that is talking about the first generation Town Cars, the picture is showing a second generation Town Car. I personally have a first generation from 1984. On that model, the parking lights are taller, the tail lights stick out farther, and the hood ornament is larger than on the one shown in the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.144.2 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

9-11 pic

The 9-11 picture of a TC with a smashed windshield and the burning Pentagon in the background is completely unfit for this article. We are not talking about 9-11 here and the picture does nothing for the article esthetically. It is a depressing picture showing one of the worst tragedies in history and has no reason for being featured here. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope this isn't here to make a WP:POINT. --Sable232 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Compeition

The DTS is the Town Car's main rival, while the Jaguar XJ is also made by Ford, is an positioned higher than the Town Car, so therefor, it is not a competitor. That is like saying that the Mercury Sable competes with the Volvo S40. Both are made by the same company, and the S40 is aimed at a whole different market than the Sable. Same goes by the Town Car and Jaguar XJ. Karrmann 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The TC and XJ are relatively similar as they are both aimed at the full-size luxo market, one being more expansive than another. The new similar section is fine as the DTS is the absolute closest rival, but consider that both the DTS and TC are much, much cheaper than their "import" rivals. The XJ was listed becuase it is a full-size luxury car w/ emphasis on comfort, despite the "import vs. domestic" pricing gap. Signature^brendel 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But, the TOwn Car is aimed at the mid priced Luxury Market, and the XJ is aimed at the high end Luxury market. And again, the XJ is not competition, because it is also made by Ford. Karrmann 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we go over this someplace already? "Similar" is NOT "competition". The DTS is FWD, therefore it is not similar to the Town Car. I recall having a conversation about this elsewhere a few months back. Can we get a consensus on this and put it to bed? --Sable232 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow/altered background images on several lincoln pages

Lincoln LS
Lincoln MKZ

Lincoln Town Car

My contention is that these images are not in the normal formatting convention of wikpedia. I tried to look elsewhere, but I can't find any instances where someone has butchered a picture like this for the sake of formatting. The person doing the inserts claims it is better than a candid street shot. Too much POV and artistic endeavor? I don't think white will do, since the edges of the image are damaged. In simple terms it looks amateurish.

What say you?

CJ DUB 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

POV? Too much creativity? Well, perhaps by extremely bourgeois standards ;-). But this is WP we don't hold on to some kind of doctrine like insecure turtles, we are pragmatic and open to innovation. The images are prefereable over the usual on-the-street crap. Just because other articles don't have images as fancy doesn't mean these articles can't have them. That said, I plan on using a white background in the future Signature^brendel 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Trims

we need an expert to expand the trims section. i know for a fact that there were many different models within the different series (ie Signature Presidential). Skiendog 03:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's don't rush into this, though. Many dealers and aftermarket firms have added trim and badging to Town Cars. To the best of my belief, the Presidential package falls into this category and was never a factory option. RivGuySC 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisting as GA

Brendal, I wish that I didn't have to do this, but I think that this article no longer meets GA standards. As a result, I regret to inform you that I delisted this article as a GA. But no worries, if you follow these suggestions, then it an be a GA again in no time!

• This article is full of POV, as well as some areas of the article that seem to be comparing the Town Car to other vehicles. Examples are like "Manufactured in the Wixom Assembly Plant, the Town Car is, despite recently declining sales numbers, one of the best selling American luxury cars. It also serves as America's most used limousine and chauffered car, especially as its main competitor, the Cadillac DTS is said not to be as dependable." Lines like that have to go, they violate NPOV, as they seem to be comparing the Town Car to other vehicles.

• The head image is horrible. It has too many shadows and is not very descriptive. Since you own a Town Car, then I suggest that you create a new head image as soon as you can, to one that is more descrpitive.

• The section "Name" needs to be rewritten, as well as sourced. It also contains some elements that seem to violate NPOV.

• "The Town Car name first appeared in the Lincoln line in 1922, on a custom built Lincoln for Henry Ford." Do you have a source for this?

• Perhaps could you add information on the generation's development if there is any? This will make the article a much more interesting read.

• "According to Consumer Guide the vehicle's strengths are comfort, materials, and ride quality, while acceleration and handling are named as being the vehicle's weaknesses" This and lines similar to this one have to go. This is Wikipedia, not Consumer Reports.

• "While the Cadillac DeVille and Fleetwood were both downsized to more compact dimensions and converted to front-wheel drive for 1985 (Cadillac did keep the larger car in its line and renamed it the Fleetwood Brougham), Lincoln continued to field the Town Car as a traditional-sized luxury car during this time. Cadillac was as much affected by the "look-alike", "drive-alike" syndrome that plagued most GM divisions as their cars went through the downsizing process, which didn't help sales too much. In response to the downsized Cadillacs, Lincoln, began running a series of ads in late 1985 titled "The Valet" which depicted owners of Cadillacs and parking attendants having trouble distinguishing their cars from lesser Buicks, Oldsmobiles, Pontiacs and even Chevrolets" with the question "Is that a Cadillac?" answered by the response "No, it's an Oldsmobile (or Buick, Chevy, etc.) and then the owner of a Lincoln came out of the blue with the line "The Lincoln Town Car please", which was greatly distinguished from Cadillacs and other GM cars due to its much larger (traditional) size and distinctive styling. Each of the ads ended with the tagline "Lincoln, What a Luxury Car Should Be." The ads, which led to record sales for Lincoln as Cadillac's dropped, also reportedly embarrassed the top executives at Cadillac and GM's 14th Floor, leading GM to request that Lincoln drop "The Valet" ads." This needs sources, quick. If not, then it too is extreme POV. Although it is interesting, it needs to be referenced, and seems to act like as if the Town Car is superior to a Cadillac. Sorry, either rewrite this in a less POV way, and reference it, or it has to go.

• Second Generation. Please rewrite the opening of this section. Perhaps, you can add a paragraph that explains the changes and new features of this car. The current one is inadequate, as it is too short, and the way it just goes out of its way to say the fact that the new Town Car had air suspension doesn't satisfy me. Perhaps, merge the third paragraph with the first one. It might be fine the way it is, it is just a suggestion. What is definitely needs though is references. The section is majorly unreferenced.

• 1995 Is not too bad, but it needs more sources. Same goes for Special Editions, it needs more referencing. Also, when mentioning the first model, it gives a lit of optional features on that model. Please remove that.

• The Third Generation section needs to have better references, though the writing is not that bad. However this, "According to Consumer Guide the car scores above average in the premium luxury segment for comfort, room and materials but scores below average for acceleration, steering and overall technical performance.[6] Otherwise, the Town Car has frequently received negative reviews with the car being considered "out of date." The Town Car is, however, still considered one of the best chauffeured vehicles[12] as it receives high marks for being among the most comfortable, quiet riding and roomiest luxury cars available." needs to go. This is Wikipedia, not Consumer Reports. Also, the rest of the third generation is unreferenced. Please source it.

• The gallery needs to go, especially because it is smack dab in the middle of the text.

• The infobox image for the third generation is less than stellar, as it has many important details of the car being overshadowed by the tree. Please make a better image.

• The 2003 section is not bad. But it has no references at all, and it needs some to verify its info. The area talking about the cosmetic changes is fine, as the picture provides a good enough source to verify that info. It is the info on the option changes that needs to be referenced.

• The Future section needs more referencing, badly. It also needs to be updated.

• The Popular Culture section needs to go.

• Trim Levels. Seems to distract the flow of the article, and it is written like a list. Might I suggest creating a separate model such as List of Lincoln Town Car models to contain that info instead? Plus, you can make it more detailed that way.

• Why is a trim level timeline in the "Ballistic Protection" section? It most likely needs to be removed anyways.

• Ballistic Protection section has no references, and it needs many to factiliate some of the exaggerant claims there. Not only that, but it contains some hints of POV, seeming as if you are comparing the armored Town Car to that of other armored luxury vehicles, and that violates NPOV

• The Awards section is a list, and needs to be converted into prose. also, it should only list the major and notable awards that the Town Car won, like Motor Trend's Car of the Year. It should be converted to paragraph form giving an overview of the major awards that the Town Car won, similar to the award section in Ford Taurus. However, this section is properly references, and I applaud it, as the rest of this article is desperately seeking references.

• Engine specifications seems to again, distract from the flow of the article. Like I suggested above, that can be included in the separate article List of Lincoln Town Car models, similar to that of List of Ford Taurus models.

• The references should be converted to footnotes, so you can attribute them to where they are faciliated.

• Remove the comparison links from the External Links section.

That is all I can think of now. All I know is that this article needs a lot of work, and for now, it is no longer a good article until the issues above are fixed. When that is done, I will happily renominate it! Karrmann 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the text you have question wasn't added by myself... to be honest I have focused more on other articles and have, unfortunately not kept a close enough watch on this article. In response to your concerns:

• Brendel, not Brendal, ;-) --Think Bren-Dell, as in Dell computers :D, Thx.
• The head-image has been replaced
• The comparison has been removed
• The consumer reports quote should stay as it gives on overview of what test drivers consider to be the cars strenghts and weaknesses - it isn't OR nor POV-it simply serves to state what reviewers think
• The gallery shows pictures pertaining to design changes described in the text and, therefore, needs to be included.
• The image for the third gen info box has been replaced
• The trim-level section is supposed to be list, as there isn't any more detail to mention
• There is no need to a List of Lincoln Town Car models, as there has only been one model - there simply isn't enough info to justify such an article
• We currently use footnotes - the "references" section was out-dated and has been removed
• Comparison links have been removed
• The Future section has been removed
• The un-sourced content is a problem. Since I am not the author of that content, I haven't dared to remove it up to now. I'll see how much I can trim.
• I have tweaked the wording in the second gen section and will proof-read the article later on

Regards, Signature^brendel 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fuel tank section

Added a notation on the fuel tank issue the panther vehicles had. I think its notable, as even the section in the Ford Crown Vic article talks about a big lawsuit due to the same problem from an accident in a Town Car where someone was killed. Ejfetters 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I see that the quote from Forbes is referenced, but it seems anecdotal -- not appropriate for a reference article: very generous exterior and interior dimensions as well as a "Pillowy ride and chrome aplenty."[1] (Forbes)

Not to be critical, but what are "very generous" dimensions? What is chrome aplenty? These terms are weasely and don't mean anything, in the end.

The next sentance makes a big statement: "despite recently declining sales numbers, one of the best selling American luxury cars." Says who?

I'll leave these notes here, hopefully someone will reply and we can clean up the intro and any other similar wording. 842U (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have removed some of the fluffy wording. Any other input would be appreciated. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

last paragraph

2008 is not the last year of the Towncar.. It was scheduled to be discontinued, but instead prodction was moved to Canada.. as the first paragraph in the intro says. The last paragraph needs to be re-written since it refers to the 2008 as the "last year" multiple times. --Brougham96 (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC) The town car will still be available in 2009 for fleets limo,taxi etc and for a regular customer you can still get it new by special ordering it from the dealer. Lincoln says its about a month long wait

The 2009 Buyer's Guides from both Road & Track and Motor Trend both list the 2009 Lincoln Town Car as being available to customers. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

1981-1984 Photo.

The photo depicting the 1981-1984 Lincoln Town Car is a 1985-1989 body style. I believe the photo needs to be changed as the 81-84 features much sharper body lines in the front and rear before the 1985 update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big80sclassic (talk • contribs) 06:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the photo next to the 1981-84 paragraphs is supposed to depict the whole '81-'89 generation, but the layout makes it appear that it isn't. --Sable232 (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Below-than-average safety, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Crash tests are only part of the story. In real life, sloppy handling characteristics could leave to a higher-than-average frequency of serious crashes. For the period 2002-2005, the U.S. vehicle fleet averaged 79 death per year per million vehicles, while the Lincoln Town Car managed to annually kill 91 out of every million of its drivers. Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Status Report, Vol. 42, No. 4, April 19, 2007.

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf

Aldo L (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, a car that kills its drivers? Gives a whole new meaning to "vehicular homicide"! Personally, I don't think 15% over the norm is all that remarkable. --Vossanova ^o< 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

due to too poor braking performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Livery Use

Really needs a section on the use as a livery vehicle. By most accounts, the only reason this car still exists is because of the livery industry. It accounts for something like 1/3 of all Town Car sales. Almost every livery fleet in the nation either includes or is entirely made up of Town Cars. Hence, the reason why in the last 28 years there have been only 2 changes to the basic body style. Even people who work in the business cannot differniate one model year to another. A top Ford rep attends the annual national livery convention every year.

In addition, IRCC the entire reason the L editions exists is due to some livery owners ordering entire fleets of the "mini-stretch" cars (which can be spotted by the panels at the B column, whereas now the door is simply bigger to accommodate the extra space). 24.24.244.132 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Safest?

Toyota Prius has much better braking performance (much shorter braking distance) than Lincoln Town Car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This anonymous editor is changing the evaluation of the Town Car's braking. They seem to have not been able to read the citation for the sentence they are altering. The respected reference states: Braking short and stable for a heavyweight... In summary, the big Lincoln has been rated well in its category. Moreover, it is rather pointless to compare the Lincoln (and the other full-sized sedans) with the small Prius because they are in dramatically different target markets and vehicle classifications. Similarly, there are many vehicles that can stop in less distance than a Prius. It would not help to describe the Prius' braking as poor, simply because any Ferrari or Porsche has vastly better braking performance much that of the Toyota. Thank you — CZmarlin (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So let's clarify that the Lincoln Town Car is "one of the safest cars in its target market and vehicle classification". Aldo L (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Featuritis

Please don't turn this article into an indiscriminate list of standard features, options, and prices. The average reader is not going to care. Wikipedia is not a primary reference guide; if you want more detailed information, add another site to the External links section. This article should *summarize* the purpose, history, and notability of the car. --Vossanova ^o< 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

2012

So, I take it, it'll be gone by 2012? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's right. --Vossanova ^o< 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ford 302 cu in 5.0L engine

The Ford 302 cu in V8 is a 5.0L, not a 4.9L. It is called a 5.0L and is referred to as a 5.0L by all of the Ford guys out there. It says 5.0L right on top of the engine. You keep saying that it was marketed as a 5.0L. If Ford calls it a 5.0L, then it's a 5.0L. It's their car after all, they can call it whatever they want. Why refer to it as anything else? After all we are talking about the Ford 302 cu in 5.0L, not any other engine. It doesn't matter what any other manufacturer calls a 302 cu in engine. We are not talking about them. We are talking about the Lincoln Town Car which had the Ford 302 cu in 5.0L engine. Please quit putting false data on the page. You can't change facts. You can't make something into something that it's not. I could say Ford marketed this car as a Town Car, but I'm going to call it Town. That doesn't make it a Town. If it was marketed by Ford as a Town Car, then it's a Town Car. After all this page is about the Town Car and nothing else. You can't change stuff to your liking and make up a bunch of myths, which is what you're doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.209.110 (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing factual information and read the Wikipedia guidelines. An encyclopedia is not a marketing brochure for a manufacturer. If an automaker decides to give a name such as a "Rocket V8", then that does not make that engine a real "rocket". Believing every peacock statement and their advertising department's puffery would be putting up "false information". Yes, there are many reasons why Ford marketed their 302 engine as a metric 5.0, rather than under its true 4.9 displacement. First, it reads better and second, because of the competition. Each automaker wants to be at least "equal" or better.

However, there are specific guidelines for information to be put into an encyclopedia to prevent false information. Please refer to the "Displacement" section under units WP:AUN. it reads as follows and provides the specific example of Ford's 302 engine:

"Where conflict exists between the actual and advertised displacement of an engine, we treat the advertised displacement as a part of the engine's designation or name, placing it in italics. We also express the actual displacement."

• "Ford's 4.9 liter (4,942 cc, 302 cu in) 5.0 Windsor engine"

Thank you, CZmarlin (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions after the fact

In 2009, Car and Driver magazine named the Lincoln in its unscientific list criticizing a competing magazine, Motor Trend, for awarding the second-generation Town Car its 1990 "Car of the Year" award. The facts do not change as to the actual automotive history and the exhaustive tests Motor Trend conducted almost 20 years ago for the Town Car to achieve this recognition. Each magazine has its own biases and preferences. Therefore, the unscientific opinion of competing magazine editors is not a valid reference because it has no affect the car's history and receipt of the award. Moreover, according to Wikipedia automobile conventions, the widely accepted guideline for automotive subjects is that mention of such references should be limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design, operation, or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. In summary, the 2009 opinion of Car and Driver magazine regarding the 1990 award given by Motor Trend magazine, is not appropriate because it has no noticeable impact on the car. CZmarlin (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I really disagree. The opinions of both C&D and MT are notable regardless of when they are issued as they impact the legacy of the vehicle. If I'm not mistaken the C&D list covers bad COTY awards for a number of magazines including themselves. The idea that the C&D reference is "unscientific" is also a weak argument. Automotive reviews are not a science and MT's choice to name the Town Car COTY is just as subjective as C&D's choice to criticize the decision. The fact is Lincolns from this period have a bad reputation and this is supported by the reference to C&D, this definitely deserves mentioning. --Leivick (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The editors of Car and Driver magazine clearly state that they are: "subject to hype for something that seems new, different, and maybe even better". They continue to write: "in this business, we all feel the crushing pressure to be timely, amusing, and authoritative." It is evident that the purpose of the "Dishonorable Mention" article met their objective: to be amusing.

The discussion for each vehicle named in this article is nothing more subjective opinion. This is unlike the detailed analysis that purports to follow scientific measurements and principles that the automobile magazine uses when testing cars for their "real" reports. The most often mentioned guideline to follow when criticizing the work of others is to be honest. However, in this article, the editors of Car and Driver are not honest. Their focus is on entertaining their readers. For example, they describe the "flaming piles of poo named Car of the Year". This is not written to be honest, professional, and authoritative. Furthermore, some of the "manure" cars they are criticizing were recognized by a widely known and respected annual award presented by one of their competitors on the newsstand. This is ironic, and this alone is a source of their bias. This article is not a reliable reference source for an encyclopedia.

Furthermore, the honorable thing to do is to stand by a decision for recognizing something. Once the deed is done, it is done and an award is not retracted after the passage of 20 or more years. At the time that these cars were selected for recognition, they were the best among the alternatives as measured by the criteria at the time by the editors at the magazine. Obviously, when reviewing decisions with the benefit of hindsight of several decades and under different conditions, many selections could be done differently. However, if recognitions and awards are retracted, then it devalues the original honor of any awards system under discussion. The editors cannot have it both ways: to have readers place value their original "hunks of crud" selections and then after several decades and "product liability lawsuits by the acre-foot" about the cars they honored, to seek penance.

In summary, this is just an “entertainment” piece, and not an authoritative information source worthy of mentioning. CZmarlin (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nearly all car magazine articles are "entertainment" pieces including COTY awards. You quote C&D to claim that they are not being authoritative in the article in question, but what they are actually doing in the text you quoted is calling into question the authority of all opinions expressed by the automotive press in general particularly COTY awards. COTY awards are not some gospel truth that can't be questioned, they are subjective awards intended largely for entertainment purposes (not to mention some likely palm greasing on the part of the manufacturers). The fact is the Town Car won a COTY award from a car mag when it was new, but now in hindsight it is called into question by another car mag. I'm sure we agree that C&D and MT are pretty close in terms of reliability and I think that the question really comes down to whether some articles are more authoritative than others. I don't think there is any difference between a COTY award and an article about bad COTY choices. You point to some subjective language in the C&D piece, but I can guarantee that there is some equally "fluffy" wording in the original COTY article from MT. I really don't think you have established that the C&D article is lacking in authority. --Leivick (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First, it is easy for writers of today to not only ignore the advancements at the time represented by the selected cars that earned recognition some decades ago (as well as the sales successes of many of those models), but also to point out all their flaws as measured by today's standards.

Second, this particular brief article contains more than the average amount of subjective (if not even questionable) language and statements in comparison to what is contained in one of their "regular" full road tests or car comparisons. Yes, I agree that the automotive press is generous with BS (Boastful Superlatives) to describe automobiles and thus earn credits from the hands of the automakers that feed them. Their articles are typically accompanied by timed and measured data to "prove" their BS language. However, in this case, this article offers nothing more than euphemisms and cute sayings such as the following:

• "a poseur with wheezing four- and six-cylinder engines" (surprisingly describing the all-time best selling models of this brand leading to the riddle of whom to believe: auto journalists who get their cars for free, or consumers who pay for their automobiles with hard-earned money?)
• "engine croaked along with only 60 hp" (yet buyers were offered a small and inexpensive vehicle in a marketplace of large land yachts, and its 40 mpg highway efficiency during a time of historically high fuel prices)
• "lashed to a somnambulant four-speed automatic transaxle" (never mind that this reliable unit was bolted in of one of the most popular fleet vehicles that could take massive amounts of daily abuse, as well as the model being a cash cow for the automaker)
• "it was platinum-haired women prone to carrying small dogs wherever they go" (there is no need to add a comment regarding a statement that has no place in serious journalism)

And these completely subjective sayings go on and on in this article, without ever providing the reader with any hard facts or data comparisons that would help to lend any of these opinions at least some credibility.

I hope you can see that these are not serious professional and citable statements truly worthy of inclusion in a trustworthy encyclopedia. I can just see other Wikipedia contributors paraphrasing the following: "Hey, compared to the ___ , a wheelbarrow seemed refined" as gospel truth because Car and Driver described it that way. It is obvious that these opinions are not serious journalism. It is not even possible to attribute any of these to a degree of poetic license. There is no measure where even a riding mower (much less an automobile such as Ford's primitive Model T that was named "Car of the Century" in 1999) could be less "refined than a wheelbarrow". I may be naïve, but I understand when the magazine editors are just having some fun, and an article where they really try to report about (and in the process hype) some fancy new car with some hard data and information.

Yes, there is entertainment value in this article, but as an authoritative, citable, and reliable reference, I think the answer is no. Thanks for your attention and consideration! CZmarlin (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the crux of your argument seems to be that because the C&D reference has too much flowery language, it can't be taken seriously and that you think that the COTY articles in these magazines have higher editorial standards than articles like the C&D ref in question. I don't think this is correct. I still contend that flowery language and subjective verbiage are a part of mainstream automotive press vernacular. I would agree with you if we were trying to undercut a reference to an academic source by using some parody piece from a low brow magazine, but here we are dealing with two sources that are more or less identical in there stature (even if the articles are slightly different that is still no reason to discount a ref). To prove what I am saying let me give some examples from MT's most recent COTY awards (allegedly a far more reliable source than the C&D article).

• "it's unrefined nature takes away from its acceleration and handling prowess -- like a sexy woman with the voice of Barry White."
• "Gads, it’s gorgeous: as flat and broad as a surging ocean wave."
• "Yes, we said “dance club” and “Buick” in one sentence."
• "charming character with lots of exterior pizzazz and an interior that’s the equivalent of a five-seat happy face."
• PLUS plenty more that I didn't bother to quote.

In short I don't see much of a difference between these sources and even still I don't think you can discount an article in a reliable source just because you think it isn't the exact equal in journalistic excellence. --Leivick (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This brief article is heavy on irreverent humor, but sadly lacking on specific comparisons, measures, tests, and analysis to help support what are clearly musings by the Car and Driver editors. This article is more than "slightly different" in its composition and attention to the subject matter using your comparison. It is is full of opinions, hyperbole, and sweepingly misleading generalizations. It does not contain the information to meet the criteria as an authoritative reference. Given that "flowery language and subjective verbiage" is the norm and also ignoring the desire for journalistic excellence, could you please identify where this article provides some specific data or verifiable information to back its opinions about the 10 cars? Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV says we must cover all significant views on the subject. You may disagree with what C&D is saying, but that doesn't mean you can throw out the source expressing a notable opinion. COTY awards are selected by opinion, not by "specific data or verifiable information" they don't pick the car with the most hp per dollar, they pick the car they like the most for whatever reason. They may justify their choice with some numbers, but the C&D article does that too. We are dealing with two notable opinions, you can't drop one just because you don't like how the article is written. --Leivick (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your contention that this is an NPOV issue and must be included to cover all "significant" views. There is a difference between the occasional ramblings (even by normally credible sources as in this case) and a more serious article about a vehicle road test, report, or comparison providing some level of credence with complete measurements and collected data. I am sorry, but you have also not answered my question to point out where this article has some specific information and data about these 10 cars in this article. Instead, what we have in this article are unsourced and speculative opinions, from an otherwise-reliable source. Wikipedia guidelines state that there should be a distinction between "opinion pieces" and actual news. This article is purely an "opinion piece". It does not rise to the level of a credible source because it is made up of entertaining musings by the Car and Driver editors that do not even purport to be statements of fact about these 10 cars. Including such "opinion pieces" as a reference only sets up the classic case of a "feedback loop" whereby questionable or misleading generalizations are cited in an Wikipedia article to help support the original speculative contention. There are already too many examples of conflicting "opinions" in Wikipedia automobile articles as to fastest, best, most reliable, longest lasting, most efficient, etc. There are also countless "expert" opinions to cite, but they should not be included (in the name of covering all significant views) without them relying on actual supporting and credible data. I therefore, return to my original point: "according to Wikipedia automobile conventions, the widely accepted guideline for automotive subjects is that mention of such references should be limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design, operation, or other tangible aspect of the vehicle." These "thoughts" presented by the C&D editors, decades after the fact, have not done anything to the original recognitions these 10 cars received, and neither is the article's hyperbole a verifiable "legacy" about them. Thank you. CZmarlin (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to crystallize this argument to avoid going in circles. You seem to have two separate issues with this material getting included (correct me if I'm wrong).

• 1. The the facts of a reference must directly effect the sales, design, operation, or other tangible aspect of the vehicle.
• 2. The C&D article is an opinionated rambling in contrast to a more serious COTY award from MT.

Number one is without a doubt wrong. I really respect you as an editor and don't want to be overly aggressive, but this is a sham argument. Current (or past) opinions from notable sources are absolutely valid for inclusion, journalistic opinions are covered on countless automotive articles. You say there are countless experts to cite, then we should condense the most notable opinions into a well written "reception" section. These are often found in literature or film articles (not to mention many automotive articles) and often cover both contemporary criticism and later revisions there of.

Number two is a little more complicated, but the fact is both articles are opinion pieces. COTY is not based on measurements or collected data it is based on the opinions of the editors of the magazine. It is a fact that the Lincoln won COTY (opinion) from a reliable source, but it is also a fact that this has been questioned (opinion) by a reliable source. You say the C&D article is unsourced and speculative. It is allowed to be, it is an opinionated editorial, it isn't a Wikipedia article. The MT award is unsourced too, they give reasons for their opinions, but so does C&D. You keep pushing this question about what information or data about the vehicles discussed in the C&D article. It is an article about media reception it isn't (primarily) about the statistics of the vehicles. I think where we are disagreeing here is that you think that we should not be covering journalistic opinions in the article and only hard facts (The TC getting a COTY award being a fact). I disagree with this and I think consensus would back me up (maybe we need more opinions). Please take a look at these two issues and explain where you disagree or if there are other issues I am missing. --Leivick (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it difficult to consider this C&D "opinionated editorial" as a credible source for inclusion in an encyclopedia article because it is so full of hyperbole and misleading generalizations.There are probably other contributors who also may see both sides. The sad truth is that by including it, Wikipedia is contributing to the "feedback loop" by promoting ideas or opinions that are not based on any facts. Please note the comments (based on reliable sources) that I have provided on the respective article's talk pages to discredit the opinions contained in this C&D article regarding the Ford Mustang (second generation) and the Renault Alliance.

I think hard facts (development, design, engineering, marketing, sales, specifications, etc. belong in each encyclopedia article. Journalistic ramblings and editorial comments such as "flaming piles of poo" should not even be considered as worthy of mentioning, because such statements alone undermine the credibility of the author(s). I do not think that "poo" comments would be included in an article, for example about a leader of a nation, in the spirit of including "all the significant views". Even though the Dishonorable Mention article was published by a "reliable source" ... I question if it is represents a "significant view" in that it was not presented fairly nor in a credible manner.

Wikipedia guidelines also call for careful selection of reliable sources. This does not mean that such thoughtless verbiage - even if written by C&D editors - should be included in Wikipedia articles. Just like reporting on current events would not be based on the opinions of "influential" late-night TV entertainers - no matter how many millions of people are watching. This was one of my original reasons not to include this article. The brief, random ramblings about these 10 cars is not equal, for example, to the information and opinions contained in a full road test article.

Wikipedia guidelines state not to misrepresent the relative prominence of views. Mentioning that a vehicle earned an award and then referencing this C&D article (written many years subsequently and with the benefit of hindsight) that the car should not have earned such an award is an example of misrepresentation and gives a false impression of parity.

I may not have answered you specific question. but have tried to explain my "opinions". Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixing up the article

I'm not saying this article needs to be shortened...but the way it is currently written leaves a bit of room for improvement. The prose about the newer versions seems to go on ad nauseum about minor and insignificant trim details; it is not poorly written, but it is starting to seem more like a Lincoln dealer brochure than most of us really want. This is space that could be re-written and dedicated towards the actual major changes that were made. For example, in 2003, the frame and suspension were redesigned...that's a bit more significant than options and colors (One example I added recently was the Town Car shifting production from the United States to Canada). In addition, there is already a section dedicated towards the content about trim types. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Working to fix up the article

Sometimes, it seems like the content of this article runs on a bit more than it needs to. In comparison to other automotive articles, the Town Car article talks a lot about random features and trim packages, while the actual development of the car is something that is not covered much. What I am trying to say is that this page will need a major condensing over the next few months; sometimes, less can be more. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Safety concerns section

Is this something that needs to be reworded? I don't know what the convention here is, but any model produced on the scale of the Town Car for as long as it has been produced, problems of some sort are bound to crop up. The way the article is currently worded is only really of use for someone who owns one or someone looking to buy one; obviously, that is not what Wikipedia is here for and that is why I am bringing it up for further discussion. --SteveCof00 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well.. the section name certainly needs to be changed given it includes a variety of subsections, most of which have nothing to do with safety. The unintended acceleration bit could be moved into a new section on 'Demographics'. Nevard (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the reason you think the wording of the Safety section is of use only for someone who owns or is looking to buy a Town Car? How do you think such information could be presented in a way that is encyclopedic? Where would this information go? And how would the wording differ from details about trim during certain years, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.61.211 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What was a 70th Town Car ?

The "Town Car/Coupe" option was nothing more than a package with more standard equipment and the Town-badge. Thats all. The roof over the passanger compartment is called "Coach roof" and was optional for all Continentals, no matter if it was a Sedan/Coupe with/without Town package. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.81.112 (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From what it looks like, the article DOES explain it like that and it indicates that 1981 was the first year as a distinct model in the lineup. --SteveCof00 (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Codes

I am trying to find out what DCL stands for? I have a 92" front wheel drive lincoln continetal. It keeps flashing the check DCL, but I of course have no idea what that stands for. Any help on this would be very apperciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.74.131 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for the subject of an article. Still, let me Google that for you.—Dah31 (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese CKD Town Car

From what I understand, the Town Car was shipped to China in CKD form to be finished as a limousine (in varying lengths). I found this from both the Hongqi article and its English-language website; This website explains the car in a bit more detail.

Maybe something like this is worth adding in eventually--SteveCof00 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

1980s base model

The base model of the 1980s Lincoln Town Car was called the Executive Series. I had a 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.128.228 (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Designer Series

It was written, "The Designer Series was an upper-middle trim level in between the Signature Limited and Signature L." That is incorrect. The L and Signature L was the longer wheelbase limousine model. The Signature L had the same trim level as the Signature Series. Therefore the Designer Series was the top trim level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.128.228 (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate

The reason the Ultimate series only lasted one year is because they also used the Ultimate name for the top series of the Grand Marquis. I told them that was a terrible idea, so they came up with something better the next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.128.228 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Replacement

There hasn't been a true successor to the Town Car for a long time. And the MKT is a crossover, not a sedan. I think that the fully equipped Taurus SHO and MKS Ecoboost could be indirect replacements to the Town Car. The Town Car compared indirectly to the Chrysler 300 and Buick Lucerne, and possibly the Cadillac DTS, but the Town Car has the class of its own, called the "Red Carpet Luxury Sedans." No other car, not even a Bentley or a Rolls-Royce, had this kind of class. My dad says that there's no substitute for the Town Car. 46.4.214.230 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Other edits

This leeds to another mistake: The 1980 Continentals became not Mark VI. They became the Town Cars (same bodystyle and also without concealed headlamps). And the Mark VI was nothing more than a Town car with a different front/back and some other very tiny details.

There was no Town Car for 1980 (it was the Continental in this year) and the 1981 Town Cars where nothing as rebagded 1980 Continentals. For 1981 there was no Continental (only the Continental Mark VI). The Continentals first reappeared as a redesigned car in 1982.

97.122.188.232 (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No Lincoln Town Coupe

There was never a "Lincoln Town Coupe". For 1981 it was advertised and produced as a "Lincoln Town Car 2dr" (which where basically Lincoln Continental (Town) Coupes of 1980. See the original brochures: http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Lincoln/album/album_001/1981-Lincoln-Town-Car-06 It even says "Town Car" in the C-Pillar Windows, on the trunklid, above the drivers headlights and above the glovebox.

--97.122.188.232 (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)