Ed:

I really like the MKS......and when my '06 Five Hundred needs replacing,
I'll consider one.  Speaking of which, the 500 is a Limited with AWD and
CVT.....an alwful lot of parts  right out of the Volvo parts bin, which
isn't a bad thing.  I guess I miss the days when a Mercury was  a
glorified Ford (but had a significantly nicer interior & equipment
level)...and the Lincoln was unique, i.e. how many parts did a 52,'56,
58. or 61 Lincoln share with Ford/Merc. 'Course, those were the days
when a car make was a single line, not a size for everyone.......not to
mention the cost of emission & crash certification which makes unique
models cost prohibitive.

Don't forget where Lexus, Infinity, Acura et al came from:  the US put
quotas on the imports to give domestic makers a breather, so our friends
in Japan started rebadging home-market models as different makes.  Nice
trick.

So.....if GM buys Chrysler, how many nameplates will survive?

I was agreeing with you until you spouted this crap about the 2005
Mustang using the same chassis as the Lincoln LS. It is not and I have
posted many reference to refute this BS every time you repeat it. You
continually repeat this untruth despite overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.

For those who actually don't know you keep making this crap up, here
are some references:

From http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=17268:

"Based on an all-new, fully modern body structure and chassis system
featuring advanced MacPherson struts and a three-link live axle with
Panhard rod, Mustang boasts an overall ride sophistication unmatched
by any of its ancestors. Its braking and handling are nothing short of
world class."

Note the LS, Jaguar S and Thunderbird use double wishbone front
suspension, and idenpendent reas suspension, have compeltely different
engine choices, etc.

From http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_dew_drop/ :

"Inner debates? How about fights, laughs Phil Martens as he describes
the reaction in Ford Motor Co.'s inner sanctums when the decision was
made early in the design of the '05 Mustang to abandon the DEW
platform for an all-new architecture.

"Engineers were not far into the program when it became evident the
expensive DEW98 platform (Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, Jaguar S-Type)
would not provide Mustang with the range and cost-effectiveness
needed, says Martens, Ford group vice president-North America product
creation.

"Controversial as the decision was internally, Martens has no regrets
today.

"The new architecture developed for the Mustang represents a savings
of 30%-35% (for the V-8) compared with what it would have cost to
build the newest pony car off the DEW architecture, he tells Ward's.

"And the entry-level V-6, with a solid rear axle and desired
pricepoint under $20,000, was close to impossible from a platform with
an expensive double-wishbone front suspension and independent rear
suspension.

"The LS (DEW) platform was built with a different cost structure and a
different performance level and didn't have the accommodation that a
traditional Mustang product has," says Martens of the complicated
family with about nine variants planned, from the base coupe to a
high-end $60,000 Cobra R.

"The decision was not made without angst.

"Work on the Mustang started prior to Martens' return to Ford from a
stint at Mazda Motor Corp. two years ago. It began with the working
premise DEW would do the job, a cost-effective use of an existing
platform that played well at a time when the auto maker was
hemorrhaging cash and needed stringent cost-cutting.

"Except it didn't work.

"The business case was not there and the desired product range could
not be achieved. The 4.6L V-8 engine didn't even fit - it would have
required a redesign of the control arms.

""When I came back from Japan (two years ago), I took a look at it and
just cut right to the bone," says Martens.

""The LS architecture is not a low-cost architecture, and it was never
designed to be a low-cost architecture," Martens says. "If you start
out at the high-cost range, you can't bring it down to the low-cost
range," he explains.

"Conversely, "the Mustang architecture is what I would call an
affordable architecture with range," meaning it has "the capability to
take that same basic architecture into high cost (vehicles)."

"The new platform will be profitable, he asserts. Annual sales are
projected at about 170,000 units, and Martens expects Mustang to sell
out for the first three or four years. The architecture should pay for
itself after the first couple of years, during which time the capital
costs will be amortized, he says.

"In terms of range, "you want to have an architecture that can go from
handling low-cost applications for high volume, all the way to
specialty ramifications, such as the Cobra R and a convertible,"
explains Martens.

""That stand requires you to think differently about the total concept
of an architecture capability set.

""So if you look at that type of bandwidth, the capability, it didn't
make sense, over time, as we looked at it, to just pick the LS or the
DEW98 architecture."

"From a clean sheet of paper, engineers derived a layout that, "by
itself, will have an incredible capacity," says Martens.

"At the bottom is a basic Mustang with a 4L V-6, new MacPherson strut
front suspension and 3-link solid rear axle that acts like it's
independent with better damping and spring rates, placement of shocks,
including a Panhard rod to help with torsional stability and overall
attention to geometric alignment for a low-cost, well-balanced
vehicle.

""In reality, the V-6 automatic person doesn't effectively care or
want to know what the rear or front suspensions are," says Martens.
"But they want to know that this is a Mustang - it looks great, sounds
great and drives great."
......"

Ed