Should Chrysler re-enter the livery market with the current 300?

[Pink Jazz]

When Chrysler released their second generation 300, they chose to back out of the livery market, leaving the Lincoln MKT as the only officially supported American livery vehicle.  The Lincoln MKT has not been well received by the livery market, which has caused many limo companies to switch to European vehicles or resort to fully custom jobs.

I personally believe that Chrysler is missing out on an opportunity to take the livery market to itself, since I would expect that a long wheelbase limo version of the current 300 would greatly outsell the Lincoln MKT.  Chrysler made a huge mistake to back out of the livery market IMO, and because Ford is doing poorly with the Lincoln MKT, Chrysler can do better with the 300.  In fact, some limo companies are producing their own custom stretches of the current 300, although they are not officially supported by Chrysler.

What does anyone here think?

[PHLBOS]

Wow I didn't realize that Chrysler indeed backed out.  They had to have known that Lincoln was phasing out its real Town Car at the time.

However, it's worth noting that just because Chrysler doesn't offer a livery-specific 300 themselves; doesn't mean that companies can't buy a fleet of retail 300s and modify them to their specs.  Many companies did such with the Cadillac Broughams and Fleetwoods of the mid 80s through the mid 90s after they stopped making factory-produced limousines.

IIRC, many livery companies bought retail Continentals/Town Cars and simply modified (read stretched) them as well.  The stretched Town Car L series only dates back to the early 2000s.

Unlike the police vehicle market; taxi and livery companies have more flexibility in terms of what they want/need for a base vehicle as a starting point.

[Pink Jazz]

However, it's worth noting that just because Chrysler doesn't offer a livery-specific 300 themselves; doesn't mean that companies can't buy a fleet of retail 300s and modify them to their specs.  Many companies did such with the Cadillac Broughams and Fleetwoods of the mid 80s through the mid 90s after they stopped making factory-produced limousines.

Which is what many limo companies are now resorting to after the loss of the official livery Town Car.

[nexus73]

If Chrysler would build an Imperial that wasn't a snub-nosed front with high back end car like the 300 is, there would be a fitting successor to the MIA Fleetwoods and Town Cars.  Make a luxury car that LOOKS like a luxury car!

Rick 

[bugo]

I think every Lincoln being manufactured today is a joke. They're nothing but Fords with ugly grilles. They don't manufacture a rear wheel drive car with a V8 engine. Cadillac is kicking their asses so bad it isn't even funny. Lincoln has no identity. It's sad that the division that made the '61-'69 Continental has no distinctive cars today. And the "MKx" naming system is ridiculous. I don't even know an MKZ from an MKX from an MKS. Then again, I don't like alphanumeric names other than Cadillac's (which are about to change). Bring back classic names like Continental and Capri and produce a world-beating rear wheel drive sports sedan and quit making blandmobiles.

[Stratuscaster]

FWIW, Chrysler contracted out the 300 Executive Edition to a third-party - shipped built 300s to them to have them chopped and 6 inches added to the rear seat area & wheelbase.

Any livery models were all custom builds of standard 300s - Chrysler didn't make any of them to my knowledge.

IMHO, Chrysler (FCA) has bigger fish to fry than to deal with the rather small livery market.

In regards to Cadillac and their alphabetic names, they are indeed changing - to alphaNUMERIC.

Aside from Mustang and the pickup trucks, I don't believe Ford has a RWD platform to build upon - it'll be FWD/AWD and that's what they have now with the MKS.

Since Ford is now pushing the Taurus and Explorer into police fleets, I would imagine livery and taxi fleets will eventually follow.

Lincoln had the LS (with bits shared with Jaguar), but I can't recall anyone really wanting a Lincoln-branded world-beating RWD sports sedan. (Or Cadillac, for that matter - but they stuck with the CTS and now the ATS - they're good, but still not "world-beating".)

Lincoln Cheat Sheet (just in case you wanted to know):
MKC: small crossover (Escape)
MKX: mid-size crossover (Edge)
MKT: large crossover (Flex/Explorer)
MKZ: mid-size sedan (Fusion)
MKS: large sedan (Taurus)

[PHLBOS]

Since Ford is now pushing the Taurus and Explorer into police fleets, I would imagine livery and taxi fleets will eventually follow.

Eventually?  Ford has already marketed Escapes (at least the previous generation models) to taxi companies for several years.  IIRC, passenger versions of its previous generation Transit-Connect van have been offered in a taxi package to taxi companies as well.

As far as the livery/limo market's concerned; I'm a bit surprised that Lincoln hasn't yet offered the Navigator to companies as a larger/RWD-based option.

Lincoln Cheat Sheet (just in case you wanted to know):
MKC: small crossover (Escape)
MKX: mid-size crossover (Edge)
MKT: large crossover (Flex/Explorer)
MKZ: mid-size sedan (Fusion)
MKS: large sedan (Taurus)

Slight correction; the Flex/MKT utilizes the larger D4 platform whereas the Explorer uses the same D3 platform as the Taurus/MKS.

Worth noting: while the Explorer has a shorter wheelbase than the Flex/MKT; it is wider (78") than the larger CUVs.  That extra width translates to 61" of shoulder room for the first 2 rows.  The last cars that came close to having that much shoulder room was the discontinued Panther-platformed sedans (Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car).

Lincoln has no identity. It's sad that the division that made the '61-'69 Continental has no distinctive cars today. And the "MKx" naming system is ridiculous.

Lincoln's current predicament can be blamed for several reasons:

1.  When it was decided to terminate the Mercury brand; many former Lincoln-Mercury dealers merged with Ford dealers.  While that move may have pleased the bean-counters; it created internal competition literally on the same sales floor as well as 100% product overlap with respect to Lincoln.  Why buy a MKS when one can get a Taurus SHO containing the same exact features for a lower price under one roof?

2.  Back when Mercury and the Panther platform was still around; one knew that the Town Car was still larger in size than its lower-priced Grand Marquis sibling and most of the SUVs/CUVs had no overlap (aside from the short-lived Aviator SUV being sold alongside its same-sized Mountaineer sibling).  Today, there is no Lincoln that's actually larger than its Ford sibling, and hence, justifying a higher price.  It's worth noting that both the MKT & MKS are actually somewhat smaller than their Flex & Taurus counterparts (interior & cargo space in particular); epic fail right there.

3.  Lack of advertising.  While Ford's guilty of this as well (when was the last time someone saw an ad. for the Flex?); Lincoln's even worse.  I don't believe I've ever seen an exclusive ad for the MKT nor the Navigator (the latter just now received a long-overdue restyle/facelift) in quite some time (never on the MKT).  How can one expect to sell something (especially if it's an all-new model) if one doesn't advertise it or even acknowledge its existence?

4.  Missed opportunity.  In 2002, Lincoln showed a Continental Concept car that paid homage to the legendary '61-'69 Continentals.  IMHO, a production version of that show car (the suicide doors probably wouldn't survive into a production model) utilizing the Panther platform would've been a perfect and more worthy successor to the even-then-long-in-the-tooth Town Car.  IMHO, the styling would've attracted more retail buyers and the spacious interior & durability of the Panther platform would've kept the fleet & livery clients happy as well.  Had the vehicle been launched in say 2005 or 2006 (prior to the recession & skyrocketing gas prices), it would have sold fairly well IMHO.

2002 Continental Concept car.  Note: IIRC, this vehicle was recently auctioned off.  Not sure what the final price was.

[SteveG1988]

To be fair, i actually liked the Lincoln LS, i would not mind one for my next car. a V6 one though, since it is a fairly reliable engine.

[Henry]

If Chrysler would build an Imperial that wasn't a snub-nosed front with high back end car like the 300 is, there would be a fitting successor to the MIA Fleetwoods and Town Cars.  Make a luxury car that LOOKS like a luxury car!

Rick 

And don't forget the DeVille and DTS! When Cadillac discontinued the Fleetwood/Brougham in 1996, it brought on its smaller FWD DeVille to fill the void; granted, it was a mismatch on paper as it was now going up against the RWD Town Car, but it and the replacement DTS more than held their own against the last heritage fullsize luxury sedan.

As for Chrysler, why not? I wouldn't be surprised if somehow a stretched-out 300 ever became available to the livery fleet, because these days everything is being made longer, like SUV's (notably Navigators and Escalades), Mercedes-Benzes, BMW's, Lexuses and even Corvettes! I say they should go for it.

[DaBigE]

Since Ford is now pushing the Taurus and Explorer into police fleets, I would imagine livery and taxi fleets will eventually follow.

Eventually?  Ford has already marketed Escapes (at least the previous generation models) to taxi companies for several years.  IIRC, passenger versions of its previous generation Transit-Connect van have been offered in a taxi package to taxi companies as well.

At least as of the latest from the Ford Fleet website, the Escape is no longer offered as a taxi, but the restyled Transit Connect is (which incidentally will be Ford's re-entry into the minivan market)

[PHLBOS]

And don't forget the DeVille and DTS! When Cadillac discontinued the Fleetwood/Brougham in 1996, it brought on its smaller FWD DeVille to fill the void; granted, it was a mismatch on paper as it was now going up against the RWD Town Car, but it and the replacement DTS more than held their own against the last heritage fullsize luxury sedan.

The original intent was that when the FWD DeVille/Fleetwood/'93 Sixty-Special would replace the old RWD C-body Brougham/Fleetwood when it first rolled out in as an early 1985 model.  Lower gas prices (which increased demand for larger cars) and a then-legislature & President that, at large, weren't interested in increasing the CAFE standards beyond the 1985 27.5 mpg standard was what motivated GM to keep some of its RWD full-sizes around longer.  Obviously, nobody at GM at the time ever dreamed that its large RWD platform would survive into the mid-90s.  Equally, nobody at Ford thought for a moment that its Panther platform would still be around into the first decade of the 21st Century.

OTOH, Iacocca (who was at Chrysler at the time) wanted all its car lines to be FWD by 1985 but he couldn't shake off the old RWD M-bodies (Fifth Ave./Diplomat/Gran Fury) until after 1989.

One reason why the later FWD Cadillacs gained favor was due to them offering the more powerful Northstar V8s.  Those ran circles around the Town Car's 4.6L engine.  OTOH, the very early FWD DeVilles/Fleetwoods only came with the very anemic HT4100 (4.1 V8).

As for Chrysler, why not? I wouldn't be surprised if somehow a stretched-out 300 ever became available to the livery fleet, because these days everything is being made longer, like SUV's (notably Navigators and Escalades), Mercedes-Benzes, BMW's, Lexuses and even Corvettes! I say they should go for it.

Most if not all those makes and models you listed are aftermarket conversions/alterations not factory-builds.

[Henry]

The original intent was that when the FWD DeVille/Fleetwood/'93 Sixty-Special would replace the old RWD C-body Brougham/Fleetwood when it first rolled out in as an early 1985 model.

I was always under the impression that these FWD DeVilles and Fleetwoods were built off the A-body platform (Celebrity/6000/Ciera/Century), and the most telling clue is that when the A-body was redesigned in 1989, so was the DeVille, which would maintain that style until it was upsized in 1994.

One reason why the later FWD Cadillacs gained favor was due to them offering the more powerful Northstar V8s.  Those ran circles around the Town Car's 4.6L engine.  OTOH, the very early FWD DeVilles/Fleetwoods only came with the very anemic HT4100 (4.1 V8).

Surely, that 4.1L V8 could've been used as a third engine choice (after the 2.5L four and 2.8/3.0/3.8L V6) for the similar-sized A-body, no?

[bugo]

There was also a 4.5 liter Cadillac V8. I think it was a big improvement over the 4.1.

Cadillac had some shitty engines in the early '80s. The Olds diesels, the 4.1, the 4.3L V6, and the infamous 368 V8-6-4.

[PHLBOS]

I was always under the impression that these FWD DeVilles and Fleetwoods were built off the A-body platform (Celebrity/6000/Ciera/Century), and the most telling clue is that when the A-body was redesigned in 1989, so was the DeVille, which would maintain that style until it was upsized in 1994.

Nope.  The FWD DeVilles along with the Buick Electra/Park Avenues and Olds Ninety-Eights were initially designated C-bodies for 1985 but then redesignated as H-bodies (to differentiate it from the RWD C-body (Fleetwood) Brougham that was still in production) when the FWD LeSabres and Delta 88s first rolled out in 1986 (the FWD Bonneville would follow for 1987).  All C/H-bodies through 1993 featured a 110" wheelbase (vs. the A-bodies' 104.9" wheelbase) except for the '89-'93 Sedan DeVilles, which had a 114" wheelbase.

While similar in design and layout as the FWD mid-size A-bodies; the full-size C/H-bodies were larger, heavier and wider.  Which was one reason why such were never powered by anything smaller than the 3.8L V6 (Buicks/Olds/Pontiacs only).

The fact that the Sedan DeVille/Fleetwood lengthening occuring at the same time with respect to the A-bodies mild facelift was purely coincidental.

OTOH, the very early FWD DeVilles/Fleetwoods only came with the very anemic HT4100 (4.1 V8).

Surely, that 4.1L V8 could've been used as a third engine choice (after the 2.5L four and 2.8/3.0/3.8L V6) for the similar-sized A-body, no?

See above, the FWD full-size C/H-bodies were larger and heavier than the mid-size A-bodies.  Also, in addition to being woefully anemic (especially in the large RWD C-body '82-'85 Cadillacs); the HT4100 had reliability issues as well; which essentially blackballed nearly every Cadillac model offered during the early-to-mid 80s.  That was one reason why the Lincoln Town Car, with its trusty 5.0L (aka 302 Windsor), started overtaking the Cadillac DeVille & Fleetwood in sales by the mid-80s.

the infamous 368 V8-6-4.

It should be noted that variable displacement engines has since made a comeback.  IIRC, the DTS in its final years offered such as well as the current and previous generation Chrysler 300 V8s.

[bugo]

Here's a rare one for you: a mid-'80s Buick Electra 380. I have only see one in my life. I think they were made for one or maybe two years.

[PHLBOS]

Here's a rare one for you: a mid-'80s Buick Electra 380. I have only see one in my life. I think they were made for one or maybe two years.

True, Electras using engine displacement (litre x 100) as a suffix in their model names were the '85 & '86 FWD* models.

*The Electra name was also still used on the RWD B-body Estate Wagons through 1989.

[Henry]

Here's a rare one for you: a mid-'80s Buick Electra 380. I have only see one in my life. I think they were made for one or maybe two years.

True, Electras using engine displacement (litre x 100) as a suffix in their model names were the '85 & '86 FWD* models.

*The Electra name was also still used on the RWD B-body Estate Wagons through 1989.

380...sort of like the 225 suffix was used for the length in inches when it was still a RWD car, right?

I also find it mysterious to find that in 1991, the Park Avenue (now the Electra's replacement after having been a companion model since 1977) and 98 were upsized (as were the 1992 LeSabre, Bonneville and 88--which lost the Delta part in 1989), and yet the DeVille didn't follow suit for another couple of years.

Seeing that the Impala has been FWD since its permanent return in 2000, two thoughts just came to me: Were there ever plans to put that on the H-body platform in 1987, only to be rejected? And why was the first FWD Impala a W-body instead of sharing the one already used on the Bonneville, even though they looked similar?

[PHLBOS]

Here's a rare one for you: a mid-'80s Buick Electra 380. I have only see one in my life. I think they were made for one or maybe two years.

True, Electras using engine displacement (litre x 100) as a suffix in their model names were the '85 & '86 FWD* models.

*The Electra name was also still used on the RWD B-body Estate Wagons through 1989.

380...sort of like the 225 suffix was used for the length in inches when it was still a RWD car, right?

Yes, although for the final year of the Duece-and-a-Quarter, 1977, the Electra 225 was several inches shorter than 225".  The final pre-downsized Electras of the mid-70s were actually longer than 225"; courtesy of the then-mandated 5-mph front & rear bumpers.

I also find it mysterious to find that in 1991, the Park Avenue (now the Electra's replacement after having been a companion model since 1977) and 98 were upsized (as were the 1992 LeSabre, Bonneville and 88--which lost the Delta part in 1989), and yet the DeVille didn't follow suit for another couple of years.

That was largely because the DeVilles was already upsized some 2 years earlier (1989).  The others were playing catch-up and unlike the '89 Sedan DeVille, the other C/H-bodies were only upsized in overall body length only.  The 110" wheelbase remained unchained until the late-90s.

Seeing that the Impala has been FWD since its permanent return in 2000, two thoughts just came to me: Were there ever plans to put that on the H-body platform in 1987, only to be rejected? And why was the first FWD Impala a W-body instead of sharing the one already used on the Bonneville, even though they looked similar?

The reasoning behind why Chevy never got a version of the H-body dates back to a product reshuffling proposal that would have (had it been fully implemented) restricted full-size car offerings to only Buick, Cadillac & Oldsmobile and, conversely, restricted small car offerings to Chevrolet & Pontiac (remember that the H-bodied Bonneville appeared a year after the FWD LeSabres & Delta 88s).  Such a proposal (conceived during the very early 1980s) would've eliminated massive product overlaps within the GM divisions, outside of the mid-size A-bodies.

One reason why such a proposal never became reality was probably due to the resurgence in sales of larger (RWD) cars once gas prices stabilized and even started dropping.  Mid-way through the 1982 model year, just after Pontiac dropped its entire B-bodied Catalina/Bonneville/Grand Safari line as part of the implementation of the proposal; it suddenly found itself being forced back into reviving its B-bodied sedans & wagons again (due to customer demand & complaints).  As a result, they hastily took a Chevy Caprice, put some Pontiac styling cues and called it the Parisienne (for '82, the Bonneville name was transferred over to the RWD mid-size A/G body that was formerly the LeMans); a name that was previously used on Canadian-only Bonnevilles.  The revived Parisienne continued through the 1986 model year when it, along with RWD mid-size A/G-bodied Bonneville, was replaced with the H-bodied Bonneville.  The B-bodied Safari wagon continued through the 1989 model year.

On Chevy's end; demand for the B-bodied Impala and Caprice was too strong for Chevy to ignore (the former had a strong police & taxi clientelle), so Chevy kept it and decided not too offer the H-body.  Having its B-bodied Caprice plus the W-bodied Lumina (Side bar: Chevy originally planned on naming the original 1990 Lumina as the Impala) along with an H-bodied sedan would've been too much product overlap.

As towards why Chevy didn't launch their own H-bodied sedan after it dropped its B-body Caprice/Impala SS following the 1996 model year is not known.  The reasoning for such could be that since many of the other W-body siblings (Century/Regal/Grand Prix/Intrique) were already enlarged to a point that they were getting very close in size to some of its H-body siblings and due to the fact that the W-body platform was newer than the H-body (by about 3 to 4 years); Chevy just decided to revive the Impala on an enlarged W-body platform (for the 2000 model year) instead and the rest is history.

[SteveG1988]

I think every Lincoln being manufactured today is a joke. They're nothing but Fords with ugly grilles. They don't manufacture a rear wheel drive car with a V8 engine. Cadillac is kicking their asses so bad it isn't even funny. Lincoln has no identity. It's sad that the division that made the '61-'69 Continental has no distinctive cars today. And the "MKx" naming system is ridiculous. I don't even know an MKZ from an MKX from an MKS. Then again, I don't like alphanumeric names other than Cadillac's (which are about to change). Bring back classic names like Continental and Capri and produce a world-beating rear wheel drive sports sedan and quit making blandmobiles.

"World beating RWD sports sedan"

You mean the Lincoln LS, 4 wheel double wishbone suspension, V8 and V6 power, built on a Jaguar-Ford platform?

Fared better than cadillac and the Catera which was a bland mobile that could barely move out of it's own way.

The problem is that when ford first tried to make Lincoln "hip" and "Cool" they got the failure of the Blackwood, a F-150 with fancier trim that only lasted the 2002 model year, and then the Mark LT which sold as many as ford hoped, over 13,000 expected and 36,187 sold.

The Current MKZ is a nice car, and has a V6 unlike the lowly Fusion which only has Inline 4 engines. The MKZ doesn't offer a non turbo I4  that isn't a hybrid either, just the 2.0L Ecoboost, a 2L I4 hybrid and a 3.7L v6.

The Problem with the MKS is that it is a fine car....just too close to the Taurus so people buy that instead. You can get a Taurus SHO for less money than a MKS, and have better handling and performance for at least 10k less. a Base MKS without the Turbo 3.5L of the SHO costs 38k. Ecoboost AWD costs 45840. Taurus with a 3.7L v6 starts at 27k, and goes up to 40,220 for a base SHO. I'd take the SHO over the MKS due to the fact that it is almost the same equipment level...just a Ford. a Taurus Limited costs 34k by the way, if you don't want turbo AWD. Ford should be able to fix this issue when they change the Taurus Platform in 2016 to the Fusion/Mondeo extended wheelbase. A new body for both should help.

Similarly back in the 90s a Continental, which was a long wheel base Taurus, cost 33,750 for the base model, and you could get a Taurus SHO with all the trimmings of a luxury car, sans digital dash or boxy lincoln body work, for 24,815 base, and about 1500 bucks more for an automatic. The SHO had a more complex engine than the 3.8L in the Continental, but had a easier to work on non airstrut suspension. The difference between 1994 and 2014 is that the taurus and continental of that time period looked nothing alike, and were different sizes. now both cars are the same size, and look close enough to each other that the platform sharing is obvious.

[Henry]

Ah yes, the 1988-94 Continental, aka the worst mistake of all time. Until that particular generation, the Continental had always been available with a V8 or larger (I believe V12 back in the 1940s to compete with Cadillac's V16), and IMO, when the first FWD version no longer offered a V8 (nothing against the 3.8L V6, BTW), that's when it stopped being a Continental, as the similar DeVille/Fleetwood and Seville still had V8's (4.1L/4.5L/4.9L), thus being the preferred choices. (However, the RWD Mark VII and later Mark VIII still had V8 power, which was a very important factor in taking on the FWD Eldorado.) The 1995-2002 models corrected this with the 4.6L V8, but alas, by then it proved to be much too little and far too late, as their Cadillac rivals stayed ahead of the game again, this time with the revolutionary Northstar V8.

[PHLBOS]

The Current MKZ is a nice car, and has a V6 unlike the lowly Fusion which only has Inline 4 engines. The MKZ doesn't offer a non turbo I4  that isn't a hybrid either, just the 2.0L Ecoboost, a 2L I4 hybrid and a 3.7L v6.

Restricting the V6 to the current generation MKZ and not the Fusion was intentional on Ford's/Lincoln's part.  With higher CAFE standards plus the fact that with Lincolns now being sold under one roof along w/the cheaper Fords a then-new reality; the MKZ had to offer at least one feature/item that one couldn't get with the Fusion.  Had Mercury & its similar-sized Milan sedan survived (I'm well aware of the fact that the Milan died prior to the 2013 redesign), the MKZ would've only been offered with the V6. 

The Problem with the MKS is that it is a fine car....just too close to the Taurus so people buy that instead. You can get a Taurus SHO for less money than a MKS, and have better handling and performance for at least 10k less. a Base MKS without the Turbo 3.5L of the SHO costs 38k. Ecoboost AWD costs 45840. Taurus with a 3.7L v6 starts at 27k, and goes up to 40,220 for a base SHO. I'd take the SHO over the MKS due to the fact that it is almost the same equipment level...just a Ford. a Taurus Limited costs 34k by the way, if you don't want turbo AWD. Ford should be able to fix this issue when they change the Taurus Platform in 2016 to the Fusion/Mondeo extended wheelbase. A new body for both should help.

As I mentioned earlier (see Reply #6), for at least the full-size sedans; while the Lincoln model can & will share the same platform & many components as its cheaper Ford sibling (to keep production costs under control), it should be longer in length & wheelbase (the latter translating into more interior room).

When the current MKS rolled out, it actually had less interior room and trunk space than its Taurus (when it was a rebadged Five Hundred) sibling.  While the interior/cargo space gap closed somewhat when the D3-based Taurus was completely redesigned for 2010; it went in the wrong direction IMHO (Taurus losing space, not the MKS gaining space).

Similarly back in the 90s a Continental, which was a long wheel base Taurus, cost 33,750 for the base model, and you could get a Taurus SHO with all the trimmings of a luxury car, sans digital dash or boxy lincoln body work, for 24,815 base, and about 1500 bucks more for an automatic. The SHO had a more complex engine than the 3.8L in the Continental, but had a easier to work on non airstrut suspension.

It should be noted that the 3.8L engine, especially in the FWD configuration; was one of the most unreliable engines in Ford's line-up.  Issues with that engine alone was what doomed the first-generation FWD Continentals, the short-lived police-package for the original Taurus as well as most Windstar minivans.  In contrast, most Taurus' and Sables of that era were sold with the much more reliable 3.0L engine.

The difference between 1994 and 2014 is that the taurus and continental of that time period looked nothing alike, and were different sizes. now both cars are the same size, and look close enough to each other that the platform sharing is obvious.

The MKS first rolled out for the 2009 model year and looked nothing like the 2008-2009 Taurus/Sable.  As I mentioned earlier, the restyled Taurus rolled out one year after the MKS.