1956 Lincoln Mark Series on 2040-cars

Auto blog

McConaughey's bizarre new Continental ad is perfect parody material

So let's say you're running a car company and have a luxurious new flagship sedan and need to advertise it. What do you do? Did you answer with "film a commercial with a barely coherent Hollywood actor standing in a pond?" If so, perhaps you work for Lincoln, which brought back Matthew McConaughey to do another bizarre car ad. It starts with McConaughey and a Continental standing on a body of water. He starts talking about staring (or not staring) at the Conti, and then about sitting in the back seat (or not). The ad then cuts to McConaughey in the back who replies to the McConaughey in the front seat. Presumably, there are two McConaugheys at this point, and the front seat one just laughs in a slightly unsettling manner. He then makes a clicking noise, closes the center console and drives away. You can't make this stuff up. It's thoroughly strange, but we can't say we're entirely surprised. When Lincoln first launched some bizarre ads with McConaughey muttering sweet nothings about the MKC, the company got loads of attention. Admittedly a lot of that attention was to make fun of it, but you know the old saying that there's no such thing as bad press. Lincoln even brought him back for an encore in ads for the MKX and MKZ. In truth, we're also glad to see another bizarre Lincoln ad, mostly because we're hoping for another round of great parodies like the classic Jim Carrey spoof that aired on Saturday Night Live. Check out the ad above to see the strangeness. Related Video:

2017 Lincoln Continental: Was this mic-drop moment just a big flop?

The Lincoln Continental may have been our fifth-place pick for Best In Show at this year's Detroit Auto Show, but it's probably the one we argued about the most. In fact, we're still talking about it. And we'll no doubt be discussing it long after we finally get to drive the new sedan later this year. We do this with lots of cars, all the time. The Continental is an especially important, high-profile car right now. It has the task of being a torch-holder for the struggling-to-run Lincoln brand, and that's a tough job these days. But did Lincoln do right by its Continental name? Did its Detroit showcar stop us in our tracks, or were we left feeling cold? In an effort to show you our full discussion, we're trying something different. About a week after the Detroit Auto Show press days concluded, Autoblog's Jonathon Ramsey sent an email around to some editors about the Continental to open a discussion. It got heated, and fast. And while we considered summarizing it, we decided to instead post the whole, largely unedited (adjusted for typos and swear words) chain. From: Jonathon Ramsey To: Autoblog Team Does anyone else think it's a problem that the new Continental looks 85 percent like the MKZ? And another 10 percent of it looks like a Jaguar and a Bentley? Because I think Lincoln screwed the pooch. The German Three plus Porsche can make cars that look alike – they've earned the right, even if I'd rather they didn't. The MKZ looks like a car for regional sales reps. Lincoln broke the glass in case of emergency, grabbed the Continental name, then put it on a car that looks a lot like that sales-rep car, but one for regional VPs. Do we really think this can work? Because I don't. From: Steven Ewing To: Autoblog Team Personally, I'm pretty disappointed in the final execution of Continental. I'm glad Lincoln isn't obsessed with chasing the Germans, but at this point, it's not even chasing Cadillac. I think that introducing the new front end and TTV6 engine on the MKZ before the Continental was a huge mistake. And while I have high hopes for the Conti from a comfort/driving standpoint, my gut instinct is that it's going to be more "better than the MKS" than "best American luxury sedan." Introducing the new front end and TTV6 engine on the MKZ before the Continental was a huge mistake.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.