Buy/Drive/Burn: Three Cars, One Platform - 2002 DEW Edition

by Corey Lewis

Published: May 15th, 2018

buy drive burn three cars one platform 2002 dew edition

Last time on Buy/Drive/Burn, we checked out three C-body offerings from General Motors and forced you to choose one. The luxury flowed freely, and only limited salt was dashed upon its splendor.

Today we follow the same form with Ford, looking at offerings from three different brands riding on the same platform. Crack open a DEW and let’s get to it.

The DEW platform was developed for use by Ford and cars in the Premier Automotive Group (PAG). PAG was a grouping of Ford’s luxury automotive brands, an idea generated under CEO Jacques Nasser in 1999. Aston Martin, Lincoln, Jaguar/Land Rover, and Volvo were all grouped under the prestigious PAG umbrella. By 2002, the midsize rear-drive DEW underpinned three different Ford vehicles, so that’s our year of discussion.

Jaguar S-Type 4.2

Jaguar’s new S-Type debuted for the 2000 model year, aimed squarely at the North American market. Vintage retro cues combined with modern tech in an entry that was smaller and more sporty than the XJ flagship sedan. The intent here was to draw younger and sporting-prone affluent customers to Jaguar’s fusty showrooms. For 2002 the S-Type’s V8 was enlarged from 4.0 to 4.2 liters, bringing horsepower to an even 300. 2002 was also the last year for the S-Type’s initial interior design with U-shaped center console. Navigation was not an option, but leather and walnut wood covered most surfaces in traditional fashion. The S-Type R added a supercharger to the 4.2 V8, but that sleek barnstormer is outside our purposes today.

Lincoln LS 3.9

The other sedan offered on the DEW at the time, Lincoln’s new LS, had much the same mission as the S-Type: offer a sporty sedan for young, upscale customers. Compared to the S-Type, the LS was considerably more modern. And while it bore resemblance to the other contemporary Lincoln offerings, it didn’t take part in any retro throwbacks. Due to its close relation to the Jaguar, the LS was offered with Jaguar-designed V6 or V8 engines. Base models were powered by the 3.0-liter AJ30 engine, also shared with lower-end S-Types. The altered AJ V8 was a shrunken 3.9-liter Jaguar design, used only by Ford and Lincoln and built in Ohio. Through 2002, the 3.9 made 252 horsepower, with an upgrade to 280 horses in 2003.

Ford Thunderbird

Only one coupe ever rested atop the DEW, and it was Ford’s brand new Thunderbird. Introduced for the 2002 model year, the sporting coupe had been on hiatus from Ford’s lineup after the 1997 model year, and the Blue Oval made a big deal of its return. The new Thunderbird leaned heavily on then-popular retro styling, just like the S-Type. It bathed itself in cues from historic Thunderbirds of yore. Seating only two people in its cockpit, the Thunderbird’s retro exterior did not carry over to its interior. Many components and materials were shared with the LS, with a few some model-specific trim items and fonts. For its introductory year, Thunderbird carried the same 252-horsepower 3.9-liter V8 as the Lincoln LS. The shortest-lived of our trio, the Thunderbird lasted only through 2005 before its cancellation.

Two sedans, one convertible: Which DEW is for you?

[Images: Jaguar Land Rover, Ford, Wikimedia ( CC BY-SA 3.0)]

#Buy/Drive/Burn #Convertibles #Coupes #Ford #FordThunderbird #Imports #Jaguar #JaguarS-Type #Lincoln #LincolnLS #UsedCars #LuxuryCars #Sedans #NewsBlog #PAG

Corey Lewis

Interested in lots of cars and their various historical contexts. Started writing articles for TTAC in late 2016, when my first posts were QOTDs. From there I started a few new series like Rare Rides, Buy/Drive/Burn, Abandoned History, and most recently Rare Rides Icons. Operating from a home base in Cincinnati, Ohio, a relative auto journalist dead zone. Many of my articles are prompted by something I'll see on social media that sparks my interest and causes me to research. Finding articles and information from the early days of the internet and beyond that covers the little details lost to time: trim packages, color and wheel choices, interior fabrics. Beyond those, I'm fascinated by automotive industry experiments, both failures and successes. Lately I've taken an interest in AI, and generating "what if" type images for car models long dead. Reincarnating a modern Toyota Paseo, Lincoln Mark IX, or Isuzu Trooper through a text prompt is fun. Fun to post them on Twitter too, and watch people overreact. To that end, the social media I use most is Twitter, @CoreyLewis86. I also contribute pieces for Forbes Wheels and Forbes Home.

More by Corey Lewis

Comments

Join the conversation

5 of 73 comments

Edsel Maserati on May 16, 2018

I actually drive a Jaguar. I love it. Got it cheap with low miles. Took some work to get it in fine order, but since then it's been a charm and I've driven halfway across country four times now. I just like the feeling I get in my Jag. When I see other Jag drivers, we give each other the thumbs-up every time. Mine is a 1990, so the reports here on the cam tensioner meltdown have given me the heeby-jeebies. The previous owner had the expensive transmission replacement job. I think Jag strengthened it in 1992 or so. The later supercharged S-type R version is the one to get. I drove it when it came out and it was beautifully muscular. I think the Jag lines have some character so the churlish comments above don't matter. Back in 1990, the Jaguar cut a nice figure. I knew the Lincoln was its American cousin but to me it looked like a horrible compromise, the sort of thing that American car companies specialized in -- ransacked by committee-men, made "safe" and bland. Burn this one. The Thunderbird was at least an attempt to get sporty but the looks still had that unfinished look.

Like Reply
- See 2 previous
- Corey Lewis on May 16, 2018
  
  Yeah you keep saying 1990. But A) there was no Lincoln LS in 1990, and B) that was Ford's first year of Jaguar ownership - they hadn't done any products yet. So how did the LS which didn't exist not compare well to the S-Type that didn't exist in 1990? Furthermore, the inline six of your 1990 Jaguar (guessing XJ6) has nothing to do with the V8 AJ engines we're talking about here with their tensioner issues.
  
  Like
- Mark on May 17, 2018
  
  @Corey Lewis +1 "...Back in 1990, the Jaguar cut a nice figure. 'I knew the Lincoln was its American cousin' but to me it looked like a horrible compromise" baahaha! welp, only one decade off on LS existence as far as this thread... i'd still love to have a mint '06 V8 LS in the stable.
  
  Like
- Edsel Maserati on May 22, 2018
  
  @Corey Lewis I agree. There were enough brain farts in my post to blow out a volcano. Mine is a 2000 S-type with the 4.0 engine. I first drove this model in 2000. I then acquired mine from a friend a couple years ago. Engine was much happier when I changed to synthetic oil (of which it requires 6.5 quarts. I wonder if folks going to oil-change places get the full 6.5.) The DEW98 platform was shared with the Lincoln LS, which I was aware of back in the day. That's when I formulated my surly opinion of the LS, which actually might have been a fine car. I don't know. It looked compromised to me and I wondered then as I often wonder now how American design got so mixed up. Today I have the added question before me on how I could get so mixed up. You don't have to offer suggestions.
  
  Like
Gearhead77 on May 18, 2018

Buy the T-Bird, keep it in a bubble to sell at Mecum or Barrett-Jackson in 2040. I'm not a huge fan of this car, but at least Ford tried to re-create the sporty original T-Bird. They wound up with traits from every variation to wear a T-bird badge, but it was a try more along the lines of mid-90's Chrysler than the staid Blue Oval. Drive the Lincoln. I've always liked these cars, even they are a bit bland in execution and 2000's Ford chintzy inside. The only attempt besides the Mark VII LSC to swipe at the Germans in an American way ( Not as big of a fan of the Mark VIII car except in its final year) Burn the Jag- It has not aged well, though the interior is better than the platform mates here. If I want a Jag from this time, it's an XJR.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

FreedMike Not surprisingly, I have some ideas. What Cadillac needs, I think, is a statement. They don’t really have an identity. They’re trying a statement car with the Celestiq, and while that’s the right idea, it has the wrong styling and a really wrong price tag. So, here’s a first step: instead of a sedan, do a huge, fast, capable and ridiculously smooth and quiet electric touring coupe. If you want an example of what I’m thinking of, check out the magnificent Rolls-Royce Spectre. But this Cadillac coupe would be uniquely American, it’d be named “Eldorado,” and it’d be a lot cheaper than the $450,000 Spectre – call it a buck twenty-five, with a range of bespoke options for prospective buyers that would make each one somewhat unique. Make it 220 inches long, on the same platform as the Celestiq, give it retro ‘60s styling (or you could do a ‘50s or ‘70s throwback, I suppose), and at least 700 horsepower, standard. Why electric? It’s the ultimate throwback to ‘60s powertrains: effortlessly fast, smooth, and quiet, but with a ton more horsepower. It’s the perfect drivetrain for a dignified touring coupe. In fact, I’d skip any mention of environmental responsibility in this car’s marketing – sell it on how it drives, period.  How many would they sell? Not many. But the point of the exercise is to do something that will turn heads and show people what this brand can do.  Second step: give the lineup a mix of electric and gas models, and make Cadillac gas engines bespoke to the brand. If they need to use generic GM engine designs, fine – take those engines and massage them thoroughly into something special to Cadillac, with specific tuning and output. No Cadillac should leave the factory with an engine straight out of a Malibu or a four-banger Silverado. Third step: a complete line-wide interior redo. Stop the cheapness that’s all over the current sedans and crossovers. Just stop it. Use the Lyriq as a blueprint – it’s a big improvement over the current crop and a good first step. I’d also say Cadillac has a good blend of screen-controlled and switch-controlled user interfaces; don’t give into the haptic-touch and wall-to-wall screen thing. (On the subject of Caddy interiors – as much as I bag on the Celestiq, check out the interior on that thing. Wow.)Fourth step: Blackwing All The Things – some gas, others electric. And keep the electric/gas mix so buyers have a choice.Fifth step: be patient. That’s not easy, but if they’re doing a brand reset, it’ll take time. 
NJRide So if GM was serious about selling this why no updates for so long? Or make something truly unique instead of something that looked like a downmarket Altima?
Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.