Do I have that much power?

[Barry Wolk]

I have been accused of directly affecting the price of Mark IIs by busting the myths about it.

I believe, in fact, that I've increased the interest in owning Mark IIs by busting the myth that they were difficult to work on. By easily busting the myth that every single car was road-tested, even in 2 feet of Michigan snow and slush, he seems to think that I should adhere to what the magazines said, not what Ford said. I don't believe Ford claimed that all engines were dyno-tested or that they track-tested all the cars.

He says I've always been nice to him about his fantasizing, but still insists that I should let lore stand, when it's not doing a service to the car, or the people that built it.

When we promote fantasy, does the truth even matter?

Many of us here work on these cars, and have worked on other brands. What is physically different from other Fords, and especially Lincolns, that would make a Mark II more difficult to work on, other than the fact that you have to pull the engine to get the trans out?

[Knickoliss Iv]

This is what I said in response to one of Barry's FB posts. While he is an asset to Mark II research and knowledge I have always felt he just does not give the car, its engineers and assemblers enough credit for such an acconplishment. To which all he replied is I live in a fantasty world. This was my comment he is now posting about here so see both sides:
With all due respect Barry Wolk I think your lack of an imagination (minds eye, like you have said yourself) keeps you from being able to assemble all the facts and see what the car really was. You may like the Mark II and own a popular one, but you can't seem to really see the whole story which is very sad. Your narratives as informational as they may be, are what keep the Mark II from being elevated to a higher appreciation and understanding in the collector car world. You have the ability to influence change but you keep the car at Chevrolet level. Why? No one ever "fact picks" a 57-58 Brougham the way you do when they are in fact up at the same level. Surely we can agree on that? It was just as much of a common parts GM assembly line 99 piece tool set Union wage worker assembled supplier parts built car as the Mark II. But the Mark II was better. Why? It was built with that same fantasy you accuse me of. Is there anywhere close to the documentation that exists for our cars available for the Brougham? From preproduction, planning, testing, design, production, the plant, the workers, original ownerships. No. Not even close. It blows a Brougham away without the fancy toys and gimmicks. Why dont you see that!? I can combine your facts with Ford marketing and see the car in it's TRUE light, nonsense omitted. I have always tried to tread lightly around you. You have always been kind to me but I have always disagreed with your perception and how you hold the cars prestige back when you can in fact make a change for the better.

[Knickoliss Iv]

I wouldn't say power, but definitely influence. People eat your information like a 2,000 calorie shake. And I mean that in the most complimentary way.

[Graham Rollo]

the Mark II is no harder than my 57 Imperial or 56 Buick to work on bar the engine & auto removal

[Barry Wolk]

the Mark II is no harder than my 57 Imperial or 56 Buick to work on bar the engine & auto removal

That's precisely the point. I don't see how telling that truth hurts the current Mark II sales figures.

This Rolls-Royce is a hand-made car. Raw materials come in one end and leave finished. The Mark II parts came in finished, aside from paint and leather, and left the same way. It's often said the it was the competition for the Mark II, but the least expensive R-R was 35% more. Rightfully, as a comparison they could target R-R buyers. However, R-R experts state that no sales were lost to the Mark II. How does it hurt current sales prices to state the truth that no components were actually made by Continental? That's true of cars far more valuable. There's no shame in being hand-assembled, but there's a distinction with a difference.