BREAKING: Ford Flex Crossover

[J-150]

I had a discussion on this a couple days back and the Crossover structure at Ford goes like this:

 

Escape is ALL a family of less than 6 needs - it seats 5, it is safe, and economical. and cheap. However for those that can afford it, the Escape feel lacking - cheap - so they can spring out for the Edge and get much more interior WIDTH (the ultimate judge of "class" ) They get better interiorm better engine and better car overall.

 

Now if a family of more than 5 needs a 3 row car, they can buy the $25k Taurus X - it is a perfectly suitable car for 7 people, it rides nicely and has a nice interior, but it is utilitarian. For people seeking loads of style and class ,the TaurusX might fall short.. so there is the Flex, that offers more space for the crew and luxury feel to everything and unique looks, but of course at a higher price point.

 

I am not convinced the lineup is not over saturated .. but at this point it is a decent lineup, and Ford can simply refine it a it move ahead. After all we have no idea in what shape will TaurusX, Escape or even Explorer take after this generation.. and TaurusX and Explorer are both going to be redesigned within 2-3 years.

 

Igor

 

 

sorry Igor. I disagree.

 

I have a 4yo and a 1 month old. Our Bertini stroller would take up the entire rear of an Escape and leave no room for any groceries (because you cant stack cargo any higher than the seat backs)

 

You'd also be surprised how much room chikd seats take up. Once, I had to ride in a firends Jetta wagon. The front seats had to be moved to the front most psoition so the baby seats could fit in the rear (rear facing seat) Focus isnt much better. (better but not by much)

 

Small cars are NOT child friendly. The rear seats are for occasional use only. Hell, the rear of a Focus or Jetta isnt all that much bigger than the rear seat of a Mustang.

Edited March 25, 2007 by J-150

[DCK]

I had a discussion on this a couple days back and the Crossover structure at Ford goes like this:

 

Escape is ALL a family of less than 6 needs - it seats 5, it is safe, and economical. and cheap. However for those that can afford it, the Escape feel lacking - cheap - so they can spring out for the Edge and get much more interior WIDTH (the ultimate judge of "class" ) They get better interiorm better engine and better car overall.

 

Or the better choice being the Rav4 or the CR-V get a high quality SUV thousands less than the Edge. The escape is not worthy of one sale. It is far behind the competition and is uncompetitive and no one should buy it. Kind of sad for a model that launched last month.

[silvrsvt]

Or the better choice being the Rav4 or the CR-V get a high quality SUV thousands less than the Edge. The escape is not worthy of one sale. It is far behind the competition and is uncompetitive and no one should buy it. Kind of sad for a model that launched last month.

 

 

RAV4...3 row SUV..not the same market as the Edge

 

CR-V...I4 only engine

 

Not to mention the Escape is cheaper then both the RAV4 and CR-V

[Ovaltine]

I have a 4yo and a 1 month old. Our Bertini stroller would take up the entire rear of an Escape and leave no room for any groceries (because you cant stack cargo any higher than the seat backs)

 

You'd also be surprised how much room chikd seats take up. Once, I had to ride in a firends Jetta wagon. The front seats had to be moved to the front most psoition so the baby seats could fit in the rear (rear facing seat) Focus isnt much better. (better but not by much)

 

Small cars are NOT child friendly. The rear seats are for occasional use only. Hell, the rear of a Focus or Jetta isnt all that much bigger than the rear seat of a Mustang.

 

J:

 

Sometimes I guess the consumer has to adjust to the reality of the situation (aka: forced into a smaller vehicle) and downsize the stroller. Check these pics out of two devices that do the same basic function.

 

Bertini

 

Umbrella

 

I empathize though with the child carrier not fitting in the rear seat predicament. It was that issue alone that put my wife and I into a Plymouth Acclaim vs. a Plymouth Sundance back in '93. Same basic car (even the V6 drivetrain), BUT the Acclaim had a slightly longer wheelbase and a MUCH larger back seat area. The child carrier could go in back withOUT having to move the front seats up, even in the farthest back position. When the salesman pointed this out, and the fact that the Acclaim came in a decent looking 'Sport' decor package (yes... an oxymoron, I KNOW! :-) with decent aluminum wheels, that made the deal.

 

-Ovaltine

Edited March 26, 2007 by Ovaltine

[J-150]

J:

 

Sometimes I guess the consumer has to adjust to the reality of the situation (aka: forced into a smaller vehicle) and downside the stroller. Check these pics out of two devices that do the same basic function.

 

Bertini

 

Umbrella

 

I empathize though with the child carrier not fitting in the rear seat predicament. It was that issue alone that put my wife and I into a Plymouth Acclaim vs. a Plymouth Sundance back in '93. Same basic car (even the V6 drivetrain), BUT the Acclaim had a slightly longer wheelbase and a MUCH larger back seat area. The child carrier could go in back withOUT having to move the front seats up, even in the farthest back position. When the salesman pointed this out, and the fact that the Acclaim came in a decent looking 'Sport' decor package (yes... an oxymoron, I KNOW! :-) with decent aluminum wheels, that made the deal.

 

-Ovaltine

 

 

I wouldn't put my child in that cheap ass red thing anymore than I'd put them in a car without a childseat.

 

Those cheap ass little things are dangerous.

[retro-man]

Yeah, just what we all need: a car big enough to carry another car in it.

 

 

 

"dangerous" pffft. Talk about getting hysterical over nothing.

Edited March 26, 2007 by retro-man

[DSenstad]

I had both the blue and the red strollers. The little one was far more maneuverable at the mall and the bigger one was nice for the theme parks and such. If I had to go with just one I would pick the red one as I had both.

[ANTAUS]

I learned all that about the "umbrella" stroller, and the "Renegade" stroller. It is true, For theme parks it's quite helpful, everytime my bestfriend drives up to take her daughter to the theme parks here in Orlando, I see her shift to that one....

 

Although recently I went with a new method which is much easier, yelled at her daughter "WALK Damn it! So you dont get FAT like your parents!" then around 2PM the yelling turned into "You fall asleep, we go home!".... She did very well Sometimes it's all about going back to basics...

[DCK]

RAV4...3 row SUV..not the same market as the Edge

 

CR-V...I4 only engine

 

Not to mention the Escape is cheaper then both the RAV4 and CR-V

Do really buy that argument about "oh, the rav4 has three rows so people aren't going to compare it to the escape or edge?" So I guess the Highlander doesn't compete with the Edge either?

 

Sorry but that is BS to me.

[Roadrunner]

Hmmm no, the 1960's era, basement, motel motif just doesn't do it for me... But I'll pick my battles...if the car is good all around, and has no red interior lighting (I loathe red instrumentation), ...

 

Really? No red instrumentation?

 

I like it a lot.

 

I'm assuming you wouldn't enjoy driving a Pontiac then?

[Roadrunner]

And then we're dismayed when we turn 65 and find we can't afford to retire and have to rely on government health care. Boy, have we been suckered by the marketing boys. Cars, more than any other major purchase, are makng us a generation of debtors. At least housing builds equity.

 

As long as you stick with not going into debt in the first place, you can save toward retirement. It just means you'll have to adjust to what you earn, work harder or simply stay with the car you have and upchange later on.

 

Spending money to pay off debts is a waste.

[Roadrunner]

I will say one thing for KIA marketing. They have done their job. I can't get that stupid Rondo song, or the "Rondoisms" out of my head, for the life of me.

 

True - I'm impressed by the "Age of Aquarius" marketing.

 

However, Kia has an advantage -- if Ford or GM pulled this, people would pass over it. If Chrysler did it with a new vehicle, people would notice but I doubt they would buy.

[Roadrunner]

Small cars are NOT child friendly. The rear seats are for occasional use only. Hell, the rear of a Focus or Jetta isnt all that much bigger than the rear seat of a Mustang.

 

I would clarify that as, small cars are not baby friendly.

 

I didn't need a stroller after the age of whatever (two?). I remember being fine in the Granada and in the 2dr Regal -- although I was highly impressed, even as a kid, in the fullsize RWD Olds 88 my Grandpa had.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Roadrunner

[Ovaltine]

I wouldn't put my child in that cheap ass red thing anymore than I'd put them in a car without a childseat.

 

Those cheap ass little things are dangerous.

 

Why are they dangerous? Do they lack side airbags? Do they have a poor IIHS offset crash test rating?

 

 

 

B)

 

-Ovaltine

Edited March 26, 2007 by Ovaltine

[J-150]

 

 

 

4 wheel steering

4 wheel shock absorbers

pneumatic tires...

 

 

Mine turns on a dime. Passes the Sealy/Simmons/Serta bowling ball test (due to the suspension) and the pneumatic tires make it very easy to push in the snow. Heck, even in the mall, those big tires let you push it with one hand easily.

[Deanh]

For the record, I only brought the Rondo up on this thread to make a comparative point. It is the size and type of vehicle that I think is missing from the Ford stable.

 

Now for a few counterpoints:

 

- The Freestar died because it was an also-ran in a highly competitive segment of the market. Ford did very little to keep it competitive. It had nothing unique or class-leading going for it. A lot of write ups about it say it basically sucked. It also had the usual quality and dealership "strikes" going against it. But.... at one point it was good enough to sell over 200k units per year, so something must have gone right initially. But due to bad decisions at the top (according to my well placed ex-Ford source), it was left to die on the vine. Echos of the Ranger and CV.

 

- Vehicles for around $20k shouldn't be a pipe dream. And not everyone who wants to spend in that neighborhood is poor or has credit problems. My household income was over $100k last year, and my credit is stellar. But guess what? 2 kids with braces, a 15 year mortgage, saving for college and retirement, paying for property up north, and the list of myriad other expeditures that go along with daily living don't leave a whole heck of a lot left over to throw at $30-40k vehicles that supposed to get me from point A to point B reliably. And this is coming from someone who feels very financially blessed! So, you tell me whether I'm smoking crack and am a lover of "cheap" products. No.... I don't love cheap products. I do *love* being fiscally responsible with my resources, and like to find the best product that does the job for an affordable price.

 

Also, be warned. Your competitors' (and not just Kia's) "cheap" products are quickly becoming equal to and many times exceeding the quality and performance of your own. So just be careful where you decide to fling the "cheap" and "cutting corners" epithets around at. Look up the term "cutting corners" in a dictionary, and you're likely to see a big Blue Oval next to it.

 

- Regarding the "champagne/beer" analogy you provided, I'd rather put it more along the lines of me wanting someone (in this case Ford.... since I'm on this board) creating the automotive equivalent of "Two-buck Chuck" wine, available at Trader Joe's. Have you heard of it? If not, read these:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/02/...ain556620.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Shaw_wine

 

This is it in a nutshell. Just replace the word "wine drinker" with "auto buyer":

"Charles Shaw is an example of the recent trend of economy-minded wine drinkers seeking the greatest value. In particular the brand stands out not only for the low cost, but also for the respectable packaging and semi-frequent high ratings at wine tasting events;"

 

and to continue the analogy, read this section and picture it a Ford vehicle they're talking about instead of cheap and expensive wines:

 

"At Trader Joe's in Emeryville, "Two Buck Chuck" is rolling out the door at a rate of 3,000 bottles a day.

 

"I've heard great things about it," said Diane Luong as she stood in the store. "And it's so cheap. You can't beat the price."

 

But good, cheap wine may be here to stay.

 

"High-end wines have really become dead in the water," said Doug Canepa, of the Mill Valley Market. "And they simply aren't moving (off the store shelves)."

 

"In the past, it was always the ceiling. Who was gonna graze the ceiling and achieve the higher price. But 'Two Buck Chuck' has broken the floor…I've been told by some producers that if they missed an entire vintage, it wouldn't be a problem because there's so much wine in the pipeline."

 

For now, the entire wine industry -- from growers and vintners to cork suppliers and barrel makers -- will have to live in the shadow of 'Two Buck Chuck.'"

 

Now THAT'S where I'm coming from with my points on this thread, and I'll continue to stick to them. Notice that nowhere in the article does it say that "Two Buck Chuck" sucks to drink, but people buy it anyway because it's cheap. To the contrary.... it's referenced as a stand-out because it IS a decent product priced very affordably. That's a very key element to the concept I'm supporting.

And as a last mention of "cheap" "corner cutting" cars like Kias not being enjoyable or worth owning, I'll just point you to the old Fusion thread ( http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...3&hl=fusion ) that I started on this forum a long time ago where I pointed out MANY small features and quality details of my "lowly" redesigned Spectra that were arguably *superior* to the comparative portion of the Fusion.

 

The bottom line is people want quality AND affordability. And if you don't think so, just wait and see how many $30k+ Edges and Flex's (in addition to Explorers/Expeditions/Taurus X's) stack up on factory and dealer lots should SE Michigan's current depression spread to the rest of the country.

 

The Fusion is an example of a *good* current Ford product, that has the ability to sell decently equipped in the sub-$20k range. Let's see if Ford can spin off a true 7 passenger platform off of it (that's lighter and more fuel efficient than the Edge), and price it around $20-22k.

 

-Ovaltine

......2 buck Chuck DOES suck....gives a MASSIVE haedache as well...so does Yellowtail....I like my red wine so it is said witha little experience...bring on Stags leap and Frei Bro's.....guaranteed to taste better in a blind taste test....

[silvrsvt]

Do really buy that argument about "oh, the rav4 has three rows so people aren't going to compare it to the escape or edge?" So I guess the Highlander doesn't compete with the Edge either?

 

Sorry but that is BS to me.

 

 

Thats the problem with CUV market...there isn't any hard or fast rules about it. If you want a 3 row CUV, your not going to look at an Edge, you'll look at something that does like the Taurus X or Flex.

 

Its more or less the same argument people are making about the lack of sliding doors on the Flex...if you want them, you'll buy a product that has them. Why not offer an alternative to people who don't want have the stigma of a minivan....thats what the Flex is all about.

[wescoent]

Well first of all, expecting a vehicle larger than the Freestyle and built on the Freestyle architecture to sell for less than the Freestyle is silly.

 

IMO, any seven passenger $20k Ford will be roughly the shape and size of the Mazda5, will be built on C2, and will not arrive for a few years. And that 7th passenger will be at best an iffy proposition.

 

The idea of a low-mid $30s price point for a well equipped AWD Flex is not irrational. Well equipped Odysseys routinely push $40k, as do Siennas & the more luxurious T & Cs.

 

This is, as is the Edge, an image vehicle. The Flex is for Edge owners that have had kids. It will sell based on image against some utility flaws (as the Edge has no 3rd row, so the Flex will not have sliding doors).

 

It would be nice if Ford could sell cars based on practicality and suitability for purpose (as Toyota does). However, the Five Hundred, an eminently practical and suitable vehicle, barely met first year sales goals. The Fusion handily exceeded its, by combining a fair amount of practicality with 'image.'

 

This is the Ford that we will have to get used to--it is going to become, essentially, a very large niche manufacturer. They need to adopt a niche mindset, and focus on products that they can sell to 100-150k people per year (or less), instead of aiming for 'all-things' cars such as the previous Windstar, etc. They frittered away their opportunities there, this is what they're left to shift with as best they can.

 

Agreed here on Ford essentially becoming a large niche manufacturer. This is the best means of achieving high profitability out of a relatively small volume per vehicle. If all of these niche vehicles share common mechanics, it works out from a balance-sheet perspective.

 

Ford was once similar to Hyundai and Kia, in the sense that they made broadly appealing yet bland vehicles designed to sell at a low cost. However, Hyundai and Kia can build these cars for dirt cheap and will ALWAYS beat the Americans, Germans, and Japanese in cost. Therefore, unless Ford starts paying its workers below minimum wage, they can't go back to the glory days of Model T's, Tempos, and Escorts. They MUST bring something more to the table than just a low price and general competance. Ford will be abandoning customers in the process to Hyundai and Kia, but these customers aren't where the profits are. Same principle how in the last 3 years, Ford handed their entire SVT customer base to Dodge's SRT line. It sucks, but Chrysler's current crisis shows what happens when you abandon core competancies to focus on glamor products with little profit potential.

 

Volkswagen did the same thing in the late 1990s here in the US, and they'd be doing great, were it not for horrendous quality. Their image is virtually bulletproof, with droves of young women aspiring to own Jettas and Beetles.

 

Ford's house is getting close to being in order, with quality issues nearly under control, and an excellent line of vehicle architectures and engines under development and being expanded. Ford's next hurdle to overcome will be to leverage their global resources as they SHOULD have been for the last 20 years, and develop operating efficiencies and getting the BEST products to market as quickly as possible.

 

Getting back to the Flex. It's trying to hit buyers of luxury minivans, large CUVs, and people fleeing from large SUVs. It's a vehicle people buy because they want, not because they need.

[Noah Harbinger]

As long as you stick with not going into debt in the first place, you can save toward retirement. It just means you'll have to adjust to what you earn, work harder or simply stay with the car you have and upchange later on.

 

Spending money to pay off debts is a waste.

 

Oh cool, so you bought your Fusion with cash?

[Noah Harbinger]

Why are they dangerous? Do they lack side airbags? Do they have a poor IIHS offset crash test rating?

 

Haha I was gonna post almost exactly the same thing, right down to the sarcastic automotive analogies.

[Noah Harbinger]

......2 buck Chuck DOES suck....gives a MASSIVE haedache as well...so does Yellowtail....I like my red wine so it is said witha little experience...bring on Stags leap and Frei Bro's.....guaranteed to taste better in a blind taste test....

 

It only sucks long enough for you to drink enough to not taste it...

 

 

... after which it's pretty pleasant.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Noah Harbinger

[Ford Jellymoulds]

more information:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articl...05_FORTUNE5.htm

The car will feature SUICIDE DOORS - like the concept ...

 

Igor

 

I think you are right about the SUICIDE DOORS Igor they need rounding off a bit in the corners or Ford will face lots of prosecutions from owners with big chunks of flesh missing from their legs (Ford Focus tailgate is the same, the bottom edge is square and looks like it would cut your skull in two if somebody shut it by mistake on you. It is very basic engineering practice to radius off sharp corners, also don’t fit any of those horrible Focus seats in it, they are so hard that even putting a seat cast from concrete would be more comfortable, even the Model T is ten times more comfortable to sit in than a Focus) aspect ratios of the doors windows need to be improved a bit more similar to the nice proportions of the new Volvos would give a more classic aesthetically pleasing design to the concept. A very refreshing step in the right direction by Ford that shows they are listening to what buyers want, a much more roomier car that even your family dog would feel more comfortable in the back with, not hunched backed in a Focus styled back end. l like the more practical space it gives, and a reliable 75 mpg Peugeot 207 1.4 HDI type diesel engine would finish it off very nicely, you could make it hybrid as well making it a real sales winner for Europe as well (Boeings Dreamliner is super fuel efficient due to its light weight, it is killing Airbus sales dead at the moment with its superior world beating fuel efficiency) , especially as fuel prices are going only one way at the moment, sky high, and not to forget that 4x4s and large people carriers are getting taxed off the roads at the moment in Europe. Road tax has just been increased $800 per year, and may rise to $4000 per year in the near future. Whist cars like the French made Peugeot 207 1.4 HDI Diesel annual car road tax is only $70 per year in the UK, different tax’s for different sized pollution/MPG output will kill off the gas-guzzlers car manufacturers market within Europe. So nobody in Europe will ever be buying a big 4x4 or People Carrier Mini-Van unless they are millionaires in the future, so l thing Ford are doing the right thing and downsizing.

Well done Ford and good luck with the Flex, l think the name matches the car well.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Roadrunner]

Oh cool, so you bought your Fusion with cash?

 

Nah, parents did. :-)

 

College graduation gift - never had my own car before the age of 22, see.

 

//waits for the hate mail

[Roadrunner]

However, Noah - where I was going with not getting into debts was for credit card purchases and things like that. A car (or house) for most is going to naturally be a debt-incurring purchase due to how costly it is.

 

However, paying for gas on a credit card, and then not paying off the credit card? Not kosher.