BREAKING: Ford Flex Crossover

[Deanh]

Ovaltine is getting used to Korean prices, cheap and shitty as hell.

mentioning Kia was his death knoll......sheesh!........that said even Hyundai has made HUGE strides......

[LincolnFan]

Did I feed the troll? :hysterical:

[Deanh]

It's impossible for him to have a post here without mentioning it. It's like a drug to him.

he also gets his furniture from I-kia...

[pcsario]

wescoent is equally as ridiculous. Thousands of dollars less than the WORST SELLING version of the Edge, and continuing to support the idea Ford should be on par with Kia/Hyundai, not Honda & Nissan, just so Mercury can continue to be on par with those two at Ford's expense.

Edited March 23, 2007 by pcsario

[bravestar]

there wood slabs inside the doors are making it to production: - it might be fake wood, but I surely hope not.

 

Igor

[/quote

 

 

That is not wood, that is contact paper. The same stuff my mother used to line the cabinet shelves with. I can think of no one under the age of thirty that likes that stuff. What is the facination with the appearance of wood in a Ford product. It looks bad in a Lariat F-150 compared to a FX4, why would it look better in a different vehicle. I understand it in a luxury setting, but in a Ford? tacky.

Edited March 23, 2007 by bravestar

[hbalek]

About the navigation screen on models not equipped with a nav system. Infiniti and nissan lately have been leaving the screen on non-nav models for displaying graphics for the audio and HVAC controls. The latest G35 sedan is a good example of this. If you don't order nav, you still get the screen on the center stack with graphics displays of most functions. A friend drives a recent Maxima and has the same thing: graphics for most radio functions etc.

[ANTAUS]

Let's contemplate that thought...wood in the interior of cars.... Why? I personally dislike wood...wood floors (make noise, maintenence nightmare), wood stud walls (termite issues)...Whats the purpose of putting it in cars? Is it a warm and fuzzy feeling from 70's era's basement with plaid counches and shag carpeting?

 

I have no issues with the piano black, aluminum, or anything else that lets me know this is a technical car, not a Brady Bunch basement reject....For the last 6 years with the re-intruduction of the alumnium look, or even chrome details, etc I've been hoping that automakers would get off the wood wagon, I mean, most of the time it's ssooo badly reproduced that maybe if they just did something else instead, they wouldn't have gotten rediculed.

[Deanh]

Let's contemplate that thought...wood in the interior of cars.... Why? I personally dislike wood...wood floors (make noise, maintenence nightmare), wood stud walls (termite issues)...Whats the purpose of putting it in cars? Is it a warm and fuzzy feeling from 70's era's basement with plaid counches and shag carpeting?

 

I have no issues with the piano black, aluminum, or anything else that lets me know this is a technical car, not a Brady Bunch basement reject....For the last 6 years with the re-intruduction of the alumnium look, or even chrome details, etc I've been hoping that automakers would get off the wood wagon, I mean, most of the time it's ssooo badly reproduced that maybe if they just did something else instead, they wouldn't have gotten rediculed.

little retro, adds character and warmth... too high techie gets sterile....course could use differnet types of material....bamboo, cork....

Edited March 23, 2007 by Deanh

[ANTAUS]

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), then I'll overlook the tacky wood. And sometimes with a good black interior, can sort of mask the wood issue.

 

Now as for the Fairlanes interior, it's still too early. Ice Blue Lightining would be "nice", the preliminary pictures I've seen have decent presentation...I just hope Ford can move away from the boxy/din set up, and focus more on tha integrated "poke thru" console.

 

The sad aspect though, look at Range Rovers and the recent Volvo S40/S80, and YOU KNOW they can do it...the question is...Do they WANT to ?

[Ovaltine]

Ovaltine, please tell me where you get your pricing from? A 7 passenger crossover for the low 20's? Come on. Even the new Lambda Crossovers from GM are in the low $30's into the mid $40's loaded. According to the OAC employee, this vehicle is very large. It isn't going to be some small rinky-dink Kia. It will have mass to it. It will be offered with AWD, have every safety item, and alot of options. Sorry, but in the low $20,000 range, be realistic.

 

Then unless they have aggressive lease deals, they can sit on the lot and *rot*

 

Here's where I get my expectations for pricing and content from:

 

2007 Kia Rondo LX Styles

MSRP: $16,395 - $18,895

 

Weight: 3,333 lbs.

 

NOTE: The Rondo is approximately the same size and weight of the original Chrysler minivan back in 1984 (remember how successful THOSE were?)

 

 

http://www.edmunds.com/kia/rondo/2007/review.html

and

http://www.kpbj.com/behindthewheel/article...-05-BTW-02.html

 

 

 

"Kia calls the all-new 2007 Rondo a crossover utility vehicle. Essentially a mini-minivan, the Rondo offers much of the flexibility and passenger-hauling abilities of a larger minivan without the not-so-mini size and price tag.

 

For shoppers with smaller or young families, the vehicle's low base price (under $20,000) and seven-passenger seating option make it impossible to ignore. Both the second- and optional third-row seats fold flat for maximum cargo carrying, and the third row has a 50/50 split. Accompanying those folding seats are an abundance of cupholders and storage bins that make the Rondo's interior that much more useful.

 

These smaller "space wagon MPVs" are quite popular in Europe and Asia. In fact, the Kia Rondo has been on sale as the Kia Carens in these markets. Older variants of that vehicle received tepid reviews in the past but Kia has clearly applied its affordability/value formula to the redesigned Carens, and that carries over nicely to the Rondo. Foreign reviews tout the compact minivan as a "bargain," which makes perfect sense given what we know about Kias sold here in the U.S.

 

It's hard to nail the Kia Rondo down to a specific vehicle category but its closest competitor would have to be the Mazda 5. The Rondo is slightly taller and wider than the Mazda and it offers the choice of a four- or six-cylinder engine. Other competitors might include the Chevrolet HHR, the short-wheelbase Dodge Caravan or perhaps a crossover SUV like the Toyota RAV4 Limited with its third-row seat.

 

In the end, we expect that most customers will cross shop the 2007 Kia Rondo with more traditional wagons and sedans. If spending as little money as possible, seven-passenger seating and a nimble size are your highest priorities, you should add the Rondo to your short list in a hurry."

 

------------------------------

 

Look folks..... this country appears to be soon entering the realm of $3-4 a gallon gas, and a median hourly wage of $15-18 per hour for the majority of workers in the fat portion demographic bell curve. (See: Wage info - http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Countr...rly_Rate/by_Age )

 

IMHO, America *doesn't* need another gas sucking pig that costs (now) nearly the quarter of an average home in SE Michigan.

 

Maybe Ford needs to come up with a derivative of the Fusion (which is similar to the Optima on which the Rondo is based), and make it in Mexico to satisfy price conscious consumers like myself? (POST EDIT: I just discovered that the Edge is already based on a Mazda6/Fusion platform. So I guess if they can add some 3rd row seats, strip out about 1000 pounds or so, and drop the price about $5 grand or so, Ford would have the car I'm looking for.)

 

But in any case I hope that they don't mistake vehicles like the Rondo as 'rinky-dink', or assume that they can't be built for around $20k. Because they aren't (rinky-dink), and they are (affordable).....and Kia won't be the only one doing it. THAT you can count on.

 

-Ovaltine

Edited March 24, 2007 by Ovaltine

[igor]

^^^There is a SIGNIFICANT problem .. the MAzda5/Rondo CANNOT hold 7 adults .. sure you can squeeze them in, but good luck convincing them to sit there for say 3 hour trip, etc.

 

They are a great value, but there is a reason why even Kia has true minivans and is developing the MESA .. people do need more space ...

 

And this will be true full sized car, plus with special appeal and Ford will charge for it appropriately - definitely no low 20's The Lambdas start at about 27k, and so will this .. the interior will be luxurious, the engine refined and the space plentiful ..

 

The Rondo has its space/niche. but so do full size 7 passenger vehicles ..

PS: if you want to stop annoying people - post some basic facts, but PLEASE stop copy pasting practically full articles ... especially when the thread is completely unrelated to the Rondo.

 

Igor

[Ovaltine]

^^^There is a SIGNIFICANT problem .. the MAzda5/Rondo CANNOT hold 7 adults .. sure you can squeeze them in, but good luck convincing them to sit there for say 3 hour trip, etc.

 

They are a great value, but there is a reason why even Kia has true minivans and is developing the MESA .. people do need more space ...

 

And this will be true full sized car, plus with special appeal and Ford will charge for it appropriately - definitely no low 20's The Lambdas start at about 27k, and so will this .. the interior will be luxurious, the engine refined and the space plentiful ..

 

The Rondo has its space/niche. but so do full size 7 passenger vehicles ..

PS: if you want to stop annoying people - post some basic facts, but PLEASE stop copy pasting practically full articles ... especially when the thread is completely unrelated to the Rondo.

 

Igor

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that MANY people in this country need an affordable 7 passenger vehicle that can ride 5 comfortably, and 7 in a pinch. Your point is taken about the space.... I understand.

 

But trotting out a luxo-barge as a replacement for the Windstar/Freestar, and only having the Taurus X (Freestyle) and Explorer/Expedition as your remaining multi-person carriers is a mistake. ESPECIALLY in the changing energy and economic conditions I mention.

 

A well placed ex-Ford Program Manager that I went to high school with (who bailed voluntarily LONG before the recent bloodlettings) had concerns about the target market and content of the "Fairlane" when he wrote these statements to me back in 2005:

 

"Ford is not putting into the 'Fairlane' some of the top wanted consumer features in this segment because it would "Cost too much" based on the platform that it will use. So, history repeats itself.

 

It is not too crowded to fit a traditional minivan in for Ford, Ford is not willing to do what is required to execute in this market segment.

 

In the article you sent me it states"A video at the auto show depicted it as the choice of an old-money crowd at play in the Hamptons. " This is J. Mays doing. He loves the Hamptons.

 

There goes J. Mays shooting off his mouth again about an upscale ride - just does not understand Ford consumers or the minivan segment."

 

I restate... the above info was from 2005, so there very well could have been changes in the decontenting he's referring to. Time will tell. Based on what I've read here and elsewhere, I do think the planned appeal to the "uppity" population segment is still in play though. People are mystified when Hyundai makes noises about attempts at going "upscale'. Why should it be any different or easier for Ford to assume that they can be successful while abandoning the driving needs of working class Americans.... their traditional "bread-n-butter" purchasers?

 

Okay....so again... let me restate my premise. Give America a good 5 passenger, marginal 7 passenger vehicle that is affordable and gets decent fuel mileage, and I personally think it will sell.... especially with the skyrocketing of petrol prices only a cruise missile into Iran away.

 

And for the record... I only included the *1* section (out of 7) of the Edmunds article I thought pertinent. The rest of the post was my own verbiage.

 

-Ovaltine

Edited March 24, 2007 by Ovaltine

[ANTAUS]

I do agree with the part that people do need a vehicle under $20K, to haul more ass around with. My bestfriend bought an Mazda5 many months ago and she loves it, and really it was the only vehicle under $20K that could haul more people, and not be embrassed to be seen in and be actually reliabile.... Now hopefully she'll tie her tubes and stop breeding so she won't need a larger one.

[EMDEE]

Folks need to read the CNN/Dow Jones article more carefully. It does NOT confirm the use of "suicide" doors. I think the eye was tricked by the article's reference to the "side" doors. Those doors are described as being like "french doors" which slide open in opposite directions from a central locking point. Doors which earned the title of "suicide doors" in the past did so because they opened outward in opposite directions (into traffic, at least on the driver's side). Sliding doors create no additional risks.

 

Also note that the article talks about Ford going "upscale" with the Flex, which suggests there won't be any $20,000 versions. Right now, Ford has a greater need to impress buyers with visual quality, especially inside, than to stake out another claim as a maker of inexpensive vehicles. There is little profit in low priced vehicles, especially for American manufacturers.

 

I think the article said it best: if they get the interior right, the Flex will be a hit. They've finally got a great drivetrain and now the styling is carrying its weight. Anxious to see the Lincoln version, which company people have compared to the design image of the Gulfstream business jets. Big talk, let's see what they deliver.

Edited March 24, 2007 by EMDEE

[Ovaltine]

Deleted post -- I meant to 'edit'. It's too early to be doing this! B)

Edited March 24, 2007 by Ovaltine

[ds91776]

Look, I think Mercury should get an Americanized S-MAX and call it the Monterey, slotting it between the Mariner and a 7 passenger car based Mountaineer. Ford should get the next Focus C-Max and call it the Focus X.

[Mark B. Morrow]

regardless of wood and plastic...one thing I do hope they improve is tactile feel of materials....Ford's textured ( leather???? ) door caps and dash tops have ZERO softness...go ahead and tap them with a pen...HARD plastic.....give us a little padding boyz....even the Edges door caps are rock hard....and thus come off as cheap...

 

The caps on the Fusion are soft and much nicer. The hard plactic on the upper door panels are one of the things I do not like about my Explorer. The older Explorers were better in that regard.

Edited March 24, 2007 by Mark B. Morrow

[Deanh]

I guess what I'm getting at is that MANY people in this country need an affordable 7 passenger vehicle that can ride 5 comfortably, and 7 in a pinch. Your point is taken about the space.... I understand.

 

But trotting out a luxo-barge as a replacement for the Windstar/Freestar, and only having the Taurus X (Freestyle) and Explorer/Expedition as your remaining multi-person carriers is a mistake. ESPECIALLY in the changing energy and economic conditions I mention.

 

A well placed ex-Ford Program Manager that I went to high school with (who bailed voluntarily LONG before the recent bloodlettings) had concerns about the target market and content of the "Fairlane" when he wrote these statements to me back in 2005:

 

"Ford is not putting into the 'Fairlane' some of the top wanted consumer features in this segment because it would "Cost too much" based on the platform that it will use. So, history repeats itself.

 

It is not too crowded to fit a traditional minivan in for Ford, Ford is not willing to do what is required to execute in this market segment.

 

In the article you sent me it states"A video at the auto show depicted it as the choice of an old-money crowd at play in the Hamptons. " This is J. Mays doing. He loves the Hamptons.

 

There goes J. Mays shooting off his mouth again about an upscale ride - just does not understand Ford consumers or the minivan segment."

 

I restate... the above info was from 2005, so there very well could have been changes in the decontenting he's referring to. Time will tell. Based on what I've read here and elsewhere, I do think the planned appeal to the "uppity" population segment is still in play though. People are mystified when Hyundai makes noises about attempts at going "upscale'. Why should it be any different or easier for Ford to assume that they can be successful while abandoning the driving needs of working class Americans.... their traditional "bread-n-butter" purchasers?

 

Okay....so again... let me restate my premise. Give America a good 5 passenger, marginal 7 passenger vehicle that is affordable and gets decent fuel mileage, and I personally think it will sell.... especially with the skyrocketing of petrol prices only a cruise missile into Iran away.

 

And for the record... I only included the *1* section (out of 7) of the Edmunds article I thought pertinent. The rest of the post was my own verbiage.

 

-Ovaltine

Tine....don't you understand the buyer for the Kia and the buyer for the Ford as well as product are so far apart from one another almost to the point of not justifying a response...the Kia buyer is a price buyer..and that goes hand in hand with credit issues as well....a majority of Kia buyers WOULD buy something different IF THEY COULD, and trust me, drive the thing for a while and you would probably understand why they are only 20 k....corners are cut regardless of labour costs in the country that assembles them....I would DREAD even looking at a sub 25 k Ford 7 passenger vehicle...and believe me this thread would trash the hell out of it......to underline the point ...we DID have a 7 passenger mini-van called the Freestar....lots of features were missing...it was built to a budget...but was a sub 27k DISASTER that couldn't even be sold with 5 grand rebates....if you love cheap products go knock yourself dead ( not literally ) but there is no way a domestic could ever compete...blame $ per hour benefits or the UAW...WON"T happen unless it a TWO cylinder Rotax driven tin can....this is a classic case of Champagne taste and BEER budget.....the fifty buck bently syndrome...

[Ovaltine]

we DID have a 7 passenger mini-van called the Freestar....lots of features were missing...it was built to a budget...but was a sub 27k DISASTER that couldn't even be sold with 5 grand rebates....if you love cheap products go knock yourself dead ( not literally ) but there is no way a domestic could ever compete...blame $ per hour benefits or the UAW...WON"T happen unless it a TWO cylinder Rotax driven tin can....this is a classic case of Champagne taste and BEER budget.....the fifty buck bently syndrome...

 

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

Edited March 25, 2007 by Ovaltine

[RichardJensen]

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.

[Watchdevil]

little retro, adds character and warmth... too high techie gets sterile....course could use differnet types of material....bamboo, cork....

 

How about styrofoam and tinfoil... complete with burlap fabrics... or better yet biodegradable garbage bag plastic... Gray duct tape....Particle board wood trim...

[Roadrunner]

This car looks like a boxed up Freestyle er I mean Taurus X. I hope FMC doesn't build too many of these, I've been at this dealership for a little over a year and we have not sold 1 Freestyle or Taurus X or whatever you want to call it. And every Edge customer we get buys a Mazda CX-9 or CX-7.

 

...Oh yeah I forgot about the Taurus X, which will be built on the same D3 platform as the Flex.

 

Um. Not sure what to say on that one. Possibly oversaturation.

 

Look:

Flex

Taurus X

Edge

Escape

 

Hmmm..

[EMDEE]

Whether Ford becomes more of a "niche" manufacturer or not isn't entirely up to them. It's determined to a large degree by the entire market. Right now, the marketplace for nearly every kind of car, crossover or SUV is saturated. Nearly every manufacturer is making more models than at any time in their corporate history. The crossover/SUV niche is subdivided into an entire industry of models with only small differences between them. How many utility vehicles does Ford need to make? How many does GM need? Honda? Toyota? Nissan? Mercedes? Audi? BMW? Hyundai? Kia? IMHO, it's completely crazy. They are all trying to divide the market into ever smaller, narrower niches in hopes of gaining a few more customers than the next company. The quantity of model differentation is unmatched in automotive history. It is the behavior of an industry in need of consolidation.

 

Much of what distinguishes one vehicle from the next these days has little to do with the function of an automobile or crossover/SUV. Nearly all vehicles today, at any price, are highly competent from a functional perspective. They differ mostly in the furniture-like luxury of their interiors, a few decibels of noise suppression either way, the "feel" of knobs and switches, small difference in how they respond to bumps and road irregularities, and (the big one) G-forces and horsepower. None of these differentiating properties are even close to important or necessary. We have become incredibly spoiled, compared to most of the world (other than Europe) in what we consider necessary in our vehicles. The funny thing is that it isn't really a reflection of our wealth. Most people are driving vehicles that are well beyond their means, just more debt piled on debt. Leasing alone allow millions of people to drive cars they could afford by no other means. It is only as we age that we begin to realize how much of our personal wealth has been wasted on new car fever. We pour our disposable income into rapidly depreciating $30-$100,000 vehicles that provide precious little we can't have for half the cost or less. For what? So we can boast that our cars use only rich looking soft plastics and are 3 db quieter at 60 mph than that 1960's Ford LTD that was "quieter than a Rolls Royce?"

 

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.

[Anthony]

I have no doubts that the Flex will be a better looking vehicle and most likely a nicer vehicle then your traditional minivan...but will it drag people out of cheaper, more practical minivans? I'm not sure Ford is smart to bill it as a minivan alternative. As far as I see it, its just another CUV in a sea of CUV's. Not a bad thing...but the Nissan Quest proved that minivan buyers do not buy "style", they buy practicality. They don't care how nice an armrest is, they care that crayon will wipe off it easily.

 

Most minivan and truck buyers are purpose buyers (though not all...that's why you have $40K T&C's and Harley Davidson F-150's). SUV/CUV/Car buyers are image/emotion buyers (with a dose of "purpose" thrown in for good measure).

 

Caravans base at $19.7K (albeit for a 4 banger, but it is a true 7 passenger vehicle w/ dual sliders) $23K gets you a V6, aluminum wheels, upgraded interior, power locks, CD, keyless entry w/ alarm, etc etc...

[igor]

...Oh yeah I forgot about the Taurus X, which will be built on the same D3 platform as the Flex.

 

Um. Not sure what to say on that one. Possibly oversaturation.

 

Look:

Flex

Taurus X

Edge

Escape

 

Hmmm..

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