Press Less Than Impressed

[Meelaan]

Just as my personal analysis confirmed, the Flex's debut has fallen flat for the automotive press, continuing the lackluster image Ford has instilled in its mainstream vehicles over the past ten years.

 

The name "Flex" itself is a fallicy. These days "flex" has connotations of using multiple fuel sources. That is not the case with this vehicle. No matter how anyone--even Ford--can argue that it makes sense here due to it being a multi-purpose vehicle, it will be confusing to the shopping public.

 

The gimmickery I condemned Ford for upon learning of all the needless gadgetry in the Flex concept has also been targeted by reviews. Oversized Mini Cooper... Refrigerator? "Juke Box"? (like today's 20-something buying public even knows what that is) These superficial elements have been tacked on to items that are fairly common in the industry today, but which Ford has to pump up because they're new-to-them: features like a rear back-up camera and stability control. The public's response will be "so what?"

 

By the time the Flex is even available, the customer base will have discovered and embraced the Acacia/Outlook twins.

 

But you know what will really kill any potential the Flex may have to succeed? Ford's never-ending incompetence when it comes to marketing a product. The Edge comes out and how do they promote this interesting (but admittedly late) crossover? Have it driving on buildings. Yeah. That really tells people about the competitive features of this new model. Drive it on top of buildings.

 

They'll probably have Mr. Fantastic driving the Avengers to the grocery store. Actually... Ford might do good to use that idea, because whatever their moronic agency suggests will be no better.

[NickF1011]

You're using one (rather ridiculous) article as proof that your analysis is correct?

 

Thus far I've seen much more POSITIVE press for the Flex than NEGATIVE. It's really as simple as that.

 

Ford WILL meet its sales goals with this vehicle.

[igor]

really, the press I read, was quite fond of it talking how its has homerun and hit written all over it .. I think there was abut 1 or 2 exceptions to that ..

 

yes the name was controversial, but the car got a lot .. and it mean a LOT of positive buzz from media ..

 

is your definition of "the press" MSN Autos or or whoever had the lone outright negative review of the vehicle?

 

Igor

Edited April 11, 2007 by igor

[falconman13]

Anyone who agrees with his point of view is the expert

[Meelaan]

really, the press I read, was quite fond of it talking how its has homerun and hit written all over it .. I think there was abut 1 or 2 exceptions to that ..

 

yes the name was controversial, but the car got a lot .. and it mean a LOT of positive buzz from media ..

 

is your definition of "the press" MSN Autos or or whoever had the lone outright negative review of the vehicle?

 

Igor

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18021283/

[igor]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18021283/

“If you look at GM, they’ve done a good job of communicating their plans for the future to the industry at large, and as such they really have restored confidence in their turnaround plan. Ford should be announcing to the world the products that they plan to come up with — the products coming out in the next three to five years — because that’s what is going to restore the confidence in much of the industry that they can turn their business around.”

 

This is the key piece of the Article .. GM says in 2006 they will have Camaro in 2009, and Corsa in 2010 and the Press goes GAGA saying it says that GM is really turning around.

 

Ford does not announce that far ahead .. .they keep it more closely guarded, because unlike Lutz who loves the attention being paid to HIS PERSON .. Ford does not have that one person basking in the glory - it is about team effort, and the success of the team is better ensured when the competition does not know what you have planned. (The Flex is an exception to this rule, and I am actually upset Ford evealed it so early - it would have been a perfect intro for the LA show).

 

The Article is far from objective .. none of the quotes about the flex are actually negative - but the article makes them sound that way. The author had an agenda and he went for it.

 

Now find me any other article about the Flex that is negative ... for now you have one dissatisfied columnist .. in a see of happy journalists.

 

Igor

[Meelaan]

Automobilemag.com points out several of my initial reactions to the vehicle while going further to say that it should be a "great people-mover."

 

That's a backhanded compliment in my eyes as anything with a motor and four wheels is a people-mover. A Chevy Nova could be called a "great people-mover." If that's the biggest compliment someone can pay the Flex, what is it that so certainly makes this model a definite sales success?

 

I don't see it. And that's just my opinion. I'm not biased or with any allegiance to a brand, but instead want to clear the air here that gushes with optimism over something that hasn't even reached showrooms. Cars are cars. They cost a lot. And they are bought to get people places. Beyond that, they're fun to look at. But it's a business and without objective review and a dash of criticism, Ford will never see the light.

 

If you've got a kid who brings home failing grades every year, you don't pat him on the back and say "you'll get it right next time!" No. You bitch the kid out, shove his nose in the books, and test his knowledge at the dinner table.

 

http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/20...2008_ford_flex/

Edited April 11, 2007 by Meelaan

[NickF1011]

Automobilemag.com points out several of my initial reactions to the vehicle while going further to say that it should be a "great people-mover."

 

That's a backhanded compliment in my eyes as anything with a motor and four wheels is a people-mover. A Chevy Nova could be called a "great people-mover." If that's the biggest compliment someone can pay the Flex, what is it that so certainly makes this model a definite sales success?

 

Please find me anyone who actually did refer to the Chevy Nova as a "great people-mover" and you might actually have a point.

 

How the heck do you percieve that as back-handed? Ford billed it as a "people-mover". Automobile called it a "great people-mover". I don't think you get a better endorsement than that. Come on.

[Meelaan]

Please find me anyone who actually did refer to the Chevy Nova as a "great people-mover" and you might actually have a point.

 

How the heck do you percieve that as back-handed? Ford billed it as a "people-mover". Automobile called it a "great people-mover". I don't think you get a better endorsement than that. Come on.

 

So, am I to understand that this is a new segment? Someone better tell Subaru (Forester) and Mazda (MPV).

 

I guess we should expect Ford to start calling its trucks "plywood sheet movers" or "trailer towers."

 

I've never seen so much fear from the word "minivan." It's the new "station wagon."

[igor]

I've never seen so much fear from the word "minivan." It's the new "station wagon."

That is absolutely correct.

 

Mazda did a research and found out that if you make your 7 passenger vehicle look like a car/suv and name it crossover people will pay about $4k extra ... just for not calling it a minivan. No wonder Minivan segment is gradually declining, while the crossover segment is booming.

 

Mazda did this research when they were deciding between developing the CX-9 or importing the new MPV ...

 

Igor

[Meelaan]

No wonder Minivan segment is gradually declining, while the crossover segment is booming.

 

Also, no wonder Chrysler's bleeding like a stuck pig. Today, the inventor of the minivan is like the inventor of the 8-track tape. Problem is, Chrysler can't stop building 8-tracks.

[NickF1011]

Also, no wonder Chrysler's bleeding like a stuck pig. Today, the inventor of the minivan is like the inventor of the 8-track tape. Problem is, Chrysler can't stop building 8-tracks.

 

Well, I don't think it's QUITE the same. It's certainly not an expanding market, but it's not going away entirely either. You'll probably still see minivans on the market in another 10 years, on the other hand, the only place you can find 8-track players is eBay.

[92merc]

on the other hand, the only place you can find 8-track players is eBay.

 

Hey, if things keep spiraling down for Chrysler, you just might find them on EBay too! :-)

[Meelaan]

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?f...&category0=

 

[falconman13]

BTW, I am a little tired of hearing how Chrysler invented the minvan. Am I the only one that remembers the Falcon vans?

[Meelaan]

BTW, I am a little tired of hearing how Chrysler invented the minvan. Am I the only one that remembers the Falcon vans?

 

That vehicle used the Falcon name alone. It was not on a car-sourced frame/platform, which is the essential ingredient for a minivan.

[NickF1011]

That vehicle used the Falcon name alone. It was not on a car-sourced frame/platform, which is the essential ingredient for a minivan.

 

Isn't that sort of like arguing that a true SUV just HAS to be body-on-frame? There really isn't a specific definition for any type of vehicle in the auto world when it boils down to it. Chrysler certainly gets all of the credit for making the minivan POPULAR though, regardless of whether or not they were truly the first ones to market a vehicle of that general type.

[falconman13]

The original Falcon vans were unitbody construction, not based on a truck, The corvair minivans also as well as the VW microbus. All were release long before the Caravan.

[Meelaan]

The original Falcon vans were unitbody construction, not based on a truck, The corvair minivans also as well as the VW microbus. All were release long before the Caravan.

 

Those vehicles were precursors to the cargo van (Econoline, Ram Van, Chevy Van), not the minivan. Minivans have the engines forward of the passenger cabin, not under it. This allows them to sit lower, therefore having a lower center of gravity and easier entry and exit from the vehicle.

[Blueblood]

Crap, my reply got deleted, no time to re-write it now, but I'll just say the anti-Detroit media is full of shit.

 

And Automobile magazine is a frikking TABLOID, those morons said the "penny pinching" was obvious in the Flex's interior!!???!! WTF? Just the opposite, it looks like an interior out of a car costing tens of thousdands more than it does.

 

If it was a Toyota or a Honda, these kooks would be masterbating over it, screw them and their opinions...

Edited April 12, 2007 by Blueblood

[CPManx]

Crap, my reply got deleted, no time to re-write it now, but I'll just say the anti-Detroit media is full of shit.

 

And Automobile magazine is a frikking TABLOID, those morons said the "penny pinching" was obvious in the Flex's interior!!???!! WTF? Just the opposite, it looks like an interior out of a car costing tens of thousdands more than it does.

 

If it was a Toyota or a Honda, these kooks would be masterbating over it, screw them and their opinions...

 

Hey, have you ever actually read Automobile magazine? I don't agree with the editors' opinions all the time, but it's a smart, clued-in magazine whose opinions deserve to be taken seriously. Incidentally, the print edition called the Flex "appealing" (and its comment on the Camry? "inspiration is still a missing ingredient").

 

I know it's tempting to blame the media for all the bad news but the truth is that Ford flubbed several aspects of the Flex intro--starting with the silly name and the excessive hype (eg, trumpeting that Ford is going to "define" a market segment that it is entering several years late). It's really tough to tell from press photos but the interior does look like it has some odd detailing, such as the horizontal expanse of fake wood and the coarsely marked, retro-styled speedometer.

 

I think the inherent goodness of the Flex will make it a success, but the public perception of Ford right now is that it is a company going down the tubes. If Mullaly et al hope to turn things around, they need to get both the product and the perception spot on every time--nobody is going to cut them any slack right now.

[Tboneguy]

Part of the problem is in the interpretation. The interior comments Automotible Mag makes in the beginning are a comparison to the Fairlane concept. Then they go one to say "but will be the best in the Ford lineup. There will even be options for a houndstooth seat pattern and contrast stitching on the seats and console."

 

My personal problem with the show car is the color choice. Rootbeer brown?? That went the way of my parents 1972 Buick LeSabre. Makes me think of the UPS commercial "What can Brown do you for today?" I'm sure other color combinations will really look good on the Flex.

[falconman13]

Those vehicles were precursors to the cargo van (Econoline, Ram Van, Chevy Van), not the minivan. Minivans have the engines forward of the passenger cabin, not under it. This allows them to sit lower, therefore having a lower center of gravity and easier entry and exit from the vehicle.

You obviously have never driven a Falcon van or Cab over Econoline if you think they sit too high.

 

And lets just stick with one definition of what a mini-van actually is. First you said it was a car based chassis, then it had to have a forward mounted engine. Whats next, it has to be FWD. What would you call the Aerostar? It was BOF RWD definitely does not meet your criteria for a mini van, but sure was included in all the comparison tests.

 

A mini van is just a small van, regardless of the construction.

[Meelaan]

You obviously have never driven a Falcon van or Cab over Econoline if you think they sit too high.

 

And lets just stick with one definition of what a mini-van actually is. First you said it was a car based chassis, then it had to have a forward mounted engine. Whats next, it has to be FWD. What would you call the Aerostar? It was BOF RWD definitely does not meet your criteria for a mini van, but sure was included in all the comparison tests.

 

A mini van is just a small van, regardless of the construction.

 

Astro and Aerostar were mid-size vans. The segment was GM and Ford's respecitve first response to the Caravan and essentially a half-assed effort in whole to make a minivan. They were based on truck platforms and therefore cannot be classified in good faith as true minivans.

[NickF1011]

Astro and Aerostar were mid-size vans. The segment was GM and Ford's respecitve first response to the Caravan and essentially a half-assed effort in whole to make a minivan. They were based on truck platforms and therefore cannot be classified in good faith as true minivans.

 

Perhaps by your definition. I call them minivans. Most people call them minivans. Just how it is.