Pics of the Ford Flex out testing!

[igor]

Looks like it should be able to tow stuff.

 

What's its tow rating?

4100lbs - but I believe it is not standard ..

 

Igor

[Meelaan]

Ok... so it's not the specific magnitude of the front overhang, but the proportion of the front + rear overhangs to the distance between the rear of the front tire and front of the rear tire (we'll call this the "wheelbase" for the purpose of this discussion). Aesthetically speaking, you'd want to make sure the wheelbase length is twice what the front and rear overhang lengths total together. On that Flex image, the front axle looks too far back. Either that, or the windsheild appears too far forward.

 

I measured the distances and the wheelbase is only 1.5 times the overhang total. Yes, this is nerdy of me. Oh well. It's a car nerd forum.

 

But as mentioned, all of this visual interpretation is mainly due to the big black bumpers.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Meelaan

[Deanh]

"ZOMG OVERHANG OVERHANG OVERHANG!!!"

 

:beatdeadhorse:

 

Is "overhang" the secret word at PeeWee's Playhouse this month? Sheez, just give it a rest already:

 

 

 

 

 

 

So there's a gallery of cars, likely at least one of which most of you (to your own individual taste) would be more than happy to own, ALL of which, by the carrying on here, have "ridiculous overhangs" - even more so than the Flex in some cases. :rolleyes:

 

 

This concludes today's lesson. If you're going to criticize the Flex's styling, find a new design buzzword to harp on.

note the years of the vehicles you pulled from your a$$ for comparative purposes.......large OVERHANGS are dated...that said if they extended the Flexs wheelbase to accomodtae our wishes may look like it was sagging in the middle...who knows........

[goingincirclez]

note the years of the vehicles you pulled from your a$$ for comparative purposes.......large OVERHANGS are dated...that said if they extended the Flexs wheelbase to accomodtae our wishes may look like it was sagging in the middle...who knows........

 

My point was that overhangs do not necessarily make or break a car's design, desiribility, or timelessness.

 

But since you still want to play:

 

(Check out the rear of that new BMW 5-series! Is it 1960? )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again... if the Flex has a subjective design/aesthetics problem, it's NOT in overhangs. Meelaan at least tried to explain his position further.

 

Thanks for playing!

Edited July 12, 2007 by goingincirclez

[Deanh]

My point was that overhangs do not necessarily make or break a car's design, desiribility, or timelessness.

 

But since you still want to play:

 

(Check out the rear of that new BMW 5-series! Is it 1960? )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again... if the Flex has a subjective design/aesthetics problem, it's NOT in overhangs. Meelaan at least tried to explain his position further.

 

Thanks for playing!

the overhang mainly in question is the rear...the ONLY example you gave that was close was the extended length Expy...all the rest have wheels pretty much pushed out to the corners...more agressive stance...once again I mention the edge..........and back it up with it being classed as a styling"hit"........front of the flex ok...but WHAT is the diving board out back...so get out of the sandpit....and no the black bumpers definitely DON"T help, they makes the wheels look even more squished together in the middle of the car...also the overhangs may be emphasized by the Flexs squareness...a majority of your examples ( aside from having relitively small overhangs ) are rounded.....Mustangs rear overhang has been critisized as well....

Edited July 12, 2007 by Deanh

[Meelaan]

Point being, the distances should increase in the following order to achieve ideal proportions:

1. Front of front wheel to leading edge of front facia ("front overhang")

2. Back of rear wheel to finishing edge of rear facia ("rear overhang")

3. Back of front wheel to front of back wheel ("wheelbase")

 

If #1 and #2 are equal, then the effect is that the vehicle looks visually static rather than in motion.

 

Consider these crude illustrations:

[NickF1011]

Point being, the distances should increase in the following order to achieve ideal proportions:

1. Front of front wheel to leading edge of front facia ("front overhang")

2. Back of rear wheel to finishing edge of rear facia ("rear overhang")

3. Back of front wheel to front of back wheel ("wheelbase")

 

If #1 and #2 are equal, then the effect is that the vehicle looks visually static rather than in motion.

 

Consider these crude illustrations:

 

Exactly how long of a wheelbase do you really expect Ford to engineer for this thing? It's already got a huge wheelbase as it is. Should they throw some frame rails under it and turn it into a limousine while they're at it?

 

And personally...I find the wheel spacing of your first diagram (the original) to be the most visually "balanced".

[igor]

let's just say this :: While the Flex is LOWER than its competitors, its overhangs, wheelbase and overall length is exactly in line with all of its three-row crossover (GM Lambdas, 08 Highlander) and Minivan (Odyssey, Sienna) competition.

 

It looks log because it is low .. but it is not under-developed as people would like to make us believe .. if you do not like the styling .. well so be it ... but trying to attach some "objective" reality to your opinion is useless - specs contradict you.

 

look up the dimensions if you want .. I did about dozen of times ..

 

Igor

Edited July 12, 2007 by igor

[Deanh]

let's just say this :: While the Flex is LOWER than its competitors, its overhangs, wheelbase and overall length is exactly in line with all of its three-row crossover (GM Lambdas, 08 Highlander) and Minivan (Odyssey, Sienna) competition.

 

It looks log because it is low .. but it is not under-developed as people would like to make us believe .. if you do not like the styling .. well so be it ... but trying to attach some "objective" reality to your opinion is useless - specs contradict you.

 

look up the dimensions if you want .. I did about dozen of times ..

 

Igor

the boxiness doesn't help...in fact if anything it emphasizes overhangs....in reality I'm jazzed about this product, imay be critiquing styling, but THAT is my opinion and I beleive in the flesh when all is body coloured it will not jump out like nipples on a cold day like it does w this mule.

[igor]

the boxiness doesn't help...in fact if anything it emphasizes overhangs....in reality I'm jazzed about this product, imay be critiquing styling, but THAT is my opinion and I beleive in the flesh when all is body coloured it will not jump out like nipples on a cold day like it does w this mule.

yes you are right .. the low profile and the boxiness do make the overhangs look longer ... Car design 101: make overhangs look smaller by puling back (de-emphasizing the corners (see: Murano) .. and yes, with regular wheels, colored bumpers and better shots - they will not be the kind of eyesore you see on the pics ..

 

I just was surprised that you were arguing about rear overhang on a 2box design housing full-size 3rd row seats ... there is no car on the market in that category that does not have overly long rear overhang.

 

Igor

[goingincirclez]

also the overhangs may be emphasized by the Flexs squareness...a majority of your examples ( aside from having relitively small overhangs ) are rounded.....

 

Thank you for proving my point! It is a subjective matter of further design refinement (or lack of it).

 

There was a reason I posted that 2007 Corvette: from wheel to fascia, it does have a pronounced overhang. But you don't notice it because they added a bit of sculpting to create a recessed curve at the bottom edge. So yes, it is an illusion.

 

But if you are going to buy into illusions, then you must realize that photo of the Edge, is a dead-straight profile shot, with hideous black bumpers. It will look nicer from an angle, and with some color to break it up.

 

Also, you really cannot sculpt round corners and llusional trickery into a car whose design is was inspired by a kleenex box. Then you have a conflict of language.

 

But I stand by my statement with photographic proof: in terms of dimensions, the overhangs are NOT the problem. The rest of the design... the "box language" in this case, may be.

 

For the record I happen to like it... but then I always liked the County Squire as well (because they won every demo derby I saw one in, and there were plenty of those) :shades:

[Deanh]

yes you are right .. the low profile and the boxiness do make the overhangs look longer ... Car design 101: make overhangs look smaller by puling back (de-emphasizing the corners (see: Murano) .. and yes, with regular wheels, colored bumpers and better shots - they will not be the kind of eyesore you see on the pics ..

 

I just was surprised that you were arguing about rear overhang on a 2box design housing full-size 3rd row seats ... there is no car on the market in that category that does not have overly long rear overhang.

 

Igor

not really arguing...but it seems a little long...its like an EL version...and i can handle the regular Expedition no probs, proportions look fine...EL looks like a diving board out back

[Deanh]

Thank you for proving my point! It is a subjective matter of further design refinement (or lack of it).

 

There was a reason I posted that 2007 Corvette: from wheel to fascia, it does have a pronounced overhang. But you don't notice it because they added a bit of sculpting to create a recessed curve at the bottom edge. So yes, it is an illusion.

 

But if you are going to buy into illusions, then you must realize that photo of the Edge, is a dead-straight profile shot, with hideous black bumpers. It will look nicer from an angle, and with some color to break it up.

 

Also, you really cannot sculpt round corners and llusional trickery into a car whose design is was inspired by a kleenex box. Then you have a conflict of language.

 

But I stand by my statement with photographic proof: in terms of dimensions, the overhangs are NOT the problem. The rest of the design... the "box language" in this case, may be.

 

For the record I happen to like it... but then I always liked the County Squire as well (because they won every demo derby I saw one in, and there were plenty of those) :shades:

I like it too...but the rear IS too long, Front is OK....must be an EL version.....and the conflict of language comment doesn't fly...the closest i can think is the Scion....no massive overhangs ther...case closed...the rear IS extended for capacity and just looks wrong somehow...functional no doubt, but a little long

[RichardJensen]

Car design 101: make overhangs look smaller by puling back (de-emphasizing the corners (see: Murano)

IMO the front end treatment of the Murano (which basically has a leading edge horizontally and vertically above the bumper) emphasizes the front overhang (which is probably about the same as the Edge's).

 

The Edge, to the contrary, features planar front and rear surfaces which in every viewing angle except full-on to the side de-emphasize the overhang.

 

Note that there is no apparent overhang issue with the Flex from this angle:

 

 

While the Sienna has a visually pronounced overhang (due to its 'pointy' front end)

 

 

(note also the use of the 'Bold Moves' font & color scheme!)

 

There is a lot that can be done with lines, by designers with talent and training, to minimize the appearance of overhangs, height, width, etc.

[Deanh]

IMO the front end treatment of the Murano (which basically has a leading edge horizontally and vertically above the bumper) emphasizes the front overhang (which is probably about the same as the Edge's).

 

The Edge, to the contrary, features planar front and rear surfaces which in every viewing angle except full-on to the side de-emphasize the overhang.

 

Note that there is no apparent overhang issue with the Flex from this angle:

 

 

While the Sienna has a visually pronounced overhang (due to its 'pointy' front end)

 

 

(note also the use of the 'Bold Moves' font & color scheme!)

 

There is a lot that can be done with lines, by designers with talent and training, to minimize the appearance of overhangs, height, width, etc.

looks good in dark colors too, kinda wish the front remained more true to the concept but REAL lights sem to work better than the cool concept types....I CAN"T WAIT!

[SVT_MAN]

Overhang this, overhang that. A few of you appear to be hung over ...

 

Speaking of which, while I think my Mustang is hung like, well a horse .. my Mustang apparently has a nasty overhang by a few definitions made here. Does that make it inherently ugly? I think, based on some comments seen here, that a sports car with a long front overhang is even more sacreligious than a CUV. At least if we go by the theory that short front overhangs imply motion ... which I'll buy into ... but what explains the success of the Mustang and the fact that many people say it "looks like it's moving while standing still" ? Sure the original had a shorter overhang .. but is the 99 an ugly model? I don't think so. Neither did hundreds of thousands of others who bought one.

 

 

Nasty front overhang eh? Honestly, I could care less. I still like how it looks.

 

 

Pontiac Aztek has a shorter front overhang than my Mustang. Does that make it better looking?

 

 

I realize that my post is a result of only hunting and pecking through this thread so maybe some people tried to clarify their viewpoints better and weren't actually saying overhangs were the only thing that mattered .. but nonetheless, hopefully I've proved that isn't the case. The Aztek, no matter how short its front overhang, is just plain nasty.

 

Point: Overhangs don't make or break a car. The overall design does. If the overhang doesn't match the rest of the car, it doesn't matter if it has super short overhang; it's still going to be ugly.

Edited July 13, 2007 by SVT_MAN

[Meelaan]

Pontiac Aztek has a shorter front overhang than my Mustang. Does that make it better looking?

I realize that my post is a result of only hunting and pecking through this thread so maybe some people tried to clarify their viewpoints better and weren't actually saying overhangs were the only thing that mattered .. but nonetheless, hopefully I've proved that isn't the case. The Aztek, no matter how short its front overhang, is just plain nasty.

 

Point: Overhangs don't make or break a car. The overall design does. If the overhang doesn't match the rest of the car, it doesn't matter if it has super short overhang; it's still going to be ugly.

 

We're just discussing the effect the length of a car's front overhang has on the appearance of the vehicle. It's not a "catch-all" rule, but is a common ingredient. No one argues that this is the one element wrong with the Aztek specifically.

 

Looking into it more closely, I'm finding the proportional issue of the overhang length is greatly impacted by the relative location of the front windshield. Move the windsheild too far forward so that it visually "intersects" the front wheel, and it doesn't matter how long the front overhang may be, it will look unimpressive (see Aztek's situation). With the Mustang, the windshield is further behind the front wheel. The more space between the front wheel and the windshield, the more attractive the look. Most performance vehicles have that proportion (Jaguar is a good example).

Edited July 13, 2007 by Meelaan

[goingincirclez]

 

(note also the use of the 'Bold Moves' font & color scheme!)

 

:censored:

 

Man, that just really pisses me off, even more so than I already disliked Toyota. Now I want to take a sledge to every one that I see.

 

Do they not have a SINGLE BRAIN CELL for an IOTA of original thought? Is it not enough for them to primarily rip off other designs (primarily Ford's at that), and desperately spin and weasel their way into the "American Way".... now they have to rip off Ford's damn ADVERTISING as well???

 

W.T.F!

 

Must.... resist.... Georgetown is only a half-hour from here....

 

(If I do something to get myself arrested later on, I'm blaming you, Rich. You just HAD to throw that up there! )

[RichardJensen]

Well, if it helps, I think that's just a local dealer. In Quebec.

 

http://www.valleyfieldtoyota.com/fr/usedca...sting/index.spy

[bravestar]

Exactly how long of a wheelbase do you really expect Ford to engineer for this thing? It's already got a huge wheelbase as it is. Should they throw some frame rails under it and turn it into a limousine while they're at it?

 

And personally...I find the wheel spacing of your first diagram (the original) to be the most visually "balanced".

 

Igor, have you noticed with all of your research, the differences is rear leg room? Why is there no more rear leg room in the Flex and no three across seating?

[RichardJensen]

Igor, have you noticed with all of your research, the differences is rear leg room? Why is there no more rear leg room in the Flex and no three across seating?

1) Legroom numbers may be preliminary/subject to change

 

2) No 3-across in the third row because it doesn't meet Ford's in house standards for inserting 3 buckles instead of 2. Dimensionally it's only a few inches narrower than the 3-across Pilot & Lambda 3rd rows, but Ford has opted to put comfort ahead of soundbites, and only has 2 buckles back there.

[NLPRacing]

I think this thing wins the all time "Ugly Front Overhang" award:

 

 

Or maybe this does:

 

[RichardJensen]

Thanks a lot buddy, just when I thought I had removed that image from my memory.

[NLPRacing]

Thanks a lot buddy, just when I thought I had removed that image from my memory.

 

That's what I'm here for...

[bravestar]

Igor, have you noticed with all of your research, the differences is rear leg room? Why is there no more rear leg room in the Flex and no three across seating?

[/quote

 

Thanks for the response Richard. For our family hauling needs with our kids and their friends, I would love the option of three across seating in the rear seat. Mainly, for us anyway, it is the kids in the third row of the Explorer and they don't need the width of an adult seat but they have legs that go a country mile.

 

Is there a certain requirement to determine how many seatbelts are in a seat width wise?

Edited July 13, 2007 by bravestar