timmm55 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 maybe Ford realizes thay have a better product, the X just didn't work p, either as the X or Freestyle...which by the way totals 3 years....3 years in which it FAILED to catch on, and beleive me advertising was the LEAST of its problems.... The Taurus X wasn't really new anyway. The "reviews" were mostly quick takes/revisions of the Five Hundred. And people do want something new and different. Obviously the old 500/Taurus isn't quite it. It's reliable and good in so many ways, but dull to many. That's where the Flex comes in.....bolder, trendy, a new segment, even if based on existing hardware. It's not exactly a clean slate design, but that was necessary. But so was the Mustang as it was based off the very conventional Falcon. It's about image, execution and hitting the right mark at the right time. And the Flex is impressive where the Taurus X isn't. I just wish it was smaller and lighter. The Flex could be the new Mustang in terms of success.........or the Edsel, but probably some where in between. Ford's goals aren't that lofty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 The Taurus X wasn't really new anyway. The "reviews" were mostly quick takes/revisions of the Five Hundred. Huh??? you mean Freestyle don't you? See 2 bland products, that people get mixed up on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted June 14, 2008 Author Share Posted June 14, 2008 Well, here is some big news: the Taurus X is still on the lots so we will see how many go in for the Flex and come out driving an X. I'm betting not many. Back in reality land, the vehicle that Flex is going to compete with is the one that customers are driving today. Is the Flex good enough to get people out of their Tahoe's, Expeditions, Yukon's, Denali's and so on? The only comparison that really matters is the one that takes place in the dealer show room: Is this new vehicle worth trading out of the one I am driving now? To get back on topic, does anything in the reviews make you guys believe that Suburban owners are going to want to trade down to this thing? When I read the review Flex Review in Automotive Traveler It sounds like they think this thing is BIG BIG BIG so Expedition owners might feel right at home size wise, and for them it would be a huge improvement in gas mileage. It all depends on your point of reference. I wonder who got the Flex after the press event? They will probably be the ones to do the first full review. I hope it wasn't Car and Driver. I can summarize the review: "We drove the Flex up Topanga Canyon Road and find that at the limit in the twisties it has vague steering feel, a little numb even when compared to the Corvette. The dash is too plasticy and the surfaces are not as soft as the Audi we tested last week. At the race track we were unable to get the quarter mile times we expected because of excessive wheel spin with the traction control turned off. We asked for paddle shifters, but Ford continues to fail to see the clear need for performance oriented options. Lap times were considerably slower than the Subaru WRX STI we consider to be our bench mark people mover. In our 60 to zero braking tests we were unimpressed. Every Porsche we have tested stopped by at least 1 foot shorter. There were some buttons and stuff for the rear seats, but we never used them. If they left out the third seat it would reduce weight and contribute to better F/R weight balance. The Flex would be so much better if it was made entirely of Aluminum, Carbon Fiber and Titanium. We chose the Mini Clubman as our comparison since they both are available with white roofs." What I want to know is will all of my daughters stuff fit in it when I take her back to college this fall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 maybe Ford realizes thay have a better product hats just it...thye Flex is NOT a better vehicle. Being more expensive, heavier, slower and smaller than the Taurus X does not make it better. and beleive me advertising was the LEAST of its problems.... No, the only problem with the Taurus X was Ford itself. They failed to invest ANYTHING into the Taurus X...theus, it is a sales bomb. Ford could not have had a better vehicle, and they let it slip away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkFive Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 No, the Edsel is just about as ugly as the Flex. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 hats just it...thye Flex is NOT a better vehicle. Being more expensive, heavier, slower and smaller than the Taurus X does not make it better. No, the only problem with the Taurus X was Ford itself. They failed to invest ANYTHING into the Taurus X...theus, it is a sales bomb. Ford could not have had a better vehicle, and they let it slip away. will be humourous for you to eat crow and FINALLY admit you were mistaken..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 will be humourous for you to eat crow and FINALLY admit you were mistaken..... How will I be mistaken?? That that Flex will outsell the T-X? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMSA-XJR9 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 (edited) hats just it...thye Flex is NOT a better vehicle. Being more expensive, heavier, slower and smaller than the Taurus X does not make it better. No, the only problem with the Taurus X was Ford itself. They failed to invest ANYTHING into the Taurus X...theus, it is a sales bomb. Ford could not have had a better vehicle, and they let it slip away. I always thought that if FMC would have stayed true to the Freestyle FX concept sales would have been better. The production version was just too watered down in my opinion. That being said I do like the Flex. Edited June 14, 2008 by IMSA-XJR9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I always thought that if FMC would have stayed true to the Freestyle FX concept sales would have been better. The production version was just too watered down in my opinion. That being said I do like the Flex. Are you referring to the actual design of the Fresstyle FX, or the concept of having it able to be a "truck" as well? Design wise, not much changed, at least from that view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMSA-XJR9 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Are you referring to the actual design of the Fresstyle FX, or the concept of having it able to be a "truck" as well? Design wise, not much changed, at least from that view. The actual design. While I agree "not much changed," it is those very small details that watered down the production version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 (edited) The actual design. While I agree "not much changed," it is those very small details that watered down the production version. Out of curiosity, do you have specific examples of the design details you're referring to? Edited June 14, 2008 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMSA-XJR9 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Out of curiosity, do you have specific examples of the design details you're referring to? Well since I can't see with your eyes the best I can explain are the differences in the front/rear clips (due to safety regulations I suspect), headlights and tail lamps, mirrors, wheels/tires, and door handles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Well since I can't see with your eyes the best I can explain are the differences in the front/rear clips (due to safety regulations I suspect), headlights and tail lamps, mirrors, wheels/tires, and door handles. Ok, I see what you're saying now, seeing them side-by-side. I do like the concept better, except, I think the rear is a little too boxy for my taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exploder48 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 will be humourous for you to eat crow and FINALLY admit you were mistaken..... For what it's worth, our dealership here in New York delivered the FIRST Flex in the country on Thursday 6/12. Customer came in Wednesday, saw it, drove it, picked it up the next day. Fully loaded Limited, he loves it. Hope it's the start of something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I think the rear is a little too boxy for my taste. Don't look at the Flex... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Ok, I see what you're saying now, seeing them side-by-side. I do like the concept better, except, I think the rear is a little too boxy for my taste. The back end looks old to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchdevil Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Just because they are green? While you are at it Timmm how about making us a version of the Focus with wood trim as a throwback to the 1976 Pinto that had it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Don't look at the Flex... I should've worded that differently, because I like the Flex's design. I said...."I think the rear is a little too boxy for my taste." I was really getting more to the point that the rear of that particular concept is too boxy, it doesn't flow with the comparatively curvy (not extremely so, just moreso than the back) front end design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 The back end looks old to me. I would have to agree with you on that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 I would have to agree with you on that statement. Reminds me of the early 90s Taurus wagon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Reminds me of the early 90s Taurus wagon. Like this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Like this one? Good example, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 (edited) Good example, yes. I can definitely see why/where you see that similarity. Edited June 15, 2008 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TStag Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 liked it as well, very fresh....I wonder how they got 17.1, hell I get 15-16 in my gals 4x4 5.4 Expedition regularly...obviously peoples driving habits vary, my right foot has DEFINITELY gotten lighter...got 29 last fillup in the Cooper S, and I regularly see reveiwers getting below 23! in tests of the same car. Also, everyone should stop bleating about MPGS and gas, if that is their gripe then good luck getting 6 or seven comfortable in a Prius or Focus, realize what the reveiwed vehicle is targeting ( Odessey, Siennas, even Expedition, Tahoe etc people willing to downsize to counter their Chevron bill ) in which case this vehicle meets or exceeds its target, also, one thing i will say about Ford...their MPGs seem to be a little more ACCURATE than some....in reality though the market on this car probably has declined due to consumers outrage and reactive buying habits...the pool of "impulse" and emotive buyers may delay a Purchase based solely on mileage ratings...buyers with a need for 6 passenger vehicles will always be there. Yes but how can Ford Europe make the S-Max with a combined MPG of 34.9? http://www.ford.co.uk/ie/smax/co2_smax/co2..._petrol/-/-/-/- Opportunity missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateX Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Yes but how can Ford Europe make the S-Max with a combined MPG of 34.9? http://www.ford.co.uk/ie/smax/co2_smax/co2..._petrol/-/-/-/- Opportunity missed. The European tests are much more optimistic than the US counterpart, even before the US adjusted the number down for 2008. I would like to see the results of Euro cars run under the US tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.