Ford Flex - Counterpoint

[mlhm5]

1: It's still invalid as a support for any of your assertions

 

2: Where is your proof for any of this? ANY OF THIS? Does it exist at all?

 

Furthermore, how many households are there in the US? I'll answer that for you:

 

105,480,101 (2000 Census).

 

How many Flexes is Ford planning to sell annually? I'll answer that one for you TOO:

 

70,000

 

Percentage of households that will need to buy a Flex to meet Ford's expectations:

 

.06%

 

Let me know if I need to make this any clearer for you.

 

First of all, Ford would have never spent the money to design and market that vehicle if their expectations were only 70K units a year.

 

Maybe that was their expectation the first 12 months, but if you are trying to argue that in 5 years only 350K would have been sold, and Ford agrees, well then Ford is more stunod that I ever thought.

 

As far as being the wrong car for a $4+ gallon world, argue with the author, he wrote the article. I just agreed with him.

Edited July 11, 2008 by mlhm5

[suv_guy_19]

First of all, Ford would have never spent the money to design and market that vehicle if their expectations were only 70K units a year.

 

Maybe that was their expectation the first 12 months, but if you are trying to argue that in 5 years only 350K would have been sold, and Ford agrees, well then Ford is more stunod that I ever thought.

 

As far as being the wrong car for a $4+ gallon world, argue with the author, he wrote the article. I just agreed with him.

 

 

Your an idiot if that's what you think.

[RichardJensen]

First of all, Ford would have never spent the money to design and market that vehicle if their expectations were only 70K units a year.

Prove it...

[RichardJensen]

#2 has more space than #1, because the lower floor and higher roof allows more breathing room. Just like a crowded city, you grow up (skyscraper) rather than out to claim usable space. I'll grant you that.

 

But essentially, all an SUV has ever been, is the same old station wagon, REPACKAGED into something "new" and "faddish". It may have slightly more room, because it IS slightly wider, and has a taller BODY. But the same could be done to a station wagon:

I get what you're saying, but I think what you're saying isn't worth saying.

 

Yes, you could take a station wagon and raise the roof several inches, widen it, lengthen it, and voila! the same space (give or take) as an SUV, but geez, by then you're also about the same interior space as a minivan, and the same comparative gas mileage (see the Flex & Taurus X for validation of that).

 

Bottom line is, they're all 'station wagons', if by station wagon you mean a vehicle with a tail gate and a covered cargo area.

 

And like all two box designs, you can turn one into another by stretching this, raising that, squishing this other, etc.

[Deanh]

Prove it...

actually rich hes 100% right.................there is NO need to ever seat more than two and their groceries....SMART guy.....

[mlhm5]

Prove it...

 

No, you prove that Ford only expected to sell 70K units a year.

[mlhm5]

Prove it...

 

As soon as you prove that Ford only expected to sell 70K units a year.

[NickF1011]

I think that is a great idea. Less people in the world (the root cause of almost every single problem in the world today), and more oil for me!!

 

Oh and there is NOTHING special about the Flex's fuel economy.It is better than the V8 SUVs (duh it has a V6), but is not something to write home about.

 

Eh, it's better than the fuel economy of plenty of 6 cyl SUV's as well:

 

V6 Explorer: 16/20

 

I6 Trailblazer: 16/20

 

V6 MDX (AWD only): 15/20

 

V6 Veracruz: 16/23

 

No, the Flex's fuel economy isn't market-changing, but it's definitely competitive and is undoubtedly one of the better performers in the class.

[RichardJensen]

No, you prove that Ford only expected to sell 70K units a year.

Fair enough:

 

http://subscribers.wardsauto.com/ar/ford_d...d_double_april/

[Deanh]

As soon as you prove that Ford only expected to sell 70K units a year.

meh...will still outsell the diesel VW, Diesel honda....COMBINED..........

[goingincirclez]

I get what you're saying, but I think what you're saying isn't worth saying.

 

Yes, you could take a station wagon and raise the roof several inches, widen it, lengthen it, and voila! the same space (give or take) as an SUV, but geez, by then you're also about the same interior space as a minivan, and the same comparative gas mileage (see the Flex & Taurus X for validation of that).

 

Bottom line is, they're all 'station wagons', if by station wagon you mean a vehicle with a tail gate and a covered cargo area.

 

And like all two box designs, you can turn one into another by stretching this, raising that, squishing this other, etc.

 

Yeah, you got it. And I understand your indifference, it is a hard topic to explain in a few minutes.

 

But I think it's worth pointing out. It seems too many people get hung up over what a vehicle is "called", versus what it actually IS.

 

The typical "oh I could never get a (station wagon / SUV / CUV / Minivan) 'cuz I'm (tall / materialistic / have delusions of _____/ ) myopia.

 

I think most people consider the Freestyle/TX to be a "CUV", or derisively a station wagon. Yet when I parked mine next to 2nd-gen Caravan a few months ago, the differences were relatively little in terms of size and practical space. The TX would be bigger, which surprised me.

 

So what truly defines a "modern station wagon" vs. "minivan" vs. "SUV" vs. "CUV"? The lines blur as much as they distinguish.

 

If the vehicle meets your NEEDS (and consider that term carefully), buy it. But don't be a consumer sheep who dismisses or buys simply because of the genre name and image the automaker wanted put forth.

Edited July 11, 2008 by goingincirclez

[Mark B. Morrow]

Europeans and their families get along just fine and they don't buy any 17/24 mpg vehicles.

 

 

Most European cities have excellent public transportation. Consequently, they don't have as many cars as we do. Also, their cities are older and smaller and they tend to drive less. The USA isn't Europe. Comparing Europe to the USA would make as much sense as comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

By the way I do believe that Land Rover sells its products in Europe. I think most of their line would be below 17/24. Ditto for Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Jaguar, all of which are sold in Europe.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[BORG]

Anybody who compares yesterday's wagon to today's SUV/CUVs is spectacularly shortsighted and confused. Lets not forget that a wagon was a sedan with a cab over the trunk, nothing more, nothing less. An SUV or CUV are purpose built for the function of hauling people and or cargo. THe idea that a wagon can serve the needs of the SUV crowd is marketing suicide, they are NOT the same cars, they do not fill the same need, they are not nearly as desirable and cost nearly the same. Bringing back the wagon makes LESS sense now because of the CUV.

[goingincirclez]

Anybody who compares yesterday's wagon to today's SUV/CUVs is spectacularly shortsighted and confused.

 

You can't really draw direct comparisons because the vehicles themselves have all evolved in different ways

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

a wagon was a sedan with a cab over the trunk, nothing more, nothing less. An SUV or CUV are purpose built for the function of hauling people and or cargo.

 

So drivers just put aquarium fish or greenhouse plants in the "cab over trunk" area on a wagon? Or could it more likely be those same wagons were also "purpose built" at the time for extra people and/or cargo...?

 

By your logic, all the earliest SUVs were, were pickup trucks with hardtop caps (Bronco, K-Blazer, RamCharger, et al)...

 

So who is shortsighted and confused? I think you proved my point.

Edited July 11, 2008 by goingincirclez

[Michael Reynolds]

I see your point in arguing that all an SUV/CUV/Minivan essentially is nothing more than a wagon. Where I disagree is that wagons of yore did not accommodate people/cargo as well as some of the above mentioned vehicles.

[igor]

I knew the moment mlhmhwlrns and P.. w/e the fuck showed up this thread would go stright to the shitter - not just tby them, but by Rich, Nick anbd others completely unable to resist the urge to fight with them.

 

 

they are like KIDS people - if you ignore them - they will get bored and stop ... like kids I am telling out

 

 

and for MLHMSNGDFJHSD I am in Europe RIGHT NOW - like physically looking at the cars driving by me .. in metal - no arm chair "I sit in US and speculate about EU crap" - I AM HERE (just to make it simple)

 

- 1) most of the cars driven around do not beat or barely beat the 30/40 mark. Estimating how these cars would test on EPA cycle - most cars fail to break the 30/40 for a simple reason - THEY ARE SMALL NA I4 GAS ENGINES

 

- 2) Sure there are diesels - BUT NOT IN THE TINY CARS - they are in Vans, family wagons and trucks. Repeat after me - TINY Ford Fiesta and similar (and smaller cars) ARE PREDOMINANTLY GASOLINE POWERED!!! Sure there are some diesels - but in this class they seem as frequent as are the Diesel Jettas compared to the overal compact segment. THe prevalent diesels are usually of at least 1.8l or 2.0l displacement gwetting similar mileage to the us JEtta TDI - 30/40.

 

I could make a few more points, but the top two are the most important - your assumpotions are simply INCORRECT about ewurope - sure Paris France will have 60% diesels and 50% of them would be tiny cars - but Europe is not Paris, France - and while Nordic nations are turning away from Diesels in a hurry in encouraging bio fuels, non Parisian drivers usually think solely in financial terms - and the diesel simply is too expensive up front, or would never break even in their driving even with gas at $10/gal (in more precise terms: 14 Swedish Krona a Liter; 1.45 Euro/l in Austria, and 48 SKK/l in Slovakia).

 

EU has this lofty goal of 120mg of CO2 per mile - AVERAGE - and per my obeservation from the THREE EU countries, they should start praying, because currently about one in 20 cars MEET the imit - let alone pass it to even out the others

 

Igor

[Deanh]

I knew the moment mlhmhwlrns and P.. w/e the fuck showed up this thread would go stright to the shitter - not just tby them, but by Rich, Nick anbd others completely unable to resist the urge to fight with them.

 

 

they are like KIDS people - if you ignore them - they will get bored and stop ... like kids I am telling out

 

 

and for MLHMSNGDFJHSD I am in Europe RIGHT NOW - like physically looking at the cars driving by me .. in metal - no arm chair "I sit in US and speculate about EU crap" - I AM HERE (just to make it simple)

 

- 1) most of the cars driven around do not beat or barely beat the 30/40 mark. Estimating how these cars would test on EPA cycle - most cars fail to break the 30/40 for a simple reason - THEY ARE SMALL NA I4 GAS ENGINES

 

- 2) Sure there are diesels - BUT NOT IN THE TINY CARS - they are in Vans, family wagons and trucks. Repeat after me - TINY Ford Fiesta and similar (and smaller cars) ARE PREDOMINANTLY GASOLINE POWERED!!! Sure there are some diesels - but in this class they seem as frequent as are the Diesel Jettas compared to the overal compact segment. THe prevalent diesels are usually of at least 1.8l or 2.0l displacement gwetting similar mileage to the us JEtta TDI - 30/40.

 

I could make a few more points, but the top two are the most important - your assumpotions are simply INCORRECT about ewurope - sure Paris France will have 60% diesels and 50% of them would be tiny cars - but Europe is not Paris, France - and while Nordic nations are turning away from Diesels in a hurry in encouraging bio fuels, non Parisian drivers usually think solely in financial terms - and the diesel simply is too expensive up front, or would never break even in their driving even with gas at $10/gal (in more precise terms: 14 Swedish Krona a Liter; 1.45 Euro/l in Austria, and 48 SKK/l in Slovakia).

 

EU has this lofty goal of 120mg of CO2 per mile - AVERAGE - and per my obeservation from the THREE EU countries, they should start praying, because currently about one in 20 cars MEET the imit - let alone pass it to even out the others

 

Igor

Igor...you been hangin out w Jobu?...........enjoy your trip mate

[Deanh]

There's no law saying you NEED to trade in your vehicle at the dealer to buy a new vehicle there....

 

If he really wanted a Flex, he could have sold the Expedition somewhere else and take the check back to the Ford dealer, no?

trades are a little scary to say the least....just booked an 05 Supercrew F-150 Lariat 2wd....books 15k.....ACV...or trade in value...8000 BACK of wholesale KBB....absolutely ridiculous......don't blame customers screaming their heads off...its reality but even being in the business HARD TO FATHOM.........

[smok]

Again, like others have said. What was offered has nothing to do with Ford...it is solely on the dealer.

 

In case you didn't hear the first time...

What was offered has nothing to do with Ford...it is solely on the dealer.

 

 

In case you didn't hear the second time...

What was offered has nothing to do with Ford...it is solely on the dealer.

 

 

In case you didn't hear the third time...

What was offered has nothing to do with Ford...it is solely on the dealer.

 

 

In case you didn't hear the fourth time...

What was offered has nothing to do with Ford...it is solely on the dealer.

 

 

In case you didn't hear the fifth time...

What was offered has nothing to do with Ford...it is solely on the dealer.

 

 

The customer assumes the dealer is representing Ford. The customer has no other interface with Ford

[Deanh]

The customer assumes the dealer is representing Ford. The customer has no other interface with Ford

just like when they go to the grocery store where they make everything they sell........and gas stations where they drill and refine their own oil....like houses, where all the owners actually Built thier abode.....lets get real.....I assume MOST customers would have more intelligence than that.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Deanh

[focus05]

You'd be wrong. Consumers are really dumb.

[Deanh]

You'd be wrong. Consumers are really dumb.

I blame the information on the internet...LOL!

[theoldwizard]

So what of those who are now driving fullsize SUVs that get 12/17 mpg? Are they expected to euthanize a couple of their children when they need a new vehicle so they can fit into a Jetta diesel comfortably?

While I don't claim that the families I know are an accurate cross section of America, I don't know any that would not fit in a Mazda5 (admittedly without luggage) which is rated at 21/27 even with an automatic.

[jpd80]

First of all, Ford would have never spent the money to design and market that vehicle if their expectations were only 70K units a year.

Yes they did!

At the Flex's price point recouping the investment is possible inside 12 months. The Aussie Territory was designed off the Falcon for an extra $500 million with the expectation that it would sell approximately 20,000 units per year.

 

When you're talking about a derivative of D3 like Flex is, the costs are reduced immensely by sharing all the engineering and electrics you don't see. While derivatives at best share 40% of parts, it's the ones they do share that saves the money.

 

That's the magic of using common platforms.

Edited July 12, 2008 by jpd80

[suv_guy_19]

While I don't claim that the families I know are an accurate cross section of America, I don't know any that would not fit in a Mazda5 (admittedly without luggage) which is rated at 21/27 even with an automatic.

 

I know te 5 would be too small for our needs. I love it, so if it wasn't for that, we'd have one.