P71_CrownVic Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Good Poiint...the requirement to make these vehicles safe and meet consumer needs adds significant weight. The most irrating thing to a customer is road noise and Ford has done very well addressing this issue-it just comes at a cost. btw....the Flex or any other Ford product does not have whiplash headrests-although they are fairly aggressive in their placement against the head. As I have stated before...Freestyle was just as safe as the Flex...and weighs 800 pounds less. Same for the T-X. So the safety argument is a non-issue. Just because it is overweight does not mean it is any safer than something lighter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 (edited) ...and weighs 800 pounds less. Same for the T-X. You are using the mfr's specs for the Taurus X and the C&D 'as tested' weight for the Flex. You can't compare the two. Find an 'as tested' weight at C&D for the Taurus X that shows it to be 800lbs less than the Flex. Edited August 16, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) You are using the mfr's specs for the Taurus X and the C&D 'as tested' weight for the Flex. You can't compare the two. Find an 'as tested' weight at C&D for the Taurus X that shows it to be 800lbs less than the Flex. Fair enough... December 2007, Car and Driver, page 144, Taurus X... As tested weight: 4216 September 2008, Car and Driver, page 80, Flex As tested weight: 4844 4844-4216 = 628 pounds. Still does not change the fact that the much lighter Taurus X is just as safe as the overweight Flex. Excess weight DOES NOT equal safer station wagon. Edited August 17, 2008 by P71_CrownVic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Still does not change the fact that the much lighter Taurus X is just as safe as the overweight Flex. Excess weight DOES NOT equal safer station wagon. Actually, we don't know that. Not all 5 star rated vehicles are created equal. I would also wager that the Flex is a great deal quieter and has much better build quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Actually, we don't know that. Not all 5 star rated vehicles are created equal. I would also wager that the Flex is a great deal quieter and has much better build quality. ...While sacrificing fuel economy... Hell, for all the unnecessary coin Ford decided to drop on the Flex, they could have advertised the T-X. made it quieter, increased build quality, and still come out WAY ahead where they are now...in the hole with a new station wagon that is not selling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 ...While sacrificing fuel economy... Hell, for all the unnecessary coin Ford decided to drop on the Flex, they could have advertised the T-X. made it quieter, increased build quality, and still come out WAY ahead where they are now...in the hole with a new station wagon that is not selling. Well it's not like the Taurus X achieves better fuel economy than the Flex in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Well...it is 1 MPG better than the Flex. Case closed. Nah it's not case closed. If you are going to complain about..... All that technology and it can only muster 24MPG. If Ford wasn't so insistent on making their vehicles heavier than the competition, the Flex would have much better mileage. Make sure you utilize whatever you whine and complain about as a standard for every manufacturer. From my understanding the technology that Ford utilizes to achieve 24 MPG is a lot less of an engineering exercise than cylinder deactivation. All of that for 25 MPG??? Now the case is closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Nah it's not case closed. If you are going to complain about..... Make sure you utilize whatever you whine and complain about as a standard for every manufacturer. From my understanding the technology that Ford utilizes to achieve 24 MPG is a lot less of an engineering exercise than cylinder deactivation. All of that for 25 MPG??? Now the case is closed. GM doesn't need any of that to get 24 MPG out of their, better Lambdas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 GM doesn't need any of that to get 24 MPG out of their, better Lambdas. Yeah, and look at those things sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Yeah, and look at those things sell. Better than the Flex...in fact, every Lambda did better than the Flex. The Enclave (3,894), the Acadia (5,597), and the Outlook (2,368). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Better than the Flex...in fact, every Lambda did better than the Flex. The Enclave (3,894), the Acadia (5,597), and the Outlook (2,368). Yes, in a month when the vehicle was being rolled out to Ford's dealer body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 GM doesn't need any of that to get 24 MPG out of their, better Lambdas. No, but they do use direct injection whereas the Flex doesn't. Extra engineering resources and money to achieve ONLY 24 MPG. Now remember the sole basis of your argument was based on Ford utilizing additional resources and tech, to achieve the fuel economy it does in the Flex. I've pointed out two examples of competing automotive companies pushing products that compete directly for the same customer as the Flex, both of which utilize additional tech. In one such case fuel economy is better by 1 MPG highway and with the other it's the same. Is it OK for GM and Honda to employ those technologies, but god forbid Ford do it with the same outcome? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 GM doesn't need any of that to get 24 MPG out of their, better Lambdas. What's superior about a Lambda? Have you driven both vehicles back to back? Is one more comfortable than the other? Do the Lambdas stop better than a Flex? I mean I could go on. Elaborate on what you feel is so much more superior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 (edited) No, but they do use direct injection whereas the Flex doesn't. Extra engineering resources and money to achieve ONLY 24 MPG. Now remember the sole basis of your argument was based on Ford utilizing additional resources and tech, to achieve the fuel economy it does in the Flex. I've pointed out two examples of competing automotive companies pushing products that compete directly for the same customer as the Flex, both of which utilize additional tech. In one such case fuel economy is better by 1 MPG highway and with the other it's the same. Is it OK for GM and Honda to employ those technologies, but god forbid Ford do it with the same outcome? The 2009s will have DI...the non-DI 2008s do not...and still get 24MPG. Now, granted, they still get 24MPG even with DI, but power is up to 288HP. So, 11more horsepower and no hit in mileage...and an increased tow rating. Edited August 18, 2008 by P71_CrownVic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 What's superior about a Lambda? Have you driven both vehicles back to back? Is one more comfortable than the other? Do the Lambdas stop better than a Flex? I mean I could go on. Elaborate on what you feel is so much more superior. The look TONS better They will tow more in 2009 (Traverse rated to 5200 pounds) They can carry a 4X8 sheet of plywood flat They have more power They have more cargo room with all seats down They have more cargo room with just the third seats folded They have more cargo room with all seats up They have a bigger gas tank They have a telescoping steering wheel Signal mirrors Power folding mirrors Autodimming mirror Ask and you shall receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Ford Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 How did a thread about the flex turn into a lambda thread? Oh, that's right; someone's ban ended, and he's decided that because a GM product gets the same gas milage as a Ford one the GM one is better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 How did a thread about the flex turn into a lambda thread? Oh, that's right; someone's ban ended, and he's decided that because a GM product gets the same gas milage as a Ford one the GM one is better I was simply replying to a question. Michale Reynolds brought the Lambdas up first...way back in post #54. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 The 2009s will have DI...the non-DI 2008s do not...and still get 24MPG. Now, granted, they still get 24MPG even with DI, but power is up to 288HP. So, 11more horsepower and no hit in mileage...and an increased tow rating. Yes, I am fully aware. The addition of DI brought the Lambdas in line with the Flex. Before it, the Lambdas were rated 16/24 v. the Flex's 17/24. Remember city fuel econ counts just as much as highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 The look TONS betterThey will tow more in 2009 (Traverse rated to 5200 pounds) They can carry a 4X8 sheet of plywood flat They have more power They have more cargo room with all seats down They have more cargo room with just the third seats folded They have more cargo room with all seats up They have a bigger gas tank They have a telescoping steering wheel Signal mirrors Power folding mirrors Autodimming mirror Ask and you shall receive. Not sure how you can base an argument off of looks A lot of the things that you have complained about in this topic appear to be repeated over at the General, namely weight The Flex does come out on the short end when it comes to certain dimensions, having said that it still performs well in other vital measurement areas A gas tank? As far as the other nonsense, I guess one could bring up feature content in the Flex. Such as integrated rocker panels, power folding second row seats, a capless fuel filler, etc. What matters to the bulk of those looking at vehicles such as these, is safety, comfort, quality and fuel economy. The Lambdas come up short in some areas and match the Flex in others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Hmm...I may have to rethink my purchase of a Flex in the future now. Back when the Mustang was my only car, I never had to drive ANYWHERE because nobody wanted to ride in the back seat of that thing for more than 5 minutes. If I get a Flex, I'll become the designated drive-us-to-the-ball-game, drive-us-to-the-bar, drive-us-to-Alaska guy. Hmmm..... LOL, I'm in that situation with our Expedition, although I prefer to drive places....not sure if it's a control issue or if it's just cuz I don't like how others drive (or maybe it's just cuz I like to drive?), but I volunteer to drive, every time. agree to a certain extent...problem is one you have already complained about....add aluminum, carbon fibre and lightweight materials comes at a price.....the days of lightweight cars has pretty much gone bye bye thanks to mandated regulations unless one sends MSRP's stratospheric...and please stop comparing the X's weight to the flex's...two different beasts COMPLETELTY.....compare the X to the Taurus wagon.... You made a good point, you add all that aluminum, carbon fiber, etc. to reduce weight/increase fuel economy, then the price goes up and up, then people would be complaining even more about the price. If you haven't visit "Flex Graphics" in the Photoshops and Renderings forum. You should know by now nobody outside of the 10 or 20 of us that post there regularly visit the photochops section, unfortunately. Good Poiint...the requirement to make these vehicles safe and meet consumer needs adds significant weight. The most irrating thing to a customer is road noise and Ford has done very well addressing this issue-it just comes at a cost. btw....the Flex or any other Ford product does not have whiplash headrests-although they are fairly aggressive in their placement against the head. Yes, the Flex's headrests are uncomfortably aggressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 (edited) P71, I support your argument about weight ! Ford still seems to be "lost in the 60's" when it comes to "road hugging" vehicles ! I'm waiting with great anticipation for the next gen Explorer. It has to weigh less than the current model and hopefully less than the Flex. With an EB 2.5L and a 6 speed, it should easily break 30 highway mpg ! This is what most of America wants today in a mid/full size vehicle, not V8 power. I think the "take rate" on the 2010 EB 3.5L Taurus and Flex will be very low (under 25%), especially when consumers see the price tag !! I also believe that there are more potential sales for a modern, fuel efficient "full size" SUV (Explorer) than there are for an "urban retro people mover" vehicle like the Flex. Flex was designed as a niche vehicle and it does that. But can it be profitable over its entire lifecycle ? The problem is Ford is not an efficient enough designer/manufacturer to pop out multiple niche vehicles every few years and make money at it. Edited August 18, 2008 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Are you going to use the latch connectors for the second row middle seat? Current Flex doesn't have latch in the middle seat/second row. The salesman told me that Ford will offer an update before the next model year and that feature may be included. That's the main reason I'm holding on to my Sienna, it has the widest second row I know of (at least in 05') and my next youngin' will arrive in a month. Actually, we are getting the buckets in the second row, so it is not an issue for us. We will only use the latch in the bucket seats in the second row, and possibly only one of the seats as our second child may be in a booster by the time the third child arrives in January. Wow, that's a lot of seconds and thirds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 LOL, I'm in that situation with our Expedition, although I prefer to drive places....not sure if it's a control issue or if it's just cuz I don't like how others drive (or maybe it's just cuz I like to drive?), but I volunteer to drive, every time. I agree except during the excursions to the bar. Designated Driver nights suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I also believe that there are more potential sales for a modern, fuel efficient "full size" SUV (Explorer) than there are for an "urban retro people mover" vehicle like the Flex. Flex was designed as a niche vehicle and it does that. But can it be profitable over its entire lifecycle ? In all seriousness, aren't the costs spread around between the Taurus, MKS and the Unibody Explorer? Then add in the huge profits they'll make off the MKT and its not that hard to think that Ford won't make money off the Edge. But it also begs this question...lets consider this: Where is the Unibody Explorer going to be built? I'm assuming Chicago since it looks like the Sable is dead (even though it doesnt add to much a year...what 50-70K cars a year) and the MKS is going fairly well (looks like it will hit at least 50K units a year) and lets say the Taurus finally takes off and does 100K units a year. I'm not sure how the market will take the new Explorer even if it gets 30 MPG..just because it has a stigma of being an SUV...but at the same time I dont think Ford should change the name.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Fair enough... December 2007, Car and Driver, page 144, Taurus X... As tested weight: 4216 September 2008, Car and Driver, page 80, Flex As tested weight: 4844 4844-4216 = 628 pounds. Still does not change the fact that the much lighter Taurus X is just as safe as the overweight Flex. Excess weight DOES NOT equal safer station wagon. Still does not change the fact that the the TX did not have a Vista roof, is smaller, etc., etc., etc. Wake up! 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.