Deanh Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Dude, I don't think Ferrari needs to worry about sales....at their demographics, they're always going to have buyers.... Chuck but they only seat two, can't tow, and the mileage sucks..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganTruck_Mafia Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Any news from the auto show about Ford improving the mileage of the Expedition/Navigator? I'd really like a Expedition, but not at the mileage they're currently getting. I know I'm not alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I believe there are two reasons that the EB 3.5L was introduced before an EB I4 in the Flex: 1. The class-leading Fusion I4 and Hybrids represent the "green" products for Ford. An EB I4 powered Flex isn't needed at this point from a "green" prespective. 2. The EB 3.5L was needed for the MKS and MKT. Premium products demand premium engines. The only reason the engine made it into the Taurus and Flex is due to them being close siblings to the Lincolns. Also, when you consider the Flex already has competitive mileage in its class, there's no incentive for Ford to push back the premium engines for the Lincolns in order to to increase the mileage of the Flex, especially since the EB 3.5L does not lower its MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Perhaps one would theorize in 18 years, and at double the cost, someone could make a 7 people hauler that gets better mileage than our '92 Aerostar did. Crazy...I know, Crazy.... Chuck Again, just for fun comparing an EB Flex to a 92 Aerostar. EB Flex 3.5 V6 355 hp 22 highway/?? city Aerostar 4.0 V6 160 hp 18 highway/14 city (using new EPA ratings) I'd say that's pretty good progress. Edited January 13, 2009 by StevenCaylor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Again, just for fun comparing an EB Flex to a 92 Aerostar. EB Flex 3.5 V6 355 hp 22 highway/?? city Aerostar 4.0 V6 160 hp 18 highway/14 city (using new EPA ratings) I'd say that's pretty good progress. It doesn't matter if it has 10000 HP. The fact is that the Flex is predominately going to be driven in an average manner. For everything but mpg, the 160HP Aerostar is going to do the exact same job as the 355 HP Flex when you're in town and cruising along on the highway. So 18 years later, $Billions on a brand new engine, yields 4 highway mpg???? Emissions are improved I'm sure, but, Wowzers....4 mpg... Lets see: We're at 22 mpg now. Ideally we'd be around 30 mpg. 8 mpg to go. Divided by 4 every 18 yrs/$Billions. So we're going to need 36 years and untold $Billions to get to 30 mpg? Is that Ford Leadership's plan? By then maybe we'll have maglev and it'll all be moot.... Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So 18 years later, $Billions on a brand new engine, yields 4 highway mpg???? Emissions are improved I'm sure, but, Wowzers....4 mpg... 4 MPG and 195HP. I find that pretty damn impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 4 MPG and 195HP. I find that pretty damn impressive. I do to. But the extra power is, by far and large, moot. You only need enough for what you do. And for the most part, the way Flex's are used will not need it. So can they deliver a solution that gives the 260 HP the Flex has now in NA form and 'give back' in term of FE? Thanks. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I do to. But the extra power is, by far and large, moot. You only need enough for what you do. And for the most part, the way Flex's are used will not need it. So can they deliver a solution that gives the 260 HP the Flex has now in NA form and 'give back' in term of FE? Thanks. Chuck As I stated in a previous post, the power is really for the Lincolns. The Taurus and Flex are just along for the ride by virtue of shared platforms. It's extra HP with no penalty. Certainly not a bad thing in my book and it's very likely to attract buyers to the Flex and Taurus that might otherwise wouldn't have been interested. In regards to your last question, they said that EB I4 engines will be available in almost of their vehicles soon. So, the answer is yes. There just wasn't a need to do it now. The Flex is already very competitive in its class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I believe there are two reasons that the EB 3.5L was introduced before an EB I4 in the Flex: 1. The class-leading Fusion I4 and Hybrids represent the "green" products for Ford. An EB I4 powered Flex isn't needed at this point from a "green" prespective. 2. The EB 3.5L was needed for the MKS and MKT. Premium products demand premium engines. The only reason the engine made it into the Taurus and Flex is due to them being close siblings to the Lincolns. Also, when you consider the Flex already has competitive mileage in its class, there's no incentive for Ford to push back the premium engines for the Lincolns in order to to increase the mileage of the Flex, especially since the EB 3.5L does not lower its MPG. Another reason could be simply that the I-4EB is not ready yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Another reason could be simply that the I-4EB is not ready yet. That's what I meant by this: there's no incentive for Ford to push back the premium engines for the Lincolns in order to increase the mileage of the Flex In other words, they spent time and resources on the EB 3.5L first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 In other words, they spent time and resources on the EB 3.5L first. And, in my opinion, they should have developed the I-4 first. More applications, more positive press to gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 That's what I meant by this: In other words, they spent time and resources on the EB 3.5L first. Gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 And, in my opinion, they should have developed the I-4 first. More applications, more positive press to gain. Have you really seen any negative press about the EB 3.5L? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 And, in my opinion, they should have developed the I-4 first. More applications, more positive press to gain. More applications in what? The Flex and the..... To cover the Fusion, there's a hybrid. This would be a premium engine in the Focus. The Mustang sure don't need the press. The Taurus will probably be better off with an SHO model added to the line instead of a 4 cylinder that gives it 2 mpg better fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 More applications in what? The Flex and the..... To cover the Fusion, there's a hybrid. This would be a premium engine in the Focus. The Mustang sure don't need the press. The Taurus will probably be better off with an SHO model added to the line instead of a 4 cylinder that gives it 2 mpg better fuel economy. He's probably referring to the Edge/MKX, and others? What others, I don't know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 He's probably referring to the Edge/MKX, and others? What others, I don't know... Edge and MKX are due for a refresh in a little over a year. Who's to say the I4 EcoBoost won't be ready by then? Even if it was ready now, I doubt those vehicles would see it before then anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Edge and MKX are due for a refresh in a little over a year. Who's to say the I4 EcoBoost won't be ready by then? Even if it was ready now, I doubt those vehicles would see it before then anyway. I dunno, they probably will be - those may even be it's debut vehicles. I agree with you in saying they wouldn't see them before a refresh. Edited January 13, 2009 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) I'll give you an example: My mom's '93 Sable is just hanging in there. She'd love to go buy a Flex. However, when she asked me what the MPG's were, and I told her, she initially thought I was mistaken. She just flat out didn't believe that the MPG's were that low. Her response, almost verbaitem, was "That's it?!?! We're not getting another gas guzzler like your father bought...I guess I'll just hang onto my Sable." The Flex is 1 MPG worse than the 3.8 '93 Sable, 2MPG worse than the 3.0 '93 Sable. You ought to remind your mom that the MPG test is different these days. Unless of course your only interest is in reinforcing invalid arguments. 1: Adjusted for inflation, nearly the same price as her sable 2: Nearly double the horsepower 3: An extra row, or folded down, a ton more space 4: A billion times safer 5: A billion times more reliable If 1MPG is all that's holding her back from all that, then, well, that's her choice, isn't it? Edited January 13, 2009 by Noah Harbinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) The Flex is 1 MPG worse than the 3.8 '93 Sable, 2MPG worse than the 3.0 '93 Sable. You ought to remind your mom that the MPG test is different these days. Unless of course your only interest is in reinforcing invalid arguments. See below: 1: Adjusted for inflation, nearly the same price as her sable I doubt this. I may be wrong, might not...but, I doubt this. 2: Nearly double the horsepower As previously mentioned, cruising around town and on the highway, which is by far how the majority of Flex's will be used, does not require alcohol fueled dragster HP and TQ numbers. I know when driving through explosions and roof deep mud, towing an oil rig, and screaming YEEEHAAWWWWW, having high HP and TQ numbers are mandatory, as is having manly sounding names like HEMI, BOSS, Triton, TwinForce, etc. For the 90% of the rest of Flex's buyers, they'll need none of that. 3: An extra row, or folded down, a ton more space Yes, and a ton more money. Maybe a better comparo would have been the '92 Aerostar extended we had. 4: A billion times safer A billion huh? Wow...so is it like indestructible? I guess with all the explosion and mud driving, it'd better be... 5: A billion times more reliable Our 90's cars have been far more reliable than our '0x's cars...given there's already reports of trans issues over at FordFlex.net, I think you might want to re-think your 'Billion' number there. If 1MPG is all that's holding her back from all that, then, well, that's her choice, isn't it? 1 MPG isn't holding her (or the multitudes like her) back. The 22 mpg figure is. 22 mpg is low. Too low. I don't know how many times this needs to be said before sinking in: When someone today see's 22 mpg, and they get that cold sweat down their back remembering almost $5/gal gas....they're not going to be looking at 22 mpg as a selling point. Read this paragraph a 'Billion' times so you can understand this. Chuck Edited January 13, 2009 by chucky2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) :beatdeadhorse: We get it already, the Flex isn't efficient enough. Why not look at something else? Even if it were, you would still have an issue with the pricing. Your expectations of vehicles in this size class is totally off base. Edited January 13, 2009 by Michael Reynolds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 1 MPG isn't holding her (or the multitudes like her) back. The 22 mpg figure is. 22 mpg is low. Too low. I don't know how many times this needs to be said before sinking in: When someone today see's 22 mpg, and they get that cold sweat down their back remembering almost $5/gal gas....they're not going to be looking at 22 mpg as a selling point. Read this paragraph a 'Billion' times so you can understand this. Chuck How about 24 mpg, which is what the base FWD model gets? Does that still make "beads of sweat" form on people's backs? Hell, that's what my Mazda6 was rated. It sure didn't scare me away then. It wouldn't scare me away now. Would I expect more out of a midsize sedan now? Perhaps. Would I expect more out of a 3 row crossover? No. Neither would most people who are shopping for this car, many of whom are replacing vehicles that didn't even get 20 mpg. Face it, the Flex is near-top-of-its-class in fuel economy. If that's not a selling point for it, then I don't know what would be. 3-row crossovers are not economy cars. You need to come to grips with that fact. Now stop beating this to death already. It's OBVIOUS you don't want to buy a 3-row crossover anytime soon. This is not the vehicle for you. This is not the engine for you. Why complain about something that you have no interest in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 4 MPG and 195HP. I find that pretty damn impressive. WITH more safety more weight, more stringent emmisions more accurate mileage ratings...more...more...more...what Chuck can't fathom is this is a flagship performance models, frugal IS on the way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 :beatdeadhorse: We get it already, the Flex isn't efficient enough. Why not look at something else? Don't have to buy at this point. With the economy down, there's going to be a lot less 'I want it so I'll buy it' spending...which means most will be in this boat - if someone wants to argue most, fine, many many many many many. Given that sales climate, not only will prices have to come down, but, features will have to increase to entice through the monetary logjam. High mpg is a feature. So is high HP/TQ. My argument is simply that high mpg is far more valued as a feature nowadays than high HP/TQ, when, the high HP/TQ comes at the expense of high mpg. Granted, some won't care (YEEEEHHHHAAAWWWWWW!!!!), but, most will. Them's the breaks of making bad "Leadership" decisions.... Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 NewsFlash, and good for Chucky...a new three row Smart car is being released....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 My argument is simply that high mpg is far more valued as a feature nowadays than high HP/TQ Well your argument is wrong then. What are the best-selling vehicles in the country? Pickups. People value the HP/TQ in those far more than the fuel economy. Why? Because they need a vehicle capable of doing what only a pickup can, and that requires power. It's the exact same thing with 3-row crossovers. People accept that they aren't going to get world-beating fuel economy. Why? Because they need a vehicle capable of doing what only a 3-row crossover can, without driving something with economy car power. And they are still a significant step up in fuel economy over the 3-row full-size SUVs that are on the market. 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.