D32 Minivan back on?

[LoveTaurus]

Can say 'stigma' all day, but used minvans are sought after by dealers for real familes. Many Latino families drive them, since they don't care what white Starbuck's yuppies think. Same with working families of any race.

 

The 'eww yuck' type of person should stuff it and get over themselves and quit trashing people's vehicle choices.

 

I know your point!

 

So are Asian, Jewish communities as I noticed. For Asian, at the Sunday Chinatown you could see a whole lot of new or newer Sienna, Odyssey and Quest. But then what else do you see, used Windstars!

 

Driving through Jewish residential district (Brooklyn), the minivans most you would see would are Odyssey then Sienna, and a surprise Mercedes R!

 

Reliability and usability are their most concern!

Edited June 24, 2009 by LoveTaurus

[rkisler]

Its based on the Mazda 6 platform but its not a crossover, its a minivan.

 

Well, no.

 

The Edge is based off of the Mazda MPV in Japan, not the Mazda 6.

 

But if Ford were to use this platform (CD3s), it would not be fully competitive with the Honda and Toyota minivans. So if Ford were to consider a minivan, it would have to be D3 (or D32 or D4 or whatever)

[bravestar]

I still think this issue has four options.

 

1. Build no Minivan. Keep the Flex as its Large CUV/Minivan competitor. Of course, Ford/Mercury will have the Mini-Minivan that is the C-MAX, but it will compete with the Rondo, 5, Journey, etc, not real Minivans.

 

2. Alter the Flex. For the 2nd gen Flex (2014?) the car could be stretched horzontally and (more importantly) vertically a bit. Add rear sliders and a lower, more flat floor with the seats down, and voila, converted Flex into a minivan. However, Ford could keep the Flex funky looking (though not necessarily boxy...though I do think it should keep the side grooves) and it could break the minivan stigma while still being a minivan. The Nissan Quest's mistake was that though,different looking, it wasnt different looking enough, and was pretty ugly overall (though I do like the beltline uptick). Ford can do it better.

 

3. Bring over the next gen Galaxy. For the next-gen Galaxy, there are two options. One, is to build a Short Wheelbase version for Europe and a Long Wheelbase version for North America, sharing front sheetmetal and interiors and have Europe's top powertrain be the NA standard (probably the EcoBoost I4 used in the 2011 Explorer). The other option is just to bring over the next-gen Galaxy as is, but just accept that it would be smaller than other NA minivans, but just market it as nimbler and more fuel effiecent. Of course, the next-gen Galaxy would have to have sliders to be worth it. If Ford wanted to, the Galaxy, if it came over, should be named Windstar if it is badged a Ford....or Monterey (good name I think) if it is a Mercury.

 

4. The fourth option is of course to just use D3/4 bits to make a NA only fullsize Minivan. IT could share wheelbase, powertrains, and even dashboards with the Flex...saving huge amounts of developement dollars. This is the least likely scenario in my book, but I could be wrong. If this happens, Ford must ensure that it is a no-compromise design, the best minivan on the market, if it is to really come back. And use the Windstar name too. It had a decent reputation and there is no need to abandon it. In fact, I am thinking about what it could look like and I may submit some drawings in the future...we shall see. I could also see Ford giving their minivan to Mercury instead, to not crowd the Explorer and Flex on the dealership floor.

 

These are the only options, really, and I could see Ford doing any one of them...I would love to see Ford present a concept or at least have a public focus group, to test the waters. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

 

Why are you so hung up on the Windstar name? In my mind when I think of Windstar I think of bad head gaskets, funky long drivers door, failing transmission, coarse engine and a perfect example of bean cutter Ford.

[rkisler]

I still think this issue has four options.

 

1. Build no Minivan. Keep the Flex as its Large CUV/Minivan competitor. Of course, Ford/Mercury will have the Mini-Minivan that is the C-MAX, but it will compete with the Rondo, 5, Journey, etc, not real Minivans.

 

2. Alter the Flex. For the 2nd gen Flex (2014?) the car could be stretched horzontally and (more importantly) vertically a bit. Add rear sliders and a lower, more flat floor with the seats down, and voila, converted Flex into a minivan. However, Ford could keep the Flex funky looking (though not necessarily boxy...though I do think it should keep the side grooves) and it could break the minivan stigma while still being a minivan. The Nissan Quest's mistake was that though,different looking, it wasnt different looking enough, and was pretty ugly overall (though I do like the beltline uptick). Ford can do it better.

 

3. Bring over the next gen Galaxy. For the next-gen Galaxy, there are two options. One, is to build a Short Wheelbase version for Europe and a Long Wheelbase version for North America, sharing front sheetmetal and interiors and have Europe's top powertrain be the NA standard (probably the EcoBoost I4 used in the 2011 Explorer). The other option is just to bring over the next-gen Galaxy as is, but just accept that it would be smaller than other NA minivans, but just market it as nimbler and more fuel effiecent. Of course, the next-gen Galaxy would have to have sliders to be worth it. If Ford wanted to, the Galaxy, if it came over, should be named Windstar if it is badged a Ford....or Monterey (good name I think) if it is a Mercury.

 

4. The fourth option is of course to just use D3/4 bits to make a NA only fullsize Minivan. IT could share wheelbase, powertrains, and even dashboards with the Flex...saving huge amounts of developement dollars. This is the least likely scenario in my book, but I could be wrong. If this happens, Ford must ensure that it is a no-compromise design, the best minivan on the market, if it is to really come back. And use the Windstar name too. It had a decent reputation and there is no need to abandon it. In fact, I am thinking about what it could look like and I may submit some drawings in the future...we shall see. I could also see Ford giving their minivan to Mercury instead, to not crowd the Explorer and Flex on the dealership floor.

 

These are the only options, really, and I could see Ford doing any one of them...I would love to see Ford present a concept or at least have a public focus group, to test the waters. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

 

Good post. Of course the way you described the alternatives is pretty close to the way broad alternatives are framed for analysis at Ford (although I certainly wouldn't name any entry after the Windstar or Monterey -- these were crappy, non-competitive products with a bad reputation).

 

Previously, there was an "either/or" situation for a minivan or Flex. For a while, the minivan program (W355) was go and Flex was out. But even in that scenario, the minivan had a lot of Flex styling cues. The minivan was canceled and the Flex was substituted. At the time, both were presumed to be off of the CD3s platform (Edge) which was never going to work for this application. There was a lot of internal debate over the rear doors for the Flex -- sliders or rear doors. The platform can accomodate either, although putting sliders on is not a trivial task (but most of the design work is probably already done).

[PREMiERdrum]

Good post. Of course the way you described the alternatives is pretty close to the way broad alternatives are framed for analysis at Ford (although I certainly wouldn't name any entry after the Windstar or Monterey -- these were crappy, non-competitive products with a bad reputation).

 

Previously, there was an "either/or" situation for a minivan or Flex. For a while, the minivan program (W355) was go and Flex was out. But even in that scenario, the minivan had a lot of Flex styling cues. The minivan was canceled and the Flex was substituted. At the time, both were presumed to be off of the CD3s platform (Edge) which was never going to work for this application. There was a lot of internal debate over the rear doors for the Flex -- sliders or rear doors. The platform can accomodate either, although putting sliders on is not a trivial task (but most of the design work is probably already done).

 

So as far as you know it's still off? Believe me, I know I'm rather ignorant as to what would go into a D32 based minivan, but the rumor has been coming up to me pretty consistently over the last few months. They could be all hearing from the same (wrong) source, I don't know.

 

I agree that if it happens it should get a new name, and yes I would hope Galazy would make it. Good marketing opportunity to connect the product to the past offerings (which I don't think have too much negative baggage) but would also alow you to show it as an all-new product.

 

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens.

[rkisler]

So as far as you know it's still off? Believe me, I know I'm rather ignorant as to what would go into a D32 based minivan, but the rumor has been coming up to me pretty consistently over the last few months. They could be all hearing from the same (wrong) source, I don't know.

 

I agree that if it happens it should get a new name, and yes I would hope Galazy would make it. Good marketing opportunity to connect the product to the past offerings (which I don't think have too much negative baggage) but would also alow you to show it as an all-new product.

 

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens.

 

No, I can't say if it's on or off -- I don't know. I was trying to give historical perspective. One of the keys is if Ford wants to do it on this platform, it would work. But....from my perspective Ford has been introducing a lot of heavy D3 vehicles lately with another one (MKT) yet to come. And they all seem to be getting 17/24 mpg or so. So given Ford's overall priorities, including fuel economy imperatives, I'm wondering if yet another D3 is a good idea?

[battyr]

There's also the question of institutional knowledge.

 

Ford would be, basically, starting from scratch on a very specialized--a very very specialized--vehicle.

 

It took Toyota well over a decade to figure the formula out, and even so they caught up with Chrysler not because Chrysler botched the minivan formula, but because they couldn't isolate their minivans from their larger issues.

 

Honda was a quicker study than Toyota, but even at that, they put a lot of effort into the Odyssey before it started paying off for them.

 

I am a minivan owner. I have driven most of them. If Ford took a Taurus X and added sliding doors, I would be perfectly happy with owning it.

[RichardJensen]

I am a minivan owner. I have driven most of them. If Ford took a Taurus X and added sliding doors, I would be perfectly happy with owning it.

don't think it would work

 

not enough space for the price--it would be fullsize minivan pricing and midsize minivan interior accommodations

[joihan777]

don't think it would work

 

not enough space for the price--it would be fullsize minivan pricing and midsize minivan interior accommodations

 

Agreed.

 

As an owner of a Toyota Sienna for the past 4 1/2 years, I can tell you there is no better minivan. The WindStar looked better, in some respects, but it couldn't touch the Sienna's ease-of-driving, interior space, and frankly more modern interior.

 

A friend at work has a great looking WindStar, but the interior is second rate design.

 

And when you have many kids, it's the interior ergonomics/ practicality that counts.

 

// The Flex is alright, but the Sienna still beats it as far as capability goes. The Flex's creature comforts are great, but families need practicality #1. I'm never gonna get three Britax child seats in the middle row of the Flex! //

[rkisler]

don't think it would work

 

not enough space for the price--it would be fullsize minivan pricing and midsize minivan interior accommodations

 

You are right. And unless you do it right, you're going to get killed in the marketplace.

 

Ford is pretty well aware of what it takes to do a good minivan as defined by Odyssey and Sienna. They were very heavily researched and benchmarked for the canceled minivan program and customer feedback from the Windstar and not much has changed except some interesting seat/table features on the Chrysler vans.

 

I'm going to guess that Ford also knows pretty well what it would take to make a D3 minivan from an engineering standpoint. But I'm going to guess it would be a very expensive project. Minivans these days have to provide a lot of features for the price. And Ford will have to fight its way back into the marketplace given the poor experience with the "star" minivans which were second rate products. That might require some special compelling features to encourage buyers to move to Ford.

 

I'm not even sure if Ford could use the Flex underbody -- there would be a lot of customer wants for features like "stow and go" that require revisions to the floor.

 

Maybe it's better for Ford to stay with the Flex which is unique in the marketplace, and then introduce some lighter weight and more efficient people carriers. But one of the many "givens" for any minivan in the U.S. is that it carry 4X8 sheets of plywood flat with the liftgate closed. I haven't checked the specs, but I'm not confident any of the Eurovans will be able to do this, so it's going to take an attitude shift or higher fuel prices to make customers move to this type of product.

 

I think joihan sums it up pretty well that minivan buyers want a do-it-all, no-compromises product. And they are so happy with the function they could care less about what other people think about the minivan image. In fact they are confident they have made the "smart choice".

 

I have no inside knowledge, but I'm having trouble seeing Ford spending $800 million or so on this type of project with so many other mouths to feed.

[joihan777]

You are right. And unless you do it right, you're going to get killed in the marketplace...........

 

I'm not even sure if Ford could use the Flex underbody -- there would be a lot of customer wants for features like "stow and go" that require revisions to the floor.

 

Maybe it's better for Ford to stay with the Flex which is unique in the marketplace, and then introduce some lighter weight and more efficient people carriers. But one of the many "givens" for any minivan in the U.S. is that it carry 4X8 sheets of plywood flat with the liftgate closed. I haven't checked the specs, but I'm not confident any of the Eurovans will be able to do this, so it's going to take an attitude shift or higher fuel prices to make customers move to this type of product..........

 

I have no inside knowledge, but I'm having trouble seeing Ford spending $800 million or so on this type of project with so many other mouths to feed.

 

You bring up a good perception, the 4x8 space requirement. One of my friends uses his minivan weekdays for his contractor duties, and pops the seats in for Sunday outings.

 

Perhaps Ford sees several distinct camps here:

 

1. There are the working folks who prize space, economy & utility. The Transit Connects would suit them well.

 

2. The strictly people mover folks. As long as the kids can use regular seats (or just boosters), the Flex will suit them well.

 

3. Hauling a 5-6 person family plus a larger boat or RV? An F-150 (or maybe an optioned F-100) would fit them well.

 

4. Medium --> Large family with all babies/ toddlers.... this is the one area where a used Sienna makes more sense than a new Flex/ Transit/ F-150.... so Ford may well just sacrifice these sales for a while. Those that want a little bit of everything would fit into this category too.

 

BTW, my 3.0L 05' Sienna has never gotten better than 21mpg avg.

Edited June 25, 2009 by joihan777

[ausrutherford]

No, I can't say if it's on or off -- I don't know. I was trying to give historical perspective. One of the keys is if Ford wants to do it on this platform, it would work. But....from my perspective Ford has been introducing a lot of heavy D3 vehicles lately with another one (MKT) yet to come. And they all seem to be getting 17/24 mpg or so. So given Ford's overall priorities, including fuel economy imperatives, I'm wondering if yet another D3 is a good idea?

 

According to Igor a few months ago, Ford is shooting for 30 mpg in the Explorer 2.0 EB

[RichardJensen]

Minivans are kind of like fullsize trucks--the form factor seems simple enough, but then when you start trying to figure out all of the competing needs that have to be balanced, well, you can either end up with a Titan or an F150. As Austin's pointed out, Ford can't afford to spend $800M or more to build a Titan.

[jpd80]

A silly question but couldn't mini van buyers be steered towards a Transit Connect people mover?

I see the brits have a version called the Tourneo Connect: LINK

[rmc523]

A silly question but couldn't mini van buyers be steered towards a Transit Connect people mover?

I see the brits have a version called the Tourneo Connect: LINK

 

I think, even though it fits a lot on the inside, most would consider it "too small."

[RichardJensen]

A silly question but couldn't mini van buyers be steered towards a Transit Connect people mover?

I see the brits have a version called the Tourneo Connect: LINK

also, it wouldn't have anywhere near the expected amenities...

 

check out the Chrysler, Dodge, and US Toyota websites to see just how much -stuff- is expected with these minivans. They're about a step or two away from becoming micro RVs.

[rmc523]

also, it wouldn't have anywhere near the expected amenities...

 

check out the Chrysler, Dodge, and US Toyota websites to see just how much -stuff- is expected with these minivans. They're about a step or two away from becoming micro RVs.

 

That's a good point too, didn't even think about that.

[jpd80]

also, it wouldn't have anywhere near the expected amenities...

 

check out the Chrysler, Dodge, and US Toyota websites to see just how much -stuff- is expected with these minivans. They're about a step or two away from becoming micro RVs.

I bet the buyers want all of that but don't want to part with green...

[rmc523]

I bet the buyers want all of that but don't want to part with green...

 

But I doubt most would want JUST "green".

[armadamaster]

Hey, Armada, I remember when I saw the first pre-production wagon on the road near the Ypsilanti plant.

 

All white.

 

I thought "Look. Moby Dick!!"

 

Nevertheless, the wagon looks like it's in great shape, and if it works for you, that's all that matters.

 

Yeah, you won't find me bragging on how pretty these are. Already had a former boxy Caprice sedan loving buddy of mine tell me "you bought the hearse!" I told him "not yet".

 

According to the guys over at the massive wagon section of the Impala SS forum, this thing sports something like 92 cu ft of cargo space, lol.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Armada Master

[theoldwizard]

What about a transit connect (tourneo connect) upgraded for North American consumers - complete interior redo and ecoboost 4cyl?

I think this is a great idea !

 

But no self respecting soccer Mom would touch one with the current powertrain ! They need to go at least 85 mph when junior is late getting out of school and needs to make it to the orthodontist in 10 minutes or suffer a late charge/missed appointment !

[armadamaster]

also, it wouldn't have anywhere near the expected amenities...

 

check out the Chrysler, Dodge, and US Toyota websites to see just how much -stuff- is expected with these minivans. They're about a step or two away from becoming micro RVs.

 

Can't argue with that. The two new Caravans we just bought are used for dead body removals.

 

My biggest gripe is with the metal tray in the back for our stretchers to go on, the front seats can't hardly be moved back. If the Caravans wheelbase was just a little bit longer, 3-4 inches, it would be perfect for what we are using them for aside from the hard a$$ seats.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Armada Master

[Biker16]

Lots of weight not over the drive wheels is not good for traction. Load up a FWD van, go up a hill and it can get dicey. Load up a RWD van and you just go up the same hill.

 

poor Packaging, more wieght, poor fuel economy.

[battyr]

don't think it would work

 

not enough space for the price--it would be fullsize minivan pricing and midsize minivan interior accommodations

 

If you are carrying cargo, then you are right. If you are just carrying people and want some class, it would work. A D32 would be too expensive. Since the D3 is out of date now, it could be made cheap enough. The Caravan is $5000 cheaper if you want the small engine and 4 speed automatic. If you want the drivetrain upgrade, then the Caravan in more expensive than a base Taurus X.

[battyr]

If you are carrying cargo, then you are right. If you are just carrying people and want some class, it would work. A D32 would be too expensive. Since the D3 is out of date now, it could be made cheap enough. The Caravan is $5000 cheaper if you want the small engine and 4 speed automatic. If you want the drivetrain upgrade, then the Caravan in more expensive than a base Taurus X.

 

I think that my point is that I don't want a minivan. I want a comfortable vehicle with sliding door that I can use to take my family on a vacation in.