Ford Flex Successor

[BORG]

what about a modified version of Galaxy or S-Max on EUCD or CD4 with say, a longer wheelbase?

 

 

I often see the Ford Galaxy over at Chrysler HQ in Auburn Hills. It's funny seeing it next to the Chrysler minivans because you can see the extreme difference in size and form. Maybe the next gen model spun from the next C/D segment platforms will work globally...or at least Ford NA can come up with a version for the US.

Edited April 16, 2011 by BORG

[RichardJensen]

Are you saying Ford is too stupid or out of the loop (institutional knowledge!) to make a mini-van?

In a word, yes. They have to rediscover the things Chrysler, Honda and Toyota already know.

Yeah, like Ford can't compete against Toy/Hon for midsized sedans

They're competing against Toyota and Honda with a chassis that was largely designed by Mazda.

As for your assertions that a minivan only shares a couple pieces of sheetmetal is ludicrious.

Here's the Honda story:

Yeah, *that* Odyssey was an absolute utter unmitigated and unquestionable disaster in the US market.

I doubt if there are even fifteen of those turds still on the road in this country.

 

And this isn't 1994, let alone 1994, minivans largely derived from passenger cars are history.

[Captainp4]

They could build one on the Falcon platform :happy feet:

 

P.S - your face would suck!!!!!1

 

If the Flex is going to live another generation, I don't see why they couldn't make these relatively minor changes and see if it'll help prop up sales any. What unique features do you think are a must have for it to be considered a "minivan" Richard? Sliders, easy to do if it's getting redone anyway. Height, again not a huge deal. Width, probably fairly costly, but I'm sure some of it could be found in interior packaging without having to tear down the platform and start over. Again, if it maintains a CUV look, you don't have to have the motor smashed all under on the firewall/dash area so I think it could maintain the ability to share a lot of the mechanical bits with Explorer, keeping costs down. Flat load floor, fold flat seats, in floor storage, etc is a matter of packaging for the most part I would think, unless the floorpan needs significant redesigning - I've read you say that is a large part of platform sharing, the floorpans, IIRC. But, is that going to be a make it or break it issue for someone that is concerned with the exterior styling and trying to look as little like a minivan as possible? That's up to market research I'd guess. Hell, they could even have two versions of the Flex with different roof heights and door styles. Flex with normal doors and captains chairs, fridge, all that crap just updated in styling, then another version with the family package, or utility package or whatever you want to call it with a high roof height and the sliding-esque doors. The front passenger compartment could maintain height on either version, but the minivan version could have an uptick in roof height past the B-pillar for extra height and utility, while still maintaining the unique styling of the Flex.

 

Who knows, it's probably not going to happen and may or may not be profitable, but I think it'd be the coolest minivan ever.

[BORG]

They could build one on the Falcon platform :happy feet:

 

P.S - your face would suck!!!!!1

 

If the Flex is going to live another generation, I don't see why they couldn't make these relatively minor changes and see if it'll help prop up sales any. What unique features do you think are a must have for it to be considered a "minivan" Richard? Sliders, easy to do if it's getting redone anyway. Height, again not a huge deal. Width, probably fairly costly, but I'm sure some of it could be found in interior packaging without having to tear down the platform and start over. Again, if it maintains a CUV look, you don't have to have the motor smashed all under on the firewall/dash area so I think it could maintain the ability to share a lot of the mechanical bits with Explorer, keeping costs down. Flat load floor, fold flat seats, in floor storage, etc is a matter of packaging for the most part I would think, unless the floorpan needs significant redesigning - I've read you say that is a large part of platform sharing, the floorpans, IIRC. But, is that going to be a make it or break it issue for someone that is concerned with the exterior styling and trying to look as little like a minivan as possible? That's up to market research I'd guess. Hell, they could even have two versions of the Flex with different roof heights and door styles. Flex with normal doors and captains chairs, fridge, all that crap just updated in styling, then another version with the family package, or utility package or whatever you want to call it with a high roof height and the sliding-esque doors. The front passenger compartment could maintain height on either version, but the minivan version could have an uptick in roof height past the B-pillar for extra height and utility, while still maintaining the unique styling of the Flex.

 

Who knows, it's probably not going to happen and may or may not be profitable, but I think it'd be the coolest minivan ever.

 

There is no way to turn the current Flex into a minivan without a completely new top-hat, and the chassis needs to be heavily revised. The current Flex is a two-box design, a minivan is one box - essentially a minivan's passenger compartment sits closer/on the drivetrain and front suspension to add compartment length for the 3rd row . Just try adding yet more length to the Flex to make the 3rd row more minivan-like! The Flex is a real oddity in the 7-passenger world, it's really a chopped and lowered SUV...nothing else quite like it.

[Captainp4]

That is what I'm saying (and I hadn't thought of it this way until reading through the replies to this thread, but I certainly agree with this point of view). Not make it a minivan, make it similar to a minivan in certain areas while retaining it's CUV styling and stance.

[RichardJensen]

Look. You can't have the space of a minivan in a CUV package.

 

You keep that two box layout at the expense of vertical clearance, 3rd row space, and cargo space.

 

The Odyssey has 173 cubic feet of passenger space. The Flex has 155 cubic feet.

 

You would have to lengthen the Flex WB roughly a foot to equal the Odyssey's passenger space while retaining the Flex's two box layout.

[NLPRacing]

Let's dispense with this in a real quick way. If you are using Quest and Sedona as example of why Ford should be in this market, you've just done the opposite.

 

Nissan in fact could not make a case for a new US market only Quest. The new Quest is completely unrelated to the compromised US-designed Quest and is basically the new Nissan Elgrand (JDM minivan) with slightly different nose and bumper. This van rides on an unique minivan-only platform and is considerably narrower than US-spec Odyssey and Sienna. Nissan sells shit ton of this van in Japan so they can justify selling a version in the US but their sales projection is really modest. They are not trying to beat Chrysler, Honda or Toyota... they are merely trying to skim off the top. This goes directly to what Richard has been saying... a good Minivan requires an unique minivan specific platform and a van based on car (like the old Quest) or a foreign market based van (like the new Quest) is a compromise which results in inferior product (as far as US buyers are concerned).

 

Kia Sedona is basically the same story... Hyundai can rely on the volume of its domestic market to support development of a minivan platform and skim off the top some sales in the US as a nice bonus. But this kind of skim off the top strategy means you have to be bit player and sell a compromised van that is not designed to the taste and needs of US market. The poor sale of Hyundai Entourage/Kia Sedona despite massive rebate and discount in the US speaks for itself.

 

There is no way Ford can justify creating an unique platform for a minivan that will sell maybe 50k units a year in the NAFTA zone. Ford is a non-player now and so to muscle in on this segment will require massive investment to produce a truly class leading van - and then you have to bleed red ink for 2 generations (10 years) to buy market share and for the van to establish itself as a viable alternative to Odyssey and Sienna in the long run. And this van will by necessity be too big to sell in other markets, so you can't count on European or Asian sales to support the program. A company like Ford is not going to let a lucrative market niche left unexploited... In many ways, this minivan discussion mirrors the Ranger discussion. The question is really not whether Ford can sell a minivan in the US... of course they can. The question is will they make a profit selling a van at a likely volume that do not completely destroy their income statement. That question is probably been asked and answer repeatedly at Dearborn.

 

I hate being in a position to have to defend non-Fords, but you left me no choice:

The fourth generation Quest is built at the Shatai Kyūshū plant in Japan for 2010. The platform is shared with the current generation Nissan Elgrand.[2] It is powered by Nissan's 3.5L VQ series engine with 260hp. Front wheel drive is standard, and the USDM version has an extra full 5 inches (13 cm) of width to avoid the tall skinny look of Japanese vans. The Quest went on sale in North America in early 2011 as a 2011 model.[1][3] Nissan revealed five teaser images of the 2011 Quest revealing the exterior and interior.[4]In Japan the Elgrand competes with the Toyota Alphard and the Honda Elysion. The 2011 Nissan Quest was unveiled at the 2010 Los Angeles International Auto Show.

 

Check the specs on the new Quest, it's wider, taller and as long as the Flex and about exactly the same as the Sienna, Odyssey, Caravan, etc. If the D3 wouldn't work, maybe Ford could use a widened European minivan chassis.

 

As far as the minivan-Ranger comparison. The minivan market is much bigger and has much bigger ATP's than the compact pickup truck market.

[NLPRacing]

Look. You can't have the space of a minivan in a CUV package.

 

You keep that two box layout at the expense of vertical clearance, 3rd row space, and cargo space.

 

The Odyssey has 173 cubic feet of passenger space. The Flex has 155 cubic feet.

 

You would have to lengthen the Flex WB roughly a foot to equal the Odyssey's passenger space while retaining the Flex's two box layout.

 

Or widen the & raise the greenhouse.

[Captainp4]

Which is what we've both been saying, but Richard says no so we suck! lolol

 

One way to raise the roofline would be to do something similar to the roof on the transit vans:

 

 

 

It wouldn't have to be that drastic/tall, but I think it might turn out pretty neat looking with the design of the Flex and bringing in some family similarity between the lines. I'd also like to see that upward slope moved back to the B pillar just to see what it looks like, not sure what kind of effect it would have on aero, but it could give the space needed for in floor storage, or seats that fold into the floor while keeping the necessary room in the passenger compartment.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Captainp4

[NLPRacing]

Which is what we've both been saying, but Richard says no so we suck! lolol

 

He has a difference of opinion and he makes a strong argument, but I just disagree. I think you & I are on the same page. Ford could do a real minivan alternative and the next gen Flex could be that challenger.

[RichardJensen]

Or widen the & raise the greenhouse.

It's already basically the same size as an Odyssey. 202x68x79.2 vs 201.8x68x75.9

 

Getting Odyssey space out of that two-box layout would produce a vehicle far heavier, far less efficient, and far more unwieldy than an Odyssey.

Edited April 16, 2011 by RichardJensen

[BORG]

He has a difference of opinion and he makes a strong argument, but I just disagree. I think you & I are on the same page. Ford could do a real minivan alternative and the next gen Flex could be that challenger.

 

It's funny because it's the NEW Nissan Quest that inspired me to think of the next Flex as a real minivan challenger...since the wrap-around glass strongly evokes the Flex look. Combine that with it's broad surfaces and robust upright look, you start to see where the Flex could apply its design heritage. Indeed I think the Flex and its brand would move nicely into the minivan segment if the price (for development) was right.

Edited April 16, 2011 by BORG

[NLPRacing]

It's already basically as wide and as tall as an Odyssey.

 

Getting Odyssey space out of that two-box layout would produce a vehicle far heavier, far less efficient, and far more unwieldy than an Odyssey.

 

The Odyssey is a couple inches wider & about 5" taller than Flex. But where it's really wider is the belt line & up. That's where a lot of the interior volume comes from.

[NLPRacing]

It's funny because it's the NEW Nissan Quest that inspired me to think of the next Flex as a real minivan challenger...since the wrap-around glass strongly evokes the Flex look. Indeed I think the Flex and its brand would move nicely into the minivan segment if the price (for development) was right.

 

Me too. The new Quest almost has a next gen Flex look to it. Even the front fenders remind of the Focus. Black out the A pillar, put an Edge grill on it and it could be the next Flex. Add the Flex's AWD and Ecoboost options and you have a real winner.

[BORG]

Me too. The new Quest almost has a next gen Flex look to it. Even the front fenders remind of the Focus. Black out the A pillar, put an Edge grill on it and it could be the next Flex. Add the Flex's AWD and Ecoboost options and you have a real winner.

 

Agreed, although Nissan didn't seem to get the fascias right, I really like the architecture and sheet-metal of the overall vehicle, it's much more sophisticated than any minivan out there.

[RichardJensen]

Me too. The new Quest almost has a next gen Flex look to it. Even the front fenders remind of the Focus. Black out the A pillar, put an Edge grill on it and it could be the next Flex. Add the Flex's AWD and Ecoboost options and you have a real winner.

Yeah, except you don't.

 

That thing offers absolutely no compelling reason to switch from Honda, Chrysler or Toyota.

 

Seriously, tell me why I should buy a Quest. Ten words or less. What's my incentive?

[NLPRacing]

Yeah, except you don't.

 

That thing offers absolutely no compelling reason to switch from Honda, Chrysler or Toyota.

 

Seriously, tell me why I should buy a Quest. Ten words or less. What's my incentive?

 

It does have the Nissan 3.5L VQ series engine. That and it's not a Honda, Chrysler or Toyota. Only thing better would be a Ford.

 

BTW - We bought my Mom a used Mercury Monterrey (well equipped) back in November and she really loves it. It really is a very nice vehicle, has good power from the antiquated 4.2, gets decent mileage and has a great ride & drive.

[RichardJensen]

So, among satisfied Honda, Toyota and Chrysler owners, the fact that it's not a Honda, Toyota, or Chrysler makes it more appealing?

 

And do you think the VQ engine will outweigh middling fuel economy?

[NLPRacing]

So, among satisfied Honda, Toyota and Chrysler owners, the fact that it's not a Honda, Toyota, or Chrysler makes it more appealing?

 

And do you think the VQ engine will outweigh middling fuel economy?

 

Would the Honda, Toyota and Chrysler owners switch to Quest? Probably not. Will people looking to get a minivan for the first time, especially current Nissan owners, consider the Quest. Absolutely.

 

Besides, I was only using the Quest as an example of how Ford could evolve the Flex into a minivan alternative. I don't think the Quest is the king of minivans, but the current version is the best one they have ever offered. And I would bet at least half the people that buy the Quest is due to the VQ engine.

Edited April 16, 2011 by NLPRacing

[RichardJensen]

The point remains:

 

It is a stagnant to declining segment with entrenched players and a huge barrier to entry.

 

If you think that it would be an inexpensive process to transform the Flex into a minivan, I suggest you look at the nearly identical exterior dimensions of the Odyssey and Flex, and then take note of the significantly larger interior volume of the Odyssey.

[NLPRacing]

The point remains:

 

It is a stagnant to declining segment with entrenched players and a huge barrier to entry.

 

If you think that it would be an inexpensive process to transform the Flex into a minivan, I suggest you look at the nearly identical exterior dimensions of the Odyssey and Flex, and then take note of the significantly larger interior volume of the Odyssey.

 

Here's my point:

 

It may currently be stagnant segment with entrenched players with a huge barrier to enter, but it is not insurmountable. And the segment has probably stabilized and will probably grow within the next few years. You asked earlier why the Tundra & Titan have failed. It's because the truly somewhat competitive versions came out when the segment was in sharp decline because Toyota & Nissan waited until the segment peaked before going "all in".

 

I do not think it would be an inexpensive process to transform the Flex into a CUV that can compete with minivans, but the ROI is there. I have looked at the exterior dimensions of the Odyssey and Flex, and and noticed that significantly larger interior volume of the Odyssey is due to it being at least 5" taller, a little wider overall and a lot wider from the belt line up.

 

[RichardJensen]

The Flex and Odyssey are both listed as 68" tall.

[Captainp4]

He has a difference of opinion and he makes a strong argument, but I just disagree. I think you & I are on the same page. Ford could do a real minivan alternative and the next gen Flex could be that challenger.

 

Was just joking of course, obviously he is entitled to an opinion. Just his way of presenting it always amuses me - "I'm right and if you disagree you're an idiot"

[NLPRacing]

The Flex and Odyssey are both listed as 68" tall.

 

I looked at so many specs that I was getting them confused. The Odyssey and Flex are the same height, but the Odyssey is significantly wider, especially at the belt line & up.

Edited April 16, 2011 by NLPRacing

[sullynd]

The Flex and Odyssey are both listed as 68" tall.

 

On another (non-Auto) forum I am on there was a user asking if anyone had a Flex. One user chimed in they are nice, but huge, and he couldn't imagine having to park one. He went on to recommend the Odyssey. I quickly pointed out that the Odyssey is larger in every dimension.

 

Honda Oddity

Width: 79.2 in.

Height: 68.4 in.

Length: 202.9 in.

Front track: 68.1 in.

Rear track: 68.2 in.

Wheel base: 118.1 in.

 

FLEX

Width: 75.9 in.

Height: 68.0 in.

Length: 201.8 in.

Front track: 65.4 in.

Rear track: 65.4 in.

Wheel base: 117.9 in.

 

Explorer

Width: 78.9 in.

Height: 70.4 in.

Length: 197.1 in.

Front track: 67.0 in.

Rear track: 67.0 in.

Wheel base: 112.6 in.

Edited April 16, 2011 by sullynd