No More FLEX?

[sullynd]

There is no doubt in my mind if they could build more Explorers it would be selling even better.

 

Ford could definitely build more Explorers if they wanted to, they mustn't agree with you.

[rkisler]

My goodness you can't read. I said AOL doesn't know diddly a couple of posts ago!

I'm well aware of the refresh prototype running around.

 

There isn't a tempest, just a lot of hot air and opinions. I asked if anyone knew anything. I guess we'll know next year!

 

Sorry, Timmm, but you are the one that started the thread with the title "No More Flex?" and asked the question "Will the refresh make production?" based on AOL's article, so I assumed you gave it credence. Otherwise, why even start the thread?

 

Although I don't know specifically, my post indicates through the use of Ford's decision criteria that there is a very high probability that Flex will get the refresh and last through the cycle with a couple of key decision points on further production in the future.

 

If you consider my posts "hot air and opinions", (well, some of them might be, or at least some bits), then by all means feel free to block them.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Austin

[NickF1011]

It may get a refresh, but it is a "dead man walking" unless sales really take off.

 

Besides low sales, its fuel economy is hurting CAFE (as is Edge and Explorer).

 

Would it not be safe to assume that a refeshed Flex would receive all of the fuel economy improvements (and likely more) that were applied to the Explorer? Fuel economy isn't static.

[timmm55]

Sorry, Timmm, but you are the one that started the thread with the title "No More Flex?" and asked the question "Will the refresh make production?" based on AOL's article, so I assumed you gave it credence. Otherwise, why even start the thread?

 

Although I don't know specifically, my post indicates through the use of Ford's decision criteria that there is a very high probability that Flex will get the refresh and last through the cycle with a couple of key decision points on further production in the future.

 

If you consider my posts "hot air and opinions", (well, some of them might be, or at least some bits), then by all means feel free to block them.

 

 

I may have given too much credibility to an AOL article. Perhaps there was a kernel of truth.......or it was just some guy writing in a cubicle. I don't know and neither do you. But lately Ford doesn't seem to be operating like the typical car company. They spent A LOT to dismantle Mercury.

 

........and the liklihood of Ford cancelling the freshening is very slim............The minor freshening is not so expensive,

 

Hey I love the Flex, and I did Mercury too. One model vs a car line? Pretty easy to do. I may have started the thread, but if it does off on a tangent (as usual) that's not intention. I just asked a simple question!

 

Your opinion is just as valid as anyone's (me too) so sorry about that comment. But I did already say AOL didn't know diddly. And I was aware of the prototype. You added nothing that I didn't already know. "Otherwise, why even start the thread?" you ask..........I ask, why did you add to it?

 

 

(BTW my opinion is: the Flex has a lot of J Mays invested in it. As lead designer, it has more "style" than all of Mercury had put together. It's sort of Ford's halo car right now.)

[rkisler]

I may have given too much credibility to an AOL article. Perhaps there was a kernel of truth.......or it was just some guy writing in a cubicle. I don't know and neither do you. But lately Ford doesn't seem to be operating like the typical car company. They spent A LOT to dismantle Mercury.

 

 

Hey I love the Flex, and I did Mercury too. One model vs a car line? Pretty easy to do. I may have started the thread, but if it does off on a tangent (as usual) that's not intention. I just asked a simple question!

 

Your opinion is just as valid as anyone's (me too) so sorry about that comment. But I did already say AOL didn't know diddly. And I was aware of the prototype. You added nothing that I didn't already know. "Otherwise, why even start the thread?" you ask..........I ask, why did you add to it?

 

 

(BTW my opinion is: the Flex has a lot of J Mays invested in it. As lead designer, it has more "style" than all of Mercury had put together. It's sort of Ford's halo car right now.)

 

IMO I did offer at least a slant on how Ford evaluates projects (based on a LOT of experience) that would enable the reader to determine for himself what the probabilities are of the freshening happening (i.e., virtually 100%). And I wasn't telling just you. There is often a lot of confusion on comments on this board about "making money", or thoughts about cancelling a product without considering the knock-on effects. I generally try to provide insight. If it works for you, fine. If not, fine.

 

It is true that the Flex was one of the few "design led" products; it wouldn't have happened if J had not pushed it. But although the concept was very close to the original "Hamptons" internal design exercise, the actual market acceptance was nowhere near where he thought it would be. He envisioned it as the modern embodyment of the Ford station wagons of old, with the sort of idealistic view of suburban housewives in upscale communities desiring the vehicles. Market research groups in those upscale communities liked the product, but liked it a lot, lot less when they found out it had a Ford badge.

 

The freshening is a no-brainer anyway; it's going to be required just to keep the Flex going. The larger issue is going to be what to do when Oakville is retooled for CD4, and what to do in Chicago when the time comes for Taurus to move to CD4. That conversation without anyone knowing exactly what is going on would take more than a few pages to exhaust.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Austin

[forddaughter]

Add sliders and I would 99% chance buy one. Because it currently doesn't have them. I won't buy one!

[PREMiERdrum]

Considering the Flex is getting the inflatable seat belts "next summer", I'd say we're getting the refreshed 2013 Flex and MKT sooner than we thought.

[2b2]

...if you want to understand what Ford has in mind, you have to understand that 1) What's sunk is sunk, 2) it's only important to consider the present and prospective, and 3) there will be certain key events where a decision will have to be made...

 

...there will be major events that will cause Ford to consider the future of the Flex. One key event is the installation of CD4 tooling in Oakville when the Edge gets replaced (mentioned by syllynd). Another will be when the Edge nears the end of it's life (say in 3-4 years). In each case, Ford will have to consider carefully whether to continue, move, or cancel the Flex and MKT.

...The larger issue is going to be what to do when Oakville is retooled for CD4, and what to do in Chicago when the time comes for Taurus to move to CD4. That conversation without anyone knowing exactly what is going on would take more than a few pages to exhaust.

the production split between Chicago & Oakville has perplexed me for a long time - and getting more complicated with CD4.

From all my googlings, it seems the decisions ought to have already been made, since the first CD4's (MKZ & Fusion) go into production next year, followed by the Cuvs & then Taurus...

 

just trying to make sense of it all -- think things could be very different Much sooner than 3 to 4 years from now

Edited June 23, 2011 by 2b2

[rkisler]

the production split between Chicago & Oakville has perplexed me for a long time - and getting more complicated with CD4.

From all my googlings, it seems the decisions ought to have already been made, since the first CD4's (MKZ & Fusion) go into production next year, followed by the Cuvs & then Taurus...

 

just trying to make sense of it all -- think things could be very different Much sooner than 3 to 4 years from now

 

I have no idea what Ford's cycle plan is, but I still think 3-4 years is probably the right decision timing for Flex/MKT.

 

Oakville was really the beginning of a change in philosophy inside Ford on flexible manufacturing. Normally, Ford would delete the expenditures for flexibility late in the program when the program (as always) ran into financial difficulties. But not this time.

 

The new plant is really the combination of Oakville and the unused Ontario Truck Plant which was right next door.

 

I'd have to go back quite a ways, but OAC Sparky gave us a good indication of the plant layout. One of the surprising things was that Ford spent the bucks on a flexible body shop and there are now two distinctly different platforms (D4 and CD3s) from different design sources (Volvo/Ford US and Mazda) going through one body shop. For Ford, that's stunning. And body shops are where you can spend megabucks in a plant. The plant also shares paint, but I can't remember what happens on the chassis line or trim and final.

 

So, although I have no knowledge of what is actually happening, there is at least the possibility that Oakville could run D4 and CD4 crossovers through the existing body shop which could at least postpone the decision on what to do with Flex/MKT. Running sedans through that same body shop might (or might not) be an issue.

 

Chicago is a bigger problem as it is set up for D3/D4. Not that it can't be changed, but $$$. This is particularly true as Chicago was set up as a modular plant which means a lot of components come in built up, so there is not a lot of floor space to play with. So Chicago can handle Explorer and Taurus/MKS -- for now.

 

If we face facts, the D4 platform is OK for a crossover, but doesn't make a very good car (too big/heavy; space inefficient). So I am believing the rumors that Taurus will go to CD4. Since Explorer is new, we have to assume that it will last on D4 in Chicago for around 8 years. I have felt that the Taurus PI could potentially become a vestigial D3 product in Chicago if Taurus moves on to CD4 (much in the way that today's PI is the last of the Panthers). In 3-4 years, the Flex and MKT are going to be pretty much done for IMO. So Ford will face a choice of just letting them go, doing a major redo with a potential move to Chicago, or doing something different like creating a true minivan. With the increased pressure on fuel economy, I think Ford will be very reluctant to create any more derivatives off of D4. IMO, even the Explorer likely will be under great pressure toward the end of its cycle.

[akirby]

I agree - I think the crossovers stay D4 - it's a great platform for those but it sucks for cars.

 

I think there will be at least two CD4 versions with different wheelbases - short for Fusion/MKZ and longer for Taurus/MKS. Not sure if they would move Edge/MKX to CD4 or leave them on CD3s.

[silvrsvt]

I think there will be at least two CD4 versions with different wheelbases - short for Fusion/MKZ and longer for Taurus/MKS. Not sure if they would move Edge/MKX to CD4 or leave them on CD3s.

 

 

Why wouldn't they? They are build on a modified Mazda platform and in another 3-4 years the basic platform is going to be 10 years old or so and need of a major redo. Why not move it to CD4? I from what I've heard FOE wants the Edge, but in its current gise its not effective for them.

 

Also keep in mind the current EUCD has nearly the same WB as the current D3 Taurus. I don't see either car getting a longer WB, I can see the Taurus maybe an inch or two wider to make it different from the Fusion with slightly longer overhangs on it...but no changes in WB.

 

 

 

 

[2b2]

^ silvrsvt, I've seen plenty of posts saying the CD4 MKZ will be longer than the Fusion & implications that the CD4+ (as I call it) Taurus will be longer than the MKZ.

I'm kinda wondering if they might use a modular-platform idea I had a while back for 2 sizes of passenger compartments mixed'n'matched with 2 sizes of engine compartments - in this case it'd be:

Fusion = small + small

Taurus = large + large

MKZ = small passenger + large engine

((guess a new midsize S-Max/minivan could be large p + small e))

 

...If we face facts, the D4 platform is OK for a crossover, but doesn't make a very good car (too big/heavy; space inefficient). So I am believing the rumors that Taurus will go to CD4. Since Explorer is new, we have to assume that it will last on D4 in Chicago for around 8 years. I have felt that the Taurus PI could potentially become a vestigial D3 product in Chicago if Taurus moves on to CD4 (much in the way that today's PI is the last of the Panthers).

 

In 3-4 years, the Flex and MKT are going to be pretty much done for IMO. So Ford will face a choice of just letting them go, doing a major redo with a potential move to Chicago, or doing something different like creating a true minivan. With the increased pressure on fuel economy, I think Ford will be very reluctant to create any more derivatives off of D4. IMO, even the Explorer likely will be under great pressure toward the end of its cycle.

THANKS, Austin!

 

I've actually seen some web-info that makes it look like the Interceptors(Taurus+Explorer) will last to at least 2016 but no hints on a CD4+ retail Taurus

 

& here's my latest crazy-idea™, just in case you hear anything like it...

on the same order as the 2 engine compartment idea above

imho it'd be "very interesting" if Lincoln's D3-4's (MKT, MKS, Aviator) got a plus-sized front end to accommodate the 5.0v8 (Awd only)...

...make for some drastic differentiation from Ford's version!!

(and help explain why there's been NO MKS-on-CD4 rumors, just Taurus)

[akirby]

Why wouldn't they? They are build on a modified Mazda platform and in another 3-4 years the basic platform is going to be 10 years old or so and need of a major redo. Why not move it to CD4?

 

Because it wouldn't be CD4 - it would be a modified CD4 just like they had to make extensive modifications to CD3 to make it CD3s for the Edge and MKX. And they don't want to make any compromises in the CD4 sedan platform - it's too important. CD3s is not 10 years old and it could easily survive another product cycle if necessary.

 

If they could pull it off without compromises and without a lot of extra expense then sure, they'd love to use CD4 but I don't think it's a given or a requirement.

[silvrsvt]

^ silvrsvt, I've seen plenty of posts saying the CD4 MKZ will be longer than the Fusion & implications that the CD4+ (as I call it) Taurus will be longer than the MKZ.

 

 

I seriously doubt that...keep in mind the current Taurus is very large. My parents have a 20x21ish 2 car garage in a retirement community house that was built in 2003. My mom had a 02 Explorer that fit fine in it (My dad has a 98 Ranger Extended cab also)..they got an 2008 Sable to replace the Explorer and the thing BARELY fits in the garage...my mom has also banged up the Sable pulling into the garage. The Taurus needs to shrink down a bit so it can fit into a standard garage and be able to open all 4 doors without hitting anything.

 

what is exactly wrong with a 10 year old platform? has there really been breakthroughs in car platform technology over the past 10 yeras?

 

 

Yes...its far easier to save weight on newer platform then it is with an existing one. Not to mention that the platform is from Madaza and Ford's relationship with them has change dramatically since then.

 

 

[silvrsvt]

Because it wouldn't be CD4 - it would be a modified CD4 just like they had to make extensive modifications to CD3 to make it CD3s for the Edge and MKX. And they don't want to make any compromises in the CD4 sedan platform - it's too important. CD3s is not 10 years old and it could easily survive another product cycle if necessary.

 

 

Keep in mind the CD3 is based off Mazda's G platform. The original 6 (GG platform) came out in 2002 and Ford modified it into the CD3 in 2005 or so. From what I've seen posted here (esp by Austin) that the CD3 in the Edge/MKX doesn't equal the CD3 in the Fusion/MKZ...its closer to the Minivan that Mazda offers in Japan.

 

Lets also not forget that the relationship between Mazda and Ford has signifcatally changed over the past couple years and I'd think that Ford would want to use their own platforms instead of a Mazda in their products.

 

 

 

 

 

[akirby]

Keep in mind the CD3 is based off Mazda's G platform. The original 6 (GG platform) came out in 2002 and Ford modified it into the CD3 in 2005 or so. From what I've seen posted here (esp by Austin) that the CD3 in the Edge/MKX doesn't equal the CD3 in the Fusion/MKZ...its closer to the Minivan that Mazda offers in Japan.

 

Lets also not forget that the relationship between Mazda and Ford has signifcatally changed over the past couple years and I'd think that Ford would want to use their own platforms instead of a Mazda in their products.

 

CD3 and CD3s are Ford platforms. Just like D4 is a Ford platform. Who cares where it originated.

 

Again - if it can be done without compromising CD4 and it saves money then I'm sure we'll see it. I just don't think it's mandatory to get off the CD3s platform right away.

[rkisler]

Keep in mind the CD3 is based off Mazda's G platform. The original 6 (GG platform) came out in 2002 and Ford modified it into the CD3 in 2005 or so. From what I've seen posted here (esp by Austin) that the CD3 in the Edge/MKX doesn't equal the CD3 in the Fusion/MKZ...its closer to the Minivan that Mazda offers in Japan.

 

Lets also not forget that the relationship between Mazda and Ford has signifcatally changed over the past couple years and I'd think that Ford would want to use their own platforms instead of a Mazda in their products.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

I have some past experience on this with Ford 2000 when FoE "took over" on small and mid-sized platforms from the U.S. I understand that this experience is dated, but I can tell you that there was no love lost between FoE and Mazda, and FoE wanted to broom Mazda platforms as quickly as possible, even to the point of stupidly trying to cancel Mazda-based programs where the tooling was already sunk. After pushback, there were some compromises. But we got a Focus that wasn't ready for prime time from a quality standpoint. And a piece of s*** Cougar.

 

Ford has cast Mazda off to the side and for small and medium cars has essentially bought into FoE platform derivation. So that means there will be a big push to go to FoE platforms and suppliers and away from Mazda. This will achieve better economies of scale for components and better flexibility in the manufacturing plants. I can't see Ford continuing to use a Mazda-based platfrom at any key decision point but that's just my opinion from an outside view.

 

I'm not sure what's happening with Edge for the next generation. But with fuel economy pressures, I'm thinking that this vehicle might be too large, too heavy, and maybe too tall for a 2-row. I don't like the S-Max which is off of the EUCD (which I'm guessing is essentially CD4). But I'm wondering if the next generation 2-row is going to be more like a Toyota Venza (please don't everyone scream at me at once). Since Ford NA is now linked with FoE, the products will have to have appeal on both sides of the ocean and they will have to contribute to the very, very severe projections of fuel economy improvements that are being proposed by the Feds working with CARB. In addition to overall size and weight, the next-gen Edge would certainly have to be prepared for some sort of electrification (stop-start at a minimum, but HEV and PHEV probable) since the product would have to last through, say, 2021 or so.