Source: Next-gen Flex dead, Conventional minivan coming

[theoldwizard]

Maybe Ford woke up and realized that the MKT hearse might actually outsell the MKT livery !

 

Hopefully Ford product planing will pull their head out of their but and give the livery folks what they want. A stretched MKS.

 

 

 

As for a new minivan, I vote for the FWD/AWD Tourneo !

[theoldwizard]

Beginning of the end for Windstar was the resistance to modify the platform for a driver's side slider. Management scoffed at the investment and in a "brilliant" move stretched the drivers door opening. By the time this "must have" feature was added, it was too late.

Actually, the story I heard (while working there at the time), was that they asked a "focus group" about it. The group said thumbs down as an extra cost option.

 

When Chrysler launched the driver side slider, it was an option, but nearly 100% of the first year production had left side sliders, whether the customer wanted it or not !

[jpd80]

Maybe Ford woke up and realized that the MKT hearse might actually outsell the MKT livery !

 

Hopefully Ford product planing will pull their head out of their but and give the livery folks what they want. A stretched MKS.

 

For god's sake Ford, a stretched MKS should be a no brainer as the TC replacement.

why is this so hard to do?

 

As for a new minivan, I vote for the FWD/AWD Tourneo !

100% agree, and build it with Ecoboost V6.

Edited September 25, 2012 by jpd80

[PREMiERdrum]

Actually, the story I heard (while working there at the time), was that they asked a "focus group" about it. The group said thumbs down as an extra cost option.

 

When Chrysler launched the driver side slider, it was an option, but nearly 100% of the first year production had left side sliders, whether the customer wanted it or not !

 

In retrospect, the product planners at Chrysler realized before anybody else (customers included) just how much of a game changer the 2nd slider was. It quickly became standard across all entries.

[PREMiERdrum]

I seem to recall Wes over at GMI saying the thinking within Ford was that next MKS will definitely have a LWB variant if it's not LWB-only to help stand further apart from the Taurus.

 

For god's sake Ford, a stretched MKS should be a no brainer as the TC replacement.

 

As recently as late last year, there were a number of options on the table for MKS, including LWB CD4, migration to RWD, and cancellation. Indications are that the CD4 option won out, with a smaller RWD sedan early in development as well.

[silvrsvt]

As recently as late last year, there were a number of options on the table for MKS, including LWB CD4, migration to RWD, and cancellation. Indications are that the CD4 option won out, with a smaller RWD sedan early in development as well.

 

Well there is already precedent for a LWB Model anyway with the Stretched Mondeo for sale in China. Though this begs the question...where does a smaller RWD Sedan fit into this all? Are they going to pull a ES/IS type mid-sized sedan thing like Lexus does...with a MKZ FWD/AWD sedan and a RWD Sedan thats roughly the same size? Where does a Ford model sit with all this? I'd assume its based on the Mustang, so it would be roughly the same size as a Fusion.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Maybe this will open up some space for a U.S. Fusion Wagon.

 

I still like the Flex. I am disappointed that Ford didn't put more marketing effort behind it.

[Anthony]

Premier....any word if they are considering keeping the Flex name on the mini? Or are they going to go with Galaxy (or similar) to keep it global?

Edited September 25, 2012 by Intrepidatious

[PREMiERdrum]

Premier....any word if they are considering keeping the Flex name on the mini? Or are they going to go with Galaxy (or similar) to keep it global?

I have no inside info on the name. I'd speculate that the "One Ford" mantra would dictate Galaxy name come over, as they have shown no interest in investing in the "Flex" nameplate currently.

[akirby]

Maybe this will open up some space for a U.S. Fusion Wagon.

 

I still like the Flex. I am disappointed that Ford didn't put more marketing effort behind it.

 

It was a niche polarizing vehicle - I don't think more advertising would have made much difference. People that wanted it knew about it already.

[Biker16]

No they can't. Minivan rear suspensions are either radically different from acceptable sedan underpinnings, or the minivan isn't competitive. We're talking beam axle, trailing link and mac strut. Simple, simple simple setup on three axes. Front subframe must be different to place passenger compartment as far forward as possible.

 

 

that is not true.

 

how does the Mondeo s-max and galaxy share both front and rear subframes??????????

 

how does the oddessy use a double wishbone rear suspension? based on the pilot?

 

the passenger compartment does not move on FWD vehcile the the cowl does. the cowls on FOE platforms are not strutural and as witnessed by the focus can be moved at will, something D4 cannot do.

[RichardJensen]

The S-Max & Galaxy are terrible 7-passenger vehicles, that's why they can share a rear subframe with a SEDAN, and the Odyssey's IRS doesn't look anything like a DOUBLE WISHBONE to me. It looks a trailing arm and a control arm with lateral links, and it's about as compact as a Mac strut setup, with the exception of an upper control arm instead of the strut. And the last I checked the Pilot is NOT a SEDAN.

 

 

The suspension package has *clearly* been compromised for packaging purposes.

 

 

And as far as subframes are concerned, these are the Odyssey/Pilot front and rear subframes:

 

 

And this is the Accord front and rear subframe:

 

 

Odds are Ford will follow the Honda path and share extensively between an Explorer/Edge *derivative* of CD4 and this minivan (which means the Explorer will drop its sedan derived rear subframe). But they will *not* share front & rear subframes/suspensions with the Taurus, Fusion or Mondeo.

Edited September 25, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Ron W.]

I have no inside info on the name. I'd speculate that the "One Ford" mantra would dictate Galaxy

 

 

Galaxy makes me think of ..

 

 

 

 

[2b2]

As recently as late last year, there were a number of options on the table for MKS, including LWB CD4, migration to RWD, and cancellation. Indications are that the CD4 option won out, with a smaller RWD sedan early in development as well.

since I've never seen ANYbody enthusiastic about the MKS's platform,

imho whatever they use won't be any worse

+

I know a MUCH better Name for the replacement than MucKS

tho it would require a RWD 'option'

&

if the smaller (of the TWO?) RWD Lincolns is Mustang-co-platformed

(ie nextgen somewhat smaller-or-at-least more efficiently packaged Mustang)

that Lincoln will be BARELY larger than the 3 series

&

[ on topic ]

[ refrain ]

the name "Galaxy" is an abomination

[calypsocoral]

Galaxy makes me think of ..

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, well, I was hoping for several years now that we'd see the Galaxie nameplate on something like this:

 

I'm still seeing hundreds of Dodge Chargers and Chrysler 300's in this area. I've seen maybe SIX new Taurus'. Total.

[NickF1011]

I'm still seeing hundreds of Dodge Chargers and Chrysler 300's in this area. I've seen maybe SIX new Taurus'. Total.

 

Your area is obviously not representative of nationwide sales then. :shrug:

[OHV 16V]

...I'm still seeing hundreds of Dodge Chargers and Chrysler 300's in this area. I've seen maybe SIX new Taurus'. Total.

 

Ditto. And I'm in a GM town due to a plant being nearby... :shrug:

[jpd80]

The S-Max & Galaxy are terrible 7-passenger vehicles, that's why they can share a rear subframe with a SEDAN, and the Odyssey's IRS doesn't look anything like a DOUBLE WISHBONE to me. It looks a trailing arm and a control arm with lateral links, and it's about as compact as a Mac strut setup, with the exception of an upper control arm instead of the strut. And the last I checked the Pilot is NOT a SEDAN.

No argument with any of that but one of the essential ingredients for a successful seven seat vehicle is a long wheelbase.

Without that, there is no way the vehicles packaging will never work properly, things like access to third row and leg room

will be hopelessly compromised or luggage compartment vanishes. Anything with say, Galaxy's 112.2" wheelbase gives up

that rear luggage space to provide the third row, necessitating either a trailer or roof storage compartment for longer trips.

For occasional or short hop commuter service, that's OK but for more comfort on a long trip, you need a bigger vehicle.

Edited September 25, 2012 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Don't underestimate the value of compact suspension design, though. That, I think, is a major difference between the Explorer & Lambdas in the 3rd row.

 

This minivan decision is making a bit more sense, if you look at the Explorer, Edge, and this minivan as platform mates on a heavily modified CD4, all sharing a common front & rear subframe, and the Explorer and Edge sharing a lot of stuff ahead of the B pillar. Still concerned about how much this is going to cost. But as I said, there are worse gambles.

Edited September 25, 2012 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Don't underestimate the value of compact suspension design, though. That, I think, is a major difference between the Explorer & Lambdas in the 3rd row.

Precisely, packaging is essential and anything that improves passenger floor space is an asset immediately obvious to buyers looking at that very issue.

Perhaps FoE did not have genuine need to fully develop Galaxy as a true seven seater as they already had the more than capable transit based Tourneo above it.

 

This minivan decision is making a bit more sense, if you look at the Explorer, Edge, and this minivan as platform mates on a heavily modified CD4, all sharing a common front & rear subframe, and the Explorer and Edge sharing a lot of stuff ahead of the B pillar. Still concerned about how much this is going to cost. But as I said, there are worse gambles.

Ford is banking on the majority of savings coming at the supplier level, so getting all the power train, electrical, switch gear, some common suspension modules grouped

into logical side by side projects makes a lot of sense. The comfort with these projects comes from knowing that everything is being basically co developed to maximize

engineering resources and cost effectiveness. Provided Ford maintains its discipline on quality and affordable technology to customers I think they are on a winner here,

not just one car either, the whole dang lot together will propel Ford along like they used to decades ago.

 

I have heard that within reason, working with and modifying existing vehicles to suit other applications is far more cost effective than clean sheet designs,

this does come with limitations but I get the feeling that Ford is making huge leaps forward with virtual build software allowing comprehensive review of

proposals long before developments are approves, so the likelihood of success is much higher due to a lot of the variables in design being known.

 

I look at this continuing pipeline of new Fords and shake my head, no way is this anything like the company struggling for survival in 2008,

GM spends a king's randsom to go with Ford brand and still they have gaps in key products, One Ford processes are really working.

Edited September 25, 2012 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

I doubt that Ford's budget would let them go with an alternate rear subframe & suspension on the current Galaxy/S-Max.

Edited September 25, 2012 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

A curious side thought--I wonder if Ford goes with a shorter Galaxy on this CD4s (based on CD3s nomenclature for Edge), and a longer minivan on this side of the Atlantic.

[jpd80]

I doubt that Ford's budget would let them go with an alternate rear subframe & suspension on the current Galaxy/S-Max.

Only if there was a burning need to have a full time seven seat vehicle but that duty will probably fall, to something like a SWB Transit Minivan.

Not sure of Ford's plans but justifying the changes to existing products almost ready to goi as is will be difficult.

[Anthony]

A curious side thought--I wonder if Ford goes with a shorter Galaxy on this CD4s (based on CD3s nomenclature for Edge), and a longer minivan on this side of the Atlantic.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Only the width would need to be common...I'm wondering if there's a true happy meeting place for that. NA likes their minis wiiiide.

[RichardJensen]

There's not necessarily a need to use the same platform on both sides of the ocean. The Galaxy, S-Max can use conventional (narrower) CD4 underpinnings profitably, while volume from Explorer, Edge, MKX and Aviator should do the same for CD4s.

Edited September 25, 2012 by RichardJensen